Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk | contribs) at 05:21, 20 December 2009 (→User:PCHS-NJROTC has unilaterally declared another user to be "banned": Idea). 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

Umpteenth edit war in Gibraltar

Entire discussion moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Gibraltar to centralize discussion and to free up space on ANI. MuZemike

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)

Thank you for explaining that. In the end, though, meatpuppeting is meatpuppeting, whether the people are officially representing an organization (not the case here), or are acting unofficially as individuals. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

But what if they're not meatpuppets? The definition on Misplaced Pages is people recruited to back up someone else's position, and I'd say that this isn't the case; you've legitimately got individuals who honestly believe what they're saying, they're not swarming over to Misplaced Pages as some sort of "hive mind" or at the rallying call of a SA "leader" or something. As such, I'd say it's unfair to disregard their opinions out-of-hand just because some of them are coming from the same place. As with any online forum, like-minded people are going to congregate in the same place. That doesn't make their opinions less valid. Xenomrph (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There's been a pretty enthusiastic outpouring of (SPA) accounts and IPs bombing away at Tryptofish and involved articles, especially the two crucifixion articles. It is/was the textbook definition of meatpuppetry, combined with the sort of trolling that can only happen with a large group of followers interested in disrupting, trolling, and griefing, which is backed up pretty well in the ~1600 posts on this thread. Misplaced Pages's policies and investigation of sockpuppetry is fairly well defined, but taking this group at face value has shown some serious weaknesses of the processes. tedder (talk) 05:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

But there's a pretty big (and important) distinction between "griefing" and "criticizing". The thread you linked to is not about griefing at all, as anyone who reads it will see. Just because a number of people, be them from the same website or otherwise, are saying things you don't agree with or don't like doesn't automatically mean they're "griefing". Xenomrph (talk) 12:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The number of SPAs who have bombed away at Tryptofish and involved articles (especially Crucifixion in art) says otherwise. tedder (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the threads at the SA forum show Xenomrph discussing with other persons his/her plans to come to Misplaced Pages to dispute at Talk:Something Awful, and others egging him/her on to do so. That doesn't mean that the points made by any of these editors are necessarily wrong. Indeed, just as someone can be a meatpuppet without being an official spokesperson for an outside site, one can also be a meatpuppet while being thoughtful and having a valid criticism to make (although a good many of the editors in this case do not fit that description), and there does not have to be a leader. The point is that the foundational principles of how editing is done at Misplaced Pages break down if editors do not simply come to a particular page as part of the normal "wiki" process, but rather come as part of something organized, and organized in a way that is not transparent here on-wiki. A vivid example: we have a system of RfC for resolving content disagreements, and it usually works pretty well. But if an RfC gets flooded with griefing entries (as happened recently at Talk:Crucifixion), then the RfC process breaks down, to the detriment of the project. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

No one was egging me on, nor did I say it was my plan to dispute over there. I posted there saying I'd already done it after I'd already done it, and that was that. In a thread with over 1100 posts, I've made exactly 7. But like you said, people coming from a particular site doesn't necessarily make their criticisms less valid, so I'd think that just crying out "Meatpuppet!" as some sort of judgment of what people are saying is disingenuous at best. Xenomrph (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is really about much more than just you. But I think I recollect you saying there that you were going to make comments and see what would happen; my apologies if I remember wrong. In any case, that's a small point, as no one is singling you out for scrutiny here in a thread about another user. But it's not "just crying" anything, and it's not "disingenuous". People can make (arguably) valid points, but do so in the course of disruptive editing, and that does not make it any less disruptive. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I call foul! Tryptofish, you have absolutely no problem going back and pulling up links that support your statements and posting them all over every talk page you come across, why can't you do that in this case? Because you're creating a straw-man or a red herring argument? Because you don't want to admit that you were wrong? The forum post still exists. Go find it, it's free!

Although I just started an actual account -I didn't want to be a part of the wiki-community and understood that anybody could edit with or without an account, so there was no point until now- I've been reading and occasionally editing wikipedia for the last five or six years on different IPs (I have changed ISPs six times since 2004, not to mention using my home network vs my School network between 2004 and 2006 and my home network vs my work network since 07. Prior to about the middle of this year, I edited from an ISP in Korea). I am not an SPA, I simply have no desire for notoriety on this site. Suggesting that I am a Single Purpose Account is a violation of WP:NPA and WP:Uncivil.

Personally, I look at people's talk pages and cringe at the flags and baubles that they can collect. If you want to know what's really wrong with Misplaced Pages and why new user numbers are falling off while old users slowly bleed away, it's garbage like this. You're anonymous, but you have a flag that says you have a PhD and you've been published in Peer Reviewed Academic Journals. Aside from the fact that every professor I've ever had has said unequivocally that Misplaced Pages is a waste of time and an invalid resource, I find it incredibly difficult to believe that somebody with a PhD in Neuroscience (!?) has the time and energy to dedicate to so vociferously defending non-science articles. I demand a source, or you (and every other "Anonymous PhD") need to delete that flag on your user page. Having that there to prove your worth or your status as a respected veteran is wrong. It's a blatant fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

Frankly, judging by the 'His Noodly Appendage' and other super-atheist flags of your defenders, as well as comments like the one by Tedder (above) that he thought SA was a religious group, and that new 'Anti-flame' flag you have on your talk page congratulating you on defending against Morality and Religion flames in these crucifixion pages (hint: this wasn't about religious concern or morality issues), if anybody has engaged in canvasing here, it's been you. Additionally, you've violated WP:Civil by waving your hand and dismissing anybody who posts from SA as a meatpuppet, ignoring their points even when they are civil about it. You haven't treated them with due respect because you thought it was a personal attack on your atheism or your anime fandom, I don't know which. Yes, there were SPAs who came in from SA, but they usually came in and said one thing before moving on. There's a pretty clear rule in WP:NPA that says you cannot engage in ad hominem attacks based on affiliation with a group ( http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F ), yet that's exactly what you've done. And on top of that, based on your behavior over the last week, you're actively trying to stir up support against SA among other disinterested members of the board by posting about it anywhere you can, then casting aspersions on the group by pointing out that the general discussion forum is called "General Bull Shit" (with quotes. As opposed to General BS or GBS, as reference to people who just sit around and BS about anything), making a reference to the name Something Awful while providing a link to the wiki page about SA ( http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=332379959 ) instead of the forum itself, and then editing the SA wiki page yourself to include certain negative 'facts' sourced by forum posts outside of SA and articles that you yourself have misquoted to prove a point, all in a campaign to drum up more support against us. That's the very definition of Canvasing and Engaging in Personal Attacks. - Diesel Phantom (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Misquoted sources? No. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that way, then why not rise above their disruption and actually respond to their (admittedly) valid points, instead of disregarding it out-of-hand just because you see it as disruptive? Sure they're still not following protocol and being disruptive, but people can be educated on that. They'd also likely be more receptive (and thus be less disruptive) if people showed an inclination to look at *what* they're arguing, instead of fixating on *how* it was argued. I've worked with plenty of disruptive people in "real life" and you can't just ignore problems and hope they'll go away. Xenomrph (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, I and other editors have been responding to their points, and we've hardly been ignoring anything. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

That's debatable. Xenomrph (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll settle for three instances where you have directly answered a criticism, without citing WP anything, and not been cutely dismissive. Good work reverting my meager edits, by the way. I guess Pulse 2 & 3 are high water marks in the surrealist genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.165.188 (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You haven't been ignoring, you've been dismissing. You haven't been giving viewpoints that disagree with you due respect in violation of WP:Civil. This isn't a case of the supreme minority of flat earthers demanding inclusion, it has been the majority of people with common sense objecting to the inclusion of a very extreme minority view in otherwise unrelated articles. - Diesel Phantom (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above users. Certainly, there has been incivil conduct against you, but you're using their policy violations as a way to avoid the underlying statements and the problems many users have with your own conduct, Tryptofish. Have you stopped to consider the reasons why so many editors seem to have a problem with your editing?Yzak Jule (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

(moving left, ugh) It's amusing to see Yzak implying an editor has odd behavior. In any case, what's this about me thinking "SA was a religious group"? The issue was not knowing that "SA" referred to some random trollforum, not that I thought somethingawful was religious. tedder (talk) 02:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

What's not amusing, Tedder, is your continued uncivil behavior towards me. Adminship is not a pass to not follow policy.Yzak Jule (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing you are also implying the following users are uncivil: Elaragirl, SlimVirgin, Fish and karate, Elaragirl (2), Oxymoron83, David Fuchs, Cirt, Edgarde, Slakr, Commander Shepard, L0b0t, Evil saltine, NuclearWarfare, Elen of the Roads. tedder (talk) 04:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on being able to read my talk page history, but no, I'm talking about your consistent snide remarks towards me, both here and on your talk page.Yzak Jule (talk) 04:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a Something Awful account and I have read that thread. I agree wholeheartedly, from reading this conversation, that I have an 'SPA'. My account has one purpose and one purpose alone: to express my views whenever I feel I want to give them. If that only happens when something is drawn to my attention, that is not my problem. Misplaced Pages is an open encyclopedia and there is no rule which says I need to have a continued presence here in order for my opinion to count, despite the ridiculous sense of entitlement some users appear to have against anyone with the gall to express support for a point of view with origins outside the wikipedia ecosystem. I find the repeated use of the terms 'meatpuppet' and 'meatpuppetry' offensive, if not a blatant attempt to handwave away the views of anyone who disagrees with an editor's strongly held controversial views. Josh04 (talk) 04:15, 20 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)

Before this section gets archived, I want to note for future reference that, as of this time, the user resumed some of the kind of editing that started this section (user's edits of December 16), and has not resumed the constructive edits that were noted during this AN/I discussion. (And editors can assess for themselves the thread about "SA" above.) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Founder notice

There seems to be some edit warring over whether it's appropriate for users to put Template:Founder on their page. I don't care since it's on another user's page (beyond Jimbo's) but I would like to see community input. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not the userbox - which is frequently used as what I can only supposed is a piss-take. It's the way Yzak Jule reverts all comments to his talk page with a vandalism tag that bothers me. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Modifying another user's user page content without reason is a textbook case of vandalism. Also, the use of this userbox on my page has already been brought up here on ANI before and the decision was made that it's ok. Yzak Jule (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Yzak with respect to the user page (but with the caveat that the choice of material will tend to attract unwelcome attention), but I agree with Elen about user talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't cite vandalism, I cite harassment, which I think is fair when it's you, Elen, or tedder.Yzak Jule (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Tombaker321 single purpose account at Polanski

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

WP:TLDR much? If it's this hard to explain what's going on (seemingly a pattern of behaviour, not an incident), then use an WP:RFC/U, not ANI. Though maybe better use of content dispute resolution like WP:RFC would be enough; certainly wouldn't hurt. Rd232 15:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

(begin 2-days later exchange)

(re Brilliantine) With all respect, you rebuke Guy for leaping to a conclusion, yet allow yourself to "Personally, ... see" what you cannot see at all ... because you have not been there. Guy is responding to Off2riorob's description as if it might well be true. While yes, the edit in question, seems a simple matter that shouldn't be that contentious ... that alone should tell you something more than the appearance of that one edit is going on. Off2riob is frustrated enough to bring this here, knowing he may have every past fault thrown in his face. Think how exhausted he must be, to come and subject himself to "all this," to finally address a problem he has witnessed and endured for a long time. I.E., With all due respect, you cannot judge this matter by looking at what one edit looks like. It's an edit in the context of much else. For more of the complexity, see the topic (... simultaneous dual edit wars) by SPA in question below. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 12:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

...I have, in fact, read through the history of the article and of the talk page. I would like to point out that it takes two to edit war, and see vaguely disruptive behaviour - though not egregiously so - coming equally from both sides. And on this ANI, I see a lot of vague and long-winded allegations from both sides that offer little of interest. Brilliantine (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(re Brilliantine - note: outdented to highlight reply, I'll return indent to highlight mine NOTE TO READERS: This exchange takes place out of time sequence of topic flow, due to fact I did not arrive until after I was mentioned :- )

Well, you have two experienced editors (Off2riorob and Proofreader77, and a different, few-edits account Oberonfitch) saying something, and a rebuttal of "attempted character assassination" (noticed by administrator Shereth 16:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

"... 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."

(noting) Tombaker321 is the SPA in topic question created during current events — And I hereby note that I did NOT arrive here for this topic until I was attacked.

Since your (Brilliantine)'s description of "vague" would not seem to apply to the SPA's attacks (which are very detailed), I will assume there have not been sufficient diffs provided for the allegations against the SPA to satisfy you — but rather only the mere words of two experienced editors who have, yes, experienced all that has transpired.

But should diffs be requested in the "Questions" spaces below, I'm sure that all the vagueness of the experienced editors may be made manifestly solid. (PS Happy holidays —and please excuse rhetorical tilts with sometimes insufficient grace for the season ... of our discontent ... Since insufficiently fascinating to arouse interest naturally, perhaps there can be some rhetorical verse in conclusion which, I will , is much more delightful than what came before. ;-)
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(end 2-days later exchange)

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)

Shereth: Please read the original remarks made by Off2riorob starting this thread for tone. Please read the two edits above, and weigh whether I am doing anything in bad faith or with bias. House Arrest is a term that both conveys bail, and electronic monitoring, its Wikilinked if anyone needs more information, but house arrest is a pretty well understood term. Offriorob's manner of action has caused a litany of Administrator interventions. Its certainly not character assassination, since the cumulative record is used by administrators to effect new actions. I am just the latest object being bulldozed. The historical record of administrator actions should give insight. Beyond that, what on earth is wrong with the edit, that caused me to be here. --Tombaker321 (talk) 13:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on the content dispute and not the contributor. This discussion should be designed to resolve the current dispute regarding the edits on the Roman Polanski article; it is not a referendum on Off2riorob's previous issues. Intentional or not, your dredging up of his transgressions (which are, by and large, immaterial to the dispute at hand) creates the strong impression that you are simply engaging in an ad hominem attack on Off2riorob in an attempt to discredit his argument rather than addressing the substance of the dispute. Shereth 16:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Are there any questions for Proofreader77?

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)

Oberonfitch you have a similar commentary as both Off2riorob and Proofreader77, as shown in your commenting here. You have chosen to opine as a SPA on a set of specific edits, with instead, a trumped up mischaracterization of my actions as an editor. The edits in question are shown above, what is the problem with them? Your statements attempt to speak for all editors using "we" and "none of us" framing. I find it very objectionable that you seek some sort of ban on me, or locking the article completely. --Tombaker321 (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That you would even bother to reply to my Retort, when you deleted from your user page my request that you launch a sock puppet investigation on me and Proofreader77, which I invited you to do in a pleasant manner even though I had left the article, shows a lack of grace. You then point at my leaving as proof of WP:OWN. This continual picking is obnoxious. You could simply acknowledge quietly to yourself that you had succeeded in running off another editor. As for what is wrong with what you did, 1) you acknowledged previously that this was a collaboration and that no single editor should be making decisions (and I will add, even more than usual given the environment); 2) you were told that the other editors did not like the change but you reverted their reverts, 3) I had not brought forth here the mis-characterizations of late, preferring this not to turn into a TLDR post, but you have, therefore, I will summarize.

Within the past month you a) changed the Quaalude article to reflect that it is hypnotic reinserting a chart of questionable value that had been removed by those editors on the Quaalude article which lumps anesthesia in with prescription and illegal street drugs so that you could change the wording of the Polanski article, b) you have said specifically that the Quaaludes allowed easy entry into Geimer's teenage bottom, c) you have prophesied that Polanski will jump bail, and d) argued endlessly on whether he was hired by Vogue Hommes and that it was simply a ruse to take advantage of Geimer. I will take these in chronological order.

• On the 25 November, you forecasted that "The odds that Polanski will escape (say through some daring mercenary helicopter extraction) are pretty high now." following the acceptance of bail. -Tombaker321 (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC) I suppose this could have been a joke.

• On the question of whether he was hired by Vogue Hommes, your quote: "But the context of his conversation is about Polanski sexual exploits of young girls, with a joke about getting the youngest girls he can get in Los Angeles. What happens next, he goes to LA and has "consensual" sex with a minor. The pictures taken were all of low lighting at dusk, which could not even be used for a professional magazine. Long story short. If the entry has makes the assertion Polanski was working a job, it needs to reflect the employer denies this. Geimer was never paid for the work either. The casting interview, film test, photography session that turns into naked photography, have long been cliche's of Hollywood, as a means of having sex with women, under the premise of future fame. That cliche did not come about without ample facts of many incidents. We had a version without mention of the Vogue Hommes, it may be better to go again in that direction. --Tombaker321 (talk) 11:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

  And, "Polanski states clearly that Vogue Hommes denied he was on an assignment. A citation added and seems deleted now shows that assignment to be a joke. A group of men telling Polanski to go out an shoot pictures of as young as girls as he can get in L.A. The only person saying it was an assignment was Polanski. Further, the victim was not hired. She was not paid. She was only raped. All of the photographs were unusable for a magazine. None were lighted properly." Tombaker321 (talk) 02:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC) The article cited was unverifiable as no names were associated with the statements, and the quotes were from the Polanski biography which you contrarily deemed useful at one point and fraudulent at another. How you would know whether the photographs were usable, when they had been seized and could not be used, is another question entirely. When other editors brought up concerns regarding synthesis, you return to your argument that VH had not hired him, and graciously agree to take the entire reference to VH out, which would have left Polanski photographing the young Geimer with the express purpose of assaulting her, which is, I believe, what we call content creep. Note: Cited secondary sources all point to a VH assignment.

• And then the lengthy Quaalude discussion: "The testimony of the victim does indeed show her to have been drugged. Had she not been drugged with alcohol and a sedative-hypnotic she could well have fought him off or screamed, or whatever. The definition of the drug brew-ha was caused by a poorly worded sentence here and an attempt to reword it for readability. Quaaludes are now an banned drug, no longer able to be prescribed, but they were in use as a sexual stimulant and hypnotic in the 70s. Reflecting the drug as it is---should not have been a problem. At the rate this WP entry is being "sanitized for purpose", (your bolding). I will be happy if the given a mixture of alcohol and Quaalude, is retained, just by itself. --Tombaker321 (talk) 05:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

  "Everything points at the girl was drugged with a controlled substance, a strong sedative-hypnotic drug. She was confused, and events "just happened" to her. He effectively gave her the date rape drug (in modern parlance) and then proceeded. While I agree with Rossrs that I can not know, and did not claim to know exactly what happened. I do know that if a person is not sedated and boozed up, they will be more physical to stop being anally raped. The drugging of this girl was a large part of the problem. The drug is classified as a hypnotic, with some sources saying it a sedative-hypnotic. Conceding to voices here, I don't plan on seeking the up to date terminology of "hypnotic" people seem to be fine with sedative. I did at the same time remove the wording of "muscle relaxant", maybe people want to have that back in also. (your bolding) Sadly that function better explains the ease of the anal rape too.-Tombaker321 (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC) As I pointed out in Talk, there are many indications (including her testimony) that Geimer was not unaware or drugged to the point of being physically helpless. That you persist when you cannot know is problematic.

What you are quoting for the most part are discussion within Polanski TALK. Which I engage in because of deletion of content already within the entry or the refusal to allow factual information in. Polanski plied a 13 year old with alcohol and Quaaludes, took child porn photographs of her, and against her protest sexually assaulted her. These are facts that are not comfortable for some, and reflecting the facts is no argument for asserting I am biased. The edits that I did that are being questioned here are fairly specific, and I have not seen anything written by you which addresses the merits of these specific edits. There are many threads within the talk pages, which I engaged in, so as to make good faith edits, I don't see using the talk page as being a negative. I am particularly adverse to considering the "okay I am taking my toys and going home" argument. I stand by my edits, for their content. And yes, unlike their characterization, these edits are in good faith. Recent reversion and deletions of content do concern me, as much as your request to lock the article. --Tombaker321 (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The issue is not a content dispute over one edit, but rather, as Off2riorob stated in beginning:

"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,..."

The fact that the edit which "broke the camel's back" (i.e., inspired Off2riorob's creation of this ANI topic) is an edit which would, on its face, seem too innocuous to be an issue, perhaps gives some clue to the level of frustration involved. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Proofreader77 you were specifically sanctioned regarding Polanski by this ANI. One admin said of you before the placing of your restrictions "This editor appears to be a personified denial of service attack on Misplaced Pages's consensus building mechanism." This is the environment that I am working through. You have broken the tenants of the restrictions placed as well, and have likely not sought out mentorship which was requested of you to do. The continuing problems of Off2riorob are documented above. The edit at question you now feel is innocuous, them why did Off2riorob start an edit war over it? I believe this use of the ANI forum is an abuse, with the entire thrust being an expectation that others will assume I am acting in bad faith. My meritorious edits are in good faith and I stand behind them. --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Disruption may be executed in good faith. To my knowledge, no other editor doubts the editor in question's good faith — WP:AGF is not a license to disrupt. Proofreader77 (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The edit being cited as a problem is innocuous, well written, and expands the facts, while using an economy of works, and fixing the prior sentences disintegrated nature. Other edits I have done to stop the deleting of content by yourself, have been responded to with repeated revisions.

For example we had for well over a month, after much discussion, that Polanski stated the sex was consensual. You removed it, and then continued to remove it, while acknowledging your have broken the 3RR rule.

I am not sure how much more that you want to add here, but I would like you to complete, this started with remarks towards me by Off2riorob, I believe I have a right to respond, I don't think I should need to respond to a drip drip drip. --Tombaker321 (talk) 07:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Requesting this be closed

As I said about the entire nature of this topic is based on good faith edits, which stands as reasonable and as others have now said, innocuous. Off2riorob began an edit war just 3 minutes after I placed the edit. He has a history of this type of interaction. Proofreader77 is under current restrictions for disruptions on Polanski. Oberonfitch is a SPA account. I have used the talk pages in Polanski in good faith, however those discussions are selectively quoted above as being inappropriate. The quality of my edits seem far down the list.

I believe this should be closed, with no action done to myself, the innocuous edit as Proofreader77 now states, is not requiring of Administrator action. The constant reverting of edits done by Off2riorob and Proofreader77 are highly problematic and I will raise issues, that I have, in an appropriate time and place.

The request to this ANI is to assume I am acting in bad faith, as I am not, there should be nothing done. --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment by Proofreader77

  Tombaker321, replying earlier to Proofreader77, said "I don't think I should need to respond to a drip drip drip" — which I take to mean the appearance of new messages after he feels he has fully responded to Off2riorob's allegations.

  However, let it be noted that I (Proofreader77) did not post any messages in this ANI until Tombaker321 chose to attack me.

• 22:46, 16 December 2009 Tombaker321 (partial list of mentions of Proofreader77)

• "Re: Oberonfitch. Oberonfitch is a single purpose account of Roman Polanski. His manner of actions suggest a sockpuppet of Proofreader77."
• ...
• "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)" "

• 23:05, 16 December 2009 Proofreader77 (1st post to this ANI)

While I understand a large expanse of text has been generated by this ANI so far, my observation (and others as well) is that Tombaker321 has responded in large measure by attacking all the editors who find his editing and interaction disruptive. Although I understand that no sensible administrator would wade through all the words here, I believe there is still the possibility of focusing the matter sufficiently to find a good resolution. I respectfully suggest that Tombaker321's suggestion to simply dismiss all this (surely tempting) leaves a problem in place. A problem that is damaging to NPOV of the Roman Polanski BLP.

So, I ask that this not be abandoned prematurely. This is a problem which began with the arrest of Roman Polanski on September 26, 2009 ... leading to several locks in the first day ... then a week long full lock from Oct 1 to 8. Until Polanski's legal saga is concluded, there will be ongoing BLP/NPOV difficulties.... and the hard part of those difficulties arise from the infinite combative energy brought to bear by the SPA in question. I return to that unpleasant sounding phrase, because ultimately the administrators here must either believe somebody or ignore it all.

Yes, none of us are perfect, but some of us have demonstrated our investment in the community and its values. Regarding Proofreader77 the only "trouble" I have ever been in ... has arisen out of my attempting to counterbalance the SPA in question on Roman Polanski, and therefore having given the mistaken (to be corrected) impression that I have been doing something wrong, rather than the amount that was necessary to balance the infinite energy of Tombaker321.

I believe if you survey the "combat" above — the style of communications displayed — you may have some idea who you might listen to in this matter. Proofreader77 (talk) 12:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions for Tombaker321 or Proofreader77

Removed hyperlinking of my name in areas that resembled a signature. Unable to follow language of Proofreader. I will create a new request. --Tombaker321 (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The recent unreported 3RR vio (from simultaneous dual edit wars) by SPA in question

The reason for bringing this up now is not to highlight a stale 3RR vio; but rather to illustrate the disruption, which above, has been discussed in terms of one apparently innocuous edit — Note: which reduced the size of the Roman Polanski#Sexual assault case summary in the BLP (note: a brief summary of the article Roman Polanski sexual abuse case). As illustrated above, that edit was contested by Off2riorob.

What has not been mentioned (until now) is that while the SPA in question was reducing the summary size with edit #1 ... he was also contending with Proofreader77 (me) to keep other information in. Let us call this edit#2 (which took several forms).

To recap: the SPA in question was in the process of simultaneously contending with Off2riorob to take some information out (debatable) ... which I will characterize as making more room in the summary ... to keep their preferred information in (Note the SPA in question has previously received a block edit warring against consensus to increase the size of the summary).

[Edit to add: Correction as per Tombaker321's (unbulleted:) question: My mistake, wrong edit war:

• The "edit war against consensus to increase the size of the summary" was simply 3RR without block,
• The (3?) edit war(s) to remove POV tags were also 3RR (no block)
• The edit war which did result a block (with early release) was one, I remember now, I actually agreed with and semi-defended Tombaker321 for at WP:AN3 as a side-effect of the accuser having attacked me in the process of requesting Tombaker321 be blocked.

(Now, as you may notice, there's some other players in the mix who have not been mentioned in this ANI topic, and they might well need to be mentioned in order to reach a good solution on this. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)) End edit insert]

Questions for Proofreader77 (2)

The active admin restriction placed on you regarding the Polanski article, requested you seek out a mentor, have you done so?

Proofreader77 you have entirely fabricated the rationale for the single 24 hour block I have ever received, that mischaracterization should not be used. When three editors have a meating of the minds, it does not mean they control content and consensus. --Tombaker321 (talk) 07:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(Note - Please refrain from reordering topics in an active ANI) + kibbitzing

I take it you are not going to respond to the question? --Tombaker321 (talk) 09:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me if this seems a trivial matter, but would you please (or permit me) to place your question in left column with a bullet? (It keeps formatting consistent should questions from other editors arise.) Proofreader77 (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

PS: And please ask one question per bullet (rather than a mix of question and statements implying other things to respond to). Don't try to put it all in one question bullet — ask more than one. (Within reason.:) Proofreader77 (talk) 13:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions for Tombaker321

• Question T1 - You have mentioned previous ANIs regarding Proofreader77. If responding to those mentions implied raising the name of all editors involved (and notifying them of their mentions), would you still want to raise those matters for current discussion — or would you prefer to withdraw those mentions of previous ANIs? Proofreader77 (talk) 10:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Mistaken phrase has been struck, and issue clarified (in response to your question).
2. Re bullet-questions format: In a previous ANI I have participated in, that format (including questions and answers being limited to 100 words) allowed a "calming of the waters" (flood?:) to bring focus to the issue so it can be resolved, rather than unlimited indent-exchanges which may tend toward rhetorical tit-for-tat. The (brief) bullet Q/A format cuts down on rhetorical tactics and knee-jerk responses (which few of us are completely immune to.) It is simply something that helps. And clearly this long topic should be brought to resolution ... but, not by abandoning it, but by focusing it.
3. Excuse me if the format request appeared to be a command. It is a request, but sometimes all the words do not make it from brain to keyboard.
   -- Proofreader77 (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for Administrator Closing of this Topic

My edits the precipitated this request are proper edits. An edit war was instigated against those edits by a trio. The content of these edits was used to create some sort of referendum here on me, as if the proponents are not interested parties.

This topic has become ever expanding clearly delving into issues of content mostly. I ask for administrative closer. --Tombaker321 (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment by Proofreader77 There is a long-standing problem which should have been corrected at a previous ANI, but due to complex dynamic of participants (as sometimes happens), the issue of Tombaker321's behavior was left aside. But in this ANI, the dynamics are different (and the participants are no-longer ANI virgins, which makes a difference).

  Although there is far too much text above to analyze it all, the remarks of administrator User:Shereth regarding the rhetorical choices of Tombaker321 (to perform "character assassination" of other editor defensively rather than discuss the issues) should be kept in mind. There is a BLP/NPOV effect on content due to the actions of Tombaker321, but that is not the issue here — the issue for ANI is the patterns of behavior of one editor which exhausts and disheartens other editors — to which my actions (previously misperceived, but to be corrected at AN or Arbcom if necessary) have been "counterbalance."

  There is a good resolution to be had here (and discussion can be focused to achieve it), however I understand this is taking up far to much space here on the main page of ANI, and I respectfully request this topic not be closed, but moved to a subpage. Too much has been invested here to walk away. The problem should be resolved, this time. Or we shall be back here again. No, let's solve it now.
  -- Proofreader77 (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Request that this topic be moved to a subpage (per above) if necessary, to solve the problem

Proofreader77 (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposals for resolution

• #1 - by User:Proofreader77: I believe (but will verify, for sure) that User:Off2riorob, ,User:Oberonfitch, User:Proofreader77 would (gladly) agree to all be topic-banned from Roman Polanski for 3-6 months (? until Polanski saga concludes) — if User:Tombaker321 is similarly banned from the article ... AND if two other editors who have not been named yet — but who contributed to the mess you see, would also be topic banned. (Would require a bit more discussion, of course. :-)

  As you see, it's a bit more complex than an obvious solution. Until the Polanski legal saga is concluded, there's going to be the need for someone to watch over Roman Polanski from a BLP/NPOV balancing perspective. (Who will watch out for socks of previous participants who have not benefited the article?)

  The little summary of the Roman Polanski#Sexual assault case section is consuming an outrageous amount of human time and energy ... and sensible folk would leave it alone until Polanski's legal drama resolves.

  Let me put it this way — some believe (almost religiously?) in the power of Misplaced Pages to define reality. I suggest that those who believe most strongly in that power, and of their own powers of judgment to arrange the facts which most fit their perspective (excluding those that do not, for an infinite number of reasons for all occasions), feel compelled to devote (apparently) all their life force into conforming a corner of Misplaced Pages with their view of reality.

  That is what some of us have been dealing with. And because we believe that Misplaced Pages should not be used that way, we "counterbalance" such a force. We are tired. We would like that force that requires so much effort to deal with be restrained. And if we all must be restrained too, that is OK — but the goal of BLP/NPOV which I have labored so hard to maintain, and have been punished for so doing (due to mistaken perceptions) should not be lost amidst this.
  -- Proofreader77 (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed - I agree to be topic banned if Tombaker321 and other participants who have demonstrated disruptive and POV editing are similarly banned.
  Oberonfitch (talk) 03:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Addendum A.1: Off2riorob has expressed to me that due to the serious matter of topic bans on one's record, he does not believe he should have be so banned. Let it be noted that Off2riorob has recently received the BLP Barnstar for his BLP work, and it is understood it would be a strange way to reward someone who works diligently to protect BLPs should have to pay the penalty of a black mark in order for a simple "ban them all" solution can be achieved. (Will stop there for now.)
  -- Proofreader77 (talk) 12:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Addendum A.2 Off2riorob has expressed to me that he declines the idea of a self-imposed honor exile from Roman Polanski (as part of an arrangement that would let us all take a break.)
  -- Proofreader77 (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Proposal #1 on hold pending determination of whether to bring two other editors (alluded to in proposal #1) into this ANI discussion. (Note: Am also waiting to determine if this topic will be moved to an ANI subpage for a focused discussion to bring a good resolution.)
  -- Proofreader77 (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Request interaction ban on Drolz09

Entire discussion has been moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Drolz09 to centralize discussion and to free up space here. MuZemike

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)

Hoaxes are specifically usually not supposed to be speedy deleted. Brilliantine (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Some can be. – ukexpat (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

True, though I think they would need to be rather more blatant and less plausible for that. Brilliantine (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

While it is appropriate to remove hoaxes and the like, because of the the potential damage to Misplaced Pages's reputation, I should comment that this instance it is not something to regard as much more than usual vandalism; since these are non existant entities they are extremely unlikely to be subject to searches. At most they are a boasting example, something created to show off to their mates. Under the circumstances the probable best response is to clean up the dross and slap a block template on the accounts and then ignore them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It's extremely hard to show something is a 100% obvious hoax, which is what the CSD it meant to cover. I spent 3 friggin' hours one night piecing apart a somewhat similar hoax.. Since we don't know the logic of the patrol who had let it through originally on acceptable quality, it would be in somewhat poor taste to speedy something because we just found evidence their 1 notability claim (or close to it) was a farse. PROD and etc afterward has a papertrail to look back on if needed, as well. Frankly, I think tightening the regulations is in order. I doubt anyone expected the sheer volume of new articles that would come from the loose standards... also a terrible underestimation of the desire for a Misplaced Pages page to make them notable, not as proof they are. It's s point of pride in some cases. Since we've cracked down in the past year on like duplicates to redirects, merges, BLPs,. etc, so it's about time this gets the same treatment. Can't we come up with something better? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 18:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

One might argue that obscure bands are never notable so allowing all these obscure articles causes hoaxes to occur. If we just stick with Finland, Queen Elizabeth II, water, and those type of articles, this wouldn't happen. Of course, the other extreme is having every news article a Misplaced Pages article.Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what level of sarcasm that was, but guidelines on band notability are very established, and there are a lot of essays on the topic with wise words a lot of editors follow like WP:GARAGE, WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:ENN. Some feel the guidelines are too loose, myself included, but I I'll always comment in discussion that I need to put my WP:DUCK test feeling aside to follow guidelines when criteria being met is obvious. I like this rule of thumb offered to page authors this most-- "If no one has created an article about your band yet, you're probably not notable." There are deviations from the precise guidelines sometimes for both inclusion and exclusion, though rare. In the end, if someone thought their band was truly truly notable they would contest the deletion or come back with a stronger article in the future. Very, very few do. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 18:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• User:Shii/Hoaxes is the page presently used to document hoaxes. Please add a summary of the case(s) concerned here at the bottom of that table, for future reference. --JN466 02:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The other problem with this rat's nest that needs to be tackled is what to do with the related images. Those which were represented as being used as fair use are a no-brainer: they'll go bye-bye when the deletion process runs its course. But what to do with such examples as File:Natesideklive07.jpg, which features a rather scruffy looking fellow in dreadlocks apparently in the initial stages of a pratfall: since it's been submitted as public domain, is there any way we could salvage it to illustrate another article (e.g. dreadlock or pratfall)? BTW, the fellow behind him with the intense look on his face greatly resembles a friend of mine -- but the musical tastes of my friend is far more towards '60s rock-n-roll than industrial rock. -- llywrch (talk) 07:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Rama - still trying to delete that image

Previous discussion: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive585#Admin:Rama ignoring previous consensus, refusing to gain new consensus

Admin Rama (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has once again (for the third time in two weeks) made a move to have File:Chicago_Spire.jpg deleted. He continues to insist that it can be replaced with an image which he created himself, which is itself the subject of a deletion request at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chicago spire.svg. Everyone but Rama agrees that this second image is an obvious copyvio, as he drew it based on the architect's plans, and everyone but Rama agrees that the first image is usable under a FUR until the building is actually built and someone can take a photograph of it, which s120 of the US code confirms would be free. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Who apologises for her total markup fail and thanks Moonriddengirl for fixing it.

link fixed. Abecedare (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(commons deletion request does not exist Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 12:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

This is because I suck very badly at markup :) Abecedare fixed it.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Beyond just this, I'm a bit concerned about Rama's views on fair-use and his willingness to bend the rules to get his way. For example, he is using the speedy process to immediately delete any images that are missing a rationale or he believes are replaceable. He is choosing not to wait the required 7 day period and when asked to go through the usual procedure, accused the other admin of wheel-warring. This is starting to look much less like misguided use of the tools and more like an intentional crusade. Shell 12:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Chicago_Spire.jpg has previously been determined to be not replacable, and appropriate fair use by User:Quadell, who closed the fair-use discussion. See , . Perhaps the latest nomination can be closed early. Abecedare (talk) 12:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I note Juliancolton has just closed the commons debate as delete, so now there is clearly no alternative image. I would speculate that the latest nom can therefore be closed early. I do find it worrying that Rama nominated the non-free image again at this time - it could easily be perceived as an attempt to get that image deleted in order to bolster his case for keeping his own drawing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm previously uninvolved, I've gone ahead and closed the most recent deletion request for two reasons. First, the discussion was just held and you don't re-nom because the outcome wasn't what you expected. Second, the "replacement" was roundly called a copyright violation and deleted. This would be a good time for Rama to take a breather and see if he can get a clue from all this. Shell 13:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have serious concerns about his competency to handle this area. His response here and here with respect to the use of non-free images of deceased persons is (a)really unnecessarily agressive, (b) completely ignores the FUR and (c) suggests that someone paint a picture of the deceased because it is no longer possible to create a non-free image by photography! Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I find Rama's position to be perfectly sound and in the spirit of building a 💕, which means no non-free content, period. That means no non-free images. This is the minority WP:VEGAN POV: while it is a minority POV, it is not forbidden to think that way (else, please block me). Rama is better than me, as he at least tries to create free images wherever possible. I personally find Rama's drawing of the Chicago spire to be superior to using the "non-replaceable" photograph: it is impossible to create a free image, but by drawing a new non-free image, we use as little as possible of copyrighted material. — Kusma 13:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not forbidden to think that way. It's forbidden to act disruptively. By analogy: it's perfectly okay to think that a particular article does not belong here. But it's not okay to nominate it again and again and again until it gets deleted, which is disruptive. Tim Song (talk) 13:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. No one is criticizing his zeal for a 💕, what we are concerned with is willingness to ignore the community or bypass a 7 day waiting period because of that zeal. For example, there's nothing wrong with nominating an image as replaceable even if others might not feel the same, there *is* something wrong with summarily deleting those images instead of nominating them. Shell 13:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Kusma, I couldn't agree more with Rama's intentions to use free images wherever possible. But I would be hard pressed to find someone (we actually didn't at the commons deletion) who thinks the non-free image with a FRU should be deleted AND THEN that same person believes creating a derivative work of a copyrighted design is fine and dandy. If consensus is that the non-free image shouldn't be used - fine, then delete Chicago Spire.jpg (I don't agree, but recognize this opinion). But it is contradictory to then also state that a derivative work based on that copyrighted design is NOT a copyright violation. It is a double standard. Either delete both, or keep the copyrighted with fair use. At least Chicago Spire.jpg notes the copyright and credits the author. DR04 (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse my French, but how the fuck are we supposed to get bogus fair use images deleted without getting a lynching ? Immediate deletion is permissible per the first paragraph of WP:CSD; now, to avoid further tensions, I choose to apply the tag rather than remove the image again, because I, for one, do not do WP:WHEEL. And I get this.

The image is not only replaceable in theory, which should suffice, but actually does have a Free replacement in File:Chicago spire shape.svg, which has gone under a specific review on Commons and was ruled to comply with copyright (see Commons:Deletion requests/Graphics with copyrighted silhouettes).

I have gone at great lengths in trying to explain existing policies to people who simply to not want to understand because they don't like it. I am by no means an extremist; I am not a WP:VEGAN, I do use Fair Use from time to time, but I happen to do it properly; I do not see why others cannot do things properly too, and most of all I do not understand why we get litterally lambashed when we simply apply the policies. If WP:CSD and WP:Fair Use are not to be understood the way they are written, they by all means change the policy, and stop pestering the people who enforce it. Rama (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:CSD does not empower administrators to delete material outside of the specific rules laid out for such deletion. The first paragraph is quite clear on this:

The criteria for speedy deletion specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus support to, at their discretion, bypass deletion discussion and immediately delete Misplaced Pages pages or media. They cover only the cases specified in the rules below.

To reiterate, only the cases specified permit immediate deletion. The rules for WP:CSD#F7 are likewise clear. Only files which have been blatantly improperly tagged (as a mascot tagged as a logo) may be immediately deleted. In all other cases, there is a grace period of two days. Immediate deletion is out of process. --Moonriddengirl 13:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Then change the policy. As it is written, I understand that the template step is optional. Rama (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe the policy is clear. The word "only" is definitive. I'm afraid that the problem is in your understanding of it. --Moonriddengirl 13:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

PS: And yes, I have just restored another deletion note, again, on File:Chicago_Spire.jpg, not because I do not like the outcome, but because it is not proper to invoke year-old discussion amongst three people, and ignore the fact that a Free replacement exists, to close a deletion request. Rama (talk) 13:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I was just going to point that out, but thank you for self-reporting your wheel warring. Would that everyone could simply ignore administrative decisions when they know they're just "wrong". </sarcasm> Just to clarify, I was not referring to a "year old discussion", rather the discussions of December 9 and 10, 2009 which are hardly old. Shell 13:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)ARGH. No one is argueing the deletion of bogus-fair-use images in general. What the problem is is that your behavior shows that you have little regard or understanding for the application of Misplaced Pages policy in a manner which is consistant with either community consensus, or at this point, reality. There is not a problem with the concept of deleting images which do not belong at Misplaced Pages, and yet you seem to have a particular singular opinion on the meaning of the words "replacable" and "same encyclopedic purpose" mean, or even apparently, that you are willing to ignore the fact that this image was uploaded and used with the permission of the copyright holder. I can't see where anything near a consensus for your actions. The issue is not that you work in this field, its that you seem to be doing so without the support of others, even highly experienced Wikipedians who also work in it. Acting boldly is good. It is bordering on the edit war phase, by now... --Jayron32 13:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Wheel warring: "a struggle between two or more of the website's administrators in which they undo one another's administrative actions—specifically, unblocking and reblocking a user, undeleting and redeleting, or unprotecting and reprotecting a page.".

The term does not apply to the situation where a discussion is re-opened because it was closed without addressing the actual question because the people who felt authorised to do so did not inform themselves. Rama (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I don't think restoring a tag counts as wheel-warring, since it's a simple editorial action. That said, I too agree with the fair-use rationale in this case. The argument that there is no replacement because every conceivable replacement would by necessity itself be a non-free derivative is pretty strong in a case like this. (And, mind you, I think I qualify as something of an NFCC hardliner admin.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring/wheel warring - whatever you want to name it, continuing to undo the actions of other admins because you don't agree with the outcome of a deletion discussion is seriously problematic. We're now on the fifth sixth iteration in the last week. (Sorry, forgot about Rama's initial deletion out of process) Shell 13:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but File:Chicago spire shape.svg looks like a 5-year-old's magic marker drawing that one would put on the fridge next to the soccer schedules and school lunch menu. This is not in any way quality or encyclopedia material, and File:Chicago Spire.jpg is a far better representation of the subject matter. Do we want our articles to be low-quality and free, or high quality with fair use? Tarc (talk) 13:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It take no offence, but how is that relevant? It is an image of the Chicago spire, is it not? Our policy is to use Fair Use when an image is not replaceable, not when we happen to prefer the nice copyrighted pictures made by the grown-ups. Rama (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It must be replaceable with an image that "would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". Your outline falls far short of that mark. –xeno 14:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That is not a licence to snatch anything we happen to like. And in any case, there is a discussion process for that, you do not remove deletion tags. Rama (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

"a Free replacement does exist" is not a valid claim though, since this SVG image is for all intents and purposed unusable. Tarc (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Rama is still warring at Chicago Spire.jpg . The "shape" does not even come close to serving the same encyclopedic purpose. I think an RFC is necessary on their approach and whether someone who was made an admin in the laissez-faire days of 2005 can retain their status with such an apparent deficiency in their ability to appropriately interpret guidelines and policy. –xeno 14:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You attempted to revert my tag on the grounds that the replacement image was deleted, which it is not. Inform yourself first. And you are free to disagree that the silouhette image is not an adequate replacement for this image, but then you do that in the discussion, per policy; you do not remove deletion tags. Am I asking how you became an admin? Rama (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted your disruptive edits because you are repeatedly asking the same question to try and get the result you want. The fair use of Chicago spire.jpg is permitted both by policy and explicit permission from the copyright holder and pretty much everyone other than you agrees on this. Please move on, take a breath, and modify your approach to the review of fair use images. –xeno 14:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

To Rama: the argument about the unsuitability of the silhouette replacement has already garnered so much support that we can safely take for granted deletion of the original can no longer pass for a simple speedy-deletion matter. This makes removal of the tag legitimate. If you want to further pursue the replaceability case, the proper place for that would be a new WP:FFD. To Xeno: I think the point about the explicit permission is a red herring here - such a permission essentially makes only one of the NFCCs moot, namely that about economic opportunities and damage, but replaceability is quite orthogonal to it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right that we should still replace this image when a suitable free alternative becomes available, my point was that the furor over this particular image is particularly misplaced given the additional permission to support our fair use. –xeno 14:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Rama's actions with several other images

• File:Syd_Barrett_Abbey_Road_1975.jpg
• File:Pink_Floyd_68.jpg

I must ask, is it proper for the admin who tags fair use images as replaceable to try to be the one who then makes the decision when that is disputed? I would hope that it is someone else to make the final determination in these sorts of cases, as this would be like a someone closing his own XfD. Tarc (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No, in principle the same admin can do both. The tagging is really just meant to ensure the waiting period; other than that it's still a speedy deletion - which, by definition, is a process that can be performed by a single admin on their own. It's not like an XFD that requires an independent judgment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say that if no one response to the tag, then the admin can carry out the deletion, but if someone counter-argues their rationale then it should be left to an uninvolved party. Else they would be taking the role of judge,jury,executioner. –xeno 15:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If there were no objections I'd agree that the opener can close, sure. To me though it seems analogous to a WP:PROD, where if someone reasonably objects then the next step usually is to take it to an XfD. Tarc (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's actually more closely analogous to a "hangon" tag on a normal tagged speedy. Reacting to the hangon argument or overriding it is a matter of admin judgment. If the argument is self-evidently invalid (like, somebody arguing that an image is "not replaceable" merely because no free replacement has been created yet, or somebody arguing that NFCC X is fulfilled when the problem cited as grounds for deletion was that a different NFCC Y is violated), then the original tagging admin can override the di-disputed argument, just as they would ignore a "hangon" on an A7 speedy that just says "but I know them, they're cool". Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not comfortable with Rama making the final call on an image they tagged, they has already shown themselves to have several peculiar and novel interpretations of policy and practice. –xeno 18:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Can someone also take a look at File:Freedom_Tower_New.jpg and its replacement by File:Freedom Tower shape.svg in the 1 World Trade Center article ? Abecedare (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have added a counter-argument to the tag . Further to the above another admin should be the one to make the final call. –xeno 15:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Line drawings in BLP infoboxes

And see this thread at MCQ: Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions#A question about new drawing downloads. – ukexpat (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Rama deleted this fair use image (admins only) out of process and replaced it with his own line drawing, which to me at least is unrecognizable. At this point, I think we need to impose a temporary topic ban on Rama barring him from deleting or replacing fair-use images, till an RFC/U can be instituted to come up with a more finely tuned and permanent solution. Is anyone interested in starting such an RFC ? Abecedare (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have restored that image. Its a poor FU image but was deleted out of process. Spartaz 16:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I would certify it as Rama's comments today show no indication s/he intends to modify their approach, but don't have the time to draft it. –xeno 15:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Can an admin at least go through all of Rama's deletions to check if there are any further examples? Quantpole (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

They appear to have been summarily deleting files out-of-process like this going back to 2007 (see deletion log entries for "irrelevant fair use" or similar), and maybe even here-and-there before that. –xeno 16:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Though, this does show some promise that they will start using the procedures set out for appropriately disputing fair-use of images. –xeno 16:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) A quick check shows that Rama has made dozens of out-of-process WP:F7 deletions in the past few weeks itself (many of these images have already been procedurally restored by User:Xeno). I am not claiming that none of these images should have been deleted after proper tagging or discussion; only that Rama substituted his personal opinion for wikipedia policy and process. Note also that his deletion caused bot removal of the images from articles they were used in, so the images are now liable to be deleted under WP:F5 - quite a mess! Abecedare (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've initiated an RFC on the matter here: Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content#Does a drawing of a person, or the fact that one might be drawn, mean all non-free photos of people are thus replaceable?. –xeno 00:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it time to Block Rama?

Strikes me we have a classic case of a editor disrupting wikipedia by refusing to listen to community comment about their conduct. Am I the only admin considering a block if he doesn't mend his ways. Spartaz 16:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

<-- This may indicate they've been pulled back from the brink, so I would say wait to see how it plays out. –xeno 16:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not an admin, but I hope you don't mind if I chime in. Regular editors and admins have been wasting an ENORMOUS amount of their valuable time undoing, checking, and reverting changes Rama has made that have no to minimal, at best, community consensus. His actions over the past several weeks are consistent in that he will continue to do everything and anything he can to ignore consensus and continue to waste everyone's time. I would like to say he is doing this out of some misplaced but desperate attempt to keep Misplaced Pages free (a nobel motivation), however his double standard shows that this is not the case. DR04 (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that much editor time has been consumed trying to convey to Rama why his interpretation of the CSD and fair use policy is wrongheaded, however, iff he is going to use the proper procedures from here on out, blocking would be unnecessarily punitive. –xeno 16:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No, because he holds a minority opinion and blocking him would be censorship. Sceptre 16:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Pay attention. Nobody is suggesting blocking him for holding a minority opinion. Block is proposed for acting on a minority opinion, against consensus and creating disruption. So put your dick away and give it a rest. 208.97.245.233 (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, IMO Sceptre was being sarcastic. Whoever you are, logging out to come make this sort of remark is not helping matters any. Tarc (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I didn't log out to make this sort of remark. I've been IP editing for almost a year. Not that it's relevant, but I don't care for the accusation. That goes for you, too, Chillum. 208.97.245.233 (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I too think a block at this point would be premature and punitive. Lets wait to see if Rama follows the process from hereon and react accordingly. Abecedare (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No need to block, but removing the bit would stop the out of process deletion. If Rama disagrees with the presence of these images, let him do it as any other editor has to. If he wants to retain his adminship, then he should go through and restore every file that he has deleted improperly. If he wants them deleted he can request it, but he should not be doing so himself. Quantpole (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to clarify my above comments - my point was that he is wasting a lot of valuable time of several editors and admins - therefore there he needs to change his behavior (which I'm skeptical of) or these types of edits need to be blocked or watched (I don't think it would be fair to just block his entire account) - as Quantpole stated "If Rama disagrees with the presence of these images, let him do it as any other editor has to". It is a big liability if other editors and admins have to babysit his every administrative action and request reviews. DR04 (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not time to block him (or, and it irks me to say this) remove the bit, as yet. There is process here for a reason. I am currently drafting a user conduct RFC, so we can have clear evidence that we have tried every avenue to get Rama to align his behavior with community standards. Should this not produce desired results, we can move forward with sanctions. --Jayron32 18:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC on this issue has been started here: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Rama —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayron32 (talk • contribs)

• Why block? He's doing what he's doing with the best of intentions. The fact that most people believe his actions aren't warranted, and are against consensus, suggests to me that his ability to delete images should simply be removed. That lets him continue editing articles, which is the important thing here. Parrot of Doom 12:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Works for me; if this is an example of how he does image patrol, that portion of his administrational duty might better be served by a wind-up toy... HalfShadow 22:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC not going to work?

Going on this comment , I don't know if the RFC is going to help very much... Exxolon (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think it does. The community spells out its concerns, and suggests methods by which the concerns may be alleviated. The subject ignores the communities attempt to resolve the issue. The community comes to a consensus on how to minimise disruption, which an admin enacts (if those buttons are required). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

An RFC can be helpful later on if this goes to the Arbitration Committee, even if Rama chooses to ignore the results of the RFC. -- Atama頭 23:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

As I noted at the RFC this comment indicates Rama plans to withdraw from image deletion, so I think at this point the RFC is for the most-part moot. He does continue to argue his interpretation, but he has stopped deleting files per it. I think this ANI thread may be marked tentatively "resolved". –xeno 23:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

That's the Wrong Thing. There is no end of un-controversial image admincrap, starting with the linked stuff. And Rama is a Commons admin, so all the "this bot move has been checked" clicking and fixing of broken uploads, and template-fixing and -adding is really something he could do better too. He's a volunteer so he doesn't need to do this, but it would be good for us and for Commons if he did. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Barack Obama

{{Resolved}}

Not resolved, still ongoing

I'm topic banned (until next week, anyway), but I just spotted these edits while monitoring RecentChanges. They've sat there for a while without being reverted (and there was no prior discussion before their inclusion). Could someone take a look at them please? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If someone is topic banned, they should stay completely away from the article. It is psychologically unhealthy to keep looking at it! So that person may legally comply with the topic ban but the chances of positive change is less because of continuous looking at the article. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. If you read my comment above, you will note that I had been monitoring RecentChanges (I keep an eye on vandalism), so I wasn't "continuously looking" at the article. Furthermore, I couldn't possibly have been more upfront about by topic ban. Also, I waited for several minutes to see if someone else would sort it out, before bringing the matter here. I would not have said anything had I not had strong WP:BLP-vio concerns. Finally, my six-month topic ban expires in just a few days, so it wouldn't have been much of a heinous crime if I'd just gone ahead and reverted it myself (as suggested below). Anyway, thanks for your input. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

A balanced diet is good for the person, so is balanced Misplaced Pages viewing. Good luck. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverted a few minutes after you posted this, so no action needed. -- Atama頭 21:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Just as a quick follow-up, all the same material that was reverted from the article has now been added to the talk page instead. Obviously the user in question isn't getting it. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You should've just reverted it. It's a case when you'd ignore all rules, as the banning policy, and probably even an AC-applied sanction, are not immune from being ignored for the sake of the encyclopedia. Anyone who would complain over you reverting that, despite your topic ban, is, how the French say, an utter cunt. Sceptre 23:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well that may be so; nevertheless, I am keen to return to the topic when my ban expires (appropriately on the day of the Winter Solstice), and I have no wish to stir up any trouble. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I applaud Scjessey for abiding by the topic ban and raising the issue. It looks like this editor has learned from the ban and hopefully will be constructive when the ban expires. Mjroots (talk) 05:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

User has now reverted its removal from the talk page. Grsz 05:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• This definitely needs further attention. Jzyehoshua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edit-warred to reintroduce the same material on talk despite multiple people telling him it's inappropriate and that WP:BLP applies on talk as well. I don't think you can even start to have a rational discussion with someone who wants to include a pro-life diatribe on an article like this headed "support for infanticide". A vigorous beating with the cluebat looks to me to be desirable here. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Didn't know there was an AN/I here about this til now. The passage in question has been hatted now so the edit warring on that angle has ceased, and he hasn't tried to re-insert the text into the article since either. Let's see how it plays out from here, and if need be, come back here or open something at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Obama article probation/Requests for enforcement, though I'm not sure how well that is patrolled. Tarc (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Just before the moratorium is lifted, we should put this article on pay-per-view. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The edit warring and BLP violating on the Talk page continue, though. Jzyehoshua may have stopped attempting to put in the infanticide wording in the article, but the POV-pushing does not seem to stop. Woogee (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Its less of a biography, and more of a campaign page for Obama.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't always seen eye to eye with Wikidemon and indeed have disagreed with him there within the last hour. But all in all he seems to be doing a good job. I wish I could say the same for the others who have been purporting to protect the talk page against BLP violations or whatever. I can't.

There can only be limited tolerance for fringe opinions and repetition. Fair enough. But some of the people who police that page appear curiously eager to dismiss mentions of the minority opinions clearly (if not always accurately) attributed to others as themselves extreme and/or disruptive. -- Hoary (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If one of an editor's first actions in months is to give credence to a statement equating abortion with infanticide, or to a birther's statements, or both, I think we can safely write them off as a wingnut. Sceptre 05:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It's just too early to tell which way this is going to go. I've opined that the Obama article isn't a great training ground for new editors with strong opinions, that's like taking driver's education lessons on the freeway. But what can you do? In my opinion we're not nearly at the point of exhausting WP:AGF. By the editor's tone and writing it is a serious, intelligent editor who wishes to express things that are in widespread discourse in wider society, nothing you can't hear on CNN, but that we here would consider opinion, or somehow biased, as a summary of Obama. I remember all the experienced editors I locked horns with in my first few months here, and looking back I feel for the frustration they had in dealing with me. Maybe time to pay it back and give a little extra patience. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the problem with wider society is that there are crazies out there. In any country, really. We really, really, need to be careful of taking notice of what the wider society thinks: 43% of them deny reality, after all. Just as many are currently in the midst of creating another Red Scare too. Sceptre 06:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, wider society probably considers all of us Wikipedians to be a bunch of wingnuts, not without some justification. My assessment at this point, from one wingnut to another, is that he's a good faith editor exhibiting the understandable headstrong reaction that happens when an opinionated person encounters a community of people with unfamiliar rules. He's trying so I think the olive branch is mightier than the blockhammer here. Cup of tea, cup of tea.  :) - Wikidemon (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Police

For the last two weeks or so an IP editor 69.228.251.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been pushing a POV on Police by seeking to add what is essentially a non-neutral POV into the lead. Whereas such analysis, even when sourced, might belong in an article dealing with political analyses of the Police, consensus seems to be strongly against it being in a purely descriptive and functional article about the Police. It is quite plain from the contributions that this is, at least for the time being, a static IP address. He/She persists in soapboxing his own version of the truth. Consensus is consistently against his POV edits, yet he persists in disrupting, without advancing any sources for his edits. See Talk:Police#Justifying the word "hierarchical" before the word "order" and Talk:Police#Threats to the establishment. I can't block since I've been involved in the content discussion, but even after a third opinion, initiated by me, did not go his way, he is still POV-pushing, and insulting other editors. In short, although we've tried to reason with this editor, he is still not getting it, and I invite comment/action/blocking as appropriate, and have notified. Rodhullandemu 02:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Does this look like Stars4change (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who was here for some vaguely similar topic POV issues last week ( Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive584#User:Stars4change ) ?

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It's possible. They seem to have very similar views, and they both believe in not indenting their comments. But I don't see any article overlap (they edit completely different articles) and the IP seems much more aggressive than Stars4Change (who likes to soapbox but doesn't get into arguments from what I've seen). -- Atama頭 05:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I find some of their earlier edit patterns suggestive but not by any means conclusive. No point to an SPI, as they're not editing on top of the same topics now, I'm not sure that there's a policy violation even if it's the same person.

However, the IP's last edit on Talk:Police was sufficient for a block for personal attacks.

And, completely independently, Stars4change violated the final warning a week ago not to soapbox, which was sufficient for a block for that.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't look too closely into the accounts in question, but it's no wonder the article attracted criticism. If it wasn't for the short section on religious police, a reader who has never heard of police before would come away with the impression that police has never been abused by totalitarian states. It's the kind of article where you must read between the lines in the same way that citizens of a communist country must read between the lines. Apparently it has been written almost exclusively by members of various police forces. In such a situation I think one shouldn't be too strict with an IP or new editor who tries to make the article more balanced but goes about it in the wrong way. Hans Adler 16:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a fine line (a blue one?) where you don't want to demonize law enforcement as thugs with badges, but you don't want to put them on a pedestal either. Going either way is bad. The IP's methods weren't going to affect any positive change in the article. -- Atama頭 23:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Without debating the finer points of NPOV, this does strike me as an example of "THE TRUTH" as Rodhudllandemu points out. WP:LE probably doesn't have a more problematic article than Police but unfortunately the project's talk page has been somewhat of a tumbleweed home recently. I'll try to step up the conflict resolution over there. While Rodhullandemu is correct to call the IP up on the contributions, and makes a series of good points with good links to policy, and considering that Misplaced Pages is not censored, I still feel obliged to point out that "for fucks sake" and "we don't have time for this shit" may have been an inappropriate use of language which further inflamed the situation. I don't see why swearing was necessary - just my two respectful cents. SGGH 13:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The IP editor's block expires tomorrow; I will advise him of the existence of WP:WQA. Rodhullandemu 15:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Concerns over expected FFD vote-counting

In the last days, I've been doing some image patrolling in contemporary History articles. For instance, I've spotted a lot of problematic images in articles about the history of Puerto Rico, and later I moved to contemporary Greek history.

Just liked to express my concerns that the admin willing to close the FFDs discussions for December 11 will have to master some excellence in weighting popular vote, policy knowledge and our core-value commitement.

The specific problem in these recent history articles (aside from the usual widespread lack of knowledge about WP:NFCC) is the belief that if a picture was taken during a notable event, we should use it regardless of copyright status or how much the picture is necessary for understanding the notable event being discussed. --Damiens.rf 16:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy. Man, do I not miss dealing with non-free content here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for Metropolitan Bible Church

Hello, I was considering creating Metropolitan Bible Church, but I saw that it previously had been deleted. I would like to request a userfied page of that old one. I was going to ask the original admin, but she has some medical issues and hasn't been on in months. (The User is User:Masamage) Let me know. --MWOAP (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Article now located at User:MWOAP/Metropolitan Bible Church. Via con dios. --Jayron32 03:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Incivility by User:TJ Spyke

• TJ Spyke (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)

I had a discussion on mine and his talk page about an earlier good faith edit which I undid (See here: ), early in the discussion he did hint towards some incivility and I did discuss what I thought the main element of the conversation was before and after his incivility and then he blatantly violated WP:CALM while I was still trying to keep it civil and then he called me an "ASS" before he cracked a Sarah Palin joke which I believe it to have an uncivil meaning, he's had numerous warnings about uncivil behaviour, as well as edit warring which he was recently blocked for if you check his block log , I believe this to be just another case involving some of his immature antics and he obviously hasn't learned from his unblock on September 1, 2007 which reads "User agrees to conditions set out on his talk page and on Misplaced Pages:Community sanction noticeboard. Further disruption to result in an indefinite block", I believe its time for an indefinite block as he's clearly caused more disruption and anymore disruption was supposed to result in an indefinite block. Afro 03:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse indef block - Final civility/edit warring warning was given last month after this ANI thread. He was just blocked for edit warring a few days ago. Enough already. iMatthew  at 03:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree as well sadly. I've had numerous discussions with him about his failure to accept changes, I feel he is just causing a disruption now. I once looked up to him, but now noticing all the problems that have resulted from him, I see he'll never change. I'm not saying I am perfect, but sometimes I even know when to let things go. He obviously goes by his own rules, and most times they just cause more problems than needed.--WillC 04:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Will, I think you are doing this simply because you don't agree with me on many things. TJ Spyke 00:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse/support as well given the block log (17 blocks, including a couple indefs and one block from just a few days ago) and warnings. Such additional comments as "expect by people too lazy to check the capitalization" from today come off as needlessly hostile if not baiting (notice the others oppose there without making the suggestion that those who support are somehow "lazy"). Plus in such recent discussions as this, berating everyone who dares argue to keep with repeated WP:ITSCRUFT (not even policy/guideline based) comments seems a bit too antagonistic as well. Sincerely, --A Nobody 04:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The YouTube comment wasn't aimed at anybody on Misplaced Pages, I was referring to people in the media since often they don't bother to get capitalization for tech stuff right before they print articles (it's annoying reading a article and see the writer constantly write "Ipod", for example). All of my replies in the AFD have been civil, so I don't see what you are trying to do with those. TJ Spyke 00:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Unsubstantiated - Sept 1, 2007 was more than two years ago. The current discussion is heated, but barely passes the noticable level under WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. It is certainly not disruption. If you have evidence of further personal attacks or disruption or gross incivility please provide diffs of those. We need much much more evidence to justify indef blocking someone who's a longtime contributor. Please don't bring cases unless you have sufficient evidence ready to go... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Further this - the block log is numerous prior to the Sept 2007 indef and then parole. However, since then, he's only had two - 3RR blocks in June and a few days ago in December. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose indef block Per GWH above. I don't see where this rises to the level of indefinite blockage. Yeah, this stuff is a bit incivil, but I don't see where we should hold a 2-year old block against TJ Spyke here. Other than 2 editwar blocks, he seems to have avoided any trouble in the past two years. --Jayron32 05:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, there was the incivility final warning from last month, but he's behaved since then other than these two. Even if this is a violation of that final warning, if that's all that has happened since the final warning then he's really only in line for a 24h block (beginning of the block escalation chain) as he hasn't been blocked for this recently. And it's not clear to me that this is justification for a block at all, even with a final warning a month ago. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

See this shouldn't be entirely about his incivility. There is also his endless edit wars over some important and some trivial things. His refusal to agree to a consensus. Plus his harassment on AFDs, including the current Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of WWE Raw Guest Hosts. Him being blocked 2 years ago is still a problem. No matter what the time frame, this just comes to show he never learned from those many blocks in the pasted. Plus he just being blocked a few days ago and I've already seen that he went straight back to edit warring over list formats after it ended. His incivility was even discussed just a month and 12 days ago. In this archived discussion, plenty of proof is given to show that he has had enough time to stop his incivility. That discussion did not result in a block because he agreed to change his ways. That being so recent, clearly he has not. With all these disruptions present, I don't see a reason to not block him.--WillC 06:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

2 out of 3 admins responding so far seem to disagree with blocking, on the evidence submitted so far. You need to make a better case than this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me clarify that somewhat. The proposed jump to an immediate indef is definitely clouding this discussion. I believe that given the evidence here, an indef is simply completely inappropriate, and it was inappropriate to ask for one.

The question of whether he's misbehaving to some degree or another, violating the final warning from last month, whether these recent comments are sufficiently uncivil as to be actionable - these are different questions than "should we indef him right now".

Jumping straight from a warning to indef - absent obvious disruption/vandalism only abuse or something stunningly horrible - is moar dramaz pls - not a responsible approach. If you want to make a case that he's done wrong here enough to justify normal blocking - for 24 h, 48 h, whatever - that's a far easier thing to do, and not obviously a mistake under the circumstances.

If someone would like to restart this conversation from that standpoint and argue the case for enough abuse post-final-warning for a short, normal block, then that would be a good next step.

I do not have enough time this evening to conduct a complete examination myself. Some other admin may - or you can provide us more appropriate levels of detail to justify it (to me, Jayron, others).

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The complainer, User:Afkatk (renamed Afro), seems to have lost. Complaining about someone is incivility. We must have accountability. In America, there is no accountability, which is why lawsuits are rampant and causes all kind of trouble. If the consensus is to block TJSpike, then do it. If the consensus is against it, then Afro should be blocked for at least a week to prevent another disruption of drama and nuisance complaints. Only when there is accountability, will drama be reduced. JB50000 (talk) 08:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support blocking User:Afkatk/Afro if the current consensus continues. JB50000 (talk) 08:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

"Complaining about someone is incivility"? Yikes. I'm no fan of our current civility standards, but that's got to be one of the most pernicious statements on civility I've ever seen made outright on-wiki. I see nothing in WP:CIV to support this statement; in fact, it directly contravenes that policy:

From WP:CIV (relevant phrase in bold): To insist that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated, minor offense, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated.

This is the sort of statement that can be used to justify overzealous enforcement of standards not applicable to the given situation, or to skew sanction discussions in directions they weren't ever meant to go. Please, in the light of what WP:CIV actually says, please reconsider this stance. Thanks...GJC 20:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm still undecided on this per the discussion above. However, can TJ Spyke or anyone else explain this? MuZemike 09:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

JB50000, I ask what has Afkatk done wrong? Reporting a user for constant violations of civil, 3RR, etc. If that is such a crime, then everyone in this entire site should be blocked. JB50000, are you not at fault for what you just said. You are complaining over this report. Mind you, this discussion is still in its early stages. MuZemike, it looks to be a discussion over formats. Something TJ has discussion with 4 different editors and edit warred with 5. Yet even after being shown changes has been done with format, he goes ahead and starts up another edit war.--WillC 09:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

People have asked for more evidence, and I can not give that at the moment since I don't know where anymore is, though I am sure it exists. I would rather TJ not be blocked out of the kindness of my heart, however, his constant disruptions have turned my hand. I would like for more users who know TJ to get involved in this discussion. Would anyone mind if I was to contact WP:PW, the project which is primarily participates, about this discussion, to allow more users to give their opinion?--WillC 10:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

WillC, look at that diff more closely. You may have missed something in there which was why I brought that diff up. MuZemike 17:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Other than a few insults, all I see is a format discussion. Not sure what exactly you are referring to though.--WillC 18:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

"ASSumming"? MuZemike 20:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• TJ Spyke has quite a history of problematic behaviour but does seem to have been better lately. Given the history a block is probably warranted, and I would have trouble knowing when to expire such a block given past history, but it's surely not time for the banhammer here. I'd say we need to talk to TJ Spyke and find out why this particular issue has caused such a problem. I've suggested to Afro that xe seek a mediator as the present debate does not seem to be heading anywhere good. The root is what looks like a good faith content dispute so I don't see any reason why mediation can't fix it. Guy (Help!) 11:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Since the unblock in 2007, there have been quite a few incidents, including at least one admin board interest per month this season:
  • October 2009: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive569#TJ_Spyke and Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#User:TJ_Spyke_using_wikicleaner_to_bypass_redirects_contrary_to_WP:R2D
  • November 2009: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive576#Incivilty_from_TJ_Spyke
  • December 2009: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:TJ_Spyke_reported_by_User:Afkatk_.28Result:24_hours_.29 and of course this current thread
• Sincerely, --A Nobody 16:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment about TJ Spyke's block log. Most of the blocks were placed by Alkivar, who was desysopped in an arbitration case with his behavior towards TJ Spyke a significant part of why he was desysopped. So perhaps it would be prudent to take all the blocks Alkivar instated against TJ with a grain of salt. 96.244.150.95 (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. Per above. If this disruptive behavior isn't going to stop, then the user should be blocked. -FASTILY 20:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Ordinarily I'd agree but here we see a long-standing pattern of problem behaviour, a significant period of evident reform, and then what looks like a slide towards recidivism. I think we should try some kind of parole first before we simply give up on the guy. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because he wasn't banned for two years doesn't mean he was reformed. There has been at least 4 ANI discussions about him (besides the ones linked above) just in the past few months. here are several just from October. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Is there a reason no one bothered to inform me of this discussion so I could defend myself? First, to the first user: I was not trying to b uncivil and I apologize if they thought I was (I don't think I was). I asked him why he was assuming he knew my thought on something and I jokingly asked him if he knew what happens when you assume (the old adage that "when you assume, you make an ass out of u and me"); I wasn't trying to be rude. The Sarah Palin thing wasn't incivil and came after I had to ask him something 3 times before he answered (referring to how Palin always tries to avoid answering questions and instead comments on something unrelated). As for Will's comment about refusing to accept consensus, I stopped doing the activities mentioned in that report. As for my block log, thanks to the IP for pointing that out; the admin who was responsible for most of them (including the indef block) eventually got de-sysopped for his actions torwards me and others. TJ Spyke 00:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Because User talk:TJ Spyke#ANI Notice, wasn't notice enough? and the Sarah Palin crack really wasn't necessary, I still gave you the answer you requested and you responded by being uncivil and cracking an unnecessary joke. Afro 00:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Can someone explain this

Just noticed this:

can anyone explain either the addition or especially the removal? I'm willing to "AGF" as much as anyone, but the removal in particular seems rather polemic, both in the edit summary and in the timing...
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Talk to him on his talk page first. Protonk (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

  First things first... what the hell is "Autoreviewers", and why did I have it to be taken away in the first place?
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

  See Misplaced Pages:Autoreviewer, and I informed NW of this thread. Plastikspork _―Œ 03:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

  This should not have been brought directly here. Tan | 39 03:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

  well, I'm glad I did. I can honestly say that I don't care one iota about that bit. No idea how I ever got in it the first place, and I certainly won't miss it! (the issue of it's removal being polemic is something, but I'll leave that to yall.)
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

  (Useless post-resolution aside) It's never crossed my mind to want such a thing, until now. lol Nope, still don't want it. But I do want the flagged-revisions reviewer group bit, which is totally different, and so this is off topic ... but, I have been educated by this accidental misuse of ANI. The End. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I can see that this thread has already been marked as resolved. So why, by chance has someone put this discussion on YouTube?--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 07:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh, you want a block for that? :) MuZemike 08:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

With all seriousness (besides the last joke-comment I have made), what should be do if an admin removes autoreviewer status? The same as we do with rollback (which IMO would be comparing apples to oranges)? MuZemike 08:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• MuZemike: I would say we follow standard procedure: discussion on the administrator's talk page first and raise to ANI if necessary. NW (Talk) 14:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Ohms law: The autoreviewer usergroup is meant for people who have created many dozens of well-sourced articles that properly follow our guidelines on notability, BLP, and verifiability. According to X!'s tool, you have only created 11 articles, some of which were completely unsourced. I felt that it would be better if your articles went through the standard process of being patrolled at Special:NewPages. NW (Talk) 14:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare, did you discuss with MBisanz before reverting his granting of autoreviewer status? Or with Ohms Law before removing it from him? DuncanHill (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

As Autoreviewer was something that was supposed to be easy-com, easy-go, I did not see the necessity to consult MBisanz before removing it. I thought of it as similiar to rollback for that; people don't usually consult the granting admin before removing it. As for consulting Ohms Law, I did not see the necessity to do that either. Having autoreviewer or not does not affect his editing one bit, so I really didn't see the necessity to talk to him before removing it. NW (Talk) 16:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of rollback will usually involve some discussion, either with the editor misusing it or here to gain consensus that it has been abused. I do find it odd that it's OK for admins to downgrade an editor's status with no discussion, but that editors who question admin actions are told in no uncertain terms that they must debate with the admin in question first. In this case one admin thought it fit to grant autoreviwer, another thought it appropriate to remove it, and all this happenned with no discussion at all. DuncanHill (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You can reverse rights change from months ago without consulting the admin. You only need to consult with an admin if you have reason to think they might object, not for every non-controversial action. If MBisanz is not complaining then there is no basis for anyone else to complain. Since MBisanz has not complained, and Ohm does not care "one iota" about the bit, I am not sure what the issue is here. Please try to work these things out by communicating directly with the people involved, ANI is already over burdened and at least some attempt at resolution should be made before posting here. Chillum 16:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Had there been direct communication from the admin to the ex-autoreviwer, then this wouldn't have come here in the first place. DuncanHill (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the resolved tag. NW, I respect the need to communicate problems with you directly (hence my post immediately below the request), but don't you think it is a little galling that you removed the userright without discussion (with the user) and then admonished Ohm that he needed to discuss it with you before seeking redress? Protonk (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

And, as a factual matter, 3 of the 11 articles started with proper sources, another three were listed articles with only blue links as entries (with the exception of the 989 series, which is understandable), and the rest were pretty innocuous. The user has never created an article which has been deleted in any way (check Special:DeletedContributions/Ohms_law). But whatever. I can't see the sense in removing the right, but I guess it isn't worth arguing about. Protonk (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I never admonished Ohms Law to discuss this with me before seeking redress. I didn't even comment on that matter; I merely suggested the proper procedure in future circumstances. I have no issue with this being brought to ANI first. In any case, as one having autoreviewer affects only New Page patrollers, the removal of the userright doesn't even affect Ohms Law. It would be analogous to me removing Ohms Law from User:JVbot/patrol whitelist, which he would not have even noticed. I would think that it is best if future articles along the lines of these mostly unsourced (and possibly not-notable) articles be sent through the proper review of the process. I never restricted his ability to create such pages; I just felt that they probably ought to not be automatically patrolled. NW (Talk) 21:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Tend to agree...considering at least one I just peeked at seems to be a direct copy/paste from the official website. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Gauge theory needs history repair

I don't know how most of the article Gauge theory managed to spring into existence with this edit, but this is clearly a botched cut-and-paste. Based on the edit history, the content was moved to gauge theory (redirect), an article which was subsequently deleted, and the current article was simply copy-pasted back in. Could someone please fix this? Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hokay. Content was moved to gauge theory (redirect), then to Gauge theory: non-technical introduction, then to Nontechnical introduction to gauge theory, which is where it was located when it was split. I'll handle attribution. --Moonriddengirl 14:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

BjörnBergman

(moved from Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism)

• BjörnBergman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is the same as 213.65.211.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), says (here on wikipedia in english) that he will start vandalizing other users discussionpages if he isn't unblocked from wikipedia in swedish. His account and his IP have both been blocked on wikipedia in swedish. The warnings and threats are in Swedish, and thus might be harder for you to follow. He has also attacked several admins on Swedish wikipedia on the discussion pages here. GameOn (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

BjörnBergman

The user user:BjörnBergman have been blocked on swedish wikipedia, for using a really bad language in discussions and some other things. After he were blocked his language got even worse, and he swore at us. After removing his ability to edit his own discussionpage he tried to contact us using english wikipedia. Please, block him until 22/12. (Thats when he can edit swedish wikipedia again) Contributions on Swe wikipedia. Evalowyn (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: Didnt notice the request above, merging them.. Evalowyn (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If he's going cross-wiki threatening vandalism, then I see an indef in his future. -Jeremy 21:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I love it when they make it easy. Will actively monitor user. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I ran his talk page through Google translate and I don't see the threat to vandalize here, just a lot of conversation that belongs at the Swedish Misplaced Pages and has nothing at all to do with the English wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:24, 19 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 in 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)

Actually, being that he calls experienced Misplaced Pages editors "participating in any FBI-designated terrorist group", perhaps it is wiser to just block this guy altogether? Debresser (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Is your objection to the suggestion that they participate in the Jewish Defense League, or to calling the JDL an "FBI-designated terrorist group"? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, is anybody reading this? Debresser (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

When you start off Talk:Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_massacre#Mediation with (and I'll quote) "all edits by User:Zero are POV down to their minutest details", most admins are going to ignore both of you (or block both of you). You can decide which way I should go. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I've collapsed the mediation section as it's just a poisoned well and nothing good can come from it. There's plenty of conduct that's not productive but I'm not interested in playing the who was the first to be uncivil game. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Jojhutton

In early December, User:Jojhutton began removing "United States" (both the link and the text) from articles, primarily geographical articles about cities, townships, et cetera, but also from biographical and other articles. He was quickly questioned about this on his talk page, and in the ensuing discussions he often cited WP:PLACE, sometimes referring to WP:PLACE#United States. He was informed again and again that this guideline is about naming conventions, and that nowhere in that guideline (or any other policy or guideline that has been identified so far) is there a call for the removal of "United States" from the infoboxes or bodies of articles. The principle stated by many opposing editors (including myself) has been that in an international encyclopedia, articles about people and things in the United States should not assume that the reader knows which country is involved, but should specify the country consistently. However, he has doggedly continued to remove this information from articles (albeit a small number of articles thus far), even after a public discussion at the Village pump. His practice, when questioned about this on his talk page, has been to archive discussions using the "hat" template, so as to "close" the discussions, thus indicating that he is not willing to discuss any further. So far, it appears that at least 11 editors have questioned him on this on his talk page since December 7, and that no one has supported him; additional editors disagreed with him in the village pump discussion. This seems to have had no effect, as the edits continue through today, December 19. He is a well-established editor, and I believe his edits are typically of good quality. It's just that with this particular issue, he believes that various (non-Misplaced Pages) manuals of style tell him to remove the country, and he seems determined to do so in spite of opposition from many other editors, lack of support from any other editors, and the lack of supporting Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines that anyone can find; so far he has not cited any that stand up under scrutiny. What makes it worse is that in these discussions he has had a tendency to accuse other editors of wikilawyering, gaming the system, stalking, et cetera and using sarcasm and insults; and he resorts to these devices very quickly. He accused one editor of stalking after a single isolated revert. I have repeatedly asked him to discuss this and have remained civil throughout; but I'm not sure what else to do, so I am mentioning it here. Thanks. Omnedon (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Relevant related discussions:

• in this ANI archive about Jojhutton
• this long section in Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)
• talk:MOS

Toddst1 (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a content dispute that has sparked a minor amount of edit warring and incivility. Forgive me if I'm a little bit green on this particular issue, but as a style / content matter there seems to be no absolute rule or overwhelming consensus to include "United States" in place names within an article and in infoboxes, when the lede has already clearly established that the setting is the United States. Sure there are strong arguments on both sides. The proponents claim it is America-centrism and disrespectful of non-American readers to assume they know something is in America, or to have different rules for American place names that seem to assert that the United States is some kind of default location when the country is unnamed. The opponents claim that articles should be written for clarity, not to encourage equality among nations, and everybody knows which country we're talking about when we say that someplace is a city in California. The outcome of those discussions isn't really relevant. You can't legislate consensus from a guideline page. What's relevant is that consensus is not so clear that choosing one versus the other is anything other than a content choice. Like a lot of style choices (American versus British spelling, punctuation inside versus outside the quotes, citation styles) deference should be paid to status quo, the opinions of regular editors on an article, and consistency among related articles or within a project. Making mass changes or mass reverts just to enforce your favored version is disruptive and can lead to lots of wikidrama. So best not to do this on either side, just stick to the articles you enjoy editing. I sympathize with Jojhutton's frustration, but calling it "stalking" is unduly inflamatory. Technically it is not stalking. Stalking is when you follow someone from one article to another to pursue a grudge. By contrast, noticing one bad edit, then checking up on the editor's other recent activity to see if it's a pattern, is only good wikignoming. The problem here is that Jojhutton's edits are not clearly wrong, so reverting them en masse is provocative. If someone really wants to add, or remove, or link or delink, the country name "United States" from a bunch of article bodies and infoboxes, they need to get a strong prior consensus not only that this is the correct way to go style-wise, but that the mass edits are a good idea. Best to get approval for a semi-automated bot or the like. But this is such a tiny issue. The two editors have been reverting each other to 1RR or maybe 2 on perhaps five or six articles in the past few days. Administrative mediation could be useful, but I don't see anything warranting sanctions here. Just my opinion. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It began as a content dispute, and content is still at the heart of it, but the issue now seems to be a refusal by User:Jojhutton to accept that every time he makes an edit to remove "U.S", someone disputes it. Not always the same editor, so it's not a simple matter of two editors disagreeing. The issue as I see it, is that User:Jojhutton has an opinion that the United States is redundant when discussing a place name for a United States town or city and his contention is that it should be presented as "City/State". He's entitled to his opinion, but his opinion should not and does not carry any more weight than that of any other editor. It has moved from a content dispute because, he has used WP:Place#United States as justification for removal, and although every editor who has commented has said either strongly or weakly that he is misinterpreting that part of the guideline he has dug in his heels, told everyone they are wrong, and has continued to use it as justification. You say, "The problem here is that Jojhutton's edits are not clearly wrong, so reverting them en masse is provocative." I would say that Jojhutton's edits in the face of opposition, and without anything resembling consensus is more provocative. I've been concerned mainly with the use in the infobox, rather than the article body. I've pointed out to him that several infobox instructions explicitly state to use the "City/State/Country" format, with no exception made for "U.S." and I've also given numerous examples of WP:FAs that use this format. I've also pointed out that consensus is not always achieved by a formal discussion, and often consensus is indicated by the fact that something exists, is used commonly over time over a wide area, and has remained without opposition, which is the case for at least the infobox component of this disagreement. His response has been to say that it's very interesting but still completely wrong. Clearly there is some kind of consensus in place to say that the use is at least "acceptable" given that it's used widely, and even in featured articles that have been more closely scrutinised than many articles. He does not need to accept that it is a preferred style, because nobody is suggesting that, but he does need to accept that there is nothing to say it's incorrect, and that editors who choose this style are not wrong. I'm disturbed that he reacts to some editors as "stalkers". That's particularly hostile, and in the case of User talk:Omnedon and you need only look at this user's page to see that editing American geographical articles is a primary interest. I was concerned with this edit at Marilyn Monroe which removed "U.S." from the infobox and added sources with the edit summary "removing original research and adding a ref to support current version" Having "U.S" in the infobox is not original research. This suggests that User:Jojhutton is either unfamiliar with or is misinterpreting what is meant by "original research" or is providing a deliberately misleading edit summary. Neither is acceptable. "United States" was first added to Marilyn Monroe's infobox when the infobox was included with this edit in April 2006. (Admittedly as "Los Angeles, United States" which is not correct either). Since April 2006 this has not been a contentious point, and it is only a contentious point now because one editor has decided it's not appropriate. I believe that due to widespread use, support by infobox template instructions, and the fact the some of Misplaced Pages's best articles use the country name in the infobox, there is a consensus to say that it is acceptable, and anyone wanting to add this to the infobox should not feel hindered - but there is no such evidence to support the removal. It is currently, as you say, an issue primarily between two editors, and a small issue, but when User:Jojhutton first started this about a week ago, he got a response from several editors who seem to have moved on now that he is not making such widespread edits. I would have too, if not for the Marilyn Monroe edit which shows that he has not accepted the other viewpoint, and has put the change through with a dodgy edit summary. I would hope that is the last time that happens. Rossrs (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it seems not such a big deal to people who have memorized the names of the US states, their postal abbreviation, etc. and who speak English as a first language. Leaving out "United States" (and it has been removed from the lede in some instances) is not a tiny thing: it encourages confusion and can mislead. Believe it or not, not everyone outside the US knows what an Arizona is or that AZ is its postal abbreviation. Some will think AZ means Azerbaijan, CA Canada, and KY Kenya. Without the country name somewhere obvious, we run the risk of misleading international users. I don't think that's encyclopedic. --NellieBly (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that there are those who do not understand that New Mexico is part of the US and not Mexico. MarnetteD | Talk 23:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

There would be a not-small number of Americans who don't know that either. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This being an English encyclopedia, most people who have learned the language know that California is in the United States. Those who have not can probably figure it out from the first sentence of the lede if the article is written properly, e.g. "City National Bank is an American financial institution headquartered in Los Angeles, California", not "City National Bank is an American financial institution headquartered in Los Angeles, California, US". Anyway, I agree that the arguments are strong on both sides but not unanimous, which makes an isolated edit on the subject a matter of editor discretion, not behavior. If consensus is clear in a particular area (say, articles about airports, or an infobox, where counter to my earlier statement, a small group of editors maintaining that particular template or family of templates can establish consensus for how the location fields are to be used) and an editor violates that after objections, it could cross the line into tendentious editing. Also, edit warring is bad, making accusations in edit summaries is bad, and doing mass bold edits over others' oposition outside of one's normal editing space is bad. Is he on some kind of campaign, or does this just affect articles he's actively editing? If he's minding his own business on a small number of articles and other editors are ganging up on him outside of their normal editing range, that does approach some kind of hounding. I'm reminded of the geocoding fights and date delinking, kind of funny that people get so passionate about the details. It's like, war of the wikignomes! - Wikidemon (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion request

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

Not sure where to post this but i'll put it here. This edit should be deleted because it gives instructions on how to hack paypal. The user is already blocked but it should be removed from public view. Thanks. Momo san 20:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not delete yet, I'm reporting this to Paypal, who will need to be able to see the diff. Mjroots (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, they should be aware of this. Also when a DIFF is removed from the public view, only administrators can still see it and no one else. But yeah I would wait to delete it since Paypal needs to see it. Momo san 21:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I've sent Paypal a full copy of the text, and have it saved in a Word document too in case there is any problem with the e-mail I sent them. It can be oversighted now. Mjroots (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Bah. It's a scam. Stop worrying. The described method will not work. It will, though, compromise your PayPal and email password. Aditya Ex Machina 21:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I can explain why it won't work if required. There's nothing PayPal can do about this. Aditya Ex Machina 21:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realise it was a scam, but either way it should be removed to prevent people from being a victim of the scam. Momo san 21:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was probably a scam, which is why I've informed Paypal. If they are not aware of the scam they can't act on it, can they? Mjroots (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

PayPal can't act on it. Gmail can, however. Though if the diff get's oversighted then we have no proof. Either way, it's not a big issue. Aditya Ex Machina 21:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Gmail will be able to get details through Misplaced Pages if necessary if the diff gets oversighted. Mjroots (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Aditya has this right. Basically the instructions tell you to send your PayPal login and password to a gmail account. Google could disable that account if they find it's being used for fraud. ReverendWayne (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The diff has now been oversighted. Mjroots (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it's a caching issue or what, but when I go to the link while logged out I can still see the diff. -- 128.205.47.7 (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It is your cache, go into your browser options and clear your cache out, then the problem will go away. Momo san 22:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit war at Glenn Beck

This BLP is already under semi-protection, and there is a bit of an ongoing edit war going on among established editors, including several reversions already today. I think maybe temporary full protection is called for, and there might be 3RR violations already today as well. John Carter (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Request submitted, at WP:RFPP. Cirt (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a bit of an edit war, not a violation of 3RR but an edit war nonetheless, no engagement on talk page, and a pretty nasty edit summary.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved, fully protected. Cirt (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by AJS2050 at Talk:List of best-selling music artists

The user inflates the estimated sales figure for Eminem ignoring both the provided source as well as my explanation on the sales figures that I have provided for Eminem's albums respectively at Talk:List of best-selling music artists. In addition, AJS2050 has been removing the part of my explanation (1st removal, 2nd removal) from the discussion where I provided my explanation based on reliable sources as to why Eminem's worldwide sales cannot be 112 million as it is believed by AJS2050. I have asked AJS2050 on two different occasions both at Talk:List of best-selling music artists and his talk page not to remove other editors' comments whereas his response at his talk was this. And today, the user removed the entire discussion immediately after which he went ahead and inflated the estimated sales figure from 80 million to 84 million. It seems to me, unless this user is blocked for a period of some time, he/she will not stop vandalizing regardless of how many times editors warn him.--Harout72 (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request (The Pimp Hand)

• The Pimp Hand (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Drolz09

Just wondering if somebody could take a look at The Pimp Hand's indefinite block.

. By all indicators this editor was blocked for nothing but suspicions. He was blocked for "abuse of editing privileges" and for being an "apparent sock puppet". I can find nothing inappropriate from this user not even one 3RR. He even used the talk page on WP:LOC, that shows some good faith. Perhaps mentorship from an experienced user could help. but I think this user may have been judged to harshly given he was listed as a possible sock of userDrolz09. --172.163.33.223 (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The user, and that user only must email arbcom: arbcom-l-at-lists.wikimedia.org to appeal his indefinite block, it was indicated on his talk page. Please read WP:BSAC. Momo san 01:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry was confirmed by a checkuser jpgordon. It would be hard to argue against that. Everyone on BASC is a checkuser, so they would be in a position to confirm or refute jpgordon's conclusions. However, I've never heard of his conclusions being questioned in matters like this. --Jayron32 01:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: I didn't confirm sockpuppetry; I said, "Checkuser evidence shows you are employing methods to evade scrutiny; this in itself is sufficient to sustain the block, as there are no reasons to use such methods that are to the benefit of Misplaced Pages." I'd consider all the evidence, including mine, behavioral. --jpgordon 03:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

as an aside, I may need to invoke WP:PLAXICO on the OP. How does a new IP user suddenly find a blocked user's talk page with no prior evidence of contact?--Jayron32 01:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh please.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Should this user ever be unblocked, the question of the inappropriate username should be addressed prior to unblocking. Names like "rapist", "pimp", "thug", and whatnot really aren't in keeping with our mission. --TS 02:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD circus

Perhaps I've been out of touch with software AfDs for too long, but Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/QutIM (3rd nomination) is exceeding my memories of ridiculous WP:SPA activity. Pcap ping 03:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I may be also out of touch with gross disruption/clear off-wiki canvassing on AFDs, I don't think semi-protecting the AFD for its duration would be unreasonable. (I haven't seen that happen in a while; I won't do it if it will being a lot of heat within the community.) Thoughts? MuZemike 03:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I've only seen that done a very small number of times. After all, AFD is NOTVOTE and the SPAs can be discounted. So if you protect it, move the SPAs together, mark them all SPAs, or sign up to figure out WTH the actual consensus is. tedder (talk) 03:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

User:PCHS-NJROTC has unilaterally declared another user to be "banned"

User:PCHS-NJROTC seems to have a particular interest in what they refer to as "cheerleader vandals". They have seem to have decided that there is a ring of "cheerleader vandals" who spread their message via secret "chain letters". PCHS-NJROTC has recently added a banned user template to User:LBHS Cheerleader, the account which they seem to believe is the ringleader, despite having only 11 edits. The edit summary was "Has been banned for a while, ought to be tagged". LBHS Cheerleader does indeed appear on the list of banned users, because PCHS-NJROTC added them.

When I asked PCHS-NJROTC about this, their responses were somewhat evasive. Apparently there was no community discussion of a ban nor any decision to ban this user. I am concerned that a user has been improperly labeled as "banned", based on the somewhat dubious decree of a single editor. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries, it's already been settled. Not officially banned, taken off the banned list, template removed, issue resolved. PCHS-NJROTC 04:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Just be to clear, LBHS is indef banned: 19:18, 28 January 2008 Philippe (talk | contribs | block) blocked LBHS Cheerleader (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Vandalism-only account). — Huntster (t @ c) 04:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you perhaps mean to write "blocked"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

No, seriously, I'd not letting a troll win this by convincing a user that I am "power hungry," so unless admins here seriously think there's a need for an "official ban," let this one drop as simple vandalism for my sake. The vandals will be blocked one way or another anyway unless they behave and contructively contribute, in which case there's no reason to hold their past against them in my opinion. I feel as if the general community has been very supportive of my efforts to fight this particular vandal, but I'm done with them entirely. This is not worth my good name. PCHS-NJROTC 04:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood why I brought this here. You declared a user to be banned when they weren't and then you dissembled when asked about it. Apparently there were other accounts affected by this, based on your actions since this thread started. Edits like this are not appropriate even if you suspect someone of being a vandal. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I quit, since you're going to try to persue action over something I was never warned about, and occured when I was practically a newbie, after I chose not to run checkuser on your account. Bye Misplaced Pages. PCHS-NJROTC 04:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

One person complains about you, no one else backs him up, and you quit within 4 messages? Wow. --Golbez (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I quit because this is not the first time I've been sanctioned over this kind of mess. I realize I am imperfect, and I tried to handle this within reason, but I will not be sanctioned because of a troll, which is why DC is being so... unreasonable? This was not over 4 messages. I hope this point is heard loud and clear. PCHS-NJROTC 04:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Indef blocks where no admin is willing to unblock is pretty much a ban. Since the vandal keeps coming back under new accounts, we're tossing the socks as we find them. PCHS-NJROTC is familiar with the long term abuse and for ease of processing, tags the account(s) as banned. Not seeing the problem here. Shell 04:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at this SPI case. Absent the bogeyman of "cheerleader vandals" why did User:Jess Selders 2012 get indef blocked? A 2 minute Google search show that there is a Jessica Selders at Charlotte High. Let's not get into this bans are just blocks etc bullshit. PCHS-NJROTC is quickly undoing all of their edits relating to this "ban", so I think they see the problem. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It's over DC. Someone block my account at my request please, that way this discussion can just be closed and forgotten. I feel I have seriously wasted my time with certain elements of this project. For the record, just because Jessica Selders is a real person doesn't mean she has the right to edit. Are you trying to say that LBHS Cheerleader is a robot? Seriously... PCHS-NJROTC 05:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

As my last request, I would like a full blown sockpuppet investigation on DC; I think more than ever now that he is the same as the Cricket IP user troll. PCHS-NJROTC 05:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you've made my point for me. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe they're undoing it because you've continued to push the issue despite it being clear that PCHS-NJROTC really isn't doing anything but defending the 'pedia from rather long term abuse. PCHS hasn't blocked any of these accounts and has used appropriate channels. Laying this on one editor's doorstep with some rather nasty accusations and hyperbole might just be the real problem here. BTW editors interested in playing around rather than contributing have been known to use real names before, even one's that aren't their own (shocking, isn't it) - that's hardly an indication of good will given the contributions of that account. Shell 05:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. What if Jessica Selders wasn't even responsible for that, and she got into some real life "crap" over it all? Wouldn't that just be special? I reverted everything to sastisfy you, which was evidently a waste. No, undoing everything like that right now in order to "hide" something would be stupid, and I sincerely hope you don't really see me as that ignorant. You're probably going to be nailed for AGF among other things. You have this entirely backwards, and you're just mad that I made a big deal about the name issue. Bye. PCHS-NJROTC 05:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I lied that I'm done with this entirely; I'm going to, with approval of the community, try to find that person on Myspace or Facebook and personally and calmly, politely ask her if she was responsible (and may I add she most likely was not), and if not, I personally feel the username needs to be changed and her edits be oversighted. Of course, that will be my last contributions to this project, although I'm having second thoughts if the community isn't going to unreasonable as DC has. But only if. PCHS-NJROTC 05:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards