Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MastCell (talk | contribs) at 03:37, 20 July 2009 (→Recommended reading: hmmm...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

probation, or something at Talk:Centrifugal force

Refusal to engage arguments

There is a discussion on Talk:Martin Luther King about the inclusion of a quote that may be illuminating of his character. Some editors refuse to accept that character may be a relevant aspect of the man. User:Jonund has presented arguments why he thinks it is relevant. They have been met with a dogged refusal to engage the arguments or answer concrete questions. This is a violation of WP:DE#Signs_of_disruptive_editing, which describes a disruptive editor as one who does not engage in consensus building:

• repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
• repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.

Two RfC:s have been submitted. One led to intervention by an editor (and administrator) that engages in the same kind of behavior that has been described as disruptive editing. The other led to intervention by an editor who takes the opposite position. The discussion on the talk page is long; much of the relevant material is found under the section RfC King's sexual conduct.

The behavior of some editors prevents progress in the article. In my opinion, it's a serious treath to wp:s integrity and credibility if a number of dedicated editors are able to stop the addition of material that they apparently oppose on dogmatic grounds. I ask for proper measure to be taken to guarantee that the editing process is not obstructed. I suppose a warning is the best way to start. --Årvasbåo (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Allright. I'll hereby warn you not to misrepresent the arguments used by people with a different opinion. They have reviewed the sources, and concluded that the four sources given are actually one source plus three repeaters, and the first source is most probably based on hearsay from the FBI, not on proper research. I have also noted that people oppose the inclusion not only because of reasons of verifiability, but for WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. No one opposes the section on his extramarital affairs, but the inclusion of one piece of dirty talk, based on such poor sourcing, is not warranted at all. This has nothing to do with "refusing to accept that character is a relevant aspect" and even less with disruptive editing. This is standard policy application. After two RfC's, it may be best to quietly drop this instead of continuing like this. Fram (talk) 10:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As one of the many editors accused in this notice, I will add that Fram's summary pretty much covers it. The only editor who is really insistent on including the material under dispute feels that one exclamation that Hoover's COINTELPRO-era FBI claimed King made in a moment of passion, is so incredibly revelatory of King's nastiness that it must, simply must be included in the article, because otherwise people won't realize what a horrible, skanky blasphemer King was. (Full disclosures: I have belonged to at least one organization destroyed by FBI manipulations during this era; and still belong to AFSCME, the union on behalf of whose garbageworkers King was speaking when he was assassinated.) The insistent editor backs this up with references to how important this issue is to all the best theologians of his (the editor's) religious tradition as he interprets it. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I am also one of the many editors accused, I think perhaps the admin who is alleged to be engaging in disruptive behavior. A review of the talk page will reveal two things: (1) that there is pretty much a single editor insisting that additional material regarding King's sexual conduct be included so that the article will conform to that single editor's POV regarding how the individuals who are regarded by some as a form of "religious icon" seemingly must, by definition, have their known shortcomings explored in detail, and (2) another editor who, as far as I can tell, thinks that a quote from King must be included because of "insights" it offers into King's personality, despite the fact that I am aware of no encyclopedias that include such information for such purposes, and that doing so very likely even runs against the spirit of encyclopedias, which is to present unbiased factual information. I would very much welcome a clear reference to either a policy or a guideline which indicates that either is considered acceptable, something I believe I have to date never seen. Otherwise, I have to very much question the motivations of an editor who starts a discussion such as this one regarding, basically, how editors who are ltimately trying to ensure the article remain NPOV are somehow behaving so badly that it has to be brought to a noticeboard. John Carter (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I thought I was the admin alleged to be engaging in disruptive behavior. The OP does have a point; I'm not bothering engaging in the sourcing and verifiability issues, because I don't think the quote belongs in the article for reasons unrelated to the sourcing. I also don't think there's any admin intervention required here; nobody has taken any administrative actions in regard to this discussion, nor suggested any is necessary (except when a bit of edit warring was going on a few weeks ago, but that's ceased.) Slightly heated discussion is ensuing on the talk page, which is exactly where such discussion belongs. --jpgordon 14:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As yet another one of the editors alleged to be engaging in disruptive behavior, I don't care whether the sources are reliable, although I have my doubts. My view is that what King may or may not have exclaimed during orgasm doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article, period. — ] (talk · contribs) 16:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

We should be firmer about sanctioning editors who abuse the dispute resolution process (whether ANI or other venues). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

My position is simple. There was an RfC, I came and commented, the majority of commentators did not agree with the POV of the editor who posted the RfC, the discussion continued, despite the consensus being against one editor. The RfC was closed, and I stated that as the RfC was closed and because the consensus was that there was no weight in the argument for inserting the material (drawing on several WP policies) I made it clear that was my position, and that as far as I was concerned the matter was closed, and took the page off my watchlist. So, I am surprised to see this is ongoing still. My understanding is that if one makes an RfC, and consensus is against the proposal on grounds in line with WP policies and guidelines, that is the conclusion - not that a single editor persists in agitating discussion until (through a process of attrition) he gets his own way. The arguments have all been laid out quite clearly, so I see no reason why we need to keep going over this, unless some new information has come to light. There ought to be a process where editors who place an RfC, but do not like the responses of commentators, then malign those who do not respond in ways that would favour them, are disciplined. What is the point of placing an RfC if you aren't prepared to accept the response you get? Those who responded in a way that contradicted the wishes of this editor were accused of various things - when clearly the bias was on the part of the editor who appears to have an axe to grind. Mish (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if an RfC is questioned, then the apparent next step is to seek mediation. I have already indicated as much on the talk page of the article in question. Why this step was instead taken is something I have very serious difficulty understanding. John Carter (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I responded to the RFC and argued in favour of inclusion. I've loosely followed the discussion since. After the RFC Jonund continued to put his case and, in my eyes, did so with very cogent argument. He raised several points which, as far as I saw, were not answered with anything other than claims that he was trying to insert a POV. I didn't see it that way at all and I have no idea what his POV is. I've no opinion on whether ANI is an appropriate venue for this, or whether the disruptive editing policy is applicable. Consensus is not about head counts. In my opinion Jonund has presented the superior and most convincing argument. John's suggestion of mediation sounds reasonable to me--MoreThings (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for having not looked over the previous discussion before posting here, and having forgotten that there were additional supporters of the idea. John Carter (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I think there have also been at least a couple of IPs arguing in favour. The first paragraph from this post by one of them sums up the way it looked to me, too, from a distance. --MoreThings (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As I recall there were a couple of supporters, and they fell quiet, but the consensus seemed to be not to insert. The issue of POV was raised by Jonund initially, as I recall, when people wouldn't accept his reasoning, which was basically along the lines that the information was relevant because of certain religious beliefs; it is a problem, and when accusing disinterested editors who respond to an RfC of having a POV, one shouldn't be surprised if it is pointed out that the reasoning for inclusion appears to reflect a certain POV itself. As I recall, the argument was that most Christians believed something, and this was evidence that King transgressed this standard of what a Christian leader should be, and that made the information relevant. I didn't think that Misplaced Pages was about endorsing specific religious views, and basing the eligibility of entries on that basis. The issue about the source was that it was an allegation about what a primary source said, that in itself being a problematic primary source as it was part of a counter-intellegence operation aimed at discrediting King, and that the material was challenged at the time and still is. As I recall, it was thought that if it were to be included, it should be so on the basis that it was an allegation that had been refuted, and not as something that could be verified beyond 'so-and-so said this', as we do not have access to the original source, and the allegation was based on a transcript. There was also the issue that the RfC was based on the wrong link - i.e., the link given in the RfC did not relate to a relevant source at all. This became clear at the close of the RfC, and was the point at which I felt I had little more energy to engage with the discussion further. With hindisght, however, I think that simply including a source on the basis that 'all Christians' believe 'such and such', and this source will make them realise 'so and so' was 'something-or-other' is bogus - especially when there is already extensive discussion about the guys philandering. The only sense I got that this source was worth including was because from this it would be clear to 'most Christians' that he was a blasphemer, and therefore not 'a man of God'. Sorry, I don't see this as a valid reason for including dubious material. To me that is not a POV, it is a no-brainer where Misplaced Pages is concerned. Of course, my memory is not infallible, and I don't have time or energy to go through the (long) discussion right now. Mish (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I tend to basically agree with the above. The quote in question was challenged at the time, and thus would require indicating it was an "alleged" statement or something similar. If there were a specific reliable source which said something to the effect of, "based on this comment, it is clear that King committed one mortal sin while in the act of committing another mortal sin, and thus cannot be seen as being even a weak Christian", I could maybe, maybe, see that being included. But to argue that information must be included to substantiate an argument which no one produced evidence of a reliable source as ever making is at best crossing into POV pushing. John Carter (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree with several of the points above but I guess this is probably not the place to rehearse the arguments. I think the thrust of Årvasbåo's incident report is that Jonund has been presenting reasoned argument which has met with no real counter-argument, but has been dismissed in the way described by the IP I linked to above. The way Årvasbåo and the IP describe the debate is also the way it loooked to me. I don't know what mediation involves but that certainly sounds to me as though it would be more appropriate than looking for any kind of administrative intervention, if that's what is being requested here. --MoreThings (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is written from a neutral, secular point of view. Character may be relevant to an encyclopedic biography, but where the incident being described was obviously driven by a politically motivated attempt at discrediting a public figure, where no longstanding notability has been established, where the argument for inclusion is clearly being made in religious terms, and where no apparent encyclopedic grounds for inclusion seem to have been provided, what exactly do you expect? – Luna Santin (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If Årvasbåo is saying what I think he is saying, then, with respect, none of you what you have written above has anything to do with this incident report. It's not about the whether the quotation should be included. It's about whether editors have been refusing to enage Jonund in discussion about its inclusion. Anyhoo, I ought not to put words in Årvasbåo's mouth. --MoreThings (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, on re-reading your post, I see that I misinterpreted it, somewhat. I would reply that, from what I saw, Johund was indeed making his case on encyclopedic grounds. His case was that the other editors would not engage with him in a debate about whether inclusion would be encyclopedic. Anyway, I'm off to bed. --MoreThings (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I would only add that the quotation was at the time it came out argued as of at best dubious sound quality and coherence at the time it was first "released", making adding a quotation which was even at the time considered by some (yes, possibly biased) listeners as incoherent would be very likely violating neutrality rules, by taking one side's opinion over a possibly garbled quotation over another side's without any clear evidence to support taking that position. To include a possible misreading of an apparently dubious quotation as evidence of anything is particularly problematic. This is over and above the other existing concerns regarding the alleged content which have already been expressed here. John Carter (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as someone previously uninvolved, it looks to me like consensus is firmly against including the quote at this time. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the title of this thread, and looking at the things listed under 'are you in the right place?', where the topic of this thread is not listed, I have to ask: is ceasing to engage an editor's argument once an RfC has closed, even though he persists in maintaining he is right when the consensus appears to have gone the other way, something that needs administrative attention? I don't see how this fits here. Any action that needs to be taken should be directed at the person who posted the thread, like pointing out that Jonund did an RfC, that his arguments were weak, and people didn't seem to agree with him, and that he should deal with it. Mish (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking through the discussion thread once more, I would counter the accusation of disruptive editing; for a start it was not the discussants who sought to make such an edit, and a long discussion was engaged with - disagreement is not failing to build consensus; rather this looks more like a case of WP:Tendentious editing on the part of one editor, in trying to force this material in, and disregarding the input of other editors and those who responded to the RfC. I cannot see that the discussion has substantially changed since my departure - and this was part of the reason I left. The page I just referred to makes clear that when an editor persistently makes the same point over and over again, it is wise to reflect on whether this is a POV issue. The same points were made, and contrary to the wording of this ANI they were responded to - exhaustively - but ignored, with the same points being restated again. I do not see how mediation will help in this, because there was an RfC and the editor would not accept what people said. All that is needed is for the editor(s) promoting the insertion to accept that, rather than escalating the matter in the hope that they can override the consensus not to insert it in some way. Now, if I do not respond here, or on the discussion page, again, it is not because I am refusing to engage the arguments - I have done that - and I consider there is no more to say. That is because I do not have strong views on this, unlike the editor(s) who seem to want it inserted (obviously, or we wouldn't all be here now, would we?). Mish (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Mish, you say " arguments were weak, and people didn't seem to agree with him, and that he should deal with it." You go on to paint it as POV-pushing by a single editor. You imply both here and on the talk page, that you are not interested in further discussion. You finish up by saying that everyone who wants it inserted is probably also a POV-pusher. All of that is exactly the kind of behaviour that is alleged in this incident report. One editor whom nobody agrees with? There is Årvasbåo, who opened this report, Jonund himself, me, the ip I linked to above, and the second IP I mentioned. That's 5 people mentioned in this thread alone. POV-pushing? It's easy just to invoke these acronyms, but where is the argument to substantiate your claim? What exactly is the POV that is being pushed? I don't have a clue which POVs the others might hold about anything. The only POV we share is that the article would be better for the inclusion of the quote. What do you think my point of view is? What do you think the IP's is? I've named five people above who would dispute your claim that consensus exists for exclusion. What's wrong with mediation? --MoreThings (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No. That is not what I said. (Your statement is also self-contradictory). What I said was that the editor who brought up POV-pushing in the original discussion was Jonund, when those who responded to the RfC did not agree with him, and his arguments suggest something about his own POV - that we have to put this in because of something Christian's believe about blasphemy and he says scholars are agreed upon - nothing that actually relates to the sources. I said nothing about other editor's POV. What I said was about overriding there being no consensus to insert the material, I did not say why people might want to do that - I said nothing about POV in that respect. It is not I who accused editors of responding to an RfC on an article they had no history with of bad faith - that is implicit in the wording of this ANI. Sure, if mediation will help you to accept that people did not agree with the insertion, mediation could be valuable. But I am not sure I wish to engage in a process where, having engaged in an RfC in good faith, I once more have my motives questioned, and having gone through these arguments once, then taking the article off my watchlist when the RfC had closed, then being dragged here to account for why I had stopped discussing the insertion once the RfC was closed, and finding myself accused of disruptive editing of an article I had made no edits of before the RfC, or in connection with the RfC, and then have to go through all the arguments again. I would prefer to be doing something else, to be honest. Something a bit less trivial than whether a man who died 40 years ago might have said something while he was having sex with somebody he wasn't married to, and whether that is still significant today. Mish (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That's cool, Mish. I'm not looking to get into a tit-for-tat—just adding my 2p on here as I did on the RFC. Let it go whither it will. --MoreThings (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, nor do I. To me, this discussion ended when the RfC ended, and I am surprised that it is still going on. Mish (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

To give the lie to my previous post, and to be sucked into a gratuitous tit-for-tat: I don't think the discussion is ended; I think it should be continue. Okay, no more, I promise :) --MoreThings (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is not impressive. A number of editors who have been involved in disruptive editing on the article talk page spam this page with irrelevant posts, and a few administrators, who haven't bothered to investigate or comprehend what the dispute is about bite the person who brings up a serious issue. Nobody has yet dealt with the question raised at the opening of this thread, let alone answered the questions my opponents so obstinately have dodged for two or three months.

An early formulation of my questions was:

• Are lewdness and blasphemy really immaterial qualities in a Christian minister who has on top of that been commemorated by two churches as a saint/hero/martyr?
• Is it really improper to assume, as King did, and as most philosophers have done, that moral character is important?

Since the answeres amounted to a simple no, I elaborated the questions thus:

• Which objective criteria do you propose for determining which viewpoints are significant? How is it possible to dismiss the majority of theologians and philosophers as irrelevant? Aren’t you placing your own opinions above those, which is against WP:UNDUE?
• If you feel that it is improper appeal to theologians and philosopher because their position is a POV, are you aware that “The requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly,” and “As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is 'POV'”? On what grounds do you eliminate widely held perspectives? Or can you demonstrate that these quotes are invalid in this case?
• How do you deal with the fact that ribaldry and immorality (on a far larger scale than the occasional succumbing to temptation) was a typical trait of King’s life? Shouldn’t this be given due weight in the article, by being mentioned?

If there is a case to be made against the inclusion of the quote, why don't you have the quote bueried by answering the questions? The avoidance to do so shows a very poor ability for a matter-of-fact manner, or a bad faith. There is no way to evade the questions and substitute answers with dogmatic positions.

Pace Luna Santin, Misplaced Pages is not written from a secular point of view. It's written from a NPOV, which means "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". You don't need to be religious to understand the quote's bearing on MLK's character and agree that it is important. I'm not trying to discredit King, but to give information from several sides, which enables the reader to get a nuanced picture of him. And even if I had political motives and where out for discrediting, that's not to the point. WP articles are judged on the merit of their contents and not the editor's supposed motives (sometimes bad motives render good results). There is indeed a longstanding notability in this case. Serious sources continue to report the quote. The encyclopedic grounds for inclusion become evident once you answer the question I have asked.

The verifiability part of the dispute now seems to have been settled. Let me anyway remind you that I always wanted to include also the statements of King's coworkers, to get all significant views represented.

For an example of a WP article who reports an incident perceived as evidence of hypocrisy, see Peace Now#General Secretary. Probably that incident was less offensive in terms of the values of the General Secretary, since he also had the law to take into account. Yet, editors find it relevant to point out behavior that seems to contradict his own values (which, in his case, are shared by few of his fellow citizens).

As the problem of disregarding questions that might settle the issue has not been solved, I appeal to disinterested administrators to take responsibility and intervene. I understand that the amount of text deters those editors, but WP cannot function with behavior on this level going unchalleged. --Jonund (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

A number of editors who have been involved in disruptive editing on the article talk page spam this page with irrelevant posts: Those are fighting words. --jpgordon 22:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it shows who is refusing to engage who's arguments. Clearly my responses were not engaged with, as they are regarded as 'spam' and 'disruptive' - and when I decided not to waste any more of time on somebody who simply ignored anything that was said to them, I get accused of refusing to engage with his arguments. Note that allegations about King's adultery are included here: Martin Luther King#FBI and wiretapping, so Shouldn’t this be given due weight in the article, by being mentioned? shows some confusion on Jonund's part, as it is mentioned in the only way possible - as allegations. On the other hand he says Since the answeres amounted to a simple no, when it was responded to with more than just 'no', in some detail as I recall. I could go through the inaccuracy and self-contradiction in more detail, but as that would be 'spam' and 'disruptive editing' according to him, I will do what I have done with the discussion on the article, I will be silent (and this seems to be what this is all about - silencing disagreement). Please note that I am not refusing to engage, however, I am simply being silenced. Mish (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "allegations" about King's adultery are included in the article, but my question was about something more: "ribaldry and immorality (on a far larger scale than the occasional succumbing to temptation) was a typical trait of King’s life".

The answers to my questions have lacked substance and hardly give more information than that you don't think moral character is relevant. Three editors have pointed out that my arguments have not been met with any real counter-arguments. My repeated attempts to get real answers should have given you a memento about the need for engaging my arguments seriously. That you ignored my patient attempts to have an honest discussion about the points i believe are crucial, and now play innocent, speaks volumes about your ability, or willingness, to contribute constructively.

Assertions like "you didn't answer!" and "yes, we've said all that needs to be said!" are not conducive to the discussion. I expect administrators to lay it down that ignoring arguments is not acceptable and only places you out of the consensus-seeking community. The editors also still have a chance to answer my questions clearly and thoroughly. --Jonund (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware you asked about citing a source that discusses King's moral character. You have a source for this then: "ribaldry and immorality was a typical trait of King’s life"? If an author has said this, then it should be included in accordance with the weight due - and stated as what it is - that so-and-so gives evidence that "ribaldry and immorality was a typical trait of King’s life" (as a quote, referencing whoever). My apologies, I thought you were still arguing that this statement should be inserted on the basis of WP:OR - that theologians/philosophers say that people who do X are Y, King did X, therefore King was Y - because based on the source provided in the RfC that would be synthesis. Mish (talk) 22:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Jonund, why are you repeating your same tired arguments here? It seems clear you're more interested in writing a Sunday morning sermon than an encyclopedia article. You seem like a petulant child whose got his fingers in his ears, repeating "I don't hear you." You have no right to demand answers to your silly questions, and then reject them if they don't suit your purpose. Grow up already. And to everybody else, please stop feeding this troll. — ] (talk · contribs) 00:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Concern about excessive rangeblocks

A few weeks ago I guestblogged a series of posts on The Volokh Conspiracy. Since then I have received e-mails from several readers of that blog on various issues. One of the most frustrating was from an eminent retired law professor, who indicated that he has attempted to contribute to Misplaced Pages articles several times, but has been blocked from doing so. He summarized the message that he receives when he tries to log in, and it turns out to be a Scibaby rangeblock. I have written back and explained how I can go ahead and create an account for this editor, but he seems to have moved on and I fear that we have lost the possibility of his contributing permanently.

In the wake of the publicity surrounding the ArbCom decision in the Scientology case, I was asked to appear on a radio show. There was a short call-in segment in which three people called in, and one of them also complained that he too has been caught up in longterm rangeblocks. Again, I offered to explain to him how to get an account opened if he would e-mail me, but I never heard from him, so he may have given up as well.

It is understood that rangeblocks, particularly ones placed by checkusers, are intended to address long-term abuse situations and are sometimes necessary. However, if they are overused, we risk cutting off our nose to spite our face, and there are also times when semiprotection or just dealing with petty nonsense is a better answer than blocking tens of thousands of IPs. I think we should all please make a point to use rangeblocks as narrowly as is reasonably possible. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should make instructions on how to have an account created more prominent/easier to understand for folks who encounter a rangeblock. Some collateral on rangeblocks is inevitable, but possibly it can be addressed and explained more constructively. Nathan 15:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There are instances where as many as a dozen range blocks have been imposed in attempts to control only one vandal. In one case, the blocks of User:Scibaby, at least one person mails unblock-en-l every day asking for help. Who knows how many give up when they encounter the block. Fred Talk 16:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I agree with this. These SciBaby rangeblocks have been up for years. I would say that several times per week someone asks for help in navigating these at CAT:UNB and they are almost always legitimate users. Most vandals get bored and move on; I think it may be worthwhile to test the waters and remove these on a trial basis. If SciBaby becomes a problem again, we can always reinstate them, but for the time being, I think they are currently doing FAR more harm than good. Additionally, the rangeblocks were placed long before the Edit Filter came on line; SciBaby's abuse can now be controlled using appropriate edit filters much more easily, and it would be preferable for the project if those methods were attempted now that we have them availible. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 16:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Support lifting them. These rangeblocks definitely turn off new contributors. –xeno 16:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Rangeblocks are here to protect the project from harm, and to cause less stress for those involved in doing so. But when they result in at least one on-wiki unblock request a week, and a email to the unblock mailing list almost every day, the rangeblock is accomplishing the opposite. I say that we lift the rangeblocks, and take a look at setting up an abuse filter instead. Tiptoety 17:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If the range blocks are targetted at one person, they should be replaced with an abuse filter. An abuse filter could protect just certain articles from certain ranges or stop a particular type of vandalism from certain ranges, etc. Wknight94 17:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

These Scibaby rangeblocks have been going on for months if not longer. We get unblock requests on a regular basis as well. I've been against these excessive blocks for a while and I've heard that there has been extended discussion amongst checkusers and other functionaries. Given that admins are (rightfully) hesitant to remove rangeblocks and Raul is generally against removing them I think that ArbCom needs to address the issue. Generally speaking, I don't think we have a problem with "regular" admins excessively blocking ranges. So please, checkusers/functionaries/arbcom - this is something that you all need to work out (in my opinion). - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I also support lifting the Scibaby rangeblocks. It's been suggested several times, but Raul always resists. Enigma 17:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, in all reality it is not really up to him. Should the community, or the functionaries feel that the ranges need to be unblocked to better serve the community then that is what needs to happen. The decision, is really the communities (as it is with any other block). Tiptoety 17:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I've often geolocated the IPs in the sockpuppet category for this user and have mapped them to every corner of the USA, from California, to Texas, to the east coast, and up to Montana. If this is one user, he appears to have the ability to change IPs at will (maybe through zombie proxies) and it appears this would make rangeblocks entirely ineffective against him. MBisanz 17:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been privately complaining about these rangeblocks for some time (citation needed, I know), and I'm glad to see it under discussion. The disruption these rangeblocks is undoubtedly causing is not worth the effort to block a single vandal who can easily be identified otherwise, is easy to revert, and persistently evades the bans. The rangeblocks should be removed. --Bastique 18:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have lifted about 15 of the blocks at this time, and note that an abuse filter has been set up. Tiptoety 19:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I've spent a few hours programming up a couple of abuse filters, #205 and #206. (Note: do not discuss the rule-sets publicly. Scibaby is very good at changing behavior once it is revealed how we track him) Thanks, Wknight94, for the tip. I somehow hadn't heard about the abuse filter feature until you mentioned it.

There are two problems with the situation as it now stands. (1) The abuse filters do not have access to private checkuser data and the developers are not going to implement that feature until there is consensus on-wiki to do so. (See Bug 18429) As such, the rule sets cannot take advantage of the knowledge we have accumulated about the IPs he uses. All IP checks still have to be done manually by someone with checkuser access. (2) The abuse filters apply only at edit time. So there is no way to prevent Scibaby is maturing sockpuppet accounts.

Taken together, what this means is dramatically more work for the admins and checkusers who deal with him -- primarily me. I'm open to suggestions for fixing this, because I consider this an intolerable situation. Raul654 (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

And on a related note, see bug 19796, a feature request for a checkuser watchlist. Raul654 (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Raul654, I encourage you to discuss the issue on the Functionaries-l. We've been discussing the topic for the past week. My understanding the situation is that Scibaby is not someone that engages in harassment or other conduct that makes it essential to try and stop every account from making an edit on site. As well, his edits are pretty easy to recognize and can be reverted without loads of harm done to the project. So, maybe alerting more people to add his favorite topics to their watchlist would be a good solution rather than the approach that causes the ongoing need to create accounts for users or otherwise deal with the collateral damage. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

My understanding the situation is that Scibaby is not someone that engages in harassment or other conduct that makes it essential to try and stop every account from making an edit on site. - that is true.

As well, his edits are pretty easy to recognize and can be reverted without loads of harm done to the project. - that is partly true. (A) In general, you actually have to know a little something about the topic (global warming) before you can recognize his edits. Otherwise, it's all meaningless jibberish. (B) Occasoinally a legit user is confused for a Scibaby sockpuppet. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen once in a while. (C) There is a cadre of users (GoRight and Abd among them) who have a history of meatpuppeting on his behalf (That is to say, restoring edits by Scibaby after a sockpuppet of his has been identified, tagged, and blocked). In the latter case, earlier this week I issued both GoRight and Abd final warnings that further such edits will result in a block. However, dealing with such meatpuppetry by disruptive users is both time consuming and, in the long run, exhausting.

So, maybe alerting more people to add his favorite topics to their watchlist would be a good solution rather than the approach that causes the ongoing need to create accounts for users or otherwise deal with the collateral damage. - I have *repeatedly* asked for other checkusers to pitch in and help, so that I wasn't the only one paying attention to these articles. Little to no help has been forthcoming. Raul654 (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I was blissfully unaware of Scibaby until I noticed that Raul654 had reverted, with no explanation, an edit to User talk:GoRight. Since Raul654 is a dedicated opponent of GoRight, I wondered what he was doing reverting an apparently harmless edit to GoRight's Talk. Having, myself, reverted vandalism to user talk pages, and having been reverted on the claim that the user could handle it themselves, I reverted. I was reverted, and Raul654 warned me about "meat puppeting", and we debated it with no resolution. Notice above how the single incident, where I had no information at all about socks, has been conflated into a pattern by Raul654, who, in spite of now being directly involved in a dispute with me, was and is threatening to block me. I have no intention of defying him to make a point, but if I see an example where the benefit to the project would outweigh the possible disruption, I'd have no hesitation in going ahead.

So I looked into the situation. Scibaby, an editor interested in Global warming, was originally indef blocked in September, 2007, by William M. Connolley, on a charge of sock puppetry; it looks like WMC had been reverting this user. However, at that point, as far as I've been able to find, there was one old account, Obedium which may have been a role account, it was odd for sock puppetry because it was actually old, as old as Scibaby. But identical interests. No checkuser was run, to my knowledge, to connect Scibaby and Obedium. Neither editor was warned about the SSP report. There was no warning before Scibaby was blocked. Obedium was not indef blocked at that point, but was short-blocked for edit warring. However, Obedium was meeting what all editors skeptical about global warming have met, and continue to meet, at global warming: hostility and tag-team reversion. Few survive this. (By the way, I am not of this POV, I believe global warming is real and very dangerous.) In December, 2007, Obdeium apparently created a series of socks. It looks to me like, by failing make sure we welcome editors with dissident views, and that we integrate them into the community and the consensus, as was the original vision, and instead relying on blocks and bans, we have created a situation where some people resent that and refuse to be shut up, they don't just go away. Scibaby has now created as many as 300 or more new accounts; and this is one reason why I consider administrative recusal to be such a crucial issue that I've been willing to risk my account confronting it. Raul654 is complaining about lack of help. He helped create the situation that requires this continual defense. --Abd (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

How about a cost-benefit analysis? I understand not wanting to make things needlessly difficult for new users, but before lifting the rangeblocks altogether I would ask that at least some consideration be given to those of us who edit the articles that Scibaby targets. This is just one more thing we have to deal with in addition to the other stuff that happens on those pages. Raul, what's your impression of how effective the rangeblocks are? (BTW semiprotection won't work, because he ages his accounts.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)\

A year or two ago, it was commonplace for me to find 10, 15, or 20 scibaby socks at a time. Now he registers them in ones and twos, and spends a couple of days maturing them. Clearly the range blocks have been effective in reducing the number of accounts he registers. Raul654 (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The checkusers report that rangeblocks have been effecting a large number of new users. There have been concerns raised about these blocks over time. This is not something sudden. And most significant, it does not seem to be very effective since he finds new ips to use. We need to consider other ways of dealing with the edits. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm always up for a new approach. Got any ideas? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The last time I tried something new (protecting the affected pages), Cool Hand Luke unilaterally decided to unprotect them all. Raul654 (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Guess who just showed up twice on one of the ranges Tiptoey unblocked? (Namely, from 24.205.68.78) Raul654 (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

and a third time... Raul654 (talk) 05:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

and a fourth time (all four from ranges Tiptoey just unblocked - the latest from 71.94.156.13). Is anyone else noticing a pattern? Raul654 (talk) 07:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

...and #5. And with that, I've restored the 24.205.0.0/16 range block for a week, because I'm getting tired of these games. Raul654 (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

If this person's MO is to push POV in a few articles, why don't we just protect these articles and/or disallow his edits with the abuse filter instead of blocking ranges? That should be just as effective and produce less collateral damage.  Sandstein  12:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with protecting the affected articles. Note, though, that that's probably about 100 articles in total (possibly more).

As for the abuse filter, it's *not* a magic bullet. All of the accounts it detects still have to be manually checked and blocked. And I have yet to see anyone volunteer to help do this. The abuse filters also have a workload issue -- that there's a finite limit on how many filters can run, and apparently the two Scibaby filters (one of which is currently disabled) are complex ones that add to the workload. Raul654 (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is appropriate for the conversation, but I will add that I am currently under a Scibaby block. Riffraffselbow (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

...except that the block only affected logged-out users. So as you have already noted on my talk page, the block didn't affect you, except when you wanted to edit while logged out. Raul654 (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll also note that many people who advocated most strongly for removing the rangeblocks seem to have conveniently disappeared from this thread, just as it is becoming apparent how much work that decision is going to create. Raul654 (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

When a mess is made, it can take work to clean it up. --Abd (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps one should create a copy of Misplaced Pages on some servers and redirect the IP ranges used by Scibaby socks to such servers. They can then edit the global warming related pages all they like on the fake Wikpedia. Only edits on other pages will update the real Misplaced Pages. To fool Scibaby for as long as possible, you need to revert the Global Warming page on that fake Misplaced Pages to let it look like the real Misplaced Pages. It must also be synchronized with the real Misplaced Pages from time to time. Only a careful examination of the history will reveal that something is wrong, so Scibaby may not find out that he is editing a fake Misplaced Pages for quite some time. Count Iblis (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Technically, that idea is quite impossible to implement. —Dark 07:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Iblis's suggestion is creative, but as DarkFalls said, it's a technical non-starter. Anyone have any other ideas? Raul654 (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

On the general issue of range blocks

Not to sidetrack any discussion above, but I've asked for a database report to be created listing all range blocks. It will be updated every week. You can view the report at Misplaced Pages:Database reports/Rangeblocks. This should help increase transparency with regards to range blocks and allow administrators to monitor for blocks that may be excessive. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree this could be helpful for admins monitoring the blocks, but making the report viewable by anyone and everyone might not be the best idea. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone and everyone can see it now here. BJ 01:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can already see rangeblocks by going to special:IPBlocklist and hiding registered users and single IPs. Thatcher 02:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Improper block by Georgewilliamherbert

I received a 24 hour block for "edit warring" at Views of Lyndon LaRouche by User:Georgewilliamherbert. The article in question had seen 11 reverts spread evenly over a 17 day period, 5 by Will Beback, 4 by myself, and 2 by another editor. The 3RR threshold was never approached by anyone. As edit wars go, this didn't even rank as a skirmish. The negotiations on the talk page are presently succeeding. In my opinion, no admin intervention was necessary, but if such an intervention were necessary, Will should have been blocked as well, since it takes two (or three) to tango. Therefore, I believe that GWH's block was improper, and I would like to have it expunged and my clean record restored.

In this dispute, I simply maintained that a large-scale and contentious re-write of a stable section, involving several possible violations of BLP, should not proceed until all issues were resolved on the talk page. The LaRouche articles have gone through a period of relative peace and quiet, and I think that all editors would do well to be circumspect about initiating any fresh round of POV warfare.

Now to a more serious matter. I received a warning on my talk page from GWH, advising me that I was in violation of the various LaRouche-related arbcom decisions. With all due respect, this is utter hogwash. I began editing Misplaced Pages two years ago. After a while I began to observe the POV battles at the LaRouche articles without participating, other than to leave an occasional comment on a talk page. I never touched a LaRouche article until October of last year, and my occasional edits since then have never involved adding material, either positive or negative, about LaRouche or his group. I have edited only when I observed violations of policy, and my edits have been limited to reverts or to posting policy tags. GeorgeWilliamHerbert's threat to me is incorrect, inappropriate and should be withdrawn. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring blocks aren't restricted to violation of 3RR. Why didn't you appeal the block? Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

All LaRouche articles are under a long list of mediation and arbitration restrictions as long as my arm. These are clearly visible on every talk page related to LaRouche. Editors must take caution. Also, 3RR is not a liscence to revert three times per day. You may be blocked for edit warring on any article at any time if your editing shows a willingness to use reverting as a method of forcing others to accept your personal view of how the article should read, regardless of how often you do it. The compelling reason for an edit war block is the appearance of using the revert function to stifle others contributions. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 16:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Leatherstocking had been actively participating in discussions with Will on the talk page, but had also taken to simply reverting saying "No consensus for that". It appeared that he'd crossed the line into sterile reverting rather than good faith discussions at the time I blocked him.

We have the long, long problem history with this topic; that very article was full protected for much of the last two years.

Leatherstocking's edits appeared to be pro-LaRouche; he appeared to have escalated to sterile reverting; the articles still have special attention due to ongoing efforts to insert POV.

Will Beback has been attempting to work with everyone to build the best, NPOV and not whitewashed article we can there. I've tried to stay well back out of the content issues so that he can be the admin working content and I can be the admin working enforcement when socks show up and try to abuse things, to avoid either of us having a COI over content / enforcement issues.

Leatherstocking - If you really have no pro-LaRouche agenda, everything you gained by those reverts would be gained equally well by long term talk page discussions. Will is extremely ethical and determined to do the right thing there. Please take the step back and talk to him more determinedly. He knows all about BLP and NPOV. He's one of our admins - with many many years experience. Work with him more collaboratively and there's no problem going forwards.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

George, I think that you might want to take a closer look at the talk page (particularly before you block someone.) I have been fully engaged in the talk page negotiations. As I mention at the beginning of this post, I simply maintained that a large-scale and contentious re-write of a stable section, involving several possible violations of BLP, should not be posted to the article until all issues were resolved on the talk page. Will was repeatedly and aggressively pushing to post his new version of the section (he also wrote the old version of the section) while three other editors still had serious, unresolved objections. I had not "escalated to sterile reverting," nor was I trying to "insert POV" -- I was negotiating to restrain the insertion of POV. The block of me was premature and incorrect, and I am asking here to have it reversed and my clean record restored.

Now, in response to Jayron32, the arbitration committee rulings are really quite simple. Aside from user-specific remedies, it boils down to this:

1. Don't use LaRouche publications as source material other than in LaRouche articles (LaRouche 1)

2. Don't use Misplaced Pages to promote LaRouche (LaRouche 1)

3. BLP applies to LaRouche (LaRouche 2, post-decision)

As I mentioned at the beginning of this post, my occasional edits have never involved adding material, either positive or negative, about LaRouche or his group. I have edited only when I observed violations of policy, and my edits have been limited to reverts or to posting policy tags. With this approach, I am in no danger at all of running afoul of the arbcom decisions. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I signed onto Misplaced Pages:The Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout, so I won't comment here beyond saying that there are other sides to this story.   Will Beback  talk  04:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Badagnani category blanking again

Badagnani (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

Just returned from his block – still visible at WP:AN/EW#User:Badagnani reported by User:William Allen Simpson (Result: 48h) – he began page blanking categories again, as his 8th edit. (The 1st three edits were also reverts of my very recent edits, within minutes, perhaps WP:STALKING.) This is the same as the previous behavior.

removed category header

Page blanking is generally considered vandalism, category blanking should be similarly treated.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of material is not automatically vandalism, so no. This removal is apparently done in good faith because he disagrees with the material, for whatever reason. Content dispute. Incidentally, I find the boilerplate text of that template he removes utterly confusing and useless. Shouldn't such a category header explain what should be in the category, rather than what should not? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

He's been deleting the headers from multiple categories. That doesn't seem like a "content dispute", that's just a continuation of his dispute (and multiple DRV) about how to handle surname categorization.

This language is the product of multiple editors, discussed at length, and incorporated in a template for uniformity across all the related categories. The template says what should be in the category as its first sentence: Surnames of origin.

Unfortunately, some persons (the ones that opposed the new system) began gaming the system, moving Gaelic names into the English-language category, as they'd been "anglicized". Or Russian-language became English-language because they were "transliterated". These are about language origins, not the current modern spelling. So, each and every category has had exclusions added for clarity. (Most are still very simple.)
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh and, W.A.S., why are you revert warring against him on another issue in parallel, removing his additions of Category:Native American surnames (in cases where on the face of it that category makes perfect sense)? At the very least, it appears you are both engaging in sterile revert warring here, and I don't see you discussing at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Native American is not applicable. Creek and Navaho are not the same language group. These are categories concerned with language origin, not some abstract "racial" or "cultural" grouping – as noted in the 1st edit summary – I don't waste my time repeating myself in later edit summaries, I just click the Undo button again. French-language origin surnames do not magically become Creek-language origin or Native American language origin, either; not even under the notably rare circumstance that a French explorer marries into the tribe.

Likewise, Ukrainian names of folks that were born during the Soviet Union do not become "Russian-language origin" names (another area of previous dispute with a different editor).
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

"I just click the Undo button again"? Well, with that attitude you are hardly in a position to complain of others revert-warring, are you? Anyway, I personally find Badagnani has a point on both issues, and I invite you to a discussion at the relevant category talk pages; this noticeboard is not the place to discuss the content. I'll just say that I don't find your explanation of the native American case compelling. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That discussion already took place at the relevant category talk page (Category talk:Surnames) and previously at WP:CFD, and has concluded. I was just re-explaining to you, because you asked. Sorry for wasting our time.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson's complaint

William Allen Simpson (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

• I find this compliant disturbing because William Allen Simpson too engaged in "edit warring". The CFD closure without notification to all pertinent projects is skewed in my opinon. If the discussion for the massive deletion had been notified to the projects (quite a lot 30 ~ 50 projects?), then the result would be not the same as the current one. I did not notice it until Good Olfactory complaint about another admin's alleged wheel war. Therefore, I can sympathize Badagnani's wrath a bit since he is known for "inclusionist" and "status quo keeper". However, Badagnani did not violate 3RR on your report, but equally edit war with you, William Allen Simpson. The only reason that you're not blocked for that edit warring is that somebody complaint about Badagnani's manner to WP:WQA, and you used it to block Badagnani. Indeed, he was blocked for the reason, not for non-existent 3RR violation. And since you too have been engaging in the same subject, the false accusation of "stalking" looks like an attempt to make Badagnani bad. This is a "content matter" that you need to find a solution via WP:DR, not to land here. Besides, you too keep reverting on multiple articles multiple times at the same time for your POV, so please be wary of WP:Edit warring.--Caspian blue 15:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the complaint, I find this to be completely inappropriate and a blatant form of forum shopping. This isn't the first time he's done this either. Several past AfDs were canvassed/votestacked literally all over Misplaced Pages to talk pages with obviously biased participants. In fact I call this spam, not ordinary canvassing. GraYoshi2x► 20:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

And this certainly isn't an appropriate attitude. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

He's been warned many times for that behavior now, blocked several, and still has yet to change it. So it's a typical conversation for him, and I'm finding it difficult to assume good faith. GraYoshi2x► 17:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've done a little further reading into his comments and again, this page contains quite a bit of dialogue that's just plain rude, not to mention that he's talking with an administrator like that. GraYoshi2x► 17:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Happens yet again here. And this time in a worsening manner. Apparently we have a bit of a WP:OWN issue here. GraYoshi2x► 18:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Please, feel my pain: Category talk:Icelandic-language surnames. I tried—really I did. Then I gave up trying. Good Ol’factory 00:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

User:AndreaCarax

Time for a nice big long block. AndreaCarax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked three times for edit-warring on In a Perfect World... (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and today she did it again. Previous similar edits were here,here, here, here, here, here, here, ... hell, you get the drift.—Kww(talk) 12:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/AndreaCarax opened as well.—Kww(talk) 12:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

For now, a reminder of WP:3RR should do. I'll try to keep an eye on it, in case waring starts up again, rather than a single edit and revert. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Note:obvious socking].—Kww(talk) 15:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I am curious as to how repeating an edit after being blocked three times for making it would possibly justify a warning. Three blocks aren't warning enough?—Kww(talk) 16:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Brains, I need them. The obvious socking shoulda' clicked, sorry. Blocked for a week, due to the second revert. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

LB, I would suggest an indefinite block, as, per the SPI report, this account is a banned user evading their ban.— Dædαlus 04:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Breast article

Check my History and see that all of the edits i did make on this page was quickly removed and now im scared to edit again because of getting blocked for a simple reason, how shall i handle it?--Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You have not edited the article Breast since February. When you did edit the article, it appears that you added unsourced original research. I would encourage you to read our info on using reliable sources and verifiability. TNXMan 13:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I did make an edit now and got it removed by another user without leaving a note or a reason? --Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Nakon removed your edit, probably for the reasons I stated above. Please do not re-add the material without a reliable source. Misplaced Pages is based on info that can be verified in independent sources and all of our articles should reflect that. TNXMan 14:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine I will not change the article but eh? everyone knows that African woman are known for having large breasts and by adding this information should be pretty normal--Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That's the point. We can't accept material simply because "everyone knows it". It has be cited in an independent source before we can add it to an article here. TNXMan 14:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, someone was scarred by the covers of National Geographic when growing up. I know a great number of African women who do not have "large breasts". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey! That stuff was rarely on the covers of National Geographic. I had to actually look through the magazine (oh wait, too much information.) --jpgordon 14:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah right, and Jenna Jameson will someday settle down and have kids. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Didn't we go through this nonsense back in February or so? Wasn't Wiikiiwriter seriously chastised then? → ROUX ₪ 16:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was February, the same types of edits, and I believe he was blocked at one point for the same edits. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's deja vu all over again regarding that stuff about African women. Regarding NG, I recall one black comedian (can't think of his name - might have been Irwin C. Watson) said, "National Geographic was our Playboy!" Baseball Bugs carrots 21:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I also remember a story from the sixties about a "Native" woman who was shown bare-breasted, be cause it was educational. She was, however, quite pale-skinned, and had to take a trip through PhotoShop under the airbrush before she appeared in the magazine. PhGustaf (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Merging multiple usernames

I’ve registered a few usernames but wasn’t happy with them until my present username. I’ve made a number edits under each username, is it possible to merge them together? HLE (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry. The software does not allow merging. You should iscontinue using those usernames and can link them from your userpage so others can review the edits easily. Regards SoWhy 18:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Developers have the capacity to do this, and used to (occasionally) using the mechanism at Misplaced Pages:Changing attribution for an edit. But as the site grew, and under a torrent of un-provable and often trivial requests, they gradually quit doing it, and it hasn't been done (to my knowledge) for years. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As the others have said, it's not really done any more. If you're concerned about attribution, you could get all the other usernames changed to some derivative of your preferred name (e.g. HLE 1, HLE 2, etc.). Stifle (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. It would have been good they were merged but since its not possible I think I'll take Stifle's suggestion and change the other usernames to similar derivatives. -- HLE (talk) 10:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Edits by User By78

For some time now, By78 has been making edits to pages related to India without consulting others. Most of edits have alarmingly negative overtones. While some of his data is cited, it is either sourced from non-neutral sites, a single source or from outdated source (i.e. using 2002 data about India's road network and pass it off as current). This has brought him into conflict with many other Indian editors of Misplaced Pages as his behaviour seems motivated by hate and not by a desire to improve the article. He continues to engage in edit-warring and seems to revert any claim that does not conform to his point of view. In his Mumbai article, he added 20 pictures of Mumbai's slums and then proceeded to make the argument that 60% of the city's population are slum dwellers while not providing any strong evidence to back this up. It is also worth noting that other cities in the developing world also have large slum populations but this isn't reference all throughout the article. There are places where this is appropriate but modifying a featured article in such a way seems to me like a blatant violation of some of Misplaced Pages's policies. Either By78 should collaborate with other users before making modifications to the article OR he should be prevented from making any modifications. His presumed YouTube profile page (http://www.youtube.com/user/by78) is riddled with anti-India information that spews hatred on the country and Indians in general. A look at his recent contributions will reveal this and substantiate my accusations (http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/By78). Vedant (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

"While some of his data is cited, it is either sourced from non-neutral sites, a single source or from outdated source". Vedant, could you please provide concrete examples of the "non-neural sites" and "outdated sources" that I have used in my edits? Let's hear them. By78 (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

According to CBC 60% of Mumbai's population do live in slums, so it's not hard to source......although 20 pictures is surely excessive and could probably come under the heading of POV pushing. I can't see any relevance in an article on Mumbai to point out that there are slums in other countries as well.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at his last 300 edits or so, the Indian roads article and the article on the tallest buildings in India seem to be the only two he has edited. Freeways, armaments and tall buildings - guy (yeah, stereotyping I know) seems to be a numbers nut. And is there more current data than 2002 for indian roads? My guess is there isn't much more up to data info in public domain for roads in the UK!!. I think the admins might need a few more diffs.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are trying to say but it is my impression that his edits have a fundamentally discriminatory character associated with them. I did not mean to imply that the Mumbai article should state that slums exist in other cities. What I meant is that other cities in the developing world (including Beijing, Shanghai and many other Chinese cities) have their own fair share of issues including poverty and environmental pollution. I don't see other users however using Misplaced Pages as a political platform on which to launch attacks so they can push their own point of view the way By78 has. Another example I can cite is on the Submarine Launched Cruise Missiles page , he explicitly removed the Indian entry on the page citing lack of evidence even though VOLUMES of evidence existed. In addition, regarding his modifications to India's Road Network, I don't see why India's road network has to be compared to the United States or China. If this article is indeed on India's road network, then the opening paragraph does not need to draw comparisons to other countries. It is widely understood that India being a developing country is not going to have the first world infrastructure of the United States. It is also widely understood that the Indian Road Network has its fair share of problems and they are discussed in the article but By78 is attempting to make these problems the core focus of the article and thus pushing his anti-India POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vedant (talk • contribs) 21:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Vedant, I think he's probably seen this or something similar, which reports that the sub (the SSBN) won't be commissioned by the Indian Navy for maybe 3 years. He's right - you can't say you've got submarine launched ballistic missile capability if you haven't got the sub to launch the thing fromElen of the Roads (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Lest I seem totally unsympathetic, I think if you provide the admins some proper diffs for edit warring, they may take more of a look at this.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I will keep an eye on him in the future though. I do however want to make one thing absolutely clear; my intention is not to promote "Indian triumphalism" as By78 claims but I do want to prevent vandalism or other inappropriate edits to India related pages. I do think that judging by his likely YouTube profile page and his previous edits on India related pages, he seems to be intent on promoting a negative (and non-neutral) portrayal of these articles.

99.238.167.207 (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I smell a sock. Jauerback/_dude. 23:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You can be as skeptical as you please but I have no relation to Chanakyathegreat. You can check the IPs if you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vedant (talk • contribs) 00:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I smell a sock too, Jaerback. Vedant, or Chanakyathegreat, is that you? Back to the substance of the accusation, I think my edits have been well researched, and backed up by well-cited sources (no blogs, no internet rumors), and most of my sources are from newspapers and specialists magazines and websites such as Globalsecurity, CIA World Factbook, BBC, AFP, Reuters, etc. Vedant has accused me of vandalism, which is simply unfair. Vedant has also accused me of POV-pushing and Chinese-Triumphalism. To be honest, I am interested in East Asian culture and do speak a bit of mandarin, but I am not Chinese, and I have no desire to demonstrate one country's superiority over another. If you look at my edit history, you will find that I have also frequently removed questionable claims from China-related articles. I stand accused, however, for being a stickler to facts, numbers, and figures. User "Elen of the Roads" was correct in saying that I am a numbers nut, and I happened to notice many more incidents of questionable, premature, triumphant claims being made in India-related articles, and I did what any good editor would do, I researched into these claims, and I corrected them as I saw fit. I will not make any apology for that. Oh, one last thing, I do NOT have an account on Youtube. By78 (talk) 01:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't have an account on YouTube? So the page /user/by78 with an impressive list of Indophobic and Sinophilic favorites which closely mirror your Misplaced Pages edits, and which spouts frequent hate speech against India and Indians, is not you? Give me a break. Even on a site like Misplaced Pages where you are expected behave professionally and maturely that Indophobic attitude of yours pokes out, as evidenced by the two warnings you have. GSMR (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No I certainly do NOT have an account on Youtube. Although I might get one, seems like a good idea. One has to wonder, of all the hundreds of millions, no, billions of people who have Internet access, what are the chances of two or more people picking "by78" as their account names. Hmmmm... I did a cursory search on "by78" in google, and lo and behold, I found no less than a dozen accounts, spread across a wide variety of websites, by this name. So why pick my account on Misplaced Pages and this other person's on Youtube and try to make sense out of the supposed similarities? Funny, it's not hard to see that if we are to take into consideration of all these other "by78s" out there, then, gasp, there is really not much there in behavior similarities, except of course, that they all have Internet access. It seems to me that those who objected to my edits are those who are a bit lacking in skeptical attitude and all too eager to accept "facts" at face value, OR, has a bone to pick with me because I've edited some India-related articles with factual sources, which strangely offended some editors out of India. Who is at fault here, I do wonder sometimes. I also ponder as to when these editors would stop using ad hominem attacks on me and instead, as they should per wiki policies, focus on the merit, content, and factual accuracy of my edits. Thus far, it seems, that few had been able to raise objections to my edits on factual grounds, which is no surprise, as my sources have been chosen rather, I might boast a bit, judiciously. Lest you want to write off AFP, Reuters, Indian Express, Globalsecurity, CIA World Fact Book, Ernst&Young, Der Spiegel, UNICEF, World Bank, and IMF as a bunch of propagandists bent on sullying India's good image. By78 (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Really?

http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/7706/youtubem.jpg

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/8582/wikipedia.jpg

That sure seems like an amazing coincidence.

And no, the only reason I have a bone to pick with you is because I have witnessed this behavior on YouTube and then again on Misplaced Pages - while I have no problem with your constructive edits based on factual sources, you may remember the brief edit war we had regarding the etymology of cash where your reason for believing that Englishmen did not use the word "cash" for the currency in Canton was that the Aryan Invasion Theory (which is, FYI, an Indophobic theory which credits Vedic culture to White Europeans rather than Indians) was false. Aside from the fact that this theory does not and never did entail Indian conquest of China or anywhere else, your comment that "aryan" is synonymous with "German" angered me - the fact is that the word "aryan" was never in the European lexicon until Max Muller borrowed it from the Vedas, and that in its original Sanskrit context 'Aryan' did not refer to a race at all. (and yes, the Aryan Invasion Theory _is_ false, the only people who believe that Nords had anything to do with Indian achievements are White Nationalists on Stormfront).

GSMR (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL, I do appreciate the "evidence" you presented. But, anyone can make a screen grab, errr, I meant use photoshop, provided there is enough motivation. Furthermore, anyone can copy what I said on wikipedia, and then create a youtube account to make the same comments, so as to "prove" that I am the same person in both places. Good job. Good job indeed. If you so want to accuse me of being anti-India based on my Wiki edits, then so be it, but do make the same accusation against the good folks working at AFP, Indian Express, The Indian Business Standard, BBC, CIA World Factbook, Reuters, Janes Defense Weekly, Federation of American Scientists, the Indian Parliament, the IMF, the World Bank, etc. Why? Because the whole world is out to get India, sully her good name, and bring her down. Even better, why not accuse Danny Boyle of anti-Indian sentiments as well in his wiki article. Oh, even better, might I suggest that you finally get around to provide some REAL evidence of my so-called BIASED editorship. Anyone care to give it a try? I thought not. Why? Ad Hominem attacks are just so much more exciting. By78 (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

These comments are five months old!

http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=oYxO3LOZQ6Q&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3DoYxO3LOZQ6Q (deleting them won't help; it will still say "comment removed by author").

Yes, for the past five months, I have been operating a YouTube account with your username from Misplaced Pages with the sole intention of associating it with you. Come on, Bo Yu, just searching for "Eendiah" on Google shows me everywhere you have an account.

Also, if you care to read what I said above, I do not condemn any of your VERIFIABLE edits.

GSMR (talk) 03:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

user:Abecedare user:Shreevatsa user:Priyanath at Aryabhata

This guy is Kalarimaster (talk · contribs) who has a long block log YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat

Could an admin look at Houstonfoochik (talk · contribs) and this edit summary ("I have removed, now for the third time, an article which is defamatory and will litigate if it is reinstated. Pleasse take this seriously") on the Ceawlin Thynn, Viscount Weymouth article. --WebHamster 23:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

User blocked until they retract the statement. Jauerback/_dude. 23:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, another user has removed the same info, citing BLP violation. It would seem there is a fine line being walked here. Baseball Bugs carrots 02:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Individuals with an agenda against subject matter pertaining to or related to the noble Barbaro-family

I have been picked on, today, after I edited the Barbaro family recently, only to find out, by a little research on line, that there has been some long-standing agenda against Barbaro-family information on Misplaced Pages. False cases of sockpuppetry have been made up against users and tons of legitimate information has also been destroyed in the process. I am asking a professional administrator to keep a look out against the several prolematic editors talked about in this link: ]. I have currently been harrassed by user Deor and Edward 321, who are both talked about in the link as problematic. Thank youPagetools (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Our only agenda is removing hoaxes. Please see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mctrain, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mctrain/Archive, Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mctrain, Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Societyfinalclubs, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive95#Hoaxer, Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_1#Barbaro_family, and Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive370#User:Mctrain. Edward321 (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• I strongly recommend that the problematic administators taked about in the link that I posted above be permanently banned from Misplaced Pages. What they have said is libelous, and was fueled by a jealous agenda against one of the Barbaro family members, who happened to be an American. They are also liars, who blocked unjustly, and then proceeded to write whatever they wanted in their case files, which are completely bogus. Their libelous and bogus accusations have spilled all across the internet- on what can be deemed as nothing more than a childish, jealous agenda. They have made a mockery out of Misplaced Pages ].

• In one case file above, they try to discredit the family's ancient Roman links, yet that point was absolutely accurate and sourced within the original article that they have sought to destroy. Here is a link of the original fully sourced article, and if you back track on Misplaced Pages, you will find the most excellent sourcing available was used for the topic, such as the Encylcopedia of Italian Nobility by Spretti and works by Zorzi, the finest historain of Venetian subject matter. Here is alink of just some of the information that has since been destroyed by their outrageous actions: ]. Pagetools (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• But this is only the tip of the iceberg, these users went and destroyed anything and everything related to the Albergo branch of the Barbaro family, including an article about a well-known French abstract experssionist by the name of Lucien Ruolle ], Baroness Capace, Countless noble Barbaro family members throughout history, and their nonstop attacks on the Current Head of the Albergo branch, a well known aerospace engineer who has worked on the development of Vision Industries K2, which if you back track you will see the appropriate page- fully sourced and even with links to images.Pagetools (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• You tell me, is honest and good hard work, that is done for free and which allows Misplaced Pages to keep on existing, deserving of this treatment by individuals like Deor and Edward 321, who appear to be clearly on a power trip to support their jealous agenda. Is good sourced work a hoax? And are individuals with seperate accounts on a public-used terminal sockpuppets? Of course not- this outrageous agenda needs to end- and I strongly recommend that users like Deor and Edward 321 be permanently banned- their 'power-trip' antics have gone on long enough: with unjust blocking, destroying good information, and outrageous hoax and sockpuppet accusations. There unwillingness to listen to reason, is mighty immature- to say the leastPagetools (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The abuse to users intersted in Barbaro-family subject matter has gone on for years now- at least since 2007- to the point where individuals like Deor and Edward 321 have almost completely removed any information about the Albergo branch of the noble Barbaro family from Misplaced Pages- and they have completely succeeded in removing any mention of both acting heads from both branches of the noble Barbaro family right out of Misplaced Pages. They have fully established a strong history of libelous accusations that both members don't exist, or are hoaxes- right up to abuse that even went to freebase encyclopedia. You can not google Barbaro subject matter today without coming accross countless accusations of "hoaxes" from these users. I am livid at my treatment today, and I strongly recommend that these problematic individuals get banned- they are unchecked with their blocking privledges and they are liars and coverup artists who change their case file pages to suit any agenda they are after.Pagetools (talk) 03:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You need to provide WP:RS reliable sources about this family and about the "Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent". Never mind, I read in one of the links provided by Edward312 above and I found Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Pugilist Club and Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/The_Sacred_Order_of_Skull_and_Crescent which were closed as obvious hoaxes and as the creator making up sources. I notice that he has not provided any source here apart from old copies of his own hoaxes. I suggest archiving this thread as trolling and blocking this account as another sock of Mctrain. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

There is already an open SPI, so just archive the thread. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked Pagetools as a disruptive account and high probability sockpuppet of Mctrain. Jehochman 04:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

There has been funny business going on here for years, I started once to write about the Barbaro palazzi in Italy, and gave up because of constant rubbish (and dubious unreferenced material) being added - it became virtually impossible to keep even a stub stable if it had any mention of the Barbaro. From what I remember when I looked into it, this trouble seems to come from an "American branch" of the family headed by a "Prince Vitus" - I keep meaning to look them up in the Libro d'oro when I am at home, but always forget, anyway an American citizen cannot be an Italian prince so he would not be there anyway. Giano (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Reynoboy

Over the past couple of weeks, Reynoboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly adding speculative or blatantly false information to the topic area I primarily work in. This has included creating the (deleted) articles Kamen Rider: 555 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Tokon Sentai Resuringer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), for which I gave him a stern warning on his talk page. A few days ago, he changed the content of another article to include speculative content. I clarified my warning to him on his talk page. He recently repeated this edit. In the past five months of his registering, I cannot find any useful constructive edits from this user, and he does not seem to heed warnings or any messages left on his talk page. I know he is making these edits in good faith, but he is harming the project more than helping it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of keeping this UW friendly, 4im'd him. — neuro 09:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Andy Murray again

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

User:Lg16spears continuing disruption

Lg16spears is one again running around and randomly adding Category:Gun fu films films to dozens of categories. He has already done this numerous times unver various IPs while both blocked and not blocked, and has repeatedly been asked to stop as the categories are randomly applied to films that are clearly not "Gun fu" works. He was also blocked under various IPs as it is clear he is doing these edits with some sort of unauthorized bot or mass editing mechanism due the sheer number he's able to do at once (anywhere from 5-10 pages hit a minute) and always the same group of articles (seems to be going straight through every link in Gun fu). See also Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_13#Category:Gun_fu_films (where issue was discussed during category discussion) and User talk:69.124.8.165 where it was noted he was running an unauthorized block under an IP. It would likely take a check user to refind all of those IPs he used, and I suspect if done, one would find he evaded the block he was placed under on June 5 for doing the same inappropriate category additions. All attempts to talk to him on both this issue and other disruptive editing he has done is ignored, with him just clearing his talk page without response. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Celebration1981 at History of Transylvania

wikistalking/general disruption

DavidA (talk · contribs) seems to have picked up a stalker - in their first identity of Asgawdian (talk · contribs), they left this message suggesting they were Asgardian (talk · contribs) and then went about reverting David's edits to articles. Those were quickly reverted and the account blocked, they have now popped up again as Loki'sRus (talk · contribs) (Loki is of course an Asgardian), after resorting their original message to David and are now reverting David's edits and it now seems mine. Beyond blocking the editor, can some admins watchlist David's talkpage and watch out for (what sure to come) the next identity and try and nip them in the bud. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Unusual hobbies and civility

One thing that amazes me about Misplaced Pages's admins approach to civility is that when confronted with true abuse and incivility from those who one must assume have limited vocabulary the civility police are strangly silent and reticent - or is it that when they are singing on behalf of Slim Virgin they are allowed to use the language of the gutter? Obviously those Admins so beloved of civility have varying standards when blocking will give them less kudos and publicity than blocking certaon others. Giano (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Your own comments weren't too nice, you know. Such words as "mob" and "maliciously" really do not improve the civility of Misplaced Pages. And when you got bitten you ran over to AN/I. Really, that's trollish behavior. Cut it out, please, it isn't resolving anything or helping anything. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, were I to use such language, I would rightfully be blocked. Such a word is not in my vocabulary or that of many other educated people. were I to use it Sandstein, Connolly and God knows who else would be racing and falling over each other to block. A comment such as yours displays a monumantal ignorance of what is actually going on here, with one law for one and another for another. Get real! I see you an Admin too, Wehwalt - what a poor one you must be.Giano (talk) 10:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback! I guess you saw the mop on my user page next to the dozen or so FA stars and GA crosses. However, I don't let myself be drawn in that manner. I will leave a comment in the thread asking both you and the other editor against provocative and strong language. Administrators are not here to mete out justice, but to keep the peace so we all can build an encyclopedia. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"Fuck off Cocksucker! "That is obviously completely OK to say - is it, so I shall not hesitate to say it when confronted with things I do not care for. If you read my post there, you will see it is succinct and accurate, if you post anything to the effect that is it is inflamattory you will have such a fight on your hands here you won't know what has hit you. Giano (talk) 10:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate on the latter count. As I don't qualify on the first count, I will assume it is for dramatic effect and measure your maturity level accordingly. All the best,--Wehwalt (talk) 10:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

and that is whay I think of your post Now I am quite happy to be blocked for objecting to being called a "cock sucker" and highlight the doubkle standards you Admins employ here. Giano (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not blocking either of you, but I don't distinguish between the "seven dirty words" and language otherwise phrased to get the same reaction. You've both been given friendly advice to cut it out and the thread over there has died. I suggest we mark this resolved and move on to building an encyclopedia, which is supposedly what we're here for!--Wehwalt (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• And ... stop. IMHO Giano is actually right here - whilst his posting on the thread was perhaps a little intemperate it wasn't aimed at any user in particular. Doc Tropic's posting, however, was - and was out of line. It ias absolutely correct that there are admins who would've blocked Giano in a heartbeat for posting something similar, and that smacks of double standards to me. If I'd seen it at the time I'd have probably issued a short block for Doc (or anyone else for that matter), but I'm not going to do it 8 hours after the event - instead I'm going to drop a stern warning on his talkpage. But Giano - this doesn't help either. Black Kite 10:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not stoppng until he is blocked! Admins stared and ignored that post for hours - do you see me saying cockfucker! Just imaging Sandsttein, Herbert and their friends if I did - you would be racing to block and a thread half a mile long of others wanting the block extended. Giano (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is that, Giano?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

your reply above is exactly what I have come to expect from Admins on this page. Giano (talk) 10:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Because Giano has a point that any incivility from him is usually met with a block, whereas this one wasn't. So this looks like double standards from his point of view, though I suggest it was more likely that no-one actually noticed it at the time, and probably wouldn't unless someone had reposted it here. I have locked the ADCP thread for a short while however in an attempt to stop G getting himself blocked as a WP:POINT exercise. Black Kite 10:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I would rather be blocked that sit and look at the gross hypocrisy displayed by Misplaced Pages's admins on this page! at least, my actions would be honest! Giano (talk) 10:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

There's honest, and then there's futile, however. You can call me - or anyone else - hypocritical but there's no way I'd block Doc, you, or anyone else for a comment made 9 hours ago unless it was part of a repeating pattern. Black Kite 10:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

And to call me hypocritical and make it stick would require you to show that I had treated you or other involved editors differently on another occasion. Good luck on that one.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I see you have reverted me and replace Wehwalt's ill conceived warning - well if you read my paost you will see it requires no warning. In fact I suspect we have a little partisan here. You will either gave to block me over this hypocrisy or keep that page protected for a very long time. As for you Wehwalt, we only have to look at your initial response here. Giano (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing further to do here. Again suggest we mark this resolved. Thanks for your help, BK.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope it is far from resolved - if you think cock sucker is an acceptable term to be permitted, then you are quite wrong. Giano (talk) 11:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I have removed Doc Tropic's personal attack and the sub-thread that led from it. Hopefully this will resolve the issue. Now I'm going to do something more productive and go down the pub go to take some more photos to help get Brandon Marsh to GA. Black Kite 11:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, it is pity I have to battle so hard to acheive what is quite reasonable. Now all that remains is to know the real reason why no admin was prepared to block an editor who refers to another editor as a cock sucker . Perhaps Sandstein, Connoly or Herbert or one of the numerous others would like to start the ball rolling. Giano (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

As I see from the diff, he said as soon as he learned how to spell "cosk sucker", he was going to give you a piece of his mind. That is rather different from what you said. Frankly, I'd consider referring to others' motives as malicious to be as bad or worse. I know which would result in a bigger payday in a libel suit.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad you have finally read it. I think that you have displayed your ignorance quite enough for one day. Giano (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, seeing as you obvioulsy want to continue this, what is unacceptable as you say here . Think before you answer this timeplease, you may find I have right on my side. Giano (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Calling other editor's actions or attitudes "malicious" is horribly destructive of WP:AGF and inconsistent with the collegial atmosphere that we hope WP should have. And really, that is all I have to say about it. Please feel free to respond at your leisure, I don't think there's more to be done here unless you hope that the admins you named will weigh in.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Given that this is a site that deals with facts it must therefore be incumbent on us to ascertain that you don't actually suck cocks before the statement can be construed as an insult. Should it be the case that you do indeed suck cocks then it is merely a statement of fact. --WebHamster 11:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I confirm have never sucked anything more than a a peppermint. My own personal civility policy only has three fairly easy to keep and simple rules that post breaks three of them. In my book it was very uncivil and the usuak admins ignoring it was suspicious in the extreme. Giano (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

We're going to need diffs on that peppermint!--Wehwalt (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

And Peppermint's surname is? Just for the files of course ;) --WebHamster 12:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't say that I'm a fan of retroactive blocks, but obviously this comment should have caught attention sooner. Seems like it's been blanked, by now, and rightfully so. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Block resulting from the above

• I have given Doc Tropics (talk · contribs) a 24 hour deterrence block, retroactive to the time the comment was made. There is no excuse for making derogatory and sexual remarks at another user. Jehochman 16:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Jehochman, obviously the usual members of the civility police are taking a day off. Giano (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

A good block, in my view. Endorse. Note, however, that I've unblocked Doc ... I think he gets the point and is not likely to repeat the error or cause further disruption. He has a block on his block log forever more to remind him not to, as well. ++Lar: t/c 16:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The editor-in-question (Doc Tropic) has certainly breached CIVIL & therefore should have served out his block. Indeed, Giano has been blocked (and had them reverted) numerious times for 'colorful language'. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not bothered about him being unblocked, so long after the event because today, we have seen the end of any pretence that Misplaced Pages's admins may have of being genuinely concerned about civility. The civility block is just a weapon to be used at random and for personal gain and whim. I'm glad Jehochman and Lar arrived belatedly on the scene, but as for the usuals! well contempt is to put it mildly, but at least we now know their true colours. If it had been me they would have been conflicting each other in their obscene salivatory need to have the block extended - what jokes they are, and we all know who they are - don't we? Giano (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm only surprised that you seem to be surprised. The double standards that you're drawing attention to have surely been evident for some time? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'll tell you how surprised I am, I even checked to see who of the well known ones were editing during all of this, and 66% of them were. Obviously "Doc" was singing the right song - "cocksucker" indeed, I can think of few words more offensive to anyone. Giano (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Blocks are preventative, not punitive. I endorse the block, even coming late. But I also note that Doc spent some time thinking about why his approach was not a good one, and when pressed on the matter, gave an entirely satisfactory indication that there won't be a recurrence. I could be wrong, it was a judgement call, but the disruption that the block would be preventing is not, in my view, likely to recur now that Doc has had a chance to contemplate, reflect, and make assurances, giving his word. The word of another user should always be taken unless they have given us cause in the past to doubt it. I hope that addresses your concern about the unblock.

'Tis the reason I could never be an Administrator. IMO, blocks should be (at least) equally punitive/preventative. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

@Giano: I derived no personal gain one way or the other from either the block or unblock, to the best of my knowledge. But the wiki took a loss. Fortunately you are not such a delicate flower that the original comment had a chilling effect on your inclination to share your views, but this is just another (relatively minor) corrosive episode in a long series. ++Lar: t/c 17:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, Giano. That diff should have resulted in a short block immediately—implying that someone is an "arrogant cocksucker" is not acceptable here. You are also correct that if it had been you, you probably would have been blocked. If I were a sysop, I would have issued a block when I saw it. Even though the block was issued late, thank you for bringing it to our attention. Hopefully the user in question won't do it again. Cheers, Firestorm 21:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Recommended reading

I recommend Choosing Civility by P.M. Forni of the Johns Hopkins Civility Project. Jehochman 02:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm... I was going to recommend Mutz D, Effects of "In-Your-Face" Television Discourse on Perceptions of a Legitimate Opposition, American Political Science Review (2007) 101(4):621-35. "Violating social norms... increased the intensity of affect among the opposition, but remaining civil did not intensify the positive feelings viewers held toward their own side. Civility appears to be the default expectation, and it is arousing and influential only when people deviate from it... When those holding differing views violate social norms by being uncivil and disagreeable right in viewers’ faces, it is all that much easier to demonize them along multiple dimensions." MastCell  03:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Dopplegangerr at Serial killer

Dopplegangerr (talk · contribs) has made repeated racially motivated POV edits to Serial killer, ignoring notifications on their user page and the article talk page. momoricks 08:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

WADR to Black Kite, I have reviewed Dopplegangerr's edits and he does seem to be a disruptive SPA. His name implies that he is a sock. WP:SOCK explicitly forbids "Good hand, bad hand" accounts and says it "is never acceptable to keep one account "clean", while using another account to engage in disruptive behavior". --B (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

This user's disruptive edits have continued after the final warning and now include Carl Eugene Watts. momoricks 22:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Does seem to have an unfortunate preoccupation with race... seems most every edit deals with it in some way or another. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have changed the resolved template to unresolved. --B (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Robertredfern

Robertredfern (talk · contribs), a.k.a. Robert Redfern, has done nothing in his entire time on Misplaced Pages but try to promote the use of Serratiopeptidase. He has been blocked several times for his disruptive behaviour.

He has resumed this behaviour, and I would ask he now be community banned, as he's wasting a lot of time on patently unusable material.

For instance, his latest replace-entire-article-with-whatever-the-hell-he-wants contains the following:

Likewise, here's what he thinks is an appropriate edit to Bandolier (journal) (), as it published a study on Serratiopeptidase he dislikes.

I don't think he has a single edit that isn't either blatant attack pieces or blatant promotion. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Philadelphia

Hi there, I wanted to notify you of an incident happening on the Philadelphia page. Since I'm not an administrator, I can't do a lot about it, except revert things. I created the new lead image for the article and replaced the old one with it by a majority of votes (see the talk page). One or more users however keep reverting it to the old lead image. Despite several warnings they still refuse to take part in the discussion on the talk page. I'm willing to restore the old lead image only if a majority of users decides so through this discussion. So I'm asking you, to put a lock on the article or something similar. Thanks in advance, Massimo --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've semiprotected it, to encourage discussion. You should be aware, however, that you're technically violated WP:3RR, as those reverts were not vandalism (consider this your warning), and it'd be best to get the user(s) to discuss on the talk page, perhaps by asking at their talk pages, or perhaps by placing a note on the article's talk page. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll place a note on the article's page to refer to the discussion. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, a comment would be much better. Or something inside an {{ambox}}. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

3-revert rule broken

User:Legolas2186 has broken the 3-revert rule on the page The Fame Ball Tour. Please have him blocked. Alex (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You should report 3-revert issues at WP:AN3. You'll need to list the reverts, and show where the user was warned. Cheers, TFOWR 16:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Legolas didn't even come close to breaking 3RR on that page. Tan | 39 17:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

True (hadn't spotted that, thanks). Hadn't been warned, either. I figured a link to AN3 and the requirements would be informative to the OP, though. Cheers, TFOWR 18:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

AlexHG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), here, is a fairly blatant sockpuppet of indef-blocked Alexander.hugh.george (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Suggest blockage. McJeff (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Indefblocked. Tan | 39 19:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Swamilive rangeblock expired

Hello. A 1-month range block was placed to stop User:Swamilive in March (seen here). As soon as that expired, he came back to the old things. The block was reset to 3 months in April (seen here. Now, that's expired and he's back at it. See the history of Winnipeg Folk Festival. Also, see these edits to Graham compared to these edits by former sock.

For the more of the history here, see:

• Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Swamilive
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Swamilive
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive480#User:Swamilive_sockpuppet_activity
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive482#User:Swamilive_sockpuppet_rampage
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive168#Yet_another_Swamilive_sockpuppet
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive469#User:Swamilive_-_Sockpuppeteer_and_harasser_wrapped_up_and_ready_to_go

Would someone mind resetting the block? Thanks. Apparition /Mistakes 17:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the range for six months. If anyone objects, feel free to remove/modify. J.delanoy_adds 17:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick! Thanks a lot! Apparition /Mistakes 17:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Single purpose editor with dynamic IP causing disruption

The IP 86.136.34.91 is repeatedly rearranging band members without explanation at 21st Century Breakdown and The Network and has received a final warning. See , , , for their edits. Also personal attack here. Has made these edits after being warned as another IP, under which he made the exact same edits to the same articles. Even before that, he had been doing the same edits under numerous other IPs for weeks. The only edits this person has made under his multiple IPs are to rearrange the band members on Green Day articles regardless of edit notes and attempts to discuss the matter with him. Timmeh 18:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

An area-block seems needed. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The IP is a BT Broadband dynamic and as such is far too large a range to block; if they start again, I suggest nominating the articles for semi-protection at WP:RFPP. Black Kite 21:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. Timmeh 00:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Problematic IP at Earth Song

80.177.99.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) A very problematic IP is continually removing a quote from Earth Song, mainly because he doesn't like it and apparently can't understand it, although it seems quite clear what the quote means to me. Not once has he used the talk page, continuing on after his final warning. The quote has been removed six times this month: Pyrrhus16 19:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Left 3RR warning. Stifle (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Pyrrhus16 19:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Sturm College of Law

I have edited Sturm College of Law to look like a wiki page. Another user on here keeps reverting and placing a picture in a blatant attempt to vandalize the page. Please look into. keystoneridin! (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no way that the other user was trying to "vandalize" this page. Please review the Misplaced Pages definition of vandalism before making any accusations of the same nature. I have protected the article for a week due to the edit warring. Tan | 39 20:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

As per convention and common courtesy I have informed User:Wikics14 of this discussion. – ukexpat (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Gah, that whole article reads like an ad. It's going to have to be depeacockitized after the protection expires. Looie496 (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Darwinek (admin edit warring)

Darwinek (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Following this report at the WP:AN3 board, this is a clear example of edit warring by both sides (history of article), but I note that User:Darwinek, an admin, has blocked his "opponent" in the edit war.

Given that this block is clearly invalid, have unblocked and then reblocked the IP for the equivalent time for the 3RR violation, and have blocked User:Darwinek for 24 hours as well.

Obviously the more pressing issue is the use of admin tools; comments are welcome about the blocking of an opponent in a content dispute. Black Kite 20:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The first step is that Darwinek should get a block for edit-warring. Although the warnings given by the opposing editor were botched and the opposing editor is pretty clearly in the wrong content-wise, as well as being incorrect in referring to Darwinek's edits as vandalism, an admin needs to know better than to engage in a revert war. Looie496 (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I have already done that. Black Kite 21:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, sloppy reading on my part. Looie496 (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW: Darwinek's administrative privileges had been revoked in April 2007 as a result of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Darwinek. He was resysopped in October 2007 per decision on ArbCom mailing list . -- Matthead  Discuß   21:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

They should be revoked again, permanently; this is blatant abuse of sysop tools. Would that take a whole new RFAR, or a motion or what? And I'll take the opportunity to plug my proposal for a community-driven desysopping process. → ROUX ₪ 21:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with Roux - given the history and egregiously abusing admin privileges in a content dispute, they should be immediately desysopped. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 21:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no need for discussion. We all agree and know that you mustn't use your admin tools against someone you are in a content dispute with, don't we? Darwinek has abused them and he has been correctly blocked, good decision Black Kite. A quick look over their contributions does not show the similar amount of behavior in recent times that lead to the 2007 desysop but if you found more, please do tell us about it. Regards SoWhy 21:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The block was for edit warring, not abuse of admin powers. They are completely separate and should be treated as such. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 21:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the particular circumstances, but admins should never use the block or protection buttons in a content dispute. The only exceptions would be clear vandalism (where any reasonable person would agree that's what it was), or an unambiguous BLP violation where there's no one else around to deal with it. SlimVirgin 21:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I also found a year's block of this dynamic IP for this single edit in a dispute with Darwinek, and a long slow edit war between Darwinek and other editors on this article, during which he blocked one of the IPs but this is going back to 2008 - he doesn't use the block button often. Black Kite 22:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

In addition, a content dispute with User:Adam.J.W.C. about the use of Template:Tourism in June 2008 seems to have led to a 24h block two weeks later. -- Matthead  Discuß   01:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If Darwinek apologizes and promises to be more careful, I think we should let it be, perhaps with a short block in a block record as a reminder. Sure, admins should not abuse admin tools, but a singular exception in the background of years of good work should not be enough to strip one of their adminship. If you disagree, I'd suggest taking this to ArbCom, but this would really be blowing this out of proportions. PS. Please note that I saying that I oppose taking away his admin rights if and only if he apologizes and promies to be more careful in the future. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You realize he already did apologize and promised to be more careful in the future. Tan | 39 22:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

In March 2007. Or was that what you meant?Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

My edit summary noted the year. To me, this makes no difference - an apology and promise made in an ArbCom case shouldn't have an expiration date. Tan | 39 23:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

So is what you're saying that he apologised, promised not to do it again, and then did it again? Or that because he promised not to do it, he didn't do it. (sorry, I'm being a bit thick. I'm supposed to be in bed - I have the flu)Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I recommend reading the above thread, particularly the opening post, prior to getting involved. It's pretty clear. Tan | 39 23:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll just take some more Anadin and go to bed. It seems the safer bet. I'll leave you guys to it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

@Tanthalas39: It is not completely clear what point you're making, sorry. One interpretation is that Darwinek has apologised (back in 2007) and all is well, and another is that Darwinek has violated his promise not to do it again. Could you clarify please? Often, if someone evinces confusion, it's because they are confused and need help understanding. I've read the entire thread. ++Lar: t/c 02:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Darwinek recently blocked someone for edit warring with him (an abuse of admin tools). Piotrus said, "...I oppose taking away his admin rights if and only if he apologizes and promies to be more careful in the future." In response, I pointed out to Piotrus where Darwinek had already done exactly this, prior to the most recent breach of policy. I thought (and think) I was being pretty clear, but my point was that he already did promise - and broke that promise. Tan | 39 02:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Nod. (that's what I got when I read it but I can see the other interpretation) I think you and Elen are actually agreeing with each other, but at least one of you doesn't realise it, and I think Elen will once they read that restatement. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 02:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was that a new apology is needed. The 2007 one is not enough, since he made a new mistake. One mistake per two year can be understandable (we are all human, and we err), but he has to acknowledge it. If he doesn't, than he is not fit to be an admin. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Badagnani reopening CFD

User:Badagnani is persistently re-opening a closed CFD. I presume this is against Misplaced Pages policy. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Notified Vegaswikian about this edit. Frankly, he better have a good reason for reverting an admin's closure or I'm giving him a week. He's been on a terrible roll so far. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Ever since his 48 hour block I've mostly seen disruptive editing from him instead of anything constructive. And he's been given too many 'second' chances to count. GraYoshi2x► 22:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think he missed the original close decision. It took me a few minutes of headscratching to work out what Vegaswikian was on about.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for help from administrator

I made the editing in Turkish Van cat article, but mixed the signs of references, and I am not able to solve it. Please, help to correct the reference marks. Thanks in advance.--Zara-arush (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Please see my edit to see where you went wrong. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

PS: I'm not sure that this is the best place to ask for help with editing. Try placing the {{helpme}} tag on your user talk page instead. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Mischa Barton / User:MJBurrage/BLP violations

There are a lot of tabloid reports about a recent incident involving this actress. However, most of the reports, and virtually all the reliable-source reports, are hedged and report matters in speculative terms. (The less reliable sources are, unsurprisingly, becoming increasingly sensational.) WP:BLP requires that biographical articles be "written conservatively" and "be sourced very carefully." MJBurrage has repeatedly added a short section to the article stating as fact that the actress suffered a "breakdown" -- sourced only to a newspaper report presenting the claim as "reported," not as established fact -- and stating as fact that the actress was involuntarily hospitalized for psychiatric observation/treatment under a specific provision of California law -- sourced only to a caption/introduction in an online photo gallery hosted by the LA Times, which states the claim as factual even though the Times's actual news articles don't even present the claim in a speculative form (and was written by a columnist who, per the LA Times, "dishes celebrity gossip and fashion" rather than by a news reporter). The news cycle has reached the point where less careful news organizations are repeating each others' claim with fewer and fewer of the appropriate qualifications, and the presence of such unverifiable (to date) claims on Misplaced Pages only contributes to the problem. I don't think there's any question about what BLP requires here -- that we "get the article right." The only substantiation for the claims involved turns out to be an anonymously-made statement to Access Hollywood (self-identified as a gossip source) by an undescribed and unidentified "source close to the situation." No matter how often that gets repeated, carefully or carelessly, it's not appropriate support for a Misplaced Pages BLP. I'm sure the other editor is acting in good faith, but isn't following BLP carefully enough -- and some reminders could be helpful. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• There seem several problems with this summary: First, even as Access Hollywood may call itself a gossip site, it is affiliated with MSNBC.com, which carries articles in its Entertainment section under the AH byline (see, e.g., here), and, as such, is a reliable source. Second, some of the articles offered on the talk page are not as oblique as you suggest; that of BBC.com, for instance, sources directly to the Los Angeles Police Department and a statement issued by the biographical subject's publicist. Third, there is no consensus for the exclusion under BLP of material published in prominent reliable sources but given as the fruit of unidentified sources. We need not reach the broader issues here, though, I think, because of the BBC and AP stories, which, again, quote the Barton's own publicist as confirming her admission and make the unqualified assertion that her admission followed from the LAPD's "escorting her from her home"; those, I think, permit us to add most of the disputed text (there is no debate, AFAICT, over whether the incident is sufficiently notable as to merit mention in the article), after which we might debate whether to state explicitly the section 5150 commitment reported by AH/MSNBC.com. 68.249.4.105 (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible sock list

Posted on OfficerJackBoot's talk page(an idef banned user. Could an admin look in to it? Possible sockfarm.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 23:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: several of these are socks of User:ClaimJumperPete.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Would a checkuser or IP block do any good? This guy is getting annoying.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 23:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you need to file a sockpuppet report? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm on it as I speak.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 23:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Lineup

Checkusered all. Those not stale are all  Confirmed, for what it's worth. I'll refrain from mentioning more on the wiki at this time. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please keep an eye on an IP please?

I have other things I need to do, and 68.185.89.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is making tendentious edits like this which is a highly inappropriate link. They are also rambling on about "liberals" amongst other things, and their previous edits are also highly dubious. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think O fenian needs some watching too. We don't remove people's attempts to discuss content disputes from talk pages. Toddst1 (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh my god, do you have a clue? It isn't a content dispute, look at where the link goes and the sentence it was put in. Then look at what was written on the talk page, it was bigoted soapboxing which you have added back. If the "watchers" are all like you, we're doomed. In case you cannot work it out, that link is similar to pipe linking to Criticism of Christianity with a visible link to Jesus. It was vandalism, it even says as much in the vandalism policy under "Link vandalism". The IPs edit summaries make their intentions clear, that was not a good faith attempt at discussion, it was bigoted soapboxing and should have been removed. And it was removed, until you came along.. O Fenian (talk) 01:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

O Fenian does have a point. The link, ] links to an opposition page not to a support page. This should be removed immediately and the anon user warned. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying I agree with the IP either. However, we don't remove people's attempts to discuss their edits from article talk pages unless they're offensive. My point is that both editors appear to be wrong in this conflict. Toddst1 (talk) 02:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What the IP wrote was offensive, do you not understand that? O Fenian (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

So, it is OK for the IP to add an intentionally misleading wikilink on the page? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You guys are missing the points. There are two issues here: There was nothing offensive in this comment. It removing the comment from the talk page is highly inappropriate. I agree that the link in the article was misleading. However, discussing things on talk pages is how we solve issues here. Toddst1 (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying anything about the comment, just the link that was placed by the anon. That is the only think that should be removed. Comment should stay, link should go. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I said something about the comment. And I discussed it on O Fenian's talk page as well. Toddst1 (talk)

Then my main concern is the link, which with your revert, still remains and should be removed. Correction: the link has been removed (by O Fenian) and that is my main concern, that the link stays gone. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not missing any point. My initial revert of the inappropriate link was reverted with an edit summary of "Reverted bad-faith extreme POV reversion". That instantly tells me, and 99% of other people, that the IP isn't acting in good faith. Then for the IP to claim it is "extremely biased of Misplaced Pages to even mention Uruguay's recognition of Homosexual relations as legitimate", based on the previous edits I, and 99% of other people, would correctly identify that as bigoted soapboxing against even the inclusion of a mention of same-sex unions. If that the first comment from an editor it could be interpreted differently, but from that editor with that history it is not a good faith attempt at discussion, and nothing meaningful could possibly come from that discussion. And Toddst1, you didn't discuss anything on my talk page. You came along with a pointless templated warning, and still don't understand that the discussion is pointless, offensive, and should be removed. O Fenian (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

While I sort of see what Toddst1 is getting at here, I think that it's a little akin to raising a stink because we didn't serve a condemned man's last meal at the proper temperature. The IP editor lost his "discussion" privileges. These IP edits are clearly not appropriate, and I see no need for them to be discussed on the article talk page, as there's no way in hell those edits are ever going to be included on the page. Tan | 39 02:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

My main concern was the link. If it isn't there, I am happy. It appears it has, in fact, been removed, so my involvement in this issue is over. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

User:CWii

User:CWii has placed "Leave me the fuck alone" on his user page. Should this be removed? It's very discouraging and offensive at that matter. --How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 02:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, he seems to be acting uncivil. WP:CIVL. Look here to see what I mean: User talk: CWii. --How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 02:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:CENSOR CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that user page won't do at all, and the reason has nothing to do with censorship. Looie496 (talk) 02:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I see your point CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I bring this edit to everyone's attention. He/she has placed a "Touch this and it's a guaranteed shitstorm " - Can somebody please remove the content from the page? I am unsure of whether it should be removed, or left alone, so if anyone else wants to, please. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Cwii's edit summary here ("attn wikifags") is repellently homophobic and completely unacceptable. → ROUX ₪ 02:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) On the subject of putatively problematic userpages, I observe that that of Marshall notes that " ha been with the Wikimedia Foundation since July 29th, 2008". Everyone who partakes of any Foundation project can, of course, be said to be "with" the Foundation, but the wording strikes me as misleading to the average reader (unless, that is, MW is other than a volunteer; if I have mistaken his role, I apologize and, of course, withdraw my remarks), and I wonder whether it ought to be changed. (It is inappropriate, I guess, for me to raise the issue here without first addressing the user on his talk page, but I see that the complainant no effort was made to raise the issue with CWii before bringing it here; I recognize that CWii's user page might discourage communication, but MW nevertheless managed to apprise CWii of this listing, and so I fail to understand why this had to come to AN/I straightaway.) 68.249.4.105 (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What does your comment have to do with this discussion? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The usual spotlight brought to bear on someone who complains at AN/I. I'd also note that "ATTENTION ALL VANDALS: IF YOU CHOOSE TO VANDALIZE, THEN YOU WILL RECEIVE PAIN FROM ME." is completely inappropriate (from MW's userpage). → ROUX ₪ 02:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

CWii userpage blanked, someone else can deal with MW - since he is an active user, I would suggest a note on the talk page requesting removal of the offending part. Viridae 02:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) While Roux is probably right about MW here, I did block CWii for a month - and thought about doing it indefinitely. A stroll through his/her talk page, contributions, and edit summaries ("attn wikifags") shows that they are incompetent to participate in the collegial, collaborative atmosphere here. Tan | 39 02:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Is your block for reasons other than the uncivil message on the userpage? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, in fact, I wouldn't have blocked solely for the userpage issue. See the block template on his page, and my above statement. Tan | 39 02:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you please show me a few diff examples? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I support Tan's block completely given the amt of vitriol I'm seeing. If you can't behave on Misplaced Pages in a collaborative and congenial manner, then go away. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 02:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Due to this edit (repeated twice) I have locked the talk page so he cannot edit it while blocked. Viridae 03:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

can somebody please indefinitely block him. This type of pitiful behavior is completely unsettling. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 03:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Way ahead of you :-) Marking resolved. Tan | 39 03:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Nicely done, got the talk page before I could save :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wow. I wasn't entirely sure about the original block -- was still thinking it over while looking at other things, trying to see if I might have a useful comment to add -- but those talk page edits are just beyond the pale. Obviously we can't allow that sort of thing. Might be worth unlocking the talk page in a while, see if they may have calmed down by then. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the user should be banned. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to express a different point of view. When high school students melt down, they tend to melt down totally, but it doesn't mean they won't become good editors in the future, especially if they've been good editors in the past. A long block and full protect of the talk page are clearly necessary here, but I don't think there is a compelling need for them to go longer than a month. If the pattern repeats after a month, the next step is a year. Looie496 (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The user should be banned simply for this conduct. The user has proven not to be able to be nice to the editors. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And another one at CWii2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), abusive unblock request. I've blocked the account. Also blocking John Bot II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and John Bot III (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a preventive measure. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Subpages

Since the user will not longer be with us, can someone nuke this gigantic subpage list?— Dædαlus 03:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the user is indefinitely blocked, the pages are moot, but I can't delete the pages, because I'm not an administrator. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That's ridiculously premature. Either way, MfD is over there. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Imposter

Gwens Gale (talk · contribs) is a new user vandalizing various articles...Modernist (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Was a new user; I blocked it about an hour ago . Antandrus (talk) 03:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Good. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards