Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wikifan12345 (talk | contribs) at 01:44, 24 July 2009 (→Factsontheground removing terrorist attacks aimed at Jews and Israeli soldiers - List of terrorist incidents, 2009: edit conflict). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

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: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)

Doesn't mean you get to ignore an admin. Ask them. Besides, his response just keeps on adding fuel to the fire. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Further problems with User:Badagnani

Following a WQA post, Badagnani was blocked by WMC for continually reverting warnings and notices on his userpage as threats. (and yes, the block summary was apparently poor, but that's been dealt with, so perhaps we can not go there again).

Despite several requests (here's three: ) to stop referring to notices and warnings as threats, he is continuing to do so. This behaviour really needs to stop, as by this point it really is outright disruption. In no way is it acceptable to continually refer to warnings from other editors as threats; it is dishonest, assumes bad faith, and is generally chilling to any attempt to have a discussion with the user. I believe at this point a longer block is in order to get the point through to him, and/or a strict ban on using such language in his edit summaries. → ROUX ₪ 05:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I fear attempts to talk to the user are not effective. He seems to allow us to talk past him rather than to him. If he continues to refuse to drop this (which I suggest he do, even if for no other reason than that continuing to bring it up is not changing anything and likely will not change anything), I agree with Roux that a block might be necessary to prevent continued disruption. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 05:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Badagnani has explained himself: "Thank you for your opinions. I am a long-time editor who edits always with a mind to enhancing our encyclopedia for our users. Some editors don't seem to share this view but edit more with a mind toward being "enforcers," and, as such edit in a highly aggressive manner. When they show up at a talk page right off the bat stating that they will block, they will ban, they will retaliate, they will attack, etc., such messages are indeed threatening in nature and not exhibiting the proper decorum necessary to preserve a collegial, collaborative environment to which we should aspire. As such I am entitled to remove such comments as I see fit. " and "If editors post at my discussion page in a collegial manner, I will of course respond to them in the same manner. I reserve the right, as do all WP editors, to remove unnecessarily inflammatory and highly provocative posts, which are against our project's fundamentally collaborative ethos."

Makes sense to me. As Lifebaka is seeking to resolve an editing dispute with a block, I understand why Badagnani feels threatened. I suggest a collegial and collaborative approach with a longer term good faith editor. If that doesn't work there's a dispute resolution process. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

All discussions tend to fall into "I am doing what's right for the encyclopedia and nobody else's opinion matters because they aren't." Period. It's completely unproductive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That seems like an attack. I've seen Badagnani respect consensus even when he disagrees with it, but he's certainly passionate about doing what's best of the encyclopedia's readers. He's explained why he finds certain messages threatening. If editors choose to pursue those type of communication, they will be received per that understanding. We generally respect editor's managing their own user pages as they see fit. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

We do not, however, respect users continually accusing others of threats, particularly when they are being told that no threats are being made. → ROUX ₪ 06:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I find edits like reverting an admin's close inappropriate (and "my opinion of what's appropriate supersedes everyone else's" isn't an appropriate response). If it's now an "attack" to question the judgment of users doing so and to request they stop, then nothing around here will get done. Everyone doesn't have to walk on eggshells because one editor has now decided they don't want people questioning their activities. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(@ ChildofMidnight, above) Two things. Firstly, I didn't make myself clear in what exactly I was referring to. I was referring to his continued assertions that Good Olfactory's close of the surnames CfD was inappropriate and that Good Olfactory should burden himself with all of the work necessary in implementing a new categorization system for surnames, an opinion he appears to be shopping around for someone to listen to, and which he appears to be unable to drop. Second, I'd very much prefer not to resolve this with a block (hence why I "fear" it), but talking to the user doesn't seem to be effective, as I already said. If you'd like to try you hand at talking, feel free, I hope you'll have more success than I had. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The messages like "I (uninvolved or involved admin) will block you if you do the same thing one more time", "You're vandalising, so you would be blocked after your 48 hours-block", "I will report you to AN/I/WQA/AN3" indeed sound threatening. Because those who have have reported him to AN/ANI/AN3, he feels threatened. He did not say they gave him threats, but threatening messages. He does not play well in dealing with such messages though. If Badagnani wants to record that repeated unwelcome visits from unwelcome people in edit summary, then I would suggest him to change "threatening message" with "unhelpful messages from people whom I pleaded not to visit here" or "disruptive message".--Caspian blue 13:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Both alternative messages sound equally offensive and the latter more so. My suggestion would be for him to just drop the edit summary altogether and stop removing every message that he finds remotely unpleasant. GraYoshi2x► 18:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And therein lies the problem. He objects to behavior he finds threatening and contrary to collaboration and respect for a long term good faith contributor. And you object to him objecting to these behaviors. A fundamental part of civility and collaboration is respect for various editors who represent a variety of cultures and approaches. If you're going to aggressively enforce policies in a way that he finds threatening he's going to react accordingly. There's room for improvement and increased sensitivity on both sides of the dispute. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, surely these edits show good faith. After all it's fully appropriate to refer to people as "Korean nationalists", is it not? GraYoshi2x► 20:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

To GraYoshi2x, well the reference of "nationalists" in March was about me and another editor that opposed to Badagnani's inclusion of an "unauthorized YouTube link". However after that, I've seen/undergone many rude hypocrites' and verbal abusers harassment who have admin buddies, so even thought they said "fuck off", "you idiot", "spammer", or "8 years old", they are free from any charge for their extreme incivility but they are very critical of others' behaviors. So I let the accusation by Badagnani go some time ago. Contrast to them, Badagnani's comments sound to me less threatening and he has tried to improve himself like refraining from adding unreliable links or picture links or saying WP:STALK, so I rather choose to work with him than fight with his dreadful buddy or face other unpleasant people around him. As far as I know, you also did some mistakes to Badagnani, so well...why don't you try to peacefully work with him rather than accuse him in not so much civil manners? --Caspian blue 01:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I would slightly question your assertion that Badagnani is a "long term good faith editor". This is the user who, on several occasions suggested that I be banned for nominating article for deletion (many of which were subsequently deleted by consensus). See here. But I agree with the comments about the need for sensitivity on both sides. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• The user has not been adopting reasonable or proportional reactions to comments from others. He automatically removes any comment I make on his talk page as "threatening", regardless of what I have stated—even if there is zero discussion of possible blocks or other sanctions. If I try to discuss a content issue with him, it is removed as "threatening" and "unwelcome". I was recently accused by the user of making a "death threat" against him: , , , , , and he continued to maintain it was a death threat after I had apologized for any misunderstanding and it had been explained to him by multiple other admins that it was not a death threat. He has essentially accused me of racism in general and anti-Semitism in particular: . Any attempt by me to discuss these issues with him on his talk page are removed as "threats". He treats some other users and admins similarly, and apparently because of background content disputes. Something must be done. I'd be very happy if the user would simply change his attitude and approach. But barring that, I also fear a longer block may well be appropriate. The user has a history of blocks and it concerns me that the most recent block only seemed to embolden his misbehavior. Good Ol’factory 22:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I find it funny that people who have done far less than Badagnani have been blocked indefinitely. He certainly has made a number of excellent contributions to Misplaced Pages, but if this behavior continues I believe the only course of action would be just to give him a longer block like you said. He's shown that he's unwilling to change his ways, and he's been reported to AN/I for what, at least 10 times now? Every single time I edit an article edited by him in the past year, I'm nervous about how he'll react to it, and 90% of the time he just reverts with some nonsensical statement. Needless to say it gets me a bit irritated, especially when he ignores or deletes all my requests to discuss. GraYoshi2x► 23:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It's just the classic "he's problematic, but he does good work" excuse. Never mind Jimbo Wales's recommendation to show jerky people the door, regardless of the work they've done. Good Ol’factory 01:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I have known him for much longer than any of people here who complain about him, and have really many ups and downs with him. However, I feel that he is at least not a worst one among harasser/verbal abuser nor rude hypocrite that deserves indef.block, so I could have more leeway toward his behavior and his contributions are indeed "valuable" than Wiki-cops's who do not contribute anything but tag or delete someone's contributions with O article creation. // @Good Ol’factory, since you're deeply involved and want to "resolve this issue", why don't you do something by yourself? --Caspian blue 01:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Precisely because I'm deeply involved. It wouldn't be appropriate for me to block the user in this instance, though I certainly am willing to give my opinion in this instance. Good Ol’factory 02:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been deeply involved in working with him for years and have tried, so should you.--Caspian blue 02:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

As I've mentioned, over the past few weeks I have tried to make efforts to talk to him, but any effort I make on his talk page is immediately removed as "threatening". I would like to see him at least acknowledge that some of his behaviour may be viewed as problematic and at least make a good faith agreement to try a bit harder to show civility to others and respect administrative actions performed by administrators (i.e., don't try to unilaterally revert them). But if a user refuses to budge after dozens of complaints—sorry, but there's the door. And it's not like this is a first instance or that he's still learning the ropes—he's been legitimately blocked at least 7 times in the past! Good Ol’factory 02:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"Jerky people" are only jerky in the eye of the beholder. User:Good Olfactory has a penchant for getting involved in disputes, presenting himself as a neutral mediator, appearing to take one side and then expressing befuddlement when his actions of indeterminate faith are questioned. The threat of blocks is sure to follow the inevitably unsuccessful mediation efforts with further expressions of frustration that blocks questionably imposed have angered the editor and only caused more damage then they could ever have solved, which can in turn only be addressed by threats and demands for more blocks. The "shoot the horse" remedy of blocking anyone and everyone in all cases, legitimate or otherwise, needs to be replaced with a far-more refined process that keeps valuable editors like Badagnani from areas of conflict while allowing them to continue to work they work well. Punitive blocks such as are being advocated never work. Any advocacy by Good Olfactory for blocks where he has a clear conflict of interest should be accepted only with a lump of salt the size of a small planet. Alansohn (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I haven't put myself out as a "neutral mediator" here. I think that's probably clear from the recitation of my recent encounters with the user in question. I've also clearly stated that a so-called "punitive block" is not a preferred solution. (Incidentally, If accusing someone of uttering a death threat and refusing to apologise or retract the accusation when having it pointed out multiple times by multiple editors that there as no death threat (not to mention a repetition of the accusation after this has been pointed out) is not "jerky behaviour" under Alansohn's loose "eye of the beholder" standard, then he certainly has enough salt on his planet to pass around and share with us all. Anyway, an assessment of jerky behaviour coming from a user who has been blocked x number of times for such behaviour should be, well ... you get the idea. As for my alleged "history" of claiming to be neutral when I'm not—this probably refers to one or more ANIs Alansohn has recently filed against me, which are probably best regarded as vexatious sour grapes trolling from a user who is apparently still upset that I blocked him some time ago. (Links/diffs available upon request.) Looks like more of the same.) Good Ol’factory 02:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

1RR proposal

Propose to put Badagnani on 1RR against established editors (not anons). Disclosure that I have clashed with him a lot when he reverts, he always shouts "WP:POINT" but he is always the first to complain when anybody questions him and says that people aren't allowed to question him. I ain't the only Vietnamese editor he disagrees with all the time eg Amore Mio (talk · contribs) and he always adds unsourced stuff or any old thing and insists on keeping it even with no sources because it's "useful" and he adds whatever he wants irrespective of undue weight. He does this in all Asian spheres of editing YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• As an editor who has had problems with him in the past, I would be inclined to support this proposal; however, I think a major aspect of the problems discussed above relate not just to edit warring on articles, but deleting other users' comments from his talk page and labelling various comments as "threats" or "threatening" (or "death threats", in extreme cases), as well as unilaterally attempting to reverse administrative actions—so I'm not sure if a simple 1RR would solve the problem, unless it also applied to his own talk page (which would be unusual). Personally, I'd like to hear from the editor on these matters. I've left him a quick note inviting him to do so, but it would be consistent with his past practice if my message is deleted and ignored. Good Ol’factory 06:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• I believe that any action should also limit Badagnani's removal of material from the talk page. By doing this, an editor can make it difficult for others to ascertain if they are currently the source of problems. This delays timely administrative action. That is to no one's benefit. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Having had minimal interaction with Badagnani, but reading this as a cold record, what is proposed (with Vegaswikian's add) seems reasonable. I do vaguely recall Badagnani demanding 1 month blocks against admins at DRV, so that editor would probably conclude that a suitable remedy for a violation of probation after all these warnings and blocks. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• I also agree that Vegaswikian's suggestion would be helpful. Badagnani has most recently taken to archiving comments on his page rather than removing them, which is kind of a step in the right direction. Good Ol’factory 22:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose The first comment in this thread is a complaint about the way an editor removes notices fromt heir talk page. Now those trying to get him blocked are trying to put him on 1RR restriction? This looks like an end run around dispute resolution to get an easy fix to winning disputes with this long term good faith editor. If there is edit warring take it to the appropriate boards. This recommendation and its support from those in editing disputes with this editor is not a good look at all. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

So you're telling everybody else to change their ways because one editor is different from the majority? He reverted an official admin closure of a discussion and you support his undoing it based on his own opinion? Where's the logic in that? The 1RR restriction should be well deserved, seeing as he's been given way too many chances, blocked many times, and still has yet to change his behavior. And the "strongest possible oppose" thing... I'm getting a bit suspicious here. GraYoshi2x► 00:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

And speaking only for myself, I've had no real "content disputes" with the editor. My sole concerns have been with misplaced allegations of threats, unilateral reversions of administrative actions, repeated solicitation of me to reverse an administrative action, edit warring with other editors, etc. For me at least, this would not be a matter for DR; here seems far more appropriate. Good Ol’factory 03:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

He reverts all the time, and basically always accuses everyone else of violating point or stuffing up the article by removing unsourced stuff. I don't care about his removing warnings. He knows what other people think of his actions bcause a few reverts are sign of a dispute. But if he can't revert then he can't go and do all this stuff against the consensus all the time and there would be no need to say anything to him. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 05:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey, it is quite surprising that you propose the sanction since he depends on you a lot (checkuser request or asking your opinion on Vietnamese topics). Anyway, I oppose your proposal because the one-way-sanction could be used for his disputers to game the system. (that is quite obvious expectation) I think enforceable community mentorship upon him could be better or there is no other way than RFRA. However, there is a possibility that he could leave the project for good given the fact that he left Commons after his misunderstanding of admins' roles there and OTRS made him feel to leave. So do I want him to be banned? Certainly, not.--Caspian blue 20:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The idea of mentorship came up in one of the last AN/ANI threads. That would probably be an acceptable (potential)solution for many editors, but, 1) noone has volunteered their time to doing so, and 2) Badagnani has made no indication that he recognizes the problems some of his habits are causing, which would obviously be needed before he would accept anyone's mentorship.

I've been trying to assist in helping him to communicate what I think is his perspective, since April. I believe he is a good content contributor, and I'd be very dismayed to see him leave. But, his tendencies towards hyperbole, and his frequent refusals to admit the validity of alternative perspectives, or to even communicate at all, are creating continuous problems. We're not a monoculture, and Badagnani doesn't have to "conform"; but he does have to "adapt", in order for him to function as part of our "community". He has to adapt, simply because we cannot continue on like this indefinitely. I've left a final attempt at communication on his talkpage, to which I'm desperately hoping to receive a conciliatory response. If he won't admit any fault at all, then I'm bereft of hope.

That said, I do believe that many of the editors who have interacted with him have been at as great a fault as he has, in regards to poor communication/mediation/civility skills, and I've been trying to point that out to some of them at the same time as trying to "translate" the perspectives from one to the other. I don't claim to be a good mediator, but some of the people who do, are terrible at it! And some of the people don't even try.

More generally, GTBacchus's draft of User:GTBacchus/A recurring problem is one of the clearest perspectives on these types of conflict that I have seen. Nobody has come up with a workable solution yet though, asfarasIknow. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If nothing is done in this case, after a relatively high degree and volume of disruption, I guess I'll definitely be taking the issue to DR/ArbCom after the next major incident with the user. I do find it hard to believe that a neutral editor with no past encounters with the user would find this behavior acceptable. Good Ol’factory 07:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how a 1RR restriction would accomplish anything other than the hastening of this editor to the door. If that's what we're going to do, then it's better to just do it, call it a "community patience" ban, and move on. If that seems to be preferred by a consensus, then... ok.

If, on the other hand, we'd like to keep him on board, then. . . the current strategy is not working. He won't adapt unless he recognizes that he must do so. Individual editors or groups telling him hasn't worked. His block log shows 8-12 blocks, none longer than 48 hours. Hmm.

Here's an idea: Indef block him, and make it abundantly clear that it's not for any particular incident, but for a well-defined and clearly articulated list of chronic problem behaviors, which have exhausted the community's patience. Make it clear that he's welcome to return to editing upon recognition of the problem, and the opening of a dialogue on what to do about it. Heck, he could still edit content through a proxy, if he wanted. It's just the interactions with other editors that have to change.

It might not work, of course. It might just lead to an indef block and that's that. The current strategy, where would-be mentor after would-be mentor is worn out on someone who's convinced that the problem is always everyone else... it's not the best, I think. -GTBacchus 20:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support Won't do much good anyways as he never really responds to anything, just removing the notices under a claim of being attacked and recreates things and the like if he wants, all because he knows better than the admins, the consensus, and everyone who disagrees with him. If you truly believe in MPOV (especially "it is necessary" to do things), nothing short of a full block is going to stop you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean meta:MPOV, right? You just posted a dead link :P GraYoshi2x► 23:40, 23 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)

Hmmm, I should have looked at some details earlier. He was dealing with a disruptive anon - that's should be taken into consideration. I don't think that there are grounds for desysoping anymore, but I'd still like to see his apology here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you are the disruptive one, together with your POV pushing friend. 158.143.166.124 (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It is pretty clear this user should not be a sysop. How about somebody explains the circumstances politely and asks them to resign, to avoid all the unnecessary fuss and drama. If ArbCom is asked to look at this, they almost certainly will remove sysop access. Jehochman 04:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to stop by here to mention my (very positive) impressions of Darwinek before he gets crucified by the mob. Darwinek is a longstanding sysop here (who has done yeoman's work with images and has generated a fantastic amount of content). My interactions with the fellow have been nothing but positive and he is very reasonable when approached on his talk page imo. I am uncertain of the details here but I would engage Darwinek as to the rationale for his block (as Piotrus suggests above) before making any summary decisions to de-sysop him -- Samir 05:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• I’m asking myself, are you guys real? Can’t you see the forest for the trees? What Darwinek did was in fact very reasonable under the circumstances. The offending IP reverted his edits five times in several hours with numbingly repetitious insults in his edit summaries. The anon did it in total impunity which only a no name dynamic IP number can give. Here are the examples of his language: 17:47, 19 July 2009 (rv vandalism), 19:25, 19 July 2009 (rv Polish nationalist POV vandalism), 19:40, 19 July 2009 (rv vandalism/POV pushing). And than, as User: U158 his insults continued: (rm nationalist POV and foreign language spam). Administrators are there to help others, so they should also be able to defend themselves against attacks when they are being victimized. The anon should have been blocked after his fourth revert at 19:25, 19 July 2009. And, he was, exactly as expected. There are no other rules to deal with here, and so, please stop creating an impression, that there IS a rule Darwinek might have broken by administering a (midly) punitive action against that IP number (24 hour block, not much). I repeat, he did it not against a user and not for a prolonged period of time, but against a nameless number, which Darwinek blocked temporarily for 3RR at 19:45, 19 July 2009, half an hour after the fourth revert. I strongly oppose the idea of an official apology. Darwinek did nothing wrong. --Poeticbent talk 05:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Poeticbent, calm down, everybody understood your argument.

To the issue: I would like to mention that Darwinek likes to engage people, something that stimulates productive, quality editing, but it is also something that can get you into trouble with people which are disruptive, because it creates the impression that you are involved in a content dispute. Darwinek has committed a key mistake: instead of being formal with disruptive editors, he has engaged them. As a result he applied blocks (correctly!) while he was formally already part of the edit process. Given that the disruption was clearly not Darwinek's in any of the cases, and that he/she is an excellent contributor and uses well the mop, I suggest Darwinek to voluntarily renounce to using block button for 1 month, while retaining all other sysop powers. Do not forget that block button is not the main admin tool, but one of many, and while some primarily use this one, Darwinek clearly does not. Dc76\ 07:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Saw this on Darwinek's user talk page, since he is blocked and unable to edit this page Livewireo (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC):

Firstly I would like to say that a block for me is fully justified in a response to 3RR. As for my blocking of that IP it was premature and wrong. For that reason I apologize for that. I should've inform other admins of that disruptive editor and seek their opinion on that specific case. I shouldn't have block him as a person involved. On the other hand IP's edits to that certain article were disruptive, as all his behaviour around. It doesn't constitute "I love Cindy"-type vandalism but is a clear case of disruptive editing. As for the fear and fuss about my admin tools and blocking abilities. I am not a kind of "blocking spree" admin, who blocks various IPs every day. I am fighting with classic IP vandalism every day (several recent examples , , ) but I don't use blocking tool very often. The reason is that in my experience vandalizing IP stops vandalizing after being reverted and/or warned. I am "janitorial" type of admin doing mostly silent and dirty work and admin opened to help other editors. Since my ArbCom case I really changed my wiki behaviour and more than two years of serenity and silence can prove that. My behaviour leading to ArbCom ruling was utterly inappropriate, punishment was strict and just. My behaviour since that time improved significantly ... this regrettable isolated incident is an exception. Me and my admin tools don't pose any threat to WP community. - Darwinek (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Did anyone even look at the edits of the IP? I do not see anything disruptive in this and this initial edit. In fact, in my opinion these improved the article; for example Cieszyn is not identical with Teschen, as Teschen was divided between the Czech republic and Poland after WWII. Same with the category Cieszyn Silesia, which is the wrong category given that parts of the Landkreis Teschen were not in what is today Cieszyn Silesia. But the fact that this edit had its merits and was definitely not vandalism did not stop Darwinek to add this warning to the IP's talk page . And then the editing derailed, with reverts and accussations. Guess this is another example of how IP editors are less editors than those that hide behind an anonymous user name. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

My response, moved from my talk page:

User:Darwinek is a disruptive editor, who behaved in a highly disruptive way, repeatedly (by revert-warring and abusive use of rollback tool) reinstating spelling errors in articles (Jerzy Buzek: , Austria-Hungary cannot be referred to as "the Austria-Hungary" in English, "after the 1939 it was..." does not make sense in English - but maybe in Polish?) and inconsistency, despite being told he was in error. He refuses to discuss his edits (Talk:Jerzy Buzek). Furthermore, he is a Polish nationalist POV pusher. This is a fact, and it does not surprise me that other long-time members of the Polish lobby are rushing to his defense now. It's very unfortunate that a lot of Central European topics at this project are largely controlled by disruptive Polish nationalist POV pushers, just have a look at Misplaced Pages:Lamest edit wars, Misplaced Pages would save a lot of time and trouble by blocking all access to the English project from Poland. And I was not being more uncivil to him than he was to me - he accused me of "vandalism" despite the fact that he is the vandal, who was messing up grammar and consistency, revert-warring, refusing to discuss, and pushing POV. But I did not block him, that's the whole difference. I don't trust his "apologies" at all, clearly he's only interested in retaining his admin rights in order to continue to abuse other editors and enforce his Polish POV (and odd grammar), as he's done before, and he's broken all his promises before as well. This time, he needs to be permanently desysopped. This project does not need people like him as administrators. I'm fed up by Eastern European nationalist POV pushers (with a poor command of English), and so are a lot of other non-Eastern European users. 158.143.212.147 (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.166.124 (talk)

Excuse me, but is this what you have to say: "Misplaced Pages would save a lot of time and trouble by blocking all access to the English project from Poland" ? Are you at least 1% serious? BTW, I was under the impression that Darwinek is Czech, not Polish. Dc76\ 12:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm really fascinated that you've tried to criticise another user's neutrality with such statements ... really fascinated. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 13:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

One has to say, that ignoring this ips diatribe here the edits in the article space seemed to be very reasonable and factually accurate. But I guessed that doesnt matter, right? 76.117.1.254 (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, it's a content dispute. Instead of bitting at your opponent, you should try to resolve it in a civilized tone. Darwinek was wrong in that by not being formal he has entered the content dispute, therefore even if his block was correct from the point of view of lessening the disruption upon WP, it was not correct because it was issued by Darwinek. I repeat: whatever the impact upon Darwinek, that won't solve the content dispute, so please do be calm, civil, assume good faith (when discussing content, at least), and please work kindly in the talk pages. Dc76\ 14:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

IP editor

Let's leave aside the issue of Darwinek. They seem to have taken the points raised here. What shall we do about the apparently disruptive IP editor? Jehochman 13:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you even looked at the edits of the ip in the article space? And did you notice that this ip is now willing to discuss changes on article space and has thus apparently learned his or her lesson? Maybe Misplaced Pages should just stop allowing ip edits, because apparently they are not very welcome here. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Edits are welcome from everybody. (In principle, even Bin Laden can edit Geography of Pakistan.) Bad temper is not.

A suggestion: punish the IP for exactly what s/he has done, nor more and no less. If after the punishment the tone and attitude have changed, if there is no more disruption, everybody would be happy. If there is more disruption, you know what to do. Dc76\ 14:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's be honest. Many constructive IP editors feel as though they're treated like shit. Certainly it's acceptable to say stuff to a good faith IP editor that woud get you a warning if you said it to a disruptive logged in editor. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have already received the same "punishment" as User:Darwinek, which I have stated was fair. I'm the only one who behaved non-disruptive in this dispute, while User:Darwinek refused to discuss his edits, abused his admin tools to enforce his POV, harrassed me and blocked his opponent, I have never blocked anyone in this dispute, and I have discussed all the controversial aspects (without receiving an answer). Still, I'm being harrassed by users like User:Jehochman at this page, clearly in retaliation for the fact that I made a report resulting in Darwinek being blocked for his disruptive edit-warring. If anyone deserves more punishment, it's certainly not me. 158.143.212.153 (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Jehochman

The only user who is behaving disruptive is User:Darwinek, who is systematically refusing to discuss his edits. It is indeed very unfortunate that User:Jehochman now is engaged in personal attacks against me in retaliation for my report of User:Darwinek, even after the case is over. If he continues to be engaged in personal attacks, I will report him as well. The last report I made on an abusive admin resulted in that user being blocked for 24 hours. 158.143.212.153 (talk) 11:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest you either withdraw this comment or show diffs of where you were attacked by Jehochman. There's nothing in his ANI comments here that qualifies as a personal attack. — The Hand That Feeds You: 12:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll go one step further; this is funny. Jhochman making personal attacks. ok, you do realize he's been on the site since dirt was a new idea, right? We know him and we know how he acts. You don't seem to realize its like telling us the guy who sits next to us at the office is actually an alien.

I'm chuckling at this, will be for a while. Thanks for the laugh... KillerChihuahuaAdvice 22:59, 23 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)

John Bot V (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), John Bot VI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), John Bot VII (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), John Bot VIII (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), John Bot IX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and John Bot X (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should also be blocked (all created by CWii). Algebraist 03:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Per Luna above, I have given back the privilege of being able to edit his talk page while blocked, but protected the page with an expiry time of 1 month. After that he can edit his talk page to request an unblock. Viridae 03:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Hope I don't look silly in a month. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:29, 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)

Given the further disruption caused by accounts of his, and his promise to continue disruption, shouldn't we get on with deleting the pages? You said before it was premature, what about now?— Dædαlus 20:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but are you replying to Luna Santin? He/she was the one that said "premature", not me. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

@Daedalus, have you considered the possibility that his subpages are not our concern, are doing no one any harm, and that perhaps we'd all be better off finding something else to do besides trying to make sure that the Scarlet A we paint on CWii's forehead is as big and as red as possible? This is not helping anyone or anything. Indeed, it is pouring gasoline on the fire; even when the fire is someone else's fault, it doesn't need gasoline poured on it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me how deleting the pages of a user that actually promised to be disruptive is pouring gas on the flame. And further, what flame? This user use to be productive, sure, but they're doing all this by choice. They wanted to get blocked in the beginning, but now it goes further when they come back on previous accounts and promise that the fun is only beginning. There is no flame.— Dædαlus 22:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Even if the flames have died down, it's still not wise to pour gasoline on glowing embers either. Per Looie somewhere above, this was a pretty big meltdown, but it's still possible they might calm down and return to productive editing in a month or two. Maybe not, but maybe. Since part of their meltdown seems to be an overreaction to what they perceived as an unfair block, it's reasonable to assume that deleting their subpages would be perceived as even more unfairness, and make it that much less likely that they'll be able to return to productive editing someday.

Now, please answer a question for me in return: how would deleting the subpages help anyone, or anything? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Pages like that take of space, in this case, they take up much space. Now, I don't see this user really returning, ever, after they n-bombed their talk page until they were indef blocked, then again using a sock.— Dædαlus 00:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"Take up space"? Please explain how they "take up space". You understand that deleting them does not free up any server space or anything like that, right? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Except they don't, they take up no more space undeleted as deleted because they always remain on the server, they are only flagged so that those people with view deleted permissions can see them ie admins. Viridae 00:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC))

SPI report filed

Because of this edit, please be aware of Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/CWii that I've filed. Since I can't edit CWii's talk page, can an admin notify him/her? I've notified the IP. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think WP:COMMON comes into play here. It might just be quicker to block for 24-72 hours. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 03:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Uh, I think this is completely unnecessary. Tan | 39 03:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a need for it. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever; knock yourself out if you want to waste even more time on this guy. The IP account you reported was blocked long before this. Tan | 39 03:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll just be waiting for the checkuser results. I won't be surprised if the conclusion is "confirmed", at all. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You realize that when the CU results come back positive, as is totally obvious, that nothing else will be done? This is a waste of time for everyone involved, including the CU. Tan | 39 03:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

<-- Clerk declined Given the situation, I'm fairly certain that the IP is a sock, so a check is not necessary. We would only find out what we already know. Icestorm815 • Talk 03:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Please un-decline. A check is necessary. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but I did check this one about the same time I reverted that edit, and it looks  Unrelated, with the potentially important caveat I haven't checked if it's a proxy yet. I'll be keeping an eye on this thread in general, will let you know if I find anything interesting. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

So you're scrutinizing the details? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

CWii has just declared that IP to be themself on IRC, for what that's worth. Algebraist 04:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Not surprised - Tan made the proper call, the filing was unnecessary and the checkuser request was unnecessary. We can all move on now methinks. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 04:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I expected it to be CWii, but I'll be waiting for any potential checkuser evidence. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What are you going to do with any CU evidence? Ask that CWii be blocked longer than... indefinitely? Block the IP... again? Tan | 39 04:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

A need that it be a way to expose the disruption. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

resolved

blocked indef Tan | 39 03:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This is resolution?

Have none of you stepped back from two user page edits (and post-block user talk page sarcasm) to look at the larger picture, here? Here it is for you:

• 2009-07-16 02:11:52: Marshall Williams2 creates Salvo (magazine).
• 2009-07-19 15:35:50: SchmuckyTheCat nominates it for deletion at AFD, with a discussion page at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Salvo (magazine).
• 2009-07-20 01:56:39 Marshall Williams2 removes the AFD notice from the article. The AFD discussion had not been closed.
• 2009-07-20 02:04:21 CWii reinstates the AFD notice on the article.
• 2009-07-20 02:05:07 Marshall Williams2 uses Twinkle to remove the AFD notice a second time.
• 2009-07-20 02:06:06 CWii again reinstates the AFD notice on the article.
• 2009-07-20 02:07:41 Marshall Williams2 comes to AN/I pointing to CWii's user page.
• 2009-07-20 02:08:35 CWii places {{uw-afd3}}, the boilerplate warning for removing AFD notices out of process, on User talk:Marshall Williams2.
• 2009-07-20 02:14:15 Marshall Williams2 removes what xe deems to be an "unrightful notice" from xyr talk page.
• Discussion ensues. 3 administrators and 1 CheckUser are involved.
• 2009-07-20 02:48:49 Tanthalas39 blocks CWii for 1 month.
• 2009-07-20 03:01:09 CWii is sarcastic on xyr user talk page whilst blocked.
• 2009-07-20 03:01:58–03:04:40 CWii makes some silly edits to xyr talk page explicitly trying to provoke an indefinite block.
• 2009-07-20 03:04:57 Viridae prevents CWii from editing xyr talk page.
• 2009-07-20 03:08:20 Tanthalas39 extends the block indefinitely.
• 2009-07-20 03:09:38–03:11:20 CWii2, an account that hasn't otherwise been used since January 2009 and that has only 4 edits in total since July 2008, repeats the silly edits, again to the account's own talk page.
• 2009-07-20 03:26:25 Luna Santin blocks CWii2.
• 2009-07-20 03:28:37–03:34:45 Luna Santin blocks a whole load of approved 'bots, even though they have made no edits since May 2009.
• 2009-07-20 03:43:17 Rjd0060 blocks another 'bot that has made no edits at all, and that was created seventeen months before this kerfuffle started, for supposedly "actively causing disruption with bot accounts".
• 2009-07-20 03:48:22–03:49:23 Tanthalas39 makes further blocks of 'bot accounts for "Abusing multiple accounts" and "Block evasion", seemingly wholly ignoring the facts that the 'bot accounts were created almost a year and a half ago, and have no edits at all.

I've had a look at Special:Contributions/CWii for July and June and to be honest I'm not seeing this purported incompetence and lack of collegiality (given as the blocking rationale above) in an edit history that had a mere 27 edits since the beginning of this month up to the point that this AN/I section was started — including edits such as this and this for which the labels "incompetent" and "uncollegiate" seem highly inappropriate.

Tanthalas39 and Rjd0060, your judgement in using your tools, given the apparent complete lack of any investigation here on your parts before blocking accounts, is not looking particularly sound here. And Luna Santin, as a CheckUser you really should know better than to not even look at an account's contributions history when blocking and to block legitimate alternate accounts (that have even been through the 'bot approval process) willy-nilly when they haven't even been used.

Am I the only one to think that perhaps 4 administrators and 1 CheckUser have blocked a 'bot operator and all of xyr 'bots, who was quietly moving images to Commons and not even abusing one account up to the point that this discussion started let alone multiple ones (and certainly not abusing multiple accounts subsequently except to draw attention, although perhaps not in the wisest manner, to some block decisions that on balance do look rather poor), at the behest of an article creator who didn't like having the AFD notice on xyr article and so looked for any reason to have a pop at the editor unlucky enough to be the one who chose to restore it whilst the AFD discussion was in progress? Uncle G (talk) 04:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Given this abusive unblock request from CWii2 and this offensive posting from John Bot, blocking alternate accounts seemed prudent. Obviously that sort of tripe can't be allowed to run rampant, and obviously it was likely to continue unless the user was blocked, so I'm frankly confused what you think should have been done in those circumstances. I have no comment on the situation leading up to the block, as I was not involved whatsoever until CWii's meltdown. As far as I've checked, the blocks were set with talk page editing disabled, but emailing enabled, which seems to limit the potential for on-wiki disruption and public spectacle while still allowing for reasonable appeal once things have calmed down. If the user is unblocked and the community still trusts them to be running bots, I see no particular reason why the other blocks couldn't be lifted as well. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • No, you don't get to justify your actions with circular reasoning. The diff that you point to as justification for blocking post-dates your blocks, and was a reaction to it. Can you not see what CWii was saying? It's pretty clear to me. Let me translate what CWii's actions are saying into prose for you. Here's what xe is quite clearly saying:

    "Look, you've foolishly blocked the person who was reverting the out-of-process AFD notice removals, and issuing the warnings, and left the person who was actually doing that entirely alone. If you want to go the whole hog, which will only make you look even more foolish, you might as well extend the blocks to indefinite ones and block all of my other accounts as well. I'll even make it easy for you and put some naughty words on their user talk pages so that you know which ones they are."

    Make no mistake, Luna Santin. You aren't the reaction here. You are the cause, along with the four other administrators who went on a blocking spree. Your actions caused the "spectacle"; they didn't result from it. As a CheckUser, we the community trust you to have even sounder judgement than those other administrators, which includes doing the simple but necessary checks before taking action, like looking at contributions histories before blocking. You, not I, should have been the one saying "Hold on here! Look what you are all doing!" in this discussion. Uncle G (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
    • "The diff"? You may notice I linked two, in my last comment, so I'm not sure which one you're referring to. The first diff directly precipitated the blocks I set -- I made a judgement call, anticipating that further disruption was likely to follow, and so I blocked a few accounts that had been used recently. CWii then switched accounts again and posted nearly identical nonsense elsewhere (see second diff); does that support or malign my judgement? You ask below if this is what we want the world to see. If the world sees that Misplaced Pages administrators block people for spamming racist epithets, I'm honestly fine with that. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• It is common practice to block known alternate accounts (in this case, bot accounts) of indefinitely blocked users. In this case, the indefinitely blocked user had already switched to another account (one of the bot accounts) and used it for disruption. In addition, CWii's off-wiki "promises" to continue causing more disruption and his warning that the fun was "just beginning" were more than enough reason to block his other accounts. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • No, you don't get to employ circular reasoning, either. You don't get to use user talk page reaction to a block to post-hoc justify the blocks, nor to justify your "actively causing disruption with bot accounts" block rationale by pointing to use of one of those accounts that post-dates the 'bot account blocks. I said it to Luna Santin above, and I repeat to you: CWii was quite clearly giving you an excuse to make yourselves look even more foolish, by pointing to all of the accounts that you all hadn't yet extended your unchecked and ill-judged blocking spree to, and you went and did exactly that. It's fairly clear from other edits that CWii is of the camp that doesn't hold administrators in high regard, and your ill-judged actions here have only served to reinforce that perception, not only in CWii's yes but in the eyes of everyone else in the world happening across this noticeboard.

    What's particularly disappointing is that neither you, nor Luna Santin, nor any other administrator involved here, have even re-considered the initial block in light of the clear evidence that you've been gamed into blocking the wrong person, and you all seem quite willing to have the outcome of this be that the person who issues the warnings for disruption be the person who gets blocked, and the person who mucks around with AFD notices out of process be the one supported by administrators.

    Is this really how you want to have English Misplaced Pages administrators seen by the world? Because what the world is seeing — make no mistake about it — is that administrators (and CheckUsers) rush to judgement without doing any investigation at all beforehand; effectively not only don't put into practice the notion that disruption of AFD processes results in blocks, but even enact quite the opposite, supporting one another in doing so; and are unwilling to even acknowledge, let alone to re-consider or to rectify, mistakes when they are pointed out. Uncle G (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• So are we ever letting CWii back on WP or is it too early to decide? --How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 02:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • If I were you, I'd be very quiet right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Daysoflight

Ummm, did you read the top of this page before you posted? It says Socking issues → Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations is that way. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I've removed my post. Someone else can take care of it, some other time. JNW (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the user has not filed an SPI, I did so instead. All named accounts from the original post are blocked indef.— Dædαlus 00:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

User:OckhamTheFox and Bambifan101

OckhamTheFox is acting in concert with Bambifan101 to post articles here at Bambifan101's request through discussions they are having on the Russian Misplaced Pages. He started by recreating The Seventh Brother, an article created twice by Bambifan101 socks and CSDed as such. See for the discussions. I suspected as much when the article was posted, and its basically been confirmed by the newest IP sock. Thoughts, options, etc? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Some fun quotes from their discussion: "Collectian is probably away now, so I think you can post my new draft there whilst she's away. Tell her that you are new to English wikipedia and are doing this in good faith." and his bragging about his sockpuppeting "FYI, Collectian isn't editing much, and the user Cactusjump is back after a four-day wikibreak. I had used an account called "TheRescuers" to trick Cactusjump into thinking that I was a Rescuers fan" clearly showing that OckhamTheFox (supposedly an administrator there?) knew what he was doing. I'm inclined to think its bannable, but will leave to others to decide how to respond to this. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's more than high time for a formal complaint to Bell South. I am sick and tired of this individual wasting valuable volunteer time. PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I blocked and tagged the account. As for a formal complaint, you're always welcome to take a look at WP:ABUSE. Icestorm815 • Talk 03:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Meta finally decided to act on this to some degree and has blocked some of his global accounts, including The Seventh Brother one he was using on the Russian Misplaced Pages and they are starting to block others as well (only took a year after I first made multiple requests </bitterness>). He's being a pain on the many language ones as well, creating vandal articles and copy/pasting English articles from here (his preferred versions) to there. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been informed that OckhamTheFox is an administrator at the Russian Misplaced Pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess that means that Bambifan101 and OckhamTheFox are unrelated? It's odd how an administrator could do something like that. -- Pinkgirl34 17:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

They are unrelated, but for whatever reason, OckhamTheFox agreed to help him here despite knowing full well that he was a multi-time banned sockpuppet. Scary to think that is the kind of admins the Russian wiki has...-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm from Russian Misplaced Pages too. Sorry, are there any pages other than listed on this page, which would help to find any additional information in order to get a complete picture of the situation with The Seventh Brother and his/her relations to Ockham The Fox? Thanks! Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 19:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

We only just learned about this, so I doubt we've got anything other than what's on this AN/I thread, Drbug. -Jeremy 20:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I looked through the User:Bambifan101 and didn't understand exactly what initilally there was disruptive in his behavior. Have he put false information into the articles or just inaccurate in style?

As far as I understand, the informatia lot on that Ockham the Fox carried into Misplaced Pages didn't contain any false information? It looks to me like all the OTF's edits were good faith ones... Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 22:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he has put false information, reverted to very old versions after clean up and referencing was done, randomly removed comments from talk pages to the point of blanking them, and refactored others comments. It just depends on his mood. Sometimes he does decent edits for a short time, but he almost always reverts to the status quo. He has deliberately vandalized other articles, including blanking and copyvio violations, to get the attentions of those familiar with him, repeatedly merged and unmerged articles at his own whim, attacked and harassed other users, made both death and suicide threats as a joke, threatened to have his "daddy" "buy" Misplaced Pages and kick everyone off, etc. And sorry, but OTF's edits were far from good faith ones. Seventh Brother AKA Bambifan had already bragged about how he was sockpuppeting here, and OTF KNEW he was banned from editing here, so he turned around and performed specific edits that Bambifan101 wanted to do, including recreated a multi-time deleted article (figuring if OTF did it, it wouldn't be CSDed again) and taken from content Bambifan101 provided. The edits to The Fox and The Hound were to restore deleted content and a version Bambifan101 prefers from one of his many bad versions he's spammed around the other language Misplaced Pages's. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks a lot for the info. Ok, I see now that the movie fails WP:N and WP:NF. Hm, I probably guess how OTF could think: "no matter what is the primary source of the work, it should be included in Misplaced Pages if it is legal and adds a value to Misplaced Pages according to its rules", provided that it's him responsible for the information he brings in. In Russian Misplaced Pages it's not universally prohibited to bring an article of a banned user to Misplaced Pages. So he doublechecked the information and put it in. Ok, I won't continue this topic in this page. Thank you! Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 23:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

For some more detailed info, this LTA subpage should help. -Jeremy 02:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If he did mean well, may want to warn him that the sock is still trying to "work" him and get him to do things for him. Ilikepiepieisawesomeright is probably him, again, and 68.220.187.70 most certainly is (one of his known IP ranges). Likely decided OTF is an easy mark and will continue trying to trick him for awhile. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Anyone else incredibly tempted to just rangeblock 74.230.0.0/16, with a block notice that anyone inconvenienced by it should just be pointed towards Bell South's abuse reporting email address? Black Kite 23:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, but I'm too busy getting "Gremlins from the Kremlin" out of my mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Can someone block User:Ilikepiepieisawesomeright. Its the named sock he made yesterday while he had the IP active. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

As an update, OckhamTheFox is continuing to perform edits for Bambifan101. While he may be an admin on the Russian Misplaced Pages, he is continuing to violate this Misplaced Pages's rules about making proxy edits for a sockpuppet knowing full well what he is doing. His block was released because of his admin status, but he is still not helping anything by continuing to edit for Bambifan. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I will talk to him in Russian. I think he does not realize the difference in policies concerning banned users. Ruwiki user Kv75 (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

User:DanaUllman

DanaUllman (talk · contribs)

Dana Ullman (wikipedia article: Dana Ullman) makes a living promoting homeopathy, and was banned for one year, by the arbitration committee, for the extreme disruption he caused by promoting it here. He has recently returned, and, immediately upon returning, continued his behaviours of attacking any studies that found against homeopathy.

The man makes a living promoting homeopathy. The obnly way he's going to ever come under Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy is to give up his living. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, while I remember the issues a year asgo from reading up on them here, the two posts he's made to that page aren't of the evil nature you suggest. One is him providing first hand knowledge on the talk page about the faults in a study, and from his explanation, they may in fact have some serious issues, and another explaining the idea. I will concede that the second is phrased in the style of an advocate for 'the other side'. but not like a lunatic. These two comments on the talk page alone aren't enough to convince me he hasn't learned.ThuranX (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe - if there hadn't been a huge thread, in which it was shown that the objections to the protocol only emerged afer it failed, and were approved before. Frankly, after months of everyone having to spend all their time dealing with Dana Ullman, tracking down studies and information which it almost inevitably turned out he vastly over-hyped,a nd which often did not say what he claimed - have a look at the Homeopathy case evidence page - having him back is enough to make one scream. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

To be fair to Dana, while he was indeed revisiting an old battle, he didn't bring the subject up himself - he was replying to a thread started by another editor the day before. His particular COI with respect to this specific issue has been pointed out on the talk page. On the other hand, he does have an obvious COI WRT the whole subject of homoeopathy. Brunton (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

From looking at the user page, there's a topic ban mentioned. I only took a quick look, but it sounds like it's still in effect. If this is the case, someone needs to remind him of this and tell him to stay away from the associated articles and talk pages. The right venue for him to contest studies is in the academic world, not here. Friday (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The topic ban needs looking at, and also WP:COI. He is an actor in the section being discussed, so probably should only provide information on that subject (the ABC/BBC programs). Verbal chat 18:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is the topic ban? There was a total one year ban which expired this week, I can't see a topic ban. Dougweller (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

He was given a three-month topic ban by Vassayana before the Arbcom total ban -- obviously this expired long ago. Note that the Arbcom decision allows any uninvolved admin to impose new sanctions if such are deemed necessary, after appropriate warning. Looie496 (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. It sure seems like the kind of thing that should be re-instituted, permanently. Knowing nothing other than who he is, I think we can safely conclude that he's not interested in neutrality with respect to his pet topic. Friday (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm asking Vassyana to clarify the topic ban - seems like it was initially 3 months, then a full indef ban was instituted, then lifted (but with the topic ban still in effect), followed by an arbcom-imposed year in the clink. I also notified Mr. Ullman of this discussion, out of courtesy. My personal opinion is to let him contribute on talk pages, but re-institute a topic or full ban if he starts showing us the full monty again. I will note, though, he is jumping back into one of his old favorite crusades - namely, the 20/20 incident, which is a viper's nest of reliable source, conflict of interest, and BLP issues. I wish I could point editors to Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence to get a feel for Mr. Ullman's conduct, but despite multiple assurances from arbitrators that it will be undeleted it has not been. Skinwalker (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Although I make a living from homeopathy, I also have a long academic record, including writing a chapter in an Oxford University Press textbook (2009) on "Integrative Oncology," writing a chapter on homeopathy and pain management in "Weiner's Pain Management" (one of the leading authoritative textbooks on pain management), and many other peer-review articles and chapters. I may have made some mistakes of advocacy in the past, but I have been punished and have learned. If wikipedia will choose to topic-ban me, it must also consider topic-banning many many other experts who also make some type of living from their expertise, including many medical doctors and medical researchers (and on and on). And I wonder then can and should be done with all of the anonymous people who edit here and who might theoretically deserve a topic ban (needless to say, I am not recommending this). Instead, I believe that it makes more sense to topic ban those people based on their behavior and actions rather than on theoretical grounds. I sincerely hope that wikipedia be careful in hearing the "testimony" of those editors who I happen to show are not providing accurate information on homeopathy, as is what happened with this initial complaint. DanaUllman 01:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, other crap exists, even in some textbooks. Just because some publisher was foolish enough to allow homeopathic nonsense some mention doesn't mean we have to allow its very active promotion here. Promotion of nonsense and pseudoscience is not welcome here, while defending proven and documented reality is status quo and expected. Why? Because Misplaced Pages aspires to become a serious encyclopedia, and not a Conservapedia or Altienonsenseapedia. Brangifer (talk) 05:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I was all set to support his access to talk pages, but he went right into his SOAPBOXing here, which shows that he's unable to discuss this rationally. He asks that people be banned for their actions, not their office, but even on this matter, he fails. He seems more concerned with his ego than with either actual science, or improving the article. He frames his comment in the manner of 'I was there, therefore I am qualified to both correct this, and MORE qualified than others to write an article on this topic.' Even in the last two days' comments, he goes on with the whole 'Homeopathic science is done in a secret and different way which cannot be reproduced by non-believers' jive. It's demonstrative of his inability to hold rational discourse on a topic which for him is a faith and religion; like religion for many, discussion must be an 'us and them' not an objective examination, which is what's required for good Misplaced Pages editing. Therefore, I am convinced that he should be the subject of an indefinite topic ban, one which will, in practice, likely be a permanent ban. His view is simply at loggerheads with our intentions here to provide solid, cited information. ThuranX (talk) 06:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have worked with dana Ullman in the past. while i do feel like his homeopathy advaocacy can have led to problems in the past, I do feel that he makes an important point here. essentially, he is being censured by past conduct and his profession rather than his current behavior. according to our blocking policy, blocking is preventative not punitive so I feel that he shouldnt be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages completely just because he MIGHT offend in the future. Rather, i propose that the mentioned topic ban be commuted to probation, in which case if he does behave unethically then an unvinovolved Administrator may impose sanctions such as a topic ban. I am worried that we are using a WP:ANI to win a content dispute in Homeopathy, which was a problem that myself and other homeopathy editors dealt with extensively to our detriment two years ago and I think that we can prevent by being less aggressive and more preventative now. User:Smith Jones 02:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Dana Ullman caused about 6 months of disruption last year, over dozens of articles. If the evidence page of the Homeopathy case was undeleted, you'd see that he lied or mislead about the content of sources, claimed that an article for a very, very obscure journal without its articles online was the leading journal in the field, and that that his summary of it MUST be included (While not providing the article, nor mentioing the journal had a section specificaly devoted to - I forget the exact term, but it was something like speculative research on unproven concepts. He caused a couple weeks of disruption claiming that Linde's retraction of results in a later paper wasn't a retraction becuase that exact word didn't appear, and so the original study - whose results he liked - should be used in the article without updates, etc, etc. He and a few others had made the situaton at homeopathy such a horrible mess that admins weren't even willing to go there and deal with clearly-documented problems with pro-homeopathic users, because if they did, a large group would swoop down to attack. Back in that time, it ws widely said that the only thing enforced there was WP:CIVIL, and only if you weren't a homeopath (certain homeopaths were allowed to engage in extreme incivility, regularly). Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and, if it matters, he also showed up off-wiki on my blog after I posted about homeopathy on Citizendium, back in February, which was kind of creepy. I'll provide a link in e-mail upon request to enough administrators that they can confirm, I'd rather not link publicly. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't read too much into that. He regularly turns up in the comments of blog posts with any kind of critical view of homoeopathy. A couple of recent examples: . Brunton (talk) 10:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Smith Jones, DanaUllman is being put up for a ban because he's a religious zealot, and his religion is more important to him than anything else. This leads to a total inability to deal with things rationally. For example, he came to my talk page to attack me for paraphrasing his attitude as being an unattributed and unreal quote. Had he bothered to use those vaunted writing skills he brags of, he'd know the difference between ' and ", but he doesn't. this same irrational reaction is brought to anyone who brings scientific debunking to the Homeopathy article. Because it 'hurts' his religion (whether Homeopathy or profit is the underlying religion is up to you). This means that like all the other religious zealot issues we deal with, like the images of Muhammad, one side can spend the rest of eternity explaining scholarship, dispassionate writing, citation, applications to a wide audience and so on, and the other side will shout "MY RELIGION! NO BLASPHEMY" over and over, which is exactly what we have going on here. DanaUllman just shouts it with more and bigger words than most. Same principle underlying the situation. ThuranX (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

In due respect, I do not think of homeopathy as a "religion," and actually, I have a good academic record. The fact that UC Berkeley's alumni magazine chose to feature me and my work amongst the millions of its alumni is an honor. I feel that I have something to contribute here, and I have sought to better understand and learn the rules of wikipedia. To be honest, it seems that it is ThuranX who has an axe to grind here. I expressed concern to him privately that he put quotes in a statement above that I have never said NOR implied, and I simply did not think that this assertion was accurate or fair. Whereas double quotes would suggest a direct quote, the use of single quotes suggests a paraphrase, and yet, he never referenced any such paraphrased statement. Instead of apologizing or seeking to correct the situation, he simply went on the attack again. I told him in my post at his user-page that I wanted to assume good faith, and yet, he doesn't seem to AGF back. I do not plan to be a very active editor here, but when appropriate, I may do some editing. I will probably work more on Talk pages. That said, I hope that admins here watch some of the people here who seem so lividly anti-homeopathy. Livid is no place for an encyclopedia. DanaUllman 17:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm anti-bad biased writing, not anti-homeopathy. You refuse to listen to others, abide by good writing styles, by Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, adn continually go on the offensive against anyone who doesn't acquiesce to your POV. You are an inherently biased editor on this topic, and you spend the vast majority of your time here agitating for a Pro-Homeopathy article. All critics are flat out wrong in your view, all outsiders are wrong because they don't understand the 'science' like you claim do, and anyone else is just getting in the way of you and the 'truth'. I'm sick of seeing such zealotry on Misplaced Pages, because contrary to your claims that a Pro-Homeopathic bias tot he article would help more people by saving their lives, such an article does NOT help the uninitiated reader to become more educated and learn both sides of an issue. You continually work to obstruct good writing, NPOV articles, and to antagonize those who don't agree with you. You had a one year ban for it, and your immediate actions on return are to run right back to the front lines and start it up again. Misplaced Pages is better off without you. ThuranX (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

believe me, Thuran is udnerstand your point. the fanatcisim of one side of the alternative medicine debate that I participated in last year was practicaly obscene. People were banned and blocked and others wer accused of murder because they promoted Homeopathy. I remember an ex-user, Randall Blackamoor, who was banned after lashing out at both sides and accusing Misplaced Pages of being a murder because it even had an article on Homeopathy in the first place! I can see why Dana Ullmans presence is unwelcome. However, comparing him to a religious blitz then what the Thing is to do is to always follow Wikipedias policy scrupulously instead of using it to create revenge on Dana Ullman for his past and not his present sins. I believe that an uninvolved administrator can review his episodes and and if he is found to be disruptive BASED ON HIS CURRENT ESSAYS then he should be topic-banned (from Homeopathy only -- he has contributed extensively and constructively outside of Homeopathy so he should be allowed to remained). I am anti- a hardline on any user. Just follow the rules and the right thing User:Smith Jones 23:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Day old speedy

I added a spam tag to FIVDB yesterday and it still isn't deleted. Can one of you please delete it? Joe Chill (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

An admin took care of it by removing the speedy and adding tags. Joe Chill (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I declined the speedy and tagged the article for cleanup. I found at least 3 Google Books hits in the first two pages of the search, so it would appear to be notable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sionce when was being notable mutually exclusive with being spam? Reagardless I've retagged it as a copyvio from fivdb.net, which doesn't load at the moment but the google cache shows - shows parts like:

Socieal Vision

A vibrant society based on justice, equity, democracy and environmentally sound principles.

Organisational Mission

To give disadvantaged women, men and children greater voice, reduce their vulnerability, increase use of citizenship rights and help them enhance their quality of life. To that end, FIVDB pursues educational, economic development and social-organisation approaches. It works to strengthen social protection and safety networks and participates in national and international outreach and advocacy. FIVDB works in collaboration with communities, civil society, government and the private sector.

Strategy

FIVDB combines grass-roots service delivery, community mobilisation and advocacy in its strategy.

Our article:

Social Vision

A vibrant society based on justice, equity, democracy and environmentally sound principles.

Organisational Mission

To give disadvantaged women, men and children greater voice, reduce their vulnerability, increase use of citizenship rights and help them enhance their quality of life. To that end, FIVDB pursues educational, economic development and social-organisation approaches. It works to strengthen social protection and safety networks and participates in national and international outreach and advocacy. FIVDB works in collaboration with communities, civil society, government and the private sector.

Strategy

FIVDB combines grass-roots service delivery, community mobilisation and advocacy in its strategy.

--82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

"Since when was being notable mutually exclusive with being spam?" Um, pretty much since always. CSD is not a substitute for cleanup.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Although there clearly seems to be some copyvio stuff in there. I don't think that makes it speediable. Instead we should remove the copyvio material but leave the the other stuff in. T he organisation does merit an article IMO.Theresa Knott | token threats 13:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This falls under WP:SOFIXIT, not WP:CSD. Rlendog (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The speedy delete tag was removed yesterday so why bring the speedy delete tag up again? It should have been marked as resolved 15 mintutes after I posted it because I replied with "An admin took care of it by removing the speedy and adding tags." Joe Chill (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Serious BLP issues

I added this to WP:BLPN but nobody had the time.

• 1. Medical records are private and i have added it to WP:BLPN here.

• 2. Misreported allegations WP:BLPN here `

Better some administrator have a look at it. Removal needs to be enforced. Iqinn (talk) 12:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

In my limited experience with WPANI regular readers don't appreciate having issues brought here, when a discussion has been initiated elsewhere. So I am going to respond back at BLPN#Hussein Salem Mohammed. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 05:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody had dealt with it there and it is mainly unsolved. Geo Swan is the editor who resist the removal. He should not come in here and disturb things. It is necessary that the wider community has a look at it. Iqinn (talk) 05:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Block increase

Hi User:Aitias has increased the block of User:Catterick here for venting a little anger and has also blocked editor from editing their own talk page this is wrong as editors are allowed to vent on their own page. BigDunc 12:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Before posting here and making false claims, you should familiarise yourself with our policies; blocked user are — of course — not allowed to do so. It is considered inappropriate and my actions are in accordance with the relevant policies: Misplaced Pages:Protection_policy#Talk-page_protection and WP:Block policy. — Aitias // discussion 12:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not a false claim the editor gave a parting shot out of frustration of fuck you. BigDunc 12:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It was, however, a blatantly false claim that they are allowed to do so. — Aitias // discussion 12:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Also the policy you link to states or continued uncivil or offensive remarks. I cant see any continued attacks as I said a parting shot. BigDunc 12:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. 1 day block extension and page protection seem appropriate here. Venting is occasionally permitted (but there is no Right to Vent), more so if it's immediately around the time of the block, less so if it's a day later. R. Baley (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC) clarified 13:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support the block extension and the warning to BigDunc for restoring the personal attack. Jauerback/_dude. 13:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The editor gets a 48 hr block for edit warring and a minute later Aitias increases it to 72 hrs citing block conflict so editor who is blocked gets frustrated and lashes out at no particular editor with a fuck you all statement and the block is increased this is wrong. The editor could have been prevented from editing their talk page without an increase in the block for editing while frustrated. BigDunc 13:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• "fuck you" is pretty tame as far as incivility goes. The extra day seems a little excessive, let's just run him right out the door why don't we? I note there's been some post-block poking going on as well, i.e. restoring the block notice the editor blanked (which editors are allowed to remove per WP:BLANKING) –xeno 13:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• I thought that block notices for active blocks could not be removed from the talk page? -Jeremy 18:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• I support the block extension. Incivility is never acceptable, including on one's own talk page and including in response to a block.  Sandstein  13:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

He was baited and took the bait with editors reverting changes they made to their own page it led to frustration and IMO tame outburst. At most if the attacks and I use that loosely continued per policy the page could have been blocked. BigDunc 13:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with increasing a block length when the user continues acting inappropriately. If someone is being nasty that is the worst time for their block to end, they clearly still have stuff to work through. None of our volunteers deserve to be called idiots and action should be taken to prevent people from doing so. "Baited" is no excuse for being nasty, and I don't see any baiting here anyways. You don't get a special exemption from our personal attacks policy because it is your talk page or because you are blocked. Chillum 13:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• It isn't that blocked users are allowed to be uncivil on their talk pages, it's that a wise admin will often turn a blind eye to it, to de-escalate a situation, especially given the poking that was going on (including by Aitias) immediately before. No one involved comes out looking terribly mature here. At this point, I think the best bet would be to go back to the original expiration time, and protect the talk page from editing by anyone for the duration of the block (no baiting, no response to baiting). Any unblock request can still be done thru the mailing list. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: I object to your claim of me “poking” them and respectfully ask you to retract it. Acting in good faith I have done one revert; “poking” was not intended by any means. — Aitias // discussion 13:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You are quick with the AGF didn't see you doing it with my post. BigDunc 13:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

@BigDunc: Sorry, could you please clarify your above comment? I am not able to understand what you intend to state... Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 13:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

BigDunc, pointing out that users are in fact not allowed to vent abusively on their talk page is not a failure to assume good faith. It is simply a correction. Stating your claim was false does not state that you were lying, you could simply have been misinformed. Chillum 13:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems that when someone acts uncivil around here it is the person they happen to be interacting with at the time that is blamed. If you are "baited" by people editing what you put on Misplaced Pages, then this place is going to drive you nuts because we edit things around here. This is not baiting and it justifies exactly nothing. Chillum 13:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(re Aitias) I never pointed at anyone and said they were poking, I just said there was poking going on. I don't fault you for not knowing the WP:BLANKING guideline, it's a little counter-intuitive. –xeno 13:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, xeno, if that wasn't clear: My above comment was not directed to you, but Floquenbeam (talk · contribs). — Aitias // discussion 13:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Mea culpa. Coffee almost finished, I'll be on the ball soon. –xeno 13:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Since original block 48hrs for edit warring it has now been increased by another 48 hrs by Aitias. BigDunc 13:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think my viewpoint is similar to Floquenbeam. Certainly Catterick did not behave well. A block extension may have been technicaly allowable. But this is where admins need to show judgement. What was the extension more likely to do. Calm the situation down or stoke the fires? There's times where it's best to let it go.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• (reply to Aitias above, don't want it to get lost in the threads) Whether poking was intended or not, it should have been obvious that it was going to have that effect. If de-escalation was an interest of yours, that was not well done. If de-escalation was not an interest of yours, then it's reasonable for me to criticize such a mindset. Understand that I don't think Catterick was behaving like a grownup here, and BigDunc and several others were behaving sub-optimally for that matter, and I too have reservations how Catterick is going to act when the block expires. But you made it worse, not better, regardless of what your intentions were. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised at anyone here who thinks it's OK in any way at all to tell other editors "fuck you" on a Misplaced Pages page. Would we speak that way to our colleagues, bosses, teachers, students, children or parents? No we would not, and if we do, we should not. And we should not accept it here. It may be "tame" but it's still uncivil language and runs entirely contrary to a collaborative project like Misplaced Pages. It's all the more of a problem when it concerns an editor who is already blocked for unconstructive editing. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 13:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not "ok" for that to be typed, but that's not the question. Is extending the block the best way to deal with it? That's where there's a difference of opinion.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• This sillyness has apparently been partly caused by the needless edit warring of Aitias, Snowded and The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick who insisted on keeping the block message visible on Catterick's talk page, a move that is known to escalate the situation. Everybody except for Catterick could just have stepped back from his talk page instead. (He couldn't). Ignoring what people do on their talk pages is usually a good idea unless what they do there is truly horrible. Removing block notices is not disruptive, edit warring to keep messages on a talk page after the user in question has read them is. Kusma (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Second Kusma's wise statement. Ignoring blocked editors is a good course of action; if you must address the situation, then protect the page to prevent misuse of the block template or blatant PAs; but extending the block was silly. Please feel free to click on the "advice" link in my sig for a more detailed view. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 14:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

So is anyone going to restore the previous block without this additional 24 hrs. BigDunc 15:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's be clear, venting is, at best, 'overlooked' or 'forgiven'. It should not ever be considered 'permitted' or 'allowed', and anybody saying it is need to be corrected immediately. MickMacNee (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying it should be permitted but surely there are levels of civility and fuck you is not at the top of my list. I don't condone the actions of Catterick but I also don't endorse the actions by the blocking admin when all the block did IMO is enflame the situation. BigDunc 15:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• I dislike incivility, and strongly prefer people not resort to using profanity, but in this case, I do disagree with the block extention. Yes, Catterick was wrong to swear, but I think edit-warring to restore his block template was equally as wrong, and comes across to me as kicking a user while they're down and deliberately provoking them: there are better things to do than restore a blocked user's blocked template, and Aitias, as an administrator, should have known better, and making threats to block more users isn't helpful to the situation. Catterick was also talking in his post, rather than just swearing mindlessly (note, I am not justifying any incivility here). Please restore the original block length. Acalamari 15:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Catterick (who used to be Lord Loxley) should be given a 1-week block. If he can't learn to play with others, that's his fault. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The individual behind these user names is a persistent trouble maker. That was two years ago. They still haven't learned a thing. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 17:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be unrelated to the question at hand. If he/she is a persistent troublemaker, he/she should be banned. It may be that annoying people until they say a bad word is a faster way to get them blocked, but that doesn't make it a good idea to treat people that way. Kusma (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

"Annoying people until they say a bad word"? I don't think you should be bandying around accusations like that. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 18:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I shouldn't (and I really don't know enough about the motivations of people involved to say that this happened here). It just pulls one of my triggers when I see completely unnecessary disputes over talk pages when people don't understand WP:BLANKING. Kusma (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) In response to the character assination that editors are attempting above I have had no dealings with Lord Loxley or Catterick and I am not aware of the history of this editor as in fact it is not important, what I see is an editor who is frustrated makes a remark and has his block increased and their ability to edit their own user page taken away. It wasn't constant abuse, which policy says is the reason for protecting pages and was far from as bad as some editors here are making out. Blocks are not punative so whatever happened 2 years ago has nothing to do with anything is a fudge to deflect from the bad block. BigDunc 20:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

By all means 'unblock' his Userpage (administrators). If he wants to vent, let'er rip. GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Again GoodDay you are missing the point and as usual you arrive with your flippant comments that are not helping anything. BigDunc 20:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but as an editor who has been here a while and has been invloved in the DR process most of his time here I will state its never ok to lash out at anyone anywhere on the site. I agree the block was justified. Æon 01:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• • My honest opinion is that the blocking administrator and other users should not have repeatedly reposted block notices deleted by this fellow after he was blocked. Please don't do that. It really accomplishes nothing.
  • That being said, I disagree with statements made above that context is unimportant in deciding whether or not to block. It is absolutely important. Catterick has a block log that includes recent 3RRs -- so I agree with Aitias that a 72 hour block for a third 3RR block in 3 months is apt. There is also recent abuse of sockpuppets (which amounted to petty vandalism). Edit summaries in the past have been terribly incivil (albeit somewhat provoked at times) and one of the 3RR blocks made reference to this also. This is even before reviewing the Lord Loxley account (block log, culminating in an indefinite block). I agree that this fellow has behaved poorly on wiki. The incivility in other settings could have been overlooked, but not in this context. I support the current block and duration -- Samir 06:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• I find it quiet interesting that the admin is not averse to a little incivility themselves with an RfC and also an arb case here yet they a highly upset and offended by a flippent remark by a frustrated editor. As I said I am not aware of Catterick or the allegations brought up here and again they are not relevant so is the original block going to get restored? BigDunc 13:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You might wish to note that your remarks about me are unnecessary and irrelevant at its best. — Aitias // discussion 20:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

User:verbal and associates disrupting articles using wp: tag teaming and wp:canvasing on WP:FTN

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

We have noticeboards to attract potentially interested editors with new ideas and new sources. Such posts are well within the bounds of WP:CANVASS, though neutral, non-antagonistic language is preferred. Dispute resolution is thataway. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

user:verbal is currently attempting to insert a phrase unbacked by into the article and, having failed to make a convincing case or provide a better source, is requesting back up from the WP:FTN in what I believe to be a case of canvassing, since it’s simply a request for more bodies to back him up rather than any kind of policy discussion.

user:verbal has also wp:canvassed on WP:FTN on the related article Jim Tucker. I believe this is a much more clear case of canvassing than the above as it regards a WP:N issue and is completely unrelated to any ] issues which it is the stated purpose of WP:FTN to discuss – it appears to be purely an attempt to recruit friendly editors to back him up.

In appears to represent a pattern where user:verbal is using WP:FTN as a rallying point for turning articles into wp:battlegrounds. Artw (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the Ian Stevenson article, the edits being made by Verbal are a major improvement over text that appears to be attempting to promote the subject of the article. I would personally commend Verbal for moving this article close to a neutral point of view. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. At Ian Stevenson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I see Noirtist (talk · contribs) well over 3RR despite previous warnings and previous problems with edit-warring. I've accordingly blocked him for 24 hours. That's not an endorsement of any particular edit, nor am I condoning other editors' actions - there's way too much edit-warring on that page, but Noirtist appears to be far and away the most egregious violator.

It's difficult for me to view requests for help on a projectwide noticeboard as "canvassing". These noticeboards are high-visibility, and may be watched by anyone of any viewpoint who has an interest in the topic. They exist specifically for editors to request help with these sorts of issues. The language used here is certainly less than neutral, and if posted to selected editors' talk pages would certainly be problematic, but I don't see a major issue on a project-wide noticeboard. I simply don't see the problem with this post - it looks like a neutral request for additional input on a question within the noticeboard's purview. MastCell  16:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Many content disputes are easily solved by providing more sources and attributing the statements in the article to these sources. I'd recommend this approach be followed in this article. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

MastCell is (of course, as always, etc) right. I have changed my recent post to FTN to something that I hope is more neutral. I included a diff for transparency. Best, Verbal chat 17:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x4 Firstly, there has been no "tag teaming" by me - I've only communicated about this issue on article talk and at WP:FTN. There has also been no canvassing, as WP:FTN is an appropriate noticeboard. When posting on FTN I try to give a brief description of the perceived issue, and I usually ask people to review recent edits and the talk page. I am open to dialogue on my talk page, which hasn't been attempted by Artw. In the diff above, the SPA I mention in my notice there to an ongoing thread has recently been blocked and has only edited about three very closely related articles - hence I call them a WP:SPA. The source or the statement Artw is complaining about is an WP:RS, and the recently blocked SPA was misrepresenting the content of WP:V (specifically "Burden") in their arguments - no specific quote is required, the source simply supports the statement. There is also a huge amount of bad faith, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:TE going on at the Ian Stevenson/Jim Tucker articles. I welcome more outside opinion, which is why I posted to the FTN. Any constructive criticism, advice, or further discussion about my edits will be welcomed on my talk page - however, as this isn't an emergency, no WP:DR has been attempted, and no canvassing has taken place, I ask for this thread to be closed. Added after ec's: I agree with MastCell about the editing there, and I'm going to back off reverting similar edits for a while. Best, Verbal chat 16:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I would contend that is simply repeatedly stating that his source meets the requirements of ], without actually addressing any of the issues with it that have been raised on the talk page, and seems to be relying on mere force of numbers to carry his argument through. Artw (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That's an issue for the talk page or an appropriate forum. We shouldn't get into that here. Verbal chat 17:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikistalking and edit warring by User:Drawn Some

User:Drawn Some appears to have entered a rather drawn out case of wikistalking and edit warring with User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Most recently, this has developed into an edit war over the article Blackwells Mills Canal House on my watchlist, for which DS has removed any and all mention of the canal's last gatekeeper who resided there, going so far as to claim that efforts to restore some of the deleted content are "vandalizing" the article (see here). While this appears to have started over issues regarding bilateral relations articles, DS appears to have escalated this issue to several different areas, such as nominating an article for deletion (here) and then removing content from the disambiguation page (see here) after the AfD was closed as a keep. Creating a series of AfDs for religious leaders (here, here and here) Nominating a series of redirects for deletion (here, here and here). Nominating categories for deletion, as here. Adding citation and/or notability tags for Scan-based trading, Conboy, Frelinghuysen, Charles Frederick Lindauer, Kershaw, Winblad, Reinhold Schlegelmilch, Project Manhigh, Blanche Stuart Scott, Anthony Joseph Drexel I, Katharine Drexel, James Caleb Jackson, Hutschenreuther, Anthony Walton White, Joseph Cassey Bustill, Maria Louisa Bustill and Oscar Arthur Moritz Lindauer. The only thing these article, categories, redirects, disambiguation pages, edit warring, etc., have in common is that User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) edited or created this content at some point in the near or distant past. There appears to be no issue too trivial for Drawn Some to jump in and either edit war or push for deletion. I'm not sure what the issue is behind these actions by User:Drawn Some, but the case for wikistalking and harassment seems rather clear. A block combined with a ban on contact with RAN may help stop the problem. Alansohn (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

For additional background, see archived discussions at AN and WQA. — Satori Son 21:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

In terms of the first article you mention, the first edit seems more than reasonable: . An article on a building having such a long section on an individual, including a long letter, does seem clearly incorrect. In the edit warring that then went on, both Drawn Some and RAN should have stopped and discussed. RAN said 'Bring it to discussion' in an edit summary but made no attempt to start that discussion himself, whereas Drawn Some was at least slightly better at explaining his reasoning (although the only explanations were in edit summaries). In this particular case I think Drawn Some was correct in his intentions, but should have discussed or got other opinions rather than edit warring. On the wider question of stalking (why do we always have to put 'wiki' before stuff?) the thread at WP:AN noted above seems pretty accurate. The AfD, RfD and tagging that Drawn Some has done all seems in accordance with policy, and has generally been backed up by the community at RfD and AfD.

If I notice an editor has been creating bad redirects, then one of my actions would be to check through their other contributions. This is not stalking. If the actions are correct, then where is the problem?

Looking through RAN's recent edit history, Drawn Some has not edited every page RAN is involved in by a long way, but is taking action where he thinks appropriate. Quantpole (talk) 11:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:STALK defines the practice as "singling out one or more specific editor(s), and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit (often unrelated), or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." About 80 of Drawn Some's last 100 edits are to articles that RAN has edited. It is a sad excuse that Drawn Some's harassment has left out a few of RAN's recent edits or that some of his concerns may be legitimate. I'm sure that Drawn Some has some excellent excuse for why he is "right" in certain cases to have started edit wars or called adding sourced content to be "vandalism". The problem is the pattern of abusively following another editor with which you have had a conflict and intentionally abusing the Misplaced Pages process in a clear effort to disrupt the work of another editor. If this is not Wikistalking, it's unclear that there is any situation justifies the claim. If anyone is unsure, have Drawn Some put you through the same pattern of harassment for a week or two and see if it's justified. Alansohn (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

How do you know Drawn Some's aims are to annoy RAN? If the actions benefit the encyclopaedia then where is the issue? Quantpole (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

When someone focuses their entire efforts on wading through the edits of one editor, we have a problem. Drawn Some's nominations have had a rather poor success rate, and he has tried to impose his views on the same articles after his XfDs have failed, as at Fairmount Cemetery, where this AfD failed without any support for Drawn Some's position, yet was followed by edits where Drawn Some removes content that he insists is "vandalism" (see here). No editor should have to put up with this BS. If Drawn Some were creating or adding content, the encyclopedia might benefit. Harassing another editor is purely disruptive. Have Drawn Some put a few hundred of your edits through the same pattern of abuse and tell us there's no issue. Alansohn (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

USER:Muntuwandi

Although many users have tried to reach a consensus with this user sadly none have been successful. This user (http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Muntuwandi) has a long history of disruptive editing on many articles such as http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Genetic_history_of_Europe&limit=500&action=histor y http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA)&limit=500&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Haplogroup_DE_(Y-DNA)&limit=500&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Haplogroup_M_(mtDNA)&limit=500&action=history and many other articles he has been accusing of being disruptive before http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMuntuwandi He continually removes sourced material http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Haplogroup_E1b1b_%28Y-DNA%29&diff=303132977&oldid=302770031, adds OR http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Haplogroup_DE_%28Y-DNA%29&diff=302853683&oldid=302603277 and does POV http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Genetic_history_of_Europe&limit=500&action=history He continually reverts the Edits of users such as The Ogre, Causteau, Small Victory, Dougweller, Jingiby, and others. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Genetic_history_of_Europe&limit=500&action=history he has promised to stop http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMuntuwandi But sadly this doesn’t seem to be the case. The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I see very little independent editing from Monte Cristo, more often than not, he is editing in my footsteps. Nothing that violates policy, just uncreative and frustrating. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

In one of the diffs above Muntuwandi has removed refs to National Geographic on the grounds that it is a "commercial site". There's something wrong there. Is this an edit war across WP between Muntuwandi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and SOPHIAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Mathsci (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

On the surface it may seem like there is nothing wrong with using National Geographic as a source. However this issue has been discussed numerous times, and the consensus is the Natgeo webpage in question contains outdated information, and Natgeo has not updated their website. The latest discussion is here Talk:Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA)#Genographic,

Older discussions can be found

• Talk:Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA)/Archive_7#The_Genographic_Project
• Talk:Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA)/Archive_4#The_Near_East_Origins_non-theory

In summary the specific natgeo webpage contains old data, that is no longer used in recent publications. Spencer Wells, the director of the genographic project, that runs this specific website, published a paper last year, with the updated findings, but for whatever reasons, they have not updated their own website. SOPHIAN/Monte Cristo, has completely ignored all this information, saying that he doesn't care if Natgeo hasn't updated their website, since it is out there in Cyberspace, he will quote it as a reliable source, , . All the regular editors are currently using the latest studies and agree the specific Natgeo is obsolete. I don't know what the best approach is with Monte Cristo because he is ignoring everyone

Here is a list of his reverts

• reverts Andrew.
• revert's Yom
• reverts Causteau,
• reverts Jingiby

Wapondaponda (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I note that Sophian is almost always in the minority on the articles he edit, and is frequently reverted. We shouldn't be using obsolete data in this way. An older version of his talk page at shows a number of editors expressing concerns about his editing. Dougweller (talk) 07:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Sophian hasn't gotten off to a good start with his editing, not just in this article, but in several other articles as well. His pattern of behavior isn't improving. It seems that he has a lot of difficulty collaborating with others. Once he makes an edit, he will insist on it regardless of the opinions of others. It is very frustrating dealing with him on the genetics articles, because he doesn't appear to have made any effort to get up to speed on the relevant scientific literature. Despite this, he is very active with edit reverts. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sophian is going around edit warring by inserting a possible copyvio image of European genetics

• inserts map in Croatia article
• reinserts map in Croatia article
• inserts map in Poles article
• is reverted for inserting blogs such as this blog into the article about Poles
• reinserts genetics map and blogs

Sophian's editing isn't improving. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Everyone should keep in mind that numerous attempts to have rational discussion with SOPHIAN about his edits have failed. This is worth noting because he now has a habit of deleting everything on his talkpage. Concerning sources, while there might not be anything wrong with National Geographic's website for many types of information this is about a specific piece of information on a technical subject, and the specific problem has been explain in detail to him many times. He is in fact defending wording which even the person who originally put it there and defended it has given up on. Any overview of SOPIAN's edits will show that he cherry picks with very strong POV themes, and this is also in his case. (He believes he is fighting Afrocentrism.) It should also be noted that even the way SOPHIAN explains the complaints of others is wrong, as are many other aspects of his descriptions including the ones he puts on edit summaries.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I notice that indeed Wapondaponda tried to justify removing the contested text mentioning it was a commercial website. I don't know why he chose that description all of a sudden after long having given more accurate descriptions. In any case it is not only Wapondaponda who disagrees with using this source for this information. Wapondaponda's explanation on the E1b1b talk page is a superior explanation.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

User is trying to include every B-side

Yesterday evening I received a rather angry message from user:Cindy1000. This user just so happened to add the B-sides to every single by the American country artists, Wayne Massey and Charly McClain. Cindy1000 continually added the B-side song to each of their singles chart and on the McClain discography, she added all of the B-sides in a separate table (after another user was angered when she added them into the singles chart). After I continually reverted her edits, that was when she gave me the message, which basically stated that I was deleting "informative information" and that "there is no reason for it to be deleted." She doesn't seem to listen to me at all, but according to the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Discographies/style, B-sides are not allowed in a discography. She's very strong-minded on her views and nothing seems to get through to her. Can please do something about this. You can check the messages she sent me at my talk page, and the ones I sent her HERE. Thank you :) Dottiewest1fan (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute with a newbie who's still learning the ropes, and no admin intervention is required here. Cut her (gender assumed from username) some slack. Also, I believe you're talking about Cindy10000 (talk · contribs). Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Threats

I assume there is nothing that can be done about this? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it does include the IP's (or someone's) phone number. Someone may want to get rid of that. Deor (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages cannot give psychologal/psychiatric treatment to every angry editor. Count Iblis (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Can an admin look at the now-deleted band page, which was deleted as a copyvio, to see if the original author creator had it explained to them that the deletion was due to copyvio? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the talkpage comment, so it is only viewable to admins or editors with other extended permissions, and asked if the editor wants to see it. Since it has a personal phone number I will ensure that any reposting will be minus that detail - I think I can fudge my way around it. This was my last action before retiring for the night, so another admin will need to look at the deleted article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The original author was Pikahsso (talk · contribs). From the talk page, it appears he was informed. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Wizard1911 / User:JBrown13

So I've got a user, with multiple accounts, spamming builders hardware and personally attacking me. I wasn't sure where to report this because there are multiple issues. Here's the diffs:

• Spamming by 12.160.155.78: , ,
• Spamming by 12.170.211.146:
• Spamming by Jbrown13: ,
• Spamming by Wizard1911:
• Personal attack by JBrown13:

Please help...thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

 Doing... I am looking into this, but in the future WP:SPI is the place to make such a report. Tiptoety 00:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the article and blocked the obvious socks. Nakon 00:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Looks like Nakon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) took care of it. Cheers, Tiptoety 00:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Return of TheWave?

A new user, CanItBeMe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is picking up where TheWave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) left off; removing content I've added to United States order of precedence and un-blanking my talk page. TheWave was indef blocked around the same time for some other reason. Could you see if this is another incarnation or merely another troll? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've indef blocked the user for Vandalism and Disruption. All the Best, Mifter (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody please block AceWonder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)?

AceWonder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly creating attack pages, nonsense, and editing other people's comments on Talk pages. I've listed this at AIV, but I'm hoping this can get resolved quickly. Thank you. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Stalker in Misplaced Pages

Viriditas (talk · contribs) moved Clawed lobster to Lobster without consensus or discussion. This is because he was stalking me. He wrote biased edits in the Henry Louis Gates, Jr. article taking the Black man's side against the police instead of taking a neutral, Misplaced Pages stance. He removed my edits. Then he started stalking me and caused trouble in the lobster article even though he had never edited the lobster article before.

Furthermore, he takes the American imperialists' viewpoint promoting the clawed American lobster to be the lobster article. In the world, there are 2 major species, the clawed and the spiny lobster, in addition to less common variants. Both the clawed and spiny lobster should be treated equally, not the American one given priority. Misplaced Pages is neutral, not the American imperialists' mouthpiece. If the article covered both, then I would have no objection. Either than or the disambiguation page is the wikipedia way.

So administrators, please warn Viriditas or prevent him from further harrassing or disrupting Misplaced Pages. Thank you.Amthernandez (talk)

*COUGH* HalfShadow 03:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

And now Amthernandez has moved it back to Clawed lobster. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

after leaving a discussion and with good logic on the move Amthernandez (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears that User:Viriditas has a good grasp of policy and has been performing admirably. I assume I'm not alone in thinking that User:Amthernandez needs a watchful eye and some gentle pointers? Doc Tropics 03:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Put the page back at the status quo title. Amthernandez, please get consensus before moving the page again. Cheers. lifebaka++ 05:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this should go unnoticed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Looks like Amthernandez correctly anticipated that I would file a SPI against him, so he decided to file a baseless one against me. Let's hope someone follows this up and actually looks at Amthernandez's contributions. It is beyond obvious that it is not a new account. Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, ever a cursory glance at his account history caused the quacking of ducks... --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I just killed the link, a la some magic. How I love my magic. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 16:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Rcool35's unstoppable block evasion and vandalism

Okay, despite the fact that he was blocked again under an undesputable case of sockpuppetry, he still continues his reign of vandalism. Now I'm a regular user of Misplaced Pages and I go on here to look mainly at hip-hop related articles but this user just confuses me, he does a lot of good faith edits that appear to help Misplaced Pages and then he vandalizes specific pages for reasons which we cannot understand. Mainly he has been editing under IP's starting under 76.XXX.XXX.XXX, examples include 76.189.195.98, 76.17.217.234, and 76.127.25.252. Many of the articles that have been semi-protected have been editied by Coolrey57, a sockpuppet of Rcool35 used to evade what should be preventing vandalism. Now I don't know what to do or how to handle this, I tried talking to him and I've gotten no response whatsoever, I'm getting tired of having to reverting his vandalism. So what do you people think we should do? --Taylor Karras (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If you can find specific patterns to his vandalism, we may be able to use the edit filter to stop some of his nonsense. Otherwise, the only thing we can do is block his IP addresses (possibly ranges, although we absolutely need such a range to have the same first 2 numbers) and his discovered accounts, and semi-protect the pages he frequently edits. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't know that was an option but I did notice many of his "patterns".

• He ups the rating on certain albums by .5"
• He changes the stage names to real names on certain pages (mainly vanity labels.
• He also replaces an image on artist pages with an image from a concert that may be unlicensed and blanks the associated acts.
• And he also replaces ratings with 5 star rating a link to a source which does not contain a review at all.

I don't know if it's possible but it's worth a shot. --Taylor Karras (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletions

I need an admin to delete the 13 articles on this page for immediate housekeeping, thank you • S • C • A • R • C • E • 06:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is it housekeeping? Do you want to reverse the move? Some of them have incoming links. Amalthea 09:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I moved the random portal components' page's and I do not need the redirects • S • C • A • R • C • E • 12:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Spammy stylesheet

 Done Nja 09:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please delete User:China coal resource/monobook.css? I can't tag it. MER-C 09:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Swansea Cork Ferries and a possible legal problem

At an AfD it was decided to redirect Swansea Cork Ferries (which was about the company) to Swansea Cork Ferry (an article on the route) were any information on the company could be included (issue is complicated a bit by, I think, some page moves - reading the discussion makes it clear what they meant, i.e. company page redirects to route page).

This decision has now been reverted several times by User:Swans797 who appears to work for the company in question. A couple of this have been reverting this and once I was aware of it I've also tried discussing it with the user. They've now made a rather strange point on their talk page which I quoye below:

Redirecting my page Swansea Cork Ferries to another name Swansea Cork Ferry which are registered trademarks and business names of mine would appear to me to be a breach of company law/trademark law and copyright law. Please stop redirecting. I am happy to let the "Swansea Cork Ferry" page continue but this page should not be interfered with. We are still solvent and have other business.

Although I feel this arguement probably has no merit I feel a little out of my depth to make a defintive decision so I'd appreciate someone with more experience to take a look. I've left the user a message about this thread and also pointed them at various relevant policies. Dpmuk (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Simple response; we don't tell them how and when to sail their routes, and they don't tell us how to organise the encyclopedia - all is needed is it to be delivered in diplomatic language. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep I'd agree if they hadn't made the legal comments about company / trademark / copyright law. I've essentially tried using your arguement on their talk page (although I've put it more tactfully) but what I'm really looking for is some one who knows what they're talking about to say their arguement is wrong as if their point is valid we should do something about it. If someone in the know also tells them they don't have a leg to stand on it would hopefully a) stop them from reverting or b) make me happier asking for a block if they revert in the future. While they are using the above arguement and it's not refuted I'd not feel happy asking for a block as I feel that we should assume good faith and assume that they feel they have a valid reason for their actions. Dpmuk (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but wouldn't it make more sense to redirect the other way around to the company rather than the route? Especially if the company is still involved in other ventures? Canterbury Tail talk 13:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that at AfD the company was deemed not notable (so it having other ventures is irrelevant). Redirecting from the route to company makes no sense as another company is planning to take over the route shortly and this is commented on in the route article text. Although I don't believe it's had an AfD my guess would be the route would probably be kept given the number of reliable refences. At the moment that's not the issue however as AfD has decided it the other way and the user has gone about changing it the wrong way and has now come up with a novel reason for doing so. Dpmuk (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There's some background to this. The 'Swansea Cork Ferry' article is about the (soon-to-be-reinistated by a new & different co-op company) service linking Swansea & Cork - and not about the company 'Swansea Cork Ferries Ltd' - which ran the service until October 2006. The user involved has only ever posted on these two articles - and only to go on about Swansea Cork Ferries Ltd, trademarks and the like. The current round of redirections and reversions seems to be another attempt to sabotage the efforts of the new company - by suggesting that the service will not be running until 2012 - when in fact, it is planned for the new service to commence in March 2010. There seems to be no independent evidence of Swansea Cork Ferries' Ltd "other business" - and, even if there was, it's irrelevant to the 'Swansea Cork Ferry' article. The company's old website - www.swanseacorkferries.com - has been dormant & the domain parked since early 2008. Nobullman (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is the article titled "Swansea Cork Ferry" rather than "Swansea Cork ferry"? If it's a generic article about the route, rather than an article about a specific operation, I wouldn't think it should be fully capitalized. And if the fully capitalized form really is a valid trademark (which I don't know enough to decide), the title shouldn't be fully capitalized, since it talks about the route on which the trademarked service operated, not just the trademarked service. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point about the capitalisation - how would one go about changing the article title - as the article is about the route, rather than about any specific company, (although the contentious user has repeatedly tried to introduce statements about Swansea Cork Ferries Ltd) As far as I can see (www.patentsoffice.ie) the only registered trademark is "Swansea Cork Ferries" - and the following business names are registered (www.cro.ie) Cork Swansea Ferries, Swansea Cork Ferries Ltd and Swansea Cork Ferries. Nobullman (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Been bold and moved it. Dpmuk (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Overenthusiastic page moves

User Centre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

See this contributions list. I've already dropped a note with the user, but most (if not all) of these page moves (>50 of them) need to be reversed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

User's gone for another round of these, including the creation of random crud like Boost BAR cADBURY. Cadbury Boost. - I've left a uw3, but there's no indication that he's planning on stopping. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This user is a probable sockpuppet of 86.45.71.28, who was making similar en-masse moves (many Cadbury related, many being moved around multiple times while deciding what to call it, and many against WP:NCDAB) as User:Dylanmckane last month, leaving a lot of double-redirects in their wake. --McGeddon (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Gonna be a big cleanup... Tan | 39 15:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, Ireland-related supermarkets and chocolate bars. Quack quack. Do we need a formal SSP case for this? Evidently not, cheers Tan! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd raised one anyway, at the time (it seems useful to keep a record), but feel free to kill it off if it's redundant. --McGeddon (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I have everything moved back where it should be. Someone might want to run behind me and make sure there are no double redirects. The multiple moves of Boost (chocolate) lost me - if there was a talk page, I can't seem to locate it. --Smashville 16:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Got it, it was at Talk:Cadbury Boost.. --McGeddon (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Stephen Bain

First, the simple version

In the 2008 Homeopathy case:

Me: accidentally links to a non-identifying former user name, not realising that it was any sort of secret, since the rename happened very publicly.

Two other parties, not identified to protect their privacy: Edit-war to keep up a harassment campaign involving outing me to my real name. This was oversighted, though, keeping it from being easily seen.

And now, in the present

Stephen Bain: Repeatedly insists on impling that I am mostly, or, at best, equally at fault in his posts, and that my action was done intentionally. Refuses to withdraw accusation despite repeated requests.

This strongly risks damaging my reputation, and is unbecoming to an arbitrator.

Details

Stephen Bain (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), despite repeated requests to withdraw the accusation, continues to insist that I was formerly involved in an outing war because, on Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence, I inadvertently linked to what I think was a RfC or suspected sock puppet case regarding a user who had very publicly switched names a couple months before, and whose talk page archives to this day contain the old user name. The other user repeatedly attempted to out me to my real name, without relevance to the case, and was blocked over it, I made a single link, as and apologised when it came out that the user did not want his previous nick known.

I have asked Mr. Bain repeatedly to stop making accusations that the link was retaliatory, he refuses to doso, and indeed, is spreading the accusations further.

This accusation is particularly harmful, because, thanks to oversighting of the very vicious attempts by the user in question to out me, only oversighters are capable of seeing the truth of the matter.

Putting it shortly, for those of you without the oversighter bit - I took a big risk and exposed myself to the full fury of quite a number of edtitors acting in concert to cause trouble on Homeopathy and related pages by opening an Arbcom case.

The Arbcom then... ignored the case for about three months, letting the evidence page turn into a maelstrom of attacks on me. I had to defend myself from every accusation, because, let it not be forgotten that this was post Matthew Hoffman, which the arbcom recently made a statement about:

Note that that statement outs me, but never mind. I had just been exposed to that major fuckup on the Arbcom's part, which even they admit was a gross miscarriage of justice. So, Homeopathy case comes up, I'm terrified - all these accusations being slung at me, the arbcom have not, at that time, even apologised for their behaviour, or admitted any wrongdoing.

I spent about 100 or 200 hours responding to everything. Meticulously documenting every single accusation against me, and showing the truth, in a panic that the Arrbcom were about to fuck me over again. One link accidentally went to an unreformated RfC or SSP page or whatever it is, that contained his old, apparently non-identifying nickname.

Meanwhile, the user in question is edit warring with an oversighter to reveal my real identity to people actively hounding and attacking me.

Mr. Bain thinks that this is irrelevant - that one accidental link to an apparently non-identifying name which the user still has in his talk page archives should be considered equivalent to edit warring with oversighters to get my real name outed on a page full of people actively attacking me in bulk. Mr. Bain is throwing all the blame on me.

Two of the worst people in that case are now back. People deserve access to the evidence I spent about 100 hours assembling. But Mr. Bain would rather attack me, and make it out to be all my fault, rather than do what the arbcom have repeatedly promised to do. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, perhaps a bit more on-topic, Mr. Bain, despite being told that many of the attempted outings of me were oversighted, evidently did not bother to check before perpetuating his accusation, claiming that only deletion had ever occured on the page.

This is, at the very best, sloppy. I had repeatedly mentioned the posts being oversighted when asking him to withdraw his accusation. He evidently didn't bother even to check whether I was correct, but just said I was wrong.

I linked toMisplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive406#User_blocked_for_attempted_outing above, and won't quote it again here, but it must be admitted that those who can see the oversighted diffs can see a concerted campaign of harassment by outing, edit-warring to keep the information on the page. He says as much here:

With the harassment campaign completely oversighted, he's risking major damage to my reputation with no regards to the facts. I linked to relevant information under a user's apparently non-identifying account. Others edit-warred as part of a harassment campaign with outing as its goal. His statements cast me as either equally, or even mostly the one at fault, and without being able to see the oversighted diffs, this may appear to be true, when being able to see the oversighted parts will show it to be patently false.

I give the Arbcom permission to quote the oversighted diffs if my real name is deleted. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask what exactly you're expecting this noticeboard to do? Hersfold non-admin 15:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I'm especially confused about that since you've already filed both a case request and a request for clarification (or as you originally had it, a "Request to finally do what you've been promising to do for an entire year") on this same matter. This seems very much like trawling for attention to me. Hersfold non-admin 15:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If Mr. Bain is willing to withdraw his accusation, I'm happy, but if not, I'd ask that he be warned or blocked over it. Just because Mr. Bain is arbitrator should not recuse him from the No Personal Attacks and Harassment policies, particularly when his arbcom position gives false claims a patina of respectability. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't undertstand why this is posted here and at WP:RFAR. Are you asking administrators for their opinion or for some action? Hersfold already asked you above but you seemed to answer an slightly different question. Nobody is going to block or warn Bain (even were it appropriate) on an issue that you are simultaneously asked to be arbitrated. CIreland (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez

Moved to WP:BLP/N#Matt Sanchez. –xeno 20:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

New editor Bogglevit messing up layout of lots of articles

A new editor, Bogglevit (talk · contribs), has appeared today, who has made about 60 edits, mostly with edit summaries saying just "Wikify", in which all that is being done, as far as I can see, is to add a bunch of paragraph breaks, usually in places that mess up the flow of exposition. Long paragraphs are not good but this is not the way to fix them. I believe that all of these edits should be rolled back en masse. I have come here instead of first attempting discussion because the large number of edits by a brand new editor indicates that this is a matter that needs to be handled with some urgency: if a rollback is needed, it should be done before the articles go stale. I will notify Bogglevit of this thread. Looie496 (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the big problem. From the edits I've looked at, they appear to be perfectly regular copyedits. Was it necessary to take this to the dramaboard right away? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

In addition to that, WP:ROLLBACK is only to be used against vandalism, which this is not. Undo the edits if you like, but there isn't any admin intervention needed here. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably should have just started by asking the editor what was up. If that failed, ANI would be the next option. Tan | 39 16:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me if I've overreacted. There's something about misuse of automation that pushes me in that direction -- the damage accumulates so rapidly that it feels to me like the balance between being nice and preventing further damage should shift. Anyway, I've fixed the six damaged articles that are in WikiProject Neuroscience -- other people will have to fix the other 40 or so. I'll take a shot at explaining to Bogglevit why paragraph-breaking is not something that can be done at the speed of light. (Re rollback: my understanding is that the "bulk" feature is sometimes used for non-vandal damage that would take too long to fix one article at a time.) Looie496 (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting weirder. We now have another account, Swerqitamin (talk · contribs), created an hour after Bogglevit's last edit, who seems to be doing exactly the same sort of edits. Looie496 (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Dunno about this -- possible WP:LEGAL issue?

Dolfrog (talk · contribs) has recently made several comments like this one that assert human rights violations, but don't directly threaten legal action. tems listed

I'd summarize the immediate issue as "Dolfrog says that User:Gordonofcartoon is a bad person for deleting original research, misuse of primary sources, and cut-and-paste copyright violations, instead of cheerfully spending many hours fixing Dolfrog's mistakes", but I believe that Dolfrog is honestly trying to share his personal knowledge about dyslexia, based on many off-the-record conversations with researchers, instead of deliberately trying to disrupt Misplaced Pages and insult editors.

Would someone please consider whether, and how, this should be addressed? Perhaps it would be helpful just to have some of the key pages (WP:DYSLEXIA, Dyslexia, both users' talk pages, probably more) on more neutral editors' watchlists, so that it's not just the same two editors always having to tell Dolfrog that he's wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any legal threat there; condemning a particular activity as illegal and immoral in the abstract may not be the friendliest thing to do, but it's not specific enough to be a threat or phrased in terms which suggest the editor might intend to take legal action. On the other hand, User:Gordonofcartoon's edit summary here , beginning "Wank over these in your own time," is certainly uncivil enough to deserve at the very least a strict warning. And his removal of material from a talk page looks most inappropriate to me; even if the items listed were primary sources, there's no prohibition of discussing primary sources on tak pages, and when editors interested in subjects like this look over primary material, they may easily follow trail to useable secondary or tertiary sources. For example, if one of the primary sources looks interesting/significant enough, googling the title or authors could lead to valuable discussions in books, articles, or news reports. Discussing primary sources on talk pages can easily be a good thing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Utter nonsense: it's an obvious attempt to imply invoking the full force of the Law in order to intimidate an editor or win a dispute. Of COURSE it's an attempt at a legal threat, wikilwayering of apologists aside. --Calton | Talk 22:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Voting sock

Requesting an indefinite ban on this apparent sock, used to make bigoted commentary on other editors working for the "powerful lobby" as well as !vote on polls. Jaakobou 17:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest taking this to WP:SPI. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd have no idea on who this user is socking for (I can guess by looking at the other voters but there's nothing close to solid) so that would be a pointless post. Jaakobou 19:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Terror bombing

There is an edit war brewing on Terror bombing can an uninvolved editor please protect the page. --PBS (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a Picasso painting at the beginning. This is very artistic but hardly suited for an encyclopedia. It would be more suited for an art essay or a op-ed piece. However, I dare not comment because there is already an edit war per User:PBS and I don't want to fan the flames. On the other hand, page protection could be protecting the wrong version. Knowingly protecting the wrong version is administrative malpractice. Comments on what to do? User F203 (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It's been removed already by another editor. As a fair use image, it couldn't be used in an article using it as a general illustration rather than actually discussing it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Administrative move needed

The Solar eclipse of July 22, 2009 should be moved to Solar eclipse of 22 July 2009 because that date format is used is most of the countries affected by the eclipse. This move requires administrative action to do it. It is urgent because it's on the main page. Thank you. User F203 (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

First, it is not an emergency; you click on the main page link, you go to the page. Since it is not an emergency, I think WP:RM might be a better place. From Category:Solar eclipses, I see that the Solar eclipse of Month Date, Year format is used for all solar eclipses. So this isn't really an article-specific decision. Finally, I note that lunar eclipse articles all take the form Month Year lunar eclipse. why the discrepancy I wonder? Anyway, this is not an ANI matter. I'd say it's either a WP:RM matter, or perhaps better yet a Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Astronomy matter, or (gulp, shudder) a WT:MOS matter. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I see value in having standardization across the eclipses (and in the more naturally readable form that it is now). I've created the redirect in the meantime. –xeno 20:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

For anyone browsing ANI who's interest is piqued by this, I started a thread at WT:AST#Article title date formats on this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"naturally readable" is probably influenced by however a person has been reading dates for all their life; ie the same US vs everyone else shitstorm you get with gas/petrol or -or/-our spelling (or, incorrectly, UK editors suggesting -ize is US and not valid UK spelling). It'd be great if wikisoftware allowed usersettings to change article titles for preferences. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Hirolionheart and San Mateo, Rizal

I don't know if Hirolionheart (talk · contribs) represents the San Mateo, Rizal Chamber of Commerce, or not, but he/she is insisting on inserting 44,000 bites of images and external links to practically every store in the city to the city's article. I just stumbled on the article while doing Recent Changes patrol and seeing the huge amount of data inserted into the article, and discovered that Hirolionheart has repeatedly added this information. When I issued him a 3RR warning and suggested that he insert the information at Wikitravel, in response he used an anonymous editor to revert my removal of the information. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I blocked for 72 hours. Edits might be made in good faith, but he needs to communicate with the people who are concerned - and not edit war. Tan | 39 19:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Having just done a scan through his edit history, he doesn't seem to ever use Talk pages. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sears Tower

There is currently a bit of a controversy regarding the naming of the Sears Tower/Willis Tower. The tower was officially renamed a few days ago, and the page moved to Willis Tower in accordance with that event. The move was made without a discussion or a consensus to do; however, the move has now attracted significant controversy on the talk page. Because the redirect Sears Tower had more than one line in the history, it was not possible for a user without administrator tools to move the page back; however, I am strongly of the opinion that it should not have been moved without discussion in the first place, thus I have moved the page to Sears Tower for now until some sort of consensus on the naming issue can develop. In doing so, I seem to have created a small host of problems related to the move request and such like, and I would very much appreciate it if another administrator could neutrally assess the situation and determine what should be done. It's clear enough that once a consensus is established for one name or the other, the page should be there. The question is merely where it should stay in the meantime for the next few days (which in some sense is really more or less irrelevant). Anyway, I will be going out later this evening, so I figured I would raise this here in case further controversy develops. Cool3 (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hard to understand why this is controversial. We have about sixty reliable sources that say it was renamed to Willis Tower. Move the page, create a redirect, wipe hands on pants. Tan | 39 19:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The article should have been left alone for the duration of the discussion; moving it from Willis Tower -> Sears Tower while there was an outstanding request to do that very thing is at best confusing. At worst, it could be seen as an attempt to preempt the outcome of the discussion. I am positive that was not the intent, but unless the outcome of the discussion was evident (ie. WP:SNOW type closure) it is the sort of thing that just shouldn't happen. I am going to revert the move, where it should stay until the termination of the discussion. I sympathize with your point (the original move probably shouldn't have happened) but adding another move that shouldn't have happeend mid-process only serves to further confuse the situation. Shereth 20:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What possible justification can there be for failing to keep the article at the official name, and leaving the former and better known name as a redirect? I'm mystified here--reversion is a disruptive action that serves no encyclopedic purpose, and there's simply nothing to be discussed, unless someone is asserting that multiple RSes are wrong. Jclemens (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages naming conventions in the WP:MOS determine what name we should use. It is not the official name, but the one most commonly used. The official name may become the most common one in the future, but is unlikely to be well enough known at first. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Please submit all further discussion regarding the name of the article to the discussion taking place on Talk:Willis Tower, where it can be taken under consideration by the administrator who closes that discussion. We will not be deciding the fate of the article's name here at ANI. Shereth 20:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but what you've got here is certain users abusing the "common names" guideline as a way of having that wikipedia article serve as a "protest" against the name change. This is a blatant form of POV-pushing. It looks like consensus will keep it at its official name, but this shouldn't even be under discussion. Baseball Bugs carrots 23:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm with BB here. Did ANYONE read WP:BURO. We don't force process for process sake. This discussion is a WP:ZOMBIE move and it seems patently obvious that the official name of the building is the one we use here. The desire to force a consensus discussion on a matter such as this is silly. Consensus is fine for deciding policy or for carrying on deletion discussions, but consensus will NOT change the name of the building. It's the Willis Tower as of about 3 days ago. To force a discussion which will simply WP:SNOW-ball into the obvious end result seems beyond silly. --Jayron32 00:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Attention moderators!

Not sure where to post this, In the past many new accounts were posting messages at talk pages I was involved in and editing articles I have edited, These accounts were using some of the same language as me, they were trying to make it look like I had created several account. Someone was trying to get me banned from wikipedia.

All accounts have been banned now and you can see them at my page: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Supreme_Deliciousness

Now someone has tried to hack my account:

I got this mail on 23th July:

"Someone from the IP address 85.230.110.1 requested that we send you a new login password for the English Misplaced Pages.

The new password for the user account "Supreme Deliciousness" is "*******". You can now log in to Misplaced Pages using that password.

If someone else made this request, or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it, you may safely ignore this message. Your old/existing password will continue to work despite this new password being created for you.

~Misplaced Pages, the 💕 http://en.wikipedia.org"

I am writing this as a warning to admins! Beware! if profanity or other bad behavior is started, the account is hacked.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody can hack your account by requesting a new password. As you saw, the email with the new password is sent directly to you. As you also probably saw, the new password is something randomly generated that people aren't going to be able to guess. If you receive more of these emails, just delete them. You can continue to log in normally with your regular password, and doing so deactivates the new passwords you're being emailed. Hersfold non-admin 20:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly as above. The key part of the message is "If someone else made this request, or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it, you may safely ignore this message." TNXMan 20:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are worried about losing your account, you may want to consider committing your identity. If your account does become compromised, it will be blocked until you can establish yourself as the owner. The template I've linked to helps with that. Hersfold non-admin 20:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It's already marked resolved, but here is a link to the previous ANI discussion: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive550#There is a conspiracy against me. Hans Adler 21:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Semi-automated creation of approximately 3,000 unreferenced sub-stub BLPs

AlbertHerring (talk · contribs) has created approximately three thousand unreferenced sub-stub biographies of living people in the past few days, many of which are not categorized as such, using AWB. I'm sort of blown away. Considering we are not able to maintain what we have now, and those of us working with BLPs are already breaking under the load, I don't even know what to do with this. Mass semi-automated creation of unreferenced BLPs is utterly inappropriate. I need some help here. Lara 20:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

They were referenced to de.wiki with {{iw-ref}}. –xeno 20:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Does that count? Even AlbertHerring apparently doesn't think so considering he created the articles with the BLPunreferenced template. Lara 20:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Albert used the BLP tag Lara not because he thought the reference was not good enough, somebody complained to him. All people do is complain! Dr. Blofeld 20:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It's better than nothing I guess... It was likely done in the hopes some Deutsche speakers will import the information from de.wiki. I don't think the re-vamp templates should be on there though, there's no guarantee a major revamping will be forthcoming. –xeno 20:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually added the BLP template per request from User:Who then was a gentleman? - if you'd prefer it to be left off, I can do that as well. --User:AlbertHerring 20:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

They ARE ALL referenced to German wikipedia and is utterly appropriate given that these articles are to be transwikied and differ in respect to other articles because the content is intended to be transferred directly. German wikipedia has the relative external links. If you think Lara that they are utterly inappropriate you seriously need to consider what our goals are on here. You cannot ignore 99% of the notable politicians in German history to achieve the "sum of all knowledge" whether you feel stressed out with the number of article we have already or not. Sure they are very stubby but we SERIOUSLY need to do something about the transwiki article system on here as few people seme to giv e adamn that we could be massively better off with content from other wikipedias in english. I would ask you to kindly explore the articles on German wikipedia and to reconsider your thoughts that wikipedia wouldn't benefit from these articles. Also note that the BLP tag is redundant for half of them as the politicians are deceased. It is a mixed bag. Note also I am considering a new wikiproject dedicated to the generation of missing content from other wikipedias but hopefully in a more coordinated fahsion that won't raise any concerns in regards to referencing and content. We could benefit massively with articles translated from other wikis. I have asked for a bot but got no reply!!! Dr. Blofeld 20:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

While some people think it's appropriate or even beneficial to boost edit counts by created thousands of sub-stubs, others disagree. Especially when they are BLPs. As far as adding the BLP template, it's been put on the BDPs, too. So, explain to me Blofeld, how it's A GOOD THING that we now have at least, I estimate, 2500 more BLPs to improve and maintain? Lara 20:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well why did you think wikipedia would be better off with a new front page? Because you believed it was the right thing to do towards the progression of wikipedia. I aslo believe that blue linking clearly notablke articles from other wikipedias allows other editors to develop them. Sure to expand them all may take some time but several have bene translated by visitors already. You;d be amazed how many articles we've created have bene expanded and have developed properly. You should be grateful at least that editors like us care about missing notable content that can be transferred by anybody, We merely build the bridges across to build content upon. Sure I'd love every new stub to be wonderfully developed and referenced but we have a lot to do and these articles should be english whether it seems stressful or not. Dr. Blofeld 20:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Can I get some assistance from someone who can focus on the topic at hand? Lara 20:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict x 2) Dr. Blofeld, with all due respect, I'm not sure you're truly objective here. Creating content-less (which is essentially what these are) generic stubs is one thing; mass-creating content-less biographies of living people is an entirely different matter. This needs to be appropriately addressed. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It may be that most (or all) of these sub-stubs become full-fledged articles someday; on the other hand, it may be that very few of them do. Therein lies the problem. Human-created articles come along at a manageable pace and allow other parties to read, review, comment and ultimately help guide the editorial process along for each individual article. The mass creation of over 3000 at one time is an enormous strain on that system, as it will take a long time for people to actually review these articles, improve when possible and take other actions where appropriate. Any kind of mass-editing on this kind of scale really, really needs to have had discussion on how to handle it happen before the fact and not after. Shereth 20:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This task differs from independent article creations in that the content is there is already there in a different language to put in our pages. What you arne't seeing is that the content is really there so be added, they will all become full articles someday. It is time the different language wikipedia became more interconnected and coordinates and work together at translating each others articles in a much more efficient way. Dr. Blofeld 20:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the biggest challenges for people working on BLP is dealing with articles that have no or few English language sources available. I raised this as an issue several days ago to put to the Foundation because I saw that a large back log was developing. This will make it much worse. :-( FloNight♥♥♥ 20:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope it's a more efficient way than creating thousands of one-sentence articles in a matter of a couple days. Lara 20:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you disagree that we should have articles on notable German politicians in english wikipedia? I think you would probably like to see the content transferred but would like to see every article perfectly done first. Given that I don't speak German myself and nobody else is bothering other than us to at least start them somebody has to take the iniative. As the saying goes If you build it they will come.

Trust me I have made a big effort to get people like Jimbo Wales and the bureacrats to transferring information between wikis more efficicent. Each wikipedia could beneift MASSIVELY by transalting referenced information betwene wikipedians but I see no coordinated approach to link wikipedias together with an effective translation scheme, It is incredibly disappointing that in a project of this scale the masses of good articles on other wikis are largely ignored by the community and the moment somebody like Albert or me makes an attempt to do something muc much less efficiently by hands, slogging our guts out in the process me get conflicting tell tales reports about us. I'd love more than anything to have a more coordinated efficient process in which content is transferred upon creation and these problems are tackled but I really wish more people would support what we are trying to achieve in the long run. Dr. Blofeld 20:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It would have been nice if some more information was automatically translated or transferred such as birth and death dates, and the references! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you, Blofeld, and Albert plan to watch and maintain these articles? If not, then I stand firm in my opinion that it's utterly inappropriate. While you think there is value in one-sentence sub-stubs, others think they are completely pointless; serving only to open living people up to potential libel. Lara 20:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I did start creating them that way but I found I really didn't have the patience to get through what needed to be started by ensuring every article was full each time. To share the workload would have been nice but few editors seem to work together on here and support each other. I had a wikipedia tell me they ar eleaving wiki early precisely because of this lack of support between editors. Dr. Blofeld 20:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

My concerns were with the fact that they were unsourced, I certainly don't disagree with their creation. The English Misplaced Pages needs to expand its horizons above English-language subjects and I thought the creation of German politician stubs was quite appropriate. BLP or not. I was very happy to see Albert add the BLPsources tag. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No, staring articles about living people that do not have references is not alright no matter how short of long the articles is. We need for all of our content about living people to be sourced!! I want to expand our content, but only if it is well sourced. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that your lack of patience is by no means a valid excuse for creating articles - BLP articles, no less - that lack reliable sourcing. It is not sensible for you to expect other editors to pick up the slack created by your lack of patience. Shereth 20:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

They do have references!! Over half the articles are not living people! Dr. Blofeld 20:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This is definitely not the way to go about creating BLP articles. This only adds to the massive backlog that there is and creates a headache for cleanup-minded editors. If AlbertHerring wants to create these articles he should adequately cite them in accordance with our BLP and verifiability policies. ThemFromSpace 20:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Creating thousands of poorly referenced stubs because "I found I really didn't have the patience to get through what needed to be started by ensuring every article was full each time" seems a poor way to build an encyclopedia. Please take the time to correctly write them one at a time. — Satori Son 20:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Living people is a good place for people who support the mass-creation of BLPs to help out. In about four hours, a list of around 2,000 BLPs is going to be generated for us to clear. That's in addition to the ~3,000 we now have to go through and verify the absence of a death date because Blofeld didn't have the patience to create an informative article, and it was at some point decided that slapping a BLP template on BDPs was a good idea, and categorize any living subjects not in the living people category. Any estimate on how much time this will take? You want teamwork, Blofeld? How about organizing a group beforehand, instead of dumping hundreds of hours of work on unsuspecting volunteers, especially when it's work that you yourself don't have the patience for? Lara 20:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you completely ignorant of the amount of traffic wikipedia gets? Why shouldn't I share the workload with other editors? Dr. Blofeld 21:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Care to explain to us how dumping an unsourced sub-stub on people, expecting them to log the hours of work researching and sourcing the information (if possible) that you "don't have the patience for" is sharing? Shereth 21:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The answer is obvious. It is the first step to make towards the spreading of knowledge which I, maybe not you are here for. The articles are started. Somebody visits it, adds a little and so forth. Misplaced Pages is used by millions of people everyday, it is incredibly narrow minded of you if you think there will not be more than one editor who will ever expand any of the stubs. I do a huge amount of work on here, why should I be expected to do all the work? I have expanded thousands of such stubs and have spent many hours of my time referencing and improving existing articles. Why shouldn't anybody else come across an article and have to write it? Dr. Blofeld 21:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The creator of an article has a duty to ensure that it at least meets the bare minimum inclusion standards. To do otherwise is irresponsible and inconsiderate at best. Shereth 21:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it has been mentioned yet that the articles are/were all created with the underconstruction template (which reads "This article or section is in the middle of an expansion or major revamping."). I consider that highly inappropriate. --Conti|✉ 21:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The bot will remove that in a few day anyway. Dr. Blofeld 21:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, were you aware of the problem that is already in place with articles about living people? Did you know that there is already a growing backlog of articles that are written about people from non-English speaking countries because we have less ability to source the articles since the language is not spoken by many people that edit Misplaced Pages English? We need to find a solution to the problem before that we dump thousands more articles into Misplaced Pages English with out good sources. There are other issues are well. Some of the articles look stale already. And all will grow stale soon since they are living people unless they are maintained. So as it stands now, we have a massive number unsourced articles, that may or may not be current. And later will grow stale. I think that adding individual articles about living people from these broad categories with no plan to maintain them is not good for Misplaced Pages as it tries to raise the quality of our articles. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There are enough German speakers on here to make it possible. This is Germany not Kreblakistan. There may evne be sources in english but as I said the content is referenced on German wikipedia and should be immediately transferred. Dr. Blofeld 21:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Holy mackerel, the last thing this place needs is thousands more poorly-watched BLPs! There should be a blanket prohibition against creating BLPs by automated means. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Half the people are DEAD Boris. Why shouldn't anybody else come across an article and have to write it? The way that wikipedia has developed so far has proved to me that enough people care about building an encyclopedia of the highest quality that these articles will develop in due course. Many thousands of my articles have been expanded into fuller articles by people visiting and the end result? I have very productively improved wikipedia in the long term and have had made a major contribution to knowledge on here. I plant seeds to sow as does Albert and I will continue doing so whether you dislike what I do or not. Many people support what I do on wikipedia and see what my long term goals are even if you people don;'t Dr. Blofeld 21:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Dead or not, they're all (at least those from today) categorized as living people, which means others have to go through and check every German version for a death date. Maybe you want to get to work? Lara 21:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The BLP tag had nothing to do with me. Dr. Blofeld 21:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we form a consensus

I think we're stuck with these biographies now, so a small group of editors have just had a giant pile of work dumped on their desks, because Blofeld thinks we should be sharing. He gets a bot script to semi-automate the creation of thousands of articles in a matter of days, gets someone else to run it, and now that's created hundreds of work hours, which will take weeks, if not months, for others to clean up... and, somehow, that's sharing the workload.

Can we get a consensus that this doesn't happen again? Can we prohibt the mass-creation of these sort of biographies? Lara 21:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

(after uncountable ECs) I think the thing which Lara is trying to express here, but that people are missing, is the ethical problem with freely editable articles about living persons. The deal is, a person has certain rights, and among them are the right not to have lies and misinformation printed about them, unchallenged, in the public forum. A highly visible site like Misplaced Pages can host material which is substantively damaging to real people. Given that, the Foundation has established stricter rules for biographies of living people. No one is argueing that German politicians are not notable, so to use that as a way of dismissing Lara's very real concern is a red herring, and entirely misses the point of her concern. Her concern is that 3000 unwatched articles about real, public, living people can be a liability to the project in the sense that, should someone print libelous or slanderous material in those articles, and no one notices, real harm can come to those people. It is not that the articles currently have anything objectionable in them, its that the rate at which they are being created does not show that care has been taken to ensure that they are properly watched and patrolled to see that potentially damaging material is not sureptitiosly added to the articles. Its not that Misplaced Pages should not have these articles on notability arguements; its that it is irresponsible to create such an open target for slander and libel and to not have a mechanism in place to defend against the very real threat of that. --Jayron32 21:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I see what I you mean Jayron, but really that argument opposes the expansion of wikipedia because the number of articles becomes too much to monitor. Dr. Blofeld 21:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually not. Insofar as 3000 articles can be created by people who spend the time to research, craft the wording of, and spend labor in working on them, 3000 articles will then be watched by editors that have a real interest in seeing those articles well taken care of. Insofar as 3000 sub-stubs are rapidly created by a semi-automated process by a single person, it seems highly unlikely that THOSE 3000 articles could be watched as well as 3000 articles managed by involved editors. The deal is, if the 3000 sub-stubs were French Communes or Billboard top 100 Singles or species of beetles, then it would be a "no-harm-no-foul" situation; no one is writing slanderous material about a beetle (maybe a Beatle, but I digress), and no one here would have batted an eyelash. When the 3000 sub-stub articles are created about real living people there becomes a whole new level of responsibility for the article creators; I fail to see how one person (or even 2 or 3) could manage 3000 such articles in an effective manner. It is neither the number of articles, or the manner of their creation, that are the sole problems. It is the intersection of the number, the way they were created, AND the fact that they are all BLPs that creates the problem here. --Jayron32 00:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, all the AWB mass created articles should probably be mass deleted as they have no real content. Since they presumably all meet inclusion guidelines, a better way to get them into the English encyclopedia is to write a bot that can parse certain basic information out of the German articles for use here. It should be feasible to pull birth/death dates, political party, and probably some other basic info using a bot. It could also transfer the references, obviously. If there is interest in this idea I'd be willing to help with the coding, but I don't speak German so I'd need some assistance figuring out what to look for. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Which is exactly what I proposed before Thaddeus (see the bottom of my talk page) and would love to see happen to extarct basic data and start articles from other wikipedias but nobody listens to what I have to say or propose. Jimbo and the people who authorise such tasks are about as helpful as a goldfish. Dr. Blofeld 21:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, creating and maintaining bots is a lot of work and requires technical skill that most people don't have. As such, bot requests often go unfulfilled. (The best place to ask is at WP:BOTREQ for future reference). --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Note also the original creation possibly violated BOT policies since no approval for these actions was sought. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No it wasn't created by bot. Dr. Blofeld 21:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Extremely automated editing can fall under bot policies, so it is best to seek approval. It isn't clear cut, which is why I said "possibly". --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Creating a bunch of articles with no content, expecting others to fill the content, and then leaving them unwatchlisted so they can be malformed is intellectually lazy at best. With the BLP policy it's even worse. Agree with Jayron. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"Intellectually lazy"? What does that make an editor who spends his time hanging around ANI and FACs and does nothing to actively contribute information to wikipedia then and pretends to be a professional critic? Dr. Blofeld 21:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This sort of behavior absolutely needs to be prohibited. As ThaddeusB states above, this is essentially running a bot without going through the proper approval (granted a human may have been running an AWB script under their own account but lets call a spade a spade - this is bot-like behavior). The user(s) involved need to be sternly warned not to repeat this kind of behavior and prohibited from causing a repeat of this scene. Shereth 21:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I would support deleting all these articles. Mass production of almost-contentless substub BLPs without references does not provide any useful information to the reader, and merely results in a large potential for libel in the future. If someone creates decent little articles on these politicians, then great - that person is likely to keep an eye on them. If someone creates three thousand terrible articles automatically and expects other people to do all the niggly work and all the monitoring, then I think we have a problem - one that can be readily solved by getting rid of them until someone's willing to make them properly. ~ mazca 21:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me if this is way off base, but has anyone checked whether Blofeld is the same editor as Betacommand? The behavior seems very similar. Maybe he's evading his ban. Friday (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Blofeld's been around for a lot longer than Betacommand's been banned, and I've never noted any similarities in their styles apart from large-scale use of automation. I very much doubt it. ~ mazca 21:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I have never used automation in my life.What did Betacommand ever do to expand wikipedia?? Dr. Blofeld 21:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No, this is my fault. I was creating them; someone asked for the BLP tag; I didn't realize it would create such a headache; I went and included it in when I was working on the stubs. I will say that I had some concerns about using AWB to do articles like these - however, I did a few test runs earlier in the week, and everything seemed to go fine. So I didn't think there would be any problems with it. Evidently there are, and I apologize. I'm going to stop for now.

Although for what it's worth, I have been operating under the understanding that someone was going to come and fill things in, once the articles had been created; I would not have created them otherwise, so that they be left in their current state. --User:AlbertHerring 21:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Who? I honestly have no problem with these actions at all if that was intended; it just looks like you were creating abandoned unreferenced sub-stubs. If there's a plan to fill them out, great - if not, I rather think they shouldn't be here. ~ mazca 21:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Rjwilmsi. I hadn't spoken to him about it, but Blofeld had, and he had in fact begun adding dates, constituencies, and such for some of the politicians in another list. (List of German Christian Democratic Union politicians). He actually did start...I don't know if he continued or not. --User:AlbertHerring 21:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm just confused about why it was thought a good idea to create so many at once. The massive backlog this has created is just overwhelming, and working with BLPs is already overwhelming. I really think it would be best to mass-delete what was mass-created and go with the idea Blofeld has above about creating a bot to transfer complete articles with references. Three thousand is just too much for us to take on at once, and we don't need them sitting there like sitting ducks. Lara 21:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Seriously to delete them now would be a huge waste of time, We need to be working forwards not backwards. ANy of these articles can instantly be translated and referenced. I really think a bot would be best to autogenerate content properly though in the future extracting basic facts and referecning them and create more solid starter articles to build upon. Both ALbert and I did not think we were violating any policy and I really hate the way we get treated around here. Comparing me to BetaCommand and calling me "intellectually lazy" is very hurtful and unnecessary. Dr. Blofeld 21:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I believe your & Albert's actions to have been entirely done in good faith. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

As do I, as I told Albert on my talk page. Lara 23:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

All I want is to organise a scheme where we can root out the missing articles from other wikipedias and do something to work together not with conflict like this so transfer content in a much more efficient and organised way. I apologise if I sometimes think too much in the future on wikipedia rather than any problems geenrating a lot of stubs in the meantime may create but that is only because I care about developing in the long term. Without a doubt every one of the articles started can instantly be translated and referenced and is much needed and useful content, the main problem is finding enough editors to expand them all. Quality is more important to the community on here it seems but we really need to find a better way to not ignore the mass of good referenced content which exists on other wikipedia. Dr. Blofeld 22:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The great majority of the equivalent German articles are unreferenced or stubs themselves, ie random picks . If there's no one on the German side improving them, I find it unlikely there's going to be tons of people wanting to improve them and punt them across the wikis. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 22:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The larger issue of creating thousands of unreferenced articles at a time should be given an RfC, as it is out of this board's scope. The issue at the moment is this specific batch of articles. Is there any current effort to categorize and/or clean these up? I don't see this mentioned at WikiProject Living People yet, although the project has been brought up during this discussion. Since a problem has been identified it would be nice to begin fixing these in a timely and coordinated manner. ThemFromSpace 00:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

We were waiting for the report of newly created BLPs to generate, which it now has. This report usually yields just a handful of articles to be checked each day. Generally five to ten. However, today's report is an overwhelming 1095. There's really just one editor who normally clears this list. I used to do it, then he took over; because it's tedious, boring and thankless work. Clearing this list will take at least a few days, depending on how many people I can get to go through it. Lara 00:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Cull and re-introduce using a better mapping?

Even if this was done in good faith, it was ill-advised to do it in this way, and it would make sense to cull all the unchanged versions and try again using smarter sort of automation. For example:

1. There could be a filter on which articles to being across in the first tranche, based on the size, or number of sections, or existence of a WebLInks and/or Einzelnachweise (=References) section. This approach would reduce the volume for translation and checking. As David Fuchs points out, a lot of the source articles are poorly referenced and will be hard to QA here. In any case, there is a significant problem when articles are created that no-one will ever have on their watchlist, because they are potential magnets for vandalism.
2. Some content mapping could be automated. For example, where there is a lifespan like "de:Ludwig Marum (* 5. November 1882 in Frankenthal (Pfalz); † 29. März 1934 im KZ Kislau bei Bruchsal)" this mean "Ludwig Marum was a German politician", not "is"; ideally at least the dates would be automatically translated into English. Another example in the same article is the image on Commons: surely automation could bring this across too?
3. When linking to the original article, it might also be helpful to link to a machine-assisted translation (e.g. Babelfish's translation of Ludwig Marum. This would at least ensure that a non-German reader could be some rough idea of the original article, pending work by language-skilled editors.

I was very concerned to see the discussion at User_talk:Dr._Blofeld#Beyond_Germany and I hope that the parties will refrain from creating any further articles in this way until they have helped resolve the existing situation. - Pointillist (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

May I just say that I have noted, repeatedly, that I am not going to continue, for the moment at least? The discussion began before I knew about this; once I found out about it, I decided to put the brakes on the whole business. --User:AlbertHerring 01:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

O tempora o dramatis!

Someone creates many articles on German people. One complains that we're "stuck" with them. Another complains that (god forbid) they aren't watchlisted by anyone. Someone makes the claim that the created used an unapproved bot. First, creation of articles is not disruptive. If someone thinks that any (all) of them merit deletion, we have a nice process for that (WP:DELETE), but don't be WP:POINTy. We're not "stuck" with them, we are glad to have them - as we are with all good faith contributions - unless they fall afoul of WP:DELETE. Second, no one owns articles here; even if they are on someone's watchlist that editor has not more or less responsibility for the article's content and care and feeding than anyone else. Remember, this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. While we remain that way, and allow that for BLPs without any oversight or control may be something to decide the wisdom of, but not at drama central. Third, a claim is made about the creator's use of an unapproved bot. Is there any proof of this? Dr Blofeld denies it and no one has shown any evidence of it - anyone can appear to create articles at great speed - if they compose the articles' content off line, say in MS Word - and cut and paste it into the blank pages that appear when you hit a redlink here. That is behavior that is fundamentally good rather than being forced to use the editor here which seems to have no shortage of bugs reported at bugzilla much less a spellchecker and undo function. So, let's cut the drama, welcome the new articles and move the discussion whether BLPs should be permitted to be edited by anyone and the results show up for immediate view to another forum as I know that conversation has been had before and seems utterly incapable of resolution. I don't see that any admin action is needed here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You have no grasp whatsoever of the BLP problem. If you're "glad to have them", maybe you can help clean up the mess. Lara 00:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What BLP issue is presented here that is not the same as the overall BLP problem, which I said is something that we have had no end of jawing over? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Lara. You're fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of this problem. Unsourced biographies of living people are the single most critical issue facing Misplaced Pages. A batch-creation like this is pouring salt directly on an open wound. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Carlos, while I understand that you don't have a problem with unreferenced, unwatched BLPs; it is, in fact, a huge problem for the project. The BLP issue presented here that is "not the same" is that it's adding to an already overwhelming problem, as I explained above. Lara 00:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, when endorsing the creation of thousands of unwatched BLPs, I would like to also remind you, as you reminded me, that this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Lara 00:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me be more blunt than Lara... This is the encyclopedia that anyone can add malicious, slanderous lies to an article which no one else is watching, and which could therefore survive a very long time, opening up real potential damages to the subject of the article. Again, as I stated above, if someone had created 3000 stub articles about species of beetles, no one would bat an eye, or even care. The distinction is that articles about real living people must be held to a different standard because real living people can be slandered and libeled. --Jayron32 01:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem I see is that people consider new articles as a "mess" to be "cleaned up" as Lara states bluntly. If we have a problem with BLPs being edited by the hoi polloi, that's an inherent problem with having BLPs AT ALL or allowing anyone to edit AT ALL. If these 3000 articles came in from 3000 contributors we would have the same problem. Misplaced Pages should probably not permit edits to BLPs by new or unregistered users - but that's a policy choice and I am probably in the minority in that opinion. If you are worried about vandalism on these articles, since that what seems bluntly clear from Jayron's post, why hasn't someone protected them all rather than all the lamentation and drama? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• What an utter shambles - the encyclopedia could deal with the creation of many thousands of contentless sub-stubs about settlements etc. (even though not ideal), but articles about people? Simple answer here is to delete every single one on the spot, unless the creator is prepared to check every single one for BLP issues. Black Kite 01:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Obsessive anon IP editor

There's an anon IP editor with what seems to be a monomania for adding links to articles about academia. Basically he's trying to cross-link every article that has the word "Academic" in its title. In a couple of cases he's added links to academic search engines based in Australia, some of which need registration.

Here are some examples:

Special:Contributions/222.67.217.50

Special:Contributions/222.67.218.172

Special:Contributions/222.64.29.96

To be honest I'm not sure if what he's doing is entirely wrong, and in fact some of his edits are perfectly fine - but he often just clutters up an article with tons of see also links. For example here there are 18 including redlinks, mostly irrelevant to the subject of the article.

He's been blocked a couple of times - and I managed to get myself blocked for edit warring with him - but that doesn't slow him down. He just gets another dynamic IP address and carries on. If you revert, he reverts right back with a snarly comment. If you ask to talk about it, he doesn't reply. This makes it impossible to do even minor tidying up.

Any ideas? Am I just being a fussbudget?

andy (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The archaic and offensive use of the term 'blacks' over the preferred term 'black people'

 No admin action needed.

I've been trying to tidy up Black people, having noticed that it (and other articles) refer repeatedly to 'blacks' instead of the preferred 'black people'. 'Blacks' is an offensive term to many people, which is probably why http://en.wikipedia.org/index.html?curid=17072530#Identity states that 'black people' should be used instead of 'blacks'. Unfortunately, more than one editor has felt the need to revert the article back to the offensive version. Little grape (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

How about trying to discuss it on the article talk page? Good first step. Tan | 39 23:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Political correctness is an ever-evolving process, and sometimes it's hard to keep up. Baseball Bugs carrots 23:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI is not for content disputes. if it gets to level of constistent abuse of process, then it should go here but you should start on th e talk page and move on from theire. dont assume that anyone is racist until you have tried to talk to them and explain you're oan position User:Smith Jones

Good point. Smith Jones, don't ever go into copy editing. And, learn to correctly sign your posts. Tan | 39 23:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

His typing is actually much better than it used to be. :) I think this is the first I've heard that "blacks" is considered offensive. However, it's not a term you hear that much anyway, nor is "black people". In the USA, anyway, "African-American" is the preferred term. Some would consider "black people" to be offensive. PC never ends. Baseball Bugs carrots 23:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Why ever would you assume that I think anyone's being intentionally racist?! I think it's a matter of not knowing or understanding the issue, rather than editors having racist views. Although of course that doesn't make the article any less offensive. Fair point re. talk page, have discussed on editors' talk pages, and in edit summaries, but of course the article's talk page should have been the start point. Mea culpa, thank you. Little grape (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• You might want to look at a recent similar discussion here: Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 64#"African American" → "black"?. –xeno 00:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - that was indeed an interesting debate, that appeared to conclude (rightly in my view) that 'African-American' was a) not interchangable with 'Black' and b) couldn't be applied outside the USA to black people. Thus the correct term, if one takes a global rather than a US-centric view, is 'black people'.

However, this issue is between the terms 'blacks' and 'black people'. Perhaps I can illustrate the issue by example - let's say you as a white man were addressing a wholly black congregation as a guest pulpit speaker. You might start by marking the novelty of your presence by stating "Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the first time I have had the chance to give a sermon to a congregation of blacks". Alternatively, you could say "Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the first time I have had the chance to give a sermon to a congregation of black people". Can you feel the chilly difference?! Little grape (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Pzrmd

Despite past warnings and blocks about uncivil behavior (most recently this) and other concerns, Pzrmd continues acting in an inappropriate manner towards fellow editors. At some point, it's just too far. Vicenarian 00:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This was a little over-the-top. There are *many* users here way more uncivil than I am. Pzrmd (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Pzrmd exhibits a range of odd behaviours. Creating multiple accounts and having his current page redirect to those. Odd references to his original account Then moving them back again. The snippy, pointy comments he makes in various discussion (as linked to by Vicenarian.) Every edit marked as minor. It goes on. WP:AGF aside, it's hard to see what constructive purpose he has here. Crafty (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Vicenarian, for attracting every enemy I have to gang up on me. I don't even know Craftyminion who suddenly pops up and attacks me so vigorously. Pzrmd (talk) 00:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Pzrmd, the fact that other users on here may or may not be less civil than yourself does not excuse your bad behaviour. Javert 00:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I called someone a pipsqueak and another a drone. So what? Pzrmd (talk) 00:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - Two points Pzrmd. One, having editors who's civility is worse than yours doesn't give you a free pass on civility yourself - that's a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument and doesn't hold any weight. Two if you're if you're finding lots of "enemies" on wikipedia something is wrong - this is supposed to be a collaborative and collegial project where even editors with serious disagreements should not become "enemies" - if you're finding you are generating lots of "enemies" suggest you look at your editing and behaviour. Exxolon (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless you're an admin, then you can say "F.U." to another editor, and that's OK, as long as you use a proper signature. Baseball Bugs carrots 00:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks BB, =) Pzrmd (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Bugs - the issue of hypocrisy/double standards for admins & editors is something I'm actually concerned about myself, but it's not relevant to this thread - please stay on topic. Exxolon (talk) 00:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI threads are not usually started over such minor incivility. Pzrmd (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but the OP appears to be suggesting a pattern of behaviour over time. BTW - if you can't see a problem with calling editors "pipsqueak" and "drone" then you seriously need to (re)read our WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA policies. Exxolon (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. I hate ani and am not going to participate in this anymore. Pzrmd (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If you don't like an edit or an action that someone takes, that's fine, it happens all the time. However, I believe that I read somewhere that we should comment on the "content, not the contributor". Best, Javert 01:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect, many of them do get started over incivility. MuZemike 01:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed Pzrmd before too. He needs to start behaving like a reasonable adult, or be shown the door. He was just blocked a few days ago.. if he doesn't shape up, I'd recommend a series of blocks of escalating length, until he either gets a clue, or gets bored and goes away. Friday (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

ok, I'll make a last comment. Friday, you have done a lot of horrible things on Misplaced Pages to different users, and have said very offensive things, particularly about Docu, and still manage to follow wp:civ. Jeffrey O. Gustafson could be extremely rude and difficult and annoying and obnoxious, but what you said about him was deplorable. I don't want any interaction with you whatsoever in my WikiLife. Leave me alone and I will leave you alone. Pzrmd (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Factsontheground removing terrorist attacks aimed at Jews and Israeli soldiers - List of terrorist incidents, 2009

List of terrorist incidents, 2009

User:Factsontheground has recently edited-out almost all terrorist attacks in Israel with claims of "original research" and "no source."

Here are a few examples. FOTG removed 10 incidents and I think all of them were about Israel and Jews.

Revision as of 06:06, 23 July 2009 - Source does not describe the attack as terrorism

Source: Footage of al-Qaida cell in Gaza airs - At least four terrorists and a number of their horses were killed in the ensuing exchange of fire with the IDF. No soldiers were wounded.

Source: Revision as of 06:07, 23 July 2009 - source does not describe attack as terrorism

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting contains several statements and references that consider the event an act of terrorism. Many government officials consider this hate-filled crimes as "domestic extremism" which is categorized as terrorism.

06:16, 23 July 2009 - Source broken

New source:

• terrorist/militants kill people

These deaths aren't a part of a legal conflict (i.e, acts of war) but are consistent with terrorism - suicide bombings, ambushing patrols, IEDs on road-check points and targeting civilians, etc..etc..

He didn't even discuss, he just removed everything with the same excuse.

hist.

I reverted once and then went to talk. He refused to concede and then I promised I would seek an administrator's opinion if he did not self-revert or at least accept that some of his summaries did not coincide with the references.

Anyways, I just found the whole process to be very offensive and would hope people understand. Am I wrong here? Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• I would've thought it was fairly obvious that if an event had reliable and non-partisan sources describing it as terrorism, then it should be included in such an article, otherwise it clearly shouldn't. Black Kite 01:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not that obvious. Even if the source is reliable, the terms terrorist and terrorism are deeply POV. Kingturtle (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Context is key. The attacks are consistent with a recognized terror campaign against Israel and Jews. FOTG zealously and exclusively edited-out virtually all of the Israel/Jew incidents with dubious summaries. No discussion, no talk, nothing. It is true, terrorism and terrorist are deeply loaded POV words but the references are reliable sources. Fighting over semantics is silly. When an IED kills 4 American's on patrol it is considered terrorism. When an IED kills Jews on patrol it is considered terrorism. According to FOTG, it does not. Any claims that it does is simply "original research." Some of those sources have been in the article for half a year no one said a word. The fact that he removed incidents because a source was broken instead just googling for a new source (yahoo refs tend to die out) demonstrates he simply wanted to remove everything about Israel and had little concern if the incidents constituted terrorism. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

All of that may or may not be true. However, this is still a content dispute, and does not belong at ANI. Black Kite 01:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not a content dispute when an editor is clearly editing with a hateful and antisemitic agenda. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards