Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Beeblebrox (talk | contribs) at 09:55, 17 December 2009 (→Harassment by admin: fixinf format after double ec). 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

User:Grundle2600 and the Diane Francis article.

I'm quite a bit concerned here, when i noticed Grundle2600's comment on my talk-page. Earlier this week i reverted this, which was introduced by Grundle here. Now normally i'd consider this a regular revert of a synthesis on a BLP article. But, it seems that Grundle's synthesis has spawned off this - and that he is rather proud of it (see edit-comment).

Considering that these kind of edits have been the basis for many of Grundle's problems here on Misplaced Pages, i believe that this is an issue to be handled here. If this is nothing to worry about, then i am sorry to have brought it here, and the issue can be closed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want us to do. If it is true that she made these remarks, and has two children, then we actually did our job right by reporting that. That pundits and drama-mongers are using it elsewhere to promote their own agendas is out of our control. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

My problem is not that she has 2 children - but that we as Misplaced Pages have implied something about her integrity - and that this synthesis (2 children + support of China's one child policy) has now become news. This is exactly what we must avoid on BLP articles. And it seems to me that Grundle knew exactly what he was doing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Kim D. Petersen: Millions of people turn to wikipedia every day for information. On websites, blogs, and message boards all over the internet, people are referring to the Diane Francis wikipedia article's claim that she has two children. The fact that you removed such information in this edit is something which should be of concern to anyone who favor wikipedia's policy of openness. It is very common for wikipedia biographies to cite the children of the article's subject. Please stop trying to remove this relevant, well sourced information from this article. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is very common that we mention how many children that a person has. It is not however wikipedia's job to connect that to a person's view. That is a synthesis, and it is a very serious breach (imho) of our BLP policy. That this has now become news, makes the breach of BLP even more serious. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Regardless of its previous form, it's apparently now being used as self-promotion and bragging rights , etc etc... see edit summaries also. If they want to brag about not understanding our BLP policy they can do it elsewhere. Biographical info on persons is secondary and 100% superfluous, technically, as the focus of the article is why they happen to be a notable person. Trying to attach a dubious claim to such harmless secondary info is just cruel and not in the spirit of BLP. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 23:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Ok, let's look at it that way. Unsourced controversial information about living persons should of course be removed ASAP. Is it "controversial" that she has 2 children, or is that point not in debate? Perhaps putting this fact in the lead as opposed to right after the current incident would alleviate your concerns? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, this doesn't really belong here, as it's not really a matter requiring admin action. I think maybe this whole thread should be pasted over to WP:BLPN. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that an editor by synthesis has done real world harm to a living person. And that that editor has a rather long history of doing exactly the same (synth of this kind, not real world harm (i hope)). This is rather more than the simply BLP violation i reverted imho. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• That was my concern - BLP's basic philosophy is: Do no harm. And this has caused real world harm. And Grundle is proud about it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Per the edit summary claim of "famous on the internet!", I suppose that's a relative term. It's not that it's about having 2 kids, it's that the kids were used as golden idols for a wider bit of writing. After thinking of it further, I failed to even realized why on earth there's a claim of notability attached to one blog post. We've cracked down really hard on where possible recent events and the time scope of WP:NOTNEWS and the whole notability is not temporary, etc etc. Just because this is "harmless" compared to Tiger Woods and the like doesn't mean it can just slide through. Good BLP patrolling. Fair notice on pointless edit warring and a re-read of WP:BLP all around. etc ♪ daTheisen(talk) 00:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a fact that the subject wrote that she favors global adoption of a one child policy. And it is also a fact that the subject has two children. I added both of those facts, with sources, to the article. I did not do anything wrong. On the contrary, I provided true, sourced information to the readers of wikipedia. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Kim D. Petersen: please explain how I have caused "real world harm." Who did I harm? What harm did I cause to them? Grundle2600 (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You apparently "created" those news-stories, with your synthesis, which now will haunt that person. At least that is what i surmise from both the dates of the newsblurbs and your edit-comments. Whether it is true or not is secondary. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. It has a lot to do with the fact that this one matter isn't exactly encyclopedic vs claims on notability of the other. It's an op-ed comment that's been turned to holding the kids hostage as a talking point. Direct quotations are needed about relation with her two children, otherwise the two are indeed a WP:SYNTH matter of tying two separately-mentioned topics together to push a POV perspective. No one said you'd done anything wrong, we're just trying to fill you in on the finer points of Misplaced Pages articles on living persons WP:BLP. You've had offers of advice on your talk page, so I'd suggesting talking this out over there. This isn't particularly an admin issue unless anything pointless disruptive continues. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 00:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked at Grundle's history and why he is currently indef topic banned on US politics. A lot of that is because of such synthesis, so by now he really should know why such shouldn't be added. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, we had to deal with this same issue in Obama-related articles as well. Grundle apparently lives to find contradiction in the words and deeds of politicians, doing the same "Source A says John Doe did B", "Source B says John Doe did !B" shtick and gluing them together to paint a picture of hypocrisy. Tarc (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm still looking for the part where admin intervention is required. I renew my call to close up and move over to WP:BLPN. Grundle does not appear to be violating his topic ban in this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

A user is indef'ed from one topic area for a certain type of tendentious editing behavior, and appears to be repeating same in another topic area? I'd say that warrants at least a discussion here. Tarc (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Tarc is referring to my indefinite topic ban on U.S. politics and U.S. politicians. None of the people who favored my topic ban had the decency to answer these 7 questions that I asked about my topic ban. Tarc claimed that my questions had already been answered. But when I asked him to quote the answers, he refused to do so, because such answers never existed. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The dreaded "7 questions" again? Yes, let's all review the WP:AN thread to see how well that went for you the last time. Tarc (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The people who favored my topic ban were afraid to answer my 7 questions about why I was being banned. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Your questions are goalpost-shifting designed to distract from the issue at hand (your behavior). No one's biting at the hook. — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The information that I added to the article came from the subject herself. It was the subject's own opinion column on her support of a one child policy, and the subject's own personal blog about her two children, that I used to source the information. The subject herself chose to put all of that information on the internet for people to read. How did I "harm" the subject, by citing information that she herself put up on the internet for people to read? Grundle2600 (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You didn't, just let this die. Arkon (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I am curious to hear Kim D. Petersen's explanation of how I caused "harm" to the subject. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

<-Content dispute. Should be resolved. Arkon (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's-Call-It-A-Night Proposal?

The continued (continuous?) editing of the article despite it presently being in ANI isn't terribly well taken, especially since nothing seems to be changing. Smelling and hoping to avoid any coming temporary blocks, I generally propose the following 100% voluntary actions:

• Any of the following terms may be extended by any uninvolved administrator at any time so long as a message is sent to both directly involved parties.
• Length: 1 week to 1 month. Everyone should be bored enough to not go back to it.
• A revert to before the edit war and manually replace unrelated content removed in the process,
• Voluntary avoidance of the article by all article editors of this evening and participants in this ANI, except in matter of BLP libelous content or legal threats.
• Grundle2600 voluntarily avoid talk pages of any persons here or involved in editing that article unless directly related to libelous or legal threats in this article.
• Grundle2600 voluntarily avoid articles recently contributed to by Kim D. Petersen except in matter of BLP libelous content or legal threats.
• An uninvolved party may evaluate possible violations of 3RR on either side and report if considered appropriate.

Objections? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 00:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Added

• Issues regarding changed to the article can be discussed at the Biography of Living Persons Noticeboard during this week, though civility should be strictly enforced.
• Kim D. Petersen voluntarily agrees to avoid this article for the same week as a sign of good faith.
• Any violations should be considered as evidence of continued disruption and may be weighted heavily in any further Admin/ANI interventions or any other dispute resolution.
• Future participation of User Grundle2600 in any BLP discussion are open to posting by any editor of this diff which first proposed this, as a reminder of weight on the situation and possible administrator consideration. This should be heavily enforced, for at least the full length of this agreement.

I object. I added well sourced info to the article, which is what wikipedia editors are supposed to do. I should not be punished, because I did nothing wrong. How can people say that I caused "harm" to the subject, when it was the subject herself who first put the information on the internet, because the subject wanted people to read it? Grundle2600 (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

There's unanimous consensus (that I've seen) on the BLP concerns raised. Misplaced Pages's BLP policy is basically a 100% enforcement once reported and evoked. ...I'll add a few things on the list to balance it off. Ok, done. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You really need to add something about Grundle2600 using sources appropriate to BLPs. He's not new here; he should know better than to use junk like prisonplanet.com for anything in a BLP. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Considered and added more above. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, content dispute only. Is it really surprising that reporters use wikipedia as a source of information? Is it a bad thing that an editor includes factual (and indisputed as far as I can see) information to an article. Nope and Nope. Resolve this, it's silly. Arkon (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This is meant to resolve, by getting everyone to move on with things for the night and taking it to BLP/N if nothing else can be agreed to. Everything else is just general civility. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

When resolving a non-issue, there is no need for a bullet point list of made up remedies. We already have nice little policies for such things, 3RR, Civility, BLP. If/when these policies are broken, feel free to propose something or another. At this point, it's just pointless rulering (if that's not a word, it totally should be!) Arkon (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm - you don't think that there is a problem with Grundles combination of this biography and this article (synthesis) into this, stating by implication, that Francis is a hypocrite. Which was then taken up in the news, here, here here and here which basically all are harmful to the persons reputation, by restating Grundle's synthesis that she must be a hypocrite. In effect Grundle created the news/information combination - not the other way around, and that is a non-issue? Especially when Grundle is already sanctioned for creating exactly such synthesis' other places? Ok. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Content dispute. Arkon (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow ?! --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Since this wasn't getting anywhere, I figured this might actually get people's attention. It's put in bullets for clarity and to split up text. Just trying to be precisely. ... Look. It's an attempt to drop this issue on the spot, move it to the correct forum, and try to avoid any blocks that just further waste everyone's time. This is also one more desperate attempt at AGF on assumption blocks might be highly reasonable if any violations of specific civility mentions are broken. Sorry to spam up the discussion, then. Whatever. GO TO BLP/N ON THE CONTENT, but the civility issues still have to stopped. This started as "mostly" a content dispute but ... forget it. No wonder blocks are so common. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Well - i will abide by all bullet-points, i just think they are about 180° off course about what the issue was. But oh well. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit war over content

I urge the administrators look more closely at the conduct of both sides this edit war. There appear to be several editors on both sides of a content dispute.

The issues, as I see them, are

1. Is it permissible for the article to mention that the subject has two children, a fact that is stated on the subject's own web site?
2. Is it permissible for the article to describe editorials that accuse the subject of hypocrisy in advocating a one-child limit, since the subject herself has two children?
3. Is there justification here for departing from Misplaced Pages's normal policy of including relevant content supported by reliable sources?

According to one of the reverted edits (I have not looked at the sources), the subject had her children before 1981. If this is the case, that puts any alleged hypocrisy in perspective, since the subject's one-child advocacy apparently began about 28 years after she had her own children in a very different environment. Presenting all the facts, rather than suppressing them, appears to be the best solution, as it usually is.

William M. Connolley reverted 4 edits by Grundle2600 with the edit comment "rv: you can't use prisonplanet in a BLP". However, the revert also deleted statements cited to the National Review and the American Spectator. This appears to be a legitimate public controversy, and I don't see why Misplaced Pages's coverage of it should be censored.

PhGustaf reverted an edit that added the words "despite the fact she has two children", immediately after the statement about the subject's one-child advocacy, as vandalism. The Magnificent Clean-keeper reverted a similar edit with the comment "vandalism of some apparent sock". Participating in a content dispute is not vandalism, and sock puppetry should not be assumed absent some evidence. There were also some statements in the course of editing that were clear violations of WP:NPOV. However, the proper solution is to edit them to neutrality, not suppress the facts.

Please take a look at the situation and intervene to restore compliance with Misplaced Pages's behavioral and content policies and guidelines. Thank you.—Finell 00:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. In my opinion, the principal BLP issue was resolved when Grundle moved Francis' (cited) family size to the lede and left her (cited) policy statement in a line by itself. Such issues as whether the policy statement passes WP:WEIGHT and whether editorial comments are notable could, I think, be worked out on the talk page.

I did flag two especially egregious drive-by comments as vandalism; this was an overreaction, and I apologize. PhGustaf (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

What was so "egregious" about simply stating the fact that the subject had 2 children? What about the accusation of socking?—Finell 06:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm. You're right. One was a simple statement, and didn't deserve "egregious". The other was pretty bad.. Ironically, I did not revert the "egregious" one I was thinking of because I felt I had done enough reverting already. I've apologized for my quick finger already. PhGustaf (talk) 06:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

My comments were not directed at you alone. William M. Connolley reverted an edit that added 3 sources on the basis that 1 of them was not reliable. The Magnificent Clean-keeper reverted an edit that added content as "vandalism" and accused the editor of socking. I'm all for being vigilant about BLPs, but calling a content dispute "vandalism" and accusing an editor who agrees with the "other" side a sock (apparently without any independent basis) is improper. We cheapen our policies and damage our credibility by throwing words like vandalism and sock around indiscriminately.—Finell 21:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Indef-blocked

I've indef-blocked Grundle for his behaviour here, highlighted by this edit summary. It appears that Grundle, who certainly knows better, attempted to use Misplaced Pages to encourage negative public commentary on the fact that a BLP subject has two adult children. It is an attempt to manipulate public opinion via Misplaced Pages, on a sensitive subject, via a clear WP:SYNTH violation (claiming that a 2009 call for a global one-child policy has anything to do with personal decisions to have children 30-odd years previously). I believe this behaviour constitutes an egregious violation of WP:BLP; of WP:SYNTH; and is part of a long-term pattern of disruptive editing.

Although I've indef-blocked here due to Grundle's long-term behaviour pattern as well as the egregiousness of this incident, I'm open to other length blocks, or to an immediate overturn without consultation if another admin thinks I'm way off base. My view is that if BLP is to mean anything, then an editor of this experience and with this history, should be blocked if not indefinitely then for a substantial period. Rd232 17:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• I concur in the block in that Grundle has shown a long-term pattern of behavior that is disruptive and because he has yet again brought up the "questions" that he agreed to not bring up as a condition to his prior unblock. MBisanz 18:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The edit highlighted by Rd232 is from December 11. The underlying content issue of whether and how to note that a commentator calling for a one child policy has two children appears to have been resolved with a reasonable compromise. There is no ongoing problem. So this is an atrociously disruptive block by an admin with a history of disruptive behavior on one side of political subjects. I think Grundle needs to do a better job of staying on the straight and narrow, but his impressive content contributions stand in stark contrast to the trolls harassers and baiters who haunt his talk page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like a block over PoV. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The block looks reasonable. This is an editor with a history of tendentious editing with respect to political figures, and who is already under a ban on U.S. politics and politicians. Apparently, he has chosen to move that tendentious editing north to Canada. It is also worth noting that his insistence on yet again bringing up his 'seven questions' here is a violation of his extant topic ban. This editor does not, at this time, seem prepared to let go and move on. While an indefinite block may or may not be necessary, a minimum of a few weeks away might do him some good. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue was resolved. It was a content dispute. Drudging up old issues and dragging people who we don't agree with to ANI is insidious and it's one of the most disruptive and bullying tactics employed on Misplaced Pages. There was no consensus to block. The clear consensus was that the issue was resolved. This is an outrageous block, and it shouldn't be gone along with because people have disagreed with the targeted editor in the past. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I post this diff of my comment to Grundle which explains slightly more my reasoning, and also the synth edit in question. I've also noted it in the BLP log though that's no obstacle to amending or removing the block if there is agreement for that. Rd232 20:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The only person who keeps bringing up his 'seven questions' (in violation of his topic ban) is Grundle himself. Perhaps if he weren't so keen to refight old battles and dredge up old fights, then we wouldn't be discussing his block now. Further, your ongoing personal attacks and inflammatory remarks directed at other editors in this discussion are almost certainly not helping to get your point across. I've said my bit. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

So the user is blocked indefinitely for the same thing he was blocked for back in November. Am I allowed to put the {{indefblock}} template on his userpage, or will I simply be reverted by William S. Saturn and be accused of "defacement" by Grundle? It would seem Saturn is accusing the blocking sysop on Grundle's talkpage of blocking Grundle over personal bias. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Grundle has an unblock request pending, so I think the template would be precipitate. Let's hand on for a day or two and see whether a compromise of some sort can be worked out. (On Grundle's page, not here.) PhGustaf (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just removed the indef-block template for the above reason, but don't mean to edit war over it. Let's wait until this is all done before blanking the user page, okay? - Wikidemon (talk) 07:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This use just refuses to get it; the reason why he was indef'ed from political articles is for posting and re-posting the same stupid shit, over and over for months and months on end. And it always boils down to the same things; synthesizing several sources in order to create a particular point of view where none exists, or finding sources to show that it does exist but those sources are not within spitting distance of being reliably sourced. Grundle cannot behave in political articles, thus earning a topic ban. Now the same behavior extends to other areas of the project...where else is there to go but an indef? ChildofMidnight is here to, once again, fan the flames of faux outrage as well, which will not help matters any. Tarc (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to reduce block length

I disagree that there is nowhere else "to go but an indef": Grundle2600 has never been blocked for longer than 48 hours . Additionally, indefinite blocks are categorically problematic: they encourage evasion by eliminating the prospect of a more severe sanction ever being imposed. In consideration of this user's light block history, there's every reason to believe that a longer, but time-limited, block might be effective. Therefore, I suggest reducing Grundle2600's block to one month. Andrea105 (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC) This post was made by a banned user. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I support the indef block, but am somewhat open to the possibility of some other outcome. While the block log does not look that bad, this is an editor who has been sanctioned by ArbCom, topic banned twice by the community, and indef blocked once before (which was then lifted pending a promise to improve apparently). This most recent incident is, in my view, quite egregious (a synth violation on a BLP, what one can only term a "gotcha edit" about someone Grundle apparently wanted to make look bad), and unfortunately it's part of a longstanding pattern (on political articles from which he was eventually banned, Grundle regularly edited in such a SYNTH fashion where one statement made by someone was put in contrast to some action (often misconstrued) as if to say, "look at the hypocrisy"—efforts to explain the problem with that to Grundle led to a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT replies from Grundle).

The only way any sort of change in the indef should even be considered would be for Grundle to acknowledge the problems with his behavior. I'm not talking about a forced apology (that kind of stuff is pointless), I'm talking about an acknowledgment/understanding that the kind of editing evinced at Diane Francis is not okay and absolutely cannot happen again. Even then I'm not sure that it's not more trouble than it's worth to let Grundle come back to editing. Too many people have tried to help this editor stay within community norms to little or no avail. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd support a reduction in length upon submission of a genuine mea culpa. Arguments such as whether it is "worth it" to keep an editor around are problematic, as it's really not too much trouble to indef should he reoffend. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

General thoughts on bans and indef-blocks: While I'm not well-read on this specific case, my general thoughts are that bans and their associated indef-blocks should be reconsidered periodically, upon petition of the banned person, a promise to obey the rules of the wiki, and either an off-wiki demonstration that something changed or some type of short-leash parole for a few months along with a mentor if necessary on-wiki before they are allowed to edit without restrictions. In some cases, such as harassment of a given individual, or COI or POV-editing, long-term restrictions lasting more than a year before review may be needed. In cases where the editor has a habit of editing while drunk or some other episodic disruptions but is otherwise contributing well, other tools may be required. In cases where the person has a previous history of socking, even an old one, they may need a checkuser to be on standby until all editing restrictions are lifted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason to expect Grundle2600 to behave any differently if he is unblocked than he has behaved all along. My sense is that we should take 1/100th of the effort spent in trying to coax something valuable and encyclopedic from him, invest it more wisely, and move on. MastCell  05:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The logic behind the proposal up above is totally flawed. Rules have no teeth if they are not enforced. Saying that indefinitely blocking someone who has repeatedly been problematic is useless because there are no "more severe sanctions" is backwards, and insinuates that blocks are punitive, not preventative. If we operate under that logic we may as well stop blocking everyone and let Misplaced Pages become a massive spamhaus and attack site. As blocks are preventative, not punitive, editors who have repeatedly shown to break the same rules over and over and over again, ignoring editing sanctions, etc. should be blocked to prevent them from repeating the violations again. Promising to follow policy and adhering to editing restrictions eliminates the need to prevent someone from violating. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you were talking about the main proposal to reduce the block on Grundle2600 or if you were talking about my general comment that blocks should be reviewed. There are several good ways to give an editor a second chance. The canonical one is to have him propose substantial improvements to articles or new articles on his user talk page then have an established editor who will take responsibility for the edit review it, and if appropriate, make the edit, repeating until there is a good comfort level that this isn't a snow job or an unstable personality on one of his good days. If the editor is unblocked, he can be kept on a short leash, topic-banned, banned from interacting with certain other editors, forced into involuntary mentorship, or under other editing restrictions long enough to make sure this wasn't a snow job, an unstable personality having a good day, or an editor who occasionally edits while intoxicated. In general, once an editor has been editing responsibly and frequently for over a year there is little use in keeping additional restrictions, unless there is the editing equivalent of an alcoholic, where the restriction is in place for the editor's own good to protect him from himself and the project from collateral damage. See Template:Second chance. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block. Grundle has demonstrated no capacity for change. Crafty (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment While Grundle's actions have indeed been problematic, and I support the imposition of a block, I don't think he has used his last chance. Keep the block in place and let him compose an appeal to Arbcom. If they decide to reduce his block, then keep him around on a short leash. The primary thing I've been trying to get across to Grundle is that we need to see a change in attitude and behaviour from him. If he's capable of making that change, then by all means let him edit. If not, then reimpose the indef. Either way, I think the best course of action right now is for him to take the appeal to Arbcom. Decline the unblock, and go from there. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • ArbCom is a last resort - the community would be expected to attempt to come to a consensus first. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block. Indefinite does not mean permanent, so if he chills out a bit in a couple months, let him come back and request an unblock. Frequently, all that is needed is some time for everyone involved to cool out a bit. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I had to warn Grundle a few days ago for BLP violations on Tiger Woods and the article's talk page. Enigma 19:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block. --John (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The truth will not set you free on Misplaced Pages

Let's be absolutely 100% clear. Grundle is being blocked indefinitely for noting in the Diane Francis article that "although she has two children, she favors having every country in the world adopting China's one child policy in order to protect the environment."

That's it. That's the edit he made. A true statement, and the only issue was whether it was sourced properly or synthesized. It's since been modified and there was no outstanding issue when he was blocked indefinitely days later. But apparently it's okay to indefinitely block those whose perspectives and editing interests we disagree with, and don't anyone dare point out that this is being pushed by some of the most pernicious and persistent POV pushers on Misplaced Pages. Drag anyone who doesn't share our viewpoints to ANI repeatedly, label them as disruptive, dredge up abstract accusations about their "history", and hound them off the site.

The complete and utter bullshit arguments that this is over concern about sourcing and BLP is completely disproven by the consistent attacks on article subjects that aren't popular or PC by the very same editors calling for this indefinite block on Grundle. These individuals hold our Neutral Point of View policy in contempt, and use this website for propaganda purposes. The Francis article is a perfect example. It's full of fluff sourced to her own biography and her own writings. But heaven forbid Grundle makes an imperfectly sourced edit noting a discrepancy between her her policy statements and personal choices (something that's been reported widely on if not in the mainstream media).

Grundle must be banned forever by the very Tarcs, William Connolleys, Bigtimepeaces, rd232s and Magnicifcentcleankeepers who have abused this site to push their personal perspectives and to relentlessly go after those with whom they disagree. I've been subject to their harassment and biased enforcement and so have others.

These same admins stand as witness to clear Arbcom violations and say nothing. Yet when it's those they agree with they have no hesitation in assuming bad faith making accusations and going after them with full force and fury. Make no mistake, Grundle is not a perfect editor, but this disgusting hypocrisy and censorship is outrageous. The entire Francis article is full of nonsense and the bits added by Grundle are probably the most notable and well sourced, even if those parts too had problems. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Your treatise is based on a convenient fallacy. "Grundle is being blocked indefinitely for noting in the Diane Francis article that "although she has two children, she favors having every country in the world adopting China's one child policy in order to protect the environment." Nope. Tan | 39 19:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Which is ironic, given CoM's section heading! Ravensfire (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It might be convenient for C of M to list out in full (I assume the above list is not complete) each and every editor guilty of one or more of the following Wikicrimes described above: "pernicious and persistent POV"; "hound...off the site"; offering "complete and utter bullshit arguments"; "consistent attacks on article subjects that aren't popular or PC"; "hold our Neutral Point of View policy in contempt"; "abus this site"; "push their personal perspectives and to relentlessly go after those with whom they disagree"; "harassment"; "biased enforcement"; "assuming bad faith"; "making accusations and going after them with full force and fury"; "disgusting hypocrisy"; and " censorship". Once there is a full list of all the editors guilty of these dastardly deeds I think it makes sense to proceed to a community discussion about banning the lot of us. Of course there's no need to provide even so much as one diff making the case for such serious accusations, rather we should just take ChildofMidnight's word for it.

Sorry for the snark, it's just that the endless fantasyland accusations from C of M get rather tiresome after the umpteenth time, even if no one pays them any attention. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate CoM providing diffs to prove his assertion "These same admins stand as witness to clear Arbcom violations and say nothing.". If CoM has proof of this, then this needs to be conveyed to ArbCom. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Further, perhaps CoM would like to create a user subpage with the diffs I refer to, and the list of editors referred to by Bigtimepeace. This could be used as an evidence page for the ArbCom case which I'm sure CoM is considering filing in the near future. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you suppose Arbcom will do about it? All anyone has to do is to set up an "alternate account" (as admin socks are referred to euphemistically) and try adding notable criticism and balance to controversial articles. We are a community and we have to hold ourselves to high standards. Harassment, hounding, and the abuse of admin privledges to advance personal and political biases is totally unacceptable.

Grundle is an excellent editor who has added lots of great articles and content. Occasionally he takes liberties that aren't entirely helpful and these issues can be resolved amicably. If it weren't for the aggressive and abusive tactics employed by many misguided individuals here who use an ends justifies the means approach to advancing their personal preferences and opinions on others there wouldn't be a problem. It's time to stop the censorship and to uphold our core principles and values that notable perspectives should be included appropriately. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a noticeboard for incidents that require administrative action. What action are you looking for an uninvolved admin to take, and upon what evidence would you suggest they base such an action? If you cannot provide specifics on both fronts then I suggest this entire thread should be closed. No admin seems inclined to lift the indef block of Grundle, and it's probably for C of M's own good for this to come to a close lest he head off into Plaxico B. territory. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

We all know by now that these claims made by ChildofMidnight are spurious and disruptive. Usually they are the sort of drive-bys as above, but the last time CoM was up for discussion here, he started a section about me titled "Tarc's relentless antagonism and trolling", which was so thoroughly debunked and discredited that someone apparently deleted the entire sub-thread before archiving, as I cannot see it in archive583, the only place I can find a trace of it is in my last comment there. Tarc (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"A true statement, and the only issue was whether it was sourced properly or synthesized." I think that neatly sums up CoM's complete misreading of the situation and of basic policy. Rd232 19:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment There's now yet another unblock request on his talk. Enigma 22:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment CoM, these kind of comments don't help when you've been the subject of several AN/I threads lately. I appreciate your defense of those who are otherwise undefended, but there's a line to be drawn. Perhaps if you focussed on defending those who have been wrongly accused, and stepped back from the personal accusations, the threads in question would cease. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

CoM and Grundle are having an at-length soapboxing session discussion on Grundle's talk page about how unfair and biased Misplaced Pages admins and BLP patrollers are. Fine by me, but what's the resolution here? Is anyone willing to unblock Grundle? His userpage was tagged with the indef template by Hypicrite and quickly reverted by Wikidemon. I've re-added it since no admins seem willing to unblock and three requests have been declined. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that tag should be added until this thread is closed or archived. Rd232 10:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: FWIW, I've further clarified my view of the incident on Grundle's talk page here. Rd232 10:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Time to Protect His Talkpage?

Grundle continues making his odd and non-neutral edit suggestions on his talkpage . Given that unblocking seems unlikely, is it not time to revoke his talkpage access? Crafty (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No. I see nothing abusive. If it bugs you, unwatch it and pretend it doesn't exist.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Aww Walt, passive-aggressive is not a good colour on you. ;) It doesn't bug me, I just thought I'd ask. Crafty (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to unblock

Grundle suggested on his talk page that he would like to be unblocked to edit science and pop culture articles. I am proposing here that he be unblocked with the following sanctions:

1. Grundle is to refrain from posting his list of seven questions or referring to them anywhere on Misplaced Pages.
2. He is topic banned from editing or participating in discussion of any political or politically controversial article, as well as BLPs. This includes articles directly about politics, but also includes politically controversial topics, like climate change.
3. Grundle agrees to take note of and adhere thoroughly to WP:SYN
4. Grundle agrees to disengage from and avoid those he has had disputes with, especially political disputes.
5. Any posting of his seven questions or referring to them, or breaking of his topic ban, or deliberate engagement with those he has had dispues with will result in his indefinite block being immediately reinstated for a period of no less than 4 months.

Yea? Nay? What say you? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with #4, as it sounds like the "user X shall not interact with user Y" type of restriction that ArbCom loves to hand down. This sort of wiki-restraining order is just ridiculous, as it adds another layer of red tape and hoops to jump though; can one comment on an article that the other has edited, participate in the same XfDs, post in the same AN or AN/I thread, etc... If a user cannot behave themselves while editing alongside someone else, then enforce the policies we have already on civility, personal attacks, and so on. Don't make a meta-level of extra rules. As for the rest, I dunno, do you think this would really work? As Jayron32 put it in the last unblock decline, "I'm not sure how you could turn an article about an animal or science or pop culture into a political battleground, but I am sure you will try hard to do so." Tarc (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That may be, but reblocks, should they be needed, are cheap. (Drama-inducing, but cheap. Can we tack a clause to the end that says "...and in the case of a reblock, the community agrees not to get all riled-up about it"? (Yeah, yeah, I know. If you're throwing stones, please aim at my head--I could use a few hours' nap.))GJC 14:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This edit to Tiger Woods may be notable. Any restriction should include anything vaguely construable as a BLP. The problem is, I think, that Grundle wants to be an investigative reporter rather than an editor, and as long as his motivation for posting is based on "Ah hah!" he's going to get into trouble. PhGustaf (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I have the same feeling, and almost suggested as much on his talk page. I'm sure there's a place for what he wants to do, maybe a blog or a "news" site that accepts submissions from non-staff. Misplaced Pages isn't the place for journalism, because this isn't a journal. What I thought was telling was how he seemed excited that someone else picked up on his synthesis and reported it on a site other than Misplaced Pages. A Misplaced Pages editor who both understood and wanted to follow BLP rules should have been horrified by that result, the last thing we want is for Misplaced Pages to be the source of information damaging to living persons. -- Atama頭 18:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

My feelings exactly. Perhaps Wikinews would suit better. Rd232 18:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I've amended the proposal to include BLPs since that was a major isssue. As for any drama that may ensue if he were to violate the restrictions and be reblocked... well, that is probably unavoidable in this stage of Misplaced Pages's life. Grunde does a lot of good work, we just need to restrict him from the BLPs and political articles where he may be tempted to engage in investigative reporting. Or maybe everyone should start carrying little yellow swords around . <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose If anything, Grundle's behaviour on his talk page suggests that he is simply not suited to editting wikipedia. I laid out a clear outline for writing a successful appeal to Arbcom, and he ignored it and continued to engage in "gotcha" type tactics, attempts to discredit other users, and other disruptive behaviour. He just doesn't seem to get it, and his opinion of what is considered acceptable on Misplaced Pages is simply wrong. This has been pointed out to him numerous times, and he simply refuses to acknowledge it. Rather he composes argumentative diatribes as to why his edits are appropriate. He doesn't seem able to accept community feedback, and I fear that, were he to be unblocked, we would find ourselves in the same situation in a matter of weeks. I usually support giving editors the benefit of the doubt and second chances, so long as they make a commitment to change the problematic behaviour that got them into the mess in the first place. Grundle doesn't seem willing/able to do so, and for the protection of the project I strongly suggest he remain indeffed. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Umpteenth edit war in Gibraltar

Hi, I'm sorry to raise a new issue on Gibraltar-related articles, but this time it's seems the most weird situation I've lived in this wikipedia.

Possibly you're not familiar with Gibraltar-related topics. So, I'll try to provide some information in order to make the issue understandable. The issue relates to the section Demographics of Gibraltar. When reviewing the whole article (there's an ongoing RfC) I found the following text:

You'll possibly not see any surprising statement, but I did. Well, as I've been reading a number of books on Gibraltar, I've got very familiar with this topic. The first strange issue was the lack of mention to Jews in Gibraltar, as I knew they were one of the main "nations" in 18th century Gibraltar. The second was the lack of mention to the Spaniards, as they has been for the whole history of British Gibraltar more than the Portuguese. The third, and even weirder, was the mention to Maltese people. It's widely known that Malta become a British territory in 1802 so it was impossible such a massive presence.

Well, in this point I could have included a {{fact}} template. But it was not sensible, as I have the means to get the right information. I took one of my books (William Jackson (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (Second ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, United Kingdom: Gibraltar Books. ISBN 0-948466-14-6.) and looked for the information. It provided information about the 1753 census (I don't know which this specific date has been chosen) and got the following figures: British: 351; Genoese: 597; Jews: 575; Spaniards: 185; and Portuguese: 25; without further mentions to other nationalities. I was right (no Maltese, but Jews and Spaniards). So, I included the following text:

You've possibly noticed that the original text did have references. However, it referred to a one of the nationalities (the "Minorcans", from Minorca) and not to the whole sentence.

For me, it was simply a "routine" task (fixing an obvious mistake). To my surprise, Justin A Kuntz reverted my edition with a weird edition summary "happens to be sourced and correct, ask Imalabornoz who helped draft it on Demographics of Gibraltar". As I've shown, the paragraph was neither sourced nor correct (as I had verified data with a proper source; today I've double-checked it with other source and, as couldn't be otherwise, the same data is provided). So I reverted, explaining why ("your edition doesn't happen to have a source (Maltese stock in 1753? :-D). I have provided one (Jackson) and unless you provide a source on the 1753 census (I did) I needn't ask anyone"). Well, I thought it was solved, but unfortunately wasn't. New reversion by Justin, with a new and weird edition summary ("FFS will you stop edit warring over every fucking thing. IT IS SOURCED ON Demographics of Gibraltar"). Obvious to say that Demographics of Gibraltar does not talk about any census or similar information dated in 1753).

So, at the end, I wonder why this is happening. It's not a secret that Justin and me are "opponents" in a mediation process. However, I don't know where this stupid edit war comes from. I could guess that it's because I've introduced the banned word in Gibraltar-related articles ("Spanish"). It wouldn't be the first time. It took several days, and only because third-parties supported it in an ANI, to introduce Spanish guys in the section on notable people born in Gibraltar (you can see it here). On the other hand, the section I've removed has sources in the Minorcan stock (curiously that's the only "nationality" with an explanation), and I've done it since Minorcans are not mentioned in the 1753 census. The reason of that mention (and sourcing) can be seen in here (it took months to remove an story entirely invented by Justin on how perfidious Spaniards had expelled Minorcans upon the devolution of the island to Spain; I say it took months because the story begun here).

Well, possibly I'm a little bit paranoid, but I hate wasting my time with stupid things like this one. I'm not here to destroy other people's work for no apparent reason. I obviously challenge the current status of many Gibraltar-related articles (as I think they have an obvious anti-Spanish bias), but the issue I'm raising has nothing to do with any dispute, but with an obvious mistake that must be fixed. I wouldn't like to know that these incidents are part of a tactic to, as Gibnews openly suggest, get rid of Gibraltar-related articles. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Well this goes back a long way, right to the very first time I interacted with Ecemaml.

As an example, I would bring to your attention my first interaction with Ecemaml . I give a clear edit summary explaining the reason for my revert of his edit, does he take that comment in good faith? No he does not, he immediately reverts ignoring the comment see . And again and again . Regarding his claim that there is no consensus in the talk page please see . And if Ecemaml claims that I never pointed this out to him see . Further Ecemaml is an admin on the Spanish wikipedia, he really should have known better than to edit war over a content dispute. After a long history of needling, admittedly by both sides, I thought this is stupid, why don't we just stop this draw a line under it and made that suggestion on his talk page. See .

Ecemaml sees all Gibraltar related articles as biased and since he started editing those articles, the tension and fractious nature of the edits has increased. What he forgets to mention is that I am in fact half-Spanish, hence the repeated accusations of an anti-Spanish bias are not only irritating but deeply hurtful. The story about Minorcans is invented, I worked with other editors to develop the article to its present form, I simply hadn't noticed that one article was missed.

To be honest I'm just tired of butting heads all the time, I kind of feel this is a tactic to chase editors from Gibraltar articles. Trouble is it seems to be working as two serial contributors to Gibraltar articles have already left. Justin talk 00:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Ecemaml (talk · contribs) seems to be disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. He is treating wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and his continued postings here are unhelpful. He is an administrator on es.wikipedia.org, but his behaviour here seems to have become disruptive. It looks like his intention is to WP:BAIT User:Gibnews and User:Justin A Kuntz by constantly picking fights with them and bringing content disputes over niggling details to this noticeboard. Leaving aside the standard of his english, he seems to have started writing on this wikipedia simply to push a Spanish nationalist point of view on Gibraltar-related articles. If this continues, a topic ban on Gibraltar-related articles might be needed. (Why did he not use WP:AN3?) Mathsci (talk) 04:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Mathsci. First of all, sorry for not having followed this discussion. Sometimes real life bursts into the wikipedia and a wikibreak is unavoidable. Family matters have kept me away and I must ask for your understanding. Just for the sake of understand your statement. Which is the point I was trying to prove. I've been said that many times and at the moment, nobody has been able to point out to such a point. In this specific issue, what is disruptive from my side? I understand that in articles with different point of views, conflictive editions are unavoidable. But, I can't understand (and I haven't understand yet) why perfectly sourced editions are removed leaving information factually wrong? The only reason to raise this issue here is because this edit war is absolutely stupid. Details are, as you appropriately point out "niggling". But the fact that my work is gratuitously removed is what brings this issue here. Come on, the information currently in the article is false. There were no Maltese guys in Gibraltar in 1753. This is not an edit war on divergent interpretations of a fact but a plain sabotage, not only against me but against the very Misplaced Pages principles. Again, please, which is the point I'm trying to prove. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC) PS: BTW, you're referring to "continued postings here". Considering that I was brought here when Justin provoked another edit war (when I tried to "make another point" including some notable Spaniards in the article of a town that was Spanish for several centuries), I can't see which continued posting you're referring to.

Agree --Gibnews (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mathsci, this is the second time I've read you pointing Ecemaml to WP:BATTLEGROUND policy recently. Well, I've read the aforementioned policy and it refers to certain attitude which I can't see Ecemaml indulging in. He hasn't broken 3RR lately nor has he restorted to personal attacks but rather. Finally, I don't know how exactly challenging unsourced statements could be deemed as disruptive behaviour. On the contrary, he has added referenced material instead. Don't be so fast in singling him out for his "nationalist point of view", nor in advocating for a topic ban, please. Thanks.--Cremallera (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Cremallera (talk · contribs) seems to have formed a tag-team with Ecenaml, with the same WP:BATTLEGROUND pattern of editing on Gibraltar-related articles. They no longer seem to have discussions in Spanish on their user talk pages. Mathsci (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

What kind of argument is that?! Do you naturally suspect of people capable of speaking Spanish, or you've been taught to it? Have a nice day. --Cremallera (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Can this please stop being made into a race or national issue? All it does is put people off. Content disputethat consisted of two reverts? Hardly ANI level. Justi needs a trout that he doesn't have to hit the RV straight away, if things are wrong then consensus will form around that. Ecemaml needs to realise this isn't other wikipedias and he /does/ have to talk to people and can't just go off on his own when he knows it will be controversial. Lets stop making assumptions based on nationalities. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious, Narson? "he /does/ have to talk to people". You possibly know that Justin has a different way of interpretation of communication among wikipedists :-DDDDD --Ecemaml (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Very serious. Justin is not acting perfectly and appears to be rther cross, though I can understand this as he is involved inwhat has become a battleground, one of the reasons I left any active involvement in that article was because I could see where it was going. However, as imperfect as Justin's behaviour is, statements like Rv: your edition doesn't happen to have a source (Maltese stock in 1753? :-D). I have provided one (Jackson) and unless you provide a source on the 1753 census (I did) I needn't ask anyone stand out in the edit history of the article. You knew you were being controversial, you knew that primary sources will be controversial, you knew that there are many interpretations....yet you decided and declared that you had, in essence, a divine right to make that edit. You cannot use Justin's loss of temper as an excuse when you appear to be either deliberatly stoking that temper or, as I'd prefer to assume, blindly stamping around wthout understanding or caring how your actions can cause friction. When the points are raised on the article calmly and rationally, they can be followed and opinions given. As it is now, that talkpage is barely useful and I commend Imalbornoz, Justin and whoever else was involved for managing to get something resolved. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to raise a few diffs to ask an opinion, ,,,,. There does on the face of it appear to be a spot of co-ordination of activities among three editors on Gibraltar. I could provide more as it goes back a long way and it does regularly feel like I'm being tag teamed on Gibraltar with a good cop bad cop routine. Although I could just be getting paranoid. Justin talk 21:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering that we are using those quotations (that you tried to delete) in the RfC, which are the co-ordination? --Ecemaml (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

So answer the question

Just answer this question. Why was the information supplied from the source on the 1753 census reverted. Do not say anything about Spanish editors, points of view or anything at all about the motives of the poster. The validity of the information is not affected by the motives of the poster. Just say why the information somehow doesn't belong in the article. If there is no reason not related to Justin's mistrust of the Spanish, then it should be put back in, and Justin told to stop this pattern of behaviour. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

His 'mistrust of the Spanish'? It is nice to see AGF is taking it in the ass so early in the Misplaced Pages Day. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The figures for the 1753 census are here. They are 597 Genoese, 575 Jews, 434 British, 185 Spanish, 25 Portuguese. So what is in the article is not quite correct. It probably is better not to use this particular date, which has no special significance. The book of Sir William Jackson is still in the references. However, the book of Edward G. Archer gives a far more detailed breakdown of the history of the settlers in Gibraltar, post 1704, which is correctly summarised in Demographics of Gibraltar. Choosing the 1753 census was arbitrary, since there were many other censuses (eg 1721). All that is needed is a brief list of settlers. I have no idea why this content dispute has been brought here, when the sources are easy enough to check. Statements about the 1753 census are somewhat irrelevant when Archer's book contains full details on demography, which has evolved in the last three centuries. Mathsci (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any harm to use the census data if it doesn't overload the article, but I think the Spanish contributor has misread the sentence he objects to. The category 'Spanish' plainly should not be included, as the sentence is describing the incomers who arrived after 1704, not the Spanish part of the population. I think however that the article should mention the comparatively large number of Sephardic Jews who inhabited the area during the 1700s. No mention at all is made of them, even though they outnumbered the Brits during the 1700s, and vastly (factor of 10) outnumbered the Portuguese. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads, I don't think your line of argument is particularly helpful. In articles about places with a long history, there is normally a section on demography. It has to give a brief account of the various waves of immigrants. (Marseille is a more significant example.) For Gibraltar that includes of course various categories, including Spanish, Jews, Maltese, British, Genoese, etc. These are all discussed in detail in Demographics of Gibraltar and the book I cited. I don't understand your remarks about the Spanish, who were expelled but gradually returned in small numbers. This is clearly recorded in the sources, which you should probably read yourself (if only to learn how to spell Gibraltar). The edits you're trying to defend connected with the 1753 census are a red herring. The census and this date have no particular significance in the history of Gibraltar or its demography. The book of Edward Archer contains all the necessary data that needs to be summarised, possibly in a historical way, (In Marseille, rough dates are given for the waves of immigrants, such as Italians and Armenians.) Of course the Jewish population from Morocco should be mentioned: prior to to the British occupation in 1704 they would have been burnt in Gibraltar. Mathsci (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Mathsci, some of what you wrote might not have been particularly helpful either, but lets try to keep going shall we. The Spanish editor misread the sentence By 1753 Genoese, Maltese, and Portuguese people formed the majority of this new population by not noticing the word new. Hence he was trying to demonstrate that Gibraltar (did I make a typo - really I try to avoid being rude about spelling errors myself. I just don't think it's helpful) had a Spanish population, when no-one was denying this, he just thought they were. This is where all this POV pushing (which is happening) gets one - everyone mistrusts everyone else's motives. I find it odd that the sentence I have quoted mentions the Portuguese but not the Jews - according to the census data there were about 10 times as many Jews as Portuguese in the area at the time, but it is only one sentence, and the Jewish community in Gibraltar has it's own article. I wasn't making any other point. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You might not have much experience with writing articles on Mediterranean towns with a long history, even tiny ones like Gibraltar. It is WP:UNDUE to mention a specific census. What is required, and is not quite in the article at the moment, is a concise summary of what for example can be found in the book of Edward Archer. There are sections on all groups of immigrants in that book over the last 3 centuries. Your own statements about statistics are irrelevant because they are one snapshot and are your personal interpretation from a primary source. The Archer book devotes many pages to the Jewish presence (I gave a summary above). You are making inferences based on one census from a primary source: that is not how wikipedia is edited as I'm sure you're aware. A good source exists, a short and accurate summary should be made and that is about it: the task is to locate reliable sources and to transfer an abridged version of their content to wikipedia. Like Marseille, which I edit, it is a Mediterranean town with a long history and a strategic location. I would expect the articles to be written in a not dissimilar way, even if Marseille is several orders of magnitude larger than Gibraltar. Mathsci (talk) 07:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Mathsci, Elen, thank you for taking the time in discussing this. I'd just point out some issues. I agree with the statement on the triviality of mentioning a specific census. There are plenty of information available for giving a comprehensive summary of the evolution of the population in Gibraltar for three centuries. That's what the article should include. I agree with it. On the other hand, and answering to Elen, I did noticed the word "new". The issue is that this Spanish population was "new", not the previous. Finally, Mathsci, agreeing on the necessity of having a good section on demographics, the issue remains: considering that your statements on the way to describe Gibraltar demographics are right, why should the article say that in the 1753 census there were Maltese population in Gibraltar? I remember to you that it was the issue I'm raising. The motivation of Justin to simply revert something that he simply does not about is beyond my understanding, but you've claimed that I wanted to make a point. So, in the end, fixing a mistake is making a point, and reverting it to a factually wrong version is OK. I don't understand it. Really. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Narson. I don't think Justin has made any secret of the fact that he believes the Spanishes a couple of Spanish editors are POV pushing on Gibralter articles because of the political situation on the ground. Sometimes he's right, sometimes I think that the information belongs even if it is being put in by a potential POV pusher.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see User:Elen of the Roads is back with the presumption of bad faith that anything I do is based on racial motives. As it happens on the Demographics article, I worked with a Spanish editor to improve a poorly referenced piece of work. At the time we updated the main Gibraltar article but I guess it became confused with the combination of two sources poorly referenced. Funnily enough the same Spanish editor has made another suggestion to revise the current section getting rid of the dates. Bizarrely given my mistrust of anything Spanish I agreed straight away it was the way to go. Now I have previously dealt with your bad faith presumption, given my racial origins its a bizarre accusation that I'm biased against myself. Justin talk 20:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean it to sound as if you were biased against the entire Spanish nation, just a couple of Spanish editors that you do consistently say are POV pushing (which I think they sometimes are - I'm by no means supporting them all the time). I will strike/refactor my comments, as clearly they can be misunderstood in a way which is not my intention.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that this has been resolved amicably by Justin, User:Imalbornoz and others on Talk:Gibraltar. Just a glance at Demographics of Gibraltar, the Archer source and what was in the current article on Gibraltar showed that something was not quite right. I think also the sourcing and content of the not unrelated article History of the Maltese in Gibraltar could be improved at the same time. Mathsci (talk) 12:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it hasn't. Factually wrong information remains in the article. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC) PS: it doesn't explain why reversion is used as edit tool, something that Justin hasn't explained yet.

Your own behaviour still seems problematic and arbitrary. You continue to dispute niggling points by cherry-picking from sources. It's better to take a good secondary source and systematically summarise what's in it. Mathsci (talk) 07:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mathsci, I've asked you some questions above and you are now answering. Furthermore, you keep on with gratuitous statements about myself that I'm beginning to find offensive. I'd like you to rectify them not because I'm offended (I'm not) but because they're not based in anything. I've got two strong handicaps in the English wikipedia. The first one is my obvious unability at using English. That's an obvious problem since I'm not able to express with the same accuracy my thoughts that with my mother tongue. The other is that I'm used to Spanish Misplaced Pages policies and tend to think that they're the same here. For instance, I naturally talked in Spanish with Spanish-speaking people until I was warned that that was strongly discorauged. Another policy that is totally different from here is that you're not allowed to make unsupported statements such as "Your own behaviour still seems problematic and arbitrary" unless proper and evident diffs are provided. The insistence in doing so is obviously asimilated to a personal attack and may lead to the block of the person making unsupported statements. As I've explained many times, my main concern here was a good faith edition that fixed obvious mistakes (stating that Maltese people was in the Rock in 1753 is as stupid as saying that there was a large population of Arabs in Marseille in the fifth century). Regardles of how bad the previous edition already was (you're right when you say that picking a specific census is pointless... mind that such a specific census was mentioned in such an edition) the fact was that it included factually wrong information. I used the first secondary source I had in order to fix it. From that point on, two unjustified reversions were performed. You've failed to explain why I'm being problematic and, especially, arbitrary. That's something that I'm waiting for. If you're not able to explain why, you'd better drop your gratuitous attacks.

You've also made other arguable statements about myself (such as trying to create a battleground... it would means a pattern of behaviour which requires to be true more than your lighthearted assessment, especially considering all my editions in this Misplaced Pages or the articles I've created) or directly false (such as me continiously coming here, when this the first time ever I've raided an issue here). Finally, you've also complained about my usage of this board instead of using the one on 3RR. The only reason to use it was that this was not the first edit war started by Justin in the last times (the first one was duly raised here by his mate Gibnews and I haven't seen any complain about it), so it was not an edit war but a pattern (if you want we can talk about the petty verbal abuse by Justin —you can simply read this ANI section—, the way in he forbids communication with him, small wikihounding, or how he sniffs my talk page for making spurious canvassing accusations). It's this pattern of behaviour what I'm trying to address.

Mathsci, I don't want to argue with you, but I'd ask you a balanced assessment and, especially, to drop your offensive statements, which I obviously don't share although I don't see bad faith in them, just a rushed analysis. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Since when was improving an article with inline citations and formating per MOS wikihounding? And since when was asking someone politely to stay of my talk page, because they use it disruptively, verbally abusive? Or suggesting that people use the talk page to discuss article improvements, rather than userspace, because that leaves them open to accusations of canvassing or collusion? Are we to believe that only my behaviour is problematic? Interesting. Justin talk 16:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"because they use it disruptively". Can you provide a diff or is it just another verbal abuse as you obsession in calling me "a vandal"? "Or suggesting that people use the talk page to discuss article improvements"? I can't see in here any "suggestion"? Can you? Can you explain why did you editted an article (Spain) you haven't edited ever, curiously to modify my editions? --Ecemaml (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Now nationality isn't a factor here. It comes as a relief, to say the least, because I was growing increasingly uncomfortable to read the term "Spanish" repeatedly qualifying some editors/opinions (which usually happen to disagree with Justins'/Gibnews' point of view). As far as I remember, I've never described myself as a Spaniard. I do speak Spanish. I speak English as well, je parle Français aussi, e io capisco un po' di Italiano altrettanto (quantunque io non lo parlo). And yes, Justin, I know already that you are "half-Spanish". You say that all the time to avert accusations of bias but, as you might know "excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta". Gibnews and yourself are both British (and at least Gibnews is from Gibraltar). However, I've never pointed that out as relevant data concerning our debates, because I value your opinions, neither who you are, nor where you are from. I suggest you do the same, because proceeding otherwise smells like racism to me despite your alleged meta-ethnicity.

As for the reverts thing, whilst I've not participated in this discussion and I hold no opinion concerning the right approach to describing Gibraltar's demography, that certainly wasn't the way to go. Moreover when taking into account precedents like this one. Ecemaml's editions were referenced correctly, and a discussion in the talk page was in order. --Cremallera (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Right I see, so is dragging up something from the past that was already resolved helpful in moving forward? See . Something already explained at length. As regards my mother, no I usually bring it up in response to accusations of racism, usually of an anti-Spanish bias. The issue of race has only ever been raised to try and discredit the viewpoints of anyone that disagrees with certain editors, its not helpful and is designed to portray anyone disagreeing as unreasonable. Its offensive and I'm tired of it. If you don't want it raised, I suggest you have a word with the people who raise it as a red herring. I would also suggest you refrain from the bad faith attempt to spin it as an issue I raise, when you know that I don't.

Further, did you feel changing the date of WW2 was a helpful edit, or edit warring to keep the change? Diffs ,. If you were to perhaps equally condemn that sort of disruption, then to be blunt about it, you'd have more credibility. Just to make the point also, that if there was less of a confrontational attitude and turning everything into a battle, use of the talk page then people might not be so hot on the revert button. Just a thought. Justin talk 00:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I am not stalking neither Ecemaml nor yourself. So, I'm unaware of most of your editions here. However, in defense of my credibility I'll point out that I've addressed him whenever I've felt his comments inappropriate, in concordance with your remarks (!) or even looking forward to your participation in the debate. As for Ecemaml's alleged vandalism concerning WW2 dates, he explained his edition to you in the talk page, and you've read it already as shown by your response which ends stating "Purely for information, my main area of interest is the Falklands and the Falklands War, funnily enough I can manage to work together quite nicely with the Argentine editors there". That was rich. Are you half-Argentinian as well? Whatever. Finally, attribute me "bad faith", lack of credibility, a confrontational attitude and the like, I'm getting used to it. But please stop addressing *any* editor by his putative nationality. Thanks. --Cremallera (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Alleged vandalism, no. Changing the date of the start of WW2 was vandalism and the explanation was lacking in credibility or reason. I see the point about not raising the red herring of nationality has clearly gone straight over your head as you've done it again. I don't address people by their nationality, nor do I seek confrontation. I may respond inappropriately sometimes when wound up. Again if you don't want nationality raised, then suggest it isn't raised so often as a red herring. :"Are you half-Argentinian as well?", the word is Argentine, no. Somewhat ironic to raise it in such a confrontational manner given your subsequent comment. Don't you think?Justin talk 20:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer concerning the word 'Argentine'. You'll excuse me. I am not really that used to labelling contrary opinions by the alleged nationality of their holders, their assumed bad faith, credibility or 'vandalism' records yet. It is quite naïve to expect me raising the 'red herring of nationality' without extensive evidence available, for you to just dismiss the whole issue by stating "I don't address people by their nationality, nor do I seek confrontation". Both Gibnews and yourself have repeatedly... 'described' the opposing editors. Their 'inferred' nationality, inter alia. Please, refrain from now on. It may be amusing the first time, but it is a bit racist thenceforth. --Cremallera (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Newsflash, I'm not biting. Justin talk 16:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"Changing the date of the start of WW2 was vandalism". Yes, that would have been vandalism... if true. However, I never changed the date of the start of the WW2 as you know and as I explained to you (you keep insisting on that in spite of knowing it's false and in spite of having received a duly explanation). For the sake of clarity and for avoiding your usual personal attacks, I'll explain it again (only for you not go on lying). I thought (and think) that 1940 is a better date for "the periodification of the history of Gibraltar" than 1939, as 1940 was the date of the evacuation of Gibraltarians, creation of the Force H, suspension of the City Council and mass-scale fortification of the town... I won't explain it again, although I know that you'll go on lying by saying something as stupid as that "I changed the date of the start of the WW2".

On the other hand, as you hasn't been able to explain yet why factually wrong information must remain in the article (besides your usual small talk, you've failed to explain why you use reversion as edit tool), I'll restore the sourced information that I introduced, along with the reference provided by Mathsci (and removing Spaniards and Portuguese, since its mention seems to be "problematic"). Of course that the section needs to be improved. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As I've already pointed out the information in that section starts in 1939 and it is specifically titled WW2, the date you changed was the date of the start of WW2. I don't find your explanation in any way convincing, particularly as you edit warred to keep it and since you only provided this explanation later it has all the hallmarks of something you came up with it after the event; you didn't mention it at the time.

Equally I've restored the sourced information for the ethnic groups you simply excised from the article, which you could have done. Often successive edits separate sourced information from their cites but as was pointed out to you, you could simply have referred to the Demographics of Gibraltar article and fixed it. You chose instead to cut out swathes of text, that removed useful information from the article. You were of course referred to that article, why you chose to ignore that suggestion to instead start an AN/I thread is a mystery to me. As is claiming to improve articles by removing information rather than correcting the source. That would probably explain the comments here, which acknowledge the POV nature of a number of your edits, not to mention your combative and confrontational style. Anyway this is wasting my time, so this will be my last comment. Justin talk 23:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Justin, please don't call Ecemaml's good faith edits vandalism. He had a reason for the edit, and while you may have disagreed, and he may have even been wrong, but it's a far cry from intentionally trying to make the article worse, which is the only definition of vandalism we use on Misplaced Pages. Calling someone in a content dispute a vandal because you think they made an error can be very offensive. I know, and you know that I know that you have a very valid difference of opinion with Ecemaml on the article, and that you get frustrated at times (as does he) but you do yourself no favors by making false accusations. -- Atama頭 20:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You know I respect your opinion but come on, changing the date of the start of WW2 is vandalism, pure and simple. I don't find the posthumous justification convincing in the slightest. WP:DUCK springs to mind. This wasn't a content dispute, I can't see how changing the start date of the conflict to an utterly arbitrary figure can in any way, shape or form to be a constructive edit. We'd have ban hammered an IP editor making the same change. Justin talk 21:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

What part of "he didn't change the start date of WWII" are you not getting here?Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Which part of the diffs showing that he did aren't you getting here? ,. Anyway I'm gone, this is getting ridiculous. Justin talk 21:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That paragraph isn't saying that WWII started on that year. The paragraph is saying that Gibraltar residents were evacuated during WWII. They weren't evacuated until 1940, so technically Ecemaml was correct in the change. Not to mention, you reverted a fact tag and a typo fix when you reverted Ecemaml. If I were to assume bad faith in you, as you are with Ecemaml, I would call you a vandal for intentionally reinserting a misspelling in the article. That's certainly closer to vandalism than what Ecemaml did. -- Atama頭 23:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

AGF does not require suspension of disbelief. Missing a spelling mistake and a fact tag doesn't insert misleading information into an article. That paragraph sets the scene for Gibraltar in WW2 and changing the date, changes the start of the war. The two are not comparable and if you feel that what he did was constructive, then I have to say that I strongly disagree. You have your opinion, I have mine and it seems on this they won't be reconciled. Justin talk 16:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Opinions are opinions, true. But you are falsely stating that Ecemaml had declared that World War II began in 1940. He didn't. Just as he didn't vandalize the article. Your dogged insistence on fals accusations regarding editors you are in an ongoing content dispute with are troubling. You are correct that AGF does not require suspension of disbelief, and honestly my assumption of good faith on your part is becoming strained. I'm not going to "agree to disagree" on an issue like this, because you're bordering on personal attacks against Ecemaml with this campaign of yours and that's intolerable. I'll compromise on one thing; if you want to believe in your own mind that Ecemaml is a vandal, go ahead, nobody is trying to be the thought police here. But if you continue to assert that in writing, it's going to make things difficult for you eventually. -- Atama頭 18:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Up above Ecemaml makes the utterly false allegation that I tried to get his extensive list of quotations in userspace deleted. They're actually a copyright violation, what I did was to ask for an expert opinion because I was concerned it could cause a problem and I asked someone who knew more than me first for their opinion, when my fears were confirmed I also asked them to explain it to Ecemaml as if it came from me, I was pretty certain it would be taken the wrong way based on a presumption of bad faith. Seems my expectations were rather realistic. What I find interesting is that I don't see you tackling Ecemaml for his bad faith presumption. I note that you're not leaping to my defence. Equally when he states that I am lieing there is not a murmur of comment from you. Then he states that I'm wikihounding him, verbally abusing him and spurious accusations of canvassing. Not a peep.

Now when I have been wrong, I've apologised unreservedly and you've seen me do it. When Ecemaml has crossed the line, his "apologies" have been along the lines he is sorry that I misunderstood his comments. Again just to make the point I have not heard a murmur of comment from you.

For the record I also stated that by changing that date he effectively changed the start date of WW2. I have never declared that Ecemaml stated that WW2 started in 1940 but that is what his edit effectively did. Now I may have gotten careless with my language or did not make it plain enough but thats what I meant. I don't find his explanation convincing because if you look at that section the first 3 events took place in 1939, starting with the construction of the runway. For me it just doesn't add up and requires suspension of disbelief to accept.

What is also interesting to me is that twice Cremallera attacks me of accusing me of using my background to avoid accusations of bias. It seems race is frequently brought up as accusations of racism paint anyone opposing an edit as unreasonable and its an attempt to shut down debate. I've not seen anyone leaping to my defence there either.

So, I apologise unreservedly for honestly stating a strongly held personal opinion based on the evidence before me. I promise I will never again state a strongly held personal opinion in writing again. Justin talk 22:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again

Justin keeps on with his unusual behaviour. Following me, reverting my editions with no apparent purpose. His last edit war is as stupid as the one described above. Several days ago, I introduced a table and a chart in the article Demographics of Gibraltar. The table included the figures of population through the censuses of Gibraltar since its sovereignty transfer in 1713. Censuses are not periodic (at least in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries) and the information provided is sourced. Justin keeps on removing the information on the table on the grounds that "duplicates information". Given that the chart does not include figures, either on the exact population figures or the census dates (it's only a lines chart) such a pretension is rather implausible, especially considering that Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopaedia ("There is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page"). Possibly it's me being arbitrary. --Ecemaml (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Ecemaml, you seem determined somehow to disgrace Justin on WP:ANI by continuing to quibble in as public a way as possible about very minor points. Justin is not following you: you are editing a page in which he has participated, which is presumably on his watch list and which he has mentioned in this thread several times. The table you created duplicates the already existing graph. It serves little or no purpose. Your behaviour seems to consist in finding ways of making tiny changes to Gibraltar-related articles, of little or no consequence, but making a huge issue about their importance. Perhaps it's time for you to start editing in a more constructive and less provocative way. You can always add a point to the graph if you think a piece of data is missing. (I had to do a similar thing with transcontinental countries on the large map at the beginning of Europe.)

It might also be an idea to translate the article into Spanish for es.wikipedia. (So far it's only been translated into French,) Mathsci (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Mathsci, it's nice to hear you again even you keep on with personal attacks that I don't personally think I deserve. You state "Your behaviour seems to consist in finding ways of making tiny changes to Gibraltar-related articles, of little or no consequence, but making a huge issue about their importance", but that's a little bit contradictory. The edition I'm talking about is mine, both in the table (I took it from one of those secondary sources you mention) and in the chart. So if the chart is kept is just because it's of some consequence. You also state "The table you created duplicates the already existing graph". But as said, that's not right since the chart does not include the information about the figures of the census and their dates (which are not periodical). Consider also that Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia. So, at the end, it seems that my "little or no consequence edition" is not duplicated at all. My editions, you're right, are not of importance. But they simply take time to write and it's frustrating to get them removed with no reason, as it's the case. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There were no personal attacks. You don't quite seem to have got the hang of en.wikipedia yet. Bringing little content disputes here is a total waste of time. For future reference, the jargon here is "edit" rather than "edition". I hope that helps. Mathsci (talk) 09:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Also on there: Misplaced Pages is not a collection of indiscriminate information. We had a similar issue in Formula One areas, we are just not a repository for any old fact anyone gathered. There is a debate to be had over which way is better, but both is just unnecessary clutter. Worth pointing out that the table you are introducing is also wrong as we use different notations than the continent in English (The table says there were 27 and a half, roughly, people in Gibraltar in 2001). Also noticd that the graph is also wrong due to use of decimal place. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages is not a collection of indiscriminate information". Yes, Narson, you're right. However, I can't see how the table that creates the chart fits into any of the items the policy you mention describes (is it "Long and sprawling lists of statistics"? I don't think so). Such "old fact anyone gathered" are from current secondary sources (that is, I didn't took the censused and made original research) and give accurate information about population in the different stages of the Gibraltarian history. On the other hand, not only the table, but also the introductory text (mind that the policy states that "In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader"). Finally, the policy is clear: "consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists". On the other hand, you're completely right on the decimal place. I'll fix it. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we just kill this drama fest

Please? Justin talk 00:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse Please could this thread be archived by an uninvolved administrator? No administrative action is required here. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Request review of my actions on Kent Hovind

Kent Hovind's copyrighted doctoral thesis, which he and his alma mater have steadfastly refused to release to anyone's view for many years, has recently appeared on Wikileaks, complete with the information that Hovind, along with his alma mater, Patriot Bible University, has consistently refused to allow his dissertation to be offered for public reprint or scholarly inquiry. and that at the time of appearance on wikileaks: At that time was classified, confidential, censored or otherwise withheld from the public.. Well intentioned editors have been readding the link to this ever since, and been reverted by multiple editors. I protected the article in order to stop the near continuous violation of copyright, and then found I'd protected The Wrong Version. I followed WP:IAR and removed the offending link, and now place myself here for review and commentary. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 02:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

A good call that is appropriate per WP:LINKVIO. NW (Talk) 02:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Good call as anon editors seem to be unaware of WP:ELNEVER --NeilN 02:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that was my rationale as well, but as I'd protected then edited I felt it best to put it here for review by others. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 04:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Per discussion, my thoughts were that dissertations were always public. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Just realized we're talking about different articles. The same discussion is being held at Patriot Bible University. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

On both Talk:Kent Hovind and Talk:Patriot Bible University, both the policies above have been linked and on the second page at least it has been explained that the content is copyrighted, copyright usually being held by the university. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 04:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I've now repeated the action with Patriot Bible University, where a similar situation has been occuring. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 04:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Good call.   Will Beback  talk  05:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify KC, you haven't protected the article, but merely removed the link, correct? There was no edit warring occurring at PBU, merely the inclusion of that link. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• To state that it's been leaked needs a reliable independent source that says it is Hovind's and not a joe-job; to link to the thesis requires a copy that is provably not hosted in violation of copyright per WP:C. Those promoting the link have done neither so far, as far as I can tell. Guy (Help!) 09:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

So strictly speaking, can one not say that it has been leaked on wikileaks, and then reference wikileaks to support that claim? Throwaway85 (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - WP:ELNEVER says never - and with no exceptions. So no - you can't use that wikilinks page as a reference. I suppose you could reference wikileaks in general though. SteveBaker (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, as Guy has pointed out, there is no way to determine whether the document on Wikilinks is the actual document. One might be able to add a footnote stating that a document alleged to be Hovind's doctoral thesis has been posted there -- but just how important is the content of Hovind's work? I'd be more inclined, as a disinterested observer, to accept a mention of the document at Wikilinks if the article had some indication of the subject of his doctoral thesis. For all I know, Hovind wrote about how baseball is mentioned in the Bible. (It's true, didn't you know? In the very first verse of Genesis, in fact -- "In the big inning".) -- llywrch (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Support blocking Llywrch for that awful, awful pun. The subject of his dissertation is why Creationists are right and scientists are a bunch of big doodoo heads (I hyperbolize--barely). It's pretty central to his public persona, and stands as a fairly damning critique, on its own, of both his Doctorate and the institution that granted it. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I"m going to have to agree with Throwaway on that, Llywrch. Of course, I also plan to repeat the pun, first chance I get. The subject of the dissertation on WL is History of Evolution. Cliffsnotes version: Satan made it up before the fall to confuse humans, and has been pushing it ever since. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 09:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Support pun block, but only so there will be more time spent with wonderful new arrival. (Congratulations.) P.S. This in no way means I'm not going to drag someone to Arbcom ... after I see if I've successfully rigged the election. lol Meanwhile, happy holidays. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 09:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

So does that mean we can't use this in any way? Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(Ignores calls for pun-itive measures.) Okay, I spent a few hours yesterday following links discussing this alleged doctoral thesis of "Dr" Hovind, & the problem seems to boil down to this: is this matter worth arguing over BLP concerns? On one hand, there is no definitive proof that this essay is the one Hovind submitted to this diploma mill, although there are persuasive third-party assertions that it is. On the other, being identified as the author of this document is negative information, which is the doctoral thesis equivalent of the Z-movie Manos, the Hands of Fate without the MST3K commentary: it makes the person a laughingstock. I think it would be proper to link to a site (like this one, which is already cited in the article) that provides a summary of the alleged essay by someone who is a reliable source, but to repeat the point of my post above, until someone adds a summary of Hovind's thesis to Kent Hovind, I don't see a reason for the link to Wikileaks in the article. And as for linking it to the Patriot Bible University article, that's a clear case of undue emphasis: of course diploma mills are going to accept questionable material -- that's why they are called "diploma mills". -- llywrch (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As a comment, if it is a forgery, then copyright concerns cannot apply, so if Hovind has asserted that it is a forgery, there can be no copyright problem with linking to it. If any independent discussions of its contents make it into reliable sources that might be acceptable content for the article. However, such a source would have to be more than just a blog. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think copyrights work that way. Somebody wrote it, even if it's a forgery, that just means Hovind wasn't the one who did it. I suppose you could rationalize that nobody will sue for copyright infringement because doing so will mean confessing to being the author, but I'm pretty sure that we don't weigh the likelihood of a lawsuit each time we consider whether or not we include something in Misplaced Pages that might have a copyright claim attached. Please correct me if I'm wrong here. -- Atama頭 18:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Bogus PA warning from User:MBK004

After a user reverted one of my changes, hereby adding a misinformation, I wrote this on his user page:

Please stop destroying Misplaced Pages. If you don't have a clue about a topic, let others write the articles. (Are your really sure nothing else I did was in any way objectionable?)

After this, User:MBK004 twinkled me an "only warning" about PAs. I can't ask him about it on his user page, as it is locked. (Will someone please notify him?)

My question is: Is this warning justified? --91.55.204.136 (talk) 09:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-admin's opinion: the implicit accusation of malice (one doesn't ask someone to "stop destroying Misplaced Pages" unless they are destroying it) was garnished with a put-down as clueless — deprecating both motives and capacity, a two-fer. Way to punch anyone's buttons. So, yeah, 91.55; how would you feel if that had been said to you? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

(I did put a note on User talk:MBK004, as you requested.) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

But looking into the background, 91.55 has some basis to be miffed too: a legitimate edit to My Life Without Me got repeatedly reverted as "vandalism". That could account for some flaring temper, too. I've reinstated and vouched for it, in edit summary and with a note to the reverting editor. Hope that helps. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Warning was OK, but a level 4i-only warning? I've seen worse attacks before... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 10:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This editor has been engaged in some IP-hopping edit warfare in the Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag and doesn't appear to be be a genuinely new editor based on their posts, so a high-level warning seems appropriate to me. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Right. Didn't see that... WP:FROG err... WP:DUCK Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

"IP-hopping edit warfare"? My ISP changes my IP from time to time, why is this relevant?

You implication is that participation in an unrelated edit warfare is reason for sterner measures than usually called for?

I've never claimed that I was a new editor. --91.55.204.136 (talk) 11:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

To clarify this: After an edit war on an unrelated article, the user I allegedly attacked was following me around to My Life Without Me. There is no indication that his involvement in My Life Without Me is anything but WP:WIKIHOUNDING. So I think my choice of words is appropriate. This PA warning is only reasonable if you pick some details from the context and ignore others. --91.55.204.136 (talk) 11:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

And I gather that there was some display problem (in your browser) from the formatting on Varyag? This is not a WP:ANI topic, it's techie, but just as background to your edits...? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, discussions on AN:I do have a tendancy to wildy spread over all kind of topics; I don't want to compound that. Let's just say that the changes on the carrier's pages do not change content and are thus not as significant as the one on My Life Without Me.

This should be about the bogus PA warning however. --91.55.204.136 (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Two articles have been semi-protected because 91.55.211.58 (talk · contribs) / 91.55.204.136 (talk · contribs) has been removing hidden lines. The 3RR rule would have been broken on Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag and CVN-79 if they had not been semi-protected. His remarks to other users seem to have been uncivil and factually incorrect. He played the same game on My Life Without Me, until Sizzle Flambé proxy-edited for him without adding sources to the article (an edit summary is insufficient). I don't think Sizzle Flambé is particularly helping here: he does not seem to have looked carefully at the edit histories of the two IPs and on the last article appears to be enabling the disruptive IP hopping. Mathsci (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You are again picking details from the context. Please stop doing this, it does not help to explain whether or not the PA warning is justified. Only an unobstructed view on the context can do that. (I would also recommend to follow WP:AGF, but I get the impression that you're past that.)

User:Sizzle Flambé: You should be ashamed! You should have known that disabling recalcitrant users is always more important than fixing Misplaced Pages's content. I hope you learned your lesson! --91.55.204.136 (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Forgot one: 3RR was broken - but not by me. Do you propose any sanctions against User:BilCat? --91.55.204.136 (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If you show us diffs and a warning that has been issued and that it is a current problem that needs to be stopped and yes, we would. Toddst1 (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Now, let's play a game: When User:MBK004 blocked the page, which version do you think was The Right One? You have one attempt.

Correct! So of course there is no ongoing problem that needs to be stopped. (Of course there is also no warning by the blocking editor, except the one I got.) --91.55.204.136 (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Studies have shown that the wrong version is always protected ;) Rather than edit war in the articles and abuse other editors then complain here when you're warned for this, please discuss your views on the articles' talk pages. As you're not a new editor, you should know better. Nick-D (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi, my edit summary noted that the official Sony website (which was already linked in the article) supported the plot description. However, just for you, I have added a second link to the same website, as an explicit <ref> for that paragraph (previously not reffed). Making a legitimate edit (which is all this IP user was trying to do) isn't disruption or vandalism. As for "disruptive IP hopping", are ISPs' dynamic IP assignments now to be blamed on their users? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

As usual in cases of admin abuses, the actual matter got out of sight. So again: Is this kind of warning justified? (If you want to respond, please do not blank out part of the context.) --91.55.204.136 (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Could we mark it all down to misunderstandings, note that tempers got heated, but try to cool them off and go on from there? That seems like the resolution with the best and fastest chance of happy outcomes for everyone. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

All a ton of brinkmanship. "Destroying Misplaced Pages"? Um, a tad much. The later sections including the somewhat disparaging edit summaries from BilCat, including saying "I don't trust vandals" after harmless messages left suggesting a discussions merge. WP:VANDALISM is kind of picky about definition and evoking it is a serious matter. The warnings against personal attacks given from that seem 100% justified given a total ignoring what vandalism means-- actually, those messages were polite in that they suggested just walking away for awhile. Then to here. As to "who started it", IP user technically did but not automatically in bad faith, if not questionable. BitCat dragged on the matter with free-floating use of "vandal", to which any experienced editor would take offense to after feeling they acted in good faith. In hindsight, just a rewording of a few edit summaries could probably have prevented this. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: Case of a mutual open apology on "destroying" vs vandal; WQA vs ANI closing the matter? This is well within the range of inability to blame either party and since both parties know the bigger picture sanctions would seem kind of silly. 'Tis my suggestion, since no other resolutions proposed. At least one uninvolved agreement needed, please. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There may be a glimmer of hope; will it spread? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a bit of missunderstanding, the term vandal/vandalism is often used on Misplaced Pages and can seem a bit harsh to new editors. My first impression is a bit of storm in a teacup, the IP didnt explain the edit (no edit summary) and carried on adding it while others (it was first reverted by another editor before BilCat) assumed (due to lack of explanation) that it was some form of vandalism. I suggest we just leave it behind and all get on with improving the encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 10:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Read again: I used the word "destroying" as a synonym for vandalism after he wikihounded me to another article. He called my change there vandalism (and reverted me) without knowing anything about the matter. Turns out that my change was justified. --91.55.230.143 (talk) 11:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever, what about User:MBK004's actions? Regarding the whole context, is this warning justified? --91.55.230.143 (talk) 11:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone involved came on too strong: "vandalism", "stupidity", "destroying", and "final warning". Now the question is, can everyone involved lower their hackles and make peace? Or are we stuck at hostilities? 91.55, having taken the lead to bring this up, can you take the lead to calm it down? As you did with Guerillero? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

OK didnt want to prolong this but had that point not been addressed by User:Sizzle Flambés first comment above. A 91.55 IP changed My Life Without Me without any explanation, it was Twinkle reverted as vandalism by user User:Guerillero, the 91.55 reverted with the comment Reverted 1 edit by Guerillero identified as stupidity to last revision by me. (If you don't know the movie, why don't you just keep quiet? User BilCat reverted the apparant vandalism again with apparent vandalism, and uncivil comments) which was again reverted by a 91.55 IP without explanation but then left a message on BilCats talk page Please stop destroying Misplaced Pages. If you don't have a clue about a topic, let others write the articles. (Are your really sure nothing else I did was in any way objectionable?). BilCat removed the comment from his talk page without comment and MBK004 was probably watching BilCat's talk page (assumption) issued the personal attack warning on the 91.55 talk page. All looks reasonable to me an editor makes an unexplained change to an article and then attacks both reverters an admin sees the comments and issues a warning. User Guerillero and BilCat acted against unexplained edits which provoked comment from the IP which was dealt with by a warning from an Admin. All we need is to move on and the IP should use edit summaries in the future. MilborneOne (talk) 11:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries are recommended but not required. Labelling 91.55's edit to My Life Without Me as "vandalism" was hasty and mistaken; his edit was not "blatantly wrong", in fact it was not wrong at all, let alone obscene or otherwise vandalistic. Things went downhill from that precise point, and got worse with each repetition of the "vandalism" charge. Now, are we done re-hashing this, and can we get back to the "peace" concept? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 12:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but I could not accept the point that 91.55s edit was not blatantly wrong and the two reverters were in the wrong. At the time of the reversion it was seen as an IP making an unexplained change which is why two editors reverted the addition as vandalism a fairly common practice with any unexplained edit. After being reverted the IP still did not comment either in the edit summary or on the talk page but attacked both reverters. It was only when Sizzle became involved that the edit was deemed to be factual at no time had the IP explained the change. As for peace fine just accept what was done and move on. MilborneOne (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverting an unexplained change as vandalism shouldn't be a fairly common practice. If it is, the people doing the reverting need to reread WP:VAND and WP:AGF. The IPs response was rude, yes, but I think the edit summary says pretty clearly that they believed their edit to be correct and that the reverter must not know what he's doing if he's reverting the edit as vandalism. --Onorem♠Dil 13:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite odd that you expected my to assume good faith, but aren't willing to extend the same to me! Per WP:DUCK, it looked like vandalism to me. Now I know I was incorrect, but at the time it appeared to be antoher part of unexplained edits by the same IP. Note that in my second revert I did say "apparent vandalism", expressing some doubt. As this IP is not a newbie, he should know to be using clrear edit summaries in his first edits, and to be civil in all of them. (Summaries are not required, but it is good sense; civility is, and that edit summary was not in any way.) I stand by my edits, reverts, and comments. While I made an error in judgment, I did nothing wrong here. And I have 3 and a half years of edits to show that I generally try to do the right thing on WP, as I've not chosen to hide behind an anoymous IP. My record speaks for itself. - BilCat (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Neither edit summaries or editing as a registered user are required by Misplaced Pages. Seems to me Error in judgement implies something wrong. Nothing huge, nothing requiring drama, but a oops, messed up would be nice. Characterizing an anonymous editor as "hiding" isn't cool. Gerardw (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"While I made an error in judgment, I did nothing wrong here."

I don't think there is anything to add to this. --91.55.230.143 (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, what about User:MBK004's actions? Is the warning reasonable, especially considering that neither the editors starting the personal attacks nor the one violating 3RR got more than a pat on the back? --91.55.230.143 (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe the IP user is acting in good faith. Per the IP's comments here, and the baiting in teh post before this one, I am withdrawing from all discussions in which this user is involved, per WP:DNFT. Admins may contact me privately if they desire to pursue this further. Thanks, especially to Jimbo. - BilCat (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, right, if an IPs is impertinent enough to call an established and respected editor's lie, he's a troll. Figures. --91.55.230.143 (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The three IPs, including noew 91.55.230.143 (talk · contribs), should be blocked for disruption in their short communal period of editing wikipedia. See this example of forum shopping. This is unacceptable behaviour. This user is wikihounding User:BilCat and has contributed nothing to the encyclopedia. Two pages are semiprotected due to their actions. Mathsci (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

(It still gets better.) This entry here is about the bogus PA warning from User:MBK004. Look above to see me again and again trying people to focus on that.

Your link points to my Wikiquette Alert about BilCat's incivility. There is no room there to talk about a possible admin abuse.

Your problem is exactly what, that I use proper forums to address issues? --91.55.230.143 (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The IPs are obviously not here to improve the encyclopedia but to cause disruption. Here is one of a series of personal attacks. Their three editing histories speak for themselves. However, given their knowledge of WP:ANI and WP:WQA, they do seem to display prior knowledge of wikipedia. Possibly they might be a logged off registered user. Mathsci (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, this would be an example of calling a spade a spade. --91.55.230.143 (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you not in fact call User:BilCat a "liar"? Mathsci (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I did, after he lied.

Please let's continue this on my talk page (if at all). --91.55.230.143 (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that is a personal attack. Do you have a registered account? Mathsci (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Please let's continue this on my talk page (if at all). --91.55.230.143 (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, what about User:MBK004's actions? Is the warning reasonable, especially considering that neither the editors starting the personal attacks nor the one violating 3RR got more than a pat on the back? --91.55.230.143 (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the warning was reasonable. Doesn't matter who started anything, each editor is responsible for their own actions. Gerardw (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

A warning was reasonable; but jumping all the way to "final warning" (on the first warning)? That's the question 91.55 has been asking. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I can see the argument that the final warning was premature but it seems like hair splitting to me. What is the implication of the question? That 91.55 should be allowed 2 more personal attack before being blocked? Gerardw (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

We do have levels of warning, e.g. uw-npa1 / npa2 / npa3, for a reason. This was uw-npa4im, skipping three levels of warning. No such warning was given to those who made the false accusation of "vandalism", or to the user who followed 91.55 around to revert all his changes (which is after all what 91.55 was objecting to with his "destroying" comment). That does seem rather uneven. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 15:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to continue beating a dead horse. Mathsci (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

So, to sum up the dispute resolution process from the pov of the offender:

• Break some policy (NPA and AGF seem to be the most popular).
• Watch that you are reported somwhere in WP:Dispute resolution.
• Ignore it.
• Watch other editors attack the reporter.
• Keep quiet.
• Watch other editors rush to protect dead horses.
• Carry on.

In conclusion, I think a lot of editors are putting to much effort into protecting what they perceive as their own, using what seems to be selective reading among other things. I'd recommend perusing Cognitive dissonance, but the nature of this very cognitive dissonance makes it difficult to accept this as good advice.

The attempts to moderate are very much appreciated. Carry on! --91.55.208.131 (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone ought to write Misplaced Pages:How to destroy Misplaced Pages, beginning with the fact that the only sure-fire way to do it is with a large axe & access to the server room. Accusing anyone of doing this in any other way (e.g. vandalism, POV-pushing, personal attacks) is an overstatement & one should avoid saying it. -- llywrch (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I assume that with a large axe, you would have access to the server room. -- Atama頭 21:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Only if reception couldn't remember what the number was for 911. -- llywrch (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you've met some of my co-workers.GJC 14:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible copyright/personality right problems at User:Kils#Students

Another possible problem related to User:Kils. It seems highly unlikely that this editor owns the copyright and has the permission for the pictures found at User:Kils#Students. Highly unlikely as the pictures are of a very low resolution, and given that they look like they were taken from a facebook, the kind most universities allow instructors to access. Pantherskin (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The best thing to do in this situation is ask if Kils has permission to post these images, I'm sure she does, just being "students" Secret 14:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I recommend nominating the images for deletion as they are unencyclopedic. We have no need for low quality images of non-notable people. I think a user can post some images of themselves to create a profile and improve collaboration, but creating a gallery of one's students is a step too far. We're not a hosting provider. Jehochman 15:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Most images are 25 years old. They all have own Corporations in Dubai Monaco Caribbean. Most pay no taxes and have a different passport and look totally different today. All are extremely successful, some are dead. For the low resolution images all gave me the copyright. It is no fun anymore to work for Misplaced Pages with such users like cert. Now they are even destroying my user page. I have Webpages elsewhere, I dont need space on W. Uwe Kils 15:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't have space on Misplaced Pages, your user page isn't to be used as personal webspace in that way. Plus we have no evidence you have the copyright for these, and they serve no encyclopaedic purpose. Canterbury Tail talk 15:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd been wondering about the images for quite some time. Fair Use is a bit different on userspace, but no proof of copyright is still no proof of copyright. Saying they're from a webpage of some sort actually lends to a violation. ... and... *scratches head*, do see WP:OWN and WP:UP explaining why no one has carte blanche of web hosting here. CanterburyTrail is spot-on in the last comment, as well. For be in an encyclopedia, content needs to be encyclopedic and verified by third party sources. I believe the Uwe Kils article was significantly reduced since most all the resourced offered eventually lead back to the same educational facility. Having no tax, or being a company, etc etc., none of that matters... it's part of what we've been trying to explain during this all. I'm not sure how many more times we can link the same things. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. Use a social networking site for the sorts of things a lot of your user pages have. ::As a whole, this entire matter is ironic since this started with legal threats some 2 weeks ago now. Whatever the Foundation did that you felt wronged you, we're here to help. There's tons of information around and chances are someone might have advice, and if we draw a total blank you can be pointed to the right place. The Foundation is organized such that there's always a continuation of communication available, assuming conversation remains civil. If there's one lesson learned from all this, hopefully it's that Misplaced Pages is a community. Sometimes you might love it or hate it, be all are treated equally best we can, with the guidelines and policies of the encyclopedia applicable to all. 00:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 00:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Putting on {{unresolved}} before this drops to archive in a few hours, since this does need a solution. Gut instinct is that the user's userpage is beyond our scope of them, and I question the presence of so many images. Misplaced Pages shouldn't be a yearbook, work diary, or collection of personal photos, and that seems to be enforced swiftly in most cases. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 22:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Tagged the images as lacking source information. Cirt (talk) 07:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

...Thanks. I'd been pondering that for quite some time, but since the issue as a whole has been of community concern and deep discussion I didn't want to jump the gun on something that large. Honestly, it kind of would have felt like "the easy way out" for the end resolution of something intently debated as a whole. I'll say I completely endorse this since at least one other human being independently came up with the same reasoning and it's proper action with what in image sourcing I know of. That should fix it on its own. Should. ... ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Yzak Jule repeat personal attacks on homepage

I appreciate this is incredibly petty, but....a number of anon and account users have been attacking Tryptofish to the extent that his userpage has been semi-protected for several weeks. This follows extremely acrimonious arguments at Talk:Crucifixion and Talk:Crucifixion in art. At some point in that melee, someone made a truly out of order statement that included Tryptofish, Aspies and people with mental health disorders, and someone else put up a banner advising against that comment.

Yzak Jule, who had been blocked for his comments in the dispute, copied the banner and posted it on his user page. He then piped the Asperger's link to point to Tryptofish instead . I took this down as a personal attack. Later, he replaced it with which pipes "someone" to Tryptofish and is, in my opinion, still a personal attack, so I took it down again. Today, he has put it back up again . Is the consensus that it is a personal attack, and if so, could something be done about it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to thank Elen for starting this thread, and I appreciate the concern on my behalf. I think it is worth providing additional information about this user's recent activities. Yzak Jule was recently blocked, and has resumed editing after the block only over the last two days. It is illuminating to observe how he has been focusing his edits in this short time.(1) He has gone to User talk:TJRC, an experienced and valued user who has recently become unhappy about editing, and expressed pleasure at the user's unhappiness . (2) He has made transparent attempts to get back at the administrator who blocked him , . (3) He has frivolously placed a 3RR template on Elen's talkpage for edits that were simply reverting vandalism by an IP . (4) He has repeatedly blanked legitimate comments I have made at Talk:Crucifixion in art , and then frivolously placed a template about creating attack pages on my talk . (5) And he has configured his user page to be a parody of mine (for example: this user opposes the Society for Neuroscience Misplaced Pages Initiative, etc.). One might hope that an editor coming back after a block would attempt to contribute to content improvement, but this has manifestly not been the case. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Note, I've edited Tryptofish's comment to number his arguments for ease of response. (1)My comment that his and your actions in the Crucifixion argument has provoked similar feelings on the other side was an attempt to give you two some perspective so a consensus on the issue could finally be found. (2)As noted below, his actions in the two arguments were similar, and I felt it might be noteworthy that it seems to be a pattern on tedder's part and not an isolated incident. Cool Civil/AGF violation, by the way. (3)The IP was removing the material you added that a significant number of editors on the talk page have voiced as a poor source. Elen's actions were edit warring. (4)Per my arguments below, your comments were incivil. (5)Although I did first notice the Initiative on your user page, my concern is that it violates WP:COI and WP:Canvassing. There'd be no point in parodying your handful of userboxes, it's not constructive to the construction of an encyclopedia at all, just like this argument.Yzak Jule (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

To admins: for each of those responses, please look at them alongside the actual diffs. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

To admins: This is the third time Tryptofish and co. have brought this petty argument to ANI without ever attempting to discuss it via user talk pages (and ignoring any of my own attempts to do so), and I'd like to get back to working on the encyclopedia and quit wasting your time with this. Yzak Jule (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not start this report, Elen did. There is a difference between trying to discuss on talk pages, and what this user continues to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Yzak has a habit of considering anything to be a personal attack, removing comments from talk pages as well as their own userpage. Here are some examples: , , , , as well as aggressively going after anyone who has slighted themselves (including myself and Tryptofish, likely Elen too).tedder (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Those first three clearly violate WP:AGF and WP:Civil, specifically sections 1C, 1D, and 2A. The last one you're correct in that I shouldn't have reverted it, although I feel Tryptofish is using Elen as a meat puppet for reverts in the Crucifixion in art edit war precisely to be able to make such arguments. I don't understand what you mean by "going after" you, since all I did was note that your behaviour in the edit war I'm involved in at Crucifixion was similar to the behaviour the above ANI thread is looking into. As for Tryptofish, he has clear issues with the WP:Own policy, in my opinion, and I'm still involved in trying to reach consensus on the page both of us are involved in, so it's unsuprising we're in the same places.Yzak Jule (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that Yzak has again restored the link to Tryptofish's page. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Because I don't see anything in WP:NPA it's violating and no one here sees fit to discuss that, instead unilaterally making decisions without consensus. However, in the spirit of cooperation I've removed it for now.Yzak Jule (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think one can determine from the user's replies here the likelihood that the user will or will not improve his editing behavior in the future as a result of this report. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to improve my editing if someone would like to tell me what it is I'm doing wrong. The level of condescension in your comments as well as those of most others involved in this edit war (with the exceptions of Elen and Gary) is staggering and extremely unhelpful, and is why this is a continuing issue.Yzak Jule (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

After this AN/I thread started, I note that Yzak Jule has made what appear to be a large number of in-policy vandalism reverts. Given his stated desire to improve his editing behavior, as well as his stated lack of understanding of why the complaints were started, perhaps a better alternative to a block would be some sort of mentorship? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"SA"

Note something non-Yzak related(?) is happening with those crucifixion pages from an off-wiki website- I don't know what, I've just seen it mentioned as "SA". tedder (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Off the cuff, I'd guess Something Awful. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what SA is. Just before Thanksgiving, they started a section called something about how Misplaced Pages is falling apart (within a section called "general bullshit") showing a screenshot of what was then at Crucifixion, and egging one another to meatpuppet here, amid a lot of hate-speech about persons with Asperger's syndrome. It has been morphing into egging people to come here and harass me and other editors who disagree with them. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Diffs about SA: and . Not pretty. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, you seem to think this is some official "section" of SA. It is a forum post. Nothing more. And yes, they don't like the article. I've contributed to that thread, shared my feelings, and acted on some things they've said. --Golbez (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I understand that it's a forum. But that's really beside the point. The issue is what Elen, Tedder, and I have raised above. I already pointed out the SA thing in an earlier AN/I section, now archived, and it simply is what it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Their points are valid; their methods, less so. --Golbez (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. If you think it's worth defending, that's your right. But that isn't the issue before AN/I, in any case. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• One point to Sarek for figuring that out. I was thinking it was Christian-based, so that didn't even cross my mind. TLDR: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Obviously it's a big meme involving Tryptofish and Anime, especially this Anime/Crucifixion article. What should be done about it? I'm involved, otherwise I'd probably block Yzak for disruption. tedder (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Much as I said above to Golbez, I think the SA thing just is what it is, and Misplaced Pages can't regulate what happens at other websites. The solution to meatpuppetry is to give meat-comments less weight. The user issue above is a separate issue, one that is not resolving itself (just got a whole lot more incivility at my talk), and I hope that is where uninvolved administrators are looking, not this side-issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Please explain, exactly, how offering an olive branch, per the civility policy, is incivility.Yzak Jule (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't an olive branch. , --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, see also: 4chan. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

While I commend your effort to explain these things to those of us not "in the know", I believe that, ultimately and unfortunately, your knowledge of the rather complex dynamics involved is slightly superficial, and this situation would benefit greatly from a more nuanced approach. Being a web forum, as opposed to a Wiki, SA has "topics", not "sections". Moreover, SA and 4chan are two separate sites, sort of like Misplaced Pages and Citizendium, and though the latter was created by a member of the former, the two groups are hardly a single entity. Oftentimes, they find themselves at cross-purposes, both philosophically and practically. Think the ASPCA and PETA, Plato and Aristotle, or Goku and Vegeta. Badger Drink (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Show over?

Yzak Jule has taken down the offending notice and done some productive editing. He's asked what he was doing wrong, and I've suggested on his talkpage that he needs to drop the stick. Suggest we can now consider this closed.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said yesterday, I am satisfied that there is no need for a block at this time, while I also think that, based on what Yzak Jule said himself, some sort of mentoring may be more useful. If the drama stops, the AN/I matters can, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Noting that the stick was picked up, again, briefly, today. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

User:OutOfTimer and bad faith

While trying to improve the Little Big Adventure‎ article, we have been faced with multiple bad faith accusations of vandalism and even sockpuppetry from User:OutOfTimer after attempts to warn him] and discuss the issue on the talk page it continues and it's getting a little tedious, edit war issues aside. Rehevkor ✉ 16:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I have protected this page for three days due to the edit warring. Rehevkor, it appears you are just as guilty of edit warring as the other editors - you cannot keep reverting simply because you disagree with the edits (or that there's "no consensus"). That said, the reversion due to "suspected sockpuppetry" was also out of line. Bottom line - everyone at this page needs to chill the hell out. Tan | 39 16:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I only reverted 3 times. You can see on the talk page I was trying to bring up discussion on the issue long before I did any reverting, which I only did when bad faith accusations came into the picture. Rehevkor ✉ 16:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say you violated 3RR; I said you were edit warring. I agree that there are "bad faith accusations", but I think the larger issue is the ongoing edit war. It needs to stop - by all involved parties. Tan | 39 16:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Bringing the issue here was my way of washing my hands of the article, I will no longer have any involvement in it. Sorry to have been of any inconvenience. Rehevkor ✉ 16:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to worry about the well-being of this article as there are several editors that consider it a high priority. We will do everything we can to keep it in good shape. OutOfTimer 17:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I am deeply sorry for engaging in an edit war that ultimately caused trouble for the Admins. Even though I regret it came down to this, I believe there was a serious reason for my actions. User:Eik Corell is well-known for blind content deletion in various parts of the encyclopedia, which is prominently reflected by his talk page. There are dozens of instances of users complaining about his behaviour. It also seems to me that content deletion is at the core of his "contribution." In addition, neither User:Eik Corell, nor User:Rehevkor have sufficient knowledge of the topic of the article in question. Furthermore, it was not myself that first accused the latter party of sock-puppetry, which in my opinion implies that there were well grounded reasons for such an accusation. However, I do realise that this accusation is most likely far-fetched and want to apologise for it. Last but not least, I want to assure everyone that my only concern is providing accurate and valuable information to the visitors of our encyclopedia and that I have acted in good faith. OutOfTimer 17:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It might be sensible to consider locking Little Big Adventure 2 as well. User:Eik Corell engaged in content deletion in that article, too. The only difference is that I was not as determined to stop him and he only bullied other editors. I have to admit that having this edit war in dispute resolution is a shame. There are very serious problems discussed here (legal threats, for example), whereas we have a problem with a user that deletes content from a game-related article. Just sad. OutOfTimer 17:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Eik's Talk page looks to me like only edit warriors keep complaining about his edits there. Have you discussed his edits on the article's Talk page and/or followed the procedures at WP:DR, or are you merely happy to keep edit warring to get your version of things into the article in question? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Admins watching this may wish to note that OutofTimer is making personal attacks against those he had this issue with at , along with some against myself. Similarly the editor who communicated with User:OBrasilo, is apparently helping this "friend" in the dispute above and also engaging in personal attacks (referring to myself, the Erik Corell mentioned here, and two others as "idiots"). Whether there was edit warring going on or not, it seems clear that there is more to the issue here and OutOfTimer seems to be far from acting in "good faith" as he claims, considering his remarks about said editor and others, and the calls for assistance passing between two of these involved parties. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I have the right to talk whatever I want in my private conversations with other people. That should be none of your concern. I am a world-class expert on Little Big Adventure, therefore (1) assuming that I act in bad faith towards my favourite game is ridiculous and (2) I will not engage in a discussion with you until you prove to me that you completed this game at least once, which would make you a little more than a n00b in this field. OutOfTimer 22:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

1 - conversations on Misplaced Pages are not private, and no, you don't get to insult other editors on your talk page either (nor here in calling someone a n00b). 2 - thanks for proving the point of the complaints here, and go read WP:OWN. Declaring that no one can discuss an article unless they have played the game is not only a strong display of ownership, but also completely against Misplaced Pages's actual nature and guidelines. Thanks -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a lie. I did not insult you and only mentioned that you and I met before, which you are well aware of. I'm a man of highest intellectual capacity and do not use direct insults. When I first came here I had great hopes. However, you and your pals crashed them. I don't have the time and energy to be part of a community that does not respect my knowledge and skills. Depending on the field, they may be proven by rankings, certificates, dyplomas and so on and so forth. Here, however, I'm forced to defend myself against teenagers who have no idea what they're talking about. You'd be ridiculed in any serious community, because nowhere else are people with no expertise allowed to make any judgements. Maybe you have no expertise in anything and that's why you waste your life engaging in all this. Let me tell you a little story. Not so long ago I talked to two famous Supreme Commander players and commented on a Replay we watched. One of them asked me "What is your ranking?" and I answered "I'm World Top 1000." Then the other guy said "then shut the hell up, n00b, and be thankful that we give you the chance to listen to us and learn." So I did. When you decide you need somebody with actual knowledge to write articles in your encyclopedia, you know where to find me. I'll be glad to write something about FullMetal Alchemist, Little Big Adventure or anything else you fancy. For now, however, I'm tired of disrespect I get from people like you. Feel free to edit your Little Big Adventure article and have a good life. Oh yes, and don't foget to stay here forever because someone may decide to change it someday. I hope you'll still be around to defend your decisions against their incompetency. Otherwise you may end up just like me. Misplaced Pages, on the other hand, may end up in the hands of a huge corporation to be used as a marketing tool. OutOfTimer 22:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Collectonian: Declaring that no one can discuss an article unless they have played the game is not only a strong display of ownership, but also completely against Misplaced Pages's actual nature and guidelines. - Yeah, let people who have no idea what they're talking about discuss these issues. LOL OutOfTimer 23:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, because telling people they are a "n00b" is not an insult, and your whole response here isn't? Perhaps you might try reviewing WP:CIVIL, which others have pointed you to several times already. It is a bit amusing to have a self-declared undergrad student claiming he is having to defend himself against "teenagers", when you appear to be the youngest person in the conversation (of those who have actually declared their general age). Your playing the game does not somehow make you an expert, it does not give you "authority" over the article nor the discussion, and it does not give you the right to speak to others in a false superior manner or declare them incompetent to work on the article. Go write a bunch of video game books, get published, speak at conventions, etc, then you may at least make the argument that you are a expert being ignored. Otherwise, you are no more an expert than any other video gamer, and on Misplaced Pages your "expertise" is irrelevant. Again, no, you do not have to play the game to be able to work on article about it or discuss any article, particular with regard to the seeming issue here of what is and is not appropriate for a Misplaced Pages article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I have asked OutOfTimer repeatedly, in the nicest ways possible to: Share his specific complaints, remain civil, not call my edits "vandalism", read the policies I link to. Thus far, no dice on any of them. I deal with these types of accusations often because fans don't understand the policies I edit by -- WP:GAMECRUFT, WP:GAMEGUIDE, and WP:OR --, and that's why this keeps continuing - Vandal! Outsider! Meanypants! It doesn't what I tell them, it doesn't matter if I explain the policies and how they relate, they want their gamecruft and gameguide stuff - And I have no right to edit it because I haven't played the game. I have linked OutOfTimer to these policies several times, and I am frankly tired of this. I am however impressed how quickly he composed himself once this was taken to ANI. If only he could do that in his normal edits and discussions. Eik Corell (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

OutOfTimer, I will give you this advice, which I suggest you remember: this is an encyclopedia. To keep the site a functioning encyclopedia, we have policies. Read the policies listed above. Just because I'm the lord of all penguins doesn't mean I am the only one qualified to edit the penguin article. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 23:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

IMPORTANT MESSAGE: I promise not to engage in the disruptive behaviour that was kindly pointed out to me by several users both above and on my talk page. I neither have the time, nor do I have the will to continue this argument or any other future argument of this sort for that matter. I accept User:Collectonian's interpretation of recent events. I will not edit Little Big Adventure anymore (unless a minor correction is needed). I will also do my best to avoid any future confrontations with other users and minimise the risk of producing edits that may not be considered valuable by the community. I'd like to underline the fact that my intentions were always positive and I hope Misplaced Pages will survive the weight of all its policies. I will also stop posting my personal remarks on Misplaced Pages as they're either ignored or making others angry. I hope this concludes the discussion. I'm sorry for all the trouble that I might've caused. Thank you. OutOfTimer 23:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Collectonian, how nice of you to be so much against insults and inappropriate behavior, when I attmepted to civilly talk about you on your Talk page about Tokyo Mew Mew international adaptations, and you kept replying with excuses, and when you were finally left with no proper excuses to use, you simply deleted the conversation. You know, you won't solve disagreements by censorship. Also, you need to teach yourself a lesson as well - while expertise doesn't give you ultimate authority on an article, bringing one to FA status doesn't either, yet, you used that as reason, why you're more qualified to edit the Tokyo Mew Mew articles, than I am. Instead of elitistically marking any disagreements with how FA-status articles are written, as insults, and deleting them in an attempt to censor the talk pages, you should be able to discuss them.

And talk about bad faith, and assuming good faith - when I once made the article about plagiarism by Green Day, which was well-sourced, to several YouTube video's, and press pages, it got speedily deleted as a personal attack, even though it could have just been modified to be more formal, and less accusatory. Why didn't people assume good faith there? After all, my intention with the article wasn't to attack Green Day, but to point out, how a lot of their songs sound at least similar to other people's song, which in my humble opinion, is worth noting. I notice a lot, how the Italian Misplaced Pages has no problems mentioning that the song has plagiarism issues, or stuff like that, whereas Misplaced Pages avoids it even on the cases, where such was argued in court.
Also, I do apologize for my insults posted in my talk page, I shouldn't have done that. But fact still stands, that I currently have problems with you, Eik Corell, Rehevkor, SchmuckyTheCat, and Ned Scott.
To Lord of all penguins, yes, we have policies, but one would expect people to have some brains, and attempt to change policies, when needed, since the current policies are creating a lot of problems. Just look at the article on danah boyd where users keep saying the article can't use the lowercase spelling on her name (which, BTW, is the one preferred by her, AND her legal name at that), just because "reliable sources" don't use it. This "verifiability, not truth" approach won't help Misplaced Pages in the long run, since with such an approach, all Misplaced Pages will ever be, is a cherry-picked collection of knowledge, that was published by major press/TV/sites, mostly ones from the Anglosphere, and as such, only barely useful, and mostly only useful to the people from the Anglosphere.
Whenever I search Misplaced Pages on legal matters, I nearly universally only find US law stuff, which I couldn't care less, since I'm not in the US. When I search about TV stuff, I get US and UK (and Canada) stuff, but no other stuff, except if I specifically list the country's name in the search (the main articles don't even link to those per country articles, LOL). Maybe you people should realize, that the whole world can access, and does access, Misplaced Pages, and English is an international language, so the vast majority of the users of the English Misplaced Pages are from outside the Anglosphere. So making the English Misplaced Pages so Anglosphere-centric is, IMO, a bad idea.
And about Eik Corell, and Rehevkor - they need to explain to me, why can the article on the japanese Visual Novel games have detailed lists of all their versions, whereas the articles on Western games can't. And Collectonian should explain to me, why is an Non-English versions of The Simpsons article OK, but a Non-English adaptations of Tokyo Mew Mew not. - OBrasilo (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The list of people you mentioned is gonna grow with the attitude you've taken. As for what might seem like double-standards, the WP:OTHERSTUFF guideline might be of help here. It deals specifically with the kind of comparative articles you mentioned, too. Now, we've gone far off topic here, how about leaving it here. Eik Corell (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

OBrasilo has been doing off-site canvassing to force his own edits through. Eik Corell (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Federer–Hewitt rivalry

I started the AfD process for this article just now but found that it has already been deleted via AfD. It has been recreated today and should be removed in line with the previous AfD decision. Could an admin please take the appropriate action. ----Jack | 21:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, comparing to the text of the original article, and the reasons for delete listed at the AFD, this new creation seems to address some of the problems related to notability, especially in the much expanded lead section, which was entirely missing from the first time around. It may be worth it to run another AFD because of the improvements since last time. --Jayron32 22:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If I saw this come up at CSD as Gwhatevernumberitis as a recreation, I would decline it. There is prose now and links that may indicate notability, and is sufficiently different to the previous version to need a seperate AfD. GedUK  10:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

User:JHunterJ violating WP policies.

Suspect this resolution will need replacement due to WP:COI of resolver, but who could resist a Christmastime swipe at the "Navigation-priority disambiguation cabal." Humor license invoked. Holiday season pardon invoked. Too much beer license invooked. That ought to cover it. Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 04:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

User:JHunterJ is violating WP policies. There is a WP:RM Calbuco, Los Lagos -> Calbuco pending from 11 Dec. But he is moving anyway. There is Calbuco (disambiguation) where he deletes valid content. He deletes pages claiming the deletion falls under G6, but G6 says "Uncontroversial maintenance", the deletion is not uncontrovertial. He has been warned, his reply shows that he had no valid reason to delete content and also that he has no complete understanding of the policies he cites. This misunderstandings in his head are showing again in another reply by him. Such admin behavior drives away editors!!! Please can some admin review whether Calbuco Island was deleted and by whom? I think I created that page in the last 48h hours but can see no evidence. TrueColour (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Calbuco Island has never been an article on the English Misplaced Pages. You apparently did not create it; it has not been deleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I see nothing wrong here. You could try to work with him rather than taking an adversarial stance from the first contact you make on his talk page. This appears to be a content dispute between the two of you, and if you tried to work it out together, I don't think there's much to do here. You should also notify him of this discussion. --Jayron32 22:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Calbuco Island note. Still his other policy violations apply. After I warned him he went on to violate G6 etc. Are you here for proper process or are you just defending a fellow admin??? I notified him of the WP:ANI thread, took a little longer since I included some extra info. TrueColour (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick statement to confirm that I am aware of this AN/I. I am happy to see that the rest appears to be clear. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• It appears this was the first attempt at discussing this (let me know if I'm wrong). I wonder if this place would work better if MediaWiki was tweaked to disallow the phrase "warning", or in particular "formal warning", to appear on user talk pages. A conversation that begins with a "formal warning" is unlikely to evolve into a productive discussion without lots of wasted time, energy, and bad karma. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Now he also closed the WP:RM. What is this? The private WP of some admins? He was acting in violation so I had to warn him to stop this! The bad karma comes from admins like JHunterJ. Who violated the policies in the first place? Me or him? Who has no complete understanding of WP:MOSDAB and is making up own conditions for MOS:DABRL and even after being asked for clarification defending this own creations. This is not official WP policy: Red links are used on disambiguation pages when (a) the red link is also used in a Misplaced Pages article and (b) the red link entry on the disambiguation page includes a blue link to a Misplaced Pages article that discusses the ambiguous topic. This is private policy of him and maybe some other editors. TrueColour (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • TrueColour, your consistant refusal to assume good faith in other users is disheartening, and is likely to be a self-fulfilling delusion here as people begin to become stretched thin by your adversarial attitude. Others (and myself) have already told you that if you tried to work with, rather than against, JHunterJ, and took a tone of voice which was collegial and cooperative, you would get much farther in resolving this issue. From the first, you have basically set yourself up as an opponent rather than a collaborator, and such a stance makes it hard for any of us to help you. --Jayron32 23:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry, this is nonsense. See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Calbuco_(disambiguation)&diff=331922488&oldid=331908855 - JHunterJ is just sticking to delete valid material. Only because he is an admin he cannot override rules and invent his own. TrueColour (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You do not appear to be hearing what Jayron32 is saying; why not discuss your concerns with JHunterJ in a manner which indicates you are willing to work toward an agreed solution? Coming here and complaining that JHJ is abusing his admin bit when it appears that this is simply a content dispute with someone with a great deal of experience of editing Misplaced Pages is not going to get any traction. You can choose to either attempt the collaborative editing model that forms the core of Misplaced Pages editing, or you can simply assume that as Jayron32 and I are also both admins we are simply ganging up on you... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem not to care about his editing. That he is "Experienced" - what is the value? He makes up his own rules. Do you call "Collaborative editing" when he makes up his own rules out of his mind and enforces them? Is it collaborative if he deletes valid references from a dab page? Is it collaborative to move a page while there is a WP:RM pending? This behavior is very bad. And yours too. It seems here are a lot of people that have the same attitude as him. You are making Misplaced Pages bad looking if admins do what they want even if it is against policies and against the very core of WP: create a good encyclopedia. TrueColour (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No one has displayed any "attitude" here. You came here seeking a solution to your problem. We have given you a solution. Here's how to fix your problem, in three easy steps:

1. Understand that JHunterJ is not an enemy or opponent
2. Start a civil discussion with him about the issue
3. Work with him towards building a consensus solution

Your approach to this point has consisted of: 1) see something I don't agree with 2) demand that the person doing it gets punished. That approach is unlikely to yield positive results for you. Why not at least try the plan we have laid out for you? --Jayron32 15:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• JHunterJ deleting several blue links. And the reference to the 2nd Calbuco Department! TrueColour (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

  And restored the new blue links from your 3RR violation nearly an hour before you complained about the deletion here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

TrueColor blocked for 31 hours pursuant to JHunterJ's WP:ANEW report -- and yes, I did read through this first. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

User:DBaba

DBaba (talk · contribs) in this edit on the talk page of Cave of the Patriarchs massacre is accusing me of being rascist/nationalistic, running a cabal, harassing, and being POV. And all of that after I worked it all out with another editor there, due to both of us being civil and sticking to the rules of Misplaced Pages, as that same section testifies. DBaba seems to have a serious bias here, as well as a problem with neutrally assessing my person. I have informed him of this discussion here. Debresser (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with these characterizations of what I've had to say. Debresser's activity continues to trouble me, and I find that this is just an alternative means of obstruction he has resorted to. DBaba (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Your viscious and baseless attack compared to the discussion preceding it says it all. Debresser (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem a seriously sticky attack. Is that all there is, or has he made other statements you find objectionable? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That is all, mam. Frankly, I find that more than enough. Debresser (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

My previous post got removed somehow. It ran like this:

DBaba continues on Talk:Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_massacre#Mediation calling people by unacceptable names. Debresser (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is DBaba's post is full:

Hope this helps. DBaba, my experience is you're generally a pretty good guy, but there's a problem with calling other editors racist. Remember the fiasco on Nanking Massacre a while ago? I was just being stupid, but you and User:Flyingtiger were convinced I was a Japanese negationist. Try and assume good faith of Debresser. ALI 01:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

E.g. If I remove a sentence or paragraph, it is either unsourced, or irrelevant. And I am willing to defend any my decision to do so. If User:DBaba has any specific problems he could have raised them on the talk page, as another editor has done. In view of my edits, it seems unjust to assume I have a POV agenda. In fact, I have made edits and comments to this article and its talk page that are contrary to what I would have liked, based on the facts and a neutral way of representing them. Calling editing - "interfering", is plain ridiculous. Especially since I am not what you would call a "newbie" on Misplaced Pages, and have numerous edits to my name, including many on pages related to Judaism. In short, User:DBaba seems to have a bias here, both in regard with the article as with me personally, and he has a very unpleasant way of expressing it. I think a civility warning is the least he should receive. Debresser (talk) 10:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are six instances of Debresser using the Undo function to remove cited and neutral text, all from this same article, in the space of one week.

I do not peg him as actually participating in any FBI-designated terrorist group, as is apparently the case with some of my other foils in this area, but this hasn't stopped him from working fruitfully to the same end: blanking factual and cited information, with the claim that it is "not important". I am troubled by this and I am troubled that he still does not understand what he has done wrong; and I believe he is being manipulative when he suggests I am "calling people by unacceptable names", or that I have been vicious.

I also think he and I can work this out without any help from outside, and that his choice to come here to seek sanction against me is a stunt which further demonstrates political activism on his part. And I apologize for calling him an ethnonationalist, which only served to change the subject from how awful and POV his editing has been, as well as being needless and an inefficient method of bringing him into the light. DBaba (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. But you see, you are doing it again! Now you are accusing me of coming here as "a stunt". You just don't seem to know what Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith is about... As to my removals of "cited and neutral text", please see the talk page that at least part of it is considered POV by some, or is indeed plain irrelevant to this article. These are content issues that you should discuss on the talk page, not here. But your failure to apply WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, now those have to be brought here. Debresser (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Likely User:Bravedog/User:Dalejenkins sock

• Bravedog (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Dalejenkins (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• GaGaOohLaLa (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Windhover75 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

User:Windhover75 is a newly registered account acting in the same unconstructive manner as the accounts recently confirmed per checkuser and blocked at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Dalejenkins/Archive, specifically the anti-Article Rescue Squadron commentary and use of WP:JNN style of non-arguments. The account's very first edit was to antagonize ARS member User:Dream Focus at ANI: and all subsequent edits have been to AfDs. I therefore strong suspect that this account is evading a block. Sincerely, --A Nobody 23:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

SPI case reopened. NW (Talk) 23:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, upon further research, I strongly suspect it is someone else rather than Bravedog/Dalejenkins. Compare Windhover75's "whatever the ARS block vote thinks" with User:Verbal's "the ARS block vote". It is clearly the same person or is an impersonation. How do I open an SPI report on this user instead? Sincerely, --A Nobody 23:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I see that a checkuser has confirmed my suspicions and that action has been taken. Therefore, this request can be marked as resolved. Best, --A Nobody 02:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, done at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Verbal. Sincerely, --A Nobody 23:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Note - the below was in response to a prior version of the above comment, which the below editor reverted.

Checkuser shows this is Dalejenkins, and not Verbal. Skinwalker (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to a retraction of the gross unsupported and untrue accusations of improper behaviour made by A Nobody at the SPI report. I am an active member of the ARS. Verbal chat 20:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't hold your breath. Are you the record holder for frivolous sockpuppet allegations against you? Fences&Windows 22:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

According to Frei Hans (remember him?), I'm a sock of Verbal's too :)Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Haven't we all! Coming soon - six degrees of Verbal!   pablo_hablo. 00:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Tombaker321 single purpose account at Polanski

User:Tombaker321 Is a single purpose account as regards Roman Polanski , his editing has been a constant disruption there as he has over a long period of time, continually tediously attempted to add his point of view, yesterday he made imo a poor edit to a section about Polanski's bail, this edit removed details and totally removed the fact that Polanski was in jail for 2 months, I reverted and he put it back and the beginnings of an edit war were there, I stood back and opened a section in the talk, there was no support for his rewrite at all, two editors supported my position so I replaced the original content this evening, user Tombaker321 has come back and ignored the fact that he has no support, he doesn't care about that, and he has simply again removed the content and replaced it with his content, he has been here long enough to realize that ignoring the opinion of other editors is disruptive this is a constant repeated situation with this single purpose account and it is tiresome and tedious for other editors at the article. After he made the edit today I left him a note reminding him that there was no support for his edit and to please revert but he refused, I think it is time to curtail the tedious disruption of this editor. Off2riorob (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

1. My edits are in good faith, my POV is singularly to have a well cited factual record reported, which I strive to make all of my edits conform to.

2. The edit being questioned, has the arrest date, and the date when he was released in bail. (it does not type out "2 months in jail" but the math is not hard) To what issue Off2riorb is contending is POV or disruptive is unknown.

3. Just 3 minutes after spending the time to update the entry, Off2riorob reverted my edits, saying "(Reverted 1 edit by Tombaker321; This edit adds nothing to the content. (TW))"

4. Without looking at the merits of the additions of facts (in what is a time, place, and situation section), Off2riorob sought out some form of "instant consensus" which he then determined and used to revert everything. Off2riorob's modus operandi is to claim authority and insist he can gavel discussions.

5. I did not remove content, I reworded and added content. I still do not know what is objectionable about the edit.

6. Off2riorob has continued his ad hominem attacks of me in multiple venues, and now this one.

7. Off2riorob writes in the TALK page days before "Tombaker, please stop posting your opinionated summary on this talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)"

• Off2riorob continues to confront,edit war, and disrupt editors, and I am just the latest target. --Tombaker321 (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive571#Harrassment.2Fdisruption_from_User:Off2riorob

Extensions of good faith given to Off2riorob

1. 16 April 2009 - 72 hour block for disruption at WP:GA article was reduced to 48 hours, after Off2riorob agreed in the future to seek out dispute resolution instead of be disruptive .
2. 29 September 2009 - Sanctioned with parole of 1RR per page per day for 5 weeks, instead of being given a "lengthy block".

Prior disruption and blocks

See prior ANI threads detailing disruption by Off2riorob and blocks:

• 14 March 2009 - blocked 24 hours for disruption of a WP:GA article.
• 16 April 2009 - blocked 72 hours for disruption at same WP:GA article - Off2riorob was then given a good faith reduction of that block to 48 hours, after Off2riorob agreed in the future to seek out dispute resolution instead of be disruptive .
• 25 April 2009 - Blocked 72 hours, for disruption at same WP:GA article.
• 29 April 2009 - Blocked one week, for disruption at same WP:GA article.
• 19 July 2009 - Blocked 2 weeks, disruption at Tony Blair.
• 21 August 2009 - Blocked 3 weeks, block log edit summary by admin Chillum: edit warring yet again
• 29 September 2009 - Off2riorob sanctioned to 1RR per page per day for 5 weeks.

Comments by admin Chillum

• 25 August 2009 - Entry in his block log by admin Chillum (talk · contribs): "User gave word not to edit war in the future, reducing block", which was citing this comment by Off2riorob: .

• 22 September 2009 - Comment by admin Chillum: I am considering you to be fully aware of our edit warring policy in the future Off2, and will not be considering warnings to be needed in the future. You gave me your word that you would not edit war as a condition of your last unblock, given that you have not kept this word I will not be extending that offer next time you are blocked.

• 29 September 2009 - When I brought Off2riorob's disruption to Chillum's attention, Chillum responded: It looks like edit warring to me. If I was not taking a break from my admin tools currently then I would likely hold Rio to his prior promise. . Perhaps another admin will feel the same way I do, but my buttons are currently not being used.

Comments by admin Moreschi

• 29 September 2009 - I think we have the choice between a lengthy block, an indefinite block, and a 1RR per page per day revert parole.

--Tombaker321 (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: --JN466 04:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Disruptive WP:SPA on a contentious and sensitive WP:BLP should qualify for a topic ban. Whether that should extend to other warriors as well I could not say, it would need further investigation. My recommendation is a 30-day topic ban for Tombaker321 with a 1RR parole at expiry. We need this kind of fight like we need a hole in the head. Guy (Help!) 08:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

* JzG, I am taken aback by your comment, and have to believe that you did not familiarize yourself with what has been raised here, certainly 30 days is a classic overkill action. Since we have never interacted, I am baffled by your assertion for the overkill 30 days. maybe you juxtaposed names?..the long chain of previous ANI is Off2riorob's not mine

* Perhaps to illustrate what was raised at me here and now, I need to put down the actual sentences at question.

Here was the previous version.

"In September 2009 Polanski was arrested by Swiss police because of his outstanding U.S. warrant when he entered the country to accept a Lifetime Achievement Award at the Zurich Film Festival. His initial request for bail was refused noting the "high risk of flight" and his subsequent appeal was rejected by Switzerland's Federal Criminal Court. On November 25, 2009 a Swiss court accepted Roman Polanski's plea to be freed on $US 4.5 M bail. The court said Polanski could stay at his chalet in the Swiss Alps and that he would be monitored by an electronic tag. The Swiss authorities announced on December 4, 2009 that Polanski had been moved to his home in the resort of Gstaad and placed under house arrest .

Here is the current version which I wrote.

"On September 26th 2009, Polanski was taken into custody at the Zurich airport by Swiss police at the request of U.S. authorities, for a 2005 international arrest warrant, as he traveled to accept a lifetime achievement award at the Zurich Film Festival. After initially being jailed, on December 4th Polanski was granted house arrest at his Gstaad residence on $US 4.5 M bail, while awaiting decision of appeals fighting extradition. "

The above is what is being contested by Off2riorob.

My edits were a valid and earnest rewrite, regardless of any assertions. The same information is conveyed, more information is added, and word count is halved. When I streamlined the text I did not think it would be controversial. I am at a complete loss to see how the rewrite and aggregating is so problematic. Off2riorob premise seems to be those with a viewpoint other than his own, are acting in bad faith. When I look at the two sentences above, I stand by my edits, they are written well. --Tombaker321 (talk) 10:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Your edit even after you have altered it, has still removed informative detail, the reader now is not given the information the Polanski is electronically tagged, you have removed for what reason I do not know, two perfectly good citations, you have removed detail that Polanski first made two attempts for bail that these were rejected and the reason that was given was that he was a risk of flight.

Beyond content disputes (as illustrated above)

These type of changes, where none were needed, is exactly the point, your continual content creep in a tedious and disruptive attempt to alter the expression of the text to your often declared point of view, I strongly support Guy's comments that a short term , 30 day topic ban or a similar 1RR parole would help, the editor seems not to care about whether there is any support for his position and simply makes the edit anyway, under this position there is simply no point in editors bothering to discuss the issues. Also although the editor removes them, there are a multitude of warning notes have been given. This users conduct has been the same since day one and I am certain that without some form of reprimand or control it will continue to disrupt in such a way. Off2riorob (talk) 12:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Guy, I know you mean well, but heavy-handed comments like that without any adequate explanation or analysis of the situation are not going to make the atmosphere any more pleasant. You know that as well as I do. Personally, I see this dispute as a perfectly good faith content issue blown way out of proportion by a lack of clear and reasoned communication between editors, as well as a tendency on both sides to jump to conclusions regarding the motives of others. Brilliantine (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There are, at this point, three editors still working on Polanski, with two more semi-contributors. I am one of the latter. Most have conceded defeat because of the contentious atmosphere, and most of that has been generated by Tombaker321, who early in his editing career responded to a discussion he was having with Off2riorob on his own talk page that "I take it you support the rapist of a 13 year old? Why because you like his films?--Tombaker321 (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)." In my opinion, the editors on Polanski have shown a great deal of patience while dealing with content creep. We have endured, and I do mean endured, pages of Tombaker321's repetitive content in Talk, in which he advises us of what we are dealing with, because apparently although we have all been on the article longer than he has, we are clueless.

Nothing much is happening at the moment in the Polanski saga, it would be nice if the article were cleaned up a tad with citation checking and then left alone. This will not happen if Tombaker321 continues to edit. There is a companion article Polanski Sexual Abuse, which could use attention, and which was bifurcated in an attempt to create stability in the main article. No one is touching it.

None of the other editors have any desire to elevate Polanski above his crime; we see that the victim has moved on, that there are serious charges of jurisprudential malfeasance, and that much is left to be decided by the courts. Were an admin to decide to block Tombaker321 for a time, I am confident that the article would not suddenly become a victim-bashing, pro-Polanski spectacle. Another completely rational (and kind to us all) choice would be to lock the article entirely, and allow the participants to refocus attention elsewhere. I appreciate that Tombaker321 is completely outraged by the assault; however, the flavor and the neutrality of the article can be skewed by a few minor edits, and he has demonstrated that he is far from neutral; that fact is reflected in his behavior. Oberonfitch (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Re: Off2riorob, edit summary of item at question "Added date of arrest, ..Added location of arrest,.. Added date of warrant, ..Added information on appeals,.. Added information on extradition, ..Kept cites and content, ..worded for conciseness" House arrest is Wikilinked which talks about flight risk and electronic monitoring, both of which are well understood as reasons for house arrest by readers. For some reason you have failed to mention Proofreader77 whom you interact with heavily, and team with in reverting. My edits are in good faith.
• Re: Oberonfitch. Oberonfitch is a single purpose account of Roman Polanski. His manner of actions suggest a sockpuppet of Proofreader77. He raises viewpoints in his remarks of viewpoints on the crime and its resolution, here as argument. He does not address my edit being questioned here which remains a good faith edit. Both fail to mention Proofreader77 as a catalyst on the Talk pages. The conversation the Oberonfitch quotes from my talk page is a sample from discussion instigated by Off2riorob, its sampling is very selective and for purpose. His remarks about locking the article before Christmas, and small wording are highly tuned to the same remarks of Proofreader77, though this SPA does not reflect Proofreader77 participation.
• Off2riob has said that citing that the victim had sex prior to any involvement with Polanski is relevant for citing in the entry. Yes I did oppose this. Proofreader77 advocates that the appearance of the victim is mitigation of Polanski's actions needing to be cited. Yes I did oppose this.
• Proofreader77 has framed this ANI about a specific edit as "Bottom line: ANI is NOT about last edit—but all before. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)" Proofreader77 is currently under ANI restriction for Polanski. One Admin said in the ANI leading to those restrictions: "This editor appears to be a personified denial of service attack on Misplaced Pages's consensus building mechanism. Hans Adler 07:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)"

• In opposition of this specific edit, these editors formed the following flying wedge, at a very early morning hour.

Is there any support here for Tombakers edit? 07:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No. Would elaborate but must get to bed. 07:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Off2riorb and Oberonfitch. No. 07:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• See also http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=331429921#Roman_Polanski_article_again._Editor_refuses_to_stop_inserting_information_to_whitewash_case

• Today and prior to resolution of this matter raised in ANI, Off2riorob had changed the specific sentences at issue here. When reverted by an editor, Proofreader77, quickly attacked the need for revision.
• Then another unsigned remark is added that has no signature and no IP address, is left. (which is possible from a IP changing utility) That message says they are leaving their seat at Polanski, reflecting WP:OWN by its author. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ARoman_Polanski&action=historysubmit&diff=332124856&oldid=332123702
• Then Oberonfitch goes in to specifically and only update his signature. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Roman_Polanski&diff=prev&oldid=332133242

• The specific edit being questioned here, in this ANI, I stand behind fully. They were proper and and in good faith --Tombaker321 (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I feel inclined to make specific comments on the topic dispute at hand, but I must say that the attempt to sway this discussion by dredging up Off2riorob's past transgressions demonstrates extraordinarily poor taste by Tombaker321. To be honest, this kind of attempted character assassination in order to win an argument makes me extremely disinclined to take his argument on good faith at this point. Shereth 22:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Shereth, it is a copy and paste attempt at, as you correctly say..character assassination..perhaps in future I will post it myself, as it is simply a smoke screen as you say. I am certain that at the least through this thread that more people are aware of the situation. Off2riorob (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Are there any questions for Proofreader77?

Note: I have been BLP/NPOV "current events wrangling" on Roman Polanski since around 4 Oct (amidst one week full lock). FYI: I've been summoned to ANI twice about the Roman Polanski article. Second time, dismissed. First time, restricted from using formatting and talking more than 100 words at a time and 10 posts per day (which will be appealed: overlooked was that all my effort was "counterbalancing" the subject of this topic).

Comment: If you survey the territory above, you may have some flavor of the "combat" atmosphere which unfortunately often reigns at the article. But it should not be surprising given the social controversy around Polanski's fate. Historical note: The day Polanski first encountered Judge Rittenband, a T-shirt entrepreneur was outside selling two kinds of t-shirts: "JAIL POLANSKI" and "FREE POLANSKI." It is the same now. No T-shirts allowed in the Misplaced Pages restaurant, of course. And the content dispute above does not illustrate that dichotomy — and perhaps that makes it more suitable (for something unsuitable) here at ANI.

The question that ANI can address, of course, is whether the patterns of editing behavior and interactive communication of the subject of this topic are such that restrictions of some kind would be warranted for the benefit of the community.

I will respond to questions, if there are any for me. (Excuse delays, I'm off and on re holidays details ... In any case, happy holidays.)
--Proofreader77 (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Retort by Oberonfitch

• I do not know what the proper procedure is for addressing the allegations of sockpuppetry, however, I am offended beyond words. I am requesting a checkuser on my account, if the other named party allows the same. Tom, this is the second time you have alleged that I am a sock of Proofreader77's. The first time I chose not to reply, however, as we are at ANI I do not feel that I have any choice. It would be a fantastic trick to pull off such diverse writing styles.
• As for the IP change utility, when I noticed that it had not signed (which confuses me as I was signed in according to the screen I was working on) I went back and fixed it. I DO have other edits, if small, on other articles. It is this pervasive hostility which has created the article which we have today. I have resigned from working on Polanski and intend to resign from Misplaced Pages as a whole, pending the results--which I expect to be placed on this page--of checkuser. Oberonfitch (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

donate money

n'est pas? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

is there a way to turn off permanently these appeals to donate money i see every time i log in? for example just now i see a message with giant characters: It's really starting to get on my nerves.  Dr. Loosmark  01:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, its a gadget in your preferences. Surely you could have found it on your own, or used a more appropriate place to ask? Nathan 01:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, as long as we are here: at the top of the page, click "my preferences", then Gadgets -> Browsing gadgets -> Suppress display of the fundraiser banner. Materialscientist (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Materialscientist!  Dr. Loosmark  02:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

On this subject, we got mocked on Probably Bad News here. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 02:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

We could always have a soundbite of Tom Cruise from Jerry Maguire - "Show me the money!!!!" Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Inner Mongolia People's Publishing House

I'm trying to create a redirect of Öbür mongγul-un arad-un keblel-ün qoriy-a to Inner Mongolia People's Publishing House. But apparently it's on the blacklist --- any reason why? Thanks, cab (talk) 04:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, and I have confirmed it is indeed blacklisted. I suggest that might be a highly unlikely search term on the english wikipedia and likely to be deleted at RfD, but I can create it for you if you want. Viridae 05:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you go ahead and create it then? They're listed by the Mongolian name in a number of English-language bibliographies both on and off Misplaced Pages, so at least to me it looks like a fairly useful {{R from alternative language}}. Thanks, cab (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It's hitting the blacklist entries for mixed Latin and Greek characters. It looks like the 'γ' is the character in question: are you sure you're using the correct character, and not a Greek-script lookalike? --Carnildo (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Request interaction ban on Drolz09

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

• User:Drolz09/Quotations
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive584#User:Drolz09
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drolz09
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive585#Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion.2FUser:Drolz09

I am continuing to have problems with User:Drolz09, and he does not seem to be able to leave me alone. I would like to request either a temporary or permanent (doesn't matter to me) ban on our interaction in either mainspace, user space, project space, or all of the above. I feel that Drolz is involving himself in discussions that have nothing to do with him in order to harass me, and I find his comments to be disruptive. I have no interest in being baited to sink down to this low level of behavior and I would like to remain focused on encyclopedic work. Therefore, I would ask that this ban be imposed to prevent any further problems. Basically, this means that we must ignore each other. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 06:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I was going to address this through RFC, but I guess this works.

It's pretty simple. Viriditas posted on User_talk:A_Quest_For_Knowledge, which I had on watch because I have posted there. I read his post and disagreed .

At this point, Viriditas decided it would be okay to move my post to another section .

I move it back and ask him to stop, and he begins an edit war, repeatedly moving my post to new sections each time adding new threats, like "wikihounding."

While doing this, he makes increasingly dismissive and threatening posts on my talkpage

And finally he comes here to get my banned. Also note the hostile and pedantic tone of his original post on AQFT's page. Drolz 06:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to contact two senior editors for advice, but couldn't get in touch with them .

In my view, Viriditas needs to be admonished to treat new editors with more respect, and reminded that he does not have authority over what they post. Certainly not on another user's talk page. Drolz 06:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it would be nice if the both of you just voluntarily agreed to avoid each other in all capacities. If one of you does do something outrageously out of policy, someone else will catch it, so there's no need to report each other. A nice, voluntary agreement to simply avoid each other would greatly reduce drama and prevent us from having a long tl;dr discussion where dozens of editors take up their pitchforks and torches and take sides in an otherwise pointless battle over who is more wrong. --Jayron32 07:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and that's all I've asked for from the very beginning. Drolz refuses to leave me alone (read the MfD) and he has recently been hounding me on talk pages that have nothing to do with him. I would therefore request that the community enforce an interaction ban between us if Drolz cannot agree to it. I feel like I'm being harassed and baited, and I want it to stop. I have zero interest in responding to anything Drolz says or does, as I am totally convinced he is not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather, to tear it down. Nothing is going to change my view on this situation, so I'm asking for enforcement. Viriditas (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm hounding you on talk pages now? What other one? And as I've said, I have posted on AQFT's page before, and your comment was about a discussion which I have been a big part of. I am in no way wikihounding you. Drolz 07:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

My comment had nothing to do with you whatsoever, not even in its original context, and I feel you are incapable of honesty in any form, so there is no purpose in us having any interaction with each other. Please continue to edit Misplaced Pages, but stop interacting with me. It's very simple. Do you agree? Viriditas (talk) 07:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If you avoid posting about things that I have an interest in, you won't see or hear from me. Secondly, your original post was highly related to discussion of the CRU incident, so it's untrue that it wasn't related to me. Drolz 07:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear to me that you are overwhelmingly in the wrong here--I am not going to apologize for posting or for objecting when you moved my post without my permission. Drolz 07:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Voluntary ban

Let me be perfectly clear: I, Viriditas, agree to ignore Drolz09 on Misplaced Pages, and to avoid all interaction. Do you, Drolz09, agree to do the same? Viriditas (talk) 07:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean, in consequence of your misbehavior and attempt to get me unjustly banned, do I renounce my right to post in certain areas of wikipedia? No, sorry. I think this ANI needs to go through and you need to be reprimanded. Drolz 07:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think my proposal was clear enough and does not require any elucidation. Therefore, I ask the community to enforce a ban between us. Viriditas (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

We're not gonna enforce an entirely absurd "ban" like this. You two could y'know try to act like grown-ups and resolve this between yourselves without the Grade-A "look-at-me" shitfit here on ANI. How's that for a novel suggestion? Crafty (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Totally inappropriate comment. This entire page, and others like it, are set up to give help and structure to editors who are trying to resolve differences in opinion. If you're not here to help, it would be better if you kept those sort of comments for your own personal Talk page. --HighKing (talk) 10:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary it's the enabling double-speak offered by well meaning types like yourself that's so often inappropriate. Crafty (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain what is "absurd" about wanting harassment to stop? There's enough evidence in the above linked MfD that shows Drolz refuses to leave me alone. I have no interest in interacting with the user and there is really nothing to resolve. I'm simply asking for the community to enforce a ban between the two of us, such that I will not respond to Drolz and he will not respond to me. That's it. As you can see from the above, I have already volunteered to do this, and Drolz has not. Viriditas (talk) 07:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I can't because you refuse to have anything explained to you. You hear only what you want to hear. The same goes for him. The community can't make people behave in a mature, constructive way. That's down to you two. Crafty (talk) 07:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? I have been harassed by this user in both main and user space, and I have asked for the harassment to stop. You claim this is "absurd". How is this absurd? And the community most certainly can make people behave, and as part of this community, I am volunteering to ignore the user towards this end. All I am asking is that the user reciprocates in turn. How is my overture towards insuring the peace "absurd", and how could you possibly say this is "down to you two", when it is clear that we cannot get along? No offense, but I'm questioning your judgment here. There's already a history between us, and it needs to be resolved. Since Drolz isn't willing to accept my proposal, I'm asking the community to enforce it for the greater good. This is not "absurd" in any way. It is required. Viriditas (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Viriditas has spoken: "It is required." Drolz 08:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• This is as lame as a three-legged donkey. Just find something else to do. Guy (Help!) 08:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• In the RfC on Viriditas that Drolz09 he has started here (yet to be certified), he writes "Viritidas admonished to be less demeaning to new editors and respect their right to edit." Could Drolz09 (talk · contribs) explain in what sense he is a "new editor" in view of the fact that his first edit with this username was in February 2008? Mathsci (talk) 08:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

My account was created a while ago but I only started seriously editing last week. I have probably ~15 edits before then, and no talk page discussion that I recall. A lot of Viriditas's dialogue to me centered around how I am a new editor and need to watch myself, do what I'm told, etc. He says something similar to AQFT in the OP here, and is constantly posting things like "this editor only registered two weeks ago" when people say things he apparently objects to. Drolz 08:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm trying to avoid even thinking of Drolz09, but I would like to correct the erroneous claims made above. For the record, what Drolz09 is referring to is the use of the {{spa}} tag on Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, which has been overrun with SPA and sockpuppets, or as Drolz likes to refer to them, "new accounts". Drolz is one of several accounts which have not edited in a year or more, but suddenly showed up on the talk page in the last few weeks to edit on a daily basis. Several have been voting in a hotly contested requested move discussion, and while I'm not sure of the exact count at this time, many have been blocked. At one point, it got so bad that the talk page had to be SP, which as far as I understand it, is a very rare event. Viriditas (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked in on one of the discussions, where Viriditas states that he stopped being able to assume Drolz' good faith. I've respected Viriditas' editing in the past, but it looked a lot to me like a heated misunderstanding. Viriditas said that the article wasn't about Climategate; Drolz used this to say that, well then there should be a separate article on Climategate. This strikes me as a fairly routine disagreement. Drolz is a new editor, so it's easy to distrust; however, I'm not seeing the evidence that he's being unreasonable, or clear evidence that he's a sock (surely there will be socks and legitimately new accounts that show up when this kind of thing arises). Honestly it looks to me like two pretty articulate editors who didn't need to go down this road. Is there an option to dial it down? My recommendation to Drolz would definitely be, as someone who assumes his good faith: pursuing dispute resolution as a new user is probably just not a good idea, even if you have been treated unreasonably. You don't have to concede any point, but please do consider approaching this as if there are no other options besides editors on both sides working together. This is a good short cut, in my experience. Mackan79 (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a misunderstanding. The user has repeatedly made personal attacks on the CRU incident talk page, purposefully distorted my comments and took them out of their original context to use them as a proposal for his own ideas, dishonestly claiming that he agreed with "my proposal" - a proposal I never made, and the user continues to argue that basic Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines do not apply to articles. Then, there is the MfD linked above in the header, and if you still assume good faith after reading that tortured discussion, then I don't know what to say. I simply have no wish to interact with this user. Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked through pretty carefully. My view is that he doesn't assume your good faith and that you don't assume his, and I think you're both mistaken. I could be wrong, of course. But even then I'm pretty sure editors here would need something more specific in order to impose a specific sanction. Mackan79 (talk) 09:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

How many diffs of personal attacks, wikihounding, deliberate distortions and false statements do you want? From what I can tell from his edit history, it was created as an attack account from the very beginning. Have you even looked at his contribs? Start at the beginning in December. Viriditas (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The evidence of wikihounding seems to be primarily him collecting some quotes of you talking down to him. I saw that when one editor looked at this, he accused Drolz' of personal attacks because he thought the statements were Drolz' own. It looks to me like you've been quite critical, and like I said, the major disagreement in which you lost faith strikes me as a routine disagreement where he was accusing you of inconsistency, not misrepresenting your comments. I understand being annoyed that he took your comment to support something you didn't support, but that's basic argumentation as it's often carried out. With all due respect, I don't believe for a second that he was acting in bad faith by saying you admitted there was no article on "Climategate." I do believe you saw his comments in that way. I could be missing other aspects as well, but seriously, I've looked, and it doesn't seem I'm the only one who is coming up short here. As to his early edits, I'm not sure what you mean. I saw him take issue with one editor for bolding their !vote, so if he's a returning user he's a pretty clever one. I think it's not quite what you see. Just one view. Mackan79 (talk) 10:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're dead wrong on this, and I've collected the diffs. I'll post them below, but it will take me about an hour to format them. Here's a few to start with, all from one day of frantic editing:

• Deletion of talk page edits by Apis O-tang
• Accuses editors of cabalism
• Distorts argument made by ChrisO and accuses him of being a "pro-science Misplaced Pages editor-zealot" who "will stop at nothing to conceal".
• Reveals a bit too much info about his real purpose on the CRU page, claiming that "climateaudit is routinely DDoSed".
• Links ChrisO to "nuts on every side of every debate" and "eco-terrorist nuts on the other side", accusing him of trying to "make everyone skeptical of global warming guilty by association."
• Accuses ChrisO of refusing"to fork the hack and controversy because you need to draw attention away from the latter"
• Tony Sidaway politely warns Drolz to stop making "accusations of bad faith against other editors", but Drolz ignores him and continues to do it, distorting comments by Chris0 again, and accusing him of "openly admitted to believing that the "real story" is the hack." User then makes another attack, accusing all the active editors of being part of the cabal: "It is transparently obvious to everyone that the dominant wikipedia editors are essentially a public relations firm for organizations that are the mouth pieces of climate activists. There's no reason to pretend otherwise."

There are so many of these attacks directed against myself and other editors that it will take time to compile them all. Mackan79, may I suggest that you have not properly reviewed the evidence? This sample represents less than 1% of the attacks and assumptions of bad faith made by Drolz09 against polite and civil editors working to improve Misplaced Pages. Viriditas (talk) 10:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to compile the diffs of every disagreeable action. In fact, that would be counterproductive. Pick a handful of the most egregious diffs and post them. (You should have done so in your original post.) As for requesting a mutual ban, simply enforce it on yourself. Stop talking to Drolz. If he approaches your talk page, remove any comments without commenting. If he follows you to some place else, ignore him five times, and if he refuses to take the clue, come back here, post the five diffs, and ask him to be blocked for wikihounding. Jehochman 10:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Will do, but I invite anyone to review his contributions. They are chock full of attacks and deceitful distortions of comments made by other editors, and the attacks and assumptions of bad faith have not stopped. Viriditas (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm checking over the diffs you cited immediately above...They look interesting. Jehochman 10:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That's only the beginning. He went on like that for days on end, and the attacks and bad faith assumptions haven't stopped. What upset me the most was when he pulled quotes that I made from an entirely different discussion and pasted them together to form a proposal to fork the article, claiming that I had originally made the proposal. Since I had been on record opposing the fork for days on end, this was not only deceitful, but transparently intellectually dishonest. Viriditas (talk) 10:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• More diffs and previous complaint a week after the above. Only a small sample: User_talk:Drolz09#Recent_attacks_on_other_editors_at_Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident. Viriditas (talk) 10:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

• Drolz09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think any wikihounding is of secondary importance, and that you've been excessively patient with this user, Viriditas. I see misuse of Misplaced Pages as a battleground, assumptions of bad faith, at least one personal attack, and disruptive editing by Drolz09. Those diffs also embody content policy violations, such as WP:NPOV and WP:FORK. Drolz09 is a single purpose account that essentially started editing in volume a week ago. Tony Sideway and 2over0 both provided warnings, but they seem to have had no effect whatsoever on Drolz09's behavior. Therefore, the result of this review is to indef block Drolz09 (talk · contribs). Do not unblock without a consensus to do so. Jehochman 10:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Good call. When I review the comments at the beginning of this thread it seems to me that many commentators didn't look into this issue to deeply, and it isn't in the best interests of this project to quickly dismiss these types of claims. At least it's great to see that with a little persistence, somebody will put in the necessary legwork, reach the right conclusion, and take action. Nice one J! --HighKing (talk) 10:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm very surprised by this. Indef blocking a user who has been editing for a couple of months, for a very mild "battleground" attitude, without any request or consensus? Definitely not what I was expecting. Honestly this seems bizarre. Mackan79 (talk) 10:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Your facts are mistaken. The editor registered first edited six months ago, but made only 11 edits prior to December 8. All editing since then has focused on a single, contentious topic, and has been entirely anti-collaborative. Their behavior has not been "very mild". Maybe you were looking at the contribution history of somebody else. The account received several warnings, including a block warning from admin User:2over0.] Under these circumstances, when the account continues being used exclusively for disruption, they get indef blocked. Jehochman 11:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the user registered at 12:52, 18 February 2008. Viriditas (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd forgotten that Drolz09 was the same user whom I'd recently warned approached about his repeated accusations of bad faith and conspiracy to subvert policy. In view of that, Drolz09's recent interactions look more problematic than I at first thought. While an indefinite block may seem rather extreme, Drolz09's pattern of abusive interactions with other editors has been well established. While the subject of global warming has been notorious for interpersonal squabbles, user conduct related to the article "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident" has been reasonable, with Drolz09 and one or two others being notable outliers. I support the indefinite block and, should he ever be unblocked in future, I propose that a topic ban on global warming, broadly construed, be considered as a substitute. --TS 11:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Requesting review for indefinite block of Drolz09

I am somewhat dumbfounded by the above block. From what I can see Jehochman shows some very mildly combative behavior from User:Drolz09 over a few days, facing at least the same from other editors, and what he describes as two warnings both from two days ago. Based on this, with no request to do so that I can see, with some disagreement and no support, Jehochman has indefinitely blocked this user. I don't think I've ever seen anything like this, so I'm not quite sure what to make of it. Mackan79 (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

As of this moment, there appear to be three uninvolved users supporting the indefinite block, and only you opposing. Mild? I don't think that word means what you think it means. Jehochman 11:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

In the last 20 minutes? You just indef blocked an editor for a week of editing, who had never previously been blocked, based on a couple of "warnings" from two days ago, and no indication of what problem had continued. In the comment you link it was ChrisO who brought up the murder analogy, and the response is absolutely "mild" for a block of any sort, let alone one that's indefinite! What on earth. Mackan79 (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Mackan, the account was used to attack multiple editors for eight days. How could this be described as "mildly combative"? I've actually never seen anything like it before. Eight days of straight attacks. Viriditas (talk) 11:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas, you can't possibly support an indef block of this editor. Mackan79 (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I support it, but I can't justify it, so I've asked Jehochman to shorten it to a week. Viriditas (talk) 11:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I think it's still nuts, but I'll leave that to others for the evening.... Mackan79 (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

An indefinite block for someone who is a relatively new user, and who has no block history seems a disproportionate response. I have looked at some of his edits to article talk pages, and they seem reasonable comments to make. I think we have to accept that when people feel they are under attack, they tend to bite back. Biting back is against Misplaced Pages policy, yes he was warned about this, and should have been banned. I think a 1 to 6 month ban would have been more appropriate. Some of the other combatants would also have benefited from short bans.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

@Viridas - well, we haven't seen eight days of diffs posted here. It does look as though a block would be appropriate, judging by the diffs posted by Jehochman above, but for someone who has in effect only been editing a week, an indef seems rather harsh to me. It may be the user is incorrigible but the usual practice is to block a few times for a short period to give the user some chance at least to modify his behaviour. Certainly I think an indef only on the diffs presented by Jehochman above is excessive. Gatoclass (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I am very curious to see the standard under which this editor of eight days should be blocked, and not the other participants in the discussion. If the linked edit here is offensive, how about the previous edit by ChrisO? There is nothing remotely more or less appropriate about one than the other (or for that matter remotely blockable about either). This editor needs some positive advice, for goodness sake, not to be blocked. Mackan79 (talk) 11:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

He's received quite a bit of positive advice, with no change in behavior. I even encouraged him to compose a version of the disputed article in his user space so that we could work on it. He refused to do so, claiming that we needed to iron out policy first. Viriditas (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If ChrisO or any other editors has behaved badly, start a new section with diffs. I or somebody else can evalate the evidence and place any needed sanction. We should deal with this conflict thoroughly. Jehochman 12:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

accounts used primarily for disruption may be blocked indefinitely without warning

— WP:BLOCK#Duration of blocks

I looked through the user's entire contribution history. There is no need to post every diff from that history here when you can just click the link above and peruse it youself. I've highlighted a selection of diffs presented by Viriditas. When an account has done nothing but act disruptively, it gets blocked indefinitely. Second chances are for editors who show signs of making useful contributions. Moreover, this account was registered 22 months ago, waited 16 months, then made just 11 edits over six months, and then jumped into a highly contentious article, making numerous personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith against other editors. I think it is a mistake to assume that this is a new user. Circumstances suggest about 50/50 chance of new user versus sock puppet, and I think I'm being generous in that assessment. Jehochman 11:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, I think you're right, and I support your block. Unfortunately, the arguments made by Toddy1 and Gatoclass defend the status quo in regards to blocking, which is best to follow in case the user is truly willing to reform. In other words, Drolz09 should be given a chance, and that's his right. It might be best to shorten the block to let's say, a week. I would have responded earlier, but I've been getting nothing but edit conflicts. Viriditas (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Status quo allows indefinite blocking of disruption-only accounts. They are not treated the same way as productive contributors who make mistakes. Jehochman 12:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but it could be argued that the user has made some constructive edits, therefore it is not a disruption-only account. I only say this because after reviewing the edit history, I can see that the user has made some some good contributions, but very few so far, considering his short length of time here. Viriditas (talk) 12:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Aye. I think I wrote the relevant bit of policy quite some time ago. The key phrase is "primarily used for disruption". To avoid gaming of the rules, a relatively small amount of productive (typically WikiGnome) type edits may be discounted. This user's edits appear to be 95% battle, and 5% productive. I think on balance they qualify as a disruption-only account. Jehochman 12:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a reasonable interpretation, and I support it. But, given that the user is so new, the percentages are skewed against them. When I first started editing here, I made a series of good edits, and some very bad ones. I would not want to be judged on my first month here, even though 95% of them were good. In fact, I was accused of being a vandal when I first started, not because my edits were poor - they were actually very good and are still in the articles today, years later. No, it was because I was editing through an anonymous proxy, and that IP was simultaneously being used by a real vandal, without my knowledge. Luckily, someone believed me (User:Pir I think it was) and I registered an account. Viriditas (talk) 12:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to give them a second chance. I too started out on the wrong foot at Misplaced Pages. However, they need to show by words, and then by actions, that they are amenable to feedback. Let's not let them off the hook too quickly. I promise to unblock them well within the one week you suggest if they take the necessary steps. Jehochman 12:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, that doesn't make any sense. Do you really not see how a new editor could get pulled into a dispute? To say he waited 16 months begs the question of whether this is a returning account; it's hardly evidence. How can you know after 8 days and no real attempt at discussion that someone is beyond all reason? I'll say one thing: I could hardly think of a better way to create highly motivated enemies of the project. Mackan79 (talk) 11:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Should this editor be unblocked, I hope that the unblocking admin will consider a topic ban. An editor interested in good faith participation would find plenty of opportunity to contribute on one of the many subjects in which he does not have a record of abusive interaction. --TS 11:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a topic ban would certainly be needed, given the abusive conduct in this instance. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the block. Droltz09 did not work toward concensus on the talk page, and approached the article in a combative manner with a clear POV. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Did not work toward consensus... in eight days of editing and without ever having been blocked. You have to be kidding. I doubt I have time, but if there is any serious sanction left on an 8 day user who has engaged in absolutely no gross disruption -- or anything close to it -- the case should be taken to ArbCom on their behalf. No reasonable person would waste their own time. Mackan79 (talk) 12:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not think an indefinite block is merited. A short block is enough, and follow-up if necessary. I myself created my own account a couple of years ago, and never really edited much until a few months ago, so the whole "He is a sock" argument (just because he has an account he never used much until now) is a bit ridiculous. Many people who initially register but never use their accounts much may wind up feeling passionate about a subject and start to actively edit because a topic piques their interest. As newer editors, they tend to get involved in edit wars, incivility, etc. because they don't understand the rules of Misplaced Pages yet. That doesn't mean that the account was created only for disruption. I would support a shortening of the ban. Moogwrench (talk) 12:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the indef block is way out of line. There is a learning curve on Misplaced Pages. People start out editing what interests them offwiki, which generally means something that they have opinions about. It takes time to learn how to do it properly. Suggest reducing to 24 hours from initial block. Article talk page warnings are well and good, but it sometimes takes a small lesson to head off bigger problems. Indef block and throw away the key is becoming the rule around here, and it is very unfortunate.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The block is per established policy. Who's throwing away the key? I've even suggested unblock conditions. If the editor is serious about wanting to collaborate, they will accept them, or make a counter offer. Jehochman 13:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, per established policy, if you grant your conclusion that Drolz is a single purpose account, which I don't see the evidence of. Editing what you are interested in, when you start, does not equal single purpose attac. If he is not a SPA, it is not per established policy. If you want a counteroffer, or an acceptance, again I suggest unblocking with him only being allowed to edit here outside his userspace.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If Drolz is not a single purpose account, he should be happy to edit some articles outside global warming, where everybody agrees his editing has been problematic. How about an unblock on condition that he avoid GW articles for one month, and also avoid conflict with Viriditas. Drolz09 is also on notice about WP:NPA and WP:BATTLE; further violations of those policies may result in blocking without additional warnings. Jehochman 14:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wehwalt says that he can't see any evidence that Drolz09 is an SPA. How does he interpret the 191 edits to the talk page of the CRU article which represent the bulk of his contributions to wikipedia (apart from the MfD page, his talk page and here)? Mathsci (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Because everyne starts somewhere in editing Misplaced Pages. Everyone started with one article. Some people branch out from there on their second edit. Some take longer. There is no actual prohibition against editing only one article. The problem arises in using Misplaced Pages only for disruption, or only for vandalism.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of possible unblocking conditions

If Drolz09 agrees to change their style, they might be unblocked. Up to now, I have seen no indication whatsoever of any willingness to change, but there is still hope. If they post a proper unblock request, their block might be lifted or shortened. Things I'd look favorably on: (1) agreement not to pester Viriditas further; (2) agreement to follow all relevant policies, including WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:BATTLE; (3) agreement to leave the global warming dispute venue, at least temporarily, until they gain experience as an editor. Somebody intending to be a productive contributor would agree to these things. Somebody who's here to battle about a single issue will not agree. Jehochman 12:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to state for the record, and with all due respect, that I consider this block to have been completely out of process, baseless, and frankly an abuse of the tools. The editor had never been blocked, was not given any chance to respond, and was blocked indefinitely on the thought that he may be a sockpuppet. There was no effort to seek consensus, despite the fact that Crafty and I had questioned the report (though I think it was filed in good faith). This editor should not have been blocked at all here. I hope at the least that you'll show more care in the future. Mackan79 (talk) 12:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The potential of socking was noticed, but was not the reason for the block. The user did have a chance to respond; he did so several times on this thread, and the poor quality of those responses influenced my decision. They continue to have a chance to respond on their talk page and anything they say can be quoted or linked here. I've already cited WP:BLOCK#Duration of blocks which specifically authorizes indef blocks for accounts used primarily for disruption (as this one was). Jehochman 12:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I've notified Drolz09 of your unblock proposal. His response is not very encouraging. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The editor had a full chance to reply at the beginning of this thread, and continued a combative stance against an editor with whom he had a disagreement. Really, having that attitude and arguement in front of dozens of admins was just shooting themself in the foot - and not in a Plaxico way either. Even when the other editor extended an olive branch (I'll AGF), the response was effectively "no, screw you". Well, that shows a lack of desire to resolve the situation. As such, action needed to be taken. Personally, I might have made it 3 days or so for someone with such a light history (agreeably most of it being combative). Maybe they need a mentor, although something tells me they'd refuse. Keep a close eye on their return (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

He responded to Viriditas' request that they not address each other; there was no proposal to block, let alone ban, for him to respond to. It will be astonishing to me if a user who is put in this situation retains any respect for the project (and I say that as someone who does respect the project), but that is rather our doing at this point much more than theirs. Mackan79 (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Do you call this a valid, noncombative response to the request:

I AGF that Viriditas was willing to go through with this, and hours of drama - and a block - would have been saved. Where are we now? Was it worth it? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Indenting is getting strange here, but yes that's one reason I suggested that he not try to pursue dispute resolution as a new user. He and Viriditas have been accusing each other of bad faith for several days. Viriditas is a long term editor, very competent, with a good deal of legitimate support around here. Could this editor stand to learn a little? I should hope, but I'm certainly not going to judge someone who has been around for such a short time. Frankly that he hasn't said something to thoroughly justify a ban at this point is probably the strongest evidence that he isn't actually a new user... but then that's kind of like saying if she sinks she's innocent, isn't it? Mackan79 (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The combination of elements is a bit odd. A sleeper account activated about 20 months ago, suddenly becomes active on a Global Warming article with a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. With hardly any editing experience, the account starts collecting a laundry list on his user page, then, when an MfD is started, moves it to a subpage User:Drolz09/Quotations and then, without help, starts an RfC. It's very hard to believe these are the actions of a newbie editor. Mathsci (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. That's why I maintain that I support the indef but can't justify it. Viriditas (talk) 12:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, we do have a lot of pages that teach a new editor about Misplaced Pages concepts, and certainly new editors look at what is going on around them and try to adopt what other editors do. You say sleeper account like the guy purposely started the account 2 years ago so he could be disruptive on this particular article. Many people who initially register but never use their accounts much may wind up feeling passionate about a subject and start to actively edit because a topic piques their interest. I really don't see how you can automatically assume that he is anything other than what he says, a newer editor who made some mistakes, and whose punishment is a tad excessive for one so new. Moogwrench (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking from my own experience. Many editors don't even know about WP:ANI when they first start here, let alone all the jargon of wikipedia. GW unfortunately does attract a lot of sockpuppets, although obviously that needn't be the case here. Sleeper accounts are often set up by puppetmasters, but again that needn't be the case here. Mathsci (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO, can you say that your comments here and here, immediately before the one that Jehochman links, do not reflect exactly the WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLE approaches that you are putting on this editor? Mackan79 (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Could we avoid tangents? If you'd like to discuss ChrisO, please start a new thread. Jehochman 14:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It is hardly a tangent to ask how ChrisO can possibly accuse this editor of promoting a battleground with a straight face, or how others can support him in this charge, when it is transparently obvious that as a new user he was doing exactly what long term editors were doing on that page. Please consider what you are actually advocating as a process here for this site. The point is not that ChrisO should have been banned. Mackan79 (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"He did wrong so I can do wrong" isn't a defense. If experienced editors have been setting a poor example, the new editor should say so, and indicate that he will stop following their bad example. Jehochman 18:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Please be serious, Jehochman. If experienced editors are setting a "poor example", no rational project can make it a new editor's obligation to see the problem and set it straight, or else be banned while the experienced editors go on doing the same. That becomes not a "poor example," but the mark of a patently corrupt organization. Other than to defend this block I can't think that anyone would even propose it. Mackan79 (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Drolz09

copied by TS

1. All of the diffs which were relied on to establish my pattern of behavior were from 12/8.

2. The two warnings I received were on 12/14.

3. There is no evidence that I continued any questionable behavior after that date.

4. This ANI started with Viriditas moving my talkpage posts without my permission. Prior to this point I had not engaged in any uncivil behavior with him probably since around 12/8, and as you can see from the diffs I provided, I was civil even when he was moving my posts.

5. Some of the evidence against me is way out of context

• The Apis deletion was an accident when I didn't understand edit conflicts
• The ChrisO diff about what the article was about was a direct quote of ChrisO, not taken at all out of context
• The battleground behavior is something I was never admonished for and I was really just mirroring the behavior of other editors in a highly contentious article

6. The reason I have so few "productive" edits is because I was told (By viritidas) not to edit without consensus. Consensus never came, which is why all my posts were talkpage, for the most part.

7. ChrisO and TS are involved parties and not neutral witnesses, if this wasn't clear.Drolz 12:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

More diffs in response to the above

• 22:23, 16 December 2009 - Attacks ChrisO again: "The one who is engaging in "pure unsourced speculation" here is you, ChrisO." Note this is quite different than Chris' statement, which specifically addressed Drolz's "opinion" as unsourced speculation, not his person.
• 02:42, 15 December 2009 - Attacks Viriditas: "You are absolutely immune to reason." This was after being warned about personal attacks earlier in the thread.
• 02:34, 15 December 2009 - ChrisO asks Drolz, "So what would you add and what sources would you use?" Drolz responds "I am not going to go looking for sources until we establish some reasonable bright line rules about what can be allowed in." He has been repeatedly informed about the policy and guidelines for sourcing for a week, but refuses to abide by them.
• 05:15, 14 December 2009 - "The overriding problem here is that the "cabal" editors refuse to admit bias. I freely admit that I am an AGW skeptic, and acknowledge that I have a POV. You guys refuse to admit that you have a POV, and because of this you see whatever you believe as being NPOV. I know that the balance in this article does not lie with what I personally believe to be the case. Things would run a lot more smoothly if people would just admit to being people and not data recorders or something."
• 00:54, 14 December 2009: "Why is this happening?" It is happening because a group of four or five editors has taken possession of this article and relentlessly driven it towards a very specific bias. This group of editors has used every trick and tool at their disposal (including full protection) to mau-mau an article that ought to be about a controversy into a press release on why that controversy actually isn't one. And at the same time, these editors play the consummate victim, always the one on the wrong end of some awful POV pusher. What could you possibly expect but for the people you have gone to such lengths to exclude and vilify to escalate their own rhetoric in response?"
• 23:53, 13 December 2009 - "This is exactly the problem with cabalist activity. You are all pushing the same spurious arguments, but you use your numbers to make it look like there are a lot of reasonable arguments, and 'consensus' against other editors who are trying to bring balance to this article. There is no way that a reasonable outside observer would not determine that there is POV collusion between TS, Guerttarda, Viriditas, etc...What's worse, is that you have arranged for an article about a developing story to be locked, which is facially absurd, and certainly not a means of improving The Project."
• 05:04, 10 December 2009 - Attacks Guettarda: "Once again you reveal a complete failure to understand this article. This is not an article on whether AGW is real (and even in that case, skepticism does not rise to wikipedia's definition of a fringe or pseudoscience). This is an article describing a public debate, which has been aggressively edited to erase one side of that debate, while giving extreme weight to ancillary issues (the hack, death threats) that serve only to draw attention away from the fact that there is any debate at all. The notion that you are protected by WP:AGF is outrageous.
• 04:24, 10 December 2009 - Attacks Guettarda after she politely and gently explained how to read the policy : "I read the whole article and as I said, nothing in it recommends against the inclusion of this piece. I think it's about time that instead of just spamming the talk page with WP:BLP WP:NPOV etc., you and your friends start explaining what part of these policies are actually violated by the quotes et al. you don't want included in this article."
• 02:14, 10 December 2009 - "As it stands now, about five extremely committed people have complete control over the article, and aren't afraid to threaten anyone who disagrees with blocking." This statement was made right after User:Gigs politely asked Drolz: "Please try to assume good faith. While I agree with your sentiment, these sorts of accusations aren't helping build any real consensus". Note the fallback on ABF right after the request.
• 00:04, 9 December - "Misplaced Pages editors: immune to context."

Viriditas, come on! You're just making him look prescient for the comments he put in his user space, all made by you about him. Or how about ChrisO's comments that I linked just above, and he hasn't addressed? This is a travesty, moving closer to ArbCom by the second. Mackan79 (talk) 13:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, almost none of these diffs are about me, and they directly contradict his claims. Please read closer. In his unblock request summarized above, Drolz claims that 1) All of the diffs which were relied on to establish his pattern of behavior were from 12/8. and 2) There is no evidence that he continued any questionable behavior after that date. I have clearly demonstrated that this is false, and if it weren't for the last edit conflict, there would be twice as many diffs above. I'm in the process of adding them now. Viriditas (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Almost none, Viriditas? He says you are part of a conspiracy to POV that article. Therefore, every diff in which he complains about a conspiracy or cabal refers to you. As for ChrisO, I find the diffs comparing the circumstances of the hacking to reaction to the murder of the abortion performer shocking, if not entirely surprising, given the fact we're talking ChrisO here. I think the question really becomes, did Drolz have a reasonable basis to conclude that a small group of editors were controlling the POV of the article. Doesn't have to be true, just has to be he had a reasonable basis. If so, he had a perfect right to continue to seek redress here at AN/I, even in the face of the er, "olive branch".--Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose WP:CIV and WP:NPA are no longer relevant then. Are you honestly going to tell me that attacking editors and assuming bad faith is acceptable? What reasonable basis did Drolz have to make any of his attacks? There is none. Viriditas (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I really hesitate to call "You are absolutely immune to reason" a personal attack. Sounds like being flogged with a wet strip of toilet paper. As for your final question, why don't we unblock Drolz (with a prohibition against editing any page except this outside his userspace) and let him say.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Really? Telling someone they are immune to reason is not a personal attack? That's an interesting take on what is a clearly defined personal attack. And for the record, many of the diffs do not refer to me or any discussions that I was involved in with Drolz. He may have dragged my name into it, but that doesn't mean I was involved. You seem to be openly defending incivility and personal attacks, the two things that prevent this site from actually functioning. Why? Viriditas (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Not in the least. I am calling for fairness for a new user per WP:BITE. And really, the only difference between his comment about you and yours about mine are that he didn't know that if you throw the word "seem" into the comment, you can say virtually anything. Presumably this will serve to educate him. I could say with equal validity that you seem to be engaged in conduct designed to discourage new users at a time when our editor count is falling (if you believe the WSJ). Why?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is the user refusing the unblock conditions? Why did the user refuse to heed warnings on his own talk page, and why did he reject peace overtures from Viriditas at the top of this thread? Jehochman 14:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I would characterize Viriditas's comments as a "peace overture". It's kind of a backhanded admission, even though Viriditas maintains that he's not an opponent of Drolz, that there was an adversarial relationship there. Let's see how he reacts to my proposal, which in a couple of ways is tougher than yours, Jehochman.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This is absurd

This is yet another example of bait and block: goad an inexperienced editor (usually, one with an opposing POV) into making newbie mistakes, then mischaracterize their actions on AN/I and get an admin to block based on reputation alone. It should be overturned immediately. ATren (talk) 12:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can reasonably claim that Drolz09 was goaded or baited into his repeated accusations of conspiracy to subvert the neutral point of view policy. As well as my request and 2/0's warning, he must also have read repeated calls by me on the article talk page asking users with conduct complaints to follow the dispute resolution policy, and reminders that doing so is not optional. --TS 12:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The attack on his User page was silliness, and unbecoming of a long term editor like Viriditas. The quotes being collected were unattributed, they could have been about anyone, and there was no commentary, yet Viriditas made a huge deal out of it, escalating the conflict even more.

I'd also like to add that Viriditas recently tried to bait another skeptic-leaning global warming editor on his talk: "You are dishonest, and prone to making false statements. Your stated purpose here is not to improve articles, but to engage in battles with your opponents. You are, by your own admission, a SPA designed solely to push a single, fringe POV, which goes against the NPOV policy and shows that you have no understanding of it. ". This diatribe was completely unprovoked and is an indication that Viriditas may not be able to deal properly with editors that have opposing viewpoints on the issue of GW. ATren (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are three diffs that directly and conclusively contradict ATren's claim about me: Those three links compliment and invite Cla68 to contribute and to participate, and encourage him to do so at his greatest capacity. I even recommended him as a mentor. For the record, Cla68's viewpoint is completely at odds with my own, but he understands NPOV. It would be nice if ATren would stop making stuff up. I not only encourage editors with different viewpoints to work with me, I enjoy it. Viriditas (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, ATren, stop making stuff... er, um, I mean, providing embarrassing diffs! Does "he understands NPOV" mean that he has been cowed into not responding when he is reverted? Moogwrench (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

We're discussing Drolz09's block at this point. Viriditas has not been blocked, and a good proportion of Drolz09's conduct problems are unrelated to Viriditas. So I don't think we can consider VIriditas' conduct in mitigation of the block on Drol09. --TS 13:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes we can. A newbie is far more likely to be played by those who have their own POV and are letting it show. Provocation is not a full excuse but we are entitled to consider it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a reasonable angle to pursue, and I encourage you to do so. You will find no evidence for it, however. Viriditas (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Block too harsh

I disagree with almost everything Drolz09 says, and I find this editor's approach to interaction to be inappropriate and tiresome; however, I do not believe an indefinite block is justifiable. This should have been handled with the usual 24-hr block, with escalating block lengths in the event of continued disruption. WP:RFC/U is another venue where Drolz09's behavior could've been discussed first. I recommend that the block be reduced to time served, and I remind admins that blocks are not supposed to be a tool of punishment. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It is wrong to ask volunteers to spend many hours of their time dealing with disruptive, single-purpose accounts of short tenure. This particular account may very well be a sock puppet of a previously sanctioned user. This particular account has done nothing except make disruptive edits. They do not deserve to consume so much volunteer resources. Jehochman 14:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course, disruptive editors of long standing (see the abortion murder comments mentioned above, which have nothing to do with improving the project) are vested, and nothing is done to them. You shall have one rule, for the stranger and for the native of the land.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) - While I agree that the editor has been disruptive, there is no proof of sock puppetry. A right-out-of-the-gate indefinite block is usually reserved for blatant vandals, people who make death threats or proven socks. This editor has strong views (which I do not agree with), but that is not unusual on Misplaced Pages. A 24-hour block, while frustrating for the recipient, gives them enough time to reflect and perhaps learn from their mistakes. An indef block is guaranteed to enrage the recipient to such a point that they are not able to calm down and defend themselves appropriately. If an "opponent" of Drolz09 (such as myself) can bring himself to this editor's defense, surely it is worth reconsidering the block length? -- Scjessey (talk)

I agree with that as well. To say that Drolz may be a sockpupput is to attempt to influence feelings about him without bothering about little things like evidence. Jehochman, if you don't have enough to hand to a checkuser, please leave the suggestion out. It kinda suggests that you're thinking what you have is not sufficient, and so you need to be suggestive that there's more there. It violates the spirit, and possibly the letter of WP:AGF.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, reasonable people can wonder, as myself, Jehochman, Mathsci and others have questioned, whether Drolz09 resembles a "sleeper account" and if the user is only a newbie who is here to help build articles, or a SPA intent on causing problems. Where's the learning curve? He came here with a vision and a purpose. Viriditas (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the sock insinuations need to be dropped, unless anyone wants to open an SPI. However, I agree that a block was likely needed here, but disagree with the length. There are a number of long term editors opposed to this, and perhaps we can convince them to mentor him. If problems persist, we can always indef block later. AniMate 14:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I contacted the checkusers by email for an opinion. Jehochman 20:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The editor's behavior is pure battle and personal attacks. They can be unblocked as soon as they agree to stop the objectionable behavior. I do not want to have a revolving door situation where we are back at this board, or another, as soon as the editor is unblocked. Why haven't they accepted the simple unblock conditions I proposed? Jehochman 14:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Because your indef block made them angry. It is hard to be apologetic and reasonable when you get slapped with such a strong punishment. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

They'd be equally angry with 24 hours, and then they'd just sit it out, and come back to get 48 hours, and so on. It is better to draw a line in the early, and turn the editor away from disruption. When the editor agrees to suitable unblock conditions, they will be unblocked. It would be helpful if you could convince them to negotiate conditions. I am not interested in any sort of apologies. They just need to agree on terms. Jehochman 14:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable approach. The door is left open, all he has to do is agree to be reasonable. --TS

It seems like a case of "shoot first, and then offer to extract the projectile if they agree to play nice" to me. Indef blocks do not make people feel like negotiating. It's like giving the whole class an "F" and then telling them if they work hard enough, some of them might be able to achieve an "A" by the end of the semester. I always start my college students with an "A". -- Scjessey (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that indefinite block is just indetirminate length block, not a permanent ban. If someone's behaviour is such as we would not want it repeated and it is the only behaviour they have shown, I see no reason we shouldn't put a block of indeterminate length on them until they accept, overtly, to operate within accepted rules. Considering how often we all bitch about persistant disruptive accounts only getting short blocks and not getting indeffed, we should maybe stop leaping down the admin's throats everytime one of them has the guts to put on the flak jacket and wade into the shitstorm that follows. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC) (ECx2)

When a new user(or a user who is unfamiliar with how Misplaced Pages works) is disruptive, an indefinite block is sometimes a tool that will work. If a user is banned for a certain amount of time then they will just wait until that time is through and go back to editing in the same manner that they received the block in the first place. But if a user is forced to look at the reasons for the block and produce a good reason to be unblocked, they will learn more about the project and (hopefully) become a contributing editor. Being blocked indefinitely does not mean you are permanently banned. DD2K (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There are deeper issues which it would be impolitic to explore deeply at this point and in this location, but I'll outline them. There is a quite prominent whispering campaign among some editors who, on talk pages and user talk pages, allege conspiracy to subvert the neutral point of view ("cabal"). The correct response to this is to direct people who believe they have legitimate conduct complaints to follow the dispute resolution policy, which is what I and some others have done. One can say that perhaps this relatively inexperienced editor has been misled by our relative lenience towards these whisperers and their long-running personal attacks. But what can one do but continue to encourage these people to gather evidence and present their complaints in an appropriate forum.

The result of this issue is not just felt by one editor who is currently blocked, but by several editors who, over quite a long period, have endured personal attacks and the souring of talk page discussions. For those people, tomorrow will be yet another day in which editing on an important topic is complicated by persistent attacks and slurs on their good faith. --TS 15:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this is over-reaction against a new editor. Essentially, I agree with Scjessey--this sets an example of what might look like experienced editors imposing harsher than usual penalties on a newcomer The over-reaction is not primarily Viriditas's fault, who came here asking for much milder and perfectly appropriate sanction--an interaction ban. the new editor either out of intransigence or inexperience refused this. The appropriate course was probably to get consensus fro such a ban and issue a short block if it was actually ignored. that would be enough to show that what he was doing was unacceptable. If it continued afterwards, then that's the time to step up, in the usual way. I cannot support an indefinite block in this case. A block no admin is willing to remove is a ban, but I am willing to remove this one. As I understand it, I have the right to do so, and consensus here would be needed to restore it. DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering the user appears to believe he should have never been blocked, you would at this point be vindicating that view point, that his behaviour had been appropriate and that Jechohman should be de-sysopped and he is owed some apology. However, you have the tools and the community's trust, on your head be it (Essentially, unblock based on events, not on a principle). As a note, a ban may require consensus, but this was a block. If no admin is willing to remove a block, then it remains a block. A person avoiding a block with a constructive account is usually allowed to go on their merry way, ban evasion is not. Also, if no admin is willing to unblock someone, then one would assume the person is probably better off blocked. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

DGG, we are not proposing a community ban,. Wehwalt, Scjessey, and I have put forward unblocking conditions at User talk:Drolz09. We are merely waiting for the user to agree. A speedy unblock would undermine this process and increase the risk that the user will repeat the same errors, down the familiar path of escalating blocks, leading to a site ban. That is the path we all seek to avoid. By saying, "Stop, you must not continue this behavior," there is a chance to avoid that bad outcome. In any case, there is a consensus on this thread for at least a 24 hour block. There is time for the discussion to reach it's natural conclusion before unblocking the user. Indefinite does not mean infinite in this case. I wish the block menu included distinct options for "indefinite - conditional" and "indefinite - infinite". Much confusion could be avoided. Jehochman 18:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Perspective

I don't think I have ever seen such a lack of perspective on Misplaced Pages as is evident in the above discussion. User:Drolz09 has effectively been editing for 8 days, and seems to have little experience with Misplaced Pages. Here Guettarda explains to the editor that !votes are usually bolded, when the user criticizes another editor for doing this. A few prior edits by the account were productive, uncontroversial, and completely unrelated to climate change. It is apparent that the user became active in September to reinstate an edit to Glenn Beck (TV program) after his IP edit had been reverted. This is completely consistent with a good faith account.

Viriditas started this discussion by asking that an interaction ban be imposed between him and this user. He accused the editor of bad faith, said he could not see anything the editor did in good faith, and therefore said he did not think they should interact. Several editors suggested that the whole thing was ridiculous, and that the editors should find a way to avoid the problem. At this point Jehochman enters, and without consulting with anyone, any proposal to do so, or any prior blocks or sanctions against the user, he indefinitely blocks them on the theory that the user has promoted a battleground environment. It is now being demanded that for any unblock he should have to come to some agreement to behave better in the future.

I can not believe that this is how Misplaced Pages treats a new editor. It is beyond indefensible, it goes beyond any rational debate about how to deal with new users. It is a total abuse of this editor, not to mention of Misplaced Pages. And yet several of the involved editors, including Jehochman, do not seem even capable of discussing their reasoning or reevaluating what has happened. It is hard to know what to say to this, except that in some way some additional perspective here is needed. Mackan79 (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

A nice, neutral perspective! I agree as much as anyone that new users can go through a lot of BS, but I can't remotely stretch that this time. In case it was missed above, the admin in question is trying to actually end the matter. I'm not sure about this "several editors suggested... was ridiculous" matter at the start, since plenty did think it was a civility issue, too. Indef block? Probably no so great. It'd being corrected, just as all indef blocks are encouraged to be farther discussed. Just don't forget about the incivility. New to Misplaced Pages or not doesn't excuse that. Perhaps discussion above on block dropping might be more productive for now? Take this to RfC or WQA if you have a problem. Read recent threads in the past few archive folders involving lots of other admins having at each other's throats and spot some of those actions, and see what a better definition of "abuse of power" is. Actually, there's an ArbCom case closing that's a really major case of abuse of power. 1 block of indef with zero intent of being done in bad faith, and being reduced or removed now... isn't abuse. Abuse by a lot of users just in general is far, far more hideous. Sorry. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I reduced it to a week, since that seems to be the rough consensus on this thread. The user has been blocked exactly zero seconds longer than the final result, so no harm done. Indef means undetermined; upon discussion, it was determined. We've got some sanctions pending as people seem pretty concerned that a week off isn't going to cure this problem. Jehochman 19:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Shortening block, proposing sanctions

Per consensus here, I agree to shorten the block to one week. If Drolz09 accepts the unblock conditions proposed on User talk:Drolz09, or counters with acceptable terms, they could be unblocked sooner. If there is no agreement, then I request the following restrictions be placed in effect when the block expires:

• Drolz09 is topic banned from Global warming articles and related pages for a period of three months.
• Drolz09 is restricted from using Misplaced Pages as a battle ground, making personal attacks or making baseless accusations. If there are violations, any uninvolved administrator may block without further warnings.

I hope we can get a consensus for these conditions. Jehochman 18:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I would support a reduction to a 24hr block (getting closer to time served all the time) should the editor accept these restrictions. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the user Drolz is a major voice of opposition on the climate page in question (striving to neutralize the article), as well his comments do not seem out of place to me. It seems the the admin Jehochman is basically holding out to castrate Drolz voice indefinitely on the issue he is passionate about and letting a group of editors who attach ownership to have their way. I'm in favor of a desysop of Jehochman for his abuse of power.--172.162.204.143 (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

My quack-o-meter is going through the roof! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, god forbid the involved admin is trying to take responsibility for a little of the mess and starting to propose an informal solution without blocks. On an "abuse of power" scale, given there was a history of incivility in some regards, this ranks somewhere between baby harp seal and baby kitten on a scale of 1 to 10... as in about a -2 of abuse. Read the other recent threads on this stuff and report back here after that. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Add-on note-- I don't particularly support the original indef block (just "some" block), but I laughed at this idea. Just entirely laughed given how uncivil other discussions have been as of late and that Jehochman's action was 1000x more likely to have been in good faith than any of the other stuff around. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! Finally, an answer for a question at this diff, which was a pretty-freaking-simple solution. How is it that, without exception, the persons who refuse to agree to voluntary AGF distancing from user editors are the ones that always get sanctions? Same thing has happened to me here a lot recently, since apparently both editors walking away for the day with fully functional accounts seems to be too much to handle. Thank you for trying to simplify this. Easy way out? Unblock on "time served" upon agreement to above. I would add a point of no direct communication between the users. Limit topic ban to 1 month assuming good behavior elsewhere, to limit notion of "picking sides", but ban can be extended at any time. Heavy warning to the opposite warring party for generic incivility in some respects and mention of anything incidents in the future being blocks at any admin's discression. Desysop? That's for ArbCom. ANI is not a magic factory where pixies can toss dust about and grant wishes of people just because they think they have consensus at that moment. Read some of the pathetic discussions here lately-- it's entirely out of hand. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh for Pete's sakes

Jehochman, just unblock and call it time served, before I do it for you. I looked at the guy's talk page this morning, saw some serious baiting, and am really surprised to see this unresolved by now. 24 hours is a better place to start, however many hours it's been plus drama should be more than ample to make his errors clear to him. I'm sure you meant well, but you overdid it a tad, and you need to leave this to others. --SB_Johnny |  20:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hours of discussions have gone into building a consensus about what to do. Please don't toss all that by the wayside and substitute your own judgment. Your opinion is welcomed and valued, but the ultimatum is not appropriate. Jehochman 20:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above doesn't look like a consensus-oriented effort. The "ultimatum" is nothing personal, I'm just an uninvolved admin willing to unblock. Generally better if you do it IMO, but YMMV. --SB_Johnny |  21:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

A few people have restated their opinions and made this a lengthy thread. Nevertheless, a number of uninvolved admins and editors have commented, and most support some sort of block. The consensus appears to be one week, unless the editor agree to unblocking conditions. Please don't substitute your personal view for that of those who've already commented. Jehochman 21:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I see a lot of personal views in the discussion above. Mine is of equal weight. --SB_Johnny |  22:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that Drolz is more trouble than he may bring to the project. There's a lot of sniping, a lot of outright personal attacks at the CRU email page, but in Drolz's case its continual. And the thing is that behaviour like that poisons the entire atmosphere. When you're pissed off from that kind of stuff, you're more likely to snap back. More to the point, the fact that his constant stream of PAs and assumptions of bad are tolerated has set the tone for a lot of other new editors (which, of course, have been flocking to the page). I don't care whether he's blocked or not, but I think that a topic ban is crucial. Guettarda (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I unblocked him. If he doesn't take the day's lessons to heart, he'll be blocked again. 'Nuff said. --SB_Johnny |  22:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate unblock. Woogee (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, inappropriate unblock. For what it's worth, I thought a week was more inappropriate than indef. Brilliantine (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Not encouraging.. Nor is his response to the unblock. Guettarda (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate, both the unblock and the reaction by Drolz09.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I expect that since SB Johnny has chosen to substitute his judgement for that of the other discussion participants, he will also be watching this editor closely, and will take full responsibility for any further disruption from this editor &mdash and is prepared to apologize to editors affected? Bad unblock, bad snap decision in lieu of discussion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't be so dramatic. Our rules give discretion to the admin willing to unblock. This was discussed to death, and I read it as no consensus either way. Frankly, given the draconian sanctions which are getting to be routinely handed out on this page these last few weeks to editors who don't have friends, I'm glad that we're seeing an admin or two willing to step up to the plate and call 'em like he sees 'em. --Wehwalt (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• I support the unblock as well, and I am totally uninvolved. Newbie biting is an issue, and yes, he's a newbie. I registered in May 2006, but didn't even have a talk page until May 2007. (I had 109 edits when I created the page. 38 minutes later, I had my very first comment.) I won't address some of the larger issues, but he was jumped on fairly early by someone who obviously has a substantially differing perception of the issue. Horologium (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked to escalate to RfAr?

• Comment Drolz09 has made a number of highly disruptive comments on the CRU talk page since his account became active. The are still many problems with his account, not least the laundry list User:Drolz09/Quotations and his current user page. (How in the current MfD does he know as a newly arrived user about User:Raul654 who stopped participating in GW articles some time ago and how does he know about Raul654's subpages?) I am certain that User:SB_Johnny did not unblock him so that he could immediately continue his disruption in the recent needless RfAr of User:Mackan79. Some kind of block was in order because of Drolz09's disruptive behaviour when his account suddenly became active a week ago after being dormant for two years. Mathsci (talk) 04:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Drolz09 has pointed out that Flegelpuss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) suggested he mention the subpages of Raul654 and GoRight in the MdF on Drolz09's talk page. Mathsci (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Rangeblock for socks of Orijentolog

I've never done one of these. We have a number of IP addresses following the pattern of edits described at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Orijentolog/Archive. The latest is 93.142.175.163 (talk · contribs) and two others can be found here. Also 93.142.147.100 (talk · contribs) Most of the edits are particularly unpleasant personal attacks or comments about Jews. Is there anything practical we can do without a lot of collateral damage? Or an easy way to keep track of them other than watching the pages they edit? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Ask a checkuser or CU clerk to get a rangeblock. Somebody with CU should look at the possible collateral damage before action is taken because your range in question seems to be large. Jehochman 16:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

An admin tried out a rangeblock for Orijentolog in September but, as Thatcher observed, "There are a number of editors on that range, it's also not effective at blocking user:Orijentolog as more than half of his contribs come from a different (non-contiguous) range." It would be a public service if you could tag all Orijentolog's IPs that you know about so they show up in Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Orijentolog. (You could do this by adding {{ipsock|Orijentolog}} on their user pages). Then a new filing could be made at SPI, with a request for checkuser attention. Admin Toddst1 worked on this case before. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, didn't see this before I asked about a rangeblock. So I'll probably be told no. Dougweller (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

A small concern

Take a look at User:Heterodyne's user page. Although he didn't link it correctly, a bit of self advertising, me thinks. I won't touch it, but an admin might want to deal with it. Who knows?--Jojhutton (talk) 13:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(1) Have you notified the user of this discussion here as instructed at the top of this page? (the answer is no). (2) Have you perhaps asked the user if he would consider removing it? (the answer is also a redlinked User talk:Heterodyne). IMO, its well within the bounds of acceptable userpage content especially since it isn't an active link and isn't "HI PLEASE VISIT MY FABULOUS SITE". Cheers. Syrthiss (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Syrthiss. We're open minded here. If he had said "I work for . Buy our fabulous computers." I don't think anyone would have given it a second thought.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Um... What exactly is the problem with identifying as Canadian? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with being Canadian ... it's the Torontonian part that's offensive ;-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Man's entitled to exhibit his shortcomings.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Crikey, I hope you're not recommending full-frontal nudity! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That certainly wouldn't be self-promotion. Toronto's cold this time of year. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I was referring to his nationality, wasn't that clear? (belated cred to David Niven, btw).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow.... And this is *exactly* why I never bother contributing, and why Misplaced Pages has such a hard time being taken seriously as a legitimate source of information... It's when wikinerds are more concerned with a single link in one's personal page (not an linked to an article, mind you... a link in someone's un-promoted, orphaned not-linked-to-anything-else-and-not-touched-since-it-was-created-several-years-ago Misplaced Pages Userpage featuring a link to a non-commercial, advertisement and revenue free hobby website) than actually addressing issues that matter to Misplaced Pages. Absolutely shameful, and thank you for everybody who stuck up for me in this sordid affair o_0 ... Wow. just..... wow.... --Heterodyne (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, I am ashamed to be from Toronto, which is why I live in Calgary these days :P --Heterodyne (talk) 02:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

External link review

Can a couple other people take a look at the contribs for Jdicker (talk · contribs · logs)? I'm waffling on whether or not these interviews are appropriate or not, and it's compounded by the fact that the editor is probably the interviewer. Does this fall under WP:ELNO? Am I being obtuse here? Tan | 39 16:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

IMO they are not appropriate in the way they are being added (ie without discussion and even without edit summaries). Syrthiss (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Obvious self-promotion, no need to overthink it. Gerardw (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, clearly self-promotion and COI. Dougweller (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the last additions, clear COI. Left warnings regarding spam and COI on the user's talkpage, and suggested the user to discuss further edits first. Let's see. --Dirk Beetstra 19:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

New Block

This user has vandalized the pages of Nerd(disambiguation) and barbie (Disambiguation). Gunner768 deserves to have a temporary ban, and possibly any IP address that he uses. Please Consider this request. Captain Cookie —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainCookie (talk • contribs) 17:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Please take vandalism reports to WP:AIV. Thanks! Tan | 39 17:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Requesting temporary block of bot

Hi. I brought up an issue here regarding an undesirable consequence of User:BOTijo's edits. The short of the issue is that some of the bot's edits require administrator intervention to reverse. The bot's operator has not responded in the nine days since I notified him/her of the issue, and does not appear to have visited Misplaced Pages for the last 12 days: . I'd like to request temporary blocking of User:BOTijo until these concerns can be addressed.--Father Goose (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried to see if they are active on the Spanish Misplaced Pages? I note that the bot owner is only intermittently active on en-WP, so it does not appear to be an unusual absence. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, no, I didn't realize that this is not the user's primary wiki. Nonetheless it would be reasonable for someone running a bot on a wiki to check in on that wiki periodically, or at least give instructions on where they can be reached more expediently. But that's a matter I'll have to take up with Emijrp.--Father Goose (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the bot per Father Goose's concerns, and that a bot operator needs to maintain control and supervision of the bot. Once concerns are addressed/fixed/alleviated, bot can be unblocked... Tan | 39 00:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

CIA conspiracy

I don't know how we deal with conspiracy theorists, but 89.164.16.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is trying to use his conspiracy beliefs to win his way in a dispute. This user (on a Croatian ISP) has edited under 89.164.104.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 89.164.22.83 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 89.164.39.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 89.164.0.22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 89.164.10.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 89.164.115.136 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), etc. (it seems this ISP is 89.164.0.0/16 and any edit by an IP in the range to pages in Category:Gackt songs or Category:Gackt albums is him). He has been removing external links and references to websites that he does not believe should belong (Allmusic reviews, Japanese ranking websites , etc.) and has been constantly referring to the CIA in his comments to me and MS (talk · contribs).

How should this be dealt with?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I just left a warning on the IP currently in use. I don't care what their conspiracy theory is, but if they're edit warring with you and others and removing information then it's approaching vandalism, and definitely not OK.

If they won't stop, I recommend blocking the current IP, and if they reset IPs and keep going then semiprotect articles until they will discuss reasonably and work in a collaborative manner.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, PMDrive1061 blocked the IP for a month. Doesn't stop him from coming back tomorrow to edit the pages again.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Let us know if he returns, we semiprotect everything they're touching until they get the point and stop doing that... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That would require semiprotecting every single page about a Gackt album and single.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

We have had to do worse in the past. There's only 20-30 articles in there, from what I saw earlier... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

35 articles on individual songs, 21 articles on albums.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Impartial editor needed to conclude RfC at Talk:French people

If someone has a few minutes to review the discussion at this RfC with a view to determining consensus (if any), I'd appreciate it. It was closed by the initiator after the other participants stopped replying, and I'm not sure the stated outcome was entirely reflective of the discussion. Mahalo,  Skomorokh  23:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat by SPA

Let's try this again, as my previous attempt went nowhere. I'm guessing a case of TLDR...

An SPA editor, User:Debora999, recently reverted an edit with a summary of "Reverted to revision 307690212 by Uwishiwazjohng; improperly cited; legal history section libelous."

Could an admin please explain NLT and NPLT to this editor? Thanks, Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I see this edit as deleting an overly criticizing section, not as a legal threat. There was literally a section called "legal history" that was removed. Calling something libelous isn't a threat. Tan | 39 00:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

When is an accusation of libel not a legal threat?

WP:NPLT says editors should "refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion," and uses "libel" as its primary example of what's understood as a legal threat. WP:NLT says "Legal threats should be reported to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or an administrator."

I'm not asking for a block per se, just for an admin to discuss this policy with the editor in question. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The user did not imply that they were going to take legal action. Libelous material is routinely removed on sight as per policy. Triplestop x3 01:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The edit summary just says that s/he thinks the content is "libelous"; not that s/he is threatening to take legal action over something perceived to be libelous. I agree that you overlooked it a little and that it's probably not a legal threat. MuZemike 01:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Was the information sourced appropriately with neutrality in mind? Can it be rewritten with the proper sourcing? A SPA removing anything possibly negative-sounding in a BLP deserves some extra scrutiny, for fairly obvious reasons. I get the feeling it's not going to be all that awful and it's going to look like a major WP:OWN-looking issue. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 03:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The entire article has lousy sourcing, primarily due to ① novice/SPA editors who think WP:COI means only those with a favorable opinion of the subject can edit the article & WP:BLP means any less than glowing text (no matter how well-sourced) must be removed, and ② the inability to find an admin who actually wants to take on cleaning up this dog of an article. Yes, it has to be an admin; I've gotten the "You're not an admin, so your policy links don't mean squat" enough times, tyvm.

Everything in the legal history section (as seen here) was sourced. A good-sized chunk of it, though, was sourced only to San Francisco County Superior Court rulings (found here). I don't see how a court ruling can be considered libelous, myself, so I saw the edit summary as an attempt to scare off a new editor, User:Devsdough.

I honestly don't think that there's a content conflict here; or at least I don't have one. The legal history section was previously removed as failing WP:PRIMARY, which I've been fine with in the hope that other sections without sources or with primary-only sources could similarly be trimmed. No joy there, though. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats by User:AP1929

I shan't write-up an essay here on the behavior of User:AP1929, which is more-or-less self evident. What I'm primarily interested is his newest "rhetorical tactic". He has apparently decided to get rid of me quickly by searching out some statement he or his affiliates can sue me for. I'll be brief, here's the post, and here's the attempt to conceal it. The user has been promptly warned for the blatant threat, but knowing him, what followed is merely his "standard issue" attempt to avoid action after yet another report. His threats are obviously to be taken dead seriously at all times.

I would also like to add that the post which gave User:AP1929 the excuse was indeed inappropriate, but also that it was a terrible joke on my part taken partially out of context. I called an author a "Nazi fuck" after another user mentioned his KKK affiliations, his apparent characterization of non-Caucasians as "non-human" and such. I am aware of my mistake and can only sincerely apologize for my blatant lack of taste, and I'll add, my sporadic lack of self-control. I have apologized to User:AP1929 if my choice of words was offensive to him.
My error of judgment, however, should not be an excuse to sidetrack the topic of this post. --DIREKTOR 01:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, what WP:NLT seeks is the withdrawal of the legal threats, that has been done. I trust you have notified AP1929 of your starting the thread?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have, of course. No such withdrawal has been made, the user merely apologizes to User:ShadowRangerRIT for inconveniencing him. I must admit I am highly skeptical that the User intends at all to sincerely withdraw his threat, due to the intense animosity he claims to feel towards me for my political position on a number of Yugoslav history issues. I hold that he shall no doubt try to inflict some form of harm to me for not sharing his political viewpoint. --DIREKTOR 02:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

AP1929 said "Not a problem" when asked to withdraw their "quasi-legal threat" and removed their comment. That looks like withdrawing it to me. Until they repeat a legal threat, there's not an ongoing issue as far as WP:NLT is concerned. Fences&Windows 02:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

All right, thought I'd check it with you guys here and I did. Thanks for your time. One day I'll just get used to these threats... :) --DIREKTOR 03:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

And those you are engaging with may get used to "Nazi fuck". I will tell you that if I had seen it at the time (I avoid Balkan articles, personally), you'd have been blocked instanter.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Wow, I feel dumb for not digging far originally. This is a personal squabble that's gone on for a full year with an ANI a few weeks ago. First trouble I can see is here, and apparently nothing has changed. I do get a massive vibe of WP:OWN, and there are a number of persons sitting about the talk pages of both users that I recall in previous ANIs that some editors in this "group" have some... underhanded tactics. Honestly, the version that was reverted by AP1929 was appropriate sourced, and to me it appears the user is striking back out of personal anger versus any use of objective terms or Misplaced Pages policy. imo the lead cited to Britannica is correct per Misplaced Pages standards and anything on top is a POV and an issue of personal morals... not necessarily for ANI, and . ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

btw, we're allowed to re-write other's posts? ...? Instances of immediate concern on a BLP issue are one of the things rollback was tailored to since it's practically instantaneous. I didn't think we were allowed to ever to do such edits other's posts. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I will admit to bending the rules by rewriting a portion of the post. I didn't notice it when it was first posted, so my options were:

1. Leave it intact (and sending a request to DIREKTOR to fix it, but given the legal threat related issues, there was some justification for haste)
2. Remove it (making the thread confusing, as there would be replies to a non-existent parent)
3. Rewrite it in a minimalist way such that the relevant, BLP violating parts of the post were removed, while the information remained the same.

While I recognize that refactoring another's talk page comments is generally verboten, the alternatives were similarly bad. I figured that in this case, WP:IAR applied. I left a comprehensive edit summary, and did my best to avoid putting any words in DIREKTOR's mouth. He keeps a close eye on that page, so presumably he would be notice and object should I have misrepresented him in any way. Yes, I feel a little icky about it, but at least he replied, indicating approval for the change. Given this is the first time I've *ever* cited WP:IAR, I would hope people would be understanding. —ShadowRanger  04:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries, really. Far odder things happened in even my limited experience that needed a quick instant decision, especially on a complicated topic. For the kind of "shoot first, ask questions later" approach, I pick whatever version in the article history looks "stable" before any recent of conflict, then run the total comparison on the diffs in the middle to see what ended up "okay" to add or remove and manually do it if there's no intermediate version that looked safe. That's my IAR way of screaming in panic, and I can see how it'd look like total hijacking in some cases. I'd never wish any wrong upon an intervening editor if something gets bent at the sides a bit. What's the undo feature policy page say? It's okay to make mistakes in undos and revert edits because you can undo them? I'll extend that to AGF, since by definition no harm is wished to be done :) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Banned user going cross project

Apparently, 姫宮玲子 (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of a user who was banned at the Japanese Misplaced Pages and now the user is continuing the activities he performed over there here (they even have an LTA entry for him as seen here). I would like to request that we nip this in the bud before his disruption spills over from the Japanese Misplaced Pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Have they done anything here that is a problem? Beeblebrox (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

And have you notified him? Apparently not, there's a talk redlink. I don't think you can characterize him as a sock anyway. So far as I know, a ban on one project is not a ban on all.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This user is a native Japanese speaker. I do not think I can communicate with him in any fashion that will be helpful. And I can characterize him as a sock because another project does. From what I know he disrupts articles relating to the Ultra Series and making way too many subcategories. While he has not done this yet here, the account has been blocked from the Japanese Misplaced Pages. I will try to get more information on this and determine whether or not we should allow him to edit here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you assuming that a native Japanese speaker cannot also be fluent in English? As mentioned above, why did you escalate this to ANI before (1) contacting him via his talk page, (2) knowing what led to his block, and (3) whether those reasons are relevant at en? Nobi (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've notified the user of this thread. Basket of Puppies 02:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well ... if he's not a native English speaker and you can't communicate with him in any meaningful sense, exactly what harm is he likely to cause here at en:wiki?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

MascotGuy level problems.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Are there any people who could translate, whether on this project or ja-wiki that could help communicate? Ks0stm 03:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Try User:Jason7825. He is ja-5 and an active rollbacker on en. Ks0stm 03:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

MascotGuy? Can you translate that too? Domo arigato gozaimas.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

MascotGuy is the name given to a long term abuser on the English Misplaced Pages who due to an assumed diagnosis of autism was a problem to have him stop making good faith, but overall harmful edits to the project.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain better the reasons that lead to the block? Creating "too many subcategories" seems like a completely pointless reason to justify blocking anyone. Were such categories vandalic ones? Did he ignore some "categories for discussion" discussion result? (or whatever system for this is there in that project) MBelgrano (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I can only glean so much from the Japanese project page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

A user Azurakkii/AZLUCKY (あずらっきー) was initially blocked in January 2008 for a week because he created articles with content directly copy-pasted from off-wiki sites, abusing his own User page as a sandbox (i.e., creating excessive edit entries) while developing subcategories about Ultraman. I don't think the creation of subcategories themselves were part of the reason for this block. Azurakkii then proceeded to evade the block, causing the block to be extended to one month. He continued to evade the block, and on 1/31/2008, Misplaced Pages users were able to convince Azurakkii's ISP to give him a static IP so he could be permanently blocked. In 4/2009, another set of his alternate accounts was found to be creating excessive subcategories (such as "Fictional mushrooms" and "Fictional pandas") and was subsequently permanently blocked for avoiding the main account's block. From what I can tell, all the subsequent blocks were due to block evasion, not due to disruptive subcategories, which were just used as evidence that they were the same user. Nobi (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, "too many subcategories" was deemed disruptive because Azurakkii moved (not copied) articles from a higher-level category into the subcategory, so people wanting to look for, e.g., all fictional creatures, wouldn't be able to without first accessing each subcategory that he created. And it does seem that those who supported the permanent block did use this disruptive editing against him. Nobi (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Jason7825, who may be able to help with Japanese translation. Ks0stm 03:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Network of hoaxes needs attention

Earlier today, Xanarki spotted several apparent hoax articles about bands, including Backwoods Warriors, Four Sick Cats, Etan, and Shovel. He nominated them as A7 speedies, which was off target, since the articles clearly (but falsely) asserted notability (major label releases, etc). Some of the speedies were declined, others weren't acted on. was looking through the articles and realized that the band articles were only the beginning of the problem -- there are also fake album articles, fake band member articles, phony graphics uploaded, and who knows what else. The hoaxster, who's been around at least since 2007 and was editing as recently as November 28 is using multiple accounts, of course, and makes some legitimate edits. The hoaxing is getting more sophisticated, and recent creations are not only mixing real people into the phony articles, but even seems to involve the creation of fake references . I've added PROD tags to more than a dozen articles so far, and haven't come close to ID'ing everything involved. There are articles like Nate Sidek, with apparently fake images included, where the images need to be checked and tagged. Most of the articles lead to other hoaxes of one sort or another, so I think it's a good idea not to speedy-delete them until the linked articles and related images are checked out, and the accounts involved flagged for further investigation. Nate Sidek, for example, is also listed in March 4; Shovel has been listed in Ozzfest lineups by year. Given that the hoaxster's been at it for nearly three years, if not more, there could be a lot of junk to clear out. (There apparently was a partial cleanup about two years ago, but the job wasn't finished and the hoaxing has been growing.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Very rarely do such things actually end at just the artist pages. That would be too easy :) ...Claims of being signed to labels and chart positions for notability seems to be "the thing" as of late since it's harder/slower to check, especially some of the genre-specific US charts (some never existed at all in that year). Agree also that a few existing persons with articles seem to get mixed in a little too conveniently, be it accidentally or not and it's all the more frustrating. The WP:BAND guideline of 2 notable persons almost seems to have been tailor-made just to avoid a gimmick on cycling in 1 person or an accidental connection. I'll work through contribution lists and double-check what you're catching. Haven't gotten to work on a large band hoax in awhile, should be fun. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If only they put that much effort into real articles. Let's dig through them and see what is legit and what isn't. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't we speedy these as hoaxes? Also shouldn't there be a discussion as to what to do about the account that created these? Ridernyc (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Permab&? I didn't think there was much discussion needed. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

IP harassment of another editor

An IP range has been harassing User:Wjemather since the 4th of December posting personal information on the userpage and his talk page, all of which requires oversight. Because of this, both pages got protected but the range has found his subpages listed on his userpage like this one and this one. I was able to locate the range, it's 65.92.124.0/22 and it's been blocked before because it appears that a banned user User:ScienceGolfFanatic is using this range but the newest IP 65.92.124.252 self proclaimed himself as User:Editor XXV. I don't know if it's one or the other but I would like to find out if this IP range can be reblocked again? Momo san 07:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Harassment by admin

Cremepuff222, who is supposed to be an admin and set an example, has been harassing me on my talkpage for several days now

I warned him/her to stop here and got this helpful response. One minute later, an IP address made this edit to my talkpage: interestingly, the IP address belongs to Cremepuff, as evidenced on its block-log It has "vandalised" Cremepuff's talkpage several times (equally, Cremepuff has blocked him/herself several times, with stupid comments) and is clearly being used inappropriately.

I'll inform them about this thread; can someone please tell them to stop? It's very, very immature to keep harassing me like this, and doing it while logged out is not behaviour expected of an admin. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 07:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Cremepuff222's behaviour here is totally inappropriate. I have no idea what he/she is trying to accomplish, but it should stop. Steve Smith (talk) 07:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Without seeing any context for the random rubbish on TreasuryTag's talk I agree - looks totally stupid. I note that Cremepuff has currently blocked themselves for 31 hours. Normally a bad idea, but maybe for once a good idea (unless he/she unblocks themselves). The IP edit was exceptionally poor form. I hope that a good explanation - and apology - will be forthcoming upon Cremepuff's return. Pedro :  Chat  07:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to AGF here. Is it possible that a child or young adolescent has gained access to Cremepuff's computer? This is just too weird. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Either the account has been compromised, he's gone nuts, or he's decided to go out in a blaze of stupidity. If this isn't resolved soon after the block is expired/lifted we should ask a steward for an emergency desysop. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The more I look at this, the loonier it is. At the risk of opening the WP:BEANS, this account also has access to AWB. Between that and the admin tools, the possibility that the account is compromised or that Cremepuff has lost his marbles is troubling to say the least. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, something does not read right here. The trolling on TT's talk took place over 3 days and they were his only edits during that time. This is odd too as is this. However this looks fine. If the account was compromised I'd have thought we'd have seen something more severe given the time period available. If Cremepuff is going out in a "blaze of stupidity", the blaze is more of a match than a firework. RFCU?Pedro :  Chat  09:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It certainly appears that the account may have been compromised. They also blocked themselves just under half an hour before the latest block (05:17, 7 December 2009 Cremepuff222 (talk · contribs) blocked Cremepuff222 (talk · contribs) (autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 123456789 seconds). I would suggest that a message be left on their page asking an explanation, and that if it isn't resolved quickly, an emergency desysop will be requested, as per Beeblebox's suggestion above. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a /b/tard, to be honest. Perhaps a youngish one, say around 14. Hacked email/password combos get posted on /b/ sometimes, I wouldn't be surprised if that's what happened. Either that or Cremepuff has a family member doing this. The behaviour is just downright odd. Also, a pretty pitiful excuse for trolling, if I do say so myself. I could think of much better things to do with an admin bit, if my intent were to disrupt. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm, yea maybe an RFCU. Looking through his logs, he's not doing much with the tools anyway, only 15 admin actions this year. Look at the deletion logs for giggle. Admin tools are not toys to play with for your own amusement. There's also some very weird/unhelpful edit summaries, such as "meow" "doo doo doo" and the ever popular random string of characters. The fact that there are good edits mixed in with the weirdness would tend to indicate that the account has in fact not been compromised, and Cremepuff is doing this for reasons known only to themselves. That he was so dismissive of both Treasury Tag and ANI does not bode well at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Jackson, William (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (second edition ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, UK: Gibraltar Books. p. 225. ISBN 0-948466-14-6. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help):

   “

   The open frontier helped to increase the Spanish share, and naval links with Minorca produced the small Minorcan contingent.

   ”

2. Edward G. Archer (2006). Gibraltar, identity and empire. Routledge. pp. 42–43. ISBN 9780415347969.
3. William Jackson (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (Second ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, United Kingdom: Gibraltar Books. p. 143. ISBN 0-948466-14-6.. British: 351; Genoese: 597; Jews: 575; Spaniards: 185; Portuguese: 25

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards