Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PilgrimRose (talk | contribs) at 19:09, 11 December 2009 (→PilgrimRose and Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher: Some admin with time on hand out there before it's getting out of hand?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Powergate92 patroling my edits

Today I received this message from Powergate92 (talk · contribs). This is most certainly not the first time that Powergate92 has commented in such a way. Beginning way back here when Mythdon was not banned, began Powergate92's unnecessary attention to my use of rollback (whether or not it was part of administrator's tools or javascript enabled). He has reported me to this board in the past He has also reported me for 3RR merely because he found out that I had performed more than three reverts in a 24 hour period (ignoring the fact that the dispute had ended and he did not bother to report the other user in the dispute or reporting me while we were in a dispute over said reverted content and he had gotten an administrator to revert me for him).

I am tired of this. I do not need anyone policing my edits, looking and waiting for reverts that they think are bad and seeking to get me punished for not following every single rule. Powergate92 has most definitely shown a propensity to just seek to get my editing privileges removed or restricted in some fashion. He is effectively treating me just as Mythdon had, but Powergate92 is not under any restrictions from this case. So I am bringing this to the community for assistance.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I was not "looking and waiting for reverts" like I said on your talk page "I was looking at my watchlist and I see an IP moved the hidden message in the episodes section of the Power Rangers: RPM article, so as today would be the day that the title for episodes 29 and 30 would be on TV Guide.com, I go to the TV Guide link and I see someone linked it to the episode list when they should have it to the TV listings (as the episode list only list episodes that have aired not episodes that will air, the TV listings list episodes that will air). So I go back to the Power Rangers: RPM article to fix the link and then I see that you reverted the IP good faith non-vandalism edit as vandalism." How is saying "I think Ryulong should use Twinkle's rollback (AGF) button for reverting good faith edits." at this discussion "unnecessary attention to your use of rollback"? Powergate92Talk 22:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like someone other than Powergate92 to say something about his behavior past and present.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hitting revert for vandalism instead of AGF'd? It happens. I've done it. You apologize, or the user accidentally warned says something and they talk it out, or it's never noticed. I have no idea how a third party would be brought into that specifically, so a diff would be appreciated if it were request.

• Ryulong; You did seem to take advice on the second ANI. I'm also going to assume you've known what 3RR is for quite some time and comprehend your past minor infractions. You've been here long enough to know the AGF vs Vandal Twinkle revert thing is pretty serious if at all frequent, but twice doesn't really count as that. I'm not the most qualified to state this, but checking those incident reports and seeing that Powergate92 offers zero diffs of actual premeditated harm or incivility? No action to take.
• Powergate92; is there a particular reason that you're the cause of all administrator reports filed against this user remotely relating to sought blocks? Can you offer any diffs that show continued abuses and would warrant continuous observation for several months? If so, they should be reported much sooner. That 3RR report listed 12 hours after the edit war is a bit saddening, as it means you must have been digging into contribution history to spot it. As someone calling for Twinkle to be taken away from an experienced editor, surely you know the primary use of blocks is to prevent future disruptions and not punish pasts. 12 hours after the fact being a pretty clear indicator of no further edit warring, especially from someone with zero past history of it. Last, no one but an administrator has any right whatsoever to threaten someone about their Twinkle rights, or threaten anyone like that whatsoever, for that matter. This threat was particularly discouraging, especially after a lengthy history of it being shown that Ryulong has never shown anything but good faith in edits with only a few questionable marks in those ancient ANIs.
  

Walk away, please. An apology with some honesty offered would be even better. Whatever your odd fascination is with Ryulong, make a point of leaving them be. Same goes the opposite direction. Anything. Voluntary lack of contact all places and at all times, basically. Shared project already? Try different articles. No one wants to waste time on higher dispute resolution. This matter may not be suited for ANI anymore if it for whatever reason it comes up again, though it shouldn't. Walk away, please, and save the whole community later time spent in dispute resolution when it's completely unnecessary with just a tiny bit of good faith from both parties. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I cannot see Powergate92 even remotely acknowledging your opinion in this case. In this regard, he is similar to Mythdon in that he will not change topic areas in the slightest.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll work from talk pages, if that's okay. Best to let this archive, though it is noted that Powergate92 hasn't reacted in any way, though the user has made edits since additional postings. Thanks for letting me know. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Having one person say "Move on" is not "resolved" in my book.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I marked as resolved since it was the extent that ANI can take dispute resolution, and the hope is that the other party will heed the advice and realize that the possibility of a block on next offense would cause it to stop. Usually, the easiest reminder before that step to either side is "you don't actually want to get blocked over this, do you?" ...If someone knows they've done no wrong, they can see if it continues knowing that'll be the end of it regardless. WP:WQA would be the step listed next up the scale for dispute resolution, but I cannot make any guess at actions there if there was not a specific final warning given in the past and a third party overview with suggestions given proved fruitless. Marking again as resolved as this angle of discussion is completely exhausted. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You are not an administrator who can decide whether or not action should be taken in this instances. You are a user who registered on Misplaced Pages two months ago. You do not know what can or cannot be done in this case. I would respect you if you did not act as judge and jury over a dispute between two users who have both been on this project longer than you have and one who used to be an administrator who helped diffuse these situations.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm coming to this late, Ryulong, but I am an Administrator, I have been around Misplaced Pages a bit longer than Datheisen, & I think she/he makes perfect sense here. You appear to have made a simple (& minor) mistake here, & Powergate92 has over-reacted to your mistake. That said, there really isn't much an Administrator can do than to encourage the two of you to either play nice or avoid each other. Any sanctions at this point on anyone would be overkill & may even result in a bigger problem -- or unneeded wikidrama. -- llywrch (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for me to "change topic areas" as I have been a good contributer to the television topic area. Powergate92Talk 23:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Here's some diffs for good faith non-vandalism edits that Ryulong reverted as vandalism: If you would like me to look at Ryulong contributions, I would most likely find more in his contributions.

2. I was not looking at Ryulong contributions when I made that 3RR report, I was looking at my watchlist, Kamen Rider Decade is in my watchlist you know.

3. What doe's "the primary use of blocks is to prevent future disruptions and not punish pasts" have to do with "calling for Twinkle to be taken away"? Powergate92Talk 23:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

1) I shouldn't need to label reverts on my talk page. 2) Addition of unverified information. 3) Removal of verified information. And it is not that you are a good contributor to the "Television" topic area. It is that you are not a good contributor to the tokusatsu topic area.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, by the way, WQA is an "informal non-binding noticeboard" whereas AN/I is a notice board for when one "requires the intervention of administrators", at WQA we can't take any actual action, we can offer support and advice, but if you want intervention, then WQA isn't really the place. Spitfire 21:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Again? Powergate92, however innocently it happens and however much you may not be aware of the bias, your interactions with Ryulong haven't been productive. Your complaints typically aren't acted on because honestly, you're stretching to find something "wrong" with his edits/reverts/rollback etc. Its time to let it go; the next time you have the urge to interact with Ryulong, don't.

  Ryulong would you agree to make more liberal use of the AGF rollback and make sure the edit summary includes you reasoning (things like "removal of verified information" or "addition of unverified information")? If you save the "vandalism" button just for edits that everyone would consider vandalism (replacing an entire article with "WIKIPEDIA SUCKS" for example), you'll avoid any future concerns over your use of the tool. Reverting someone's edits to your talk page and labeling it vandalism certainly isn't going to win you any points. Shell 00:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  The "rollback (AGF)" button version is just weird. I usually just use the "restore this version" or "rollback" or the regular "undo".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  As long as you're not clicking something that identifies the edit as vandalism, that would solve the problem (wasn't this the same thing I said last time?). Obviously Powergate92 found a few instances where you did click the wrong button recently, so it pays to be careful when using those tools. If you're finding that you're having trouble, perhaps its best to stick to the standard undo or restore this version links. Shell 06:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  Apparently, he identifies vandalism differently than I do.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  No, Misplaced Pages identifies vandalism differently than you do apparently. The examples Powergate92 cited were not appropriate use of the world vandalism. If you feel differently, then perhaps we do have a larger problem here. Shell 19:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  I'll second Shell Kinney. Those edits don't fit with what WP:VAN defines as vandalism. -- Atama頭 21:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  The definition changes so often. And there are simply instances where I really do not want to type in any form of reason in the edit summary and I would rather go directly to the talk page (such as instances where I see the same deleterious edit repeated multiple times in the edit history). The popup that says "Put in something else for the edit summary" often gets in the way.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  Well no, the definition has been standard for the five or so years that I've been here. If you aren't willing to use edit summaries and avoid labeling good-faith edits as vandalism then we do have a problem. Shell 23:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  It's a very important distinction because if you revert a non-vandalism edit, you really should have a reason. Any other kind of revert is essentially a content dispute and you should have an explanation for what you're disputing. -- Atama頭 01:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

  So removing clearly referenced content or adding entirely false and/or unverified content is not vandalism in any way?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

  1. That info is not needed as it's just something that is said at the end of the next time promo. 2. The name has been said on fan sites like Power Rangers Universe Wikia so the user most likely added the info in good faith not knowing about WP:Verifiability. So yes the edits are not vandalism in any way as the users most likely made their edits in good faith. Powergate92Talk 03:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

  1) It is still reliably sourced content and 2) no one should be using that particular Wikia for anything reliable. Even if it is in good faith, it is still incredibly wrong.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Correct. In the case of new contributors it may simply be a lack of understanding of Misplaced Pages policies, in the case of experienced contributors there may be a valid reason for their edits (content disputes for example) or there may be an issue. No matter what the case, it is not vandalism. It might help to take another look at WP:VAND which specifically states "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism." Shell 03:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Repetitively and intentionally making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages --nutshell at WP:AIV. The most important word in the definition below is "deliberately". So no those cases aren't vandalism. Uninformed and inexplicable edits just aren't vandalism, just as Shell is spot-on. I see now where I made my mistake in the ANI at start and why sanctions were sought; It wasn't that you were scolded in general for being hounded and the view of your hitting the "VANDAL" TW button was a shove over the top, it's also due to a misunderstanding of the definition. Was a "final warning" type message to you appropriate? I still feel not, but now I understand it a bit better. Before clicking for any revert, think about how you felt before coming to ANI for this report when someone suggested your edits could be vandalism and disruptive enough to take away Twinkle access. Take a second to think about it before someone else is branded by you as the same. It's always an oddly human moment, even when I have no doubt, and Huggle reminds all its users of its serious nature by providing many other revert reasons. Ok. End side 'A'.

Powerguy92 needs "a talkin' to" yet? I don't know. Words a bit harsh in my view and I'm still really miffed from the decent evidence of contribution list hunting. If no warning had ever been given about smacking the red button in the past, isn't a final warning pretty brutal for Ryulong as a first warning on the matter? Likely all moot now since mutual avoidance should be a given. Unofficial advice to both, same as before; Think about what a pain ANI is and how only the truly disturbed like myself actually try to spend free time here. Toxic for most. You can both just call this whole ANI as a high-level or even final warning depending on future actions. Please play nice? Better yet, not at all? Great! Good luck to you both. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There was warning given before: and an AN/I discussion. Powergate92Talk 16:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there was.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 01:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That second diff has nothing to do with rollback, Powergate92. You always do this. You post diffs that have nothing to do with the complaint to try and get me in more trouble. This has to end.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so you do randomly say "you should stop reverting things and labeling it as vandalism" but it still had nothing to do with that discussion on your talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring that for a moment, do you see that there are multiple editors here expressing concern about your use of the "vandalism" rollback? Shell 23:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Some people find it an issue. Namely those who see a target over my head.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That's really not the kind of response I was hoping for and you've managed to insult myself and other outside editors who have commented here in the same breath. So since nice didn't work, to put it bluntly, if you do not stop using the vandalism rollback inappropriately, you will have access to the tool removed. Shell 06:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong, based on your latest response I'm concerned that you are losing your perspective here. I don't see a target over your head, on your back -- or anywhere near you -- but I do see that here you are taking criticism badly. (In fact, I think most of your work up to this point is important, if underappreciated.) However, labelling other editors' edits as "vandalism" ought to be limited to only those changes which are indisputably so. In other cases, where a reversion is justified, one should use a different explanation, e.g. "tendentious edit", or "unsourced material", or "against consensus". (None of these examples should be construed as comments on the actual content in the articles under discussion.) Insisting that instances such as these are "vandalism" only serves to weaken the persuasiveness of that word, & inevitably leads to wikilawyering. -- llywrch (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Threat of Suicide

Please see . I'm unsure as to whether any further action needs to be taken here. It's seriously concerning but this might just be simple vandalism. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 02:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

In theory it should be taken seriously, i.e. find out where that IP is and inform local authorities. raseaC 02:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If anyone is local to Auburn, Alabama the 24hr police non-emergency number is 501-3100. raseaC 02:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I've notified and am currently waiting on a response from the Administrator who recently blocked the IP for standard vandalism. Notified of both the diff and this thread. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 02:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not know anything about that threat. I saw that the last edit inserted a bunch of "Blah Blah Blah"s all over the place, that they were after a recent final warning, and then blocked the IP. I was totally unaware of the suicide threat. Jesse Viviano (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Do we really report every since "suicide threat" to the police? That diff looks very much like a joke. At least in some countries, making unnecessary reports is also a crime, so this reporting policy of ours seems a bit concerning. Offliner (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Better to assume that they're all real rather than they're all fake. Or should we let someone sue Misplaced Pages because we all ignored their child's suicide warning? --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 02:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on that one Offliner, it looks more like a "joke" (a very sick joke) than an actual threat. In regards to policy Misplaced Pages:Responding to threats of harm is the only documented Misplaced Pages guideline on the subject that I am aware of and it states: "Law enforcement and emergency services have consistently stated that such reports are not a waste of their time, even in cases where the suicidal statements are determined to be a hoax or non-immediate threat." Though RTTOS is an essay and not an approved Misplaced Pages guideline or policy. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 03:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It might be a PR nightmare, but there is no liability to worry about. Misplaced Pages is not a mandated reporter. We have no duty here. -208.97.245.131 (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(ecx2):::There is a vast difference between a prank report ("do you have Prince Albert in a can?") and a sincere editor reporting an event which might or might not be a suicide threat. We are not paid to decide whether a suicide threat is real or not. The police and 911 responders are. Let them make that judgment. People should not be avoiding reporting these things because they think the police will be angry or annoyed at them - it is the responders' job to take reports and make the judgment calls required, not ours. If our report is sincere, we are not contravening any laws in North America. In my opinion, all suicide threats should be reported if humanly possible. --NellieBly (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I highly doubt any law enforcement agency would take offense to a report of a suicide threat, even if it did seem dubious. Where possible, report. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What the hell is going on? I heard the name Auburn mentioned in this thread. -Pickbothmanlol- 13:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware most experts would recommend treating any such threat as serious and you'd have to be very unlucky to find yourself on the wrong side of the law if you did report it. raseaC 15:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

All suicide threats need to be reported.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be overly concerned. Usually, suicidals don't tell others about their intentions, until after they've committed suicide (via a letter, of course). GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This is absolutely, absolutely not true. I have to step in here and in the strongest possible terms tell you that you are factually wrong. I have worked as a counsellor for years with those who have attempted suicide. It is remarkably common for potential suicides to do just what you're saying they don't do. In fact, I would suggest that well over half of suicide attempts are predated by calls for help exactly like this. Unfortunately, TV and the mass media have convinced people beyond dissuasion that people who actually kill themselves don't ask for help. This has actually prevented friends and family from noticing calls for help or taking them seriously until it's too late. Please, please, please: don't fall into the "the mass media is right about everything, people are crazy and just looking for attention" trap. Suicides do this all the time. All the time. --NellieBly (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd also add that the majority of suicides do not leave suicide notes. Another thing people have picked up from TV and movies that doesn't reflect real life, to the point that survivors don't believe that a suicide actually killed himself if he didn't leave a note. TV is entertainment and doesn't reflect real life. --NellieBly (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You know, I was about to reply in the same way (having some experience in the matter) but I assumed that GoodDay was making a joke (a suicide can't tell people of their intentions afterward because they're dead). Many suicides are really calls for help, even our article states as much, and often attempts aren't meant to actually succeed but to draw attention to the problems of the person. That doesn't mean that the person doesn't need help, if they're desperate enough to act out in that way then they have some serious problems that probably should get attention. -- Atama頭 01:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Correct, as far as it goes; in my experience, those who are determined to top themselves will usually manage to do so, and do so either extremely dramatically (e.g. by leaping in front of a train) or very quietly (e.g. by OD'ing)- in neither case will they advertise the fact beforehand. But there is another case; the "cry for help" from those who may be desperate but not terminally so, and these are the people that tend to advertise beforehand in the hope that they might receive assistance. I realise we should not be in that business ourselves, and should resist false positives, but there is a humanitarian case for reporting them, per Jeanne Boleyn and others above. Rodhullandemu 00:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

People are actually taking this ridiculous vandalism seriously?--66.177.73.86 (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You always take these things seriously, no matter how silly they may appear. It's just not something that we, as uninvolved volunteers, are in a position to make a judgement call on. The cost of doing nothing on the off chance they were serious is nothing compared to the cost of being wrong when they aren't. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Usually a suicide threat that doesn't include any reason at all is either a joke or one of the very rare occasions of a real intent. That doesn't mean we should just disregard them by ignorance but rather forward any information posted on Wiki to the local authorities as far as it is possible. It would be the right thing to do as it really isn't much "effort" to potentially prevent one in a thousand (or so) going this way. Generally spoken, editors especially admins who have more tools available should keep this in mind for future reference.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

White Brazilian

Help, please, for White Brazilian.

Long-term readers of WP:AN/I and such pages will know that there have been numerous skirmishes over articles related to ethnic/"racial" groups in south America. Two articles that have been particularly affected are German Brazilian and White Brazilian. I no longer remember how it was that I first became involved, but I'd guess that at some point I noticed that some other admin was getting rather too many requests and thought I'd give him or her a break. I've never been to south America, don't read Portuguese or Spanish, and couldn't care a fig if south Americans, my neighbors or my inlaws were black, white or green, or of Nubian, Inuit or Livonian ancestry. Anyway, I entered as a neutral party, with a couple of big red buttons to use if/when appropriate. Since that time I have spent rather a lot of time nudging and mollifying authors, and often wished that I had not done so, or that south America were exclusively and indisputably populated by homogenous llamas rather than variegated humans.

User:Ninguém argued at Talk:White Brazilian (now mostly in Talk:White Brazilian/Archive 2) that the article was seriously defective. He was certainly not unopposed there, but on balance it seemed to me that he was more persuasive.

Ninguém then made a long and almost uninterrupted series of edits from 1 December until 00:43 6 December. One minute after that last edit, User:Off2riorob reverted the last batch of these. Forty-two minutes later, Off2riorob reverted the article to the state in which it had been on 1 December, with the comment " reverting undiscussed mass edits". On the talk page, Off2riorob elaborated slightly, saying variations on:

I have also clearly stated my reasons for reverting to the previous position, mass editing of an article without apparent discussion (talkpage discussion six months old) so as to make the article almost unrecognizable.

So the objection that there had been no discussion was tacitly admitted to be mistaken: the discussion -- which at the time of the reversion was still on the talk page rather than in an archive -- was now merely too old.

Ninguém's edits appeared to me to have been based on cited sources (though in Portuguese, which I have never claimed to be able to read) and to be informative, and they had edit summaries (although I never claimed to have checked the accuracy of these). The material he deleted also seemed misplaced. All in all it seemed to me that his edits were for the better, although I was (and remain) open to argument to the contrary.

As there had been no objection to the substance of Ninguém's edits, and believing that they at least deserved a levelheaded evaluation before they were rejected, I boldly (or rougely) protected the article (more precisely, what I thought was the wrong version) as a preemptive measure. I archived most of the (bloated) talk page, and initiated a discussion of the first stage of Ninguém's edits.

At this point I may have made a mistake. For in addition to describing these edits as neutrally as I could, I also commented on them. "Judge and jury", it could be said. And indeed Off2riorob has politely asked about this.

Now, I'd be happy to take any of several options, one of which is never to involve myself in south American ethnic/"racial" matters again. However, I'm most reluctant to deprotect this article. I'm sure that Ninguém's set of edits merit evaluation, at the least, and that deprotecting the article would lead either to an edit war or to a wholesale and insufficiently considered rejection of those edits.

So I invite one or (better) more administrators to take a look and to keep looking. An ability to read Portuguese would be a help. Patience will be a necessity. -- Hoary (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I might add that User:Lecen has politely chided me for indulgence toward Off2riorob's reversion and demands. Actually I'm inclined to agree with Lecen here. -- Hoary (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hoary's full protection of White Brazilian is certainly justified, and I am not perturbed by the efforts he made on the Talk page to get a discussion started. He added some content opinions of his own, but they seem mild and unlikely to be perceived as bossy by the other editors working there. (Note that Hoary protected the current version). If his efforts lead to a successful discussion, he should withdraw from the content issues. If he wants to have a longer-term role on improving the content, he should ask some other admin to take over the protection. EdJohnston (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. In the long or medium term, I'd very much like to withdraw completely from these two articles, from Brazil, and more. I'd be happy to accelerate that, if I had reason to think that I'd be replaced by one or more other people who had no particular interest one way or another in Brazilian or other "color" and who would judge edits on their merits.

As for the content dispute -- which, however this may violate the rules of this particular project page, has so far been inextricable from the reversion/BOLD/OWN dispute -- I have some sympathy for the argument that simplicity here is a Good Thing and that Ninguém's elaborated and longer lead is too long and elaborate; however, the current version strikes me as simplistic and wrong-headed, and if avoidance of misunderstandings takes more words, that strikes me as a good use of words.

So I hope to draw both administrators and fastidious editors to the article. Or rather, to a bunch of articles. Because on the rare occasion when I (wearing janitorial and not editing hat) have thought that one article was settling down, it would soon be pointed out to me that the warring parties were simply continuing the war elsewhere. -- Hoary (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Hoary for commenting, I am not involved in all these previous issues and I am not involved in any of the related issues. I noticed the edits occurring and went to see what was occurring, I saw a recent removal of content that I thought was well written and well cited so I reverted the edit, and had a bigger look at what was going on and decided that the article appeared to be more or less being rewritten to reflect a differing position to the content the article had more or less reflected for a length of time. I had a quick look at the archives and found some discussion six months old, I then had a quick look at the article and a small discussion with User talk:Ninguém about the objective of the edits and the lack of appearance of a consensus to support a rewrite and making a judgment mostly on the additions to the lede that the version the existed previous to the mass editing by User Ninguém was imo preferable to what had just been created, I reverted to that version and am presently in discussion as to how to move forward and what direction the content should contain, there does seem to be some support from Hoary, lucan and Ninguen that they simply agree with the rewritten version, although there is also an acceptance that the new lede is excessive, I have some personal knowledge of the color issues in Brazil and felt that the original article was not so bad as to require a rewrite, I thought that if major alterations were to occur to the article that wikipedia and the article would be better served and more rounded and balanced if it was discussed and edited by two editors. I have commented regarding this position on the talkpage at the article. If there is acceptance that the article is in need of a rewrite and that it should be done by Ninguém then I will happily step aside, as Hoary as also commented, I had no idea that there were additional issues surrounding the situation. Off2riorob (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

At this moment, this article has a curious particularity: it talks at lenght about the subject of "White Brazilians", but the section on "Conception of White" comes not at the beggining, but at the end. But this is far from being the worse.

The article's lead reads,

White Brazilians are all people who are full or mainly descended of European and other White immigrants.

The section on "Conception of White", on the other hand, states,

The ancestry is quite irrelevant for racial classifications in Brazil.

So, is "ancestry" what defines who is and who is not a "White Brazilian", or is it quite irrelevant for "racial classifications" in Brazil? Or perhaps "White Brazilian" is not a "racial classification" in Brazil?!

This is quite typically the quality standard of the articles on Brazilian demography. The most curious thing is that this is not the result of multiple editors placing their POVs without caring for coherence, but rather the result of one only editor's work. Ninguém (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ninguém removed several informations and included unsourced informations to that article. He did not even discuss what he was doing. The article was fine, and there was no need to re-write it. Opinoso (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A degree of discussion has broken out on the talkpage there, revealing a fair bit of underlying conflict, also could I clear this up as Admin Hoary seem to have said that he has no involvment in the article and would rather not be involved but since he made those comments here his recent two edits here and here seem to be reflective of a degree of involvment in the dispute, could he clarify if he is acting as an admin here as as an editor in the way of dispute resolution? Off2riorob (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You're more or less repeating your earlier question, which I repeated above to see what others thought. I didn't say that I had no involvement; I'm disinterested but not uninvolved, as recent edits demonstrate. I froze the article. When time permits, I try to work out where the disagreement lies. This combination may or may not be proper. I asked here about it. So far just one admin has responded, and as he seemed to think it was OK, I continued. I'd be happy if he and others volunteered to look at the article and keep looking at it; I'd then happily leave. -- Hoary (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes its the same question that I felt the need to repeat after your two discussion edits to the talkpage, it is confusing when you appear to be involved and also taking administrator actions on the article. I took from the comment from Ed that your actions were fine, but he also seemed to suggest that you get to one side of the fence regarding the article..either an editor or an admin, in the situation I think it is unwise to act as both there. Off2riorob (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This comment of yours here overlapped this further question of mine there. ¶ As you have said, I haven't edited the article for a long time, if ever. I've no desire to edit it. I don't care whether it concludes that ten or ninety percent of Brazilians are "white", or how it describes these "white" people. I do care that whatever it says is well-informed and well-reasoned, and I am willing to ask questions in order to clear up what appear to be contradictions or to find just what an objection consists of. I'd be much happier if others volunteered to do this work instead. And that's one reason why I asked here. -- Hoary (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

ec.I am not finding this easy, admin Hoary has now gone off involving himself again in the content discussion asking editors if they mind if he asks questions , under the circumstances I would find it excessive if he was to take any more administrator actions on the article. Off2riorob (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

And in the last few minutes I've made other edits to the talk page besides that. Well, I understand what you are saying here. My administrative action on the article so far has been protection; tempted though I occasionally am to take the further administrative action of deleting it, I agree that this would be excessive and intend to resist the temptation. Have my edits to the talk page been improper? Let's see what others here think; and again, I hope that the unbiased among them will dive in to this group of articles and stay there. -- Hoary (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't want it, but I am seeing that it's necessary a few coments of mine in here:

1. I stil do not know what is the issue in the article White Brazilian. Neither Off2riorob nor Opinoso has come with good reasons to oppose Ninguém's edits. And when I say that, I mean that none of them brought sources that goes against Ninguém's edit. That is, "according to editor X, he says Y, while what you wrote means Z." All I saw was "I did not like your changes and for that reason I am reverting them and sorry, but I can't discuss with you why I did that because I am too busy in real life." That's the best way to keep the article locked and with the discussion with no end, which means that what they want is an article that can/will not be changed. If no one can change anything in the article unless he/she asks for permission from other editors (that is, according to both Opinoso and Off2riorob, it is needed a "consensus"), that is nothing more than ownership of an article.
2. So far Hoary has not done anything, I repeat, anything that could make anyone, I repeat, anyone, complain about his actions. He blocked the article because he feared that it would take to an edit war probably due to past disagreements in it that he witnessed by himself. And that was a correct action of his. Then, he pointed out what were Ninguém's edits and asked everyone to make comments about it. As a far as I know, trying to settle a dispute by bringing both parties to reason can not be considered a fault, and that was what Hoary tried to do. Off2riorob's insinuations, and that's what they are, insinuations of possible bad faith from Hoary as possibly taking sides is not only a huge mistake but also unfair.
3. Off2riorob complained that Hoary was one of the people who Ninguém asked for help to deal with matter, implying that Hoary was someone that Ninguém could be sure that would take his side. Untrue. Hoary is the administrator who has been dealing with issues related to such article for quite sometime and if he got involved in it it was to do his job as an administrator and also because he, more than any other administrator, already knows very well what it's being discussed.
4. Again, neither Opinoso nor Off2riorob has brought sources to oppose Ninguém's edits. Off2riorob has reverted good faith edits done by Ninguém without waiting for other editor's opinions in the talk page. And he reverted every single thing Ninguém did to a previous version that he considered "stable". To me, that is nothing more than ownership, again.
5. What should be done, then? First of all, Off2riorob should apologize to Hoary for the insinuations he did because wanting or not, they will harm his credibility not only among editors but also among his peers if they are not taken back.
6. Second of all, the article must be unblocked, reverted to the last Ninguém's edit and once both Off2riorob and Opinoso has time to discuss and have REAL reasons to oppose a change, they may ask for changes in the talk page and wait for other editors' opinions. Those are my thoughts. --Lecen (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your kind words about me, but it is indeed odd for an admin to protect a page and then to comment on aspects of content that may or may not have provoked the edit war. It's even odder when the protection was preemptive. And I'm not sure that Off2riorob has been insinuating anything. Certainly I'm not after any apology from anyone. I appreciate your amicable intentions, but let's avoid blowing this up further or making it more personal than it needs to be. -- Hoary (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine. So here are my points:

1. Off2riorob was the one who started all this discussion.
2. So, he should bring reasons to why he oppose Ninguém's edits.
3. Those reasons can not be his personal opinions. They must be something like "author X says Y while what Ninguém wrote says Z". Simple like that.
4. If he does not bring sources, reliable sources to where and why Ninguém's edits are wrong, the article must be unlocked and what Off2riorob reverted. Is that fair enough? --Lecen (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much it. Off2riorob keeps saying that he wants to discuss the article, but is not able to point to any specifical disagreement. Also seems to be unable to understand either the article as it is, or the version he reverted; indeed, seems to confuse them, and attribute to one the merits or demerits of the other. Opinoso wants to discuss soccer player Ronaldo's race.

There is no reason for protection, I think. The reverted version should be restored, as it is uncomparably better than the protected one. Attempts to edit war at the article in order to restore the unsourced and distorted version should be watched for. Ninguém (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is clearly in need of current protection, some kind of discussion about the article needs to be established before unprotecting, there are still two editors that totally object to the rewrite that was occurring by user ninguen, I have tried to discuss the article but this is the position that is being expounded Ninguen and the other involved editors, they support the rewrite and want to enforce consensus on the rewrite when there is not a clear consensus to support one. Off2riorob (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There are no clear objection to what was written. If you can expose any, I am willing to discuss it, but up to now you haven't. Ninguém (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss content disputes, I have made a fair few good faith attempts to move forward with the discussion on the talkpage there. Off2riorob (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't deny they have been made in good faith, but they fail to clarify what you disagree with in the reverted version. Ninguém (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No, there is plenty of reason for protection. I believe that the version that's protected (below, "VP") is inferior to the version as edited by Ninguém (below, "NV"). My reason for saying this is that problems with VP have been clearly described, and NV is the result of incremental changes that are described in summaries and seem to be improvements. But it's not incomparably better; comparisons can be made by editors who are openminded and levelheaded.

However, as I'm not able to read Portuguese and have limited reserves of time and energy, I must concede that I can't guarantee that NV doesn't have faults. Indeed, it probably does have faults: most good revisions do. These faults can be discussed rationally in due time.

So there's nothing inconsistent in claiming that the wrong version is protected while conceding that the alternative needs improvement. And it's normal in Misplaced Pages for the wrong version to be the protected one. This does not mean that the article is doomed to remain inferior after protection is lifted.

If protection were lifted today, I've no reason to think there wouldn't be a straightforward edit war between VP and NV (or minor revisions thereof), leading to blocks, accusations of tag teaming or even "sockpuppeteering", miscellaneous other drama, and speedy reprotection (very likely of VP). But in the end I'm just one editor. If there appears to be general agreement among the disagreeing factions that they want the article to be unprotected ("Give us enough rope; we want to hang ourselves"), I'll unprotect it.

And of course if another administrator volunteers to oversee this mess, I'll happily bow out. Which was my point in starting this section of WP:AN/I. -- Hoary (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, but then we need some way to make discussion actually happen. Generalities about "the article should explain what is a White Brazilian" don't help, if it cannot be pointed what is lacking in the explanations given by each version. Diatribes on how Ronaldo is so wrong in self-classifying as "White" are even less useful. And up to now these are the only things we have. Ninguém (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, I would think it as a disaster if you quit moderating the article. Up to now, you have been the only admin that made a serious effort to understand the ongoing disputes. But there seems to be some strange idea that to moderate an article someone should be "uninvolved". This is evidently impossible; without making actual decisions, it is impossible to maintain order in an article. And without understanding what is going on it is impossible to make actual decisions. Ninguém (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

As I have passed by these disputes with only minimal involvement, but seen the scale of the task, I can only applaud Hoary for handling them, Hoary is to modest, even if a perfect job has not been done it is far better than not having an admin with a watching brief there at all, which would have lead to 3RR, blocks, bans, socks and arbs. Rich Farmbrough, 11:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC).

Thank you for your appreciative words, but I'm hardly handling these pages. My attention to any one isn't close and generally comes with a complete lack of attention to any of the others. Off2riorob is within his rights in asking of me "could he clarify if he is acting as an admin here as an editor in the way of dispute resolution"; the answer "a bit of both" probably breaks some guideline and is potentially if not actually problematic. So I hope that

• One or (better) more experienced, disinterested editors will attend to the dispute, leaving me to administer; or
• One or more admins will announce that they'll handle the administrative side, unprotecting the article when it seems appropriate, issuing block warnings and blocks when justified, etc, leaving me to argue with all eight cylinders (and of course render myself less popular and more blockable); or (best)
• Both the above so I can take a little break from Brazilian affairs.

Of course people tend not to want to dive into such imbroglios (other than for the wrong reasons, of course). I'd point out that although there's a great amount of irritation and frustration on display, all of the more active participants seem concerned to improve the article, and although there are apparent non sequiturs, naivity and tantrums from time to time, there's little or none of the shrillness or noxious racism for which articles on "racial"/ethnic (non-) matters elsewhere in the world are notorious. So you shouldn't be scared. -- Hoary (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hoary asked me to help; I cannot help as extensively as he wishes, but i support continuing the present protection of the article, which is the only immediate question for AN/I. My reason is pragmatic: the dispute involves the structure of the article, not just the wording; in such cases it is essential to have a stable version to avoid confusing the discussion. I have made some further comments about the lede at the article talk p. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Help please: User Makrand Joshi is personally attacking, harrassing me, recurringly over the past many months, almost wiki-hounding me

I am posting this issue out here after not getting an adequate response from user Makrand Joshi on the Wikiquette forum.

User Makrand Joshi has been personally attacking and harrassing me recurrently by repeatedly calling me a sock puppet on the talk page of The Indian Institute of Planning and Management.

It started on 26th June 2009 with Makrandjoshi first accusing me formally of being a sock puppet Mrinal Pandey here He changed my user page to say that i was a suspected sock puppet, here

Then on 1st August 2009 he started addressing me again by the name of Mrinal the sock puppet, here As user page harrassment, Makrand changed my user page to again say I was a suspected sock puppet, here

He's continued since calling me a sock puppet here , here , here . Here he's threatened me saying he's going to expose my being a sock puppet.

I had reported the user for edit warring here, where the finding was that "Reporting user is arguably the more disruptive at that article, but also appears to be within the limits of normal editing-with-discussion." for which Makrand's response was "wifione's malciious and pathetic forum-shopping falls flat on the face". For which user Makrand responded with words like he knew why I was "pissed off" and why I was "so pissed off."

I request you to somehow help me stop this personal harrassment and wiki hounding against me which is happening repeatedly. He is now using uncivil statements and rants that now are aimed at gathering other editors against me. Please help as I know that even past offenders cannot be personally attacked like this repeatedly on talk pages and their personal user pages and I have only involved myself in protracted discussions. Please help Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If there is no evidence of socking given or any followup action for it, it's a pretty clear case of harassment IMO. The article in question has a long history of serious COI-sock problems leading to (if I recall) a pile of CU-blocking. Flares up every few months. There is discussion, but there is usually mostly edit-warring and eventual blocks. I'm not sure we can do better than perma-full-prot...there's a ton of drama and ongoing admin time spent for usually little if any actual gain on the article quality. DMacks (talk) 07:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think calling someone a sockpuppet constitutes harassment. I do think the above user is a sockpuppet of a previous blocked account and is in fact now creating sockpuppets of their own. Dmacks, I had initiated a formal SPI some months ago which returned the result "possible" with admins and others agreeing that there is a lot of similarity, but since the sockmaster had been inactive for a long time, there was no direct IP-based evidence yet. I see another sockpuppet returning User:Suraj845, and yesterday I raised concerns about it to User:Tiptoety an admin who had run check-user detected and blocked sockpuppets last year. And User:Tiptoety has said she'll keep an eye on it. I have not renewed the SPI yet, but I think letting the admin involved in the previous SPI know of this is "followup action". There is clear behavioral evidence of sock-puppetry.

• I did refer to wifione as Mrinal a couple of times. But I stopped that months ago after wifione asked me not to. FWIW, wifione has been repeatedly calling me an SPA, and when pointed out by others that I was not an SPA, wifione (an account created fairly recently compared to my own) actually had the temerity to take credit for my editing. although to be fair, wifione did post an apology after being caught on this lie by another admin.
• I never called wifione pathetic or malicious. I said that wifione's attempts at forum-shopping (of which this particular instance is the umpteenth example) are pathetic and malicious. wifione has been forum-shopping against me on a continuous basis. And every time, the result goes in my favor. Even in the link above, when wifione talks about reporting me for edit-warring, he/she neglects to mention that the result of it - what I was doing was fine, and he/she is actually the more disruptive user. In the past, wifione raised the same point in 3 different noticeboards at the same time - really prodigious forum-shopping. And this forum shopping continues. Always targetted against me. If anything, I am being wiki-hounded. Every other day when I log into wikipedia, there is some new noticeboard complaint filed against me by wifione. And when that request does not get the desired response, he/she opens up another one.
• How is the phrase "pissed off" uncivil?
• wifione's editing record speaks for itself. The user is continuously trying to whitewash The_Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management page, trying to get any negative or critical information removed. His/her edits, which some other editors and I have painstakingly gone through and reworded, always exaggerate some things and praise IIPM in words that the cited source never mentioned. wifione's agenda, IMHO, is to turn the article into an advertorial for IIPM and remove all negative information.
• wifione's writing style, behavior pattern and editing are similar to previous pro-IIPM editors and sockpuppets. Pro-IIPM editors and sockpuppets who have in the past threatened me with a lawsuit, a beating, attack and murder. So if I suspect someone of being a sock-puppet, I am going to call them on it. And not just call them sockpuppet, but also point out evidence for it. Like I said, I have raised an SPI in the past, have followed up with the admin involved in that SPI yesterday. And if the sockpuppetry gets really disruptive, I will of course renew the SPI. Makrandjoshi (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wifione is also making it seem like I am the one hell-bent on harassing him while he is an innocent babe in the woods. So Here's a timeline of events. When wifione first appeared, I suspected him of being a sockpuppet and raised an SPI. The result of the SPI was possible. So I let it go for then. Then wifione raised a complaint on the RS noticeboard for the reliability of a source that has information that goes against wifione's ostensible opinions. That complaint went against him. Then again, wifione raised the request after a while with the same result. During this, wifione kept calling me an SPA everywhere, on the talk pages, on noticeboards, on talk pages of other users, and so forth. Repeatedly. Clearly baiting me. After other editors pointed out that I am not an SPA, wifione backed out with a faux-apology, faux because even after that, he claimed that he was responsible for my not being an SPA! wifione then tried to make wholesale changes to the IIPM page, essentially whitewashing negative information and putting in weasel-worded praise which was not in the sources cited, and continues to this day (you can see details on the IIPM talk page). And all along, wifione has been repeatedly forum-shopping, raising complaints about me all over the place. First the admin board, which was not in his favor. Then the wikiquette board, where an admin actually asked wifione to applogize to me! And now here. If here, the decision goes against him, I wonder where the next complaint will be raised. This is the definition of forum-shopping, going on an on until you get ba judgment in your favor. Makrandjoshi (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

And FWIW, I agree with DMacks about perma-full-prot on the page. Makrandjoshi (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It is surprising that user Makrandjoshi can feel he can accuse a user of being a sock puppet with so much alacricity. With respect to his points, I have mentioned my responses below and will wait for definitive response from the administrators against Makrandjoshi -

• Makrandjoshi mentions above "I don't think calling someone a sockpuppet constitutes harassment." I will await what administrators think of this statement of his.
• Makrandjoshi writes "I do think the above user is a sockpuppet of a previous blocked account and is in fact now creating sockpuppets of their own." I ask administrators, can users make such accusations for over four months, harrassing me by changing my personal user page, and continue editing under the reasoning that they are going to raise another SPI? Makrandjoshi also writes he has informed user Tiptoey and that constitutes his action against sockpuppetry. Does it? Evidently, there's something deeply wrong about my understanding of discussions.
• Makrand Joshi writes "I did refer to wifione as Mrinal a couple of times. But I stopped that months ago after wifione asked me not to." It's quite clear from the links I have provided above that neither did Makrandjoshi stop when I requested him to, he continued calling a sock puppet on and off.
• Makrandjoshi writes "wifione has been repeatedly calling me an SPA, and when pointed out by others that I was not an SPA, wifione (an account created fairly recently compared to my own) actually had the temerity to take credit for my editing. although to be fair, wifione did post an apology after being caught on this lie by another admin". If Makrandjoshi can provide a diff of his statements, it would make sense. It's worrying that Makrand can continue giving wrong statements. The reason I called Makrandjoshi an spa in August was because he did seem to be an spa. His edits on other pages started exactly after I had encouraged him to edit on other pages. His contributions are listed here . You will notice the 8th August 2009 timeline. The reason I apologised to Makrandjoshi was clearly not because of any lying. I apologised so that we could get on with discussions in a constructive manner, here . But does all this allow Makrand the right to call a user a sockpuppet repeatedly, personally harrasing the user?
• Makrandjoshi writes "I never called wifione pathetic or malicious. I said that wifione's attempts at forum-shopping (of which this particular instance is the umpteenth example) are pathetic and malicious". That's exactly what I have written in my above complaint. I am surprised Makrand is not noticing what I am writing. He also accuses me of forum shopping, a mistake credibly made by me the first time I ever used the wiki templates in my life. That done, does this, therefore, allow him to call a user a sock puppet repeatedly?
• Makrandjoshi writes "How is the phrase 'pissed off' uncivil?" Dear administrators, kindly inform me whether this statement is or is not uncivil so that other editors can start using the same with regularity.
• Makrandjoshi writes "wifione's writing style, behavior pattern and editing are similar to previous pro-IIPM editors and sockpuppets." He also says I am trying to harrass him on various forums. Can he provide a diff of the same? Or is he referring to the wikiquette requests I have raised against him on his behaviour? Is that enough to repeatedly call me a sock puppet?
• Dear Administrators, I mention out here that it is ironical that a user like Makrandjoshi has been allowed to continue on the whitelist for so long. Irrespective of everything, irrespective of whether (to cover his past accusations) he raiss another spi, how can there be justification for Makrand having called a user a sock puppet for so long? I will await your quick action Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• And all this is apart from numerous other personal attack that Makrand has done on me. For example, here , Makrand writes that You on the other hand are an IIPM employee who does this full time. Now, this is an action by Makrandjoshi to expose my personal information whether or not I am an IIPM employee and should necessarily qualify Makrandjoshi for a block as per Misplaced Pages NPA guideline. It is absurd that he can be allowed to do all this on a recurring basis, even on admin forums. He is using an Ad hominem argument against me. Perhaps he should see the chapter on Guilt By Association before writing all that he has written above. Dear Administrators, I await quick action please that behoves recurring personal attacks, harrassment, action to reveal personal identity. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 09:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• In the same link above, Makrandjoshi also writes, "Are you denying being an IIPM employee?" I would like to address this as a clear Attempted Outing Harassment issue on user Makrandjoshi. I want to inform administrators that I am writing directly also to the oversight committee for deleting that talk edit from Misplaced Pages permanently, irrespective of whether I am or not an IIPM employee. And I still await when user Makrandjoshi will be blocked pending action. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 09:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Two choices: either file an WP:SSI right now or the next time I see a sockpuppet or outing attempt, you will be blocked. If it's true, we'll deal with it. Otherwise, it's nonsense that disruptive. Repeated on the talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I realize I probably went overboard and violated WP:OUTING. For that I apologize to User:Wifione. You (Ricky81682) said I should start an SSI immediately. I wanted to ask you about another choice. According to Misplaced Pages:BLOCK#Disruption-only, "accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization" can be blocked indefinitely. I think based on User:Wifione's history, he clearly falls in this category. Every edit is aimed at reducing the negatives and embellishing the positives of IIPM. I can provide a long list of diff's if necessary. Should I start a separate request on the ANI for that, with supporting evidence? Makrandjoshi (talk) 11:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's not necessarily a problem. For example, if an article were heavily and unduly skewed toward the negative then an editor who only removes negative info and embellishes positive would be improving the article. I've looked over a couple of edits from Wifione at the article and you might have a point, but it doesn't seem so blatant that the editor should be blocked; usually these issues are resolved on the talk page of the article as they're essentially content disputes. -- Atama頭 18:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I've actually not cared to include too many other instances when user Makrandjoshi has continued calling me a sock puppet, has accused me of forum shopping and of a conflict of interest. For example here , here , here , here , calls me an IIPM employee again here, a clear case of another attempt of outing personal information , back to sock callling here, and again a sock puppet here . All these links are besides the links I gave in the complaint above. It is surprising that the user Makrandjoshi is getting away with a simple warning after such a history of attempts to out personal information. I would request a block as a matter of corrective action and not as punishmment. If a block is not given after so many repeated attempts to out, accusations by Makrandjoshi, it would not IMO lead to his correcting his view in the future of taking up discussions proactively. One final look at his response after the warning by administrator Ricky is enough to give an idea of where user Makrandjoshi is coming from. I request a block for correcting his behaviour.Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk

Wifione, I apologize for speculating over your employment in the organization whose wiki page you were editing. It will not happen again. I inadvertantly violated WP:OUTING and I am sorry for that. However, I should point out that of the new links you have provided above, here, I did not talk about your employment, but you repeated what I said elsewhere. Nor did I raise any questions about your being an employee here, here or here. On none of those new links have I talked about your employment, but it has been you repeating what I said. Yes, I did talk about my suspicions of you being a sock-puppet, but 2 of those 4 links are from July end when I DID ACTUALLY raise an SPI against you, which returned the judgment "possible". At the other 2 links which are from the past few days, yes, I speculated about your being a sockpuppet, but I also provided, especially to User:Tiptoety evidence which backs my suspicion. After Ricky told me to either raise a new SPI or stop accusing you of sockpuppetry, I have stopped doing so too. It is interesting though that after I gave Tiptoety evidence about User:Suraj845 being a sock of User:Mrinal_Pandey, Suraj845 has been completely inactive. But that's a different matter. About whether you are a sockpuppet or not, ever since Ricky warned me, I have not expressed an opinion. And I will never in the future, discuss such a possibility on talk pages (if need be, I'll raise another SPI in the future if the editing gets disruptive). Makrandjoshi (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh and here, I did not even mention you. I was talking about User:Mrinal_Pandey (who was indef-blocked for sockpuppetry) and User:Suraj845, so I find it curious that you cite that as an instance of me calling you anything. Makrandjoshi (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Makrand,

• You write that you did not call me an IIPM employee in some of the complaint links Ive given above. Notice the punctuation (esp the commas) in my complaint and you'll realise why you called me all that I mentioned above in the exact links.
• You say that two of the four links where you are accused are from July when you did raise the SPI against me. Makrand, you raised the case against me on "26th June 2009". It was closed on "30th June 2009" here .
• Just above, you say you did not even mention me in one of the links mentioned above. Let me write the exact line you mentioned in the link above: "pivotal, primary account is given more thought, be it iipmstudent9 or mrinal_pandey or wifione. But I guess we can't blame him/her for running out of ideas and falling into a rut when putting on such elaborate puppet-theater now".

• Beyond that I think it's a good proactive step you have taken to apologise. It's a big step for you and I know that. If you had heeded my requests on two wikiquette forums and innumerable talk page requests I wouldn't have come to the admin board at all. You have to realise that it has been very saddening to see a fellow editor try and convert another into a wall of shame in every second discussion. And I have shown 17 instances of you trying to do that. And I have not even shown out here your edit summaries where you have used extremely uncivil, rude and impolite words. You do notice that I still had not brought the outing complaint against you till I saw your response to my complaint on this administrative board, post which I also requested for a user block. You have to change your outlook towards other editors - comment on content with polite words, not on character of a person - it is a rule you should have known after years at Misplaced Pages. Make other editors enjoy the experience of Misplaced Pages. Try and do that in the future on Misplaced Pages.Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 03:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

86.136.34.228 at System of a Down and other artists

86.136.34.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a run of the mill genre troll, except that they change the order of band members (which are listed in the order they are on album covers) and remove correctly wikilinked instruments. They are continuing to repeat the same edits despite numerous notes, cautions, and warnings. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 19:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, he hadn't edited for nearly 2 hours before the start of this thread, so I think that just the warning you gave him will serve. If he keeps reverting, then report him at WP:AIV.--Iner22 (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it. The last warning was before his last vandalous edit. The warning before that I gave several days/reverts ago. I will go to WP:AIV. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 21:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the vandalism. I've rejected the report at AIV. Toddst1 (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What I see is Floydian (talk · contribs) WP:OWNing the article and WP:EW to defend his/her control and WP:BITEing. Warned as such. Toddst1 (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I see this is resolved, but it looks like you missed this bit of vandalism. Perhaps this is the reason Floydian is a bit annoyed. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, now that is WP:Vandalism. I've warned the IP. However that doesn't excuse the WP:EW.Toddst1 (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't believe it's an edit war for an established editor to uphold consensus against an uncommunicative IP. In case nobody has noticed, this has taken place for a long time, well before 86.136... showed up on the scene. The exact same edit, reverted by several different editors on several different occasions, going back several months. The instruments are sourced (that is, Serj as a rhythm guitarist), and the other change, Backing vocalist to Live backing vocalist, creates a redlink from a bluelink. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 08:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You may not believe it, but it is. IPs are not second-class Wikicitizens that can be reverted at whim. It's definitely problematic behavior for the IP to keep redoing the same edit over and over, but you should ask for assistance for an uncommunicative editor long before you breach 3RR. The only exception to this would be if the edits were blatant vandalism, in which case the reverts should be accompanied by escalating warnings and then a report at WP:AIV for a block. -- Atama頭 19:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It is blatent vandalism, according to WP:vandalism: ""Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is." The IP was warned not to insert their personal opinion when the article is sourced otherwise, they continued to do so. At that point it became vandalism. If an IP changed an obscure band's genre from rock to techno, despite several sources that say "rock" (in addition to the fact), and that IP was then reverted and warned, but they continued to persist, once per day, then what? Do I have to go through the trouble of calling another editor in to do the same thing I would, day after day (since the edits aren't vandalism by your obscure definitions, I can't go to AIV)? Why? The edit goes against core policy (verifiability/original research), the user was warned about it, yet made it anyways. That is vandalism. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 22:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Methinks you fail to understand the very policy you're claiming. WP:OR != WP:VAND. A violation of WP:V !=WP:VAND. The definition of vandalism includes nothing that you claim, according to the community. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well then maybe the community should rewrite WP:Vandalism, because the text I quoted from it that contradicts everything you just said. Funny, isn't it? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 22:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Floyd, you're missing an important point - right after the text that you quoted it says "however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism". Yours is a classic content dispute. Nobody here has validated your assertion that you are not reverting vandalism, yet you continue to edit war, using your own definition. More disturbing is I see you've continued the edit war today. Frankly I'm surprised someone didn't block you for that last reversion. Toddst1 (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, then block me from System of a Down and let the article turn to shit. Problem solved, bureaucracy wins. The IP will be back tomorrow (it's a new IP too), and I intend to revert it should somebody have not already gotten to it before me (if you check the history of System of a Down, several different editors besides me have reverted this exact same edit). You decide what's best for the site and for the readers, clearly I know nothing. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 23:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Also... How am I in a content dispute, yet this does fit your definition of vandalism, Toddst1? I'd honestly like to know where everyone is drawing their fine lines? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 23:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be hard to justify this edit as a good faith attempt to add encyclopedic material to Misplaced Pages. It's barely more than graffiti and I think you are rapidly approaching wikilawyering. Toddst1 (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems that's my only choice. I can't fight the edits made by this IP made against consensus and sources, but I can apparently assume good faith. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 07:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Floyd gets what the issues are at this point. Let's call this done. Toddst1 (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Admin Toddst1

toddst1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I would like to submit the administrator toddst1 for a "review" of sorts for his recent actions today. The admin has a conflict of interest with me (in my opinion), and in the midst of that stripped my rollback rights. In addition, he is frequently accusing me of edit warring in my attempts to A) Hold the well-discussed consensus viewpoint on biographical articles, and B) Counter a conflict of interest user from making a self-advertisement about themselves. The user is holding guidelines and policies on a pedestal and wikilawyering them rather than actually observing the issue - That of a genre troll and a COI that need to be removed to prevent daily vandalism (Please note I use vandalism in a broad sense, and consider that edits in bad faith are vandalism, even if WP:Vandalism provides a more technical definition)

A more detailed history

The issue began with me requesting the blocking of an IP (86.136.34.228, who is possible the same as 217.42.55.180) who on a daily, or twice daily basis, was changing the instruments of band members on System of a Down, which are sourced, to their own opinion, as well as removing a correct wikilink and replacing it with a link to a disambiguation page. This user appearred on November 30th, however, the exact same edit has been performed by various IP's for a long time, and reverted just as often by regular contributors to the article. Of those contributors, I am the most active on wikipedia. Since then, I reverted the same edit by the same IP half a dozen times.

Eventually, after first giving a nice warning on the issue,, waiting, and going through the warnings I am offered with twinkle, and a week of reverting, I brought the ip to WP:AIV on December 7th.. Toddst1 rejected the report saying the user isn't committing vandalism. I responded to take another look, was told the user was "incorrectly warned", and given absolutely no advice as to where to go (as is the normal for admin run operations, you get a generic response like you would from a company feedback line). Toddst1 decided this was not enough however, and decided to hound me around a little bit.

Two issues arose. One involving the mentioned editor at System of a Down, who Toddst1 proceeded to negotiate with and act like the user is here to do something useful (All but one of their edits have been reverted. The one unreverted edit was the addition of a comma), and slash me off as biting the newcomers. At the same time, he posted a message to my talk page. A day later, toddst posted at the IP's page with a Final Warning for something they were already warned for by User:Verbal (vandalizing my userpage)..

The second issue involves the article Ed Unitsky, a album artwork artist for several progressive rock bands. The subject of the article showed up and started making COI edits, boasting themselves highly. In the midst, they also added a rather thorough list of their works. The list was a nightmare of external links. I politely welcomed the user and fixed up the article to remove the multitudes of links. The editor returned, did not comment back to me, and undid the edits and added more external links. I once again partially cleaned the page and reverted a few tag removals. At this point in time, Toddst1 had come to my talk page. He then declared I was involved in an edit war with Ed Unitsky, locked the article, nominated it for deletion, removed most of its content (rather than making use of it), and then banned the COI user! After getting him to unlock the article, I restored Ed Unitsky's version, and began fixing all the external links into internal wikilinks. This only got me told rather quickly to revert or provide sources, to which I responded with WP:DEADLINE (I also note that only contentious material need be removed on sight from BLP's), as I can only work so fast to dig out this information. However, I believe the COI, while self-boasting, knows what works they have done. It is not reliable, but it is temporary for now. (Diffs are available by request to validate these events on Ed Unitsky)

I could go on, but I think this speaks for itself. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 21:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: also note the circuitous discussion on my talk page. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 21:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so what you're saying is:

1. Rollback is to be used only for cases of clear and obvious vandalism

2. But you use a broader interpretation of vandalism than the Misplaced Pages definition

3. So you shouldn't be sanctioned for misuse of rollback when you rollback edits that fit your personal definition of vandalism

Am I on target here? —ShadowRanger  21:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You're in the ballpark, Shadow. Rollback rules are rollback rules, no matter how ridiculous I personally think they are. However, the second part of this shouldn't be summarily dismissed. No judgment anywhere yet; I'm just saying we should take a closer look. Tan | 39 21:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I believe you're being just as much of a beaurocrat (I don't mean that in an insulting way just as an fyi). Ignoring the issue of unconstructive users in order to nit pick at pointless details, technicalities, and nuances. This was clear and obvious vandalism, as WP:Vandalism states, clear as day: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floydian (talk • contribs) 21:23, 8 December 2009

As a side note I would like to point out that the response that the user was "insufficiently warned" is on target with the general consensus of vandalism policies. The diff you posted indicates that 3 warnings were given. Typically the appropriate response is a fourth warning before going to WP:AIV. The fourth warning, more specifically, is the one which clearly indicates the consequences of continuing actions and the imminent likelihood of a block if things don't change. Occasionally, it's OK to go without 4 warnings by skipping one or more of levels 1-3, but generally the level 4 warning is a must before approaching WP:AIV. --Shirik (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I mistakenly assumed this was a final warning... I thought I had selected level 4 final warning, and just now realize that I did not. However, I could have gained something from being told what you just told me when I brought this to AIV. I gained jack all from a generic "USER WAS NOT PROPERLY WARNED" message. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 21:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I totally understand as we all make mistakes. Please note that I am trying to enter this as an uninvolved third party in an attempt to reach a mutually-agreeable conclusion, and neither try to find fault in your actions nor try to defend the admin in question. I'd like to ask what type of response you would like to see. To be honest, were I an admin in such a situation I might have made the same response, noting that the warnings followed the typical pattern of 1-2-3 but were lacking a fourth. The user was, quite literally, insufficiently warned. All-in-all this is beginning to look more like a miscommunication issue than it is anything more, but that's just at taking a cursory glance at the dispute. --Shirik (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A simple "{big red symbol} Give the user a final warning and wait for them to make another inappropriate edit, then come back" would have made it much more clear what the issue at hand was. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 08:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Note that I declined the immediate request for re-adding the tool . I make no further comment at this time. Pedro :  Chat  21:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the edits appear to be in good faith, and while you did ask him once to dicuss any changes to the page, it was somewhat veiled, and the rest of the message was to, basically, get his nose out. As well, I advised you to report to WP:AIV after another edit to the page, which was, I admit, a wrong decision to make, as I didn't look at his contributions to the page carefully. It appears to me that Toddst is fairly close in his observation that you appear to be taking ownership of the article, evidence being the edit summary here--Iner22 (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Which edit summary? There are a hundred there. I'd be happy to bring in the other editors who have worked with me in maintaining the article, which is in the list of most vandalized articles, and have them tell you the same thing - That is that the article was built by consensus. The fact that I did the reversions here is because they only come around every other week or so. Breaking the rules or not, I'm not leaving the unsourced and poorly made changes for a week on a heavily read article, when the end result would be the same. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 21:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There's really no way to kill the validity of your complaint faster than making blanket statements about the intent of all editors here. Try not to do that. Tan | 39 21:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not accusing anybody of not caring, I'm just wondering rhetorically. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 21:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Ed Unitsky

I came across this article observing that the subject of the article was having an edit war with Floydian after I had warned Floydian about edit warring on System of a Down as described above. However, the reverts Floydian were making were reverting tag removal and insertion of inappropriate WP:EL. It appears that the editor removing tags, Ed Unitsky (talk · contribs) was the subject and had clarly violated WP:3RR. I proceeded to remove unsupported claims in this mess of a WP:BLP. Then, thinking to end the edit war which had been going on for days, I protected the article. After looking further and finding almost no reliable sources and claims like "He is touted as the modern day Salvador Dali." and "Many seem to believe it is inspired from the Divine." it appeared that this editor was only here to promote himself. Finding a COI warning and an EL warning already on his talk page, I then blocked the user as an advertising-only account - all of his edits were to the article about him in the spirit of promotion. I continued to clean up the article and forgot to unprotect it until this morning. I unprotected it and then after Floydian had re-added much of the unsourced material, politely asked him/her to self-revert until sources could be found.

While it is clear to me that the editor Ed Unitsky (talk · contribs) is only here to promote himself rather than contribute to the greater encyclopedia, I should have engaged the user in discussion rather than blocking/protecting after I had edited the article so I have unblocked the user. Enough of this mess. Toddst1 (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't you see that's unconstructive? You know the users intentions! You should block the user, much the same as 86.blah should be blocked. It doesn't take one extra warning, a bunch of reverting (except now I'll be undoing the edits one at a time, so I can take more time to do the same thing) and 2 days to figure that out. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 08:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

BLP situations, especially when the subject is highly involved, need to be handled with higher principles in mind, as well as ensuring that links are appropriate and V, OR, RS and NPOV are strictly enforced. Open combat almost never works. I believe Toddst1 did his best in these circumstances. Orderinchaos 16:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thats what I was doing, removing many the external links, and changing the others into references. Toddst1 should have just banned the user, or given him a one and only warning (for spamming and COI) and end up banning him the day after when he ignored it anyways. He should have NOT locked the article when another editor was making the proper changes to it (an editor who actually knows the subject matter), and he should not have nominated it for deletion if he was locking it. That is the proper course of action. I was not in open combat, but at the next edit by Ed Unitsky (and before making a third reversion myself), I would have reported the COI. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 22:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive Conduct at Mass killings under Communist regimes

I am requesting an administrator use Digwuren discretionary sanctions to counsel User:Termer in relation to their disruptive conduct at Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes. Mass killings under Communism has had a disrupted life as it falls under the heading of a number of strongly felt Eastern European experiences. The article has been moved, had no consensus at multiple AFDs. Recently, the article has settled down due to an agreement to use academic sources dealing with the article.

Termer has been disrupting this relatively settled editing pattern on a difficult article by:

• mischaracterising and misrepresenting sources, particularly on talk
• mischaracterising and misrepresenting consensus decisions made by the article editors
• misreading, or acting as if misreading, comments posted by other editors

The depth and rapidity of Termer's responses, on an easily disrupted article, are causing disruptions of the article's editorial process.

Termer was warned repeatedly regarding this: Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes#Capitalist Mass Killings. The article and Termer have been informed of this.

I request that the first stage of Digwuren Discretionary sanctions be applied: warning and counselling regarding the conduct. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This article was largely written and defended by members of the EEML. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess I come from the other side of the trenches on this, having defended the article in the past, but I wholeheartedly concur with regards to Termer's conduct - whether it is intentional or not, it is certainly very disruptive to the editing of the article. --Anderssl (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think maybe Termer should have a chance to explain himself. His talkpage comments are getting in the way, but this may be partly because other users (me included) are confused as to what he is about. On the other hand, Digwuren sanctions, as far as I understand them, look as if they could help without harming in this case. I wish I had known about them in previous cases (do they only apply for articles relevant to Eastern Europe?). What is EEML, btw?--FormerIP (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Eastern European Mailing List (EEML). Termer has been notified. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The core of Digwuren Discretionary sanctions is, "12) Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." I would classify this request as an article relating to Eastern Europe, that warning has been given, the conduct is repeated rather than serious, and the conduct violation relates to disruption which goes against the purpose of Misplaced Pages (through misrepresentation of sources meanings) and normal editorial process (misrepresentation of editorial consensus on the article). In this case there is an excellent opportunity for counselling to effect a change in the conduct. There may be other standing sanctions, or discretionary sanctions out there. See Misplaced Pages:General sanctions#Active sanctions Fifelfoo (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Invoking comparison of users to the EEML must be the new wiki-Godwin's law of reductio ad EEML. The claim by The Four Deuces that "this article was largely written and defended by members of the EEML" is laughable, if you look at who has contributed to the article. --Martin (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There is some merit to that objection, but it doesn't really affect the question of sanctions against Termer.--Anderssl (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

To be fair you haven't explained what your view is of what the consensus was that led to the renaming of the article or adequately articulated your view of what the sources say, imho. This is a content dispute, bringing this to ANI rather than getting a third opinion or mediation seems to me to be a bad faithed approach. --Martin (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion, Summary of article direction, Discussion leading to the summary of article direction. Termer was an active participant in these discussions. Now that the material investigated as a result of the consensus does not substantiate his position, he has taken to disruption. The content discussion is ongoing, and has been conducted politely. Termer visits ongoing content discussions and disrupts them by mischaracterising external sources (lying baldly about what they say, and reactive abusively when caught in the lie by extensive quotation) and past agreements. The disruption is the issue: Termer's conduct. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Could editors please discuss EEML elsewhere. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree and request that The Four Deuces strike his original comment that invoked the reductio ad EEML argument. --Martin (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Martin, but I do not understand what you are saying about the reductio. The Digwuren Discretionary sanctions apply to "articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted". Evidence in EEML shows that this article qualifies. Do you agree that this article relates to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted? The Four Deuces (talk) 06:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Just for the record, I've read this thread but since there has been absolutely no evidence given to support any of the allegations. and since I've been labeled with worse tags than a "liar" on wikipedia before, I really don't see any reasons at the moment to react to those allegations here. In case any evidence are going to given in here later on that would clearly show my mistakes in this situation, any uninvolved administrator is welcome to take action against my editing privileges as deemed necessary. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 06:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Diffs would be nice. That's all I can say. I see some sections on the talk page that look completely irrelevant but people need to learn to enforce WP:TALK and not get involved (or just collapse or archive the sections). Honestly, what did people expect when they engaged this silliness]? While not the best conduct, it's a bit fast to immediately demand sanctions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of these arguments are essentially repeats of the AFD discussion. As such, they are irrelevant to the article itself. People can dispute the AFD debate at DRV or somewhere else in my opinion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Any disruptive conduct does not appear limited to the one editor, to be sure. If Digwuren applies, it should apply to the others who appear to be engaged in contentious conduct. It should also be noted who nominated the article for deletion, etc. as that may have a bearing on the discussion. Collect (talk) 11:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you should uncollapse those sections Ricky. Yes, it may be going over ground that's already been gone over, but users are entitled to do that if they want, even if you think it is a waste of time. Discussing the title of the article, whatever the merits and demerits of engaging in that, cannot reasonably be said to be irrelevant or inappropriate on the talk page. --FormerIP (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not that the topic is a waste of time so much as the discussion has long gone beyond being fruitful. I really don't think whether Theodore Kaczynski is a Eastern European serial killer has any bearing anymore. If there's an actual dispute about the title, that's fine, but a dispute about "why aren't these articles around, why is this article not deleted" is doing the AFD debate, round 2, with no end in sight. If someone wants to uncollapse them, go ahead but if the section goes off again, I'm just pulling it straight into the archive. And honestly, I'd probably vote to delete it in the AFD since I cannot figure how this is not just a random essay with people just pulling quotes without a single bit of thought behind it. But consensus is consensus. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There were indeed some problems keeping the discussion on-topic, but neither of the sections you collapsed were supposed to be about Eastern European serial killers etc. Would it not be better to warn about arguing over off-topic matters? --FormerIP (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel like reading that whole thing and trying to figure who at which point went off-topic. Frankly, I think the original IP's comment was irrelevant, but that's just me. If someone else feels like taking on a different tack (as I've instead spent time actually, you know, editing the article), fine with me. I really don't care. If someone is serious, they can start a new topic if they wish, but I don't know how anyone can seriously have a discussion about the scope of the article without first a discussion of the sources in the article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll contribute diffs for the part I have reacted to, but that came at the end of a long discussion so someone else should document the previous parts. I initially came in to support Termer against arguments that I thought were irrelevant: and . I then reacted to this confused comment from Termer, asking him to slow down and make sure he had understood other people's comments correctly before responding (as the misunderstandings were flourishing and continuously derailing the discussion). He responded by altering the grammar of my comment to change the meaning of the statement, and then arguing against this new version. I find that particularly unsettling given that the very topic of the discussion at this point was his continued misrepresentations and misunderstandings/misinterpretations. After this ANI discussion started, Termer has admitted to pursuing at length points he knew to be irrelevant, indicating that at least part of the disruption is intentional. --Anderssl (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

By diff then if we must Termer claims to edit on the basis of reliable sources this is after he engaged in deliberate mischaracterisation by selective quotation the lie can be seen here. Yes, we can expect blow in editors who feel strongly about their pro- or more typically anti-Soviet education to spout lies and garbage when they discover this article. Termer, who is a party to the current consensuses by forming them, has not repudiated them, and claims to abide by them, is introducing deceptive and misleading article sources to the end of mischaracterising the sources. This is a conduct issue as we rely on editors to adequately and correctly draw out the nature of sources. This is a conduct issue because the effect of Termer's mischaracterisation and deception is to cause the drama llama to come to town, especially as he is unwilling to accept any measure of fault in his characterisations (as demonstrated up thread). Fifelfoo (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The conduct has extended to badly misrepresenting the statements of other editors as here. I would greatly appreciate administrator attention to the issue of the continuous misrepresentation and disruption attendant. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You are now iterating your first comments in bringing the matter to this board. The fault, dear Brutus, appears likely to be on more than one side. Collect (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Your comments at do not appear helpful, nor does your edit at the article where you removed a substantial portion of the entire article with a single bold edit. Collect (talk) 11:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Collect, the topic of this thread is not the repeating of previous points, but misrepresentations and misinterpretations that go so far they cross the limit to disruptive conduct. If you have other things you would like to discuss, such as Fifelfoo's editing of the article, start a new section for it. --Anderssl (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You know, perhaps it could be considered in the future, in case anybody likes to accuse anybody of lying and 'misrepresentations' etc, how about presenting evidence so that first comes what is an alleged 'lie' and 'misrepresentation' etc and then right next to it would be nice to have an explanation: what exactly would be the 'truth' and 'correct representation' all about in your opinion. So far unfortunately I really am not getting it what exactly are you talking about and why do you paste random diffs from the talk page to this notice board.--Termer (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You claim that this is a source is characterising as specifically communist a causal structure for mass killing, "An alternative form of autocracy is a communist regime. The organizational base of these regimes is the communist party, often having a membership consisting of upwards of 10 % of the total population of the society. Communist regimes have an ideology (Marxism-Leninism) that can legitimize massive regime efforts to transform society – often including mass killings in the millions. This combination of ideology and organization permits the killing of millions in communist mass killings." Within a few pages (your lack of page citation with your quote prevents me from specifying), the authors actually outline their theoretical approach, "Additionally, we create military regime and communist regime variables. Mostly, both of these regimes are sub-categories of autocratic regimes, but we consider it is very important to set such variables to separate different types of autocratic countries. Military regime and communist regimes, in theory, create very different conditions vis-à-vis initiation of mass murder. A military regime, by its definition, is more likely to have stronger armed forces and a lower threshold for using them (Wayman, 1975). Any regime has policies that affect society, and the regime, if it wishes to carry out these policies, needs to find a way to get its way and impose its acts on society." This is a deceptive practice, to claim that sources say what they do not. To be specific, "both of these regimes are sub-categories of autocratic regimes" indicates that Weyland & Tago are not theorising a specifically communist cause for the mass killings they deal with. The fact that you claim to be presenting excellent sources for discussion, but the sources in no way say what you claim, has disrupted the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea Fifelfoo why do you bring your opinions about the article to this notice board.--Termer (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Feeling harassed

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

Hi can an impartial admin, preferably a senior one who isn't involved with communicating with me currently, and doesn't have a working relationship or friendship with the other administrators and users who are communicating with me currently. My problem stems from being falsely accused of being a sock-puppet. I'm a relatively new user - I'm feeling sad and ganged up on - I'm completely innocent but I'm now being threatened with blocks for both being a sock-puppet (I"m not one, I'm being accused of being a sock-puppet which is false.) I responded to these false allegation and I admit I was really annoyed, I was then accused of personally attacking people and was threatened of being blocked for this. I had no intention of personally attacking anyone, I was feeling threatened and wanted to defend myself - nothing more. Here is an example of how I'm feeling attacked: the Joe McElderry heading and chat between Nacy and Pedro here: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Nancy - they're making an insinuation that I'm in the wrong, and a sock-puppet, without any real evidence, and Pedro says that I'm on a "final warning" over my attitude - and I really don't know what I've done wrong. I'm not a sock puppet, and have not had, and don't have, an "attitude." I've only defended myself, and described how this situation and other users are making me feel. I really am saddened by this whole situation, because I feel like no-one at Misplaced Pages is on my side here - and by "my side" I don't mean in a fight because I want peace and to be able to edit Misplaced Pages and become a better and more experienced editor with time. "My side" is the side of truth, peace, and respect. People have accused me, repeatedly, of being a sock-puppet, without doing an investigation into my IP address, or history of IP address - and I don't even look at my IP address, it's assigned to me by my ISP. I just want someone to see that I'm innocent, and this behaviour towards me is horrible, and if Pedro blocks me I feel this is completely unfair because I don't deserve it. I'm frustrated to the point where I feel like leaving Misplaced Pages, which is why I say I feel bullied, because if I leave Misplaced Pages now, I would have literally been bullied out of Misplaced Pages - by both being falsely accused of being a sock-puppet, and being threatened of being blocked when I defend myself against behaviour that feels threatening and abusive towards me. I'm taking my PLEA FOR HELP here because I'm at my wits end, and crying out for help here, please can someone look into my IP address history to show that I'm not a sock-puppet, and show that people who are either experienced admin or non-admin Wikipedians. I didn't post this on the sock-puppet part because it's more that just about a sock puppet issue, it's me feeling that Nancy and Pedro are "ganging up" on me and would like to block or ban me, given half a chance - and I'm not saying that they're privately saying to each other, "let's try and ban that Whitebrightlight guy," and then give a stereotypical "evil laugh" to each other - no, I don't know for sure what their intentions are, but I do know that the way they're behaving is making me feel THREATENED and INTIMIDATED, it FEELS like a clique of more experienced Wikipedains than me have decided that I'm a "problem" and a "sock-puppet" and are now looking at all of my actions in the worst possible light, like they're looking for me to put one foot out of place, (which if I was to do so would most likely be an innocent mistake by me due to my inexperience,) so that they can ban or block me or "prove" that I'm a sock-puppet. Again, I'm not personally attacking these people, I'm saying I feel threatened. If some impartial fair-minded administrator with CheckUser powers was to look into "my case," I'm confident that the truth will come out, that these sock-puppet allegations are entirely without foundation, and if anything, these sock-puppet allegations may be made with malice. So please, when investigating me so that the truth can come out, (which, as I'm 100% innocent, will prove that I'm not a sock-puppet,) please also take a look at the behaviour of these other users towards me, which should show that their behaviour has been less than friendly. Please, show me that there is another side to Misplaced Pages - a good, friendly side, that makes new editors welcome, and takes them seriously when they're feeling harassed. Thanks for your time so far, reading this, and I hope someone out there can simply serve truth and justice. Whitebrightlight (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting point. I had a look at Nancy's user page and Pedro's page and they are not administrators, so they are definitely making this up by the looks of things. The bullies attempting to ban you are just personally attacking you or making a legal threat only based to you. As you're a new person, the bullies are refusing to do this as well. All of those are not acceptable to Misplaced Pages, at least you're not doing them. Just to let you know that I'm not an administrator, I just came here for reassurance. Why don't you ask someone on an administrator's talk page (If you can find one, that is). Minimac94 (talk) 07:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Both Pedro and Nancy are administrators, Minimac94. Icewedge (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering both Nancy and I have "Category:Administrators" and the admin logo on our user pages your minimal lack of research Minimac94 is disturbing, and you agressive "making this up" un called for. Pedro :  Chat  10:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Any checkusers out there want to look at this? I glanced at a few of the mentioned parties talk pages, and something does smell fishy. Plaxeco moment maybe? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I've alerted both Nancy and Pedro on their talk pages, so we can get their side of the story as well. Jhfortier (talk) 08:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have a "side" to get out. Whitebrightlight came to my talk page to accuse me of leaving bullying messages for him regarding Joe McElderry. I was confused as I had never left a message, bullying or otherwise, for Whitebrightlight however I had left a final warning for User:Hassaan19 on the same topic. User:Hassaan19 is no stranger to socking so I asked WBL to explain why he was leaving first person messages on my page about another user. Now this has exploded on to ANI, a CU would be a good idea to confirm or deny the circumstantial evidence. I'm just about to leave the house & won't be online again until this evening. Nancy 08:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have been involved in this "from the sides" and there's a fair bit of history to it. Here's what I can add.

Some background: Before Whitebrightlight came onto the scene, User:Hassaan19 was socking, using fixed IP 82.36.17.10 in addition to their account. They were reasonably open about this, but ended up !voting twice in an AfD. Eventually the IP got blocked permanently and then Hassaan19 got a 31 hour block for edit warring and repeatedly restoring an article against the outcome of the AfD. The points of note here were that I raised this at AN/I, User:EdJohnston was the primary involved admin, admin User:Nancy also issued Hassaan a warning (so the two admins talked on Nancy's talk page), and a typical edit when the socking took place was for the IP to recreate a page which was a redirect and update Hasaan19's user page which contains a list of created pages.

Then it gets interesting. Whitebrightlight made the exact same edit Hassaan19 got blocked for and then updated Hasaan19's user page just as the IP sock got blocked for. I notified EdJohnston of this as I thought it was suspicious, and he warned Whitebrightlight against socking. Then Whitebrightlight went to Nancy's home page (who has had no interaction with Whitebrightlight, only Hasaan19) and in the section where EdJohnston and Nancy discussed Hassaan19, says to Nancy "stop issuing bullying-tone messages to me" (my emphasis).

It is hard to explain the above (particularly the message on Nancy's page where Whitebrightlight refers to Hasaan19 as "me") any way other than that Whitebrightlight is Hassaan19.

I42 (talk) 09:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The WBL account does look fishy--created in August, then no activity until edits to the Joe McElderry article, then a quick jump into an AfD for an article Hassaan19 had been involved with. They also appear to have similar writing styles. Being recently falsely convicted of sockhood, however, I would like to urge caution. A CU is definitely in order. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I only got involved because I have Nancy's talk watchlisted. I feel my warning was perfectly acceptable for this . Coming to ANI with ALL CAPS type shouting when you have yet to explain the diff above regarding the sockpuppet issues is probably not wise. So exactly why Whitebrightlight, did you respond in the first person to Nancy about a comment made to another user? Answer that and then perhaps people will take your bullying allegations more seriously. Pedro :  Chat  10:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellente! Coming to an ANI while shouting on an ALL CAPS message IS definitely unwise, except lines such as "If you continue to make personal attacks on Misplaced Pages, you WILL we blocked". Even those lines cannot be used too often. 7107Lecker 10:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm feeling harassed by Pedro and I've specifically came here to ESCAPE his/her harassment and find some neutral person - I clearly stated this. So for Pedro to come here and carry on talking to me is making me feel uneasy. I want someone who isn't involved, so is therefore neutral, to look into this. 142 has also been involved and left a "biting"-tone message on my user page shortly after I started editing Misplaced Pages. 142 and Pedro are two users who are making me feel harassed, and the text above by 142 is like something from a court-room prosecutor - twisted in such a way as to TRY to suggest I'm "guilty," without any evidence. So now, having came here for some refuge and even-handiness, I feel that those who are making me feel harassed and threatened, are perusing me here. PLEASE can an independent administrator, who doesn't have a waking relationship or friendship with these two (142 or Pedro) or Nancy, come and investigate. As I said, I came here to get away from harassment, so I'm not pleased that 142 and Pedro are here to seemingly muddy the water. In the text written by 142 above (s)he states: "I have been involved in this "from the sides" and there's a fair bit of history to it " No, this is highly misleading from my point-of-view - 142 has been with the same clique of people who are either accusing, insinuating or otherwise supporting the false-hood that I'm a sock-puppet. This sock-puppet accusation remains the big black lie that it away has been. If 142 was confident (s)he could rely on the truth coming out, why does (s)he feel the need to come here, to (1) TRY to give the impression that (s)he's been involved "from the sides" as (s)he puts it, and (s)he puts "from the sides" in quotation marks for some reason. Well the reason to me seems that this is being said so that when the CheckUser proves that I'm not a sock-puppet, 142 and this "clique" who are supporting the accusation that I'm a suck-puppet, can then fall back on this supposed "circumstantial evidence," that 142 had moulded into a perfect fit. Well there is no evidence. There was a weak hunch that for some reason has turned into something that makes Misplaced Pages seem to me, from my perspective as a new member, a stuffy, cliquey, old-boys-type network when outsiders are made to feel unwelcome. Well it's not going to work. I have been, and remain, completely innocent. The little story from 142 above is just that - a fiction. What I've noticed is that when I defended myself before, my own self-defence was used against me, in an attempt to accuse me of violating the Misplaced Pages policy of personal attacks. An interesting note is, 142 has behaved, since he first wrote on my user page, like he has some authority - is (s)he an admin, or is this just the way (s)he behaves? Well I'm NOT making, nor have I made, personal attacks. I am defending myself, as I have done, and continue to have to do. Someone above states that I and Hassaan19 "appear to have similar writing styles." Well this is another vague courtroom-prosecution type statement that could be applied to anyone. APPEAR to have SIMILAR ... yes lots of people who write in the Englsih language and are using British English (which since Hassaan has make X-Factor related articles and this is a British TV show, which I've been falsely accused of being a sock puppet due to X-Factor related page editing,) could be said to APPEAR to have SIMILAR writing styles. It's the sort of comment that may make an initial impression, but when thought about, even a small amount, is revealed from being the vague, general statement, that could be applied to a lot of people, that it is. The whole of 142's statement above doesn't stand up to a small amount of analysis either. Also, I've had enough of Pedro and 142 treating me as though I'm guilty until I jump though the hoops that they put up for me to prove myself innocent. I'm not playing your games. This thing about me apparently writing the the first person is a non-issue, as an independent admin investigating would see, or as anyone neutral would see. My accusers have already, on an unconscious level, so it would seem, decided that I'm guilty, which is why they seem to have made the square pegs fit into circular holes. The reason for using the first person was I was replying to this: " 07:37, 7 December 2009 Nancy (talk | contribs) (72 bytes) (Reverted to revision 329844498 by Themfromspace; Redirect per AFD (note the as per the AFD discussion, recreation is only permitted if JM becomes independently notable of X Factor). " I left my reply on Nancy's talk page. This was Nancy reverting to the previous edit (i.e. the re-direct) below my edit which was the re-instatement of Joe's Misplaced Pages page. Nancy stated; " permitted if JM becomes independently notable of X Factor, " but I knew the policy was the top-three in music competitions, the three finalists in the case of the X-Factor, are permitted their own page, which is why I re-created Joe's page only once he was voted into the X-Factor final. So now my reply to Nancy's talk page should make sense - my reply was: "Joe is now in the TOP THREE or to put it another way he's a FINALIST ~ so according to Misplaced Pages rules, he warrents his own page now, so stop being a bully and let him have his own page... play by the Misplaced Pages rules please and stop issuing bullying-tone messages to me. " Since I'm relatively new to editing Misplaced Pages, I thought at the time that since Joe was in the top-three, I was right to re-create his page. Now I'm unsure whether it was right for me to re-create, or whether, since the page was previously subject to AfD, this means another process should have been followed. I was frustrated, at the time, having had my page re-creating undone by Nancy. Now, Pedro has said that I was all-caps shouting, in his statement above. He then links to the article where he states that I was "all-caps shouting," but on the page he links to, I used capitalised words occasionally which were for emphasis, in the same way Pedro has typed ALL CAPS above for emphasis. I was, I feel, understandably annoyed by being falsely accused of being s sock-puppet, as I'm sure anyone would be. Therefore, I added emphasis to my post using caps. The majority of the quote of mine, Pedro links to above, is in lower case. So just as the messages above by 142 and Throwaway85 don't stand up to rudimentary scrutiny, Pedro's claim that I was "all-caps shouting" doesn't stand either - I used caps in the minority of the quoted text, and was not shouting but using the caps for emphasis. Whitebrightlight (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

To address your first point, you started a thread on AN/I about Pedro and 142. They are well within their rights to comment here, and give their side of the story. If that includes accusing you of something, they're well within their rights to do that as well. Calling you a sockpuppet merely means that it is likely an investigation will be opened, wherein your IP address, location, edit history, style, etc will be compared with that of Hassaan19. If it's determined you are the same person, you will be blocked. If not, you won't be. Any complaint against Pedro and/or 142 will be handled seperately from the sockpuppet investigation.

On a personal note, I'd council you to maybe take a break, relax a bit, and come back when you are less worked up. We are seldom at our most eloquent when we are emotional, and are usually far better able to present our concerns when we are calm. Also, perhaps jot down what you'd like to say in point form, and then briefly explain each point. A wall of text is an impediment to the reader's understanding, and will decrease the likelihood that they either comprehend your complaint or take it seriously. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake Whitebrightlight. Answer the question. Why did you post this. A wall of text about how I'm now here harrasing you (when you're here to complain about me - clearly you don't get this) is no solution. Just answer the question. Why did you post that, and why did you use the term me?. Pedro :  Chat  13:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah - I find in th e"wall-o-text" above "This thing about me apparently writing the the first person is a non-issue". Laughable how you accuse everyone else of lies and misdirection yet you dismiss the commen tthat clearly calls you as a WP:SOCK out of hand. Not it is not "a non-issue" and neither is you calling people bullies. Answer the question Whitebright pleae. Pedro :  Chat  13:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I have been "on the side" of this issue because I have raised my concerns via admins - at AN/I and in discussion with EdJohnston who took it up. For the record, my direct interactions with Whitebrightlight have been minimal: (1) The "biting tone message" I left was a standard level 1 template following two occasions where Whitebrightlight made unreferenced controversial edits in a BLP (so that he would understand why he had been reverted twice) - and this elicited the response "Also "142" don't send me messages, you're not above me so don't act like it." (to which I responded in kind); (2) I queried the use of the first person on Nancy's talk page; (3) I reverted changes to Hassaan19's user page. Not much to provoke all that vitriol above, or the similar here, which I refused to be drawn into. Of course, if there is sock puppetry going on then you have to also include all the direct interaction I had with Hassaan19 which ended up with them blocked. I42 (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Technical question: If the IP 82.36.17.10 used by the Hassan user were to be hard-blocked, would that prevent registered users on that IP from logging in? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It's an anon-only block; that means registered users are still able to edit under that IP. MuZemike 16:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The behavioral evidence for Whitebrightlight (talk · contribs) being a sock of Hassaan19 (talk · contribs) is pretty strong, but at this stage it would be best of a checkuser could take a look and provide a more definitive answer, so that all involved editors can more onto more productive editing. Can someone ping an available CU ? Abecedare (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

the use of "me" in this circumstance is not necessarily evidence against him, for only a sockmaster who had lost track altogether of what they were doing would have made such a blunder. The occasional caps & the writing style in the comments above indicates a just lack of understanding how we do things here, and should not be held against him. Id wait for checkuser. DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There is also this, but I agree that there can be innocent explanations for all these actions. Hoping that a CU will be able to resolve the issue. Abecedare (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add, I did answer, in detail, the question about talking in the first-person. The answer is above, so why Pedro is repeatedly asking the same question, even though I've answered it in detail, you'd have to ask him. Also there is ZERO case that me and Hassaan are the same person, ZERO evidence. Whitebrightlight (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Because I'm stupid, and can't be bothered to read the wall-o-text above, would you mind giving me a concise answer as why you said the word "me" when you were refering to a comment made to another user? Just a few lines if possible. Pedro :  Chat  17:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Easiest thing for you to do, WBL, is to provide a diff to where I apparently left you a "bullying tone message". Nancy 17:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I've made the points I wanted to make, by the posts I've already made on this page. Progress can now be made when an independent admin addresses the issues I've raised in my original post; this admin may need to lease with an independent admin with CheckUser, who can look at my IP address history to address the sock-puppet allegations. Thanks. Whitebrightlight (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If he's not a sock, he's doing a great impression of one - evading specific questions that need to be answered. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

CU can't prove that an editor isn't using another computer on another IP address, right? It can establish the locality, if there's no way of beating that. Dougweller (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Whitebright User:DGG seems to be a neutral Admin.Cool down a bit a provide the differences asked above.Preventive action is regurarly taken on WP you do not need to worry , Just cooperate, 'Please' I'm not an admin--NotedGrant Talk 18:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah - I'm not neutral. Check out my extensive history of disputes over content and project space with Whitebright. I hate this place. Pedro :  Chat  18:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Pedro I came here because I have your talk page on my watchlist I do not doubt you or your actions as an admin .My comment was aimed at the new user who is a sock and thinks that wp cannot survive without his pov My comment was just to assure the user that wikipedia is fair and that wikipedians do take action against problematic editors (even if they are at a position of authority).--NotedGrant Talk 20:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for my brusque reply and misinterpretation of your input. Pedro :  Chat  20:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

^ I came here to report harassment, now the same people continue to bully me as 142 is below saying, " his reaction to requests for explanation cast serious doubt on his ability to work collaboratively regardless," no the truth is 142 is showing that he's a bully and now you're falsely accusing me of being a sock-puppet and basically saying I'm not wanted here. Well I've certainly not been made feel welcome but have every right to be here. Whitebrightlight (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

^ I just posted something but it didn't show up. Well here it is again. Baseball_Bugs: I've addressed answered Nancy's question in a reply earlier on this page. Whitebrightlight (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason for using the first person was I was replying to this: " 07:37, 7 December 2009 Nancy (talk | contribs) (72 bytes) (Reverted to revision 329844498 by Themfromspace; Redirect per AFD (note the as per the AFD discussion, recreation is only permitted if JM becomes independently notable of X Factor). " I left my reply on Nancy's talk page. This was Nancy reverting to the previous edit (i.e. the re-direct) below my edit which was the re-instatement of Joe's Misplaced Pages page. Nancy stated; " permitted if JM becomes independently notable of X Factor, " but I knew the policy was the top-three in music competitions, the three finalists in the case of the X-Factor, are permitted their own page, which is why I re-created Joe's page only once he was voted into the X-Factor final. So now my reply to Nancy's talk page should make sense - my reply was: "Joe is now in the TOP THREE or to put it another way he's a FINALIST ~ so according to Misplaced Pages rules, he warrents his own page now, so stop being a bully and let him have his own page... play by the Misplaced Pages rules please and stop issuing bullying-tone messages to me. " Since I'm relatively new to editing Misplaced Pages, I thought at the time that since Joe was in the top-three, I was right to re-create his page.

Thank you for reading the wall-o'-text. And in the analysis there in is revealed the lie. The first ever comment by Nancy to Whitebrightlight was here at 11:10 8 Decemeber as seen at However Whitebrightlight requested Nancy to stop "bullying" ME here at 22:29 7 December - half a day before Nancy ever interacted with the user. Screw WP:AGF. A bit more WP:DENY of the WP:TROLL people. Pedro :  Chat  20:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I support the use of Checkuser to help settle this matter, but I do have my doubts. I think there's more bark than quack here; while I'm not all that familiar with Hassaan19 I did take the liberty of checking their contributions list and looking at their communication skills and this feels like a different person to me. This bizarre wall o' text seems uncharacteristic, though of course it might be an intentional obfuscation; but if so, why stir up this drama while unblocked? Again, run CU to help settle things because there's enough suspicion for it, but my gut tells me these aren't the same person. -- Atama頭 19:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The specific edit from Nancy was this. The text was an edit summary, generally directed and giving reasoned rationale for the change with no sign of "bullying-tone" that I can see. Whitebrightlight had edited the page several hours before and was separated by other edits.

I do not know if Whitebrightlight is a sock or not - just that the behaviour quite reasonably warranted investigation. His message to Nancy, the other accusations he's thrown around, and his reaction to requests for explanation cast serious doubt on his ability to work collaboratively regardless. I42 (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

How embarrassing that the most illiterate edit summary I have ever made becomes the subject of such scrutiny. C'est la vie. Nancy 20:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

^ Well now you're changing your position from implying I'm a sock-puppet to now saying you don't care, and then yet again smearing me by implying that my self-defence against untrue accusations and implications that I'm a sock-puppet mean I'm somehow bad for Misplaced Pages - and you've slipped in, "the other accusations he's thrown around," implying that I've somehow been making false accusations when I haven't - I won't make a personal attack against you whatever the provocation. All I would say is please if there are any honourable admins reading this, please see what's going on here and don't be taken in be crafty characters like 142 who try to attack me without breaking the rules of making a personal attack, and manage to pull the wool over the eyes of others that I'm somehow the problem when I'm a new member being victimised. Whitebrightlight (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

My position on you being a possible sock-puppet is unchanged. Hassaan19 is a confirmed sockpuppetteer so is being given close attention; your edits are extremely troublesome in that context and required explanation. In my opinion your explanations have been inadequate, your response has been extraordinary, and your interactions generally with other editors/admins (here and elsewhere) astoundingly inappropriate. Again, in my opinion, you cannot work collaboratively, Misplaced Pages is clearly not for you and you should leave - whether you are a sock puppet or not (which is the point I was making); all the Checkuser should do now is decide whether Hassaan19 goes with you. My opinion, of course, has no more bearing than anyone else's. I42 (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to be cavalier but is anyone going to do the CU? How will anyone know the outcome? Padillah (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I could go to WP:SPI and open a legitimate request given the diffs and this thread, but to be honest I really, really don't care anymore. Pedro :  Chat  21:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggested a checkuser look at this very soon after it was originally posted, and I think most of the hullaballoo could've been avoided if one had just looked into the situation. It will either clear the user or condemn them. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

^ Well Pedro I want someone who is impartial to CheckUser and listen to my original post, because you've made and continue to make unproductive posts. Whitebrightlight (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who brings a complaint here also opens up their own behavior to scrutiny. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by WBL noted and, well, ignored. WP:DENY Pedro :  Chat  21:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone who has been following this going to file an SPI? I almost just blocked Whitebrightlight myself due to the sockpuppetry being pretty blatant. Fences&Windows 22:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

^ How can it be "blatant" according to you, when I'm completely innocent? What action is going to be taken against my false-accusers once I'm shown to be innocent? Whitebrightlight (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Filed at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Hassaan19, to avoid WP:DUCK errors. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

^ Can you please explain what you mean by this, and will this finally clear me. Cheers for finally trying to sort this. :) Whitebrightlight (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It means a checkuser will now investigate the matter to see if you are a sock of Hassan19, to avoid you being block by someone with a hunch that you are a sockpuppet. If you are found to be a sock, more than likely you will be blocked. If not, you will be apologized to by alot of people from this thread I'd say. Anyway, we'll all know soon enough. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Regretfully, I doubt I will be apologising to an editor who frequently describes others as bullies, responds to direct questions with obfuscation, and assumes bad faith at every turn; CU not withstanding. Pedro :  Chat  23:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

^ That doesn't surprise me since you have made me feel unwelcome from the beginning. Whitebrightlight (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser results state that Whitebrightlight and Hassaan19 are editing from different ISPs, but in similar geographical locations.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This is rubbish. This IP of Hassaan19 is in Birmingham - you can check for yourself. The CheckUser must be unfamiliar with England, because there's no way I could be moving between the two locations to get to the different IPs. I'd like a CheckUser from England to CORRECT this result, because I'm NOT in the same city as Birmingham, or the West Midlands or this area. Whitebrightlight (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really the most constructive response... If you want other editors to WP:AGF, calling them liars is not going to gain you any friends, especially if an issue of this nature occurs again. Jhfortier (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well there's no way I could make friends with such people anyway. Whitebrightlight (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Update - Following my vindication, I would like to call for an independent admin to investigate the unfounded allegations and harassment by user "142" and administrator "Pedro" against me, as I've not been proven to not be a sock-puppet of Hassaan19, and have has to put up with vile, incessant insinuation and bullying. Whitebrightlight (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Quit a few "independent" admins looked over this thread already. The allegations against you were obviously made in good faith, or a checkuser wouldn't have been called for and used. You continuosly calling it "harrassment" is winning you no friends or allies. If the admins who did look at this page thought those allegations were actionable, someone would've done something about it. The wiki is a collaborative community, you need to learn to work within that community, which sometimes calls for having a thicker skin. Sincerely, Heironymous Rowe (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC).

You have not necessarily been vindicated. A CU says that you're likely unrelated. The evidence at the start was strong enough that a well-respected admin and other editors felt the need to investigate. You have attacked everyone who basically told you to simply let the process occur, and if they're wrong, then it will drop. It was not bullying, it was your actions that led to the concerns. Rather than hit back (retaliation is bad), review your editing style, but more importantly review how you interact with others. This is a community. Yelling, screaming, attacking everyone (even those who try to help) and similar actions will likely find you back here again with a different result. At this point, I suggest you let it drop. If you continue to get specific "bullying" related to THIS specific incident from this point forward, then bring it forward. However, if your own actions create a new series of complaints, someone will use your past behaviour against you, and rightly so - that's called a pattern. I highly recommend you take a few days off, review your goals and editing style, then come back in such a way that you never give anyone a reason to complain. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser doesn't show 'vindication': it shows geolocation to the same country. IP location is not necessarily the same as physical location: my own IP address doesn't geolocate to close to where I live, it's about 100 miles out. Fences&Windows 15:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence and hasn't ever been any evidence because me and Hassaan19 are, and always have been, two different people who don't know each other in real life and are in every way unrelated. I created this page here to highlight harassment against me. I asked for a CheckUser to prove that the sock-puppet allegations are untrue. I know the IP that Hassaan uses is in Birmingham due to him telling everyone the IP he uses when logged out on his page. I also know that it would be impossible to edit Misplaced Pages from my location and Birmingham and give the time and date of edits that I have made, and are shown on Hassaan19's history and IP-edit history. The only way for this to be possible would be for me stop time, and to travel from my location to Birmingham and back using a teleportation device, to make the edits from my account and Hassaan19's account.

The one this this whole situation has given me is an understanding how it is for people who've been victims of miscarriages of justice. My situation isn't as serious as someone who's been falsely accused of a crime, for example. But I've had an insight into being made out to be something you're not. Well if there's such a thing as karma, I know the false accusers are not doing themselves any good. Whitebrightlight (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No miscarriage of justice here. There were completely valid points made and even the CU result isn't 100% conclusive one way or the other, though I personally believe that you aren't a sockpuppet as I said before. Your wish to stir up unnecessary drama has brought a lot of deserved negative attention to you, and you are far from vindicated. I'm also very curious about , where you have given yourself a barnstar and claimed that it was just given to you by an editor who hasn't edited Misplaced Pages for 5 months. Giving yourself barnstars is unimportant (though I'm sure many people wouldn't like it) but making false edits on behalf of other editors is a serious problem, and is sure to evaporate any lingering good faith the community would have for you. -- Atama頭 00:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

WBL started a few weeks after Underdog000 stopped. Then there's this peculiar edit to Hasaan19's user page made by WBL and implying they are the same guy. WBL has some 'splaining to do if he expects to lift the veil of suspicion around him. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

76.64.154.250 is apparently the same as Underdog000, and they are both connected with Ottawa. Underdog000 has existed for about 3 years but has very few edits over that time, so it's likely that's just one of many guises that user has. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Forging signatures is another Hassaan19-sock trait. I42 (talk) 07:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just looked at whois on the IP address Haassan19 uses (i.e. the IP declared on the checkuser request) and it is an old Telewest (now Virgin Media) one which contains only the TW/VM corporate addresses and does not mention Birmingham. How then can Whitebrightlight know that Haassan is in Birmingham by looking at the IP as he claims to have done above? Curiouser and curiouser. Nancy 07:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, at the risk of "bullying" WBL even further that's a very good question. I don't expect any answers from WBL as he's consistently managed to avoid the very very simple and direct question regarding posting in the first person so it's no tlikely he'll respoond to this. Pedro :  Chat  07:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

http://www.ip2location.com/82.36.17.10 Sean.hoyland - talk 08:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks Sean. Pedro :  Chat  08:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Sean. Nancy 08:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Admin:Rama ignoring previous consensus, refusing to gain new consensus

In 2007 a user (User:CBM) proposed to delete File:Chicago Spire.jpg. After a discussion 2 users (myself and User:Wikidemo) and an administrator (User:Quadell) gained consensus saying the image should be kept and was not a copyright violation (the user proposing deletion (User:CBM) was the only user disagreeing). I was anticipating replacing the image once some measurable progress had been made on the structure.

A few days ago, the admin User:Rama ignored that previous consensus and abruptly (speedily) deleted the image without discussion. I briefly introduced points where I disagreed with his assessment (on Rama's talk page) and pointed out that others disagreed as well. I thought it would be best to restore the image and propose it for deletion so that a proper discussion could take place and another administrator could determine consensus.

User:Rama refuses to do any of this; he has ignored previous consensus on keeping the file and refuses to gain new consensus, stating that he is the only one who is right and everyone else is wrong - User:Rama stated "I do not care whether people disagree with me or not, this is not a democracy. If you want to vote reality out of existence, do that in a sandbox. I am very obviously right, and no matter of how many people are wrong and disagree with me, they are still wrong." He then stated that pointing out others who disagreed with him was a "waste of time" and that this discussion was "futile". Another administrator (User:Xeno) stated to Rama that "the 2007 discussion was closed as "fair use permitted" so it's probably unwise to unilaterally reverse that decision with a speedy delete".

All I am requesting is that the image be restored and then proposed for deletion so that other editors can discuss this. I have many points to make about why it shouldn't be deleted, but wish to do this on a deletion page, not on a user talk page. Thanks! DR04 (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Rama does look to be taking a particularly aggressive "my way or the highway" stance here. I've noted that a few other editors who work in the Fair Use area tend to get like that as well. Also User:Rama/Fair use is quite unhelpful, as it uses an obscure slang word throughout, without explanation (the more mainstream use of the word gives it the meaning 'manly' --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

For clarity, I don't believe that English is Rama's first language. Where he uses the term jocker, what he probably means is joker, in the sense of a wild card, free pass, or get-out-of-jail-free card to wave about as an excuse to ignore the rules. I thought his explanation at the top of the page was reasonably clear as to his intent — and the approximate meaning is certainly clear from context later on. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The correct place to request restoration is WP:DRV. — Kusma 19:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

See wider issue I commented about below @ 19:41. –xeno 19:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• I would also invite a review of other recent F7 deletions. I am not familiar enough with the NFCC and fair use criteria, but I am concerned that Rama's interpretation may not dovetail with the community's - however admit that I am a novice in this area. I think it might be more appropriate they bring these to FFD, given that they take a somewhat hardline on fair use. –xeno 19:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

So what do you guys recommend I do? Kusma, should I go over to DRV now and request undeletion for this and/or the other images? Or will you guys be doing something? Should I wait? Thanks!. DR04 (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think DRV is the best place for this. I won't do anything about it, though, as I am WP:VEGAN and don't touch non-free images if I can at all avoid it. — Kusma 20:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Working in this area is a pretty thankless job. I'm not sure that it's an area where local consensus can rule in any case. Dougweller (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, I am a novice; but if I have understood Rama's argument correctly it's that the image is replaceable by a 3D model rendered by an editor and released into the public domain: but isn't this simply a recreation of a copyrighted work? –xeno 19:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Rama's interpretation may not dovetail comfortably with the bulk of the Misplaced Pages community, but I have a strong suspicion that Rama's perspective is probably much closer to legal reality. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages policy, even with a relatively lax interpretation. is deliberately stricter than the legal standard. There seems to be fairly general consensus that it ought to be. DGG ( talk ) 20:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned that certain aspects of Rama's personal interpretation of fair use, located at User:Rama/Fair use, do not seem to jibe with either official foundation policy OR with community standards. Some of what he says there seems perfectly legit points he is making, his peculiar interpretation of replacability seems to be bothersome. For example, Misplaced Pages:Non-free content, the primary guideline which contains community standards on the enforcement of the foundational policy at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria, only states that pictures of people still alive are considered to be unsuitible for fair use claims, however Rama seems to unilaterally declare that pictures of dead people are also unsuitible for fair use claims, with absolutely no community backing at all. I am concerned not that he is trying to enforce a foundational policy (which is a good idea) with a personal interpretation that is unsupported by the community. Now, in this case the fact remains that there can be no freely-made reproductions of the archetectural plans of this unfinished building because, say, if "I" drew my interpretation of these plans, they would still be derivative works. Furthermore, the detailed rationale at the image description page seems perfectly fine to me, so I see no reason to delete an image of this type, when everything seems in order. --Jayron32 20:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I hope you don't mind if I chime in again, but to TenofAllTrades - I'll quote something I posted on Rama's talk page. "A much safer, IMO legal situation would simply to be use the renderings as provided by the architect (and I actually went through a great deal of work to get that permission). It seems Misplaced Pages is more at risk if we create our own renderings of a copyrighted design and then post them as "our own." The way I see it, either no images are allowed of unbuilt buildings - drawn by the architect or drawn by Wikipedians based upon models drawn by the architect or the copyrighted version itself is used. Shelbourne Development and Calatrava gave Misplaced Pages permission in an e-mail to me to use the images. I doubt they would look so kindly on us creating our own images of their copyrighted works, however. The bottom line - modeling your own renderings of a copyrighted design is much scarier from a legal perspective IMO. DR04 (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Even more problematic with Rama's deletion then, is if, as you claim, the original copyright holder did give email permission for this usage. --Jayron32 20:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Jayron, Kim Metcalfe, a representative for Shelbourne Development (you'll see she is quoted in many of the news articles of the structure), gave me an FTP login to the directoy where Calatrava uploaded the copyrighted images for release (for publicity). She also provided explicit permission for the images to be used as long as the copyright information was included. I have saved these emails if anyone needs to see copies of them. DR04 (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Did they give permission only for Misplaced Pages or also for possible reusers? "Only for Misplaced Pages" used to be a reason for speedy deletion. — Kusma 20:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Kusma, it was a copyrighted image that she gave permission for Misplaced Pages and others to use, but obviously I requested permission for Misplaced Pages to use it (I didn't ask for anyone else). I think you are referring to images that people upload but only allow Misplaced Pages to use - you are right those get speedy deletes ("This includes "for non-commercial use only", "non-derivative use", "for Misplaced Pages use only" or "used with permission". See CSD F3" from Template:Db-f3. But this was a copyrighted image, with a fair use rationale with permission to use (the permission isn't required and is an optional addendum. I believe both of the following copyright tags were used on the image page {{Non-free fair use in}} and {{Non-free with permission}}. As you can see, permission for Misplaced Pages tags (Non-free with permission) are used but must be used in conjuction with another tag and fair use rationale. The image's file page satisfied all of these requirements. Here is a cached version of the page - DR04 (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean a majority vote, it means that all parties can agree with the solution. It strikes me that the original decision was not a consensus but a decision by three individuals to overrule a fourth. Dabbler (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Nor is consensus unanimity, especially in a binary decision. –xeno 21:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it does mean unanimity in the sense that all parties are prepared to live with the solution. If someone still objects to the solution, it is not a consensus but an over ruling of that individual's opinion. To establish a consensus, the minority opinion must consent to the solution voted on by the majority. I suppose it is arguable that User:CBM consented to keeping the disputed image because he/she made no other attempt to remove it. Dabbler (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Dabbler I agree and disagree. Consensus, as I understand it on Misplaced Pages, is the ability for everyone involved to make a case and a decision to be made. Not everyone agrees, but hopefully each argument has been looked at in depth. You see "rulings" as you call them being made all the time on nominations for deletion, nominations for featured articles, etc. Not everyone always agrees, but at least everyone knows the reasoning for decisions and had a say in the matter. You are right, in the original nomination 3 were for keeping the image, 1 was still against, but the issues were discussed at length and in the end an admin made a decision. This is my point with what happened with Rama's speedy deletion. Previous precedence existed, it was ignored, and there was absoultey NO opportunity given for further discussion - although I guess I will eventually need to go to WP:DRV. DR04 (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

But no matter our definition of consensus, I do think it is important Misplaced Pages's community do come up with some type of decision or precedent of image use - this image is a perfect example (copyrighted images for unbuilt buildings). I hope the discussion here will result in some decision, either for or against their use in articles. DR04 (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that none of us, not you or I or Rama, are lawyers who specialize in intellectual property rights (well, I suppose we could be, but even if we were, we are not acting as such when we edit wikipedia, but I digress). This is a place where, IMHO, the foundation has fallen eggregiously short. Of course they cannot police every aspect of Misplaced Pages, but it seems to me that copyright violation is one place where the foundation stands to be on precarious legal standing (much like the WP:BLP policy, except that I think they have handled that one well). The existing foundation guidance is too vague, IMHO. There is too much room for interpretation, so you get a situation where the interpretation of some users (a conservative approproach favored by Rama) is in conflict with more liberal interpretations, and absent community consensus here, there is no way to resolve this, since no one has standing to say their interpretation is the right one. If we return this to a community consensus issue, and as some state above, Rama is expressing an opinion in the matter, as some contend above indicating that this represents a !vote of 3 to 1, then as a participant in the discussion, Rama should not be involved in enacting any results. Still a bad delete, if he wants to have an opinion that's cool, but he should then pass off to another admin to enact the decision. Admins should not be participants AND enactors of a consensus discussion.

I know I kind of rambled a bit there, but the basic point is that the BEST solution would be clearer guidance from the Foundation on this issue; absent that guidance we must default to community consensus, and in this case I cannot see consensus to support Rama's move here, either in the general sense of interpreting WP:NFC or in the specific sense on how to deal with this image. --Jayron32 22:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Of the two images (File:Nakheel Tower.jpg and File:Freedom Tower New.jpg) speedily deleted by Rama (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) that I have discussed with this admin, (only after the fact on Rama's talk page), Freedom Tower New.jpg had a very similar fair use rationale to the one on File:Chicago Spire.jpg. I am unsure if Nakheel Tower.jpg had similar, but given the chance I would have improved the rationale. Whilst there is the question of potential copyright violation if Misplaced Pages editors create their own derivative work, I am also worried about amateur artists misrepresenting a building's design and leaving readers wondering whether we have used accurate dimensions, accurate colours, and so on. Astronaut (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Rama appears to have also bypassed the procedure outlined at WP:CSD#F7 (i.e. add Template:Rfu and wait 2 days). –xeno 22:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, well it sounds like Astronaut and I need to head over to WP:DRV to file some undeletion requests. DR04 (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, based upon what others have said, we need to list the images Rama created as copyright violations. It is not my intention to upset him, but I am seriously concerned with creating images based on a copyrighted design and someone publishing them as their own work. This is something that could tick off Santiago Calatrava or Shelbourne. DR04 (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have requested the following:

• The "free" commons image Rama created be deleted because of a copyright violation (See: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Chicago_spire.svg )
• The original image be restored per a deletion review (See: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review#File:Chicago Spire.jpg)

If you have an opinion on either of these matters, whatever it is, I would appreciate your input. Thanks so much. DR04 (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• • If one admin can arbitarily delete something then another can arbitarily undelete it. Spartaz 03:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

    I do wish people would use the adverb 'arbitrarily' more carefully in these discussions. I fully agree that if Rama were deleting images arbitrarily – "La di dah, I think I'll delete an image today. Ah! This one clashes with my wallpaper, it's got to go — bloop!" – then it would be perfectly appropriate to undo that deletion on a similarly lackadaisical basis. On the other hand, Rama's actions certainly don't seem to be arbitrary in this case. He seems to have acted on the basis of careful thought and extended reasoning. Whether or not one agrees with his reasoning is open to discussion, but to imply that his action was whimsical or capricious and therefore subject to instant arbitrary reversal is a very disrespectful approach. Feel free to disagree, but don't dismiss his actions as 'arbitrary'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

    • Ten, I can't speak for Spartaz, but he might be referring to Rama's tendency to ignore other user opinions - something I have found to be very frustrating. It happened when the image was deleted the first time by Rama, it happened again when Rama tried to speedily delete the image again today (this was after much of the discussion on this page was posted) and how he hasn't discussed his shape equivalent theory (as I introduced below) to this thread. It seems as if he detests talking with the community and consistently makes rash decisions. Again, I can attest how frustrating it has been for me, and probably a few other editors/admins dealing with these issues. I understand his perspective - and he might even be right, but won't he please just discuss things first? Sorry I'm done ranting lol. DR04 (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

As Spartaz commented, he has restored the copyrighted image. The commons page still needs opinion on deletion. Also, I have updated the fair use rationale on the copyrighted image. It should be more exhaustive in its argument now. DR04 (talk) 04:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Language issue?

Looking at the discussion on Rama's talkpage, I'm wondering if there's a language issue here (Rama appears to be French-speaking from his userboxen). He is interpreting "The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed ... " (from s120 of the US code) to apply in a situation where building work has not yet started, and he has interpreted Misplaced Pages:Non-free_content_criteria No Free equivalent: as Even if a Free alternative did not exist, that would not be a proof that a Free alternative cannot exist. In this case, the file is simply a random file taken amongst a number of files in a portefolio, and any other could have done, indicating that the file is indeed replaceable, and is improperly claimed for Fair Use which is completely contrary to what the policy says, but may be based on a mistranslation??? Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC) On second thoughts, I don't think this is the problem at all. I think this admin could end up at RfC if things carry on this way. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The grey area

I wish Rama would have brought this up in the first place, this would have saved a lot of time. Anyway, as I brought up on the restored image's talk page (I mean the copyrighted one, not the svg), Rama will now claim that per commons:Template:PD-shape, we can just use a geometric shape of the Spire instead of a copyrighted image. In other words, if shapes were free equivalents we could delete the copyrighted fair use image as there would be an equivalent. I'm inclined to say it is not an equivalent. The entire reason that copyrighted images of buildings have been considered fair use in the past (and IMO should continue to be fair use) is because they are illustrations of the primary subject of the article. I agree, copyrighted images of living persons should not be considered fair use. A celebrity or famous person's appearance is not the primary subject matter of the article. However with these articles on proposed buildings, the structure itself, as illustrated by the architect, is the primary subject of the article and therefore fair use. Either the image is sufficient enough to show the work (the copyrighted image) or it isn't sufficient enough (a shape). You can't have it both ways - it is a contradiction. Either it is usable in the article as an image or it is not. Therefore, I'm inclined to say I do not believe an image of the shape of a building is a free equivalent. Other comments please? Agree or disagree? DR04 (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Chicago spire shape.svg, the example created by Rama does not even come close to serving the "same encyclopedic purpose" that the fair use image in question does. –xeno 18:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite, juste like the photograph that we have at Marilyn Manson is not as "cool" as this .

Problem is, we do not do Fair Use to snatch copyrighted images that we fancy, without charge, to make our webpage nicer. We take the one precise image that we need because it is discussed critically, like on Raising the Flag in Iwo Jima. All the difference between stealing an honest work. Rama (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing was snatched here. The copyright owner gave specific permission. Furthermore, the analogy you make is a false one. No one is actually claiming that the picture is included for merely aestetic reasons. The arguement is that the picture you created to replace it is actually the more eggregious violation, because it is a derivative work created without permission, being used to replace the original work which DOES have permission for use. Furthermore, the image isn't merely decoration. The article discusses such issues as building design and location, all of which are uniquely enhanced by the picture. You appear to be inventing policy out of whole cloth here, without the support of the community. If you believe the foundation supports your interpretation, get the foundation to make a statement saying so. If you believe that the existing guidelines need to be changed to a more conservative view, then feel free to initiate those discussions. But to unilaterally decide that your own singular interpretation of policy is the only valid one, without actual support, seems to be particularly problematic here. --Jayron32 01:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you noticed that even admins who are generally quick to support the NFCC and remove inappropriately used free images are disagreeing with you here Rama. If I were in your shoes I might take pause at that. Spartaz 09:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

What is going on here!?!?

Does Rama have an obsession with deleting images? He really needs to gain consensus on issues like these - what is with the consistent, rash decision making? Rama can respond to this directly and so can anyone else - but is this type of behavior consistent with how an admin acts? If I am out of line, feel free to let me know, but this is getting really irritating, for a lot of people.

• This was after admin User:Quadell kept the image in 2007, admin User:Spartaz restored the image yesterday, and after all the discussion here!!!
• @ Line 776 & 787
• See bdk's comments
• this section
• and this section
• and comments like this

Again, if I'm out of line, let me know. I just find this frustrating. DR04 (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have asked them to stop deleting files out of process and also noted to them that if this pattern of behaviour continues, an RFCU may be initiated to gather community opinions as to their approach. For now, I think we should allow the Commons process to run its course and that will inform our actions here as to whether this and similar images recently deleted by Rama qualify for fair use.

For now I would just advise you to take a step back and remember there is no deadline =) –xeno 19:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed and understood. I think it might be wise for me to take a break from these issues. DR04 (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

...and just as a point of order, we have no jurisdiction over the commons issues you mentioned. –xeno 19:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep following the discussion on Rama's talk page. Somehow, lost in translation I presume, he has come to the conclusion that where the policy says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose", the word ONLY means that fair use can only be applied in cases where there is only one IMAGE in existence and can only ever be one image (eg the Mona Lisa). I simply cannot persuade him that the sentence means that the rule applies where ANY image of that subject would be non-free. This is why he believes it is OK to allow the use of the Iwo Jima image, but existence of several architects drawings means that fair use can never be applied. This is almost moving into an issue of competency, but I think he's just dug his heels in. Is there a discussion area where other Commons editors would discuss this kind of thing that we could take this discussion to?Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand

I find it hard to believe that someone who is so hot for Misplaced Pages's fair use policy (which goes over and above the law) is unaware of the copyright issue raised by this sentence in relation to his drawing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

He's confusing simple data with rendered drawings. For example, a basic table created in Excel is not copyrightable, since it has no creative element and data itself can't be copyrighted. An architectural drawing does not fall under this exception, obviously. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at . Can someone explain to me why Rama thinks that s120, which has by now I think been quoted 3 times and says that the architect's design copyright does not extend to making images of a constructed building viewable from a public place, means that he can make copies of the architects plans. For someone so adamant about not "snatching" other people's work, why can he not see how badly his approach breaches US law. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand the need to wait until the deletion discussions are over, but I seriously question how someone who doesn't think it matters that by making a drawing of a building that isn't built yet, based on the architect's drawings, he has breached the architect's copyright, can continue in a position of responsibility relating to deciding on the use of non-free imagery. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted File:Freedom Tower New.jpg because of invalid license. What was there had no fair use, just a claim of permission to use on Misplaced Pages. Whether an email permission (should be OTRS) can override the fair use requirement for minimal use and size would also be an issue for the possible fair use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone re-uploaded it after Rama deleted it, but didn't add any fair use rationale. Also, isn't it instadeath for any file that only has permission to be used on Misplaced Pages, as Misplaced Pages cannot police its use? Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

We should still provide a fair use rationale even if we've been given permission "only for Misplaced Pages". –xeno 13:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. If anyone has the source for the image, I would be willing to re-upload it with a sturdy fair use claim - I've been getting some practice lately at fair use rationales lol. DR04 (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the image - please add the FUR asap. –xeno 16:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

FUR added. I also uploaded a lower resolution version of the image - the same resolution used in the article infobox. DR04 (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That seems the correct course. That's what should have happened with the Spire drawing as well. It's not replacable until the building is complete and a photo or artists drawing can be made based on the finished structure. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, a final discussion point...

I don't mean to jump the gun, but it looks like (currently) there is overwhelming consensus, except for Rama, that the "free" svg image he created at commons is a copyright violation (8 deletes including the proposal for deletion (me) to 1 keep by the original uploader, Rama) and the same thing for fair use of the Chicago Spire image) - and of course this thread can and should stay open for as long as it needs to. I'm just worried the commons discussion could close at any time (maybe within a few hours or weeks), and wanted to point out there was one important ancillary consideration (to this Rama discussion) I think deserves a fair amount of discussion considering it's impact on so many articles and copyrighted building designs on Misplaced Pages - and I didn't want this thread to be "resolved" as soon as the commons discussion concludes. And the question is - At what point should the copyrighted, fair use images created by architects be replaced by photographs of the building? When it is 25% complete? 50% complete? 90% complete? When it is 100% complete? At some other point? Please discuss!!! DR04 (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• In 2007 I said about 25% complete (of the exterior) because that seems the point at which the design of the building can begin to be appreciated and understood. I'm not set on that and I've heard others here state that the copyrighted image should say up until the building 100% complete. I could understand that perspective as well, but their probably should be some consistent consensus on this moving forward from this lengthy discussion. DR04 (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for civility

It is with some trepidation that I report this, as I know I will be immediately attacked for being disruptive. Nevertheless... as a result of the Eastern European Mailing List ("EEML") proceedings, members of that list are being targeted for derision. If an editor has evidence they wish to present against me regarding my edits and conduct, there are appropriate avenues for that. Otherwise, they are not welcome to slander me in their on-Wiki conversations. I request that Triplestop (most recent editor and example) et al. refrain from further disparagement, specifically to refrain from using the term "web brigadier":

1. being called a "web brigadier" at Russavia's talk page
2. as Triplestop has actively participated at the EEML proceedings, I request attention from clerk KnightLago
3. I notify Triplestop of same
4. I clarify the purpose of my notification, a simple retraction would suffice
5. Triplestop summarily dismisses my request as "harrassment" with no acknowledgement of my concerns

My experience is that it is all too common a practice on Misplaced Pages to label expressions of concerns from editors one holds in contempt as harassment. Particularly as I have had no interaction with Triplestop prior to the EEML proceedings, "harassment" is their labeling me a "web brigadier." Off-wiki, as the result of my privacy being violated by the EEML proceedings and the gross mischaracterizations of my conduct entered as evidence ("intent" being based on taking personal correspondence in manners not intended while conversely having shown no on-Wiki disruption and no change in on-Wiki conduct), I am now labeled an "ethno-facist Eurotrash faggot," complete with my picture and personal contact information. I wish to clarify whether or not my personal integrity is now open for abuse and slander on-Wiki as well.
   So as to avoid the usual and immediate charges of block-shopping (I didn't even know what that was until accused of it the first time I asked for intervention with a combative editor simply to tell them to calm down), let me be clear: this is a request for civility and retraction with apology of uncivil remarks, not a request to block Triplestop. Blocking serves no purpose as it requires no apology on the part of the blocked party; furthermore, if Triplestop is blocked, it will only be pointed to as Triplestop's being the latest "victim" of the "web brigade." Thank you.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  01:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have been subject to various attacks because of my comments favoring harsh sanctions against the EEML members. If any uninvolved editor has any legitimate concerns I am more than happy to address them. Triplestop x3 02:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This really seems like a matter more for WP:AC/CN than for here. MBisanz 02:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The comment was retracted within a half hour of your comment on my talk page. Triplestop left a comment telling you that here. I also already told him to stop using the term. See here. This all occurred 3 days ago. KnightLago (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

KnightLago, this thread appears to coincide with this comment on Anti-N's talk page. Note that I did not use the term Web Brigade there. Triplestop x3 02:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Triplestop, I only saw deletion of mine on your talk page as "harassment." You did not notify me of retracting your comment, nor did you apologize to me, you could have done so on my talk page. So I have yet to see the civility I have requested, only your protestation here that (as an EEML member) I am subjecting you to attacks because you believe I deserve harsh punishment. That is hardly an improvement, and, regardless, is no excuse for being uncivil. Thank you, KnightLago, for your followup.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  14:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Apology offered and accepted here. We can consider this closed, thank you.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  18:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin requested

• 188.192.121.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 188.192.127.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Both above IPs belong to the same user (they seem to alternate between them depending on which one is blocked). The anon has been trolling various milhist-related articles for a while now, and has been previously blocked for POV pushing and incivility. I had high hopes that they'd learned something about collaborative working after some interaction with them on the Battle of Verrières Ridge, but it seems not. They're still pushing a pro-German POV and insulting other editors (, , , ). I gave them a final warning some time ago, but I can't take action as I'm involved. EyeSerene 10:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked both 2 weeks. Cirt (talk) 10:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick response, thank you very much! EyeSerene 10:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries, Cirt (talk) 10:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

...and that was even quicker. Slow down mate, you're making the rest of us look bad :D EyeSerene 10:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, will do. :P Cirt (talk) 10:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Just a note that I've blocked 85.176.148.111 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as well; the account appeared overnight but it's clearly the same guy evading his block. However, I am involved, so if anyone feels my use of the tools is inappropriate I'll reverse my block and let someone else handle it :) EyeSerene 09:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Extended blocks on all three above IPs to one month, due to block evasion. Cirt (talk) 09:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Cirt. It's not like the IP doesn't occasionally have a valid point, but it seems they just can't edit collaboratively and any useful suggestions they make are lost in the insults, demands, accusations of bias and fakery, and general static. EyeSerene 09:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries, Cirt (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Drolz09

Drolz09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)

This account is using its user page to attack me in violation of WP:UP#NOT. I have asked the user to stop, repeatedly, but the user will not. The current version of the user page is still devoted to me, and consists of selected quotes from my user and article talk page contributions. This came about because the user has been engaging in deceptive and disruptive editing behavior on Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, particularly in this thread. The user has started the same discussion on that talk page, over and over again, proposing a POVFORK and is upset that consensus is against the creation of duplicate articles on the topic. I understand the frustration this editor is feeling, but I would like for this user to stop using its user page as a platform to attack me. Viriditas (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas has been engaged in a vendetta against me that has involved threats and personal attacks. My userpage was prepared with the eventuality of his pursuing formal action against me in mind. I have nonetheless avoided all reference to him on the page once he objected. Given the number of times he has invoked various wikipedia policies against me (which, upon my inspection, were manipulative and unwarranted) I am disinclined to delete my talk page based on his demand. Drolz (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I am currently working with other editors to ensure the page's compliance with all WP standards. Drolz (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• The page is now subject to an MfD, where opinion on how policy should be interpreted can be voiced. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This incident notice is quite premature. As I was (correctly) upbraided for bringing an incident here before exhausting resolution attempts with the involved party, so should this one be dismissed.--SPhilbrickT 16:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Link to MfD. That discussion seems to be more lively than this one, and is probably a more appropriate venue. If someone else agrees, would you please close this discussion? - 2/0 (cont.) 20:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but I want to point out that SPhilbrick is mistaken. I attempted to resolve the issue with the user several times, and the user refused to remove the material. It should also be noted that SPhilbrick appears to be advocating for Drolz09, which is fine with me, as the user needs all the help he can get. Viriditas (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for blacklist thingamabob

Hi, for some possibly strange, or stupid reason, various wikipedia help pages are the target of people trying to advertise their company. Is there some way to prevent this sort of thing from happening? Perhaps add a regex for phone numbers or emails or addresses in a post?— Dædαlus 12:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Unless we know in advance what they're posting, there's no reliable way to block it. We already have a blacklist for a lot of bad URLs and an abusefilter to filter out easily recognizable bad contributions, but this isn't one of those things that could've been prevented. Is it even prevalent enough? The Abusefilter generally deals with problems that are widespread rather than single incidents. (In my opinion, help pages can be protected against vandalism if they're repeatedly abused since they are not as often edited by non-admins as regular articles) - Mgm| 13:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • are you aware of other examples? Normally this sort of material can be removed easily enough. DGG ( talk ) 14:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• If it's just one editor, no need to modify the blacklist. If it's sock- or meat-puppets that are hard to block, temporarily adding the phone number or web site to a blacklist for new or anonymous editors might at least get their attention. A blacklist filter that logged the event to a place that admins followed would allow the editor's other recent and near-future edits to be scrutinized as well. With enough scrutiny, he'll get the hint. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• There are other examples, but I would have to search to find them. They're quite regular, if you know what I mean.— Dædαlus 22:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Funandtrvl using "WikiCleaner" to bypass redirects

Funandtrvl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was previously warned that he should not be bypassing redirects. I just gave him a final warning, and he is continuing ("copper extraction" to "copper extraction techniques", specifically, is a bad change). --NE2 18:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, was that a final warning? User:NE2 did not state that by using a uw-warning template, nor did said user use the word "final". At least when one is using "Huggle" that warning would be very clear to the user. Instead, I am interpreting it as a harrassing comment by User:NE2, and in fact, the sarcasm, as in "I'm telling Mommy" does not lead one to understand the seriousness of the threat. BTW, I am not a "he", but a "she". --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• I still fail to understand why this tool in its default state (?) make changes contrary to a long-standing guideline. My query back in October went unanswered. Perhaps we should disable it. –xeno 18:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Good point. NicoV has been inactive since September (both here and on the German Misplaced Pages). He has been slightly more active on the French Misplaced Pages. Hans Adler 02:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Buddhism

I'm not sure whether this is the right place to mention this. Please transfer if appropriate.

The other day User:Liamharper1234 was indef blocked for vandalism, including the above page. Now a new (?) user, User:Tran uh, has vandalized the same page. There's an obvious suspicion they're the same person. Peter jackson (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There's not really enough evidence to connect the two accounts (latter account only made one edit, the content of which was different than the former account). I would suggest watching User:Tran uh and reporting them to AIV if they continue to vandalize. TNXMan 18:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Ed Poor - POV and COI

For some reason Ed Poor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has never been banned or restricted from Unification Church topics. He has been engaging in low-level warfare on these articles for years, and has recently been smearing and needling User:Cirt who has been attempting to get Ed to conform to the rules. I won't paste difs here at this point under the presumption that enough old-timers exist to know what I'm talking about - but will begin pasting them if necessary. I suggest that enough is enough. Ed spends most of his time rewriting the bible at Conservapedia these days anyway. I don't remember the last time he made a truly helpful contribution to this site. I bring this here to gauge community feelings about a topic ban on all Unification church related articles. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 18:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Some backhistory:

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Ed Poor
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor: Ed de-sysopped.
• Ed Poor 2: A case involving Ed Poor. POV pushing and disruption. Ed Poor was party to two prior cases; the first was closed after Poor resigned his status as a bureaucrat, and the second resulted in his desysopping.
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Ed Poor (2)

From 2004 ArbCom elections - same problems we're seeing today, five years later:

KillerChihuahuaAdvice 18:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from Unification Church topics. Ed Poor (talk · contribs) habitually engages in disruption and violation of site policy on these topics, including violations of WP:BLP and WP:BURDEN. He makes unsourced changes and nonconsensus unsourced page moves . He adds unsourced information about WP:BLPs . Removes info from lede that per WP:LEAD is sourced verbatim later in article . These are but a few recent examples. Regarding his conflict of interest, he has acknowledged, I'm secretary to a major Unification Church leader and I am staunchly pro-Moon. Cirt (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

  If I were in violation of site policy, Cirt would provide evidence. Rather, he makes up his own interpretations of the rules. "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" is against the rules, but Cirt just did it here. Announcing what side I'm on doesn't mean I have a conflict of interest, as long as I can write neutrally. Give one example of me POV-pushing (rather than telling both sides where there are conflicting accounts), and I'll refrain from such edits in the future. Otherwise, ask Cirt to stop harassing me. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

  That's exactly the defense you used in the ArbCom case where you got banned from ever editing Intelligent design articles, isn't it, Ed? Do you really think everyone here is that stupid? KillerChihuahuaAdvice 19:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

  No, I'm the only stupid one here if it's stupid to think that demanding evidence (rather than votes) would stop me from suffering an unwarranted ban. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

  Unwarranted? Au contrair. Your entire history has been POV pushing, Ed. Most recently as placed on my talk page at User talk:KillerChihuahua#Disruption by Ed Poor at his conflict of interest. Are you really going to escalate this? KillerChihuahuaAdvice 19:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This in an example of the sort of personal attack that KillerChihuahua and others have been making against me in recent months. First of all, it's not relevant what I do on other websites but it's false that I'm "rewriting the bible" at Conservapedia or anywhere. Apparently KC is trying to destroy my credibility for some reason known only to her. Please encourage her to stop this.

I have not smeared or needled Cirt, and IIRC correctly making an accusation like that without evidence is in itself a personal attack.

The reason I've never been banned from topics relating to the Unification Church is that I am unusually gifted at writing neutrally about it, despite my affiliation. Barring evidence that I am violated WP:NPOV with my edits, I suggest that KC and the others who are harassing me are (perhaps unconsciously) trying to get their own biased views enshrined in articles and to censor alternative views.

All I do is add information which I believe is true; I'm always willing to dig up online or dead tree sources to back up anything I add to an article. Hardly anything I write on other topics is reverted, despite KC's needling crack above; I suggest an official warning is in order. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

We're just tired of your bullshit, Ed. I think Cirt's tired of cleaning up after you. I pretty much gave up years ago. If we have to I guess we can go for Ed Poor AbrCom 3, but that's an awful lot of work. It isn't like it isn't well known that you mostly edit to push the UC POV. You've even admitted in, somewhere in the past. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 18:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If you had any evidence of me POV-pushing, you'd supply a diff. Should be easy to find in my 30,000-plus edits if cleaning up after it is making people tired.

All I do is add balancing information to biased articles. Last time I checked, this was considered to enhance neutrality. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban from Unification Church topics. Frankly I'm surprised this is the only action being taken against this editor. Crafty (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

  If you wish to suggest stronger measures, I would support that. As seen in the (now collapsed) 2004 ArbCom opposes, he's been a POV pushing, rules-ignoring bigot since before I was even registered here. I would support up to and including a full site ban. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 19:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

  Now that the topic ban is in effect, let's see how he does. Breach it and be damned for all time - that sorta thing. Crafty (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

  Nod nod, quite agree. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 19:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from any article relating to Category:Unification Church and True Family, broadly construed. Long overdue. I am not familiar enough with edits in other areas to comment. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: according to Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2#Remedies 1.1) Ed Poor is placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article or set of articles by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive editing, such as edit warring, original research, and POV forking. All bans are to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2#Log of blocks and bans. I'm arguably involved enough in anything Ed-related, and Cirt is involved. Any uninvolved admin may ban him from Unification Church related articles and log it with no further steps necessary or indicated. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 19:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've banned Ed from any article or talk page related to Category:Unification Church. Does that resolve the situation for the time being? Kafziel 19:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

  I'd prefer Crafty's phrasing of "any article relating to Category:Unification Church and True Family, broadly construed" or else I'm concerned he'll just weasel his way around the edges. thanks much! KillerChihuahuaAdvice 19:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The diffs provided hardly justify any action. If they're the worst, they praise with faint damns. The rest seems quite ancient history. Absolutely everyone has a POV. Neutrality is a goal, not something anyone can perfectly practice, and COI is not a reason for excluding competent editors.John Z (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

  Please note I said "I won't paste difs here at this point" and by the time you objected that no difs had been posted, Ed had already been topic banned. He wasn't banned for any difs posted in this section, but for an overall history / continuing behavior. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 11:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I encountered Ed at WP:FTN, where this left me deeply unimpressed. Skinwalker (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Kafziel's entry of the new topic ban of Ed Poor from both articles and talk pages related to Category:Unification Church. I'm aware of Cirt being a patient and methodical editor on contentious topics so I find Ed Poor's response to Cirt's well-sourced comment above to be very disappointing. COI situations are often negotiated and can arrive at a good outcome, but Ed's approach is going nowhere fast. EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

User:NignogTheAfricanChildReturnsAgain appears to be an obvious block evasion account

Looks like the vandal NignogTheAfricanChild has created another blatant sock, this time User:NignogTheAfricanChildReturnsAgain. This particular vandal had already created one previous blatant block-evasion sock (NignogTheAfricanChildReturns) that has already been indef-blocked for vandalism. SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about labeling or reporting the socking; just take it to WP:AIV next time. Tan | 39 19:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

IMO, both names are offensive and should not be createable. Maybe an edit filter block for "Nignog / Nig-Nog"? Mjroots (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Zapped the account. TNXMan 19:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Along with anything else in the 71 kB of List of ethnic slurs (properly formatted to avoid false positives, of course). Wow, I guess I am actually glad I have never heard of most of those. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Or not. Let's keep out the big ones, but most of those are so obscure that I can't see anyone being offended. Better to take it on a case-by-case basis than to block 71k of plaintext words for no other reason than that somewhere, sometime they were considered racial slurs. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Realistically, yeah, wait until it is a problem is a better strategy for all but the most obvious. Heck, I had to look up the present case. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Redheylin persistent removal of RS material.

• User:Redheylin removed reliably sourced material from the article on three occasions in a matter of days: herehereandhere and also removed cite request tags, I requested that he cease.
• User:Redheylin makes accusations that insinuate edits were bad faith and requests cites.
• Cite offered, yet User:Redheylin then removes RS material, claiming it is incorrect.
• User:Redheylin follows with further accusation of bad faith editing,
• User:Redheylin refuses to check the cites despite material being readily available. Measles (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• User:Redheylin then rewrites and misattributes content. Measles (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the Rajneesh movement article coming around again, I am not involved but I see there is quite a bit of content dispute going on there for a couple of weeks, perhaps the differing of opinions over content would be better served with a Request for comment.Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes: after prolonged enquiry passage has so far turned out to be single reliable source attributed to four, with a "cause and effect" clause that was pure OS. User will not properly discuss this and other changes and has reverted several attempts to modify, along with the usual accusations. Redheylin (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(The "misattributes content" presumably refers to the three citations left supporting nothing, as noted on talk page, as seen in diffs....) Redheylin (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The wikipedia has WP:DR to deal with low level content disputes like this, please try to be less confrontational in your editing and if issues arise ask for uninvolved opinions. Off2riorob (talk)

No, sorry, found and corrected an error in my citation. (Feel I ought to add; this came about because actual source of passage was not cited but attributed to four others.) Redheylin (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Redheylin's editing is both lazy and disruptive, he introduces unsourced content, and poorly cited material, yet demands that others provide detailed text for their citations; because what he is reading does not adhrere to his point of view.

Why is it that he is incapable of using readily available resources such as google scholar, google books, etc. or a library, like the rest of us, in an attempt to verify the citations, rather that accusing others of falsifying content and original synthesis?

His primary objection relates to the presentation of "spirituality as business", yet multiple sources discuss Rajneesh's activities in commercial terms, (see below) so what basis is there exactly for stating that this is a skewed point of view, for removing cited content, accusing an editor of NPOV infringement, and then rewriting the content with sources misattributed?

• Goldman, Marion S. (2005), "When Leaders Dissolve: Considering Controversy and Stagnation in the Osho Rajneesh Movement", in Lewis, James R., Jesper Aagaard Petersen, Controversial new religions, Oxford University Press US.

• Urban, Hugh B. (2005), "Osho, From Sex Guru to Guru of the Rich: The Spiritual Logic of Late Capitalism", in Forsthoefel, Thomas A.; Cynthia Ann Humes, Gurus in America, SUNY Press.

• Carrette, Jeremy; King, Richard (2004), Selling Spirituality: The Silent Takeover of Religion, New York: Routledge.

• Urban, Hugh B. (2003), Tantra: Sex, Secrecy, Politics, and Power in the Study of Religion, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

• Mehta, Gita (1994), Karma Cola: Marketing the Mystic East, New York: Vintage.

• Mehta, Uday (1993), Modern Godmen in India: A Sociological Appraisal, Mumbai: Popular Prakashan.

• Carter, Lewis F. (1990), Charisma and Control in Rajneeshpuram: A Community without Shared Values, Cambridge Univerity Press.

• Wright, Charles (1985), Oranges & lemmings: the story behind Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, Richmond Victoria: Greenhouse Publications Pty Ltd.

Measles (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/138.47.24.37

Pretty much a vandalism-only account: (BLP issue, looks like) (BLP issue on this one) Warned: (a shame to have to do it all at once, but people had been failing to do so) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Schizombie&curid=4001648&diff=330923599&oldid=294478355 Шизомби (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The IP is registered to Louisiana Tech University - Voceditenore (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

PilgrimRose and Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher: Some admin with time on hand out there before it's getting out of hand?

Would some willing admin with time on hand take a look at this. It's a mess, I now but as I still at least try to assume good faith in the editor (don't know why by now to be honest), s/he just doesn't listen to ANY good faith advise given by several editors (mostly given at the article's talk page). It really could help a lot if someone uninvolved could step in. BTW, this is the very first post I've started here in my whole wiki-life and I wish it wouldn't have come to this. Also, I'm not looking for some immediate block or other similar actions against the editor, What I'm seeking is a strong, trustable (to the editor) admin with a soft but determined hand and politeness, able to approach the editor in question with all kindness and as much politeness as possible so s/he might listening. this issue is beyond a simple content dispute which can be worked out as there is plenty of time on hand to do so and no serious edit warring was going on either. It's simply just about the editors approach by not adhering to the very basic guidelines and policies of WP. Please see the editors and the article's talk page history for context. Thanks for listening. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This is all very vague. Can you possibly give some specifics with some diffs? AniMate 21:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, AniMate. It's vague and I posted it this way on porpoise since I don't want to make a big deal out of it. What I'm trying is to prevent that it becomes a "big deal" and therefore was and are still just looking for at least one uninvolved admin to take a look at it and keep his/her eye on it so it doesn't become one more unneeded and useless dramathread (which I'm not a fan of). If I start posting diffs I'm almost certain this thread will just end up in such (drama). AniMate, if you don't want to waste your time on this that would be absolutely fine with me. If I would be an admin I would think twice before getting involved here but there is the possibility that one or more (admins) would "waste" they're time in part on this issue. If I'm proven wrong and there is no improvement within reasonable time I might post diffs and else. Till then there is still hope from my side that it won't be needed. Thanks for responding anyways. Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Magnificent Clean-keeper keeps ignoring the real issue--hurling insults.

The issue here is that I posted a quote from the NPOV policy and was met with a personal insult. I was called "rude" and "arrogant" by an editor named Rturus for posting an excerpt from NPOV policy rather than linking to the article on NPOV policy. Clearly, such a personal insult was not deserved for such a minor stylistic issue. The editor then sent me a message with anti-American comments, including remarks about the U.S. being seen as a "bully" and "arrogant" and Misplaced Pages becoming too "USA-slanted". Then he again posted personal insults, two more times, such as calling me "rude, manipulative and disingenuous." Magnificant Cleaner appeared to be encouraging him by critcising me for technical failings, while ignoring the real issue of the personal insults. There have been numerous anti-American insults posted in the discussion page. Some are gone, some are still there. The point is that there should not be insults included in a discussion page. Some of the insults about the U.S. have been horrible. I believe that underlying the insults that Rturus has directed at me is his anti-American bias. While Magnificent Cleaner wants to couch this as a dispute over my lack of following formal rules, the fact is that I do not know what all of the rules are. Most importantly, that is a totally separate issue from the issue of hurling insults when you don't agree with an editor or when you don't like someone's country. Magnificent Cleaner seems to be condoning the use of personal insults on a talk page by intentionally ignoring that crucual issue while trying to shift the focus to minor tecnhical violations on editing. That all this is going on in the context of a discussion page where other anti-American comments once appeared and keep popping up is not productive to the production of a good article. PilgrimRose (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you guys might want to file an WP:RfC to get more eyes on the article. Since no one has provided a single diff, there really isn't an incident for us to deal with. If there are specific concerns about the treatment of those still living that were involved in the trial or murder, probably WP:BLPN would be better. Neutral point of view problems? WP:NPOVN. Reliable sourcing problems? WP:RSN. If there is a specific incident you would like administrative assistance with, this is the right board. I personally recommend a content RfC. AniMate 22:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

An RFC? No, sorry but this is, again, something I would like to prevent as it is not needed at all. Please, AniMate, I like you a lot but I am just looking out for an admin who is willing to place his eye on this article and it's talkpage before it gets out of hand. If that won't happen there is a good chance we end up here again with "real" drama and "tears to flow". I just think ANI should also be a venue for preventable complications but if you think different let's just close this thread for now and if needed I or someone else will open it up again when it becomes a "diva's" issue. Believe me I know first hand what that means in case you don't and it's not funny, (it torned my family apart). Sorry for my last personal input which was drama itself. :O Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd observe that, although opinions are strongly held and (IMO) there's really problematic bias issues in the article, conduct (with some exceptions) has not been too bad, all things considered. I have not actually noticed any edit-warring, for example. So, from that point-of-view you are right, AniMate, there is no incident and no reason to get involved.

Posting on NPOV may seem logical.

However, there's a key probem, in that it is not entirely clear how the article should be constructed. I have my own, very clear, view, but I suspect the article may be unprecedented in a number of respects. Should it be about a murder and subsequent trial? Should it be about the media depiction of those things (the issue here being that many feel that coverage has been distorted and should not be a guide to how weight should be applied in the article)? Is it really an article about Amanda Knox? If it is, is this appropriate?

Because of the nature of these questions, my view is that we are on quite novel terriotry and existing guidelines may be of little help. It is possible that we are flying blind.

So, in my view, it may be helpful for an experienced admin to just take a look, not with a view to any action, but maybe just to advise, acknowledging that this is beyond the call of duty.

Lastly, I don't agree with PilgrimRose's tendentious editing. However, I have not personally seen anything to suggest a serious, actionable problem with this particular editor. --FormerIP (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The latter was my intend and I made that clear. Although it needs an admin who is willing to give some of his/her time up and keep an eye on it. That is ALL the involvement I was looking for and I do think I was pretty clear in what I tried to achieve. If not I apologize for the distraction I might have caused.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, MCP, I'm certainly not having a go at you - apologies if it might have sounded like that. It feels to me like the article should have some sort of action taken, but it is not clear what, IMO. Perhaps you could say that the correct noticeboard has not yet been set up. That's not your fault. --FormerIP (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"the correct noticeboard has not yet been set up." Indeed and my try here went on deaf ears. So I guess this is the first and last time I'll start a thread here since I HATE drama. Guess you get my point. Thanks for your thoughtfull remark. Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I really am beginning to regret ever having tried to defend Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy in the subject article. PilgrimRose has reacted to every comment, correction and objection by anyone in a knee-jerk reaction of thinking s/he is being insulted, attacked and bullied. I strenuously object to PilgrimRose trying to paint me in a very unfavourable light by misquoting and misrepresenting my remarks and actions. I willingly submit (and encourage) users to read my personal message to RilgrimRose - which I have copied onto my talk page - and my remarks on the Kercher Murder talk page. I fully affirm that I referred to some of PilgrimRose's actions as arrogant, rude, manipulative and disingenuous. However those are not intended as personal insults but factual descriptions of the exhibited behaviour, and have also been echoed in other user's criticisms of PilgrmRose's actions. PilgrimRose also fails to acknowledge that I freely apologised to them for any offence which they had felt over my remarks which were not intended as a personal insult.

The general consensus of opinion (I believe) on the talk page is that PilgrimRose is not exhibiting a NPOV but is rather seeking to mount a campaign designed to paint the trial of Amanda Knox as a miscarriage of justice. Any remarks made to PilgrimRose asking for a more NPOV approach are being interpreted by PilgrimRose as personal attacks. I have clearly stated that I hold no views on the issue and am only seeking to maintain a NPOV, although I did infer in my personal message that I "viewed the trial with misgivings and apprehension". Nobody (least of all me) wants to see a miscarriage of justice but Misplaced Pages is not a place to campaign.

There has been blatant defamation of me by PilgrimRose in making unfounded allegations of an anti-American bias on my part by misquoting my information to them that: "On the subject of how the USA is perceived in Europe, you might like to have a look at the editorial pages of various news agencies over here. Many people feel that the USA has an arrogant and bullying approach to other countries. There has often been much disquiet about various activities and policies of the USA government and major corporations." I can only assume that their intention was to try to discredit me and garner support for their stance and actions. I have made no insults about the USA and PilgrimRose needs to retract the allegations.

I have at no time "bullied" PilgrimRose, nor have I sought to have them not participate. The hysterical response of PilgrimRose to all criticism and advice seems to me indicative of someone on a crusade. rturus (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

By posting insults and exaggerated complaints against another editor, that does indeed constitute a type of bullying. Editors are here to enjoy the experience of writing about an interesting topic. They should not have to put up with being insulted over and over by someone who does not agree with her views or holds unfavorable views of her country. Rturus says he apologized yet again hurls insults at me by again calling me "arrogant, rude, manipulative and disingenuous". His apology is phoney since he keeps defending and reaffirming his insults. Now he calls me "hysterical" for being offended by him. His tactics are obvious--make the situation as unpleasant as possible so that an editor whose views he does not agree with will go away. This is exactly the type of bullying tactic that has caused the vast majority of editors to quit Misplaced Pages, and should not be tolerated. PilgrimRose (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's it, I have had enough of this treatment.

Your method of editing was arrogant and rude, in that you posted (and lectured) at the top of the talk page and deleted other user's comments (mine included)- that is not to say that you are an arrogant and rude person - can you not see the difference? Perhaps you can suggest synonyms for those descriptions that you would not take as an insult? Again you ignore the fact that I apologised if my use of the words caused offence - do you just not see things that you don't want to see?

Your later editing was manipulative and disingenuous because you misquoted and misrepresented me on the Kercher talk page, using information that I had placed on your own talk page (in good faith and in a friendly spirit) without having the courtesy to reply to me personally. I am not the only editor that you have abused and reacted to, others have also remarked that your editing has been rude and disingenuous. The fact is that you are determined to press your agenda at whatever cost, insulting and disabusing me and other editors. You even launched a vicious attack on me on this page (repeating your deliberate misrepresentation of my words) without even the courtesy of informing me of your posting. I repeat that I was not making a personal attack on you, my original remarks were referring to the editing behaviours that I and others have objected to. It is obvious now that you are being disingenuous and manipulative because I have several times drawn your attention to the fact that you have misquoted me and yet you still persist in doing so. You again insist that I hold "unfavorable views" of your country when I have given you ample responses to the contrary. Do you think that trying to appeal to some sort of "McCarthyism" will garner you some sympathy from others? I will not resort to personal attacks on your character, that is something that you do to me, I am far too much of a gentleman to do such a thing.

It is my belief that you are using your attacks on me as an attempt to draw attention away from the fact that many editors have remarked on your frequent POV postings and obvious bias on the Kercher page. I also presume that you think that I will be cowed by your personal attacks and refrain from making NPOV suggestions in case people think I am bullying. I demand that you apologise with a full retraction here and on the Kercher talk page for your continued misrepresentation of me and I am formally asking that your continued behaviour towards me be reviewed by an admin. I also am happy to have my remarks reviewed also and if any further apology over any words I have used is required I will happily comply or accept any other justified sanctions rturus (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you want to "formally" ask for a review of someone's behavior, this isn't the place - WP:RFC is closer to what you're looking for, though still not "formal"... Tan | 39 18:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Rturus, I am asking that you leave me alone and stop with this cyberbullying. I want nothing to do with you. PilgrimRose (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Persistent personal attacks and disruptive editing by User:JettaMann

On Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, JettaMann (talk · contribs) is engaging in repeated personal attacks and disruptive editing despite a number of warnings. It appears from his talk page that he has a long history of tendentious editing on a series of articles. His problematic behaviour includes the following:

Personal attacks

• Repeatedly accusing other editors of being "AGW activists", "AGW apologists", "POV dicks" etc: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

POV-pushing and other tendentious editing

• Tendentious POV deletions of sourced content: , ,
• Promotion of fringe sources and using blogs as sources: ,

He has already been warned about his abusive behaviour by User:KillerChihuahua and User:Scjessey , but has ignored the warnings and continued regardless.

This editor has contributed literally nothing of value to the article and appears to be spending most of his time posting rants and personal attacks against other editors. I suggest (1) a block and (2) if it's not an indefinite block, then at least a topic ban from articles relating to climate science. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here. JettaMan has assumed bad faith and been rather uncivil about it, and should probably receive a block for it. The agenda-driven editing problem is more of a content dispute - not really an ANI-type problem - so any discussions of topic bans should probably be dropped until proper dispute resolution has been pursued. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion of a topic ban is based on his hostile POV-driven attitude towards other editors. I don't believe he is capable of contributing effectively in this topic area, given the way he regards other editors who do not share his obviously very strong opinions on the subject. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have experienced the same problems with him. There's a reason for WP:AGF. He's not the only one with that sort of corrosive attitude towards "AGW activists", but he's both the most hostile and one of the least likely to contribute useful ideas. Bear in mind that "AGW", as he calls it, is mainstream science. I think a topic ban would be very helpful - the article is bound to be contentious, which is all the more reason why we need editors to assume good faith. Guettarda (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

So... JettaMann accuses you guys of acting like a cabal, and to prove him wrong, you all come here to get him blocked. Drolz 09:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked him 10 days for disruptive editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved Admin Requested: User:Damiens.rf multiple JPG deletions and related matters

Please bear on the length: this matter involves the deletion of many images, associated with the work of many wikipedia editors, and multiple violations of multiple wikipedia policies. Thank You !!!

Starting on December 6-7 this user http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Damiens.rf has been the source of severe contention in various matters revolving the user's simultaneously singling out 12 Puerto Rico-related images for deletion http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Marine_69-71#toc, plus the bringing into potental deletion 3 more http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Marine_69-71#toc. In addition there are probably more, many more, that I probably do not know about, as I happened to stumble on an additional one by accident http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Marine_69-71#PONCE_MASSACRE.JPG since it was an article I had previously contributed to. Plus I believe this user has targeted all of these additional Puerto Rico-related images also: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_December_7.

There are several problems here:

• 1. User User:Damiens.rf failed to follow civility protocol, failed to first contact the user(s) in question for dialogue before engaging in marking such large number of JPGs for deletion, thus unnecessarily precipitating an offesive/defensive, warring environment.

• 2. The amount of time the user allotted to resolve the alleged problems (7 days http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Ponce_Massacre.JPG) for all the JPGs in question is unreasonable, it is not sufficient given the large number of JPGs the user marked for deletion in one lump batch.

• 3. The user appears not to be acting in good faith. There are several no-good faith concerns involving user User:Damiens.rf (Ex: See 2 such here: (1) see comment by Jmundo: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Marine_69-71#re:algo_raro. And (2) see comment by Cerejota: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_December_7#File:Old_Pr_baseball_game_poster.gif)

• 4. The user's rebuttals to the lengthy responses of editors who attempted to address the alleged problems would seem to indicate user is not really intent on resolving the alleged problems user is alleging, but to simply run a show of sorts where user is not part of a team but some sort of an aristocratic patriach intent only on finding fault with others and putting them to do the actual work. See, for example, "try to discover what happened to the newspapers archive, or actually, to the archives copyright!" at http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Marine_69-71#PONCE_MASSACRE.JPG. On another occassion, which I just can't put my finger on right now, user Damiens.rf was directing an editor involved in one of the PR-related images to go to his relatives (that editor's relatives) to get the necessary copyright information. (this is how I vaguely remember Damiens.rf's rebuttal went). And, I am afraid I am not the only editor with this view (see, for example, Jmundo's "If you don't like the quote from an ACLU report that directly discussed the image, and the placement of the image in the article, so fix it!. Maybe other editors from WP:PUR are busy trying to save the images you nominated for deletion." at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_December_8#File:Ponce_Massacre.JPG)

• 5. The user's sometimes sarcastic closings (see, for example, the context in which the user User:Damiens.rf used the closing phrase "See you." in http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Damiens.rf#Edit_warring), though not exactly against policy that I know, leaves much to be desired from an administrator.

• 6. The user engaged in edit warring with several other editors and administrators (

User: Caribbean HQ: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nationalist_attack_of_San_Juan&diff=prev&oldid=330447097

User: Marine 69-71: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Black_history_in_Puerto_Rico&diff=next&oldid=330343664

User: AntonioMartin: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nationalist_attack_of_San_Juan&diff=next&oldid=330490630).

• 7. The user also involved him/herself in further lack of civility via name-calling (see "imbecile" at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_December_7#File:Old_Pr_baseball_game_poster.gif)

• 8. The user's behavior (which could be described as arrogant ) is inconsistent with a community working together.

• 9. The user's overall intentions (note -- not necessarily as evidence but as an example to be taken with the rest of user's all other actions -- note the user's use of double quotes around "vote" in "I would "vote" to keep it" at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_December_8#File:Ponce_Massacre.JPG) would appear to be un-democratic. That is, that regardless of the input, effort, and even correctness of the other editors responding, the user has already premeditated the files will be deleted (This is called "malice" in some places).

• 10. The user is not supported in the JPG delete actions for what appears to be most, but maybe all, of the files by any of the editors commenting (Ex: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_December_8#File:Ponce_Massacre.JPG). The only possible exception to this so far is an editor User: Rama previously unknown who has appeared seemingly out of nowhere, and who is involved him/herself in the same type of "nondemocratic", "I-don't-care-what-the-other-editors-think-say-or-want-I-will-do-it-my-own-way" type of behavior (see Rama's "I do not care whether people disagree with me or not, this is not a democracy. If you want to vote reality out of existence, do that in a sandbox. I am very obviously right, and no matter of how many people are wrong and disagree with me, they are still wrong." at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin:Rama_ignoring_previous_consensus.2C_refusing_to_gain_new_consensus)

• 11. The user's overall who-cares? attitude (see, for example, "Now live through your own drama. I'm tired.--" at http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Damiens.rf#Edit_warring) is overall nonproductive, in so far as this batch delete project the user has undertaken.

The user's behavior of not showing consideration to the editors involved is clearly unwelcomed (given the negative feedback user has gotten from everyone (5-7 users) that has reacted to user's style just in the PR project) and, to myself, counterproductive, and I believe counterproductive to probably other editors as well (see for Ex: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Caribbean_H.Q.#Just_a_thought).

I don't doubt that something good can come out of all of this: sharper abuse management skills, a renewed review of wikipedia behavioral policies, more detail written into some articles, etc. If improvement is what the user seeks, there is no doubt there will always be room for more improvement - even after user gets done with this exercise. However, the user's methods violate wikipedia's community behavioral policies. The problem here is that the user's behaviour is resulting in more damage than good: edit warring, name-calling, threats, undue scrutiny of seemingly no-randomly selected images, in short, an athmosphere of distrust and low morale. The problem is that while a few of this user's comments might be helpful, overwhemingly they are not, and, even if they were all helpful, they come tainted with the indignant mark of that user's aggressive behaviour. The user has at this point damaged beyond repair his/her ability to operate civily in this Project.

• I petition that the user be banned from further work in PR images in question and in any other PR-related images in wikipedia.

• I petition that, at least while this matter is resolved, that all PR-related images user has tagged as nominated for deletion be hereby postponed beyond the 12/14/09 deadline. Thanks.

• I petition that a different, neutral, less intransigent editor or administrator with greater ability to get others to work in a collaborative environment be asked to review all the images in question and determine if, in effect, there is any problem with them, for follow up.

Regards Mercy11 (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have notified User:Damiens.rf --NeilN 21:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really inclined to read through this wall of text and diffs (short messages are usually preferable), but making assumptions about an editor's personal life is unacceptable; please redact these statements. –Juliancolton |  21:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I gave it a quick read through. Damiens.rf has a history of nominating huge numbers of images for deletion at the same time, usually uploaded by the same user. Having to scramble through huge numbers of your contributions can be demoralizing and a huge time suck. Personally, I'd like to see him restricted in someway in regards to the number of uploads he can nominate for deletion in a 24 or 48 hour period. Also, he certainly doesn't do much to inspire a collegial environment around here, though that should be addressed at WP:WQA most likely.AniMate 21:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec with AniMate) Damiens.rf specialises in non-free image cleanup. This work is often bound to get affected users angry, but that doesn't mean it isn't legitimate. Damiens has a lot of expertise and experience in this, and the huge majority of his nominations are soundly argued and usually find the consensus of well-informed image administrators. Yes, he can be brusque at times, but this seems to be a minor issue in the present case. So, in short: no, forget it. He will not be "banned" from doing this job, and the images he nominated will be reviewed in the normal way like all others. Mercy: your whole approach of making this a "Puerto Rico" topic-related issue, as if that country as a topic area needed some special protection from an "attack", shows you have gotten something fundamentally wrong here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Minor now... sorry but I'm starting to see a trend with some of the users who get involved in this particular bit of work on wikipedia, this may need a much larger looking at by the community.--Crossmr (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Future Perfect: As you have addressed me directly, I hereby respond to your statement. You seem to have missed a major point altogether: I have singled out PR in my discussion based not, as you claim, on a belief PR deserves some special protection from an attack, but because that country is the home-base wikiproject (WP:PUR) for an article I had substantially worked on (Ponce Massacre) and which contains an image (Ponce Massacre.jpg)) that was NfD'd by Damiens.rf.

What is at the core of this whole discussion is, When confronted with a choice between uncivil good work and civil but not so good, which choice will you pick? Oftentimes people become so puffed up from having developed a lot of expertise and experience in certain subject area that they forget about the human element of a collaborative work. Whether to-be-banned or not to be, is a secondary matter that can be handled as a second phase. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I agree with both AniMate and Future Perfect, at least in part. As Future Perfect points out, User:Damiens.rf has accumulated a lot of expertise and experience in dealing with non-free images, and has provided much useful service by identifying problems with images. At the same time, I share AniMate's perception that Damiens.rf's nominations of images for deletion tend to have demoralizing effects on other users, the vast majority of whom are utterly befuddled by the rules on images. It appears to me that Damiens.rf intimidates other users with his(?) superior knowledge of image copyrights and fair-use justifications. I doubt that this intimidation is intentional -- it's just something that has happened. I'd like to ask Damiens.rf to take pity on other users who lack his thoroughgoing knowledge (i.e., most of the rest of us) by making a couple of changes to his modus operandi:

1. Instead of telling other users that their "fair use" justifications are incomplete or incorrectly formatted, assist them by revising their justifications (if they appear to have merit) or explaining to them what the problems are.
2. When dealing with an apparently non-free image that has been in use in Misplaced Pages for more than about 6 months, refrain from nominating the image for deletion until after contacting (on user talk pages) all currently active registered users who appear to have an interest in the image (i.e., the uploader, people who have edited the image page, and people who have made substantial edits to articles that use the image) to identify and explain the problem, listen to the other users' points of view, and advise on resolving the situation (if possible).

--Orlady (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I could hardly agree less. We have a big problem here, but it has nothing to do with Damiens.rf. The problem here is these other users, the ones you're wasting your sympathy on. Anyone who is "demoralised" by the removal of non-free content is entirely missing the point of what we're trying to do here. If editors feel that they are being made to jump through hoops to justify the use of non-free content, that's right and proper. Those who seek to retain it should work hard to justify every single piece of non-free content.

We should be ruthless, relentless and remorseless in removing non-free content. This is a 💕. Every time we add something to it that's not free and not absolutely necessary for our readers' understanding we can chalk that up as a failure. Every time we remove something that's not free and replace it with something that is, whether that's better-written text or some other sort of content, that counts as a success. Here endeth the lesson. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"We should be ruthless". Really? Are we in a collaborative project or a game? No wonder editors are leaving Misplaced Pages. You can enforce policy and be civil about it. I don't understand why he can't engage the uploader or the project before mass nominating similar images. --Jmundo (talk) 02:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You may be confusing ruthlessness and rudeness but I'm not. There are many thousands of non-free images on Misplaced Pages which do not meet the EDP. Deleting these is doing the Right Thing. And will ruthlessly deleting them upset people? Yes it probably will but we can't not delete such images just because someone might leave in a huff. We should try to avoid making things worse by being rude or aggressive but that cuts both ways. Experienced editors whose non-free images are sent to FFD shouldn't overreact either. It's not a personal attack any more than nominating "their" category or template would be. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, this is why sometimes I whish WP:DRAMA still redirected here ;). I'll try to be brief but will fail.

1) Damiens specializes in a generally thankless, but important job. I agree with the comments that ask that we keep this is mind.

2) I have also tried to approach the matters with him in a civil and honest manner, including my unease at assuming good faith in this case. I have done some what in the deletion discussions, but mostly in his talk page. He has been generally civil, except one instance of borderline dickery - the usual trick of "am calling your actions 'imbecile' not you" etc.

3) However, the issue here is how he approaches this work. The massive nature doesn't allow - in spite of his denial - for a real nuanced approach to the fair use criteria. Damiens seems to use a general criteria that is his interpretation of global consensus. However, fair use doctrine is by definition a case-by-case one by which other than defining what it is *not*, everything else is open to reasonable interpretation. My discussion with him on his talk page illustrates this point, for example, he claims one image lacks any intrinsic

4) I think AniMate's comments mostly approach my experience. The problem is not the activity per-se, but the approach to this activity. Basically, in this particular case, he is targeting a series of articles actively maintained and curated by an active Wikiproject made up of a fair number of veteran editors and administrators. Rather than this meaning any special status, it means that common sense tells you that you should approach the matter differently. In fact, Tony the Marine deleted or changed the criteria for a number of images when Damiens' rationale proved to be unquestionable. Damiens, in other words, in failing to assume good faith.

5) Ultimately, the community except in speedy deletion cases, always prefers that people talk things out before going to third parties. It seems damiens sees this common sense community approach unapealing, and prefers a strict, policy based approach. I understand this is a debate with camps etc, so I am not arguing that he is doing something inherently wrong. I am saying that in my opinion, this is a highly unproductive way to proceed, that ends up in AN/I instead of fixing the article space and its images.

I think Damiens is well intentioned, but perhaps should trust the community to be able to learn the intricacies of fair use doctrine, and that it too shares his concern about minimizing the use of fair use images. However, he also shoudl have a little bit of patience:There is no deadline. --Cerejota (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I will say this again, the problem is not nominating the images. The issue is the way that said action was done. The user was highly sarcastic in his approach to edits trying to fix the issues that he claims, calling the contributions either "jokes" or "idiotic ". Mass nominating at once doesn't help either, Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project, in order to fix things we need to collaborate. By mass nominating dozens of pictures at once he is creating a massive backlog for a project, he can't really expect to have the issues resolved as fast as he is nominating, seeing that he seems to have limitless time to do so. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Since I have been discussed here, I think that it is only fair that I express myself. This discussion is not about the removal of non-free images. Those that do not meet Misplaced Pages policy must be removed. Damiens' expertise is images and he is a good editor. I have had the pleasure of interacting with him over a year ago. I agree with Caribbean H.Q. that there some who have misunderstood what is really being discussed here and have missed the point of the issues involved, which are the mass nomination of one editors upload and the name calling which went on during the process.

1. I believe that mass nomination of an editors uploads is a unproductive stressing situation for the uploader and in some cases may give the impression that the nominator has agenda. It should have been handled in different manner. If the situation involves numerous images, the nominator could point out the situation to the uploader by a simple discussion, giving the uploader the opportunity to fix or find a solution to the situation. If that doesn't work then nominate. There are some nominations made by Damiens which I do not agree with, especially those which I consider historically significant, however I realized that others were within reason and I deleted them. I have to add that even though in some cases we did not see eye to eye, Damiens has began to discuss some of the images in my talk page with reasonable logic and as such I have deleted or replaced some of the images. Damiens has also helped in some of the image formats.

2. I found the name calling on Damiens part rude and offensive. It was uncalled for and as a result tensions rose. There is no need for such actions during the process. Discussions should be carried out without any name callings or offenses Even though I am an administrator, I am not a know it all. I have dedicated myself to the creation of historical and military related Puerto Rican articles and therefore I have kept updated in regard to changes in image policy. But, I am not an "imbecile." However, I also sinned by warning Damiens with a "block" for his conduct during the process, when I should have discussed the issue in ANI. The bottom line is that discussions should be carried out in a civil manner without what any words which any of the parties may consider offensive. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Agree w/comments by Mercy, AniMate, Crossmr, and Jmundo. I've looked at the diffs, and believe if people looked at them carefully they would reach the same conclusion. This isn't just a matter of someone civilly doing a good job. It completely uncivil. And unacceptable. The loading up on individual editors, when coupled with the incivility, does much to suggest that the presumption of AFG may well be rebutted by the behavior. There's not deadline here on wikipedia, as has been pointed out. Damiens should slow down and be civil. If we had to choose between "uncivil good work", and no contributions at all from his, I would go for the latter. I would hope, however, that with input from the community he can become a civil, helpful contributor. I should note, btw, that I've found his recent AfD judgment to be markedly poor here, which reflected a complete failure to do a wp:before nom review for sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but this whole meme about "it's bad to nominate multiple images by the same uploader" just needs to be rejected. This has come up repeatedly, including Arbcom proceedings and RfCs, and the result is always the same: it's just not a reasonable demand. If an image reviewer comes across a whole group of images of a similar kind uploaded under similar conditions for similar articles by the same editor or small group of editors, of course the natural reaction is to try and deal with them all in one go. How else would one be able to go about it efficiently? Do people really think it would be a reasonable and efficient way of dealing with problematic images if you were obliged to just randomly pick one here and one there? And what good would it do to just "slow it down", as some have demanded? It would cause the same pain, and only spread out the pain over a longer period. Seriously, as long as the main objection against Damiens' work seems to be the fact of the batch nature of his nominations, I can't see any merit in them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
    • That's fine, but just because its a thankless job, or really hard, or whatever the excuse du jour is, doesn't mean they get a pass on civility, plain and simple. There are zero exceptions built into the policy that say "If you had a bad day..." "if you made 10 good contributions today.." "If you think what you're doing is for the good of mankind.." etc. I'll also re-raise the point that I feel there seems to be a trend with some users, this particular field of work and civility. As mercy pointed out I'd rather have someone who can be civil and only work at 50% of the speed than someone who works twice as fast but pushes you out of the way to get there.--Crossmr (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

To stay on track, the core issue here, as in my submission, is: When confronted with a choice between uncivil good work and civil but not so good, which choice will you pick? Said differently, What constitutes a good editor, one that has expertise in some area, or one that has expertise in some area and can behave civilly? Oftentimes people become so puffed up from having developed a lot of expertise and experience in certain subject area that they start to believe that also earns them the right to be ruthless, relentless and remorseless with other editors. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you really expect us to pick "civil but not so good"? If this was just about incivility, you wouldn't have needed such a huge wall of text to say it. No, the core of this thread is non-free images being deleted, and rivers being cried over it.--Atlan (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The core discussion is neither what Mercy says, or Atlan says: its about Damiens, using policy as his weapon, ignores other equally valid policy. Not being civil and not being collaborative is as against policy (not to mention harmful and as unproductive) as including non-free images with sketchy criteria.

That said, the only policy I really care about is that we are writing an encyclopedia.

I am troubled by comments such as Atlan's that seem to ignore the purpose we are here for, which is to write an encyclopedia, not enforce policies. Damiens work is needed, but it is not more important than advancing the goal of writing an encyclopedia. Justifying his behavior only serves to reinforce is mistaken belief that the way he is doing thing is productive. --Cerejota (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• The problem is not the deletion of images based on policy, but Damiens' aggressive tactics and lack of communication. He mass nominate images here and then goes to Commons where he doesn't notify the uploader. BTW, it was a simple request and he withdrew the nomination (1). When does it becomes pointy? --Jmundo (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Scientific opinion on climate change - review of Tedder's actions

At Scientific opinion on climate change, User:Tedder reverted a tag 4 times, then protected the article. This was reported at AN3 which resulted in a warning. I don't think Tedder should have been blocked (as I said) but he should withdraw the protection and withdraw from the dispute: he has become involved.

I am seeking review of his actions William M. Connolley (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've notified Tedder of this thread, on his talk page. Basket of Puppies 22:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOP is considered bad form. --GoRight (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

He should either remove the protection or the tag, he can't have both. Unfortunately, he should be considered involved now. Verbal chat 22:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Tedder is involved. Being involved in a content dispute, violating WP:3RR and then protecting the page to his preferred version is not appropriate. Since he has become involved I would suggest the page be unprotected to the last version since his protecting and Tedder asked to not take administrative actions on this article. Basket of Puppies 22:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Contrary to his assertion on AN3 that he had not commented on the article, his comments on his talk page show otherwise, and that he did have a position. He stated quite clearly that he thought the POV tag should be readded. He then edit warred to keep it, and when that didn't work, protected the page to his preferred version. in blatant violation of the protection policy. -Atmoz (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Not one of these diffs relates to anything but the war over the POV tag, which he originally mediated by blocking those who were adding the tag last week. The tag was removed, and a week later the dispute has not been resolve, so GoRight asked for the tag to be added from the same admin who enforced its removal. When he tried to do that, the other side edit-warred. Instead of blocking them (which he had every right to do), he reverted in the hopes that they would stop. They didn't and then they reported him for 3RR. Verbal and WMC should be blocked for warring with an uninvolved admin, just as GoRight was blocked last week. These games have to stop on the GW pages. ATren (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing with me. Tedder took a position on whether the POV tag should be in the article. He then edit warred to keep it in the article. Then locked the page in his preferred version. These are the facts, and they are not disputed. -Atmoz (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Tedder's previous position was the opposite of his current position! He blocked those adding the tag last week, and when the dispute wasn't resolved, he decided it would be best to add it back in. He has never (as far as I can tell) been involved on the GW pages, and he only came here because of the edit war on the POV tag which was ongoing. That's not involved, that's following up on the dispute. By that logic, any admin who ever protects an article is banned from protecting it ever again. ATren (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No. At that point, Tedder stated he would block anyone for adding or removing the tag. Less than 24 hours ago, he changed his position to endorse the addition of the tag. That was when he ceased being uninvolved. If he was truly uninvolved, he would not have done any reverting but would have simply protected the page on the WRONG version. -Atmoz (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No, please review the diffs. Tedder reverted the first time as well when he blocked GoRight and ZuluPapa5. In that case, of course, he reverted to your preferred version. So did you consider that an involved block? Because by your definition above, it was. Yet even though Tedder was "involved" back on Dec. 2, WMC saw fit to request more admin action from Tedder against ZuluPapa5. Why would he seek admin action on Dec. 2 if he was involved? Apparently, WMC didn't think he was involved on Dec. 2. It was only today, when Tedder took the exact same action against WMC's side of the debate did WMC suddenly cry "involvement". Sounds like admin involvement is a sliding scale for WMC. ATren (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Tedder has not been involved on that page. There has been an ongoing dispute on that page for maybe a week now, and Tedder never made a single contribution to that debate. As the debate went on, the two sides were warring over the tag as discussion continued on talk. Tedder blocked two editors on one side of the debate and the POV-tag war ended, temporarily. But the dispute remained.

Fast forward to yesterday, when GoRight asked to add the tag back after a week of no progress in the dispute. Tedder agreed. The other side (Verbal & WMC) reverted him a total of 4 times. Tedder probably should have protected the page, but he has said he didn't believe those editors would revert-war on that tag. He's obviously new to the global warming debate, since this kind of edit warring is common among 3 or 4 editors on the pro-GW side.

In any case, the dispute is ongoing, and Tedder's argument was that the POV tag should remain until it goes through dispute resolution. I have been following the GW pages for a year now, and I've never seen Tedder on any of these pages. His only involvement was last week, when he blocked editors on the other side of the debate. ATren (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Note WMC's comment on Tedder's level of participation in the debate, . --GoRight (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not restrict tedder from administrative actions in this topic area. Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident and the Copenhagen conference are making it a hotbed of disputes right now, and they have been invaluable in trying to maintain a calm and collegial editing environment. Edit warring the tag in was wrong, sure, we all see that; there is an active meta-dispute and if we can resolve that quickly - great. There is plenty of talkpage discussion, so I really could not care less whether we let the tag abide for four days or remove it now. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not "four days." GoRight's stated intent (in which Tedder apparently concurs) is to keep the article tagged until all avenues of dispute resolution have been exhausted, up to and including an Arbcom case. That means the tag could stay up for six months or more. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

And why is that a problem? ATren (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I was pointing out an error in the previous post, and did not state or imply that it was a "problem." You may want to consider not imputing things to people that they did not actually say. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, my apologies for misinterpreting. So, to be clear, is it not a problem for you then? ATren (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yet another thing that I did not say... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Four days is the length of the protection. It should also be plenty of time to determine whether the current tagging is an effort at genuine discussion or IDIDNTHEARTHAT. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I must have misinterpreted what "let the tag abide for four days" referred to. Apologies for adding to the confusion. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I was unclear. On an unrelated note - has this thread been completely derailed from something AN/I can deal with? Four hours and a scant handful of uninvolved editors seems a little light, but I am tempted to ask that it be closed anyway. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy. My only involvement on this page has been to stop the edit warring that has been occurring over the {{POV}} tag after it was reported 10 days ago to WP:RFPP. My first involvement was to set up some ground rules to keep the POV tag from being inserted as that seemed the right thing to do . I protected the page, blocked a few users who edit warred after my talkpage rule.

As ATren says, I decided the POV tag should be included when GoRight posted to my talk page, as the POV "issues" hadn't been resolved. I told GoRight to include it, then I re-added it after it was removed by various editors. I specifically didn't ask GoRight or others to undo these removals as the intent was to not have this turn into an editor-based edit war again. My edit summaries on the additions made this pretty clear: "unexplained removal of maint tag" after a SPA, likely "bad hand" account added it, " leave the POV tag in place. Discuss on talk page and/or on my talk page." after WMC removed it, "it's been justified. Do not edit war with the tag. Leave it, take concerns to the talk page." after Verbal removed it, "as I said, don't edit war over this tag. See endless discussions on talk page." after Verbal removed it the second time.

I've purposefully tried not to be involved in this article, and I've repeatedly suggested it go through the steps on WP:DR, likely WP:MEDCAB. Hopefully this discussion will at least spur some interest from other admins, hopefully some that are better at untangling and resolving these sort of issues. I've given it the best effort I am capable of doing with my adminly hat on. tedder (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Without accusing either principal editor involved in this section, I would very much like to ask for more administrative eyes on the whole nexus of global warming/climate change/IPCC articles. Since the email disclosure incident, the onwiki climate has seriously deteriorated to the point where it's headed for WP:PLAGUE territory, with editors acting on the principle that things are right or wrong according to the effect that rightness or wrongness would have on their political beliefs, and judging other editors as culpable or blameless according to the advantage they perceive for some editorial side. Neutral intervention is very much needed. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"Then, as debates over global warming often do, the discussion dissolved into incomprehensible shouting." MastCell  00:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I'm a bit confused. Is it ok for admins to edit war to a version of an article they like, then protect that version? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 04:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks so, doesn't it? The question I'm trying to figure out is whether Tedder has acknowledged what he did wrong here. Guettarda (talk) 07:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Tedder's reply to the 3RR report seems receptive to moving forward within the community norms. They seem to be working through the RFPP board right now, so make of that what you may. My position, basically, is that we need more admins working in controversial areas, and should try not to excoriate the ones we have without dire cause; I acknowledge the seriousness of the principle involved, but I still see this as a minor incident not like to be repeated; I further acknowledge that I have something of a vested interest in hoping that the community may forgive but not overlook any mistakes I will probably make working the same area. tedder was clearly not involved at that article before today; there are reasonable arguments on either side for involvement status after having expressed an opinion on whether the talkpage debate warranted an {{NPOV}} tag; I really wish that the sides of the present debate did not align so neatly with the battle lines drawn in the topic area of climate change generally. Personally, I lean towards the revert, admonish, and move on solution ({{resolved}}?); I advise against lifting the protection just yet unless there is an enforceable consensus here regarding the tag. Other not necessarily exclusive reasonable resolutions to this thread include: admonish but leave the tag; request that tedder not use the admin bit on that article; request that tedder not use the admin bit in that topic area or with those editors (to be defined more rigorously if necessary); and request that WP:WikiProject Meteorology or WP:WikiProject Environment open a discussion on the organization of these articles (see Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change for the antecedent of these). - 2/0 (cont.) 08:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, the POV tag is useful for articles that have only a few regular editors. In these cases, it draws the attention of other editors to possible problems. In the case of the many Global Warming articles and their related BLP's, there are already enough people representing many different points of view. There is really no need to advertise for more editors to get involved. On the other hand, it make sense to place some kind of indicator at the top of the articles to warn readers that these pages are very controversial. I believe that Template:Controversial would be appropriate for that. A better solution might be to create a special GlobalWarming template for these articles, in that way we could agree on less generic text AND provide a link to a page discussing the problems of producing a balanced NPOV article. (Yes, I am suggesting that it is time to have an article about the problems of creating good Global Warming articles. It may be OR, but it could be useful to people using wikipedia.) Q Science (talk) 07:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I think Controversial is a better template for this particular article than NPOV. That being said, I suggest we wait until some outcome to the current discussion is apparent before changing it, to avoid further muddying the waters. One issue at a time seems best here. As for the essay, that sounds like a great idea. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that {{Controversial}} is intended to be used on an articletalk page. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Originally posted to Tedder's talk page, but he has requested I post it here where I presume he will answer: Tedder, "As you have admitted edit warring over this tag and incorrectly reverting and protecting, despite prior warning, please undo your fourth revert and remove the tag, or justify its presence on the article talk page. I do want to add that I feel you had good intentions, yet you still broke two rather basic rules and need to fix that. Thanks," Verbal chat 18:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I've asked an uninvolved admin to review my tagging and protection of the page. tedder (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Errr ... isn't that what this thread was supposed to do? 131.137.245.206 (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No, this thread was designed so that the ususual suspects could argue about global warming. Actually adressing adminstrative misconduct was not the goal here, regardless of the fact that that waas the expressed goal. Hipocrite (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• I have reviewed the protection at Tedder's request. Regardless of whether or not it was appropriate for Tedder to make the block himself, there was an edit war occurring, and there is still a lot of debate on the talk page, so I won't be undoing the protection. I also won't be getting involved in the dispute, so the wrong version will continue to stand as the protected version, and I will monotor for further edit warring after protection expires. You can more or less consider me the protecting admin at this point, as Tedder indicated to me on my talk page that he would not be taking any further action in this matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You declined to adress if Tedders actions were appropriate. Regardless of results, it was my understand that users were not to edit war, that admins were not supposed to protect favored versions, that admins were not supposed to protect articles they were involved in, and that admins were not granted the power to "bless" tags. Were my understandings incorrect? If they were, we need to update a few pages. I'll get right on that, shortly. Hipocrite (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

As you said, I declined to address those issues. I am not endorsing or condemming Tedder's actions or getting involved in this dispute. I was asked as an uninvolved person who regularly deals with page protection to simply review the protection and take whatever action I thought best, and that is what I have done, and all I will be doing. I think we can assume Tedder has got the message after all this drama. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

User:AlasdairGreen27 trolling once more

AlasdairGreen27 (talk · contribs) - He's trolling again, and I'm not entirely sure what the appropriate response should be (particularly since I'm the one targeted this time, not a third party). After getting temporarily blocked a few days ago for repeatedly reinserting text calling another editor (AndreaFox2) a tw*t (and no, that's not an 'i' where the * is), he's now trolling again at Talk:Josip Broz Tito. Specifically, calling me antisemitic for daring to suggest that an antisemitic individual can be a reliable source for information that has nothing to do with Jews (he's been discounting sources based on ad hominem attacks like this, as opposed to addressing the substance of the source itself). It's gone beyond mere assumption of bad faith and is now going to active accusations, both in the text of the talk page and the edit summaries (which can't be undone so easily). Reverting his edits and warning him myself would be pointless (I don't like rewarding trolls), so I'm requesting help here.

I doubt he honestly believes any of it, but like the previous case, he either gets worked up, or wants to get others worked up, so he resorts to trolling. I've got a notification of this ANI post queued up on his talk that I will submit the moment after this posts. —ShadowRanger  22:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Final warning given. That's almost just about enough of that. Tan | 39 22:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Shadow is Jewish, so knowing Al it might well have been a joke. In bad taste perhaps, but it got me laughing. ;) --DIREKTOR 22:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, can't see anything funny about it myself. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You know, just because an editor behaves like a stubborn, bratty child doesn't necessarily mean that they are a troll.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes but when someone you have never heard of (AlasdairGreen27) posts on your talk page a notice accusing you of being a sock puppet for someone else you have never heard of (Brunodan) and follows up with a message that he is working on a sock puppet investigation against you then it becomes slightly disturbing. Especially when it appears that Brundodan is an Italian editor and you live in New Zealand! If Misplaced Pages has to have aggressive vigilantes (trolls?) then they should be required to do a minimal amount of checking before blazing away.Buistr (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the typical demographic of Misplaced Pages editors, your remark hits uncomfortably close to home. Jehochman 13:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Gigs

OK, Hu12 and I do strongly disagree with the wording of the Rfc that has just opened, while both of us did try to provide a better wording. Strong words have there been said, some of which are to the strong disagreement of Gigs.

Gigs now plainly assumes bad faith on the editors (mainly administrators) who work on the spam blacklist, accusing Hu12 of admin abuse (something of which there they does not provide proof), and when called on that (and diff they appears to feel they has the right to say those things, because there were wrongdoings on them as well. I [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Gigs&diff=prev&oldid=330961978 warned Gigs, and asked him to retract, but no.

Could I have some uninvolved admins resolve this situation? Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra 23:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe the diffs largely speak for themselves. My comments were in reply to Hu12's accusation that I opened the RfC as some kind of soapbox or petty revenge for a single blacklist request that he denied. That's clearly not the case. I don't believe there is community consensus for citing the reliability of a source in black or whitelisting decisions. The RfC is to gauge that consensus. As I said there, I could have made this issue personal, but I have tried from the start to avoid that. I could have opened a behavioral RfC, I did not. I'm merely asking for Hu12 to assume good faith on my part. Gigs (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, Gigs, I'd like you to show proof of admin abuse, if that is what you claim. For now, you just believe there is no consensus (strangely, WP:RS, WP:V are based on consensus). --Dirk Beetstra 23:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't specifically claim there is admin abuse. My comment was that I could have framed the issue as abuse, but I refrained from doing that, instead bringing the question to the community to see if there was consensus for these actions or not. I'm not disputing the consensus of WP:RS and WP:V, but I disagree that the consensus for those policies automatically means they are applicable to blacklisting decisions. Gigs (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"you are, by far, the worst offender" (to Hu12). What are the offences? --Dirk Beetstra 23:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It all started in this discussion. Despite 3 weeks worth of good faith explainations from multiple established editors, Gigs continued to perpetuate his disputes by sticking to allegation or viewpoints long after they been rejected. Sadly what is easily assertained by gig's contributions is that he was driving for an Rfc, not discussion;

• "I object to this entire discussion as invalid on the grounds that it attempts to usurp editorial discretion and put it in the hands of a small group of blacklist maintainers" --Gigs (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• "It may be useful to open an RFC to see where the consensus is."
• "Before we take this to a wider audience"
• "If you truely want community consensus on this, then we need to expand the solicitation past just this page"
• "Here's my attempt at a neutral summary: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/RfC " Starts a draft RfC.
• ""All here" is a pretty biased audience of what, 3 or 4 people that have commented and are mostly also active in blacklist administration? Hence the RfC to widen the audience. "
• "If I don't do it now, it may come up later ..."
• " I'm giving you this opportunity to help frame the issue instead of slapping an RfC out quickly "

One instance Gig's fabricates an entire scenario about another case, ning.com;

• "the blacklist is now blocking thousands of sites on the grounds that just one of them was spammed. It is like IP blocking all of Russia because we had a single Russian vandal! This sort of prior restraint goes against the foundation of Misplaced Pages, and every wiki in general. It strikes at WP:BOLD and turns it into WP:ASKFIRST"

Despite the bad faith accusation, this case was explained.

I've even attempted in good faith, to correct some factual errors, however Gigs reverts it to an obvious POV version, and yet again, more bad faith statements directed at myself; "restored some of the removed facts, removed bias from others". Then, follows up by adding the comment "You have completely hacked it up, biased the facts section, and moved it to my userspace. Your edits are not constructive. Stop" states further "I have tried to retain as much as I could of your edits, while restoring the neutral facts that Beetstra and Strife and I collaborated on. "

It appears that despite explaination of facts from multiple established editors, gigs fails to allow for the possibility that he is indeed wrong, and continues to perceive his biases as neutral. Is Admin synonomus with "punching bag", seriously. I digress. Sadly, the RfC seems to be a case at an attempt, by gigs to further a position, rather than resolve a dispute. Which is a wholey inapropriate use of wikipedias dispute resolution process. --Hu12 (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Beetstra, the quote is obvious if you don't take it out of context: "you are, by far, the worst offender when it comes to blindly citing WP:RS for black and whitelisting decisions", is the full quote. I'm not going to respond to Hu12's wall of text. Gigs (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point of this ANI is. I urge an uninvolved editor to review the diffs and close this matter, as it will be clear that it's a normal policy dispute which is dealt with through an RfC, which I have already opened. Gigs (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

" I could have just opened up an admin tool abuse RFC on you; I didn't." Accusing other editors of abuse is uncivil unless there is genuine abuse, Please explain. I'd like you to show proof of admin abuse. How many times have you been asked?--Hu12 (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• I can't see anything needing admin attention. I suggest this is closed, as it is just generating more conflict. Just let the RfC run. Fences&Windows 02:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that helps, Gigs: "you are, by far, the worst offender when it comes to blindly citing WP:RS for black and whitelisting decisions", proof the offence, Gigs. --Dirk Beetstra 06:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Why bother asking again, we'll only get a Straw man reply. You, me and the others attempted in good faith to engage and discuss with gigs, but his adgenda doesn't appear to that of consensus building. Clearly he was upset with outcome of a blacklist request (reposted it twice), and as a result created the RfC as a platform to exploit for his viewpoint. Evidence of this can be found in My "wall of text", as gigs states, including repeating logical fallacys about policies (WP:V is not consensus), actively and intentionally keeping out correct and appropriate "Background facts" and mischaracterizing existing facts, all seem to show a significantly different motive, than the one he's attempting to portray. I could be wrong, but  Looks like a duck to me --Hu12 (talk) 09:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you two are continuing to attack me here. This is incredibly poor behavior. People have had a chance to read the diffs, which speak for themselves. Let it go. Gigs (talk) 13:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wheres the "admin tool abuse", Gigs? Whats incredibly poor behavor? Asking you proove, what you alledge?--Hu12 (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Time out you two three. ANI is not a place to prolong your own discussions/arguments. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Suicidal or depressed editor?

I recently reverted this edit, where the editor said "i hope i die". Would it be appropriate to respond to them in some way, e.g. offering one of the links to helping organisations listed on WP:SUICIDE Misplaced Pages:Responding to suicidal individuals? -- Avenue (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If having one's edit reverted, pushes one towards suicide; I'm not sure anything can be done. GoodDay (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I hate to sound like a jackass, but it looks like run of the mill vandalism to me. That said, I suppose a warning which includes a link, just in case, wouldn't go amiss. —ShadowRanger  01:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

What about Responding to threats of harm? --Bsadowski1 01:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Handy to have a strict policy. Guess you tag their talk with that template then. —ShadowRanger  01:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've used the template to respond on their talk page. -- Avenue (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope I die too, I just hope it's not until well past my life-insurance-actuarial-table predicted expiration date and I hope I'm in good health up until near the end. Hell, I hope I live to be 200 or more if I'm in good health, but eternity, on this planet? Nothing personal, and no offense taken, but no thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

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

I don't have the temerity to mark this resolved, but it's clear there's no serious admin action that will be taken here. WP:WQA and other venues exist for dealing with this; if you feel Malleus' habits are disruptive, you could start an RfC, et al. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Severe personal attacks

Are these comments by Malleus Fatuorum anywhere close to acceptable? Since he seems to have quite a history of personal attacks, it may be advisable to block Malleus Fatuorum and protect his talk page for a reasonable period of time. Andrea105 (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure if I should agree or not. I've just been reading his RfAs (I've been reading through quite a few recently) and both of them list attitude problems, which I just encountered myself. However, because I have so recently had a dispute with him, I don't believe I should comment further for fear of bias. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 03:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"Severe" personal attacks? This is a "severe" personal attack. Calling someone "half-assed" and behaving like a stupid Internet tough guy is hardly "severe".--66.177.73.86 (talk) 03:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The use of the term "severe" is obviously relative to the level of discourse generally expected from editors. Though comments like are, of course, grounds for an immediate, indefinite site-ban, this does not imply that "lesser" personal attacks which do not explicitly threaten the lives of contributors are therefore acceptable. Andrea105 (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You know what I find really amusing? The IP who posted that threat was never blocked.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 03:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It is quite unfortunate that the IP wasn't blocked. However, I would hardly expect the standard for WP:NPA enforcement to be "if it isn't a death threat, we won't block you for it..." Andrea105 (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You know, I was thinking... Misplaced Pages has a policy against death threats, but Misplaced Pages never mentions anything about actual violence. So... if one editor actually killed another editor... it technically wouldn't be against Misplaced Pages rules. :-\ --66.177.73.86 (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

What happens off-wiki, stays off-wiki. OK, seriously, if hypothetically I stabbed my neighbor, and he happened to be a wikipedia editor, I wouldn't expect to be blocked for it. However, if I found out where a Misplaced Pages lived and stabbed them for something that happened on-wiki or through Misplaced Pages, then I would be. If my off-wiki criminal activity brought notoriety to Misplaced Pages, I probably wouldn't be surprised if it caused a block, as blocks have been issued for similar circumstances in the past. Of course, last time I checked they don't have Internet in The Big House, so it's kind of moot. I wonder if in 20 years there will be a Category:Ex-cons who registered then went to prison then got out and associated userboxes??? Um, probably not. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, users can be blocked for their behavior on other websites, so I can't imagine why a user couldn't be blocked for stabbing someone in real life...--66.177.73.86 (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

By God there needs to be a new guideline on this one! Soxwon (talk) 04:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has gotten somewhat off track. Are Malleus Fatuorum's comments of such a nature that administrative action should be taken to prevent their recurrence? Why or why not? Andrea105 (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think he needs to be put in time-out until he learns how to play nice.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The above user speaks from experience, having been blocked 3 times in the last month. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You know, I'm trying not to personally attack anyone, but you're making it really, really difficult.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned with Andrea105's edit warring on Malleus's talk page. It is one thing to redact a comment, but it is completely different to do so on their talk page while in a conflict with that person. It is seen as antagonistic and definitely inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Though you're forking a discussion from Malleus' talk page, I'll respond here, since he can redact my comments there :) I was unaware of any generally accepted practice to permit editors to maintain on their own talk pages severe personal attacks and abuse directed against other contributors. Naturally, if this is indeed the case, I will modify my behavior accordingly :) However, my use of rollback was mistaken, due to Malleus' extremely harsh language. Finally, I am unaware of being "in a conflict" with Malleus Fatuorum prior to reverting his talk page insults -- indeed, the incident was first brought to my attention through the appearance of Malleus' insults on a RC patrol tool. Perhaps you could provide further evidence for your claim. Andrea105 (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, Ottava, you should disclose as a potential conflict of interest that you are facing the significant prospect of an extended site ban in this RFAr, due, in part, to personal attacks and incivility. Andrea105 (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless you're an admin carrying out admin duties, never edit somebody else's comments on their own talk page, for any reason. File a complaint if necessary, but don't mess with somebody else's talk page. Looie496 (talk) 05:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies -- I was unaware that user talk pages served as an accepted forum for unbridled personal attacks, insults, and abuse, unless removed by an administrator :) Andrea105 (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

They do not serve as an accepted forum for unbridled personal attacks, etc. However, even if they're being used in that manner, edit warring with someone over their talk page in this manner is abuse by you and approaches blockable conduct.

As Jayron says below, don't poke the bear. This is a form of taunting behavior - escalating a situation by continuing conduct which someone else has clearly indicated they find offensive and want removed. When it's a conflict on article or wikipedia space, that's one thing, but on a users own talk page it's not appropriate to keep pushing that much.

I am going to issue 10-second blocks to Malleus for the two attacks on The Coldplay Expert and Jadefalcon's talk pages, and 5 seconds to Andrea105 for the taunting. I AGF - but you broke the rules, and everyone has to pay at least a little penalty for this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No, no, no. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. 10 second blocks are completely inappropriate, and you state outright htat it is a "penalty". WTF are you thinking, GWH? KillerChihuahuaAdvice 16:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

While "fuck off" may be rude, it is not a "personal attack". Please don't conflate the two. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Please put down the stick and stop poking the bear. Malleus's comments are not excusable. That does not mean that we should work this hard to keep getting him to make such comments. I don't think there is anything defensable about Malleus's comments here, but on the other hand, I am not sure that any administrator action needs to be taken. If you don't want to read them, take his user page off of your watchlist. Sometimes, we don't have to block someone just because they break a rule. Sometimes we can just stop poking people with sticks, and let them calm down all on their own.--Jayron32 06:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No, this is way out of line, its not just on his own talk page, he has also gone to Jade's and Coldplay's talkpages and attacked them there: . "Fuck off" is a violation of civil: "Rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions;", the fact that the violation was repeated after a caution shows that the user doesn't plan to change. I am normally fairly lenient with pretty much anything, this however, is not acceptable. (for the record, I was involved in the WQA as a third patry) Regards, Spitfire 07:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This is why we ask people to stop escalating situations and come to ANI for help. Given all that came before - the comments are unacceptable, yes, but we also have policies against taunting, poking the bear, edit warring on other people's talk pages, etc.

If we simply blame Malleus for this and take severe action, we are to some degree judging him by past actions which may not entirely apply to this situation. This situation involved Malleus' returning to rude form in several venues, but I do not think that the actions before the general melee broke out on his talk page were actionable. Warnable and regrettable, yes, but not by themselves actionable.

What happened after involved significant multi-party escalation. It would not have happened had any side disengaged and deescalated. To some degree all bear blame for the results.

It is our hope that Misplaced Pages contributors will be adults and civil and constructive with each other. Disagreements are part of the territory, but butting heads - escalating into rudeness and both sides refusing to back down - is to be avoided. It's not collegial. It's not adult. It's not civil or constructive.

We have a tendency as admins to allow a certain amount of it to avoid suppressing vigorous debate and consensusbuilding. But in msny cases that means we fail to head off potential large problems early enough to keep them small. Many people should have stopped this; those that asked the combatants to please stop are to be commended. ANI was the correct venue. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, I still stand by my original comment; Malleus's comments were unacceptable, and should be dealt with. However, the possible taunting, and "lastword" comments were not a constructive way to deal with the matter. Spitfire 08:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Malleus has for some time been aware that many admins and other users feel he regularly pushes or exceeds normal Misplaced Pages civility standards.

This was yet another foray past the line - however, as most of the worst of it came after the back and forth on his talk page started, it's not a good incident to chose to enforce strenuously. Hence my messages and the 10-second block.

If Malleus continues in this vein he will eventually firmly cross the line without provocation and firmer measures will have to be taken. He's been warned about that. He and others feel that the policy is unfair, inappropriate, or inconsistently applied, and he's made sure we're all aware of that.

If someone were to try and tackle the larger behavior in more depth here, they'd have to try and untangle the order of behaviors and provocations to see to what degree taunting played a hand in the details of each response. It's possible someone can do that. I don't think that it will be easy or reasonable, but that's my opinion.

It's easy and reasonable to say "some of this went too far" and issue enough of a sanction to hopefully end it there. If this continues tomorrow then further preventive blocks may be necessary - the event rises to the level of (really) blockable, overall. We need this event to be over, or at least deescalated to the point it's not actively policy-busting and abusive to participants.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

A month ago Malleus Fatuorum got a 24 hours block (not the first time) for personal attacks, this time he got a 10 seconds block! If this trend continues I suspect he will get a promotion the next time he attacks somebody. Sole Soul (talk) 10:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Some people here need to grow up. Being told to 'fuck off' is not a "severe attack", neither is "half-assed opinions" or similar. I suggest that anyone who thinks that Malleus has a problem attempts to work constructively with him on an article, when they'll find that he is as personable and helpful as the best editors on here. Parrot of Doom 10:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

And, err, this sort of thing? --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 10:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, seeing somebody call editors such as Malleus an "abusive drama-monger", and then criticising only Malleus's response to that comment (as others do on that page) is typically underhand behaviour. Parrot of Doom 11:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

His comments at the edequette alrerts were rude, uncivil, a personal attack, and just plain being a WP:DICK I did nothing wrong other than defend User:Coffee and he got pissed off. THats not my problem. He needs to grow up and realize that some people will not take the BS directed at him.--Coldplay Expért 11:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

...if it isn't your problem, then why did you feel the need to comment? Also, you talk of incivility, and yet you've just made a personal attack. Isn't that "way out of line"? Parrot of Doom 11:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, working on the scale of "F*ck off" = 10 second block, "He needs to grow up" probably merits a 0.01 second block. On a less sarcastic note, Parrot of Doom: how come you don't think that telling another user to "F*ck off" is an attack, and yet you do think that asking a user to grow up is? Both are attacks in my opinion, but the first is more serious than the second. At wikipedia I don not think we should accept disparaging comments simply because they're not " severe", all rudeness and personal attacks should be dealt with accordingly, for that reason Malleus Fatuorum was blocked, and Coldplay is to be warned: Coldplay: you do need to be more careful about what you say, I haven't noticed you being polite towards Malleus, or any other users you have conflict with, please improve. Kind regards, Spitfire 15:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that I thought that "Fuck off" wasn't an attack. I said (and why the fuck are you censoring the word fuck?) that "Fuck off" is not a "severe attack". That said, anyone offended by "Fuck off" clearly needs to grow a set of bollocks. "Fuck off" isn't an attack, its a simple and powerful way of telling someone to go away. Telling a user to grow up is quite clearly an attack. I've told people a million times, if they work collaboratively with Malleus they'll find him one of the most helpful editors on this entire project. If, however, they flounce over to his talk page and seek to lecture him on things, they'll get the sharp edge of his tongue—and I have little to no sympathy for them. Parrot of Doom 18:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"Fuck off" may be uncivil, but "he should grow up" is a violation of WP:NPA as it is a comment on an editor and not an edit by implying that the other editor is a child. It's not a major transgression, but one nonetheless. However, combine overall behaviour into one big pot, it's perhaps more of an issue. I'm not commenting specifically on Malleus at this point, more general concepts. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking on more practical matters, the fact that we are supposed to block to prevent disruption means that it's well nigh impossible to effectively block a user for incivility unless it is excessive and ongoing. Violent outbursts, even a pattern of them, can't be adequately addressed by blocking without being putative. It's both a strength and weakness of the policy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 16:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It may be more useful to calmly ask the user to refactor the rude remarks. The best result is if they are retracted. A block is likely to aggrevate that type of situation. Jehochman 16:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Look this editor is being rude towards an admin so I defended him. And he attacked me at my own talk page. Just take a look. So I fought fire with fire. I dont want anymore drama so Im sorry that I said that but my comments werent anywhere close to what he said to User:Coffee he insulted every teen that edits this project.--Coldplay Expért 17:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

What I continue to find ironic is that this situation developed in the course of a WQA report complaining about the rudeness of this saintly administrator you were so keen to defend, a report in the course of which said saintly administrator was exceedingly rude not only to me but to several others. Naturally, being an administrator, no action was taken against him. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know. We do share common ground there. I too feel that he was too blunt with his comments an was pretty rude. However your comments to him were no better. And your reply to Thejadefalcon and me was even worse. I apologized for my own comments but you have yet to do the same. You don't have to thought As im done with this Nothing good is coming out of this though.--Coldplay Expért 18:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

There's one key difference between you and I; you were wrong. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, seriously, guys... this was amusing at first, but now it's just sad. I have seen more intelligent arguments from preschoolers. You all need to grow up.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 18:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Look. How can you admit that saying F*** off is not uncivil? You attacked me on my talk page. How was I wrong. Dont you get it? Im done trying to explain it. You have provoved several editors and refuse to admit of any wrongdoing.--Coldplay Expért 18:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed sock puppeteer: am I doing this right?

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

In late November a user called Flegelpuss was caught socking using User:EggheadNoir as a sock in order to give the impression of support for his views. . He's back editing on the same talk page and this morning removed the "confirmed sock puppeteer" notice from his user page. I've put it back. Is that the right thing to do? The user disputes my action. --TS 04:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The "right thing to do" would be to block him.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Is that looking in the mirror? Off2riorob (talk) 04:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ummm... was that supposed to be some kind of insult?--66.177.73.86 (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Well he was blocked for a week and his sock is blocked. The question is whether his account should remain tagged. --TS 04:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Who, 66..? that was fast.. Off2riorob (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it?--66.177.73.86 (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The user argues that it's a "scarlet letter" and he shouldn't have to wear it now the block is over. --TS 04:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

So? That's not how it works. They get the "confirmed sockpuppeteer" badge, and that's that. If they feel that strongly about it, they can open a new account, blank their old one (except for the badge), and leave a message explaining that they will now be editting under the new one. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I always thought they had the right to remove the tag once the block was over. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 04:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless there are more socks let him get rid of it. In my experience we only put it permanently on accounts are indef blocked that have multiple socks. Reformed users should have editorial control of their page returned to them. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 04:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I suspect I will end up doing that. He is known now and is being watched. If he genuinely wants to reform then it's best to let him get on with it, while keeping and eye out. --TS 04:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I was under the opposite impression regarding the block badge. Hmm. The more you know. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Tony, you have a lot of nerve to report a fellow editor considering the fact that you violated the 3 revert rule in less than 3 hours: . A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of the tag is fine, since the socking block will show up in his block log... and Tony is perfectly within his rights to raise this question. AniMate 05:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

But that doesn't excuse him from violating the three revert rule. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If the block isn't active anymore, he can do whatever he wants, let him remove it. He screwed up, and as long as the lesson is learned, there's no need to force him to keep the tag around. Its in the page history and his block log. As long as he isn't breaking any rules right now, he should be considered an editor in good standing, and have the right to manage his own userpage as he sees fit. As far as the 3rr thing goes, we should drop that as well. If Tony doesn't continue to force the issue past say, now, there is no reason to make the 3RR violation a big deal either. Lets just call it lessons learned all around... --Jayron32 06:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we all were edit warring (unusual for me, and definitely something to be ashamed of) but I had an admin come along and protect the article to force a discussion. But that's got nothing to do with this question. --TS 07:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"We all" here does not include me. I haven't made any edits on any climate article in nearly two weeks, just comments on discussion pages today.Flegelpuss (talk) 08:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless he's using a sockpuppet right now, why would it matter? It seems like trying to force someone to keep the tag on their page would just encourage them to make a new account. In any event, the fact that someone sockpuppeted at one time doesn't say anything about the quality of what they actually said. Drolz 08:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It matters because it means he can't be trusted, and intellectual honesty is required to make this place work. It also says that the quality of his edits was so low that he felt it necessary to support them with a large quantity of accounts. In other words, it matters a great deal. Viriditas (talk) 10:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Range blocking for Rcool35?

Hi, even after the range block on his IP, he is still at it... I'm asking if it would be possible to rangeblock Rcool35's IP's using the following ranges.

• 76.193.00.00/76.197.00.00
• 99.140.00.00/99.147.00.00

Thanks. Taylor Karras (talk) 07:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That is blocking a total of 13 separate /16 ranges. Unless you can narrow it down there is no any administrator would block 851,968 IP addresses for one problem user.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing. That range is way too big to block. They cover physical addresses, at the very least, from Texas to Chicago. Try narrowing it down more. In the meantime, whackamole may be your best solution. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think I can do that

• 76.193.100.00/76.193.255.255
• 76.197.100.00/76.197.255.255
• 99.140.100.00/99.140.255.255
• 99.147.100.00/99.147.255.255

He seems to be using the range of those IP's only, it will cover his whole range. Now can it be done? Taylor Karras (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's much less. Only 4 /16s which is only 262,144 IP addresses.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible Historian19 sighting

Would someone more familiar with the Historian19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) case check out 41.140.34.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? See this diff between one of Historian19's favored versions of the Netherlands article and the most current revision, against this diff between an IP editor's massive change from today change versus the same current version. --Dynaflow babble 09:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Known Historian19 IP range, cf. earlier 41.140.31.6 and 41.140.81.197. Blocked for a week. Thanks for spotting this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"Friendly" Block Warning

I have received an alarming message in the form of some "serious" advice regarding a "friendly" block warning from the administrator BozMo on my talk page. The undelying issue relates to an editorial dispute which I have proposed be resolved through the process of mediation. However, it seems to me that the process of mediation is no longer open to me, as I am under the threat of a block if I proceed. I would like this threat rescinded, so that the editorial dispute can be resolved through due process, as is the custom. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

To add the warning for disruptive wikidrama, and the observation that the only editorial dispute is a template which will expire in a couple of days or before under WP:SNOW and cannot hope to be resolved by mediation on this timescale. I am happy for any other admin to lift this warning if they feel it unreasonable in the circumstances.--BozMo talk 10:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be quicker if you would recind the warning yourself, and then we can go about our business as normal, and not have involve anyone else. This would be appreciated. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No, because the warning in my view was completely fair and justified, and as far as I can see you are completely in the wrong. I am happy for someone to disagree with me, and that disagreement might prompt me to reflect on just how obvious it all is. But I certainly do not think the "business as normal" you propose is in the interests of the project. I have offered to discuss further on your talk page. Your persistence in bringing it here is a waste of community time. --BozMo talk 10:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Coincidentally, unilateral admin-imposed editor restrictions are a current topic of debate at WP:AN. A change to WP:BAN was attempted in order to make them officially acceptable, but was reverted after protest. Equazcion (talk) 10:44, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Business as usual being you endlessly pushing this merge proposal, despite considerable opposition worthy of a WP:SNOW close of the discussion, forum shopping it to RFC and mediation and what not? I think the warning is quite reasonable.--Atlan (talk) 10:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Equazcion, this has nothing to do with a unilaterally imposed edit restriction. I have no idea why you posted this here.--Atlan (talk) 10:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

An admin has told another editor that they aren't allowed to do something that they would normally be allowed to do, or else they'll be blocked, without any community discussion. That's the definition of a unilateral admin-imposed editing restriction, and is the very thing being debated. Equazcion (talk) 11:03, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

No, not as in my view. It is more like a 3RR warning as I see it. I told him that his disruptive wikidrama had gone far enough and if he continued it in the way he proposed he would be blocked for it. That is a completely normal disruptive editing warning. --BozMo talk 11:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you made what amounts to a 3RR warning as well, but you also told him that if he sought mediation he'd be blocked. Equazcion (talk) 11:27, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

On another note: I have to sympathize with Gavin on this. People opposed to a proposal often seem a bit too zealous in trying to quash it, rather than merely arguing against it. Leaving the merge templates up doesn't do any harm, and I understand wanting to seek uninvolved opinions when something like that happens. It can be frustrating. Equazcion (talk) 11:16, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I did sympathise with him too if you read my message.--BozMo talk 11:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which message you mean. Are you saying you support replacing the templates? It seems a silly thing to seek mediation for (he's just seeking it to get the templates back up), but I think the solution is to allow the templates back up rather than disallowing him from seeking recourse. Again I don't see the harm. Equazcion (talk) 11:27, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

The wording of the warning was what I refered to as sympathetic (by intent anyway). I understand it can be frustrating and offered to give him time to think it through and talk it through. But, the template was obviously inappropriate from the moment it was put there and disrupts the content of the encyclopaedia, not to mention the talk page etc. I do not think we should put the template back just to avoid hurting someone's feelings, I think WP:SNOW was a valid reason to remove it. And I think an improved understanding that making an inappropriate merge RFC as a first move into an unfamiliar area won't necessary get everyone's appreciation is needed. --BozMo talk 11:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If the merger discussion is, for all intents and purposes, finished, then the merge template can be removed. I don't see why the template should remain because 1 editor doesn't want to accept the outcome of the discussion. Gavin seems to believe the RFC serves as an injunction to remove the template while it is underway. The RFC is of course a separate thing.--Atlan (talk) 11:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The merge template was up for a grand total of 3 hours . If this had gone on for a couple days I could see someone saying it's enough, and possibly that "disruption" were a valid point. This wasn't given a chance though. I'm not even sure that SNOW could be adequately declared after such a short period. Equazcion (talk) 11:59, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I think SNOW was called as much because it was an obviously inappropriate proposal as on number of votes cast or time. It was clear that it wasn't even the correct proposed merger if a merger was needed, as well as being clear that the merger wasn't needed. See the discussion, there is no one supporting it. If you make a clearly bad suggestion and everyone says so you don't sit and demand that it runs its course with article space tags. And you don't then demand mediation because you called it wrong. Is there an admin prepared to close this please? --BozMo talk 12:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I agree that's not very long, but the discussion seemed to have received adequate attention in that time. I've seen discussions running for days with less comments than this, e.g. at Afd. Anyway, no point in edit warring over a merge template. It's pretty harmless to leave it there, although that's moot now after so many opposes. The real problem in my view, is Gavin not accepting the result and trying to take this to multiple forums, which is really unwarranted.--Atlan (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this is the view that William M. Connolley took when he removed the template before the RFC was underway, and I understand where he is coming from. Whilst his views on the "issues" may well be vindicated, nonetheless RFC is a well established "process", and while its outcome may be a given in this instance, it is customary to allow, rather than impede, wider consultation to flush out these "issues". I think once BozMo had taken sides and thrown his cap into the ring regarding the "issues" , I am not sure that taking on the role of referee in order to control the "process" as well was correct, nor is a block warning helpful in resolving our differences of opinion.
I am sure we can cut a deal as the discussions progress, but I would like the block warning rescinded, as it is impeding the "process". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be perceiving the warning as a threat. BozMo has already stated he will not issue a block himself, but that someone else might if you keep up a disruptive course of action regarding the merge. That you find this warning restrictive is entirely your opinion, and you're entitled to it. However, I'll reiterate, the warning seems reasonable to me.--Atlan (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"Personally, I am quite prepared to block you for disruptive wikidrama..." -- It was indeed a threat/restriction. Equazcion (talk) 12:55, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I will then assume that although it was a threat in form, it was not a formal block warning in substance, since BozMo was not going to enforce it himself, and the issue is therefore resolved. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No edit summaries

User talk:Rahuljohnson4u has been warned over at least a year about making (usually) voluminous unreferenced edits without edit summaries, by several editors - 4 including me. He continues to do so anyway. His first language is not English and we've tried to be tolerant. It is becoming tiresome and he does not respond to these requests. I would appreciate it if an administrator warned him to fill in edit summaries. I have two of the other editors willing to proceed with mediation, but who needs it, really, if it can be avoided? Perhaps if he were warned by an administrator, he might take notice. This was suggested by one of the (non-participating) foursome, who managed to get him off his articles, apparently. We have not been so lucky!  :) FYI, the articles are on different topics, so I do not normally interface with these other editors. We only have Rahuljohnson4u in common!  :) Student7 (talk) 12:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Using edit summaries is good practice, but it is not a requirement. Is the editor being disruptive? Have you asked them to comment here? Jehochman 13:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Repeatedly neglecting summaries can be disruptive, and users have been warned for it before. PS. I've notified the user of this thread. Equazcion (talk) 13:04, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I think a bigger problem is that the user has been uploading images in violation of copyright. They seem to be having a hard time. Jehochman 13:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This user seems to be intent on doing good on Misplaced Pages but doesn't seem to know how to do so. I'd suggest some one adopt him or her if they are willing to be adopted. Rgoodermote  13:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Rahuljohnson4u has left eight edit summaries in the last couple of days, so possibly the message has been received. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Shock and awe mass deletion nominations of Greek Historical images by Damiens.rf

Damiens.rf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is mass nominating for deletion Historical images from modern Greek History articles and spamming my talk page with mass deletion messages thus introducing shock and awe methods and stifling intelligent debate through this onslaught. Somebody please stop this user. Thanks. Dr.K._λogos 17:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Also this user has refused to stop spamming my talpage with mass deletion messages. Please do something about it. Thank you. Dr.K._λogos 17:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

How do I disable the automatic user notifying feature of the script that nominates images for deletion? --Damiens.rf 17:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't know what script you use. In Twinkle, there is a checkbox at the top of the deletion dialog that you need to uncheck. I'd certainly recommend using some such feature to avoid mass notifications. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

He seems to be following the fair-use policy. Do you have a specific complaint, other than not liking that.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent question. His comments on the deletion pages are also spurrious and unhistorical. Dr.K._λogos

Dr.K., he is simply nominating the files for deletion (with valid reasons AFAIK). He is not being disruptive. If you don't like the messages, simply remove them. Damiens.rf, when you are tagging the file using twinkle, there'll be a checkbox saying "notify if possible" - uncheck that to not issue a message. ≈ Chamal  ¤ 18:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I will try that for Dr.K images. --Damiens.rf 18:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If you are mass-nominating a group of images by the same uploader, it's best IMO to leave one message by hand that tells them which images you nominated, rather than dozens of messages that overwhelm their talk page or no message at all. Just my $0.02. Tim Song (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note that these are mass deletion nominations, not mass deletions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Everything seems fine here, the images are being nominated, and you can feel free to go and state why you think they should be kept. All the nominations seem reasonable to me. Canterbury Tail talk 18:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Everything is not fine when you use software as a weapon to mass nominate images for deletion. Am I supposed to participate in mass discussions? Where is the intelligence in that? Dr.K._λogos 18:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh-oh, first it was Puerto Rico, now it's Greece (see a bit further up on this page.) I know it can be stressful, but Damiens.rf follows this programme of non-free image cleanup, and it often involves him coming across whole groups of images with similar situations. His view of the non-free content rules is usually reasonable, though a bit on the strict side. Let me know if there are any problematic cases you'd like a review of. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I'm doing more "mass deletions" than you did "mass upload of non-free content". --Damiens.rf 18:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Being notified of a deletion discussion is not spam - it's a nicety...in fact, if someone nom'd an image that I had uploaded and didn't tell me, I'd be pissed off. On the other hand, a dozen nomination messages is a bit much - as already stated, one succinct message listing all of them make far more sense. I would ask Dr K ... would you rather not be notified? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nobody's telling you to participate in the discussions; you can do whatever you like there. There is nothing wrong with Damiens.rf's use of the tool, and he has valid reasons for nominating those files for deletion. If your problem is the messages you received, that issue has been settled (see above comments from him) and you can remove them if you wish. I don't think there's anything more here that requires administrator intervention at this time, so shall we just drop it please? ≈ Chamal  ¤ 18:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

User:173.13.112.253

This use just keeps making random vandalisms to Transformers fiction pages, and ignores any attempt to contact him, as well as all warnings. Can something be done about it? Mathewignash (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I reported them to administrators at WP:AIV, which is usually the best thing to do with vandals. The admins there will block them and take care of it. A little insignificant 18:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards