Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Toddst1 (talk | contribs) at 07:45, 25 January 2010 (→Unknown Lupus: I don't see you trying to discuss anything with the editor. Perhaps that's a better place to start.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

User:JCRB

User:JCRB has been disrupting Gibraltar articles to make a point for some time now. He has been trying to force his edit into the lead of the Gibraltar article for some time. Now he is trying intimidation threatening to report people. I suspect this is a sock puppet of User:MEGV and that he has used several IP addresses as well. Before this is dismissed as a simple content dispute see , this effort dates back nearly 2 years where he tried to fillibuster the opposition into submission. From the looks of his contribution history his behaviour looks to be disruptive on Phillipines related articles as well. Justin talk 00:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Without looking further into any other allegations, I'd like to point out that the JCRB account was created on July 17, 2007. The MEGV account was created on May 14, 2008. JCRB has 303 edits, while MEGV has had 59. I don't think MEGV would be a sock of JCRB, rather it would be the other way around. I'd also like to point out that both accounts have clean block logs, and MEGV hasn't edited since August 1, 2008. I don't think an sockpuppet report would be useful because the MEGV account has been inactive for a very long time. -- Atama頭 02:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I really do wish people would look into this further, because it is incredibly frustating that the DR process is being disrupted. I make the suggestion of sock puppetry because both used to log in within moments of each other, then proceeded to agree with one another. There are also a number of IP addresses involved as well. Justin talk 09:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is an odd form of "disruption". He is replacing the unsourced statement that Gibraltar is self-governing with a statement that it is non-self-governing sourced to the unquestionably reliable United Nations: . I'm bound to say that we could probably do with a bit more of that particular kind of disruption. Guy (Help!) 16:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You know what, this is exactly why every conspiracy theory nut or ardent nationalist swarms round wikipedia like flies round shit. People have taken the time and effort to explain why its disruption, its down below. People have independently looked at it and agreed, the information is down below. People have actually explained why its wrong in detail on the talk page of the article. Did you read any of it? No. Do you know anything about it? Obviously not, but you're quite prepared to wade in with a pair of size 10s and back the disruptive editor over the product editors who desperately do need admin help on an article that is literally besieged by people trying to advance their agenda using wikipedia as a platform. Marvelous, absolutely fucking marvelous. Justin talk 17:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You know what, what you can read down below is merely your own particular opinion on why the references provided aren't acceptable. However, reliable sources such as United Nations' resolutions usually have more bearing here than your peculiar POV. Finally, we could use a little bit more of politeness and a bit less of original research. Thanks. Cremallera (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

A peculiar POV of UN resolutions? I presume you're referring to the suggestion that the UN says that Gibraltar is Spanish is that the WP:OR you refer to? No that isn't a view I'm advocating. Funnily enough the view of the UN C24 is in the article, because I was one of the people that added it. But they we aren't actually speaking of UN resolutions are we, there is no UN resolution that specifies Gibraltar is a none self-governing territory. We're looking here at UN documents being abused for something completely different. Justin talk 21:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Whatever. I removed the contentious phrase from the lede since it had no cited source, was contradicted by a very credible source and the default for contentious and disputed material is to remove it pending formation of some consensus. And do you know something? After I removed it the article read so close to the same that I bet anyone who's not already engaged in the WP:PANTO will never know the difference. But you'll never guess what happened. Apparently I have to "discuss" in in a way that is not satisfied by a new section on the Talk page. My how Misplaced Pages changes: discussion now happens somewhere other than talk pages, maybe. Who knows. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Justin and User:Gibnews

User:Justin's accusations of "disruption" are an interesting example of hypocresy. For months this editor and User:Gibnews have blocked verifiable and neutral information about Gibraltar, preventing relevant information about its status or history from being included. A number of editors including User:MEGV (of whom I am accused of being a sock puppet), User:Imalbornoz and myself have attempted to include some dosis of neutrality (starting here , ending here ) with little or no success. The result is a biased article about a disputed territory which portrays only the British and/or Gibraltarian POV. Minimal or no reference to the Spanish (Andalusian) POV, or even the position of the United Nations is permitted by these editors. Issues like the arguable transfer of sovereignty according to the Treaty of Utrecht, reference to UN Resolutions on decolonization, or UN declarations expressing disapproval of the Gibraltar Referendum of 1967 have all been rejected despite reliable sources being presented. There has been constant opposition to citing the basis of the Spanish claims, specially territorial integrity and UN resolutions, as well as the San Roque issue. A complete overhaul of the article was suggested a few months back due to its overwhelming lack of neutrality. Again these editors blocked specific improvements. Up to this day they deny the Non-self-governing status of Gibraltar despite this being the definition given by the United Nations (my latest edit with reference to UN 64th General Assembly statement was again reverted). In summary, these editors permanently block any pieces of information which appear to oppose the British POV on Gibraltar. By constantly pushing their POV and refusing to include certain relevant facts, they are not only preventing the article from being more neutral and accurate, but they are disrupting the normal process of editing of the article. Finely enough, it is I who is accused of "disruption". JCRB (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem I see with your contribution, JCRB, is that it omits half the information. There are sources which affirm that Gibraltar isn't a self-governing territory. UN ones, for instance (which makes it a relevant POV, in fact). But your edition fails to acknowledge that other sources define Gibraltar as 'almost self-governing' (encyclopedia Britannica uses this wording, althought makes the exception of foreign policy and defense). Whether this information belongs in the lead section or not is arguable, at the very least. I myself think that there's a more appropiate section in the article to include these considerations. However, as indicated below by Atama, this has to be dealt with through discussion on the article's talk page. --Cremallera (talk) 09:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you disagree about what should be in the article, that's hardly a surprise. I've let Justin know that there's no point in sockpuppet accusations, everything else will have to be dealt with through discussion on the article's talk page. -- Atama頭 07:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think JCRB describes the situation well. Yes, there is opposition to rewriting the article on Gibraltar to show its a British colony of pirates on stolen Spanish soil. --Gibnews (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all I would actually welcome somebody independently investigating the allegations made by JCRB. He complains the article is POV, what he actually means is that it doesn't represent exclusively his POV. He claims the view of the UN C24 isn't represented, it is, he claims that the disputed nature of the territory isn't mentioned, it is (and we have an article dedicated solely to that). However, to properly understand the allegations made you need to have some understanding of the unique definition that the UN C24 applies to self-governing territories ie it bears no relation to the actual degree of self-government. I don't see Gibnews' intervention as particularly helpful, it may seem extreme to some but it wasn't that long ago that es.wikipedia did actually use the term pirates. Justin talk 09:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'd comment on Gibnews' tiny soliloquy above. But he can't be serious so, with due respect, I'll simply ignore it.
Atama, you've told Justin there's no point in baseless sockpuppetry accusations how many times already? Three? Four perhaps? I've been accused by him of being a sockpuppet more than once as well. So have Ecemaml and Imalbornoz in the past few months, as far as I remember. On the other hand, do you know how many times has he been accused of sockpuppetry by the aforementioned editors? Zero times. Quite frankly, all those editors' behaviour (myself included) isn't always exemplary, but reiterating this kind of unfounded accusations is as out of place as any other personal attack. Yet, he gets away with it every time he indulges in this kind of misdemeanour. One by one, it is 'just annoying', but when you look at the trend, it becomes gross.
I am not editing anymore nor discussing in the talk pages, as I am really tired of the constant disrespect and ridiculously vehement discussions over the most petty (and reliably sourced) issues. Yet, I am complaining here because previous notices and requests to cease this conduct have not been listened, dare I say. Sincerely, I concord with Narson here: I'd favour topic blocking everyone who has previously edited those articles (and I am one of these editors) to clear out some of this. To my disappointment, I put my best hopes on the moratorium. It is time, in my opinion, to be more expeditious. Thanks for your time. --Cremallera (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I've never accused you of sock puppetry. If you want to be precise I expressed my disquiet that given the messages on your talk pages you appeared to be co-ordinating your activities, including off-wiki by email, which is meat puppetry. Thats as far as it went. To be blunt as well, you're wading here in without being in full posession of the facts and I would suggest you ask Narson about MEGV and JCRB. You'll find it illuminating. Justin talk 09:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The action here seems to be focused on getting active editors who oppose a particular agenda being imposed on Gibraltar articles banned. This has been preceded by long tendentious arguments to bore the arse off everyone else interested, which has worked. As noted, another wikipedia did indeed recently refer to British pirates occupying Gibraltar. --Gibnews (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it takes much effort to look through JCRB's past contributions on all articles. My observations are that this editor likes to push Spanish POV, and when challenged, becomes very stubborn and unpleasant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Philippines&diff=prev&oldid=334902097
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Spanish_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=331912740

Regualarly breaks 3RR which would imply regular edit warring. Good faith is obviously not assumed and bullies other editors into submission. Don't take this as a personal attack. I am purely stating my opinion from what I can see in the contributions list... _Will (Talk) 16:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It is exhausting to try to make the Gibraltar article more NPOV. As Atama has seen, it takes months to change even a little bit of the article. For example (regarding the Capture and the San Roque episode), only to include some facts that are in EVERY History book ABOUT GIBRALTAR is taking months (while other less notable historic facts go unchallenged). Regarding the lead, I think that unless someone else gets involved, it will be impossible to solve the current dispute.

I think there is a dispute between two POVs (JCRB's defending the UN and Justin and Gibnews defending Gibraltar's and myself trying to include all POVs propotionally). I would propose that someone helps to reach an agreement in order to include all of them proportionally (Justin and Gibnews have rejected any alternative of mediation, RfC, ... in order to solve this dispute).

I would also like someone to make Justin quit attacking other editors (he has accused myself and many other editors of sock and meat puppetry -and many other things such as nationalism, tendencious editing, disruptive editing, ...- without any consequence), using reversion as an editing tool (he has recently been reprimanded for doing it, but seems to go on , he even got blocked once for doing it some time ago), deleting other editors' comments in articles talk pages when he does not like them (several times he has deleted my comments, JCRB's, ...), making every little change in the article a long and painful process...

Thanks. --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That is untrue, I was not reprimanded, I was falsely accused of something that I hadn't done and cleared. I did not use rollback inappropriately. I was blocked as a new and inexperienced editor nearly 3 years ago, when I mistakenly breached 3RR when misunderstanding policy thought I was reverting vandalism. Some people seem to like misrepresenting things it seems.

Also Imalbornoz is misrepresenting his edit, which pretty much is the same as JCRB and is giving undue prominence in the lead to something that is actually in the article with appropriate coverage. The article is neutral, he seeks to skew the POV of the article to favour his own.

Imalbornoz has edited tendentiously, he shopped round multiple forums pushing this same edit. And again the suspicion of meat puppetry was expressed when it appeared from talk page comments that 3 editors were communicating off-wiki to co-ordinate their activities. Raising that was a legitimate concern.

As regards his claim we've refused mediation, not true, he seems to think mediation is about forcing his will into the article. He has never shown any willingness to compromise. Now it seems there is a campaign to get rid of editors who dispute their editing agenda. I could be paranoid but it seems co-ordinated to me. Justin talk 23:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

So what you're saying is we have three editors who appear to be using Misplaced Pages as a means to further their opinions in a real world dispute? JCRB, Imalbornoz, and Gibnews appear to be editing with a nationalist point of view, and if they cannot separate their nationatlist opinions from their Misplaced Pages edits, they will probably be banned from the cite.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Banned from the cite? Contravention of policy! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 07:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record: I do not favour a Spanish or Andalusian POV but a neutral point of view in the Gibraltar article. I've made this point many times in this and other Talk Pages. I sincerely believe in neutrality because it is a crucial element of accurate information. It also happens to be one of the policies of Misplaced Pages. But as Imalbornoz says "It is exhausting to try to make the Gibraltar article more NPOV it takes months to change even a little bit of the article". I agree. For over two years the two editors reported here have continuously rejected all constructive attempts by good editors to improve the article with small dosis of neutrality. What's more, in the case of Gibnews, he takes an academic discussion personally making aggressive ideological and political statements which are completely out of line (see his ironic comment above). In other cases, these editors twist solid arguments around and beat about the bush when presented straightforward and well-supported information. They imply sources are not "always" reliable, or "books can say many things". They will say "everybody knows that's not true", or in the case of the UN listing Gibraltar as a Non-Self-Governing Territory, well "it's because Spain is putting pressure on the UN". Judge for yourselves. In other words, it's not just their continous blocking of information they don't like, acting as if they own the article , it's their negative attitude, their lack of etiquette, and the complete absence of neutrality. Some specific points regarding the above:

• Here is an example of what I mean about favouring neutrality, and not a particular POV. If indeed there are sources that say Gibraltar is "self-governing" in "some issues" despite being listed on the UN List of Non-Self-Governing Territories, then a consensus phrase could be "Gibraltar is a partly self-governing British overseas territory" with a reference at the bottom of the page that explains both points of view and sources: the UN list on one hand, and the encyclopedia that says the opposite on the other.

• One of the points I made in the past is that the lead paragraph is very biased in that it reflects only the British POV. Indeed, it mentions the transfer of the territory from Spain to Great Britain under the Treaty of Utrecht (1713) but nowhere does it mention that according to Spain and some English-language sources this treaty only transferred the property of the castle and the fortifications on the rock, not the "sovereignty" of the territory, or "territorial jurisdiction" as it is called in Article X of the Treaty. The article goes out of its way to mention that the "majority" of Gibraltar residents oppose reintegration with Spain, and that Britain has committed to support their wishes (both of which provide legitimacy to the British POV) but no mention of the basis of Spain's claims: territorial integrity and a number of UN Resolutions mandating decolonization (UN Resolution 1514 (1960), General Assembly Resolutions 2070 and 2231 (1965) on "Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples) . There is no mention either of the UN decolonization process itself, or the Consensus of the Committee of 24 and the annual meetings that all parties hold. Why is all of this omitted? Again, my proposal for a more neutral sentence was to add "based on territorial integrity and UN resolutions on decolonization" (with a link to these). The sentence would read:

"Gibraltar was ceded by Spain to the Crown of Great Britain in perpetuity, under the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, though Spain asserts a claim to the territory based on territorial integrity and UN resolutions on decolonization, and seeks its return."

• A final example of lack of neutrality which I pointed out some time ago, but was rejected by these editors is the sentence about the 1967 Referendum . It avoids mentioning the irregular nature of the Referendum, or the protest by one of the parties in the dispute, or the UN Resolution against it. The sentence simply reads "Gibraltar's first sovereignty referendum was held on 10 September 1967, in which Gibraltar's voters were asked whether they wished either to pass under Spanish sovereignty or remain under British sovereignty, with institutions of self-government". The sentence suggests a normal, legitimate vote by a sovereign nation, instead of explaining its exceptional nature: a referendum by a dependent, disputed territory. It was protested by Spain and declared a contravention of international agreements by the United Nations. My point back then (and today) was simply to add in the latter sentence:

"Although the UN declared the referendum to be a contravention of prior General Assembly resolutions, it led to the passing of the Gibraltar Constitution Order, granting autonomy in May 1969..."

I would appreciate outside editors to read our statements carefully and act accordingly. Let's see what happens to these renewed attempts to correct the biased tone of this article. JCRB (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

One hundred words or less please.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thats part of the problem, see Talk:Gibraltar biased in this context means disagreeing with JCRB and a group of editors with an agenda of grinding down any opposition and having the burger their way. --Gibnews (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed that is the problem, the talk pages are filled with tendentious argument and its remorseless. You take the time to patiently explain things to people, assuming in many cases its a language barrier or perhaps the tendency for British constitutional matters to be unwritten isn't easy to understand. Then its straight back to the same point again. And again. And again. Its driven numerous people of the article, any effective progress on the article is stymied, the sheer frustration of it all is making people snappy. Can we please get some help here. Justin talk 09:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I see someone saying that I try to forward some kind of nationalist agenda in Misplaced Pages and with a Spanish nationalist POV. That is wrong and worries me deeply. In the current dispute, all the sources I have tried to include were either from the UN, from the UK Government, from the Government of Gibraltar or from Gibraltar newspapers (that does not look like a Spanish nationalist list of sources, does it?) If you look, all the cites I have brought to the talk page reflect the official position of those governments. I have never said in WP anything vilifying Gibraltar or the Gibraltarians (as Gibnews implies). Notice that no diff is provided. Of course, I can't provide any diff of my "not posting nationalist comments".

On the other hand, Justin and Gibnews have tried at all cost to remove any reference to the UN POV in the lead of the article, or to the complete POV of the UK Government about Gibraltar (which is not that Gibraltar is self-Governing, but that it has an important measure of devolved internal self-government).

I insist, there is no evidence that I am pushing a nationalist POV. If you think that there is any, please show me so that I can either clarify it or apologise and change it. Personally, I feel VERY uncomfortable when someone considers me a nationalist, that's why I try to avoid any nationalist attitude at all cost. --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No evidence? Never said anything to villify Gibraltar? Do I have to post your contribution off-wiki again? You're not pushing the UN POV, you're misrepresenting UN resolutions. You don't listen, you simply push the same line constantly, its reams of tendentious argument that is stymieing any progress. Justin talk 12:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There we go again. You take the time to explain the problems with the article, you give examples, you provide the references, and you propose a more neutral wording which is neither Spanish nor Gibraltarian POV. You do this to find a consensus and move forward, yet again these editors call it "tendentious argument" and "misrepresentation". No more to be said. I am also offended when accused of "pushing a nationalist POV". JCRB (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Justin, I am starting to feel VERY OFFENDED. REALLY. I said: "I have never said in WP anything vilifying Gibraltar or the Gibraltarians." So far, Justin has not been able to bring any evidence of the contrary, yet he keeps accusing me (and referring to "off wiki" comments out of context; are this kind of attacks usually accepted?). If I have vilified anybody for his/her nationality (which I am very sure I haven't), I will apologise (of course).

I find the word nationalist as very offensive and disruptive in discussions about Gibraltar - specially in discussions about Gibraltar. Meanwhile, through these repetitions, outside editors will come to the conclusion that, if I am so persistently accused and I am -in fact- discussing about a foreign territory, I must have a very strong nationalist POV. WHICH IS NOT TRUE.

Therefore, I would ask the admins whether is it possible that I make the following request: "If no editor brings a diff proving that I have pushed a nationalist POV in WP discussions, then I insist that Justin and Gibnews do not keep offending me and disrupting the discussion. I would also request that in case no diff is brought here, Justin and Gibnews apologise for those offensive and disrupting accusations."

Is it possible to make that request? And, if someone keeps accusing me of nationalism without any basis, is it possible to qualify that behaviour as disruptive? Thank you very much (and apologies for bringing these ugly issues to this page, but they have gone too far). --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You have kept out of actually editing pages and have resorted to long tendentious arguments on the talk pages preventing progress and creating new articles, but here is a a diff where you repeatedly reject a reference because it comes from 'a Gibraltar law firm' one which employs 70 professionals, has an international profile, and no connection with me. You have previously expressed the view that "The Peninsula of Gibraltar is a colony" and "it should be returned to Spain" and that "Spanish Minister Moratinos visited Gibraltar last week in order to negotiate how to mend some of Gibraltar's many disorders that have arisen under British rule (criminality, smuggling, tax evasion, ..." but I trust that reading the wikipedia page on Gibraltar and six months of discussing things for inclusion at GREAT length have modified that initial distorted view ? --Gibnews (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

If that is a way of saying that I have not "vilified Gibraltar or Gibraltarians" nor "pushed a nationalistic POV" in WP, then I am very glad.

Regarding the removal of the source, I quote my comment of 7 August 2009: "BTW, when I removed the lawyers' citation, I did it because I really thought it was immaterial (with all the respect to Gibnews and what seems a large and prestigious law firm); but the context of the "self-governing" citation seemed more commercial than informative, thus my -I will admit- sarcastic reference to the next sentence "Gibraltar is well placed etc." In fact, my next edit had the following tag: "Was reference to private law firm site (the next sentence in that page is "Gibraltar is tax-effective, well regulated, well placed and well developed.", maybe we should add it to the introduction too?)" In fact, the quote was so out of place in WP that nobody (not even Justin) defended that source as reputable. Honestly, I think this is not a very good diff to prove that I have made a nationalistic comment... It is also a bit embarrassing that you have not yet realised how out of place that cite was... ;-)

Also, you are quoting some off-wiki sentences by myself which 1) are out of context (and you know it because I explained them at length six months ago) and 2) about which I have apologised in WP several times in case I had offended anyone (the first one in the beginning of August and the beginning of my edits in WP -not 6 months later- just when we began to discuss about this and Justin brought those off-wiki comments to the discussion). I think that is very much out of place if what we are talking about is whether I have pushed a nationalistic POV in WP. I am a bit disappointed and offended by that.

I repeat that I have only insisted in including the UN's, the Government of UK and some Government of Gibraltar POVs. Obviously, that is not pushing a "Spanish nationalist POV"...

I insist, is there a way to stop people accusing me of pushing a nationalistic POV if no (serious) diff is provided? IT IS VERY OFFENSIVE. --Imalbornoz (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I neither defended nor opposed that reference. And I will highlight you are not seeking to present the UN view, rather a somewhat perverse interpretation of UN resolutions to "prove" Gibraltar is Spanish. And that isn't a nationalist view point? Please also don't attempt to portray your comments as anything but sarcasm, you insult people's intelligence.

Again I ask the question, do I have to post the comments you made off-wiki and acknowledge as yours? Justin talk 23:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that Gibraltar is Spanish. It is British. So I have no intention to "prove" that Gibraltar is Spanish. I only say that, if the lead says that Gibraltar is a "self-governing territory" (a very respectable Gibraltarian POV), it should also include the fact that the equally respectable UN's General Assembly has listed Gibraltar as a "non self-governing territory" as per NPOV. Also, in that case, it should show the POV of the UK: the very respectable UK Government does not say that Gibraltar is "a self-governing territory PERIOD" but that it has an important level of "internal self-government" (that is, that Gib is self-governing except in the areas of defence, foreign affairs, internal security and the public service -which are not insignificant exceptions). This, I am sure, is not a nationalistic approach. But I have already explained this to you more than 20 times (this is not an exaggeration)

I have asked you already in the article 9 times to accept an alternative to just keep discussing with the same arguments over and over. Are you finally going to answer me and accept mediation, RfC or any other dispute resolution option? --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all the UN General Assembly has NEVER listed Gibraltar as a "colony", Gibraltar is on the list because the UK nominated it back in 1947. You have constantly and consistently misrepresented sources to advance an agenda. Secondly, the comments about the UN C24, who maintain it on the list due to lobbying by the Spanish Government, are included in the article. The article as written is NPOV. The UK Government actually says that Gibraltar is self-governing except for defence and foreign relations - the limits are in the article. So what you're asking is nothing to do with NPOV.

Back in June last year, whilst doing some research on the Economist website I came across the following unpleasant post of yours:

Even for a Spanish nationalist thats a pretty extreme expression of opinion. Your first edits were to remove the fact that Gibraltar is self-governing , , you then proceeded to try edit warring to keep it. You then proceeded to tie the talk page up in tendentious argument its nearly 156 kB long . None the less people engaged in good faith and tried to explain it to you, you've never once listened and still push the same line. It hasn't changed all the below were just this week.

The UN says no such thing, its a gross misrepresentation of sources to claim that it does. Similarly:

Again, the UN says no such thing, its a gross misrepresentation of sources to claim that it does. What is clear though is the POV agenda behind it. Now having a POV is not a problem on Misplaced Pages but what is a problem is disrupting the article with reams of tendentious argument to try and skew the article to favour a particular POV. Whats also a problem is lobbying for sanctions against other editors, claiming they're being "insulting" and that you're "offended" when all that has been done is to point out you're misrepresenting what you're setting out to achieve. The article is currently paralysed, nothing can move forward, so please can we have some admin intervention. Justin talk 12:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE, SOMEBODY HELP US!!!

This is very frustrating. I have been for six months asking for outside help in the discussion. Now Justin -even though he does not answer directly to me, after 10 times asking for his opinion on outside help in dispute resolution- seems to agree that some admin intervention is needed. Now is the moment...

(even though I have explained the previous comments to Justin many times, he keeps bringing them out of context -maybe to paint me as an extremist to outsiders of the discussion; so I will -boringly- explain them once again:

• The off-wiki comments were not a serious discussion trying to improve an encyclopedic article, but to -playfully, as you can see in the style- make fun of a (very coky) commentator in The Economist who pretended to be a translator from a very prestigious university, but kept making mistakes in Spanish while putting other commentators down laughing at their English. I am not proud of those coments and have apologise many times in WP for several months. I sincerely apologise here once more if they offended someone. Anyway I think they are not relevant in WP.
• You have just seen one clear example of what has been happening during the past 6 months: Justin says that the General Assembly does not list Gibraltar as a non self-governing territory. On the other hand, I have posted the following link like four or five times to Justin but he -maybe because the discussion is very heated- seems to ignore it. Please take a look a it:

I do not say that Gibraltar does not have any self-government (my opinion is irrelevant). I only say that the UN General Assembly lists Gib a non self-governing territory.

• Justin brings some of my comments on UN's resolutions (those were the texts where the "keywords" came from), and says that the UN "does not say so", but he fails to bring the UN texts just one line up from my comments where it is clear that the UN says that the referendum among Gibraltarians was a contravention of its resolutions (because it does not consider Gibraltarians as the people with the right to determine the status of Gibraltar, otherwise that referendum would be very happily accepted by the UN). I do not say that Gibraltarians are not the people of the territory (again, my opinion is not relevant). I only say that the UN says so.

Please, I am getting very tired of this discussion. I know that Justin and Gibnews and other editors from both sides are too. I am afraid that this will get too heated at some point. It has already been six months. I agree with Justin that we need some admin intervention to help us out.

Please... --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No the list is compiled by the UN C24 and adopted by the General Assembly, there is a big difference. And the fact remains that Gibraltar only ever got on that list because the UK nominated it and for no other reason. Misrepresenting it, is intended to give the list more credibility than it actually posesses. The article already includes this information, you're not seeking to improve the NPOV you're looking to skew it. You are abusing UN references claiming they say one thing, when they do not. Justin talk 17:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

It feels like Bill Murray's character in "Groundhog Day": I have just cited the UN list, then you say that it's not the UN official position as it's there only because it was listed by UK, then I'll say...

...that the fact that the UN website has a page that says (in capital letters in the source) "NON SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES LISTED BY GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN 2002" is as clear as sources can be, and that so is the sentence by Chairman General Mr Ban Ki Moon in the UN website:

Whereby (if you look at the General Assembly list) the 16 territories are: Western Sahara, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands (Malvinas), Montserrat, St. Helena, Turks and Caicos Islands, United States Virgin Islands, Gibraltar, American Samoa, Guam, New Caledonia 4, Pitcairn, and Tokelau (other 80 territories have made to the status of "self-governing" according to the UN, but -and you can explain it as you wish, and call it fair or unfair- the verifiable and notable fact is that Gibraltar obviously has not).

Then you'll say that this list is already in the article, then I'll say that indeed it is in the article but not in the lead (where it is said as an undisputed fact that "Gibraltar is a self-governing territory", when it is actually under dispute by the UN and some more), then you'll say that I only say that because I pursue a Spanish nationalist agenda, then I'll be offended, then you'll cite the off-wiki comments... (and that's where the radio alarm goes off and Sonny & Cher sing "I've got you babe" like in "Ground Hog Day" when the day starts all over again for poor Bill Murray).

Please, we need some admin assistance to make this dispute move on without anyone being blocked: after 6 months we've had enough of a try. PLEASE. --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The UN GA did not, as you infer, set up a working party with an atlas and a pencil to draw up a list of "none self-governing territories", they were nominated and listed by the colonial power way back in 1947 - verifiable fact. The list is now maintained by the UN C24 and adopted annually by the General Assembly. Big difference. The status of the list is not as you infer "suppressed", it is in the article with due prominence. The position is explained; the lead does not mislead.

The UN C24 definition of "self-governing" bears no relation to what the average person would consider "self-governing".

I only mention your original comments, because the comments this week are exactly in the same vein. Like how Gibraltar is "Spanish" based upon a perverse intepretation of UN resolutions. If you're "labelled" as a "Spanish nationalist", that may well because of the comments in the vein of a "Spanish nationalist" as to why Gibraltar is Spanish. Groundhig Day? Like when something is explained to you and you go but the UN says....when it doesn't. This one goes to 11. Justin talk 20:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Justin, please stop playing with words. The personal interpretations of verifiable information are secondary to the information itself. We don't care how or who set up the "working party" that put together the UN List of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The question is Gibraltar in on that list. Yes, the current lead misleads when it says that Gibraltar is "Self-Governing". This is quite arguable at best (specially as the UN says it is not). And please refrain from making accusations of "Spanish Nationalism", they are hardly justified. JCRB (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Then don't misrepresent UN Sources, Special Committee on Decolonization hears petitioner from Gibraltar as Spain opposes its removal from list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Justin talk 14:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar Articles

An idea that I ran past Atama to stop the disruption on Gibraltar articles, that I'd like to open up to wider community discussion.

To stop the disruption I propose:

1. Indefinitely semi-protect the articles to stop IP disruption.
2. Introduce a red card system, where any mention of nationalism or ad hominem attacks gets a yellow card, then a red card leading to a block. With an escalating scale of blocks, 24 hrs, 48hrs etc. A yellow card would last for say 24 hrs.

What would be slightly more difficult to deal with is the filibustering that has taken place, ie constantly returning to the same point again and again. Its gotten extremely tiresome for all concerned.

I'm imagining this would be a voluntary scheme that all of the editors would sign up to. I asked Atama if he would agree to be "referee" the process. I believe admin overview would be necessary as I suspect sock/meat puppetry may become an issue.

The people who I'd propose would be:

User:Ecemaml
User:Imalbornoz
User:Cremallera
User:Gibnews
User:Justin_A_Kuntz

Does this seem a workable suggestion? Justin talk 23:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't really make new sections if they are directly related to another section earlier up on the page. That and topic bans are much easier to enforce.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That's my fault, I should have been more specific. I should have clarified that you should have added that to one of the two existing topics on ANI. I'm moving it for you. -- Atama頭 23:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that proposal gets to the root of the problem, which is that there is a very different perception about Gibraltar in Spain as a result of the active pursuit by its government of its sovereignty claim. Yes its simplistic and probably not in line with wikipedia policy to explain it like that. But its true Today on talk:gibraltar I've been informed politely that the real 'people of Gibraltar' live in San Roque, that the UN considers the current population mere colonists, and that the Government I elected does not govern the territory. This is what some want in Misplaced Pages. Its wrong. --Gibnews (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I would agree to the proposal of a compromise to block anyone mentioning nationalism and ad hominem attacks. I would not limit the list to those five editors, in any case (there are several others -of several tendencies- who have engaged in nationalist and ad hominem attacks in the Gibraltar talk page).

In order to avoid filibustering, I think that the agreement should include the enforceable compromise to use dispute resolution tools (mediation, etc.) when a point has been repeatedly discussed. --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

disagree with blocking anyone as although the editors information may be wrong, apart from long tendentious arguments and the inability to compromise or agree there is not the sort of malice experienced from, for example Vintagekits who deserved to be banned and was. BUT the point of including anything on these pages is to try and involve some outside parties rather than to just open up yet another 100k of exchanges. I think all the involved parties have all said enough and its time to let someone else form an opinion. --Gibnews (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Justin, does your proposal include a ban on removing other people's messages in your talk page and stop using reversion as an editorial tool? It would be greatly appreciated. Otherwise, your proposal seems extremely faulty? --Ecemaml (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

And now for something completely different...

Right. How about standard discretionary sanctions, and start the process of topic-banning the edit warriors? It's apparent to me that people have completely lost sense of perspective, and have also forgotten some fairly fundamental Misplaced Pages principles. Such as: the solution to text that supports a POV you don't like is not to edit war back to text that supports a POV you do like but to say neither until you can reach a consensus about how the external dispute should be described here (WP:BATTLE, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS and so on). "Revert to consensus / stable version" is offten a red flag in cases like this, and telling people to "discuss" changes when they have already done precisely that, and have no prior involvement in the dispute, and have no evident ties to the POV you don't like, is not exactly indicative of a productive attitude. Incidentally, it also doesn't help when you say something is sourced from Britannica but Britannica does not use the term you claim, and actually says something that rather supports the opposite POV. The Spanish editors will no doubt claim that I am biased against them based on my nationality, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I think it's time to start dealing with this battleground mentality. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I just checked the cite you say doesn't support the text and it says "Gibraltar is an overseas territory of the United Kingdom and is self-governing in all matters but defense." Do you have java enabled? I don't have a POV I like, I would prefer it if the article would not suffer while there is an attempt to skew the POV. Thats whats at hand here. Oh yes people have forgotten wikipedia principles, the relevant one being NPOV, and some have gotten frustrated after trying to explain this and gotten more bad tempered than they should. What is helpful is a considered approach, not blundering in without understanding first. My apologies if I vented at you but thats precisely what you did. The problem with it, is you're encouraging further disruption. Justin talk 00:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Justin, you are being obstructive and disingenuous. The BBC News says "Gibraltar is self-governing in all areas except defence and foreign policy." - that is equivocal and the BBC is British anyway. The Chief Minister's speech was prompted by the UN's report stating that it was not self-governing, so unquestionably cannot be taken in isolation. The Telegraph (British) says "GIBRALTAR'S parliament approved an ambitious package of constitutional reform yesterday designed to give the colony almost complete self-government" - that's equivocal too. To state in the lead sentence that Gibraltar is self-governing based on two equivocal and one partisan sources, while ignoring the fact that the CIA World Factbook and the United Nations both say its not, is POV-warring of the worst kind. I have removed the statement again, I note you have reverted at least once more. Please do not do this. Your edit history shows a lengthy involvement with articles with contentious issues of sovereignty, and always on the British side. You are clearly not a neutral party here and should step away from the firing line and discuss matters on talk.

For now, I have left the opening sentence saying that Gibraltar is a British overseas territory. This is not sufficiently ambiguous to demand that we make a statement supporting either of the competing POVs regarding self-government.

I want to be clear here: a bald statement that Gibraltar is not self-governing is POV, and a problem. Equally, a bald statement that it is self-governing is also POV and also a problem - especially since the sources you provide are actually rather less good than those supporting the opposing POV. The logical thing to do is to simply remove the self-government status from the lede until a proper form of words can be decided, not to enforce one POV that is liked by the article WP:OWNers. To state that Gibraltar is self-governing based on these sources and ignoring - indeed without reference to - those which dispute it, is tendentious and disruptive.

I have done what you should have done in the first place, which is to start an RfC: Talk:Gibraltar#RfC:_Self-government.

I would ask that uninvolved admins should watch the article and swiftly enact blocks and topic bans against editors who display single-purpose and advocacy behaviour. I see several editors whose entire history seems to be around promoting the views of one or other side in articles where sovereignty is contentious, including Gibraltar and the Falklands. This needs to stop. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

No, to be polite, you intervention has been unhelpful and your comments naive and ill-informed. Not only that but you've edit warred to impose your will on the article. As I have already indicated on your talk page I have no intention of edit warring. But I'd nontheless support those editors who return it to a NPOV.

Seeing as you mention the Falklands, where I am active, I have worked constructively with a number of Argentine editors to improve those articles. The improvements share information to ensure NPOV is maintained. I actually feel quite priveliged to address Darius as old friend. I have also gone to great lengths to explain the matter to a number of editors who have sought to skew the POV of the article, great lengths, yet they return to the same point again and again. Now that could well be based on the fact that they've only been taught 1 POV but there comes a point, when you see someone claiming that UN resolutions asssert that Gibraltar is Spanish, then you realise they're not interested in NPOV.

Again trying to remain polite, you've blundered into an area you don't know anything about, have ignored the point that editors have been misrepresenting those UN sources, funnily enough the one UN source you missed confirms that. But don't worry as I took the trouble to add it to the article. I'm not ignoring sources as you assert, seeing as the UN C24 list was introduced into the article as part of my edits, but rather ensuring they're treated with respect to NPOV. You're excision of those terms actually favours the editors who have tendentiously edited the article to skew the POV.

Not only that but ignoring the presumption of good faith, you've labelled the editors who work constructively in this area as "POV Warriors" to favour those editors who would pervert sources to advance an agenda and use Misplaced Pages as a platform to support their POV rather than maintaining a NPOV.

From my perception, all I see is an admin who hasn't looked at the problem, has jumped to conclusions and is failing to recognise their initial mistake. Ironically the only editor to breach 3RR is yourself. Do we take from that, that you're calling for uninvolved admins to impose a topic ban and a block upon yourself? Justin talk 14:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Just two points, Guy. First of all: "I see several editors whose entire history seems to be around promoting the views of one or other side in articles where sovereignty is contentious, including Gibraltar and the Falklands." As Justin kindly mentioned, we have been working in several Falkland-related articles. Even when my position regarding the topic is, obviously, pro-Argentine, we managed to keep the NPoV on the pages we have edited by checking both British and Argentine sources and discussing their reliability. Thus I think it's very unfair to include Justin in your 'list' of edit warriors.

Second point: the issue of self-government. My personal opinion is that the words speak for themselves; self-government, by definition, supposes a form of administration "not completely sovereign or independent". Therefore, I see no need of further clarification in the narrative, since self-government is at midway between "direct rule" (by a foreign power) and "total independence". The British sources questioned as 'partisan' are quite reliable as they only describe the naked fact of a political decision, not a posture.--Darius (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Darius, that is the problem with editors such as Justin and Gibnews. When they don't like certain information which is supported by (highly) reliable sources like the UN itself, they switch to personal interpretations or opinions. Please don't go down that path. The term "self-government" does not speak for itself. In fact it is quite controversial. Some would think it means autonomy, others complete independence. In both cases it carries a British POV by subtly justifying its colonial status or foreign rule. The question here is neutrality and verifiability, not personal opinions. The term "self-government" is inappropriate according to both these policies. Either both the British and Spanish POV's are included, or the issue is avoided altogether. JCRB (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Rdm2376 starting mass deletions

This very long discussion, has been moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rdm2376's deletions. — Coffee // have a cup // ark //

Unitanode and good hand/bad hand

This has recently been brought to my attention on my talk page(User_talk:Chillum#Continued_prodding_under_a_new_account_name). I am seeking outside scrutiny as I have already involved myself in what is essentially a content dispute. The short form of the story is that User:Unitanode started a rather aggressive {{prod}}ing effort towards BLP articles lacking references. Me and a few other editors made comments to the effect that he was being a bit careless in his application of {{prod}} tags. He has since created a new account and has been using that to add prod's to the same type of article.

The new account is User:Unitasock and the name is clearly chosen to not hide the fact that he is the same person. My concern is that he is effectively hiding these edits from anyone who has asked him to stop doing this. While seeing "Unitasock" makes it clear that it is Unitanode, those that know Unitanode have no way of knowing about Unitasock. My previous discussion with this user on the matter of prodding was not very productive so I am not leaving it to others to look at this issue.

I will reserve personal judgment other than saying it gives me pause for concern and leave it up to folks not involved in the current unreferenced BLP deletion content dispute(you know who you are). Chillum 00:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to correct the details as it was me that brought it to Chillums attention, the alternative account is marked as such and is not new as such, it is from Aug 2009, but it was the way unitanode moved from his main account when he was requested to stop to the alternative account in what looks like an attempt to continue with his actions without attracting attention to his main account. Off2riorob (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction. My primary point was not the creation of the account but rather the manner in which the editing switched over when such editing was criticized. It gives at the very least the appearance of avoiding scrutiny. Chillum 01:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• I will recuse from further comment here, since I've had interaction with the editor in the last few days of which i idn;t think too much, but this look like blatant "good hand, bad hand" socking and bordering on trolling. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 01:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Respectfully request that the second account be retired. Durova 01:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)co

Brief explanation

1. My criteria for placing the tag is, does it have sources of any kind? If no, I tag it. If yes, I quickly check them, to make certain it's not just a fan blog or something of that sort.
2. If it has a source, I stub-ify the article to only the bare facts of the subject's notability, and remove the "unsourced" tag.
3. The reason I use Unitasock, is because it's contribution list is easier to cut-and-paste so as to create a holding area for the articles I've worked on (both PROD tags placed, and other work).
4. As someone mentioned here, I'm not trying to hide anything, as I'm keeping a log of my work on the Unitanode userpage, and a subpage listing all articles I've worked on.

I'm doing my best to work on a significant problem in the project. I have no problem with people coming behind me and working through the list to try to source these articles. UnitAnode 02:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Why did you move to your alternative account? Off2riorob (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

  Read #3 again. I use it because it makes it easier to keep a running log of my work. The Special:contributions list is basically uncluttered there, so it's easier to cut-and-paste from. Nothing sinister or nefarious about it. UnitAnode 02:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair explanation, and sorry to have speculated otherwise here. I'm not the one who brought the report and I would not have on the sole issue of having two accounts. I would encourage everyone to consider this particular question settled (but not necessarily the issue of prodding articles). - Wikidemon (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Mass-prodding

I also note that Unitanode and his sock have been warned not to engage in indiscriminate mass-prodding of unsourced BLPs pending the outcome of WP:RFC/BLP and has at this point announced that an intention to continue even though expecting to be brought to AN/I and blocked for it, and refuses to discuss the matter further. I am currently spot checking the latest round of PRODs, and will report back shortly on what the false positive rate seems to be. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Hiroshi Abe (astronomer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - viable nomination, could not easily find sources, appears to be non-notable. No obviously derogatory or controversial material in article.
2. Theophilus Adeleke Akinyele (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - viable nomination - few sources and notability could reasonably be questioned. No obviously derogatory or controversial material in article.
3. Makio Akiyama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - viable nomination, could not easily find sources, appears to be non-notable. No obviously derogatory or controversial material in article.
4. Akufen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - bad nomination, clearly notable and easily sourceable. No obviously derogatory or controversial material in article.
5. Gianne Albertoni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - bad nomination, appears notable with hundreds (per google, which usually overstates) of foreign language news sources. Weak stub article, but no obviously derogatory or controversial material in article.
6. Karl Alpiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - bad nomination, appears notable with many news sources. Very short stub article with no material that could possibly be considered controversial.
7. Joanna Ampil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - bad nomination, appears notable with many news sources. No plausible controversial information.

I could go on but that's enough to convince me that most of these PRODs will not stand under the current deletion policy. That policy is being actively tested and debated at the RfC, and in the likely event that we do end up requiring all BLP articles to be sourced we will have an orderly procedure for making that happen. Making mass disputed content edits (or depending on how you look at it, mass invocation of procedure) while the policy is under active debate is pretty disruptive. On the mitigating side Unitanode has made only 20-30 nominations in this latest round, and none so far after being warned or after this report started. However, given the editor's announced intention not to stop unless made to do so, it pretty much forces either a block or an acceptance that an indefinite number of articles will now be prodded, which is either going to have to be undone, or if it stands would render the many editors' efforts at RfC moot. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Tony, I have removed your "resolved" tag because this is not resolved. Using multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny most certainly is an admin issue and can require action. If you wish to give an opinion on this matter then please do, but I see no basis for resolving this mere minutes after it was posted. Chillum 01:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• At 23,49 tonight Unitanode made this comment on Lar's talkpage.. I'm not sure either. I'm prepared to have my block log sullied for this, though, as it's the right thing to do. Chillum is making it pretty clear that if I continue, he's going to block me. Not in so many words, but that's what's going to happen. UnitAnode ...at 23.50, one minute later he started to edit and prod under the alternative account. A clear case of delibrate avoidance. Off2riorob (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

To be clear I have no intention of blocking anyone I am involved in a content dispute with, I only said to him if he edit warred to replaced the {{prod}} tag and continued beyond warnings that the result would be a block, but not from me. He has not to my knowledge edit warred to replace any prod tags yet, I was responding to his hypothetical respond to them being removed. Chillum 01:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the timing and the actions, the account they're expecting to be sullied with a block is the alternate account, so it does appear to be using an alternate bad hand account to avoid scrutiny. There has been considerable discussion about this editor's civility on this issue as well, so there seems to be an overall breakdown in collaboration with other editors. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC) stricken by Wikidemon in light of explanation given above

Would you please stop trying to archive an active discussion less than 30 minutes old? It is very rude and clearly the matter is not resolved(you can tell because people are still talking). Chillum 01:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Refusal to listen to concerns about editing behaviour makes Unitanode ideal admin material, and he'll probably be an Arb this time next year. DuncanHill (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I am seriously getting sick of your sniping. The above comment is unhelpful and unnecessary. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 02:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

There's plenty of genuinely disruptive unhelpful and unnecessary behaviour going on, I suggest you concentrate on that. DuncanHill (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

And I suggest that you stop sniping - if you have specific concerns please start a new thread. Your comment above is not helpful in this discussion. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 18:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Something needs to happen here, Unitanode is again saying on his talkpage that he needs to get back to work and how it is some massive problem and there are 50 000 more to prod, at least he is keeping a list , I worked through the top half in a couple of hours and cited them all, some of them were clearly very notable people, very multiple external links supporting content, none of them were derogatory or libelous in any way. If this mission is continued we will fast become swamped with the work it is creating. Off2riorob (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody explain exactly what the problem is here? --TS 01:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to be a gadfly, but doesn't the recent ArbCom decision at least implicitly condone the actions he is taking? -- Atama頭 01:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

(Resp to TS) Avoiding scrutiny, or operating a Good Hand/Bad Hand account? Not that this is necessarily the case, but the basis upon which other inhabitants of this board might review. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I should hope they're not encouraging systematic rule-breaking. It would be best if this issue can be handled here and doesn't have to go back to Arbcom so quickly. Wikidemon (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, if a quorum here finds that the user in question is performing "good hand, bad hand" tactics to avoid scrutiny and is being apparently careless in prodding (which upon inspection, I believe to be the case), we're well within our rights to stop the action if deemed disruptive. While I'm sure we're gonna' get a lot of "arbcom said this!" to excuse behavior, careless deletion and prodding wastes people's time and is disruptive, "good intentions" aside. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really condoning this action, that as I read it said, people should take their time and policy still applies, users should not systematically prod uncited blp articles, care should be taken in all aspects of editing, for example Unitanode prodded Paul-Marie Coûteaux this article, he is clearly notable. Prodding should not be done willy nilly like this, an editor should still take a little time to improve it first. Off2riorob (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Anybody tried asking? There's loads of possible reasons, editing from different locations, maintaining a separate watchlist etc. There is certainly no subterfuge over whom the account belongs to.   pablo_hablo. 01:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe that belongs in the above subsection where the socking is being discussed? ++Lar: t/c 02:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I am unclear what the issue is with Unitanode putting PROD tags on things. Especially given the analysis above being a bit off the mark, it's not about whether the article COULD be sourced, it's about whether it HAS them... were there any that were prodded that actually were well sourced?

I am also unclear why anyone (with sufficient clue, anyway) would want to, at this time, remove PROD tags from unsourced BLPs without fixing them. I suggest that to do so would be really poor form, to say the least. I suggest folk not do it. Show the nasty BLP crusaders a thing or two about how wrong headed they are... by actually fixing things that have sat around for years unfixed instead of hanging out here on the dramahboards. ++Lar: t/c 02:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

@Lar, why the rush to PROD al 50,000 of them? Indiscriminate PRODding is frankly clueless. Surely it's due diligence to actually read the article and check any external links for something that establishes notability and, if none is found, to check for some and check the history and whatlinkshere before slapping a PROD on it. Judging by the speed and inaccuracy of Unitanode's tagging, I find it hard to believe that he's doing any of those things. I agree that many need to be deleted but mass-PRODding all of them does nothing to help this mess. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 02:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Which of his PRODs lacked sources as of when they were PRODded? That's the issue, not whether they COULD be sourced. Not his problem. All the articles I deleted and PRODded in the last few days did not have acceptable (in most cases, ANY) references. I checked the history of each one before I deleted it. I did not just run a bot. I skipped articles in the category that seemed to have sources. It's not my job to ADD sources. The COMMUNITY had 3 years to do that. I was just cleaning up a little. And now, many of the articles, once we imposed a bit of an actual deadline, have been sorted out. That's goodness. You need to rethink things a bit. ++Lar: t/c 02:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

First off being an unreferenced BLP last I checked was not a reason for deletion. Secondly {{prod}} is to check if something is uncontroversial to delete, this is clearly not the case. Finally the real issue seems to be Uni's insistence that he will re-prod any articles that the prod is removed from, and his flat out refusal to spend a mere 5 minutes checking if the article is salvagable. Arbcom does not dictate policy, only motions so unless consensus changes then neither should policy. Unless arbcom comes along and makes a motion that Uni is doing right I think we should just follow consensus. Chillum 02:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to check again. ANY unsourced material is subject to removal, and if nothing remains so is the article. ArbCom recently passed a motion validating this but it's not new news. ++Lar: t/c 04:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see editors systematically adding prods to blps as crusaders of any kind, a robot could do that, something worthwhile is adding a reference to an uncited article, a robot couldn't do that. Off2riorob (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

since the user has a criteria, it cannot - by definition - be indiscriminate. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was going to say. Hasty, perhaps, but not indiscriminate. -- Atama頭 02:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Off: "crusaders" Me either. Obligated to do something that's needed doing for 3 years? Not me. Try again. ++Lar: t/c 02:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I was able to add information and references to Hiroshi Abe (astronomer), Makio Akiyama, Akufen, Gianne Albertoni and Karl Alpiger. Joanna Ampil is not tagged anymore. Information is online regarding Theophilus Adeleke Akinyele, but it requires subscription access. Warrah (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's very simple. Arbcom, with a handful of admin allies like Lar, have decided to say "fuck you" to community processes. Like Lar, they are not interested in adding sources to articles. Some people get their kicks from destroying rather than creating, and it's pointless trying to change them because they've got the biggest sticks. DuncanHill (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm. you forgot to mention those who like to remain complacent... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope we can avoid too much meta-conversation about what the policy is and should be. What is clear is that the policy is disputed right now, and there is a question about mass edits (and potentially use of tools) to favor a change in the status quo. As far as the "three years" and "complacency" arguments there is an active WP:RFC/BLP going on, with almost unanimous agreement to work towards a defined date where there will be no more unreferenced BLPs, so it's simply not the case that nobody is doing anything about it. Other pages are for policy work. The concern here is editing that if carried out to a wider extent takes the decision away from the community. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

A genuine question

I read repeated references to "uncontroversial" statements that are not sourced not needing to be deleted; and I can't help but wonder how, exactly, one can possibly know whether a statement is uncontroversial without a source to back it up? For all you know, even a bare birthday can be both controversial and land someone in a mess, think longevity records, for instance, or current age where it has a legal impact? Birthplace? Obama anyone? "Afred J. Binks is the prime minister of Strangia". Uncontroversial? Or maybe it's "Alfred G. Binks", and J. is a serial murderer.

The fact is, without a reliable source, any statement is impossible to declare "uncontroversial". Notability has nothing to do with it. — Coren  04:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Coren, go and click the random article button. Keep clicking it until you find any non-trivial article where every single basic fact is traceable to an inline, immediately verifiable, obviously reliable, source, that makes that article, by your standards, 100% uncontroversial. I am guessing you will still be clicking by the middle of next week, and beyond, especially if you fixed each one as you went. If this is the true issue, prodding unreffed blps is not the solution, or even the start of a solution. MickMacNee (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Or even just flipping through FAs would be an interesting exercise. MickMacNee (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

More to the point, having a source doesn't make the statement any more reliable. Many of the best sources are behind paywalls, or in books. And lots of editors misrepresent sources, some intentionally, others through good faith misunderstanding. The only articles that are well sourced are the controversial ones, the ones in which you have two large groups of editors fighting tooth and nail over every source, what it means, and how much weight should be placed on it. Sourcing is one step. Having the article reviewed is another step. But it's all a continuum. And pretending that adding a source suddenly draws a bright line between acceptable and unacceptable is fallacious. Guettarda (talk) 06:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

MickMacNee, Coren would eventually come across Charles Fryatt . Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Every single fact in every single article should be supportable by the sources cited for that article, per WP:V and WP:RS (and by extension WP:NPOV). That does not mean that every sentence needs footnoting, if we have a couple of biographies cited then most of the background detail will come from them and does not need to be separately footnoted unless there is something unusual like a dispute, a fact only in one of several sources or a "WTF?" where the reader is likely to want to verify that specific statement. I do foresee a problem in those articles on individuals for whom Misplaced Pages is the first formal published biography and all the content is drawn from news reports and discussions of the individual's work. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to deduce my views on what should be done about subjects where we are the first to cover them in depth. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

As a point of order, I personally believe that most every fact should, ideally, be sourced and not just sourceable. That would generate quite a few footnotes to be sure. Until that happens I'd leave the burden on editors wanting sources to question in good faith whether an uncited claim may in fact be problematic, rather than saying we should delete 90%+ of the content in the project. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• The source of Coren's question may be found here in the Soxred edit history report on his contributions and here in his edit history. Coren has only 1339 mainspace edits, total, in his entire editing history. His most recent 500 article edits stretch back to December 2007, and since becoming an arbitrator in January 2009 he has made exactly 73 mainspace edits. That's an average of less than two article edits a week, including minor edits. Coren, the answer to your genuine question is firsthand experience. Spend five hours a week on the back end of new pages patrol and encounter the unreferenced soccer biographies that might be inaccurate but certainly aren't pejorative. And if you can't manage five hours a week from your busy arbitration schedule, take a leave of absence from arbitration. It is vital that arbitrators not fall out of touch. Durova 16:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I hadn't made the connection that this odd stamement was made by an arbcom member. Indeed it is reminiscent of the perhaps mythologized anecdotes of the American president baffled by the new technology at the grocery store or the Supreme Court justice who had ruled on the issue many times who was shocked upon having finally to deal with the American health care crisis when a hospital initially refused treatment because they could not find her insurance record. If "subject to challenge if someone chose to do so" or "possibly incorrect" were a standard for what makes something controversial, then the word itself lacks definition. Everything under the sun is controversial by that standard, and sourcing would not change that. Personally, I have no problem reading a sentence to assess whether the factual claims made are problematic. For the vast majority of sentences it's pretty clear whether they are controversial or not. For cases where it's not clear on the surface, that's why humans talk and why Misplaced Pages has talk pages. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing "Standard"

A very serious but mostly ignored matter is the sourcing "standard" being used by some proposing and performing mass deletions. For instance, we are informed that labelling an otherwise acceptable reference, supporting most of the article, under "Further reading" instead of "References" is a deletion-worthy flaw., that not fixing all categories and templates is equally cause for deletion/userification, and that the deleting admin is apparently the sole judge of what constitutes a reliable source, even though the source has a long history of debate at WP:RS/N with mixed results, sometimes yes, sometimes no..John Z (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Suck it up dude or don't edit here! Stewarts can do whatever they want these days, it's WP:IAR or WP:BLP or just WP:LAR... Pcap ping 09:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Stewards are reconfirmed every year. You could post your comment here. Ruslik_Zero 13:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That's an idea. But my point was more to show how remarkable and potentially destructive some proclaimed sourcing standards are. By the way, I am not the similarly named editor in these diffs.John Z (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

What exactly does my being a steward have to do with anything? Pcap especially seems to be way off in the weeds. ++Lar: t/c 04:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

My issue

I don't have an issue with Unitanode prodding unsourced BLP's - It's valuable work that he's doing. I do however have issue with him prodding articles and not notifying the original author - This is standard practice and simple good manners. Uni should take the extra minute to notify authors - they may even decide to source the articles. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've figured out a way to solve that problem, Ryan. Twinkle has an auto-notfiy function, which I'm taking advantage of in my work. Before this, I'd never used any of the gadgets, so thanks to Xeno for pointing out how Twinkle can be used in this regard. UnitAnode 21:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • As well as notification, it'd also be good if Unitanode learned how to do Google searches and add sources to articles, or is assessing notability and adding sources "someone else's problem?". Fences&Windows 21:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Gee, has anyone considered that maybe the author should source an article before posting it to live space? I know it sounds whacky, but some authors actually do it. Or do these authors just think that is "someone else's problem" too? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Just stop. I have a holding area for unsourced BLPs that I've worked on. If you wish to save them, look them up. If you wish to observe my skill at referencing articles I write myself, there's a list of them on my userpage. I'm under no obligation to do an article writer's research for him. UnitAnode 00:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I have to agree with Unitanode and Niteshift36 - the onus for references is on the editor who added them, not others to do it for them. Though of course, if you know the reference then it's good to add it in... - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 09:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
        • The onus for references is on everyone, and if you really cared about the encyclopedia, you would follow WP:BEFORE before prodding/AfD'ing. The editor who starts an article has no special status, there are no article owners. A wiki works by each one improving the work of each other, step by step. To argue otherwise is completely against the very basic concept of a wiki, every wiki, not only WP. --Cyclopia 13:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Well that's a nice philosophy, but not terribly realistic. What your summary boils down to is that it is everyones responsibility, but also nobodys responsibility. "Everyone" is supposed to do it, but when someone fails to do it when writing an article, who cares? Nobody says a word to the author, but they want to jump all over an editor that takes it on himself to follow the policy that any unsourced material in a BLP should be removed. If none of it is sourced, then no article should be there. And no, an author doesn't own the article. I didn't say any such thing. But they DO have a responsibility to source it. Just because you are willing to give them a pass and allow them to totally abdicate any responsibility for following policy doesn't mean all of us will. And while you're throwing around the "if you really care" line, consider that some might feel that caring is ridding the site of unsourced articles that can detract from the legitimacy of wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Cyclopia, carefully with the "you" comments. I've never even once PRODed an article. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 18:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we please encourage Unitanode to stop?

I've de-prodded several of Unitanode's recent nominations, which (after examination - I did not do this blindly) were bad in that they were not remotely deletable under current policy. Can we please encourage Unitanode to stop, and block find some way to restrain the editor temporarily to avoid further disruption to the project if they continue? This deliberate provocation has gone past making a WP:POINT and just seems to be ongoing trouble now. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I second this one. Cleaning up after Unitanode has gotten extremely tiring. Among the editors doing the mass-prodding, Unitanode is the only one so far who's so indiscriminate he might as well be a bot. If he were a bot, I'd have long since asked for an emergency block. Ray 15:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I must concur. I'm willing to make the assumption that the PRODs are being made in good faith, but being an unsourced BLP is not a criteria for deletion and many of these subjects are notable. slowing down on the PRODs and taking time to look for sources cannnot be a bad thing. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 16:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• I won't be stopping. BLP requires that these articles be reliably-sourced. If you're willing to look up and add the sources, do so. I'm doing it my way, you do it yours. But if "yours" includes deprodding unsourced BLPs without adding sources, I would recommend you stop, as that is far worse than any supposed (and imagined) disruption of which you seem to be accusing me. UnitAnode 21:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are asked to stop you will be stopping Unitanode. Prodego 21:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I won't be. UnitAnode 22:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This isnt a matter of "I can do things my way, you do things your way". Unitanode, this is a matter of you being overzealous and applying your own interpretation of our policies upon everyone's articles. It's one thing to have your own opinion about policy and how it should be implemented, it is another to actually implement your opinion on your own. It clearly seems the majority is against your interpretation. If something is notable it is notable, being poorly sourced doesnt make it non-notable; it is clearly stated in policy that creating or adding to an article without knowing our "way of doing things" or our "proper procedure" does NOT invalidate a contribution. What you are doing is in fact saying "do it our way or dont contribute". If you dont like there being poorly sourced/unsourced BLP's, then YOU find sources for them; do not PROD them JUST because they are unsourced even though they are notable. If its notable it stays. Oh, and per IAR, Jimbo, and the very penumbra of every single policy in Misplaced Pages- NO the BLP policies dont REQUIRE that anyone MUST do anything; consensus determines what we may or may not do in each individual case based on consensus reached through common sense, which in this case has decided you are wrong on your interpretation.Camelbinky (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything close to a "majority" against what I'm doing. And even if there were, say, a 55-60% majority against it, that doesn't mean I need to stop. We're supposed to improve the project, even if a "majority" of the participants at ANI think I'm wrong. UnitAnode 22:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

UnitAnode continues to PROD unreferenced BLPs indiscriminately (apparently operating in something close chronological order by date of creation) after the above discussion. I've wasted about half an hour cleaining up perhaps 1/3 of the mess by selectively de-prodding some that did not appear to be viable PROD nominations and doing some assorted sourcing and improvements. I do think it's time to do something at this point - failing that, or if anyone wants to edit war or wheel war, this will go to Arbcom because UnitAnode seems to make clear above that all requests to stop will be ignored. Arbcom, if you look at the new wheel war case request, is taking a dim view of further provocation and use of administrative tools now that there is an RfC in place. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

A wheel war would only occur if someone unblocks without consensus. If there's good reason to unblock consensus will form. Currently there are very strong indicators that a block would be preventative. The continued indiscriminate prodding is consuming other people's time to review. There's a historic precedent for the community taking action against an editor who systematically misuses prods and overwhelms the community's ability to correct inappropriate prods and provide references. Durova 00:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I mention that for the benefit of an involved administrator who has encouraged UnitAnode and who said they would unblock if UnitAnode were blocked over this, in case they missed Arbcom's latest pronouncements on the subject. Arbcom has said that grand gestures involving tools could quite possibly could lead to a loss of tools.- Wikidemon (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

A disruptive editor is an editor who rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.. Unitanode, this means you. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Eppstein, that was the quote I wanted to use but didnt know where to find it. It is probably one of the most important pieces of policy that should be spread around more often and listened to by those that think "policy says X so I can do X no matter what the rest of you think". Consensus of the community-at-large in any particular discussion trumps EVERYTHING WRITTEN DOWN. Think of us as one big giant US Supreme Court, ultimately it doesnt matter what words are specifically written down in the US Constitution and how its interpreted by any individual judge, the Constitution only "says" what the Supreme Court ultimately says it says. The Constitution says I have the freedom of speech, the Supreme Court says that doesnt apply to "yelling fire in a crowded movie theater". Same with this situation, policy may or may not encourage or "say" you must (or can) PROD every single BLP that has poor sources/unsourced; but we the community says "no you cant because its disruptive". I hope this was a good analogy.Camelbinky (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Unitasock, please, please stop. This edit removed valuable information about Bob Elliott a nationally famous actor for decades, and the information removed was stuff like "he wrote a book" and "he starred in this TV show", where the best possible sources are the book and the TV show. There is no way that is improving the project. For the love of whatever deity you follow, stop. --GRuban (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No sign of moderation Last bad PROD at 22:58, last refusal to stop 0:35. Editor is flatly disregarding warnings by administrators. It seems it will go on indefinitely absent a block. Can we get some indication whether anyone is willing to do that or whether this should go directly to Arbcon? - Wikidemon (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

And now thirteen deletion nominations for articles that had PROD tags removed, most with a deletion reason that accuses me of something. Could someone speedily close them all or just undo the nominations? Allowing them to run seven days will waste hours of editors' time each, and I don't want to have to defend myself or follow that many deletion discussions for clearly notable people. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I "accused" you of nothing. It was a simple statement of what had happened: you deprodded without any attempt to source them. It's a FACT, not an accusation. UnitAnode 02:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the situation and you know it. As I have said several times I selectively removed PROD nominations from articles that appear sourceable, verifiable, without any obvious BLP violations, and well-enough written that the material is usable. If you have a legitimate reason to claim in good faith that they are deletable under current policy you are free to nominate them for deletion, but that does not seem to be the case. Just so you know, you are upsetting me here. Per WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA please don't use your AfD nominations as a forum to take potshots like that against me. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Unitanode, even granting that every single thing you are doing is a positive contribution improving the encyclopedia, this can still be disruptive. Adding a million perfect articles about notable topics would be a great improvement, but not if done at a speed that would crash the servers. The volunteers here are no less a part of wikipedia than the computers it uses, and if one contributor's actions are exhausting many others' ability to keep up, it is time to stop.John Z (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Have any of you bothered to read my userpage, where I explain my rationale, including how I decide to add a PROD, other work I do on these articles, etc.? I've PRODed about 160 articles in four fucking days! How is that disruptive in any way?!? I've done other types of work, including quickly formatting references as well as other things, to 60 or 70 articles. That there are itchy trigger fingers trying to block me for this is a sign of just how much of a dramapit ANI has become. It's more than a bit pathetic. UnitAnode 02:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have read your rationale. Might I, respectfully, suggest try looking for sources before you tag an article though? As I said at the RfC, in an hour, I've sourced 7 BLPs, taken one to AfD and prodded 2. I've come across Tour de France champions, former head of government and Olympic medalists by hitting "random page in this category". It take a little longer, but it's more rewarding. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 02:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

(Mostly copied from talk page) I think the proof is the number of people who have asked you to slow down; a consensus or pretty near. The human servers are straining, and particularly about your edits. What you are doing could be OK and handleable in a normal context, but this is an extremely high load period. Every system dealing with such edits is extremely, unprecedentedly overloaded at the moment. In this context it makes good sense to start looking at the leading strains on the system first, even if they might not be enough to strain the system in normal times. I've seen people blocked in normal times for violating community norms about prodding who worked at a much slower rate than 160 in 4 days. You aren't working in a vacuum, but in a collaborative project.John Z (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleting unsourced or poorly sourced statements from BLPs is within policy. People need to internalize that. Deleting entire BLPs if they consist of nothing but unsourced or poorly sourced statements is within policy. People need to internalize that too. ArbCom gave a pretty clear ruling about this in the recent motion. Everyone who isn't clear should go review it. HOWEVER, in the interests of working to find a more optimal solution than mass deletion (even if that mass deletion is supported in policy, which it is), Unitanode is using PROD instead. Anyone who removes a PROD without sourcing the article acceptably, is, in my view, going against the spirit of policy, even if they think they have the letter of policy on their side. I suggest you not do that. Unitanode's (much milder than say, seeking a block, or starting an arbcom case, both of which are certainly within reason as valid responses) response has been to put the articles up for deletion instead. This is completely acceptable.

I'm seeing a disturbing pattern here of threats and harrassment of Unitanode. That needs to stop because it is completely unacceptable. If you see him making mistakes, point that out gently and kindly, but ... lead, follow, or get out of the way. "Can we please encourage Unitanode to stop?" says the section head... no... we should encourage him to continue and find ways to help him. ++Lar: t/c 02:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I personally think PRODing is disruptive if you dont go by the criteria and follow "good practice" suggestions like finding sources yourself before PROD. That's not the question here though. Alot of us think you need to simply stop prodding everything you see that has no sources. Having no sources is not a reason to delete; being non-notable is the only reason I can think of that is even remotely related to not being sourced, but you dont need any sources to tell you whether or not something is notable. An unsourced article about Albert Einstein would still be notable... because he is notable... its inherent to the subject, not to the sources to "prove" it to you or anyone else. If an article exists and you dont recognize its notable LOOK IT UP; if you dont find anything that shows its notable in your due diligence THEN you might want to PROD it or take the issue to the most relevant Wikiproject mentioned on the talk page, or see if you get a response from anyone who has worked on the article. Yes, it takes time and means you have work to do... Oh well. If it means that much to you to get rid of articles you'll do some work; if it isnt worth the work then maybe you shouldnt be deleting articles. The benefit of all this is to slow you down and hopefully make you realize yourself if an article truly needs to be deleted instead of you tagging everything you find and making others sort out the truth about notability. This isnt a case of Kill them all; let God sort them out, we dont have a deity here who can sort out your PRODs quickly and save the Worthy.

No, deleting articles solely on the basis of unsourced is not consistent with our general policy that it is not required that you know our policy or procedure and that notability is main determinate NOT quality. Quality is NEVER an issue for deletion.Camelbinky (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want him to stop, just go ahead and revert... I have just been lectured on the fact that this kinda bullshit is a perfectly valid PROD-removal. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

And he doesnt have the right to be doing things at a pace that overwhelms and creates undue work and stress on multiple users to "fix" his hasty decisions. The point is that a large group of editors has asked Unitanode to slow down, take a breath, and do some due diligence to relieve some pressure. Unitanode has shown contempt for this community request. This is plainly a violation of our policies as mentioned above.Camelbinky (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not "overwhelming" anyone. It's "annoying" some people who don't like it, and that's all. UnitAnode 03:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think it proper to assume good faith of the many above who have been trying to work collaboratively and say they are overwhelmed?John Z (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)like I said, go ahead and revert... you might wanna put "ahooha-oink, well-grown boink" in the edit-summary. Be creative, it's fun. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It is clearly disruptive to a fair few editors, to me it is the way it is being pushed in the way it is as if this is the best and only way to deal with it, there is a clear division running through the wiki as to how this should be dealt with, and , it is going to continue and get worse as it does, presently about three percent of them have moved off the list, some were mass deleted and some have been moved to incubation but if this is what is going to happen it is going to get worse and continue for many weeks and editors are going to be destroyed. Off2riorob (talk) 03:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, tough titty says the kitty, as the saying goes. AN emphasis has been placed on deleting unsourced BLPs rather than mealy-mouthing around with incubators, rescue squads, etc... ArbCom, Jimbo, a sprawling RfC, have all come down on getting rid of them. If I had more free time, I'd be doing it myself. Tarc (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus of the community trumps all in any particular discussion. Quite a large number have asked Unitanode to slow down and do some due diligence of his own. Therefore he needs to. Thats what this is about. Nothing else. Alot of people have asked something, a consensus was formed, and now he has to conform to it or face consequences. It doesnt matter what ArbCom has said about BLPs, IAR tells me I dont have to give a crap, ArbCom doesnt make our policies or make decisions for us that bind on us, consensus of the community in Misplaced Pages on an issue trumps EVERYTHING that comes before it regardless of what ArbCom has said in the past or present. My personal opinion on what he does- Unitanode adds no benefit to Misplaced Pages in what he is doing because deleting without doing any research is lazy and is throwing the actual work on others to decide if something is notable or add information. Unitanode should do some real editing and ADD information to articles and find sources for articles that have none. If an article has no sources then that's not a problem for Misplaced Pages, if it has information that is libel or false or the subject is not notable is a problem and then PROD or stronger is required. Quality is not an issue and never is. We are a work in progress. How about making it better and help in the progress instead of just deleting anything that doesnt fit your criteria of being "good enough"?Camelbinky (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, if you disagree, start mass-reverting. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Camelbinky, you are sadly mistaken if you think a two-bit AN/I thread full of bellyachers trumps what I noted earlier. Tarc (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And that's why Misplaced Pages is failing. "Consensus" is the bigest joke there is on this site. If Arbcom has said something regardeing BLP's then we need to at least keep it in mind. Should'nt common sense trump all other arguments?--Coldplay Expért 03:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• As Tarc points out, consensus doesn't trump BLP. UnitAnode 03:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Unitanode is restricted from prodding articles

Should include AfD as well given recent nominations of articles after PROD failed - Wikidemon (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Until the Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people is completed and firm rules are established, Unitanode is restricted from prodding articles.

Note: This nonsense will have to be supported by a block, as I don't plan on stopping the work I've been doing because Ikip and a few others don't like it. UnitAnode 04:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. This disruption has got to stop. Ikip 03:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per my above statement.--Coldplay Expért 03:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support. The failure to follow WP:BEFORE makes indiscriminate prodding disruptive. THF (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

  Do you know what "indiscriminate" means? What I'm doing is not even close to "indiscriminate." If you want some proof, simply go to my userpage, read my game plan, and click on the work I've already done. UnitAnode 04:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

  Also, WP:BEFORE isn't policy, it's advice about process. WP:BLP is, and trumps it. ++Lar: t/c 04:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support I would be satisfied if he just slowed down and paid attention to the amount of deletion activity going on, and said he would listen when other people say they are overwhelmed.John Z (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • THAT's not an unreasonable request, I'd support that. As long as the requests to throttle back from people actually doing the work and not just the "we can do whatever we want and screw BLP policy" crowd. ++Lar: t/c 04:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support unless someone finds a better solution per the discussion above and repeated unheeded requests on editor's talk page. We have a process under discussion to address the entire problem in an orderly fashion, and going it alone wastes a lot of people's productive time. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose although as soon as the better process moves from from "under discussion" to implemented, then I expect Unitanode will stop on his own, and switch to the better process. There are a half dozen good alternatives, I'm not fussy which, but meanwhile there is harm being done every day by unsourced BLPs and time's a wasting. Unitanode is doing something about it, bravo for him. Ikip is a timewaster, and something ought to be done about it. ++Lar: t/c 04:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Better to put an end to this without any further contentiousness. Durova 04:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Consensus elsewhere leans towards support of this user's actions, AN/I caterwauling notwithstanding. Tarc (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Guess I'll oppose, for obvious reasons having to do with BLP problems, and solving them rather than doing nothing. UnitAnode 04:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Opposed to this kind of restriction for an activity that improves the encyclopedia overall. The RFC looks to be heading toward something similar to this in any case. Kevin (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Object per Kevin. –Juliancolton |  04:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support Both WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE strongly advocate trying to actually solve a problem prior to declaring it unsolvable and proding or deleting. Schmidt, 04:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose for the simple reason that large numbers of people are doing the same thing and we've never ruled that simply listing something for deletion is improper. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support provided Unitanode doesn't promise to at least google the people whose biographies he wants to delete. Anybody proposing an article for deletion, at CSD, PROD, or AFD, has an elementary duty to check that the subject isn't, oh, the most famous expert in his field. Or a world leader. Or the most signficant pop star in half a continent. Expecting other people to clean up after the trail of destruction he's blazing is reckless, irresponsible, and extraordinarily rude. Ray 06:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ikip is restricted from working on biographies of living persons, except to add sources to them

• Support as proposer. The problem needs fixed, and Ikip is simply obstructing. UnitAnode 04:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• No diffs or discussion provided of any problematic activity, and a community topic ban would be an extraordinary remedy in any event. Unless it can be supported this proposal looks mean-spirited as a response to the above one, and seems to be pushing some boundaries. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - it's a start. (diffs can be provided if necessary, but if you NEED them, you're not very familiar with Ikip's brand of interaction) ++Lar: t/c 04:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I am indeed unfamiliar, which is why I qualified it with the "unless..." Is there an active discussion or process matter this springs from? - Wikidemon (talk) 05:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose? what in the word does this have to do with this conversation? If you are talking about my moving articles from main space to project space, unlike yourself Unitanode, I took criticism and suggestions to heart, and have completely stopped, here is what I said:
  "Of course. I appreciate and respect your concerns. I stopped yesterday and will not resume until a wikiproject agrees fully."
  I will NOT continue until there is consensus to continue. So you are creating this retribution section over something that is a non-issue. Also note my tone of cooperation compared to yours.
  Lar and I unfortunately do have a bad history together. Our first interaction was when Lar vigorously supported one editor calling another editor a troll. Ikip 04:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • " Our first interaction was when Lar vigorously supported one editor calling another editor a troll" - false characterization of what actually happened. I think one of us needs to start an RfC on the other because really, you're way out of line. As per usual; You are a significant disruption to the smooth operation of this wiki. ++Lar: t/c 04:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
    • (removed not the time nor the place) Ikip 05:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral diffs please?--Coldplay Expért 04:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Object, why? –Juliancolton |  04:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

  Becuase he's been nothing but obstructionist and antagonistic every step of the way. This battleground mentality was a nice example of the problem with Ikip's attitude, but it's by far not an isolated example. UnitAnode 05:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly object Attemmpts to quash opposition to controversial or perceived disruption is greatly unhelpful. Schmidt, 05:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Ikip's interactional style is confrontational and may merit a community response of some sort, but the main part of this discussion has not been to urge him to stop removing PRODs from articles. Several editors have specifically recommended mass removal of Unitanode's prods, and although that advice was of questionable value it was not sufficiently criticized when it was made to justify a sanction for following it. Durova 05:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Ikip has acted in good faith. Bidgee (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment, I have nothing to do with the issues discussed with this editor. There are no edit diffs provided, the BLP work complained about has stopped voluntarily, and probably will never proceed again. Therefore, can someone please close this? Ikip 05:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Technically I don't see Ikip actually editing any articles. He has been busy moving articles and creating tons of cross-space redirects to the Article Incubator (which could be interpreted as relating to BLPs) and other more general discussions about articles so I don't this proposal is effective. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose But I'm not sure about him having a bot to move articles, see Misplaced Pages:Bot requests#Bot to move articles from main space to Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator. Dougweller (talk) 06:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

An observation

The above ban proposals seem to have degenerated into yet another inclusionism vs. deletionism debate. This is not appropriate. –Juliancolton |  05:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

More like a warmed-over Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/JB196 with wider attention. Durova 06:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

MickMacNee

I frankly don't care what happens at the BLP RfC anymore but this surely can't be the sort of behaviour we accept around here. MickMacNee already has an appaling block log. I'm out of here, when I log out in a minute I won't be able to log back in, but I suggest you do something about this sort of thing because the only people that will eventually be left on this project if this is tolerated are people like MickMacNee. Is that really what you want? Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 04:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It's leaders 'lead', not 'leave'. MickMacNee (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

As will you, if you don't watch out. Go away. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 04:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: "Go away" oh the bitter irony. should we start a ANI thread about this too? Keep in mind the arbcom ruled this summer that the comment "go away" was one of three edit diffs prompting an editor to be officially warned. Ikip 00:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's more than ironic that all of this is going on during the Dramaout.  :) Woogee (talk) 05:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The Dramaout ended 6 hours, 19 minutes ago. --Jayron32 06:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

was going on. Woogee (talk) 06:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I would prefer to see MickMacNee strike out the blatant personal attacks there, calling another person "incompetant" and making allusions that they should be shot in the head is probably a tad bit "over the top" and by tad bit, I mean "absofuckinglutely over the top". That has to stop, now. I will not block, but I would not oppose or object should another admin see this as a gross personal attack. --Jayron32 06:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

MMN's harsh rhetoric shows no sign of stopping I for one considered his earlier statement that editors mentioned above completely inappropriate, and part of an ongoing pattern. I'm heading off to bed right now, so I am not going to block and head off, but I would support a block by an uninvolved administrator. NW (Talk) 06:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing this at a time earlier than 2:00 A.M local time, I can see that that post was not not at all a violation NPA. The rest of my comment still stands though. NW (Talk) 04:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Full quote:

"*The Foundation has Section 230 immunity. All this talk of lawsuits is tedious b.s., the phantom lawsuit that will bring down Misplaced Pages if Something Is Not Done has been 'around the corner' ever since I've been here. It is activist propoganda, nothing more, nothing less. The reason the policy actualy exists, is one of ethics, not law. There is a difference. Namely, what you might think is ethical, others might not. As for arbcom making policy, what are people smoking if they genuinely believed before this motion that it was either community or indeed admin consensus that the simple existence of material, whatever it said, was 'contentious' as regards the BLP policy, or that under any previously imaginable interpretation of IAR/admin discretion/aggressive enforcement, this brief episode of Total War of the cabal against the community, was justified, let alone excusable. The wording of the motion is a pure retcon of the actual events. Go and read the evidence if anyone doubts it." 06:25, 23 January 2010.

Ikip 00:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Vyvyan, what evidence are you seeing that I am not concerning a block log? There is nothing on there that indicates that he was ever blocked for doing something wrong. Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see anything imflamatory other than that of those two edits. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

_Ummm... this?? You don't see a pattern here? Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 08:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I was on the wrong page I guess. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I was the editor who warned MickMacNee about this edit diff originally. The full quote (including the added oppose) is:

"*Oppose Most 'leaders' usually deliver eventually, or finally figure out that they themselves are the problem and step down, or ultimately they get shot in the back of the head. Failure after failure, for five years? You are no leader, you're incompetent."

The bottom line is general comments at a vague group of editors is usually not actionable as a personal attack. I am not aware of any times myself.

I was concerned that he was talking about leader, Bearian, who commented directly above him. He was not. I will ask MickMacNee to strike the comment again. Ikip 00:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Harsh rhetoric, but certainly no worse than some of the comments made by the BLP-deletionistas about the community in genreal. I do worry about the mentality of editors who cannot cope with strong criticism and come running for blocks when someone criticises them. DuncanHill (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I also worry about the mentality and mental well-being in general of people who think that "Politicians talk, leaders act" warrants an indef block threat from Arthur Rubin (self-reverted in his defence but not retracted), trolling by Sandstein, trolling by Balloonman and references to physical violence by MickMacNee ("shot in the head", "bang, bang"). If this constitutes normal behaviour in your eyes then I pity you. I wasn't going to log back in but the failure to see a problem here was too much. That's the last you'll ever hear from me. I put up with the block threat and the trolling but not the physical violence remark. I will not put up with that and neither will any other sane person. If you continue to allow and reward the behaviour shown by MikMacNee you'll end up with nothing but people who're willing to put up with such behaviour. I ask again, is this really the sort of people you want to attract to this project? I sincerely hope not but I frankly don't care anymore. Goodbye. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 08:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

'Incompetent' is in no way a personal attack, but simply a judgement of leadership capability (in a venue specifically asking for opinions on said subject no less). The shot in the head part was out of line- and frankly a pretty immature comment. --M 02:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

StevenMario evading his indef block

StevenMario (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked on January 7 for disruptive editing relating to edit warring and constantly inserting unreferenced information into articles. Before his block, a previous investigation found that he frequently edited without logging in, always from IPs in the Atlanta area. StevenMario appears to be continuing this pattern, still editing from IPs from the same area and are editing the same articles with the same pattern that StevenMario followed. The 68.223.0.0/18 range has already been blocked by MuZemike, but today StevenMario returned on 68.219.194.174 - his latest forays have all been in the 68.219.x.x range... I'm afraid we may need a bigger block for this kid... MikeWazowski (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPI is that way - you'd need a formal checkuser done to confirm that they are the same user, and to determine if a second range block is necessary. As it is, the IPs you list here are too far apart to be blocked in one action (the most we can do is a /16 range, such as 12.12.*.*). Hersfold 04:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried that route already - CheckUser was declined with the " Looks like a duck to me" reasoning - it's obvious it's him... MikeWazowski (talk) 05:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say that too.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I blocked the ip, but I am not confident in my ability to correctly block the range. My technical skills... let's just say I try to know my limitations and respect them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You could always feed a list of IPs into a range block calculator, and just block that range using Special:Block. It's very simple :) NW (Talk) 22:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh... StevenMario returned today on IP 68.215.134.107 - for the record... MikeWazowski (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Killed it ... for 48 hours, anyway. Blueboy96 20:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

All of his efforts are wasted, as they are getting reverted. If he continues to play this game, it might occur to him, as was explained to one notorious vandal who I won't name due to WP:DENY, that there's only one of him and many of us, so his continual attempts to do this will ultimately be fruitless.

And if not, maybe I should send my cousin Vito to Marietta, GA, to "explain" a few things to little Stevie. >:) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick block, BlueBoy - that'll last until he jumps to another one... but I didn't revert everything he did, BaseballBugs, as he made one valid edit, at least - but the kid has a serious jones for adding either unreferenced material or his own opinions. Hopefully all the IP roach-stomping will finally get through to him... MikeWazowski (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, my name is StevenMario. I just want to let you know that I'll stop vandalizing. See here. 68.217.90.29 (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive edits going against community consensus

Edits by Harleytarantina (talk · contribs) continue to be highly disruptive on at least two articles. The user has already been blocked twice; once for sockpuppetry, and once for edit warring.

At Chase Meridian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), consensus was reached in April 2009 to convert the article to a redirect. Starting in Jan 2010, the user and two IPs (which share the identical same article interests as the user) have been edit warring over restoring the content, with no discussion on the talk page nor in the edit summaries.

At Joker (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the user has been edit warring over the insertion of original research (no reliable sources, based upon fan-created assumptions). This edit warring continues the earlier edit warring by two other user-IDs that were used by this user in the past: Krlzh (talk · contribs) and Paulita1292 (talk · contribs). This content has been discussed repeatedly at:

• Talk:Joker (comics)#Batman Forever (yet again)
• Talk:Joker (comics)/Archive 3#Jack Napier in Batman Forever
• Talk:Joker (comics)/Archive 3#Batman Forever.
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive580#IPs of blocked sockpuppet adding material against consensus on the Joker (comics) article
• User talk:Krlzh
• Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Krlzh/Archive

The user was most recently blocked on Jan 20th for edit warring, then returned today to restore the same exact content yet again, with no new discussion. The community has been more than patient, with multiple editors attempting to explain the issues to the user. But the user has shown no respect for community consensus - insisting that any attempts to remove the info is an attempt to hide what the user views as "the truth", despite the lack of reliable sources. What is needed to establish a topic ban for this user? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: the user has been notified of this discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's fairly easy to fix the problem with Chase Meridian. I've protected it with no protect time limit. The other one is less easy - I'll look into this a bit later. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 07:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, definitely looks like a problem on the Joker article. I've reverted that anon's edit as against consensus and I've semi-protected that page. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 07:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you check Mad Hatter (comics) too please, he keeps adding some unsourced crap there about Robin Williams. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael Guy and Legal Threats

• Michael Guy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 74.177.103.96 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

This BLP was nominated for deletion, and had a spamectomy, by me. An IP has persisted in restoring the apparent spam content, and has removed the AfD tag. Could somebody uninvolved please have a look and issue appropriate warnings. I received a phone call from somebody related to the content the IP was adding, per caller ID, but did not get any message from them. Something is going on here, and help from uninvolved administrators would be useful. Thank you. Jehochman 22:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman, spamectomy is the greatest word that I have heard all day. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Appears to have stopped. TNXMan 23:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I misunderstood the AfD tag it said 'keep' and i assumed it meant keep the article. Will pay more attention to the tag in the future. Sorry for the inconvience. User talk:74.177.103.96 —Preceding undated comment added 02:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC).

Hello IP editor. Either you or somebody claiming to be associated with Michael Guy has emailed me a very clear legal threat. (Copy available to any administrator who needs to verify.) If it is you, you'll need to retract that threat, or else you're going to be subject to a lengthy block per the no legal threats policy. It is not cool to try to cow another editor by threatening them with a lawsuit. I see that you've continued to engage in apparent self-promotion via Misplaced Pages. You've obviously got some interest and energy, which is great. But you need to work with other editors, not jump to assumptions of bad faith, as you appear to have done in that email. I'm not competing with you for any SEO account, and I found your article because it popped up in Category:Search engine optimization consultants, a page that I occasionally patrol. The deletion discussion looks like the musical content will be merged into the band article, and the SEO stuff will be removed because it's not sufficiently notable for a Misplaced Pages article. I have more than 25,000 edits, have pretty much seen every tactic that you could ever imagine, and am impervious to any threats. Why don't you just relax and learn how things work here, rather than getting steamed about our normal processes for managing articles. Jehochman 13:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not associated with any emails sent about the article. I have worked to improve it according to wiki standards. --74.177.103.96 (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then I'll assume the legal threat was sent by an imposter, possibly a banned editor looking to stir up trouble. The deletion discussion will sort out what content goes where. Jehochman 13:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have created my account so that I am differentiated from the other editor. I am really trying to improve the article but it seems that there are a few references that i need help citing can anyone please take a look and tell me why certain ones are duplicating? Just so that it is clear IP edits by 74.177.103.96 are mine --Magicus69 (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to help you. Leave any questions on my talk page. Also, please merge your comments with that IP's comments on the AfD page so that you are not accused of sock puppetry. One editor, one vote, is the rule. Best regards, Jehochman 14:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

POV edits at Adolf Hitler's 50th Birthday

See this and other edits of Professional Assassin (talk · contribs) at Adolf Hitler's 50th Birthday. I have just voted "keep" at the related AfD, but the article needs to be free of POV and hagiography. The editor should be warned, and be blocked if he continues this kind of editing, by someone who is not involved in discussion of the content and the AfD.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see this section when I posted the section on gas chamber a few threads down. They're related. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It is becoming very hard to see Professional Assassin as anything but aan agresive and dismisive POV editor.Slatersteven (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

He's been indef'd. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved – disruptive user indef'd

I recommend you two stop going at each other on this noticeboard, and let others look into the situation. You aren't going to solve anything by both continuing to argue and argue your case here, but you might both be blocked, so I suggest you take a step back and let others look in a judge for themselves.— Dædαlus 00:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved – Article protected for one week by User:Beeblebrox — Gavia immer (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. History2007 (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved – User blocked 5 days and warned against continuing incivility. AniMate 22:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved – In Soviet Russia, Amerikan high sckool artickles vandalize YOU!! –MuZemike 05:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards