Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Abd (talk | contribs) at 20:57, 5 June 2009 (→Abd moving straw poll !votes, editing and removing article talk page comments: much ado about a transient misunderstanding.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

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

• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Ireland

Ireland naming/disambiguation

Can we get a couple more eyes on the Ireland/Republic of Ireland articles? A couple of users have taken it upon themselves to "correct" the contents of the articles, in violation of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion. It's a contentious subject, which is why people aren't supposed to be shifting things around at the moment.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Im stunned a couple of people have thought they should just jump in and make those changes, especially as all of them know there is the ongoing debate at another location about the Ireland naming dispute. Please stop them from making those changes, they keep undoing SarekoVulcans restoration of the correct article. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Didn't say it was the correct article. It just needs to stand until the Arbcom - directed discussion completes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There has been no violation of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion of a discussion. Nothing was shifted around. Your edit warring based on your POV, with no attempt to use the talk page. Now please show which policies have been violated, and start to use diff's to back up any more accusations you want to make. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that 50 minutes before this post, he stated that "I placed the correct about the RoI and moved the Ireland text to the Ireland Article". So, what was that about "Nothing was shifted around" again? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes and your point is....? I put Ireland text on the Ireland article. Were do you suggest I put it? Make up another name for Ireland and put it there? RoI is not the name of the Ireland, you'd know that only you removed the text from the RoI article. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

His ability to lie like mad despite all the evidence proving him to be guilty as hell is simply incredible, even for an Irish Republican. Whats disturbing is hes still being allowed to run around wikipedia talking nonsense.

In his recent post on the Republic of Ireland talk page he seems to threaten to move the article back to where he thinks it belongs despite this ongoing debate. is nobody going to stop this guy? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Oi. His nationalistic POV-pushing is not okay. Nor is you making comments about 'even for an Irish Republican'. Please refactor, and again, if I had my druthers you would be instantly topicbanned form anything to do with Ireland for a year. //roux   19:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Calling me a lier again? Time was when you could be blocked for that! Still does not change the fact that RoI is not the name of the Irish State, and the information which illustrates this and explains the use of the term is removed. So our readers are deliberatly being mislead, or lied to which ever you prefare. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've warned him on that, but I'd hate to block for something factually accurate.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I was blocked for calling an editor a liar, regardless of weather it was factually accurate or not, but then I was an Irish editor. Must be nice being able to pick and choose --Domer48_'fenian' 19:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

BW is causing a lot of disruption. If it continues, I'm going to create a file on all his transgressions and present it afresh next time he causes disruption. Tfz 20:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we first establish if there has been a violation, and on which article? --Domer48_'fenian' 00:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Revert war on Republic of Ireland (was posted simultaneously to the above)

A revert war has broken out on Republic of Ireland.

The substance of the war is on the name of the article. User:Domer48 opposes the article being located at "Republic of Ireland". He describes the article as a POV fork and says the article should be about the term ("Republic of Ireland") not the state itself.

The revert war involves the article too-ing and froo-ing between a new article by Domer48 and the original article on the state.

So far the revert war is thus:

• new article - Domer48
• old article - Rannpháirtí anaithnid
• new article - Domer48
• old article - Rannpháirtí anaithnid
• new article - Domer48
• old article - SarekOfVulcan (admin)
• new article - Daicaregos
• old article -SarekOfVulcan (admin)
• new article - Sarah777
• old article - SarekOfVulcan (admin)

(The article history is here.)

There is an related ArbCom ruling and on-going discussion on related matters.

NB: This is an article that has tens of thousands of internal links pointing to it. It is also a public holiday in Ireland and particularly warm weather so there are few Irish editors online.

--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read the discussion here. No one disagrees with the RoI not being the State. The article content was on the Ireland, and not the RoI. The information I added to Ireland was about Ireland. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone knew there was a debate on the Republic of Ireland page for such radical change. You knew full well that the debate about the Ireland naming dispute was being held at the wikiproject and not on just one of the articles involved. Your changes were totally out of line. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

ADDS: The edit war is also happening on the main Ireland article. (See article history.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I know there is a dispute about Ireland. I've not moved any Ireland related articles. What has the Ireland debate got to do with the Republic of Ireland page? Everyone agrees that the name of the state is Ireland, and not the RoI. The content on the RoI article was about Ireland and not the RoI. I placed the correct about the RoI and moved the Ireland text to the Ireland Article. My changes were totally in line with our policies, such as WP:V, WP:NPOV to name but two. Please show me were I did not stay within policy, or were I went against ArbCom. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As these are Troubles-related articles, Domer48 has breached 1RR. Mooretwin (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As ArbCom have yet to agree to the 1RR, no I have not. On a personal note, I wish they would and everyone involved more or less agrees.--Domer48_'fenian' 00:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This sort of wikilawyering and gaming is precisely why nationalistic POV-pushers should be booted. //roux   16:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• There is a core of British Nationalist POV-Pushers continually causing disruption on Ireland related articles, and it turning Misplaced Pages into a circus. About time something was done about this. We don't have Irish editors trolling British related articles. It must come to an end soon! Tfz 19:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Now that comment says it all! --Domer48_'fenian' 17:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Abuse of WP:TWINKLE

There are two users who are abusing the WP:TWINKLE tools. They are reverting content which is not vandalism. Twinkle is a vandalism tool, and should not be used in a content dispute. User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid has used it twice, both here and here. In addition they will not use the Article talk page to explain their reverts or take part in the discussion. User:SarekOfVulcan likewise is using the tool inappropriately, as seen here, here, and here. In addition they will also not use the Article talk page to explain their reverts, or take it to the article talk page. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus for such a radical change, you know full well the Ireland naming dispute is ongoing. If anyone is abusing wikipedia its you not SarekofVulcan. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, only the revert vandalism function of Twinkle is vandalism-only. The more oft-used rollback tool (which allows one to add an explanation) is simply an alternative of the undo facility. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 16:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) User:SarekOfVulcan appears to be enforcing the Arbcom rulings, which you and others (in depressingly typical nationalistic fashion) seem to be delberately flouting. One of these sets of people is editing in a manner not conducive to continued possession of editing privileges. I leave it as an exercise for the reader as t which is which. //roux   16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a report on the Abuse of WP:TWINKLE, any thing else go to the talk page of the articles. Now please provide a link to the Arbcom rulings. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Or on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Domer48, depending on the any thing else... And you know exactly where the Arbcom page is, since you've already supplied a statement pursuant to it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is no abuse. Sarek provided the link to Arbcom here. Here it is again, but stop the disingenuous act. Since there was no abuse, we may now focus on your behaviour, which you well know is unacceptable. //roux   16:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC) After EC, based on Sarek's links, I move for immediate topicban of Domer from any Ireland-related editing for one year, based on my thoughts outlined here. //roux   16:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You can move for what ever you want, but you need to establish why first. I have not gone against any ArbCom ruling. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Regular Twinkle reverts may be used in content disputes because it is an alternative to undo. The reason that rollback cannot be used in content disputes is because a) only a small set of users have rollback and b) there is no edit summary. Since any autoconfirmed user can use twinkle and since non-vandalism reverts using twinkle may provide an edit summary, twinkle undos are treated the same as regular undos. Therefore, there is no abuse unless the undo is done using twinkle's "revert vandalism" button. Oren0 (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Oren0, that was very helpful. I'm now stright on Twinkle. Roux open another tread, or join in one of the others which have been open. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

(Cross-posted from WP:AE) With his edit , Domer48 performed what amounted to a cut-and-paste move of Republic of Ireland to Ireland, in violation of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion which forbids such moves. Since he appears intent on repeating this violation of an arbitral decision, I have blocked him for a week. I will lift the block, and I consent to another administrator lifting it, as soon as Domer48 gives credible assurances that he will not repeat such moves, whether by means of the "move" function or by cut and paste.

Whether a topic ban or other sanction is also required is for the community to decide. I suggest that any further discussion takes place here at ANI.  Sandstein  20:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Sandstein. Note that Republic of Ireland was protected for two weeks by Canterbury Tail, so this block might not have the desired effect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that we can lift the page protection now through WP:RPP. With Domer48 now either blocked or compliant, it is not necessary any more. Should he or other editors continue to make cut and paste moves, they can be reported to WP:AE to be blocked. That is preferable to protecting a high-profile article for weeks.  Sandstein  20:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope that the C&P wasn't an attempt to do an "end run" around the arbcom injunction - not least because it adds a GFDL violation to the mix - but either way the block looks like it should prevent disruption. Assuming that to be the case, a ban probably isn't necessary. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have unblocked Domer48 after he agreed not to attempt to change the subject of the article Ireland from the island to the country until the conditions specified in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion are met.  Sandstein  20:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"what amounted to a cut-and-paste move" is not the same thing as a cut-and-paste move. Either I made a cut-and-paste move or I did not. I made an edit, a very detailed edit! I removed information which was misleading and wrong on the Republic of Ireland article. I suggested on that Article talk page, to leave it sitting there, pending a discussion and got no response. Rather than just deleting it, I merged it with the Ireland Article of which it is a mirror. Now Sandstein's block is "what amounted to" an attempt by them to prevent discussion, and more importantly my participation in discussion. There was an ongoing discussion about my edit here, and their block is what “what amounted to an attempt by them to prevent me the opportunity of defending myself. Notice how you quickly closed the discussion, with no responce nessary to the questions I posed. Now PhilKnight in that discussion said my edit "went against the spirit of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names." Not that I had violated it! So we have "against the spirit of" and “what amounted to very vague terms used to have me blocked! So Sandstein what we have here by Admin's, is what amounts to arbitrary powers being abused arbitrarily which more than violates our policies, and not just the spirit of them. It might go some way to explain why Admin's are dropping like flies, but none of the bad ones.--Domer48_'fenian' 23:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Aaaand you go right back to being incivil and accusing admins of being arbitrary? Nice. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about "go right back to being incivil." Aaaand calling an editor a liar is not, nice bit of slectivity. Or is this a case of felon setting? --Domer48_'fenian' 13:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we archive this Incidents report? Everything seems to have been settled. GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems like the incident I reported originally is settled, and there's another thread down below for people who have issues with my archiving of the discussion. Go ahead and mark it resolved.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(Sheepishly) I don't know how. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I was directing that more toward any uninvolved admin who wanted to drop in. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming redux

Since discussion of the page move was continuing out of the ArbCom-directed process, I just took administrative action to comply with the directive and archived the discussion page on Talk:Republic of Ireland. Is there consensus to overturn this action?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Archiving that discussion page, was a logical move. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(Booooo!) shoy (reactions) 15:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes there should be consensus to overturn this actionWgh001 (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

As an Admin, activly involved in the discussions for you to close it was wrong. Now you did not have to come here to be told that. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Telling you you're violating an ArbCom restriction doesn't qualify as "actively involved", sorry. Beyond that, I think I've edited regarding the name of the article maybe 5 yearstimes over the past three years. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Right. 3 edits on Talk:Republic of Ireland in August 2008, nothing since.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And 1 edit yesterday to Ireland. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You were activly involved, revert 1, revert 2 and revert 3. Now you removed an ongoing discussion on the article talk page. There is no directive by ArbCom preventing discussion. You were involved on the article, and you closed down the discussion. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Domer, are you familiar with the term "persistent disruption"? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a week over this diff -- if he doesn't recognize that ArbCom has put a procedure in place to determine the names of the Ireland articles, then he'll just keep edit warring.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan - abuse of admin tools

• SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sarek is currently is a dispute with Domer48 of the naming of the Ireland article - some of the nonsense involved in this argument can be seen above at "Ireland naming redux" as well as yesterday episode here.

During their barney Sarek has used his admin tools to effective silence Domer citing this diff as evidence of Domers attempt to userp the Arbcom system.

I am not interested in getting into the rights and wrongs of the Ireland naming I am here purely to hightlight this OTT and uncalled for block. A. The block isnt warranted, B. Even if the block was warranted it should have been discussed, especially one of that length (1 week) and C. an involved admin shouldnt be dishing out a block against someone they are in dispute with. Deja vu!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree this is a bad block from an involved admin who is in disppute with Domer. BigDunc 20:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggest the blocking admin unblock, to allow for an uninvolved admin to review and possibly reblock. Cirt (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with uninvolved admins reviewing, but they can do it while he's blocked -- his talk page is still live. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Enforcing the Arbcom ruling is not, by any stretch of the imagination, 'involvement.' //roux   20:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense, you were in the middle of a dispute with the editor and were abusing your privilaged tools as an admin. Instead of encouraging wheelwarring you should unblock the editor and see if the block stands on its own to feet by discussing it here! Also is your adminship up for recall?--Vintagekits (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

These links are helpful: Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).  Sandstein  20:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

In what way?--Vintagekits (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Because, when reviewing a block, it is helpful to be able to quickly access the block log and talk page of the blocked user. It would have been courteous of you to provide that link in your initial request.  Sandstein  20:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs), perhaps you could provide more of a detailed rationale for the block, here? Cirt (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, it is a joke that Domer is not allowed to come here and defend himself against this farce. This is from his talk page (he should be able to come here and defend himself!) I said the Arbitration Committee has not put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles. This process here before the ArbCom even agreed to here the case. So were is the structure for determining the names of the disputed articles set up by ArbCom? That's disruptive? Check out the section titled Time table, and check out Back-up on this? I said there is no directive by ArbCom preventing discussion on article talk pages. If there is such a directive, provide a diff. Is that disruptive, were is the link? This is just typical of POV warriors riding rough shod over editors who dare challange them. I know Sandstein is going to come along now and back this fucker up. They are just as bad if not worse. There last block was just as bad as this one, again lying. --Domer48'fenian' 20:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

On the face of it this looks like yet another instance where an otherwise-uninvolved admin engages a problem editor only to be told that he shouldn't do anything because by engaging the editor he became involved. If this point of view keeps gaining support we might as well not have admins at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

@ Sandstein How the hell is showing the block l;og of Domer helpful?? BigDunc 20:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite. The editor was pointed to the correct venue, refused to move, and was - eventually - blocked. Good block, far too late however. If SarekOfVulcan is to be censured, it should be for waiting too long - displaying far more good faith than the situation required. Disclosure: I've posted at Talk:Republic of Ireland, but have no view on the naming dispute - other than where discussion should occur. Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 20:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(various ec's) I agree that, in general, the mere enforcement of ArbCom decisions does not make an administrator too "involved" to block, and I am not aware - to the limited extent I've been active with respect to this area of conflict - that SarekOfVulcan has expressed any opinion in the underlying content issue. But I am concerned that the reason given for the block is "refusing to acknowledge" by this diff that ArbCom has decided something. Having and expressing an opinion, even (as here) a mistaken one, is not blockable disruption. Only the actual violation of the relevant ArbCom decision is, but Domer48's statement does not amount to such a violation. I think this block is mistaken and should be lifted, though perhaps a briefer re-block is needed for the incivilities expressed by Domer48 above.  Sandstein  20:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That is rubbish to put it politely an editor gets a bad block and when he gets annoyed about it another admin comes along and says block is bad and should be lifted but block him for loosing the head come on. BigDunc 20:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm going to have to second This flag once was reds synopsis: Good block; if any error occurred, it was extending too much good faith to a problem user. The rest is nonsense and bullshit, so sorry. Anyone who considers Sarek "involved" does not understand the parameters of "involved." KillerChihuahua 21:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein -- I have expressed a preference for the location in the past, and the current location isn't it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for providing an extended explanation below. I would not have made that block, but I am now a bit more inclined to view it as reasonably preventative, given Domer48's evident attitude and conduct problems.  Sandstein  21:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I see this as a SERIOUS ABUSE OF ADMIN TOOLS by someone that shouldn't have access to the admin tools. This is the DIFF that he is blocking the user for and all the user really does in that diff is ask for a diff or some proof that he was not allowed to discuss an issue related to article changes on a talkpage. This DIFF show that this was indeed the DIFF that Sarek blocked him for. Since when has asking for proof or diffs become a blockable offence?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• I may be off base here, but I am under the impression that Domer should have been blocked just for changing the articles around as he did. Although I'm not quite clear on exactly when he should have been blocked, it doesn't appear that Domer was operating in good faith. ] (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are way off base would you at least read what is going on here before commenting. BigDunc 21:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It does indeed look as if you are off base, the guy was asking for diffs and proof. Misplaced Pages has rules, policies, guidelines and other such things and when an admin is asked to provide such things then he should assume good faith and do so, not block the user that asks for that for a week.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to ask if it's 100% normal that Sarek move my comments from under his Full rationale piece and up here. Am I not allowed to respond to his Full rationale?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure you are -- but that wasn't a response to anything in the rationale that I could see at the time, so I moved it so that I wouldn't be adding material above your response.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I just blocked Domer's talkpage for gross incivility. Feel free to re-enable if I'm mistaken. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are mistaken it is against standing policy which allows at least moderate venting w/o further punishment. BigDunc 21:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe you mean the opposite of what you wrote. –xeno 21:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC) now fixed

Er, User talk:Domer48 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs) is not protected.  Sandstein  21:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but Domer has been reblocked to disallow talk page editing. –xeno 21:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Are any admins going to unblock Domer from editing his own page per the standing policy? BigDunc 21:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Home now. I didn't block the talkpage for calling me a "fucker" -- that's moderate venting, as above. I blocked for being warned by another editor to tone it down, and then posting "he's not running for a bus, he's running for a shovel", after several other civility violations.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

But you have been pretty uncivil yourself yesterday . Maybe that's where a lot of this stuff started. I notice you didn't apologise yet. If you withdraw what you said it might go some way to calming things down. Would you agree? Tfz 22:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC

Basically, no. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Then you should exempt yourself from all forward dealings with these related issues. Tfz 23:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point to the following as a previous example of bad blocks and immature behavior by the admin SarekOfVulcan Right here.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly Tfz, Sarek accused Domer of being a liar yesterday pretty uncivil in my book. BigDunc 22:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

See link above where I decline to apologize. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Which I commented on that your response was incorrect as what Domer stated was that he wasn't aware that he had breached sanctions not that he wasn't aware of the whole process. BigDunc 22:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Again with the "can't follow links", BigDunc? "First off, I was not informed of this discussion!" --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I think I finally understand - you contend that when he said "this discussion", he was referring to the discussion of the name at the WikiProject, rather than the discussion at the Enforcement board? If so, sorry for the incivility struck out above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sarek's full rationale

Short form: for disambiguation, the article about the country named "Ireland" is at Republic of Ireland, while the Ireland article is about the island that contains Ireland and Northern Ireland. Domer initiated a discussion at the of Ireland talkpage and decided to be bold and change Republic of Ireland to an article about the term "Republic of Ireland" as used to refer to Ireland the country, and to change Ireland to an article about Ireland the country and the island. I don't remember whether I saw this on my watchlist or if someone else commented on it, but I thought it was too large a change and after Rannphairti reverted and Domer re-reverted, I reverted to the original with the comment that WP:BRD usually involves discussion.

When I went to the talkpage, I saw the banner at the top pointing to the arbitration case and when I checked, I saw that they had directed that there be Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion, as specified in the remedies above it. A cut-paste move is still a move, so at that point, I went into enforce-the-Arbcom-decision mode. I posted to ANI requesting more eyes on the articles, as there were Arbcom issues involved. Immediately afterwards, Domer posted accusing Rannphairti and me of abusing Twinkle. It was explained to him by others that using twinkle to restore a previous version with an edit summary was not abuse, and that was resolved.

While discussion continued, Sandstein blocked Domer48 for his edits on the Ireland side of things, but agreed to unblock provided that Domer did not violate arbitral decisions.

Domer returned to discussing the page move on the RoI talkpage, despite it having been made quite clear that discussion should take place within the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. I archived all the current discussions on the talkpage, and told the concerned parties to work it out on IE-COLL. After more discussion on the RoI talkpage, Domer stated:

The Arbitration Committee has not put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles.

Since he was clearly acting in bad faith at that point, I decided that he could not be trusted to abide by the conditions of his unblock -- after all, if it wasn't an arbitral decision, he wouldn't be violating it, and re-blocked for a week.

That pretty much sums things up, except for some minor details -- like Domer previously participating in the process he was now denying existed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you step aside at this stage, as you are getting further "involve". Can't be policeman, judge and executioner, it makes bad law. Tfz 21:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And that is the central issue here, not the merits or demerits of Domers actions. I would go further - one cant be the "victim", policeman, judge, jury and executioner - makes for extremely bad law!--Vintagekits (talk) 08:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, calling me judge, jury, and executioner doesn't make me judge, jury, and executioner. For one thing, he's not banned, so there's no "execution". For another, the jury is the rest of the people here, so that part of the analogy falls down as well. And I never claimed to be a victim here, so that makes you... what, 75% off-base?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

So Domer asked you for a diff asking where it state that he can't discuss on the talk page and you block him for a week. Since when is asking for clarification a blocking offence? BigDunc 21:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"Has ArbCom banned discussion of the RoI naming fiasco on the RoI talk page?". Otherwise SarekOfVulcan is acting "ultra vires". It's a bad block either way, no matter what the answer is. But if SarekOfVulcan has acted outside his remit, maybe he should have his tools nullified. Tfz 21:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the exact same question that Tfz just asked was the one that got Domer blocked.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of being blocked were is the diff that says no discussions on the article talk paged as layed down by the Arbs? BigDunc

I think the block is extremely unfair. Domer has been "bold" recently but that is not the same as breaking wiki policy or any Arbcom agreement. He hasn't really done anything wrong per se. I think an unblock needs made to be along with the suggestion that Domer continue his points along side the WP:IECOLL process to help forge agreements on the issues.MITH 21:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Note also that as shown at this diff, he unilaterally decided that the 1RR restriction placed on articles relating to The Troubles was no longer in force. That's not Bold, that's disruptive.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to do with this but I asked Fozz here and he said it was gone nothing unilaterall about that. BigDunc 22:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What, you think I can't follow links? "Right now, a lot depends on the administrator who comes in and views it. I think if the 1RR is useful (and it seems to have been, despite the number of times it was used, being high).. that no matter what you think of it personally, that it would be wise to speak on RfArb in support of it."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course you can you are routing around trying to find some to justify your bad blocks and as Sandstein has refused at least 2 1RR restriction cases regarding trouble articles I think it is gone too. BigDunc 22:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Time out

Would both sides please stop sniping back and forth?

Sarek - without comment on the original reblock, I believe that you're displaying clear involvement at this point. I believe you should refrain from further administrative actions regarding that user for the time being or this incident.

BigDunc - please stop pushing buttons.

Others - please respect each other while other uninvolved administrators come in and review the situation.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as an uninvolved admin, I don't see why the block can't just be reviewed per procedure.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am currently doing - starting with the talk page no-edit reblock, working out to the larger issues. Anyone else who wants to review is welcome to join me.

However, the large scale flame war that erupted above was counterproductive and uncivil on multiple sides, and needs to end while calmer uninvolved heads get a look at it all. Fortunately it seems to have calmed down now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the first thing that could be reviewed is the re-block keeping Domer from commenting on his own talk page. While Domer's language may be angry, I don't see too much to be concerned with there. I don't see any harm to the project permitting him to engage in discussion on his own page, and that could be the first step to resolving this. Rarely does silencing an blocked editor help solve the issue. I would propose that be remedied immediately. Rockpocket 23:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I asked Sarek about this several hours ago and have not received any response. I have re-asked on his talk page and am proposing here that we undo the talk page edit section of the block later tonight if there is no objection in this thread, subject to reprotection if threats are made. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sarek left me a talk page note indicating he does not object to this action, so I have undone the talk page edit portion of the block without changing block duration. I will leave a note to Domer to indicate that if he threatens anyone the editing will be turned back off, and that we'd strongly appreciate if he can discuss the situation politely from now on. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I would note that Domer is editing from Western European Summer Time (or should I say Am Caighdeánach na hÉireann]] ;) therefore he is unlikely to respond for a number of hours. Rockpocket 02:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

GWH - agreed not to take further action until fully reviewed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I just decided I want to be an involved editor after all, so I'm recusing myself from further admin action on this topic.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you unblock Domer, first (since you were the blocking Administrator)? Then the other Administrators can decide his status. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That's one of the admin actions I'm recusing myself from. An uninvolved editor should make that call. GWH is currently reviewing: if he (or another reviewing admin) decides the block was unjustified, or no longer needed, I won't oppose an unblock.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Review

Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This is an extremely complex case, involving multiple administrators, multiple editors, an Arbcom case, an Arbcom-directed community project to attempt to solve the underlying problem, and quite literally a million bytes plus of pages. Putting together the narrative of relevant actions is quite a task.

I decided that the review had to go back to the original problem - so this review covers the totality since Domer48 began actions that could be construed as renaming articles.

Narrative:

1. The Arbitration Committee did put in place an article name determination process in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Community asked to develop a procedure.
2. That process could reasonably have been interpreted as having been intended to be the one correct place to centralize all related discussions, but did not explicitly say so.
3. Domer48 participated in that process with two statements Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyDomer48 on March 7 and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyDomer48.2 on April 1, and various comments in the Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration discussion threads.
4. Domer48's edits including as previously noted by Sandstein did violate the active Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion restriction. Domer48's subsequent talk page discussion indicates that there's a credible claim that he thought it was not a violation prior to doing it.
5. SarekOfVulcan reported Domer48 to the Arbitration Enforcement page appropriately Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Domer48
6. Sandstein's block on June 1 was appropriate under the circumstances.
7. Sandstein's discussion with Domer48, Domer48's responses, and Sandstein's unblock on June 1 were appropriate under the circumstances.
8. Subsequent to the unblock, Domer48 did not perform article rename or content moves in violation of the letter or spirit of the Arbcom ruling and his agreement with Sandstein to unblock.
9. Subsequent to the unblock, on June 1 and 2, Domer48 did continue rename discussions on other articles: , , , , ,
   1. Several of those rename discussions were uncivil or assumed bad faith about others' motives: , ,
10. Subsequent to the unblock, Domer48 did remove other people's comments from talk page discussions related to the rename discussions on several occasions, claiming justification in WP:TPG: ,
11. Subsequent to the unblock, Domer48 engaged in aggressive responses on ANI and elsewhere regarding the nature of the first block: , ,
    1. ...And some reasonable responses such as: , ,
12. SarekOfVulcan archived the discussion at Talk:Republic of Ireland:
    1. Sandstein supported the archiving:
    2. The archiving was consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the Arbcom remedies, and prior Admin discretion history / WP:BOLD accepted practice, but not required by the letter of Arbcom's finding
    3. Subsequent to the archive Domer48 responded aggressively to the archiving: ,
    4. ...leading to aggressive responses on ANI: ,
    5. Others also objected to the archiving in depth, which led to a second archiving:
    6. ...and further discussion:
    7. I conclude that the archiving was done in good faith and consistent with Administrator policy.
    8. I also conclude that the archiving had an inflammatory effect on the discussion rather than the desired calming and redirecting effect, and that this was a predictable outcome.
       1. I therefore conclude that the archiving was unwise and should not be repeated further.
13. Domer48 ultimately posted a comment denying that the Arbitration Committee imposed renaming discussion had taken place:
    1. Domer48's comment was ( WP:AGF ) somewhat at odds with his prior involvement in that process including his statements within that process of March 7 and April 1 referenced above.
    2. This comment precipitated the second block, by SarekOfVulcan, with block message summary of refusing to acknowledge that ArbCom has set down the conditions for determining the names of the Ireland articles and block summary of ?(Disruptive editing: Refusal to recognize that ArbCom said "don't do that".). Block duration was 1 week, the same as Sandstein's earlier block for violation of the Arbcom ruling.
    3. SarekOfVulcan was somewhat involved with Domer48 as of the time of blocking.
       1. This involvement presented somewhat of a conflict of interest under Misplaced Pages:BLOCK#Conflicts_of_interest
    4. A reasonable uninvolved administrator, combining this comment with the other edits since the unblock, could conclude that Domer48 was being disruptive at that time.
    5. Prior to the second block Domer48 had not received warnings about disruptive activity.
    6. Misplaced Pages:BLOCK#Education_and_warnings specifically states in part: Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking (particularly with respect to blocks for protection) but administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking.
    7. Misplaced Pages:BLOCK#Duration_of_blocks states in part that: incidents of disruptive behaviour typically result in 24 hours blocks, longer for successive violations;
    8. Administrators are given judgement about block lengths in general.
    9. The context of the earlier 1-week block (violation of an Arbcom ruling) is a factor in block length considerations for the second block.
    10. However, even factoring in that earlier block, I conclude that a second block for disruption (not further Arbcom ruling violations per se) should have been based off a 24 hour block basic duration, and that an enhancement to 48 hrs for a recent prior different offense is a reasonable expansion.
14. Subsequent to the second block Domer48 commented repeatedly on his talk page total diff including some extremely upset language: , , , ,
    1. Lifebaka requested that Domer48 stop using insulting language in the talk page comments in the middle of the above:
       1. This comment could have been phrased in a less confrontational manner but did not violate policy.
    2. At that point SarekOfVulcan reblocked with talk page editing disabled.
       1. Blocking policy and best practice limit talk page restrictions to cases where there is serious abuse, such as multiply repeated spurious unblock requests, threats made on the talk page or elsewhere, or other serious disruption. It is expected that a portion of blocked users will be upset to the point of venting rudely on their talk page following the block. A certain leeway for uncivil behavior on the talk page (short of threats or blatant abuse) is therefore given.
       2. The talk page restriction in this case failed to meet the policy and best practice.

• As a policy note, Misplaced Pages:BLOCK#Conflicts_of_interest exists for three reasons:

1. The appearance of conflict of interest has a strong negative impact on administrators' perceived neutrality and fairness within the community.
2. Administrators can often be frustrated with editors they are in conflict with, and this leads to bad judgement.
3. Administrators sometimes do malign things to editors they are in conflict with, in contravention of Misplaced Pages policy not to use admin tools to settle content disputes and so forth.

My review conclusions:

1. Sandstein's activities in this case were appropriate, as far as I can tell.
   1. With the slight exception that supporting the talk page archiving may have been a mistake, but not in violation of policy
2. Domer48 engaged in disruptive behavior. An uninvolved administrator could have reviewed the chain of edits and concluded that blockable disruption had occurred by the time of the second block.
   1. The block by SarekOfVulcan was problematic in duration, lack of warning, and conflict of interest, but not fundamentally flawed.
   2. At the conclusion of this writeup I am going to unblock Domer48 from that problematic block, reblock for disruption with a duration of 1 minute, essentially reducing the block length to time served, as that very closely approximates what I feel would have been an appropriate block duration at the beginning.
   3. I believe that Domer48 is currently unable to edit in a constructive manner on the topic of naming of Ireland related articles. To balance protecting the community and Domer48's long term interest in the topic, I am hereby imposing a one week topic ban from Ireland article naming on Domer48, retroactive to the time of the second block. If in the next five days Domer48 engages in any project or article talk page dicussion on the topic he can be reblocked for the remaining time (user talk pages are ok, but not recommended - see below).
   4. Personal comment to Domer48 - I strongly urge you to contribute in a more constructive manner to this discussion in the future. You clearly care very much about this topic. When you are this angry over it, your responses are sufficiently aggressive that they are counterproductive, both for the overall discussion and for your own ongoing participation in it. You clearly feel that this is important. You can do nothing better to solve the underlying problem than taking a break, coming back with a renewed respect for WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and WP:AGF, and applying those policies to how you work on the issue moving forwards. If you reengage in the discussion next week in a hostile manner you are likely to find other administrators willing to block you under those policies.
3. SarekOfVulcan bent admin policy here
   1. Archiving the talk page discussion was not a policy violation but was probably a mistake. Some conversations, we just have to let go and burn out on their own.
   2. The second block on Domer48 bent Misplaced Pages:BLOCK#Conflicts_of_interest and Misplaced Pages:BLOCK#Duration_of_blocks. A better response would have been to warn on the disruption and report on ANI and ask an uninvolved administrator to block if it persisted, or just refer to another uninvolved admin, rather than blocking yourself. Most particularly, that would have defused further anger among the disputants rather than focusing it on yourself.
   3. The third block, restricting talk page editing, established that SarekOfVulcan is by now sufficiently involved and using questionable judgement that the voluntary admin powers restriction agreement Sarek announced above (not to use them against Domer48 again) is strongly recommended going forwards...
4. A few other editors have acted in mildly to moderately uncivil manners responding to the incident. Several of Domer48's supporters have largely overlooked his disruptive activity prior to the block and feel that there was no factual justification for a second block. Please re-read the diffs and his edit history, and see below.

Per WP:TROUT

Please do not do this again! The Ireland article naming dispute is bad enough. Please refresh your faith in the collective good intent of other Wikipedians and move forwards constructively. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

*is trouted*. Thanks, George: the highly detailed review is appreciated. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks George, one detail you forgot, I think, SarekOfVulcan's liable. Tfz 01:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have read it a few times, and conclude a certain poisoning of the well fallacy in the composition of the summary. I do grant that George is in a delicate position regarding admin 'falling into line', 'police investigation the police' syndrome, and self preservation etc, a practice we commonly witness in everyday structures, and not just at Misplaced Pages. George has done exactly what was expected of him, produced the report that saves everyone's day, and moves things on until the next ........... Tfz 03:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable review which addresses the concerns raised by all sides. It seems that the real error was made in removing the block imposed on Domer48‎ for clear violations of arbcoms rulings on the Ireland naming dispute. He was not asked to apologise for his actions nor give any commitment to not seek renaming of the articles on the talk pages in question again, the fact he was going to continue the push for change was obvious.

Removal of the talk page chat was unwise and the safest bet would of been to seek further opinions from others before acting as said in this review, but SarekofVulcans actions certainly dont justify the hateful comments which were made by some editors in retaliation. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

( Side note: I used secure server URLs for the vast bulk of the diffs above, as that's what I habitually log in to... SarekOfVulcan pointed out that this prevents popups from working, and I have given him permission to change the URLs to use mainsite diffs rather than secure server diffs - Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC) )

Thank you for the detailed review, with which I agree.  Sandstein  07:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Georgewilliamherbert for unblocking me, I respond later to your review. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi George, I’m a bit tied up with the elections here at the minute, so I respond to your review on the weekend. There appears to be a number of glaring inaccuracies in your report, could you possibly look it over again? Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 08:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Would this qualify as a legal threat?

At a closed AFD, an IP deleted the content and wrote that "further action will be taken" if all mentions of the person in question aren't removed from Misplaced Pages, also suggested that there was some defamation of character there. (The article was deleted in February.) Dawn Bard (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a legal threat, but as this comes from an IP, a forewarning may be enough. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've courtesy blanked the AFD, which resulted in a delete. That should be enough. –xeno 19:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I was curious, so did a wiki search and found a redlinked mention in the KOR dab page. As it was redlinked and unsourced, I also removed that entry. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Good lookin' out. –xeno 20:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Barek. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wiki something

Let me state for the record that my Misplaced Pages ID is Ti-30X

On June 1, 2009 at 01:45 (UTC) (diff here) materialscientist tells me to please use the complicated format that he uses (ref name = xxx) {{cite journal}). Believe me, I tried because it is an interesting way to format. But I also understood that there was no consensus from what I had read in the guidelines up to that point. There is consensus on what information the citations should contain, which I was always careful to provide. I left him a message that I had run into a problem using the citation tags that he recommended. diff here - see yellow block

Then I amended my message. (see green block here) I wrote that I noticed that at the bottom of every edit page the only requirement for reference tags is (ref) (/ref) tags. I wrote that if you look at the bottom of any edit page it says "Cite your source (ref)(/ref). I told him that I believed this is acceptable at wikipedia. I wrote that I appreciated his advice in this matter, but I looked at his way of citing articles as too complicated. If he wished to alter my citation tags, in this article, to suite his preference, he has my permission to do so - I won't mind. In addition,that was the first time I ever encountered materialscientist.

So I figured that was that, and no problem.

Apparently that was not true

On June 2, 2009 at 04:35, after admonishing me for edits that I did or didn’t do with the reference tags on an article entitled The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?, he then threatens to revert my edits on future work that I contribute to Misplaced Pages.diff here His edits on the citation tags, in this article, was excellent work. But, after that threat in my talk page I am really uncomfortable. Essentially, materialscientist is telling me that I must prescribe to his method of editing. At this point, I began to feel inhibited about contributing to Misplaced Pages, and I see in the guidelines, that Misplaced Pages intends for all of us to have a good experience contributing, in whatever form. In addition, he went over to "The God Particle" on his own, of his own volition. I never mentioned it to him prior to his notifying me of his edits.

At this time, also, I became concerned about another matter. Material wrote to me: ""please avoid personal phrases (such as) Author X observed..." in favor of "...was observed in" link here First of all, I have no idea, at this time what he means but, here’s the point: Either in wiki guidelines, or from advice that I have read from wiki veterans, the articles are in essence reporting. So, in an article, when, for example, I write “Dr. Kaku writes nanotube technology will become useful in the coming decades” This is in essence reporting, and to establish this is not from me as original research. So, when I read part of a message, whcih tells me not to do this from materialscientist, who has threatened to revert my future contributions on Misplaced Pages, I become overly concerned. Especially, when it can take hours and hours working on articles. So, with this hammer over my head, I feel uncomfortable contributing to Misplaced Pages.

Another incident happened at on June 2, 2009 at 04:59. Materialscientist signed out on a talk page using my Misplaced Pages ID. He wrote in the revision history of an article that he signing for user Ti-30x, which is me. He wrote that he was "pretending to be a bot". diff here If you look at the yellow box, there is where I posted without signing. In the green box materialscientist has signed my name with a message stating he did so above the green box. This is inappropriate. I have to ask, so how does he sign my name? Is he able to counterfeit anybody’s name here at wikipedi? Does he have access to my account?

Another matter occurred surrounding an article entitled Physics of the Impossible. This is an article that I have been personally editing. I have been communicating with two administrators, OrangeMike and Gavia Immer, concerning this article. Apparently they understand that I am new to Misplaced Pages, because I have made some bonehead mistakes. But, they have patiently allowed me to work on the article. One administrator, OrangeMike, is a man of action and few words concerning this article in. But, I have learned a lot from his few words.

One day he abruptly removed a section of the article, and I admit I got upset. I posted a message on the article talk page expressing my ire and trying to cite Misplaced Pages guidelines that I was right and he was wrong. And, I reverted the article to what I originally had. Then I posted the same message on my talk page, I think.

Then Gavia Immer reverted the article back to what OrangeMike had, saying she agreed with Orangemike. I sent the same message expressing my ire, and included Wiki guidelines to her talk page. Finally, I began to cool down. I only mention this because here is where materialscientist chimes in with ‘’’Could anyone please indicate which notability criteria does this book meet ? Thank you." June 2, 2009, at 03:39 here is the diff

And it doesn’t stop there. He goes over to my talk page and writes: “Could you please indicate which notability criteria does this book meet ? Thank you. June 2 at 03:38.diff here

And it doesn’t stop there. He goes over to OrangeMike’s talk page diff here and writes: “Sorry for butting in. I just came across this article, asked any evidence of its notability and got an answer from user:Ti-30X that he doesn't know, but he believes it is the notability of the book's author. I do disagree with this reason and suggest Afd-nominating the article. What do you think ?" June 2, 2009 at 04:41

In this message he says “sorry for butting in” but that is exactly what he is doing. As I stated earlier, I am communicating with two Misplaced Pages Administrators, already, about this article. And neither of them was mentioning notability. In fact, I was the one who mentioned notability earlier, but the two administrators let me blow off my steam. And neither of them, had at that time, mentioned Afd nomination for this article. But, materialscientist did. So, not only do I feel that, earlier, he inappropriately chastised me, and threatened to revert my future contributions, as mentioned above – but now I feel that there is something personal in this, but I have no idea what it is.

In addition, I started on Physics of the Impossible with the intention of working with those two administrators that I mentioned. I can’t speak for OrangeMike but I think he has been keeping a watchful eye on the article. I did make a mistake in not conferring with them as I originally intended. But, neither of these administrators have ever belittled me, chastised me, or ever threatened to revert my future contributions, if I didn’t follow their prescribed method.

I have noticed that Materialscientist is very polite at the end of most of his postings. But these polite words do not appear to match his actions.

I started my "Physics of Impossible" protest and revision at approximately 02:18 on June 2, 2009. diff here And 2 hours and 20 minutes later (by 4:41 on June 2, 2009) materialscientist is recommending this article for deletion. I have never seen materialscientist work on or contribute to this article, yet at this time he is deeply involved, but only with concern for notability and recommending Afd.

So, to make a long story short materialscientist now has personally placed one of those templates on the top of the Physics of the Impossible page that begins: This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Misplaced Pages's deletion policy.

I’m sorry but I feel like he is over reaching somehow. You administrators will have to figure that one out.

And related to this he has posted notices of the Afd on OrangeMike’s talk page and Immer gavia, as if they wouldn’t see it when they went to the article. diff here I feel that he considers this an accomplishment – but that is my interpretation of posting this notice to their talk page. It may be wrong.

I feel harassed and uncomfortable so I am placing a complaint here.

I also appreciated the advice on how to deal with harassment in the Misplaced Pages guidelines They were very helpful to me. I actually took a two day break from Misplaced Pages (almost two days), so I could cool down and gain perspective.

Thank you for your time. I forgot to sign - here it is. Ti-30X (talk) 04:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I am making an addition here. One the main points that I was trying to get across is that I am not going to pulled into an editing war with another user. For example, if User(A) flippantly or unjustifiably reverts User(B)'s edits, then User(B)comes back and reverts User(A)'s edits, then he (or she) comes back in reverts that edit, and so on. Then both users end up here anyway. So, I am nipping it in the bud. Also, I am not going to get pulled into a situation where terse or inappropriate statements are flung back and forth between two users. Another thing - before June 1st at 0145, when I was editing Metamaterial I never heard of this guy. I never worked on any articles with him, and I had no knowledge of his existence. Suddenly in the span of about 1 day, he is telling me that if he has edit my citations again he will revert my contributions. Right there, that is telling me this is a potential edit war waiting to happen. That was from his work in "The God Particle." Before June 1st he had nothing to do with "The God Particle" and now its my fault that he went in and chose to streamline the citations? The article, already, had a B rating before he went in there. No one else, before this tried to make an issue of the citations, where it was going to end up in an edit war or terse words. And, like I said, he did an excellent job with those citations. But why make it my fault that he volunteered to do it? Why make it an issue of future consequences? I lined things up in the article, the way I did, to show what this situation was evolving into. It would not have done any good for me to take matters into my own hands, nor would it do him any good to take matters into his own hands. The other point is that in a matter of two or three days, he went from someone I didn't know even existed, to someone who is suddenly very involved in stuff that I am working on. Including the article for Afd nomination. Look, I knew the Afd nominatiion was coming, after he brought it up. The point is - it is one more thing that I was working on, that I have deal with, on an intense level, with someone I didn't know two or three days ago. I expected that an administrator was going to post the Afd nomination, but that is beside the point. Why did this guy jump in, out of the blue, from nowhere, and run with the Afd nomination - an article that I was trying to put together? When he signed a message for me, in my name, combined with all this other stuff is a little scary. Ti-30X (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC) I actually made this addition several hours ago, but forgot to sign.

Holy tldr batman! Seriously, I did read this, and the editor in question is in NO WAY hounding you. First of all, while Misplaced Pages does not demand the use of any one particulat format of referencing in any article, the "best practice" is to use a single format throughout the same article; if one format has been established, then there is no compelling reason to add new references under a different format. All he is saying is that; if you are having trouble formatting references correctly, ask nicely at the article talk page or at Misplaced Pages:Help desk and someone will help you out. Secondly, please remember that assuming good faith is a core principle of Misplaced Pages. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Jayron - please read the whole article Ti-30X (talk) 04:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Some quick responses to being named in the above (look it up for yourself; i'm in there): 1.)I am, of course, not an admin, and have not represented myself as one to the best of my knowledge. I hope that Ti-30X hasn't gotten the wrong impression from anything I said. 2.)Materialscientist's admonition to '"please avoid personal phrases (such as) Author X observed..." in favor of "...was observed in"' comes in the wake of Ti-30X's repeatedly phrasing basic physics facts in the form "according to Dr. Michio Kaku, water is wet". It's the constant namedropping of Kaku that's a problem, not grammar per se. 3.) The AfD notifications are a non-issue. Materialscientist notified Orangemike and myself because we had both been giving Ti-30X advice on how to edit more in line with Misplaced Pages's general policies; I can't speak for Orangemike, but I would have been aware of the AfD regardless. I don't see any Wikihounding myself; if Materialscientist and Ti-30X disagree on basic content issues, that's not Wikihounding, but a normal part of our editorial process. Ti-30X seems overly sensitive in this regard. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Michio Kaku is mentioned in 81 articles in Misplaced Pages. This seems excessive. Is there some promotional activity involved? Are most of those refs coming from the same editor? --John Nagle (talk) 07:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Dunno, but an IP edited him into to Cosmological Argument, and not into any others. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

In response to this:

In the green box materialscientist has signed my name with a message stating he did so above the green box. This is inappropriate. I have to ask, so how does he sign my name? Is he able to counterfeit anybody’s name here at wikipedi? Does he have access to my account?

Ti-30X, adding somebody's signature to a post that they have forgotten to sign (or neglected to sign because they weren't aware that they should), in particular when stating clearly in the edit summary that they add the signature on the other person's behalf, is a courtesy to the editing community. As you know, talk page posts should include the signature of the person posting the message to make communication easier (and in some cases, to make it possible!) The signature is just a string of text, and anybody can add that string representing anybody else's name, there is no need to log into somebody's account to do so. There is even a bot which checks for unsigned talk page posts and posts the signature of the editor to them. To represent oneself as another editor maliciously is of course not allowed, but in this case, as indicated by the edit summary, the intent was clearly not malicious. Because the history of any Misplaced Pages page is available to everybody, it is always possible to check who wrote what, so serious impersonation is almost impossible. --bonadea contributions talk 09:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I made an addition, under my original post, to help clarify why I posted this in the first place. Also I changed the title for this post. Ti-30X (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Notes by Materialscientist:

• User:SheffieldSteel kindly pointed me to the {{unsigned}} template which is a proper way to sign for a user. Thank you.
• Admittedly, I've been terse to Ti-30X, but I did not mean to be unfriendly; I offered my help and did help. I hope he/she forgives me and returns to the WP learning process.

That said, I am worried by the above note showing that

• The user tends to make dramas out of thin air;
• I take his word that he/she will not engage in the edit wars (as he already reverted several good faith edits) and will discuss the issues at the corresponding talk pages.
• The user has a tendency to rewrite his posts after others have replied on them. Would someone please comment on this (as a general practice).
• The user is still in the stage of learning how to sign and reference his edits, but he is already keen to track and analyze WP behavior of editors and admins and to criticize that at ANI.
• With all do respect to professor Kaku (after all, he is a talented popularizer of Science), I do agree with the above note (by John Nagle) that his spread over WP might be excessive and might need to be looked after. I am glad to see that my Afd of the Physics of the Impossible resulted in quick and drastic improvement of that article, so that Afd might not apply anymore. On the other hand, I am worried by the speed and coordination of the rescue effort (just a note, no back thought).

To summarize, I am grateful to Ti-30X for revealing some potentially troubling issues and would not waste this thread, but use it as a fixing feedback. Materialscientist (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Recreation of Fledgling Jason Steed

I need an independent evaluation of this recreation. Fledgling Jason Steed was deleted in this AfD for reasons of notability. The primary author has been working on it in userspace, and recently pasted it over a redirect to the WWII hero the main character was named after. I speedied it as a recreation of deleted material, but Beehold (talk · contribs), insisting that it was not substantially identical to the earlier version, recreated it again. It's currently sourced to (among other things) Barnes and Noble messageboards, which had been removed in the deleted version, and Nancy Pearl's Book Lust wiki. By this point I think I'm too close to the topic to give an unbiased assessment of its notability and whether there have been sufficient changes, so I'd greatly appreciate it if someone else could take a look. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It's all puff and this version seems no different from the version that I know was deleted and then the author asked for help with getting upto standard (even ARSErs couldn't help with that one). --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The primary difference, as I understand it, is that the author now has an agent and the book has been picked up by a publisher, so it's no longer self-published.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can determine the publisher is someone who prints the books pretty much on demand and if they sell some, they give you some money. Sounds like straight vanity - if it's *not* it's not indicated in the sources I have checked so far... --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have put a CSDG4 tag on it on the basis that it is same material and b)and any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted.. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, the new publisher of the series is Sourcebooks Inc, which publishes the Horrid Henry kids books, Georgette Heyer, Mark Twain, Anna Sewell etc and has had numerous contemporary books in the New York Times bestsellers list. I don't think the word 'vanity' press can be attributed to this firm - it's not a self-publishing company.--Beehold (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Twain and Sewell are public domain: bad examples. Also, their edition of An Infamous Army by Heyer is listed as a reprint edition -- another bad example.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I just picked random books whose authors I knew the name of. Chances are, I passed over huge American best sellers, cos I'm in the UK and never heard of them. Horrid Henry, however, is one of the biggest selling kids books in Britain - so I imagine that is a major name. Anyway, I am happy for you to speedy close the AFD if you want. Now that the publishing deal has been announced by Publishers MarketPlace it is likely that the book will be mentioned in more 'Misplaced Pages reliable' publications over the next few days. Then, perhaps, I can recreate the article without causing any problems. (Teen Vogue - edition end of April, beginning of May. The same Malia Obama details also mentioned on a US show called Teen Zone apparently at beginning of May - but I'm in the UK, so don't know this programme.)--Beehold (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW I took a good look at Sourcebooks' website, and it seems like a legit publisher to me. True it does "custom publishing" and bulk corporate orders, but it has numerous imprints, which it obtained by purchasing them from elsewhere, has a number of NYTimes Best Sellers and other best selling books, and generally does not at all look like a vanity press operation. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 07:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I !voted delete at the afd, but I acknowledged that this might be an exception to unpublished books being nonotable, and that if there were additional evidence there might well be an article. I' see the article is now at AfD, so I think the discussion here can be marked as closed. DGG (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Requesting deletion of image file I contributed because of vandalism

I am requesting that the File:US_Transcontinental_Railroads_1887.jpg that I contributed on June 2 now be deleted because of vandalism attacks. Please see here for discussion of this matter. Thank you. (Centpacrr (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

There's no way uploading a higher-quality version of a public domain map is vandalism. Please discuss this at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files/2009 June 3#File:US Transcontinental Railroads 1887.jpg. --NE2 17:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

That discussion is proceeding, but meanwhile, Centpacrr (talk · contribs) has been trying to make the image go away by adding speedy deletion tags and deleting the high-resolution version of the image. They may have hit 3RR on the image history. It looks like that editor is very unhappy; they've just discovered that their claim of copyright on a restored versions of a 19th century U.S. Government document isn't as strong as they thought it was. --John Nagle (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue about which I am unhappy is not the copyright of the lower resolution of the restoration which I gladly released under GDFL. That is a straw man.

The issue is that I am raising is that User:NE2 has replaced that file with a copyrighted higher resolution version of my digital restoration which he pirated from a privately owned and operated website in violation of terms of that site's user agreement to which all users of the site are required to agree in order to access. Despite explaining this too him in great detail and pointing out that the higher resolution image was an illegally pirated file which by accepting that agreement he was not authorized to either download from that site or upload to Misplaced Pages or anywhere else, he has continued to substitute it for the lower resolution version which I had freely contributed and released to the Misplaced Pages community. The only reason that I have asked for the file I contributed to be deleted is because this user keeps replacing it with the different, pirated file. The rights to that file have not now, nor have they ever, been released to Misplaced Pages.

I am perfectly willing to leave the file I originally contributed and released to Misplaced Pages in place. However the file that User:NE2 substituted for the file I uploaded is a completely different file to which he did not have the right to either upload or release. See here for a more detailed discussion of this matter. (Centpacrr (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

(Non-admin disclaimer) If the issue is already being discussed via the WP:PUF process, why are you bringing it here too? – ukexpat (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

What is there for admins to do here? This is clearly forum shopping as there is already a valid discussion going regarding this. Please let the other discussion play itself out, and don't try different locations if the original discussion is not going your way. See . Also, please do not mischaracterize the edits of others as vandalism. Use of that word is loaded, and only actions to emotionalize the discussion in ways that are inappropriate. This is a civil disagreement over the copyright status of an image; and the discussion over that situation is already happening in another venue, so is inapprorpiate here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have never asked for a page deletion before (let alone one which I created) so was unfamiliar with the procedures. I am now making all comments in the other location, and humbly withdraw the claim of "vandalism" which was the incorrect and inappropriate term for me to use in this instance. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

Copyright input request

• Allstarecho (talk · contribs)

Hi. Today's batch at WP:CP included Lazy Magnolia Brewing Company, which consisted almost entirely of text pasted from the official website and its subpages. (Admins only, I'm afraid, can view this, since it is now deleted.) When the copyright infringement was pointed out, the contributor evidently made an effort to obtain permission, but restored the text out of process while doing so, ostensibly so that the copyright holders could see the text in use. Not having received permission, he removed the single tagged section, but that left considerably more text from the site exposed (See the bottom of his talk page for some conversation about this.) Given the contributors evident misunderstanding of copyright policy (including the note in edit summary that "copyedit this section too to address any concerns.. although I'd hardly call descriptions of what a beer tastes like as being copyrightable"), I started checking the contributors other work and have found two more pastes for which he is evidently responsible (Including Grand Gulf Military State Park (Mississippi), which the contributor removed with the note "no copyright notice on that site but to appease the stalker...") and Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, which he restored as not copyrightable, notwithstanding Mississippi's explicit claim otherwise. (The facts are not copyrightable, but the language used is.) I also found another copyright infringement which he did not place, but in an article which he split without noting the origin. There seem to be serious misunderstandings about copyright policy here, including that we can publish copyrighted text in the hopes that the owners will grant license, that beer descriptions can't be copyrighted and that we can use copyrighted text if it is not explicitly claimed. Since this contributor is taking my scrutiny personally, I would welcome other input. --Moonriddengirl 17:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't need other input, but thanks. Nothing to see or do here, carry on. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 17:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless you've now decided that beer descriptions and websites that do not explicitly claim copyright can't be used under our copyright policy, I'm afraid that I do. --Moonriddengirl 17:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

In the U.S., prior to the Copyright Act of 1976, published works needed an explicit copyright notice to be covered by copyright law. (Lack of a copyright notice on a print run of Houghton Mifflin's American publication of The Lord of the Rings allowed Ace Books to publish an unauthorized version of the trilogy.) After 1976, all published works were covered, regardless of whether they had a notice or not, and unpublished works were covered as well -- so whether a webiste explicitly claims copyright or not is totally irrelevant. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 18:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Although Allstarecho evidently still feels harassed by my overview of his contributions, I have found copyright from diverse sources going all the way back to 2007, with Lanier High School (Jackson, Mississippi), which duplicates this copyrighted 2006 source: . And, in fact, I see he removed a Corensearchbot notice from an article he created here and was advised of copyright policies here. To boot, he still does not accept that this is in any way wrong, per edit summary: as usual, facts can't be copyrighted but whatever. I believe more input might be valuable. --Moonriddengirl 21:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• You are correct in your analysis. Simply remove anything prior to 1976 (as mentioned above) that is not covered by a copyright release statement. If the editor replaces it, then block them. Black Kite 00:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • That's somewhat easier said than done, given the extensive contribution history, but I'm doing my best. :/ Meanwhile, the more I look, the more I am concerned that this contributor has shown no interest in complying with copyright policy, given the tone with which he's addressed these concerns and previous issues. His attitude doesn't seem to have changed since he was advised in September, 2007, when he said, "I'm not incorrect because I said I don't FEEL text about a public educational institution, especially one my tax dollars help pay for, is copyrighted." In other words, evidence suggests he has not been unaware of these policies, having removed a number of Corensearchbot notices as well as basically shrugging off that 2007 conversation. He seems simply to have not felt inclined to honor them, just as he removed without comment this notice of the issue and request to address it by yet another administrator on May 30th of this year. --Moonriddengirl 01:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a serious problem of repeated, intentional copyright violations. If the user continues to upload copyright infringements, he should be immediately blocked. Meanwhile, we're going to have to plow through his contributions to remove any and all copyvios that he's added, since it's clear he won't do it himself. Any assistance would be welcome. (Moonriddengirl, do you think the damage is extensive enough to merit a checklist at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Contributor surveys?) – Quadell 02:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Taking MRG's assertions on trust, I agree with Quadell's conclusion. Allstarecho, your actions are out of line and you must reconsider your position or else cease contributing. No amount of flippancy routes around the absolute intolerability of copyright violation on wikipedia. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've done an initial review of Allstarecho's contributions, and the problem is in fact far worse than Moonriddengirl's description - he has been routinely and indiscriminately borrowing copyrighted content from a variety of sources for years, and considerable effort will be involved in cleaning them up. His comments demonstrate that he has a distorted understanding of how copyright functions, which is probably the root cause of this, and as such I wouldn't trust him to clean his own contributions. His actions to restore his deleted contributions and remove copyvio templates prevented the issue from being detected sooner, and are are making the cleanup twice as difficult as it needs to be, and he should be blocked at least for the duration of the cleanup. Moreover, I would not unblock him unless he promises to cease copying content from external sources altogether - I don't trust him to distinguish public domain sources from copyrighted ones with any degree of reliability. This is unfortunate because he does also contribute original content, but a necessary precaution to enable the cleanup to proceed without disruption and without new copyvios being added. Dcoetzee 04:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

User says he is retired, but did not go gracefully. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to say that saddens me somewhat. I have had generally positive interactions with Allstarecho in the past. I do agree that copyright is a serious issue, and we need to tread carefully when copying text and pictures from other sources. I certainly wish he had handled this better. sigh. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It'd been handled better if I hadn't been wiki-hounded all fucking day. I mean, look at my talk page history. And just to ease some people's fetish with the idea that I don't understand copyright: I do. Most of these g'damn articles were done in my wiki-infancy. Any newer ones which may be in question, I don't agree that statistical facts (dates, percentages, times and related words to explain such facts) is copyrightable.. just like a textual logo isn't copyrightable. But whatever, I'm done with the Wiki. I've had all I can stand of the wiki-hounding and wiki-stalking I got in one day - no, not even a full one day, more like the bombardment I got in the span of about 7 hours. No need to reply or try and explain any of your own interpretations of copyright to me because frankly, I don't give a shite anymore and am now, with this last post, retired.. so if you waste the finger strokes, you're just preaching to the choir. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 05:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Nicely done....we have pushed away ANOTHER good editor over some minor BS. Allstar was and is one of the better editors here at Misplaced Pages and it is a sad day when the good editors say "to hell with it" and walk away because of pointless minor BS and no one says a damned thing about it. Pathetic. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Copyright isn't minor BS, and he will be back. Viridae 07:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • There's nothing good about pasting text from copyrighted sources onto Misplaced Pages. This contributor was advised years ago that this was against policy, but as recently as May 24th copied and many of its subpages onto Misplaced Pages, removing the {{copyvio}} template from the article that was placed by an administrator (not me). That he chooses to view the clean-up of this as persecution just verifies the problem to me. What are we supposed to do when it's been proven that a contributor has pasted text against policy on Misplaced Pages? Look the other way? He has ignored or rejected correction on this issue with hostility at every point I've seen. --Moonriddengirl 10:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
    • This kind of thing is potentially a very serious problem. I see that AllStar has been blocked, but that's just the tip of the copyright iceberg. I have seen various articles over time (by many editors) that "read like copyright violations", but how do you go about proving it? Thanks to endless sites parroting wikipedia, finding the original source can be very difficult. You take a suspicious-sounding phrase put it into Google, find hundreds of entries containing it, check each one to see if they are wikipedia parrots or not, and maybe you'll find the original. So you repair the article and hope that's reflected eventually in the mirroring sites. OK, that's 1 down, a few million to go. It's the proliferation that's really the problem - the same problem as with copyrighted images. Someday wikipedia might get sued over this kind of thing, if they haven't been already. But that's also just the tip of the iceberg. It is so incredibly easy to copy-and-paste on the internet, how can an author who publishes on the internet have any realistic expectation of it not being proliferated, regardless of his theoretical legal rights? This will be an interesting issue for the Supreme Court to tackle someday. Baseball Bugs carrots 11:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
      • If they ever abolish copyright, my Wiki day will be a lot more fun. :) We are trying to organize this sort of thing. Dcoetzee made a program that surveys contributions, and we've been using successfully at WP:COPYCLEAN. All true, what you say about finding the original source. It's tedious work. There are mechanical plagiarism detectors that I utilize, but they don't eliminate Wiki mirrors. Maybe someday we'll get one of our own that does. Even cutting out the mirrors we know about would simplify things enormously. --Moonriddengirl 11:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
        • A number of years ago, probably in the early days of the VCR, comedian Robert Klein was doing an HBO standup special. He "warned" people watching at home not to tape the show, as it was a copyright violation. He then went on to point out that that violation was on roughly the same level of illegality as "tearing a tag off your mattress". And as a practical matter, that's what the internet has done. I have seen occasional images which were protected from downloading, but generally that's not done. Youtube seems to have the right idea - you can view it but not download it (as far as I know). But text is usually written in text form rather than as an image, so technologically (though not legally) you can do anything you want with it. The courts might eventually have to settle question of whether the burden of protection is on the original poster - i.e. if he doesn't protect the text somehow, then he shouldn't complain that it gets proliferated. I suspect the law is far behind the technology on this issue. Baseball Bugs carrots 11:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
          • As long as we keep Misplaced Pages safe while the jurists sort it out, it's all good (from a copyright standpoint that is; the whole plagiarism thing is a different, much debated story). Personally, I think the policies in place do a very good job of demonstrating due diligence, and we've got some contributors who put a lot of time into enforcing them even though I know from past conversations that some of them actually support the abolition of intellectual property laws (or, at least, the radical overhaul and relaxation of them). --Moonriddengirl 11:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
      • When I first saw this thread my reaction was much like Neutral Homer's, & I almost posted something along those lines... but for some reason I sat on my hands & didn't. I'm glad of my silence: repeated copyright infringements does not do anyone any good, & AllStarEcho's best response would have been to say something like, "Oops, I did all of that early on when I didn't know any better. Sorry." And if fixing this got too stressful, take a lengthy break. Most of the regulars here have an otherwise positive opinion of AllStarEcho, & if he were to admit his mistakes, promise not to do it again, I suspect he'd be given another chance. But his ranting above about "wiki-hounding and wiki-stalking" doesn't help his case. (And before anyone thinks I'm without sin, I keep wondering when someone will start looking carefully at some of the first articles I wrote. Especially since many of them are practically identical to what I wrote 6 years ago. If that ever happens, I promise to try to handle that kind of examination with more grace.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that the user has extensively damaged Misplaced Pages by uploading hundreds of copyright violations over several years, which may take months of effort to clean up... given that he continues to remove warnings and templates regarding copyright... given that the user shows no remorse or inclination to change any of this behavior... given that he has said he has retired and has no interest in editing... and given that he turned his userpage into a terrifically offensive attack page against people who challenge him on any of his behavior... Given all this, I have blocked the user indefinitely. If he wants to unretire and promises not to copy-and-paste any more material from random web sources, then I will unblock him (or anyone else can). – Quadell 11:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, User:Allstarecho/regularmaintained will be helpful in this cleanup. From this list, I've already identified Frank Frost as a direct copyvio of this.  Frank  |  talk  12:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I was a bit hasty on this one. Thanks to User:Voceditenore for pointing this out.  Frank  |  talk  13:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The source of that article is this NYT piece dated 1999. Cf our article. "Over the years, cigarettes and alcohol wore Frost down but he continued to record, tour and diversify his repertory, appearing in the films Deep Blues: A Musical Pilgrimage to the Crossroads and Crossroads." NYT, "Cigarettes and alcohol wore Mr. Frost down over the years, but he continued to record, tour and diversify his repertory, appearing in the films Deep Blues and Crossroads." --Moonriddengirl 14:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's likely to be a long haul. We have a program we use at WP:COPYCLEAN (developed to clean up the problem at User:GrahamBould, I think) that lists the contributions of a user prioritized by size. Once that's run, I'll be opening an investigation tab at the copyright cleanup project to help structure investigation. All contributors most welcome. :D --Moonriddengirl 12:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Good block.  Sandstein  14:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Could someone with the buttons look at the header that comes up when editing Allstarecho's user & talk pages? Doesn't seem like the sort of thing that should stay in place. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 15:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant User:Allstarecho/Editnotice and User talk:Allstarecho/Editnotice. Don't know if these subpages stay for a blocked user or not. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 16:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow; it's true what they say: you learn something new every day. Now I know how that's done :-) Anyway, I'm not sure what should be done there or why. Can someone show a policy or precedent regarding the editnotice and whether or not it should be removed? Allstarecho is not banned, as far as I know, and I'm not certain even that would warrant deletion. I think he could return at any time and be unblocked (OK, not in that order), and I'm not sure there's a need to dig into this right now.  Frank  |  talk  17:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This comes as a surprise; hadn't been watching the noticeboard in a day. If Allstarecho takes a few simple steps would support a negotiated unblock. Ball's in his court; door remains open. Durova 20:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Renewed edit warring by User:Balkanian`s word

On June 1st, this user was blocked for 55 hours for edit warring on Illyrians . No sooner had this block expired that he immediately resumed edit-warring, reverting here and here two previous edits of mine in Himare and Andros . He then proceeded to become involve in an ongoing edit war on Igoumenitsa , Parga , Paramythia , and Margariti . In Paramythia, he also performed the following partial reverts , which are partial reverts to this version. Similarly, in Margariti, he performed this partial revert to this version (re-adding a notable person). He has since begun participating in discussions, and I was prepared to drop the case, but he again reverted in Andros just recently . So we have 1RR in Himara, 2RR in Andros, 3RR in Paramythia, 2RR in Margariti, and 1RR apiece in Parga and Igoumenitsa. There is clearly a pattern of disruptive edit-warring behavior here, and it needs to stop. --Athenean (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 week Tiptoety 18:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

--- Apparently not resolved. There is discussion on the user's Talk page about whether the block was appropriate, but now there is an SPI investigation going on as to whether a new IP user is Balkanian's word editing while blocked. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Page blanking by apparent COI editor

User Cofcmarketing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), apparently affiliated with the College of Charleston School of Business and Economics, has blanked that page with the statement "This page is not an authorized page of the College of Charleston and needs to be deleted". I wasn't sure how to handle it, so here I am. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• User got blocked. Nothing more needs to be done. -Jeremy 19:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Sad to see a new user shoot her/himself in the foot with a first edit. After reading the page in question, I'm not sure the subject passes the notability standards. Cofcmarketing probably could have gotten the page deleted if she/he had listed it at AfD, & had not blanked it. -- llywrch (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Not really; with a name like that, they're clearly only here for their interests. We're not losing anything. HalfShadow 19:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
      • See User:MuZemike/Plaxico (I should really make that into some sort of an WP essay someday as opposed to a separate article). In all seriousness, they have no grounds to revoke contributions made under the GFDL, and this is not a BLP issue, so good block. MuZemike 21:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Maybe, HalfShadow, but this case is much like the thief who robs a food bank to feed his hungry children. It's such a dysfunctional way to solve the problem, one either laughs -- or loses hope for the human species. (And if the staff of this institution can't figure out how to produtively contribute to the encyclopedia "anyone can edit", God help their students!) -- llywrch (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Indeed. There's the issue of the article being sourced to unpublished firsthand interviews, for example. Uncle G (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Inglourious Basterds and a brain fart.

Could an admin help out with reversing a page move please. Being in pedant mode and thinking that even Tarantino could spell correctly I moved Inglourious Basterds to Inglorious Bastards (2009 film) only to find out immediately afterwards that "Inglourious Basterds" is in fact the correct spelling. So could some kind admin please reverse my brain fart. Ta very muchly. --WebHamster 20:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done - no admin intervention is required, marking as resolved. – ukexpat (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much, and so quickly too :) --WebHamster 20:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting Quentin mis-spell as he pleases :) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Probable block evasion

There's a user on a static IP at 93.86.201.173 (talk · contribs) that's acting very strangely and fairly disruptively.

• This is obviously not a new user. Their first edit (June 1) was to place a template in an article, and then they started getting into a fairly sophisticated deletion discussion
• 93.86... then moved onto making onerous requests at a cold fusion related article (now entering the pseudoscience trend)...
• followed by edit-warring at Scientific skepticism and Free energy...
• a preemptive claim that they are not a POV pusher ...
• and a sprinkling of wiki-lawyering and personal attacks (eg and "no attack, just a word/concept to read about")

Does anybody with experience with past pseudoscience related arbitration and blockings recognize this person? NJGW (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

NJGW, please show slightest decency and honesty, and also point to your edit diffs, where you bait and cherish me with petty remarks. Also, I am trying to understand why supplying my edits with arguments and references means 'behaving strangely and fairly disruptively'. I am sure other will look at more diffs than those provided here and judge by themselves. 93.86.201.173 (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring and attacking editors while wikilawyering is disruptive to the project. Appearing from nowhere, with full knowledge of policies, while ignoring questions about your prior editing history is strange. NJGW (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You obviously misunderstand your role as an editor here on Misplaced Pages. You ARE NOT an inspector. You are doing more edit warring then me because unlike you, i provide arguments in my summaries and talk pages when i make a revert. 93.86.201.173 (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

ps. what you asked me about my past is a borderline harassment 93.86.201.173 (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The difference between NJGW and you is that he has diffs corroborating his claims. Show me proof he is in the wrong, posthaste, because I'm more inclined to believe him based on his evidence. -Jeremy 21:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

ok, i'll post diffs in a minute93.86.201.173 (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

petty remark and almost a haressment as proving him i was not blocked would reveal my real name, then argument that he keeps ignoring showing 100+ books in favor of my categorization, and 1 book in favor of his. i can post diffs for his other accusations too -- pertaining to other articles. 93.86.201.173 (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

another example Talk:Free_energy_suppression#anyone_can_find_better_source, as you can see, i don't edit war, i discuss, but unfortunately, there don't seem to be many others interested in discussion. 93.86.201.173 (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

How do reconcile and with "i don't edit war"? Please leave your content issue (that "free energy" is not a pseudoscience) out of this area. NJGW (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You missed to post diffs of arguments posted on talk pages in between of above diffs. Also, i never claimed 'free energy is not pseudoscience', i claimed 'alternative energy is not, and neither is free-energy suppresion'. do you get the difference? 93.86.201.173 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, edit warring is reverting without discussion, and you may notice from my contributions that in between article edits, there are quite a few talk page edits. 93.86.201.173 (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Patently wrong. Edit warring is edit warring regardless of whether you stop to make talk page edits or not. Declaring your intentions on a talk page does not give you carte-blanche to force your particular version of an article to be the one that is visible. WP:3RR does not list the use of talk pages as an exception to edit warring. The correct pattern of behavior is Bold. Revert. Discuss. Not "Bold. Revert. Discuss. Revert. Discuss. Revert. Discusss. Revert. Discuss. Revert. etc." Once an edit has been challenged, stop making it over and over. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

ok, so i guess others can revert without discussion, but i can't even with discussion. i'll have that in mind. 93.86.201.173 (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong again. Others are not allowed to edit war either, whether they discuss or not. No one is. If you feel that another person is violating a standard of behavior, the proper response is not to violate the same standard of behavior yourself. "Oh, look, someone else is edit warring. That means we can all edit war!!!" It doesn't work that way. Only you are responsible for your actions. Don't violate the standards of behavior and you will not get blocked. It's not that complicated. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

revert wars: If someone challenges your edits, discuss it with them and seek a compromise, or seek dispute resolution. Don't just fight over competing views and versions. you see, on three articles I challenged their edits, and my objections went unanswered, while my edits were reverted. 93.86.201.173 (talk) 07:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If you are concerned, seek dispute resolution. Perhaps a third opinion would help break the dead lock. See, here's the neat bit. The edit war stops when you stop. If you don't revert them back again, there is no edit war. If you think your version is better than theirs, there is a right way to go about it. Seek a consensus by using dispute resolution. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

CSI:New York edit war

IP's 78.52.171.107 (talk · contribs), 74.69.35.238 (talk · contribs), 86.130.177.122 (talk · contribs) and Hornean (talk · contribs) are engaging in repeated changing without citation and sometimes blatant fiction on the CSI: New York pages, including list of characters. (there will be a long list of these edits by one of them, then it is another, etc). There has also been similar changes in the CSI: Miami list of characters which has included listing former characters as dead by suicide when they have not, and speculation of a former cast member returning. I do not want to get blocked by the 3 revert rule, so I am having to keep my hands off the articles. Can this be investigated as I do think I've given enough information to do so. Thank you. TristaBella (cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Segregated into its own section. -Jeremy 23:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know there was a CSI: New York Edit War. Is that about Wikipedians out of New York? **slap*. MuZemike 23:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and everything looks a lot cooler and gives you a lot more information. The checkuser function for example has a massive computer screen with all sorts of weird multicolored lights. Then it outputs the IP address, user agent, name of the individual editing, their date of birth, and any criminal records they have. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Also shoe size, favorite Stars Wars character and preference for plastic or paper. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I came back and tried to do the linking right. I am not as experienced and I do think an offer of help would have been better than a trout slap. Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was trout-slapping myself for the intentional Freudian slip I made above. MuZemike 00:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, then. Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Odd question re: WP:NLT

Here's an odd one. In this edit, ThuranX, in the course of a discussion over a possibly unfree image, advises another editor to get a lawyer to protect his supposed rights. He writes:

rankly, I'd love to see the Foundation get sued for this stuff a few times, just so that proper guidelines which adhere to Florida and federal law are written, I'll settle for this one person getting a proper hearing from those who have the training the larger community lacks.

My understanding of the purpose of WP:NLT is that the threat of legal action has the tendency to deter free and open discussion. Here we have, not a legal threat from an aggrieved party, but the advice from a commentator to the aggrieved party that he should get a lawyer, with the possible result a lawsuit against the Foundation. My question is: does this skirt the letter of the policy, 'cause it sure doesn't seem in the spirit of it. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

While you could probably bend NLT far enough to have that comment fit under it, I don't think that's the sort of situation it should be used for.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

(EC with SofV) No, he's not using the threat of legal action to stifle discussion. If you read the whole conversation, and even his entire post, rather than an out-of-context quote, it seems clear he is reminding people that, regardless of our own opinions on copyright law, the only people qualified to make such decisions are lawyers. Since the OP in that thread is raising a clear legal question (not making a legal threat, just asking a question on the use of supposedly copyright material that requires a legal opinion), then he should consult a lawyer to answer it. ThuranX is being somewhat flippant about the issue, but I don't see this as anything like a WP:NLT violation. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, although I don't think I agree totally, and apparently I'm not the only person who found the comment problematic. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to be slightly annoyed (It's not directly directed at you, Ed) by the people running like headless chicken screaming WP:LEGAL each time someone raises the question of going to see an attorney. If the user is concerned that his rights (as in IP rights) are being violated and the community disagrees, the next step is indeed to consult an IP lawyer that will assess the situation and contact the foundation through the usual means. Wikipedians trying to do law make me think of Monsieur Jourdain trying to do Poetry. It's not our job, and we are not qualified to do it. Asking for a professional opinion is the right step. -- Luk 06:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, in some respects I share it. My concern was not so much the suggestion that the editor in question should see that his legal rights were protected (that's simply common sense when it comes to such an arcane matter as copyright law), but really the remarks which followed it, which I quoted in part above. If he had stopped at the former, I'm fairly certain I'd never have raised the issue, but I think perhaps (perhaps) he went too far. I think invoking WP:NLT makes sense when the remarks are in the nature of "if you don't do what I want I'm taking my ball and going home", designed to squealch opposition, and prevent additional editors from commenting because "well, the lawyers are going to decide it anyway, so it doesn't matter what I say." I don't know if ThuranX meant his additional remarks in that way, but it did seem to me to perhaps skirt the boundaries. Clearly, others disagree. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

My own opinion is that it would be a legal threat if he was not raising a (perhaps legitimate) legal concern. NLT was designed to prevent real world actions from bending our editorial content, not to deter people the community is potentially "hurting" from seeking professional advice. I would kick the admin that blocked the user per What is not a legal threat if he got blocked :). -- Luk 07:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether a user comment qualifies as a "legal threat" or not, is answered by the question, "Does that statement intend to intimidate someone from editing?" I don't think advising someone to get legal advice qualifies as intimidation. And expressing a wish that someone, somewhere would bring legal action in order to resolve an issue, strikes me as simply an opinion, not intimidation. But others could see it differently. Baseball Bugs carrots 09:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

When I wrote that, I said to myself, 'Don't write it, someone's going to see 'get a lawyer and go to the people at WMF who can deal with this' and shout " WP:NLT!!!". Knew it. That's why I was careful to make it as clear as I could that he should AVOID our Admin help pages, and go directly to those who CAN fix his issue, or provide a reason why not, based on a clear reading of the law. I did not tell him to brandish a lawyer at other editors, like a stick. I did not tell him to SUE Misplaced Pages, nor its editors, nor make threats of that ilk. I told him to have a lawyer help him make his case to the OTRS and Mike Godwin - the PAID Lawyer for Misplaced Pages. If that's a LEGAL violation, then LEGAL needs to be re-written to conform to the laws of the United States, which allow people to retain a lawyer for just about anything, especially the representation of their financial and civil rights.

As for my other comment, I also stand by that. A couple of lawsuits against Misplaced Pages would provide us with much better bright lines to write into clear, non-lawyer, user-friendly policy, since any time a policy tries to get written about such stuff, the legalese gets blinding, and it would do well for us to lose a case or three and have a new policy - 'If someone says they hold copyright, assume they are right unless you can prove them wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. In cases of big doubts, erase the material.' Which is what we ought to do anyways if we want to keep operating without constant lawsuits.

So, all I've really said in that section ,to be clear was 'get a lawyer to help you explain this to the Wikimedia Foundation' and 'A lawsuit or two about this would force the Foundation to create a stronger bright-line policy for us'. Neither of those is a legal threat. In the former, I didn't advocate HIM suing anyone, and in the latter, I didn't threaten to sue anyone. ThuranX (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

And I'm generically raising the same kind of question in the AllStarEcho copyright discussion above. I ain't no lawyer, so I don't know what the courts may have already covered, but someday someone is liable to argue that if you post material on the internet unprotected, then you've implicitly made it public domain and have forfeited your claim to copyright. Baseball Bugs carrots 11:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Except that currently, once you produce a work, be it text, image, motion or sound, it's copyrighted inherently. Posting it on the internet isn't a waiver of Copyright except if you psot it to an open site like this, where the waiver thereof is explicit. ThuranX (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That's what the law says, but the nature of the internet may make such a law unenforceable, which might ultimately result in its rejection by the courts. Baseball Bugs carrots 12:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Inteesting issues have been raised -- and some US and European courts appear to feel that they can enforce the copyright laws even on the WWW no matter where the IP is located. Collect (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and I remember a US court application to have the domain of a UK company transferred to someone who had successfully sued it for defamation. Stifle (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

So is the lesson the rest of us should learn from this is to never use the words "sue", "lawyer", & "Wikimedia Foundation" in the same sentence? Unless one first talks to one's lawyer, of course. (And no, I'm not going to trout myself for asking that. MuZemike tried to do that above in another thread, & got trouted for doing that.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

While I think Ed got a bit paranoid, I don't think his intent was to create a 'Chilliing Effect'. I'm willing to AGF that far, if we can mark this as an over-reaction and a nothing to see here and move on. ThuranX (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Can another Admin please deal with IP changing cited text?

125.196.6.186 (talk · contribs) continues to change cited text at Jabal al-Lawz (Lawz means 'almonds', not 'laws', this is probably a supporter of Bob Cornuke). I gave him a final warning this am and he did it again. As I'm the one who added the citation (to a stub with a citations needed tag), and have been giving the warnings, I am involved and thus I presume shouldn't block him/her (I presume I can continue reverting without getting caught by 3RR, right?). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked the IP for one day. Cirt (talk) 08:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Minnametsa striking out delete votes they don't agree with

Minnametsa (talk · contribs), who appears to be a SPA, has struck out the delete votes of myself and two other editors as well as removed the striking out of IP votes in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/SALIN: Could an uninvolved admin please revert this and take appropriate action? Nick-D (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

To avoid WP:BITE and considering that the user hasn't been warned not to do this, I've dropped a brief semi-protect on the AfD page to cover it to the close. ➲ redvers 10:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks redvers! :). Ironholds (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Nick-D (talk) 11:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That is completely wrong-headed, as IPs and new editors have as much right to present meaningful edits, as do long-time editors. And the comment at the top of the AfD page is wrong, and totally against policy. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have unprotected it; semi-protection is absolutely not allowed to be used to exclude IPs or new users from xfd, and semi-protection is absolutely never to be used to give logged-in or established users an unfair advantage in any content dispute-type matters that are "good faith". If there is a sock, puppetry, or any other concern, tag the SPAs and that's it, for the closing admin to weight into his decision. If one SPA is gaming things or removing others' xfd comments, deal with that one account, not penalize all the new accounts/IPs. I have done this preemptively but will notify Redvers to look back on this thread; AFD protections should be sparing at best in the worst of circumstances, for true abuse, which IP edits never are. As xfd is also time sensitive to a degree, that weighed in my decision to unprotect. rootology (C)(T) 17:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've also removed this totally wrong warning message from the AFD by Ironholds. rootology (C)(T) 17:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather protect a page for a short time (the AfD only had 24hrs to run) than block a new user, and also served to stop the disruptive IP: again better than blocking an IP and excluding x number of potential users. This isn't an unreasonable point of view, I'd suggest, so it's a shame that a wheel war was thought necessary rather than asking me about it first. ➲ redvers 19:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it really wheel warring when a violation of policy is reverted? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Calling the undoing a single action out-of-policy protection one time a "wheel war" may be the most liberal interpretation of WP:WHEEL I've ever seen. If that was a wheel war, we'd have literally no admins left. rootology (C)(T) 19:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it would have still neutered IPs, which is always wrong on xfd; and if the user was misbehaving, warn them to stop, then follow up with administrative action if the problem persists. And what wheel war? rootology (C)(T) 19:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have assumed that my motivation in protecting the AfD was the same as the message someone posted on the AfD. Interesting assumption. ➲ redvers 19:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I just unprotected as out-of-policy actions may be undone once at any time. No assumptions. rootology (C)(T) 20:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Gergana30 removing constantly referenced text and pushing POV

Gergana30 (talk · contribs), who appears to be a sockpuppet, has removed referenced text (including Britannica) several times and has pushed unsourced fringe theories in the article Bulgarians repeatedly. She also just broke the 3RR rule there. Please take the necessary measures. Thank you. Jingby (talk) 10:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I see no 3RR violations. However, I've protected the page for a week to allow the content issues to be argued out on the talk-page instead of in edit summaries ;) WP:SSP is the place to go if you have sock concerns. EyeSerene 13:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Bakhack creating new pages without any content

User:Bakhack has created (by now) three new articles, all variations of the original HAJİZADEH Elshan Mahmud oglu (now deleted). I've just warned him. If he continues, I'm afraid I'd have to request a block. Cheers. I' 13:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

He's also moved on to removing the speedy deletion templates :/ Cheers. I' 13:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've issued a short block to slow them down, and encouraged them to take the time to read the relevant policies (which they have already been given links to). EyeSerene 13:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for abuse filter

Hi, I would like to request that an AF that detects pages created with delete tags (eg /\{\{db.*\}\}/ or /\{\{hangon.*\}\}/) as this is improper use of a delete tag and is a common problem. I posted a request at WP:AF/R but it seems not to be watched. Triplestop (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's a good faith mistake by new users, and we shouldn't "hold their feet to the fire" and scare them off even more with an abuse filter. MuZemike 15:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

...and in future, please request filters at WP:RAF. –xeno 17:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Repeated edit warring between two users

For the past several weeks, Rubikonchik (talk · contribs) and Erikupoeg (talk · contribs) have been edit warring on a number of pages. I initially got involved with them when I gave a third opinion on an article. I've since noticed repeated edits and reverts from both of them on at least half a dozen articles. I opened a thread at WP:WQA, but it was turned down since they didn't see it as a civility issue. It just seems that both editors aren't ever going to give up their battles without some type of intervention. I've given my opinion on at least one article, but I'm hesitant to get involved with the others, and I think my voice would go unheeded anyway. Can someone lend a hand to help settle this issue? Should I just leave the two of them alone? What's the next step? — HelloAnnyong 16:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

In general, a report should be filed at WP:ANEW with details regarding, especially difs of the reverts and difs warnings given to the users to calm down and discuss instead of edit warring. An admin here can deal with it, but the WP:ANEW noticeboard has the advantage that people that patrol there have the interest and expertise in handling edit war situations. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've notified both editors that they're being discussed at ANI. If this behavior continues, some kind of admin action may be needed, at least a requirement that they stay away from each other. If either of them comments here, I would welcome a proposal for how things could be different in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know about this discussion. I think it's a very good idea to involve other editors, and generally discuss together controversial edits and changes before implementing them. I do not know all the rules and their abbreviations, but I have a feeling that providing necessary sources should normally make it for all the "controversial" issues. What to do when the other user acts as if no sources were provided, or gives a false translation/interpretation of those sources, or reverts my edits commenting "do not delete sourced info" whereas no source is given at all???--Rubikonchik (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You are referring to my reverts of these edits: and . Are you seriously claiming, you did not remove sourced info? Because I can see sources in your reverts. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have just noticed new edits of User:Erikupoeg on the article Sofia Rotaru. Like I said earlier, I have suggested numerous times to discuss all changes in advance and not to proceed in a unilateral manner. Obviously, my quest for consensus remains unheard. I do want to improve the article and plenty of sources are available online on Sofia Rotaru, only a lazy won't find them...--Rubikonchik (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The usual pattern has been as follows (linked to examples): I make original contributions like , and with proper edit summaries, Rubikonchik (talk · contribs) blindly reverts it without any comment, I un-revert it and add more original contributions with correct edit summaries, Rubikonchik undoes it all blindly without any comment. I try to open discussion on the talk page, outlining my reasons behind the contributions in depth, and add them back with more original contributions, Rubikonchik reverts, for the first time, with an edit summary. It says: "Please discuss and propose changes on the talk page first." Note that by the time of his demand, my comments have been hanging on the talk page for two days. I add my contributions back, urging him to take look at my comments on the talk page, Rubikonchik reverts. Rubikonchik gets his first comment on the talk page after ten days of edit warring. We actually get involved in discussion for a few days, which however bog down in no reply from Rubikonchik to the issues. I assume that he has nothing to say anymore and react by restoring my contributions. This has gone on and on like this and Rubikonchik has reverted my other contributions on pages linked to Rotaru in a similar maner. I have broken the WP:3RR once, in a clear case of the violation of WP:NCF#Foreign-language titles on Mikhail Boyarsky article, which was supported by a consensus on Talk:Dusha page. However, I may be guilty of edit warring, but tell me how to proceed when your comments in the edit summaries and on the talk pages are simply ignored? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Attacks and vandalism on the Mungiu pages

The Cristian Mungiu and Alina Mungiu-Pippidi pages (both BLP) are being repeatedly attacked by a single-purpose account, User:Anarchistificationer86, and what I can only presume is the IP behind it. This started as apparent and obsessive death threats in February (, , ), and continued as bogus claims of homosexuality (, , , ) or hate messages (). Presumably, there is a person out there who feels very inclined toward vandalizing these articles, and these articles especially. I did not previously contact the user, because this looks like clear-cut blocking material. Dahn (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any warnings on Anarchist's Talk page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I indicated as much, but at this point one has to ask himself if there is anything constructive about whatever edit this user has made. What's more, note that, when confronted with a revert, this user has switched to his IP, which means that he is well aware of doing something disruptive. And, lastly, you will see warnings on the user's talk page, relating to the other mainstay of his edits: uploading copyrighted material under false pretense. Dahn (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the obviously malicious intent of this editing and its long-term nature, I think we may just as well block without warning first. There's no way this user didn't know what he was doing was wrong. Account blocked for a week, both BLP articles semi-protected for a month. Thanks to Dahn for being watchful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we indef block ip User talk:74.94.160.85

The above IP is registered to a school and has been repeatedly blocked for vandalism. The Operation Repo page is the most recent offense but for the amount of warnings on that page enough is enough, let them register for an account if they want to edit. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

74.94.160.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is actually very light on block logs relative to other schools. Not much in quality edits, but not that much overall. Indef would be way overkill. rootology (C)(T) 18:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, a year at most, but they've only vandalized once today. –xeno 18:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

And their last ten edits overall stretch all the way back to October 2008, an eight-month duration. rootology (C)(T) 18:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the 6 month block they were serving might have something to do with it. –xeno 18:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I see like 5 blocks in the last year, I'm not sure what standard levels of vandalism is on other sites but can we at least temporarily get this to stop? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said they've only vandalized once today and that was about half an hour ago. If they re-offend then yes, I'd say a schoolblock would be in order. In future, you can report stuff like this at WP:AIV –xeno 18:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Each time they were blocked they were doing multiple bad edits, and then they appear to have picked up standard school-term blocks. IPs in general have 100% as much right to edit as anyone else; we don't permanently block out IPs like we do bad usernames or their operators. If he starts doing multiple bad edits in more frequency, sure, block out again for school term. That's how we do it. We don't indef IPs. rootology (C)(T) 18:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry (again)

I ask an admin to review this case to see if it passes WP:DUCK? We have linked now 4 accounts to User:SonofFeanor as being meat/sock puppets. Soxwon (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Admin Jéské Couriano has blocked all 4 already. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw, disregard this then. Thanks. Soxwon (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Abd moving straw poll !votes, editing and removing article talk page comments

The article cold fusion has recently been protected, and Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started a talk page straw poll to select a version to return to when the page is unprotected. He listed two versions, neither of which I thought were good reflections of what reliable sources say on the subject, and I voted for neither of them.

Kirk Shanahan commented in the poll section that the version of September 17, 2008 was his preferred version, but didn't list it in the poll as an option. On June 4, Abd removed the comment from the page as "unnecessary." (see edit summary).

Later that day, Abd replaced part of Kirk Shanahan's comment as a listed option on the poll. The option linked to the version of 19:54 September 17, 2008. I went to that version, read it, decided it was a better version (in that it was more faithful to the consensus of reliable sources, though needing some adjustment on weight) than the two previously provided options, and !voted 7 for that version and 0 for the other two versions. (Abd was asking for votes on a scale from 1-10).

Later, Abd added a fourth option to the list of options to vote for, claiming that this version from 15:48 September 18, 2008 was the one he had linked to when adding Shanahan's choice, and so it was the one I'd actually looked at and voted for, and moved my !vote to that option.

I objected in very strong terms to the move of my vote, showing with diffs that the option I voted for was linked to the version of 19:48 September 17, as anyone can see by looking at the diff of my vote, and striking my vote. Abd responded by (1) removing my struck comment leaving the vote in place on the option I hadn't voted for, (2) removing his earlier explanation that I had voted for the wrong option, (edit summary: "Woonpton appears to have accepted move of !vote,") and (3) continuing to insist that I had got it wrong and that I had actually voted for the 15:48 Sept 18 version (which wasn't even an option at the time I voted) suggesting in the edit summary that I was "confused."

I objected again to these new edits, pointing out again that it's easy for anyone to see by looking at the diff of my vote that the version I voted for is the version I said I voted for, and adding, "You do not have permission to (1)move my votes, (2) remove my comments or my !votes. (3) edit my comments. Please cease and desist." Abd then moved my vote back to the version I had originally voted for. At that point, I removed my votes from the poll entirely and went to bed.

These actions are direct violations of WP:TALKO covering editing other's comments, especially "The basic rule is: Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission," and "Never edit someone's words to change their meaning.." There has been continuing discussion at the talk page and outside eyes would be welcome. I request that administrators review this situation and take what action seems appropriate. Woonpton (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Abd's messing with options and even votes on running polls is unacceptable. I'd like to see some more comments, though - I have a strong prior opinion on Abd. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe in a "good faith clueless bungling" rather than a "sinister attempts to manipulate poll" interpretation. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think SheffieldSteel is likely right about the motivation in this case being above-board; ideally this could be resolved with a simple agreement from Abd not to refactor other editors' comments at the straw poll. I asked for such an agreement at User Talk:Abd, but will leave it to someone more diligent to parse the response. MastCell  20:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, SheffieldSteel. I don't know about "clueless," but I was definitely, for a while, quite confused, with one edit conflict with Woonpton after another. I go into some detail about what happened, how the report is overblown (the "removed" comment was already struck by the editor, not quite the same as gratuitous deletion), and why we have two competing polls, how the article got protected in the first place, the gaming of RfPP to freeze a highly controversial edit (nobody appears to accept it, not Woonpton, not the editor who made it -- at least not openly, though it's clearly the POV of the editor -- nor anyone else -- but ... this is AN/I where a third of the time nothing comes of lengthy discussion, another third, bad decisions get made quickly, with the rest being routine stuff that's quickly handled, so, my complete response is collapsed below. --Abd (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No response from IP who might be causing disruption

User talk:70.106.219.216

A bit of upheaval at Portal:Current events/2009 June 5. This IP is not using edit summaries and will not respond to warnings or questions. Not sure what to call this, an edit war or vandalism or what? --candle•wicke 20:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. Go to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#70.106.219.216 reported by Jolly Janner (Result: ). --candle•wicke 20:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, nothing is needed here at least. In regards to this situation, nothing else besides blocking the IP for edit-warring/3RR can be done. MuZemike 20:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Bit of a cheeky IP

This IP is starting to think he can fool 'crats into making him an admin on his latest unblock request. I wasn't sure if you wanted me to delete it since I wasn't an admin.--Iner22 (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I declined it, and restarted the clock to a 48 hour block for abusing the appeal process - and disabled their ability to edit the page during the sanction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards