Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 22:17, 1 November 2010 (→WP:POINT and topic bans.: unblocking). 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)

• Prohibiting the creation of new "T:" pseudo-namespace redirects
• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Tendentious editing by JPMcGrath on Gun laws in the United States (by state)

This is an issue that has gone on for months, the most recent events are chronicled at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#Brady_scorecard.2C_maps:_saga_continues, where there are also links to previous threads on the same topic. The issue was decided by consensus months ago, and suddenly JPMcGrath appears again claiming "There has been no rebuttal; rather obfuscation, obstruction, and dissembling" to his arguments, despite being given links to more than 30,000 words of discussion, as Mudwater demonstrated. He has been warned, has been treated respectfully and politely by both myself and Digiphi, but continues to push this POV. His arguments have not changed, yet he continues to add this content against consensus. At this time his actions merit "disruptive editing", and I'm asking for a topic ban on this. Rapier (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I read through the talk page and had a good look at the article history. It is clear that JPMcGrath is trying to edit against local consensus. His language and approach might be a low level of tendentious editing, but it's mostly a content dispute. I will warn him to cease edit warring at the risk of being blocked. I saw no 3RR violations. Basket of Puppies 00:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

What I am seeing is tedentious editing on both sides of a "no consensus" poll on the talk page.

The response to a "no consensus" is not to go edit war over it on the article itself. It's to go back and try again to find an option that everyone agrees to.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly that is preferred. That is why, when Mudwater repeatedly removed the maps in July, I decided to avoid edit warring and try to discuss it with him. However, he evaded my questions about his justification for removing it, and when he finally stopped replying to my posts at all, that is when I restored the maps.

Throughout these discussions, I have tried to engage those who oppose the map, and have made changes to try to accomodate their concerns. I changed the captions on the map to address their objections and SaltyBoatr made a change to them as well. When Hoplophile suggested the OpenCarry.org maps to balance the Brady map, I created those and added them. When Mudwater suggested adding a concealed carry map (although he later denied doing so, then admitted he had), I created and added the NRA/ILA map. I continue to be open to any other suggestions.

In response, there has been not a single suggestion for a solution or compromise. Inexplicably, Mudwater even argued that it was a good thing that the article was "all trees and no forest"; i.e. that it had no summary information. While I cannot be certain what is in his or others' minds, it seems to me that the real issue is an extreme dislike of the Brady Campaign and that the only acceptable solution to them is the removal of the Brady map.

It should be clear that I have made a good faith effort to discuss the disagreement and to try to reach a consensus. I am sure I could have done things better, but I am not sure how at this time.

— JPMcGrath (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

——————————

I had hoped for a reply to this, but I suppose I should have asked my question directly, so here it is: How do you (or any admin) think I should have responded to Mudwater's edit warring? — JPMcGrath (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

——————————

I really would appreciate a reply to this. — JPMcGrath (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Finding an option that everyone agrees on may not be possible in this case. The discussion has gone on for more than seven months and now exceeds 30,000 words (yes, really). Many of the editors who have participated in the discussion have agreed that adding the Brady Campaign State Scorecard map to this article would violate NPOV by pushing a particular political agenda and by providing a soapbox for an advocacy group. Some have also stated that the map does not accurately assess the restrictiveness of the different states' gun laws. Others have suggested that the map might be appropriate for a different article -- for example, Political arguments of gun politics in the United States, or Brady Campaign, which currently does include the map -- but not this article, which simply describes the gun laws of the 50 states in as neutral and unbiased a manner as possible. At this point somewhat more than half of the editors have agreed on this, with a sizable minority not agreeing and saying that adding the map would be okay. Still others have floated the idea of balancing the map by also including another map that supports an opposing view, but there does not appear to be such a balancing map. Anyway, the article without the maps has achieved a very neutral point of view by simply presenting the facts of the laws, which are the subject of this particular article, without adding opinions of any kind. As I said, many editors have agreed that not adding the map is the best course of action. But editor JPMcGrath has refused to accept this and keeps adding it back. This is indeed contentious editing, as it has the effect of disrupting the article for the apparent purpose of advocating a particular political point of view. Here are links to the various discussions that have already occurred:

• Archived discussions:
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Archive 1#2009 Brady Campaign State Scorecard
  • Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 12#Gun laws in the United States (by state)
  • Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive603#User:Niteshift36 disruption at Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)
  • Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Rejected/45#Gun laws in the United States (by state)
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Archive 1#Brady and other maps
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Archive 2#RfC: Should the Brady map be removed or retained?
• Discussions currently on the article talk page:
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Proposed removal of all maps
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Brady scorecard and other maps, continued
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Brady scorecard, maps: saga continues

— Mudwater 00:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, adding the "Brady scorecard" to a state would be analogous to adding the NRA scorecard on a candidate (or anyone else's scorecard, for that matter) to a candidate's Misplaced Pages article. Having said that, YESPOV is indeed part of NPOV. The main point, though, is that editors must work in good faith to pursue consensus on how to present contentious topics. Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree completely. While this isn't the place to argue content, I'll simply clarify that buried in those arguments is the point made by myself and others that an NRA map would be just as inappropriate. We aren't trying to push one point of view or the other, we're trying to remove all point of view and simply list the laws in an encyclopedic manner. When third-party analysis of raw data get interjected that is when POV problems occur, and as Mudwater stated above, there are already articles discussing the political debate about gun laws. The maps are included there and continuing to add them here despite clear consensus is the problem. Rapier (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a new clear consensus on that point. What I see is several editors who were on one side of the July "Remove all maps or not?" discussion - which an apparently uninvolved admin closed as "No consensus" - continuing the discussion and asserting now that you have consensus, without the participation of most of the other side.

Nothing in the new discussions invalidates the July discussion. No effort was made to revisit it with another clear poll / RFC. It seems like some previously active editors are less active now, but that doesn't invalidate their participation in the last clear poll / RFC type discussion.

ANI is not a replacement for going back to the page and holding another RFC. If those other editors are gone and it's a new consensus that's fine. But this is not the place - and attacking the lead map proponent for disruption is not the right approach - to solve the no consensus problem. Do it right, on the article. Get a consensus. If it's still "No consensus" then accept that. If it goes your way this time, with whoever shows up to bother to participate, then he will need to accept that as well. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

We've had seven months and more than 30,000 words of discussion, including a Request For Comment, a posting on the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, and a Request For Mediation. A majority of editors -- including myself -- feel very strongly that adding the Brady Scorecard map is an egregious violation of NPOV, and also distorts the facts, while other editors don't agree and think that adding the map would be okay. It seems to me that if many of the participants agree that the map would be a major NPOV violation, and pushes a one-sided political agenda, that trumps other editors saying that it would enhance the article slightly by providing an attractive graphic of summary information. Also, part of why JPMcGrath's editing is tendentious is that he keeps saying that editors such as myself have not explained why adding the map would violate NPOV, when in fact we've just spent the last seven months explaining it, over and over and from many different perspectives. There's a difference between "you've explained the reasoning behind your opinions at great length and in many different ways, but I still don't agree," and "you haven't explained the reasoning behind your opinions," but the difference seems to elude JPMcGrath. So, I find it hard to believe that prolonging the discussion any further would have much benefit at this point. — Mudwater 11:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Good grief, that debate is still going on? As I recall, the main issue with that map is that it presupposes certain things and gives a value judgment as to each state's attitude toward gun control. The problem is whether that map presents an unbiased assessment. Since they themselves are its authors, obviously they are going to judge which parameters to be used. Now, if you had a similar map from the point of view of the NRA, those two maps would be interesting for the reader to compare, and see if they "agree" on each states' attitude toward gun control, even though the groups are obviously on opposite sides of the issue. That is, the NRA might consider a restrictive state to be a "bad" state, and the Brady bunch might consider it to be a "good" state - but it's possible they might rank the states the same way, just flip-flopped in order. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, this isn't the forum for content dispute, but to clarify the argument is that all maps offer up a POV that is inappropriate in an encyclopedic listing of state laws, not that the "Brady" map alone should be removed. Let's please be clear on the prime mover is, and not allow this to become an issue directed at a single point. Rapier (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that a map like that could be useful, IF it were verifiable and not pushing a viewpoint. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It may well be useful in the context that Bugs describes, but it's simply not acceptable to keep readding it as it's been done here. There needs to be the wider context that Bugs is talking about if there's any chance for this kind of advocacy ranking to be relevant in a general state article. Shadowjams (talk) 08:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I've un-archived this thread to allow for further discussion, per User talk:JPMcGrath#Warning. — Mudwater 20:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I will post my response as soon as I can get it together. — JPMcGrath (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Response by JPMcGrath

First, I should point out that several of the statements made by SeanNovack are inaccurate:

• He says that "the issue was decided by consensus months ago", which is untrue. That there has never been a consensus is made clear by the RfC here, and by Mudwater's multiple statements that "about half" of the editors agree with him.
• His "suddenly JPMcGrath appears again claiming" comment appears to suggest that my attempt to get others to address the justification for their WP:NPOV claim was something new. In fact, I had been trying to get them to address this question from the beginning.
• His suggestion that the fact that there had been "more than 30,000 words of discussion" means that my questions about the justification for removing the maps had been answered is nonsense. That there was a great deal of discussion does not in any way suggest that the discussion contained an answer, and the unwillingness of participants to point to an answer strongly suggests that it is not there.

That said, I spent some time writing a response that went into this conflict in great detail, but then realized that rehashing all of the details of the disagreement would be tedious, not on point, and would ignore the central point of this discussion, which is the accusation of tendentious editing. According to WP:Tendentious editing

Tendentious editing is editing with a sustained bias, or with a clear viewpoint contrary to neutral point of view."

I have clearly stated that I believe the article badly needs summary material, so that the reader can get a feel for the overall state of gun laws in the United States; as I put it at the outset of this conflict, the article is "all trees and no forest". The maps are intended to ameliorate that problem.

I do not believe that in any way fits the definition of tendentious editing, so I would like my accuser, SeanNovack, to explain what is it in my editing that qualifies as either sustained bias or a a clear viewpoint contrary to neutral point of view? What exactly is the bias or viewpoint?

— JPMcGrath (talk) 07:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The point is that you are the only one that feels that summary information is necessary. Others feel it 'may be helpful', and the rest of us are saying that summary information is inheriently biased by the person doing the summary and has no place in this article that is supposed to be an encyclopedic listing of gun laws by state. The summaries exist in other articles, they simply have no place in this one. Rapier (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Once again JPMcGrath is saying that other editors have not stated any justification for the position that the Brady Scorecard map violates NPOV, and distorts the facts, and so should not be included in the article. I would encourage anyone reading this to click through the links I posted above, and look at some of the previous discussions, and see whether or not there are in fact very extensive postings on exactly that topic. Also, the term "tendentious editing" definitely applies, because JPMcGrath is ignoring what many other editors have said, and is continuing to add the map, which is very biased and advocates for a particular political position. — Mudwater 00:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Mudwater: No, I was not claiming that you have not stated any justification; you have come up with several reasons. For example, you have said that you do not believe the Brady assessment is accurate, although when asked, you did not point to any reliable sources that said this. You have also claimed that including information from the Brady Campaign provides a "soapbox" for them, yet you have no objection to information from, for example, the NRA.

However, none of the reasons you provided are related to WP:NPOV. I asked you to point to the language in WP:NPOV that it violates and you would not do so. I asked you how you came to the conclusion that your objections violate WP:NPOV and you claimed that you had done so previously. I asked you to point to your purported answer and you posted links to all of the discussion that had occurred on this subject. In short, you obfuscated and obstructed.

In fact, you have never addressed the question of why it violates WP:NPOV. You have simply stated reasons that you don't like it and claimed that it violated WP:NPOV. The fact that you disagree with their assessment, or that you don't like the Brady Campaign does not mean it violates WP:NPOV.

— JPMcGrath (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sean: First, I should note that, like your claims of a consensus, your assertion that I am the only one who feels it is necessary is just a fabrication. None of the RfCs have made that distinction and you have no basis to make that claim.

But that ignores the point I was making. Tendentious editing is about being "partisan, biased or skewed", and believing that summary is appropriate clearly does not fit that. If that is the basis for your tendentious editing claim, it falls flat.

— JPMcGrath (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've left this alone, but it's the same old story. A number of editors see it one way. JPMcGrath and generally one other editor see it another and when they agree with each other, they call it a consensus. If you fail to agree with them, you're just bias/partisan/POV warrior/etc. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I confess that I am somewhat perplexed and perhaps even a little bit amused. I did not say there was a consensus; rather it was SeanNovack and Mudwater. And I did not accuse anyone of bias; SeanNovack accused me of bias when he said that I had engaged in tendentious editing. So your comment appears to be a rather stinging indictment of SeanNovack and Mudwater. I would not expect that from you, so I am confused. Would you please explain what you meant? — JPMcGrath (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

JPMcGrath, you just said, "In fact, you have never addressed the question of why violates WP:NPOV. " Here are a few selected diffs where I've done exactly that: Those are just a small selection, all of them taken from the first of the nine discussions that I linked to above. There's plenty more where that came from, and tons more from other editors as well. — Mudwater 00:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you have given your opinion over and over again that the Brady Campaign scorecard is biased, and you have claimed that it therefore violates WP:NPOV. What you have not done, even though you have been asked to do so over and over again, is to show that WP:NPOV says material that is biased should not be included.

As I have pointed out to you, WP:NPOV does not say that. In fact, it explicitly says that the article should represent "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". It also contains a section titled "Attributing and specifying biased statements". It clearly does not proscribe inclusion of bias; it explicity calls for it.

— JPMcGrath (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Your statement that I've never addressed the question of why the map violates NPOV -- which you've made many times -- is patently false, as the various links and diffs that I've posted clearly show. You don't agree with what I've said on that subject, but that's an entirely different thing. — Mudwater 03:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You have not addressed the question; what you said about it is nonsense. It would be no different than if you said it violates WP:NPOV because you were eating cornflakes when it was posted. If your claim is not related to what WP:NPOV says, then it is just gibberish. It no more addresses the question than if you were to recite Jabberwocky. — JPMcGrath (talk) 06:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion of the Brady scorecard map has now lasted almost eight months, and includes multiple talk page sections, a Request For Comment, a posting on the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, a Request For Mediation, and two postings on the Administrators' Noticeboard, including this one. We've now had more than 34,000 words of discussion. It would seem that you're willing to keep arguing indefinitely. However, we're long past the point of diminishing returns in this discussion. Many editors have agreed that the map should not be added to the article. That, I think, is the bottom line. — Mudwater 12:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I have been patient, but I think that is a virtue rather than a vice, although I can understand why someone engaged in a filibuster might not be happy with it. Perhaps I am overly optimistic, but I am still hopeful that you will realize that your unwillingness to answer a simple question about your basis for removal of the map reflects badly on you.

For the convenience of you and others, I will ask the question again:

Since you have concluded that the Brady map map violates WP:NPOV, but you appear not to have based that on anything in the text of the NPOV policy, exactly how did you reach the conclusion that your objections to it constitute a violation of NPOV?

If you want others to accept your conclusion. it seems to me you should be willing to explain how you reached it. Wou;d you please answer it?

— JPMcGrath (talk) 11:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you telling me there's really nothing in the many discussions linked above which explains why people oppose this map? From what I can tell from a quick glance the issue is all maps not this one in particular. Nil Einne (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Nil. You are exactly correct. McGrath disagrees with and doesn't accept the reasoning people have given, so he's claiming his question remains unanswered. People have gotten sick of trying to explain it too him, and yes, it is all summary maps that are inappropriate. The NRA and Brady maps have the added issue of soapboxing and advertising for those organizations in addition to the WP:NPOV issues. Rapier (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

——————————

No, not at all. They have given many reasons that they oppose the maps, such as their belief that the map is biased. However, they claim that the map violates WP:NPOV, but they have not ever explained why that is. I have pointed out language in NPOV that indicates that all significant points of view should be included and they have not shown anything in NPOV that suggests it should be excluded.

As for the Brady/all issue, the Brady map was the first one to be added and it was opposed by several editors. Then, the OpenCarry maps were added at the suggestion of Hoplophile in order to balance the Brady maps. At the time, Mudwater argued that the OpenCarry.org maps should be retained, but the Brady map should be excluded and he actually suggested adding the NRA/ILA. I found it interesting that he opposed the Brady map, but supported all maps based on data from pro-gun groups. He later changed his position.

Others have argued consistently against all maps, suggesting that anything from an advocacy group should be excluded. However, none have explained why it is OK that those same (pro-gun) advocacy groups are cited as sources dozens of times in the article. While I cannot truly know what they are thinking, it seems to me that the real opposition is to the Brady map.

— JPMcGrath (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that you keep saying that other editors have not explained their reasoning, when in fact we have explained it, at very great length. You've been doing that since the very beginning of this debate, and after eight months and 34,000 words, yes, we're quite tired of your claims to the contrary, and it seems pointless to try to convince you any more. Another example of this is that you just said "none have explained why it is OK that those same (pro-gun) advocacy groups are cited as sources dozens of times in the article." That's another aspect of this discussion, or more accurately a distraction from it, that has in fact been explained at length. One of the diffs I posted above is an example, and here it is again. That diff also includes a pretty decent summary of why the Brady map violates NPOV. Furthermore, your recent posts summarizing the history of the discussion are not completely accurate. But that's not important now. What is important is that, after an initial period of some back and forth discussion, many editors, including myself, have come to the conclusion that none of the maps should be added to the article. The Brady state scorecard map is merely the worst offender. The biased opinions of pro-gun control groups like the Brady Campaign and pro-gun rights groups like the NRA should all be left out of the article. To repeat, the bottom line is that many editors have agreed on this, so putting the map or maps back in at this point is both disruptive and tendentious. — Mudwater 01:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

This debate needs to ultimately end up on the appropriate talk page, but practically we all know it will end up at RfC. I find Mudwater's conclusion compelling, especially after reviewing a lot of the above. Shadowjams (talk) 09:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

British Isles disputants

Entire section has been moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/BISE/October 2010 to centralize discussion and to save space on the ANI page.Please do not timestamp until this reaches the top of the page. –MuZemike

Problem on BLP noticeboard

Entire section has been moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Problem on BLP noticeboard to centralize discussion and to save space on the ANI page.Please do not add a timestamp until this reaches the top of this page. –MuZemike

DYK, plagiarism, the main page, reliable sources …

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page

Conversation regarding concerns of frequent and egregious copyright and plagiarism issues featured on the main page has been moved. The conversation is both general and specific in incidents and, at this moment (12:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)), includes concerns about today's "featured article". Moonriddengirl

User:TigreTiger blocked as a sockpuppet

I seem to recall this sort of strange, idiosyncratic and rapid-fire redirecting from the puppetmaster some time ago. I blocked him for edit warring, he cut loose with this bizarre, anti-American rant and I lowered the boom on him. Would someone with Twinkle please revert this user's edits and redirects? Back to my wikibreak, or so I dearly hope. Thanks, all. PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• He performed a shitload of page moves, too. I undid one, but because he edited the pages afterwards, the easy revert links aren't showing up.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
• What a mess! We now have, for examples, Rimachi Lake and Rimachi Lake (2) which used to be Lago Rimachi and Lake Rimachi. Clearly that wasn't improvement upon what was there before. Uncle G (talk) 12:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • They are the same man! Please merge! TTsecondary (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
• I've been going through using a "rollback all" script. I'm doing anout 30 at a time so FireFox doesn't crash. Access Denied (400: Bad Request) 15:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Take care with that, see below.

  Thank you; he was creating massive amounts of one-sentence, unreferenced stubs on Portuguese towns a few days ago, and I had to break out an atlas to verify these places even existed. Although mass-creation of these isn't in and of itself a problem, doing it with no references was very disruptive. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

  At User:TigreTiger you didn't call em "very disruptive", not even "disruptive". And on that talk page, some users pointed out that it is fine to have stubs on towns. TTsecondary (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

  Well, at the time I thought you were actually a new user, and I was trying to be encouraging; however, you're almost certainly not, in which case you should know better. It's disruptive when you create a shitload of unreferenced, one sentence sub-stubs, and it's almost worse when you do that on subjects that are inherently notable, because they're harder to delete and we have to be sure they aren't hoaxes. I had to get out an atlas and verify the existence of every single one of those towns, because there were no references for any of them. Fortunately for you I love geography, and I have the patience to do that; most people would have gotten extremely frustrated very quickly. But because I thought you were a new user, I cut you some slack; understand the attitude shift? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

  Are you judging based on contribution or on whether OTHER people tell you TigreTiger=Schwyz? If TigreTiger=Schwyz what does that make the contributions worse? Why don't you check List of towns of Portugal? You seem to not have a problem with that one. Sorry I don't understand the usefulness of the attitude shift to improve Misplaced Pages. TTtertiary (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

  No, I'm judging based on the incredibly loud quacking I'm hearing, now that I compare TigreTiger's and Schwyz's contributions. If you don't understand why I say what I'm saying, I'd have to seriously question your competence level. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

  In this case, should the master account Schwyz, be blocked? He claims to have left the project, but I see on his block log he was already blocked once, for sockpuppeteering, back in August. Seth Kellerman (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

  The SPI Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Schwyz reveals that he socked once during his block, but he's off his block for 2 months now, so I don't see how he can be blocked for "block evasion" at present. This looks like a technical mistake that needs to be corrected, as you indicate. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

  It does not. Only one person decided that User:TakakaCounty = User:Schwyz. But even if run by the same person, Schwyz was abandoned before. TTsecondary (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

  Actually, he was blocked for abusing multiple accounts, but again, his main account's block expired a week later. Typically a sockmaster would be blocked indefinitely, regardless of his claim that he has "retired". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

  Where was the abuse BY User:Schwyz? TTsecondary (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

  Now blocked indef. He hadn't edited since 30 August, but Bugs is right that the sockmaster account should be blocked until the user addresses the socking issue. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

  He did not edit since 13 August, see ] - and he was never blocked during his active time. TTsecondary (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Note from TTsecondary

Ip Trolls (again) at List of books portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors

The quran is a non-fiction book portraying pedophilia the IP says (two ips, presumably the same asshole behind them). suggest long semi-protection of the article. Bali ultimate (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Etc... . Semi the talk page too. (In case anyone is wondering, there are no "portrayals of paedophilia or sexual abuse of children in the Koran.")Bali ultimate (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree that for them to add it to the article is inappropriate in the face of clear disagreement, but the next thing to do in that case is take it to the talk page. You continuing to remove their doing so, rather than engaging with them and stating why you disagree, is just encouraging an edit war. You can't remove talk page comments just because you strongly disagree with them—if they're dead wrong, that'll be clearly reflected in the resulting discussion anyway. Seraphimblade 17:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I won't debate with some IP (probably a banned user) who's here to use binary articles like this to spread hate. I suppose we could include the Old Testament as another such book for "balance." Put down the wiki koolaid and be practical. Sheesh.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

If you think they're a sock of a banned user, sockpuppet investigation requests are thataway. But when you disagree with an edit enough to revert it, even when you strongly disagree, and the editor who made it asks to discuss it on the talk page, that's a reasonable request. You're not required to participate in that discussion, but reverting even the request to discuss it is not appropriate. That is the appropriate next step if your edit is disputed and reverted—take it to talk. And as to the edit conflict addition, I don't even like Kool Aid. Seraphimblade 17:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Bali here (for what it's worth). reasoned discussion is one thing, but the 'mohammed->pedophilia' thing has proven to be such an extremely fossilized polemic that anyone espousing it can safely be assumed to be immune to normal discursive practices. err... or in English: no one makes that claim if they've thought about it even a little bit, so people who do make that claim aren't interested in thinking about it. wp:AGF is a good thing, but it doesn't mean we give the benefit of the doubt to someone who walks into the room wearing cock-fighting spurs. --Ludwigs2 18:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

←This page is a real problem—in scope, in potential for vandalism and bias, in referencing, and (until recently) in its plethora of "abstracts" that seemed to be for titillation rather than information or education. It's buying into a pack of troubles putting the Koran on there; that would open the door to a much wider scope in a tit-for-tat. And there are the cultural sensitivities to think about, too. Semi-protection would be good if this goes on. Note that the page narrowly survived another RfD recently. Tony (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

What a dreadful article.--Scott Mac 03:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

well, maybe it's time to put it up for deletion. some of the included items are bizarre (Nausea has pedophiliac moments? not that I remember... Clockwork Orange features someone younger than 18 as the main character who has sex, but that hardly qualifies as pedophilia...). and technically speaking Romeo and Juliet belongs on the list - I think most scholars put Juliet at 12-14 years of age. I'll list it, and we can have the discussion anyway. --Ludwigs2 03:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

"This article presents a list of books in which an adult character feels a sexual attraction to or sexually abuses a person under the age of 18". This is nonsense for a start, as a definition of 'paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors' Firstly, 'feeling an attraction' isn't abusive, and secondly 'the age of 18' is hardly an universally-recognised age of consent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

While I agree the definition is poor, I don't really understand your first point. According to the title, the list isn't solely about sexual abuse. It's about paedophilia and sexual abuse of minors. Are you perhaps confusing the common media concept of a paedophile (someone who abuses children) with the psychiatric disorder? I presume the list is intended to deal with the latter since otherwise it's a list of books potraying the sexual abuse minors and the sexual abuse children which doesn't make much sense. Nil Einne (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of books portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors was closed as no consensus. Corvus cornix_talk 05:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Kudpung99 removing content w/out explanation

Kudpung99 (talk · contribs)

User:Kudpung99 created his/her account on October 21, 2010. Since that time, s/he has made scores of edits to various wikiarticles relating to various concert venues, mainly in North America. There are two issues for which I seek guidance:

1. I am surprised that the system permitted the creation of this account since there already exits User:Kudpung. It would have seemed to have violated WP:U, especially as that policy relates to similar usernames. I would have thought that to create this account, a request would have had to have been made at WP:ACC. Moreover, User:Kudpung has had to disassociate himself from this new account by placing a notice at the top of his userpage indicating that this new account is not a sock of User:Kudpung, nor connected in any other way.
2. As mentioned above, User:Kudpung99 has made scores of edits to wikiarticles relating to concert venues. Many of them remove significant tracts of content without explanation. S/he has been warned about this (see here). S/he blanked the page of that warning, which, as per WP:OWNTALK, one may construe to mean that the notice has been read and understood by the user. A week later, s/he was gently warned to use edit summaries (see here), and again blanked the page. Tonight, s/he was, again, specifically warned about removing content from pages without explaining the deletion (see here). While s/he has not edited since that warning, perhaps having signed off for the night, nonetheless I have, so far, reverted 15 of these content deletions (see here), with scores more of his/her contribs still to review.

In summary, s/he does not respond to postings to his/her talk page and will not use edit summaries explaining the deletions of large tracts of content from wikiarticles relating to concert venues. Suggestions? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 07:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• This user's editing patterns look suspiciously like those of now-blocked Shyguy1991 (talk · contribs). It may be worth opening a sockpuppet investigation. - Eureka Lott 08:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• • Good eye.  Confirmed, blocked, and tagged.  IP blocked. –MuZemike 18:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Doncha just hate edit conflicts! I just wrote this detailed update, only to discover that it wasn’t necessary … nor is it necessary for me to file at WP:SPI. Thanks EurekaLott and MuZemike! — SpikeToronto 18:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Over the next few days, I’ll go through all of his contribs and revert, where necessary. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 18:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Continued tendentious editing by User:Communicat despite warnings and blocks

Communicat (talk · contribs) has a long history of tendentious editing which is forming a significant barrier to progressing articles. Admin User:Georgewilliamherbert has previously looked into this in August and gave Communicat a stern warning on 25 August for 'fringe POV-pushing' (see also Talk:World War II/Archive 41#Communicat and fringe-POV pushing and the subsequent discussion) which was followed by two blocks for uncivil comments over the next few weeks. In short, Communicat has a tendency to want to add information which is not correct in articles (even when the sources they provide demonstrate this to be wrong) and is pushing a fringe source which has repeatedly been found to be unreliable and is edit warring when other editors try to remove the dubious material they add. I will provide two recent examples that demonstrate that this behavior is continuing:

• Communicat has been seeking for some time to include a claim in the World War II article that the United States was in charge of the civil administration of North Korea in the years after World War II, despite the country being occupied by the Soviet Union. This began with a lengthy discussion on the article's talk page on 9 September (see Talk:World War II#Arbitrary break onwards) in which there was no support for including such a claim in the article. Despite this on 17 September they added material to the article which strongly implied that the US was administering all of Korea and added some further questionable claims about how the division of the country took place (diff) which I reverted. This lead to further discussion of the topic on the article talk page in which the sources Communicat was providing to support their view were eventually demonstrated to say exactly the opposite (Eg, they stated that the USSR did in fact administer North Korea after the war) - see the posts from 1 October onwards (particularly the posts by Hohum and myself on 3 October) and other sources which demonstrate that the USSR was administering North Korea were provided. On 10 October Communicat edited the article again but did not include this claim about Korea (diff) - I reverted this again as there was no consensus to include the changes and it contained several other dubious claims (this reversion was supported by the other editors active on the article's talk page).
• Despite this, on 24 October Communicat added what was pretty much the text on Korea which had been rejected in the World War II article to the Aftermath of World War II article (diffs), again implying that the US was administering all of Korea (along with lots of other changes). This was reverted by User:Edward321 (diffs), leading to an edit war between him and Communicat. The end result is that Communicat is still trying to include statement about the post-war administration of Korea which had no support from other editors and was proven to not be supported by the sources he or she was providing. I note that Communicat has a history of turning existing articles into POV forks (see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Controversial command decisions, World War II.
• As the other example, Communicat has a long history of wanting to add dubious material sourced to someone named Stan Winer. Despite discussions at Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II#Industrial capacity and production, Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II#Link to www.truth-hertz.net, Talk:World War II/Archive 39#WW2 origins of Cold War, Talk:World War II/Archive 39#Link to www.truth-hertz.net, Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 45#User: Communicat and Talk:History of South Africa#new sub-section: extra-parliamentary activities (and in passing in several other locations) which concluded that this author is not a reliable source, Communicate is still adding material referenced to self published works by this author to the History of South Africa article (diff: on 17 October) and edit warring to restore it after it was removed by Edward321 (diffs: (20 October) and (21 October). Once again, he or she is ignoring a consensus which has arisen from extensive discussions and repeatedly adding dubious material.

As such, it appears that Communicat has not learned from their previous warnings and blocks, and is continuing to push POV claims using sources which have either been found to be unreliable or to not support their position. Responding to this clearly disruptive editing is wasting a lot of other editors' time and I ask that they be blocked by an uninvolved administrator. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand what this issue is doing on this "incidents" notice board. This is a content dispute.

Responses to some points presented above:

1. Quote: "forming a significant barrier to progressing articles". – The article Aftermath of World War II is or was unsourced crap. It was received absolutely no attention for many years. I have advised Communicat to work on that article instead of trying to tweak the limited space in the WW II article. I cannot see how Communicat's interest in the aftermath article could be a significant barrier to the article's progress!
2. If Communicat's "text on Korea" had been rejected in the World War II, it was mainly because of the space constraints in the "aftermath" section of the WW II main article. There has been extensive discussion on the relative importance of topics on the talk page. There seems to be a consensus that the section needs to be pruned down, but no consensus on what is important.
3. Stan Winer may not be a reliable source for WW II, but he is an respected South African journalist and a reliable source on the History of South Africa and apartheid.
4. The issue of the "civil administration of North Korea" has been blown beyond all proportions. The sources seem to support Communicat's wording, but I do not know if the interpretations people are trying to make of this are correct.
5. The last edit by Comminicat in the WW II article was on October 10 after extensive discussion and preparation on the talk page. This was blindly reverted by Nick-D two hours later. He made one edit in all of September with similar results. If any conclusions can be drawn from the edit history, it is more indicative of edit warring and stonewalling by Nick-D.

It seems that the content issues are mingled with some kind personal antipathy against Communicat. These dissenting editors are now extending the dispute to new articles they have never before been involved with. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Communicat has a record of making edits that are not supported or even contradicted by the sources he cites. Communicat's most recent attempt to argue against this was to dismiss the sources that contradicted him as the product of McCarthy Era censorship. This is in spite of Communicat previously arguing that some of these sources were reliable and ignores the actual publication dates of most of the sources.

Communicat's most recent edits to Aftermath of World War II involved him deleting a large section of sourced material as well as adding material that is not supported by the source he lists. The source does not mention Under-Secretary of State Joseph Grew and does not say Churchill "virtually declared war" on the USSR in 1946. Commincat's edits were also vague, so I clarified that Operation Dropshot was a contingency plan developed to counter of future attacks by the USSR if they occurred. As the differences show, I clearly explained this in the edit summaries. Communicat blind reverted this and the rest of my edits.

Communicat has also been trying against consensus to introduce a self-published fringe source, Stan Winer, into several articles for an extended period of time as well as repeatedly advocating Winer on several talk pages. Communiucat is the only editor to think this source is reliable. That's not why I listed Communicat on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. I listed Communicat because he posted a (now deleted) file claiming to be to be the copyright holder, Stan Winer. The picture has since been reposted without Communicat making that claim. (Information provided by Petri Krohn leaves me with strong doubts that Winer is the actual copyright holder for the picture.)) Even after all of this, Communicat continues to try to use Winer as a source.

Communicat is often less than civil. He has been blocked twice for lack of civility and the statement that earned him his first block was left on his user page for 59 days, finally removing it 56 days after getting off the block he received for making the statement. and three days after I reported it here. Communicat has never apologized for his personal attacks.Edward321 (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You have repeatedly been making accusations that Communicat is falsificating sources. When you have been proven wrong, you have chosen new forums to make the same unfounded allegations.

The "large section of sourced material" communicat removed from the aftermath article was left-over material from the WW II article I had moved there – right before I asked Communicat to work on the article. I see little harm done if it is removed from the lede section, especially if corresponding material is added to the relevant sections.

The last reference by Stan Winer you have listed above was added on 1 September 2010, to the article History of South Africa. As I said earlier, Winer is a published authority on that topic.

As to the copyright issue, I have expressed no doubt that Winer is the copyright owner of the picture of prime minister B. J. Vorster. The only place where it appears uncut, apart from Misplaced Pages, is this article by Winer.

Overall, you seem to be arguing that Misplaced Pages should reflect an Anglo-Saxon, Western, or at minimum, a Northern point-of-view. Things look very different from the Southern hemisphere. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I have read and understood this thread. I refute all false allegations by Edward321 and Nick-D who appear to be working in tandem against me. I will not respond further in this forum to their allegations. These and other matters are currently the subject of an application to Arbcom, which application was formally lodged by me shortly before the apparent retaliatory posting of this incident notice. Communicat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

I don't think the crux of this issue is a content dispute. It's about disruptive behaviour. Communicat endlessly argues even when blatantly proven wrong, in the face of overwheling disagreement, when he has little to no support. He throws insults about bias and conspiracy, even accusing uninvolved administrator Georgewilliamherbert of bias when he tried to help. He has repeatedly pushed for Winers inclusion on WWII articles, and still refers to him on WWII talk pages, in the face of unanimous rejection by editors who voiced opinions there. Diffs to support this appear in earler posts in this thread, so I won't duplicate.

Communicat does, very occasionally, do something constructive, is suddenly polite, helpful, and engages in reasoned discussion. But it is sporadic and random. (Hohum ) 16:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Hohum on this. It's not about content. Sometimes, Communicat is pleasant and collegial, but mostly, he accuses everyone of belonging to a cabal that is out to get him. The simple truth of the matter is that Communicat typically is asserting a fringe position that no one else agrees is valid.

Contrary to what you assert, Petri Kohn, Communicat has quoted from sources that contradict him. He often cherry-picks quotes from various authors when the full context or other parts of the works contradict him explicitly. Two such instances are discussed at and . --Habap (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Petri, I am one of about 6 editors who has provided evidence that Communicat has added information that was not supported by the sources Communicat cited. Neither you nor Communicat have proven any of us wrong, or you would be able to provide differences supporting your claim. Of course, you should know that if you read the links I posted, just like you should know Communicat's last attempt at using Winer as a source occurred nearly two months after the date you list. I have never argued "that Misplaced Pages should reflect an Anglo-Saxon, Western, or at minimum, a Northern point-of-view" and am frankly baffled that you have claimed that I have done so. I don't even know what "a Northern point-of-view" is in terms of WWII. Finnish perhaps? Edward321 (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The issues here are already discussed at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Edward321. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This Incident entry regards Communicat's behaviour, the Arb request is aimed at Edward321's, with no other involved party currently named by Communicat. (Hohum ) 17:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I can confirm that Arbcom has been requested to include Nick-D as an involved party. The relevant posting reads: Nick-D (like Edward321) has the peculiar and disruptive habit of reverting within minutes and without explanation material that I have laboriously contributed. He is apparently allergic to the courteous, customary and practical method of simply inserting a tag in submitted text, asking for correction, clarification, verification or whatever, with which I'd be perfectly willing to comply. Instead, he unilaterally deletes, undoes or reverts. I have repeatedly, consistently but unsuccessfuly attempted to engage Nick-D in thoughtful discussion, both on article talk page and on his user page. I repeat my request to have him joined as a third party in this application for arbitration, and I will then provide evidence of numerous previous attempts to resolve content disputes with him.

Interested parties may care to note that Nick-D earlier refused consent to open and decisive mediation in respect of his own conduct, including partisan editing and gross POV bias. Communicat (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that even a casual skim of Talk:World War II and its archives is enought to demstrate that I, and several other editors, have discussed Communicat's proposed changes with him or her in very great length over the last few months (including posting explanations when they're reverted). As noted in my original post, Communicat has generally ignored other editors' comments and keeps rehashing the same issues and repeating the same unacceptable behavior. Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I have suggested some specific next steps that come from Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution as one or all of them may aid in resolving the current problems. --Habap (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Habap, I have no intention of withdrawing or otherwise backing down from my application to Arbcom, which is still under consideration by the committee.

Nick-D and interested parties, as regards Nick-D's recent posting above: no useful insight into the issues at stake can be gained by any "casual skim" of the current Talk:World War II "discussion" page or archived editions of the page as suggested by the filing party. Certain complex, important and perplexing matters were and still are at issue, and they also have a direct bearing on Nick-d's (and others') persistent violations of NPOV policy. Anyone sufficiently interested, and with the time and inclination to do so, should read the current and archived pages carefully, objectively and analytically, from top to bottom, before reaching any firm conclusions of their own. In particular, they should note my numerous, unsuccessful attempts to engage in constructive article content discussion with Nick-d, and his facetious replies or absence of replies thereto. It's all there in the record.

Suffice it to say that a perceptive reading of the discussions will prove that I have engaged in sustained discussion and serious attempts at negotiation with Nick-d (and others), with the sole intention of trying to find a solution to content problems, in order to help improve the article. My efforts have conformed fully with the letter and spirit of wiki's stated dispute avoidance policy. In response to which, Nick-D is now falsely and self-righteously alleging "Tendentious editing despite warnings and blocks". As Petri Krohn has correctly observed above, there has been no tendentious editing on my part. I would suggest that the wording of this ANI notice lodged Nick-d is itself tendentious.

Misleading reference is made by Nick-d to "warnings and blocks". I was blocked for 24 hours by an "uninvolved" intervening administrator for remarking that some particularly disruptive and bellicose discussants were behaving like animals. Later, I was blocked for 48 hours for remarking that a certain editor was "boring" because he kept reviving a certain dead-horse issue that had already been terminated. These blocks had nothing whatsoever to do with so-called tendentious editing. Indeed, Nick-D's own reasoning is tendentious, and his lodging of this notice is riddled with lies and distortions.

As for Edward321's claim that he is "one of about 6 editors who has provided evidence that Communicat has added information that was not supported by the sources Communicat cited": this party appears to have a slight problem with numeracy. He is one of only three editors who attempted to provide that so-called evidence, which in any event was not "added" to the article as falsely implied. In fact, Edward321 has himself submitted to the discussion page certain disruptive information that is contradicted directly by the sources he provides. All this too can be found in the discussion page, see my posting of 23:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Enough said. Communicat (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Communicat is correct that he did not add the incorrect info to World War II. On the other hand, has repeatedly proposed changes on the World War II talk page that are not supported or even contradicted by his sources (noted by Users Hohum, Nick-D, Edward321, and Habap.

Communicat has added posted information that is not supported or even contradicted by his sources to the article History of South Africa (Noted by Edward321) Western Betrayal (noted by User 67.122.211.178) and Aftermath of World War II (noted by Edward321) Edward321 (talk) 04:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

These and other issues are currently the subject of an application by me for arbitration, to which the filing party of this ANI has now been included as a third party in tandem with Edward321. An evidence page will be opened if and when Arbcom accepts my application, which is still under consideration. I consider it inappropriate to comment further in this forum at this time, which does not mean I concur with the allegations made. Communicat (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to note. The arbitration seems very likely to be rejected (currently 1/5/0/1), and shouldn't distract from this notice. (Hohum ) 20:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

That's clearly the way it's going. Even if that unexpectedly and dramaticly changes, it would be best to keep this going as several members of Arbcom have said if they take it they will be investigating the actions of all interested parties. Edward321 (talk) 03:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This post was archived, but I've relisted it in the hope that an uninvolved admin will look into the matter. The RFArb is not at all likely to be accepted and Communicat's disruptive conduct there illustrates this ongoing problem rather well. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not being ignored, but it's not an easy or quick fixable situation either. Pls be patient for a bit; active discussions on moving forward in the community (Arbcom seems to be solidifying that they want us to handle it) should be happening starting Monday, I think. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks George. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The reason for Nick-D's filing of this notice, and the support given it by some commentators, may be summed up in just one sentence: They want to get rid of me so that they can continue allowing their personal political prejudices to get in the way of historical accuracy and objectivity, through practising a form of censorship by POV-bias and flagrant violations of NPOV.

Arbcom, contrary to Nick-D's false innuendo above, has not noted any disruptive behaviour on my part. Nick-D remains a named party in my application to Arbcom, which is still under consideration. Communicat (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom was rejecting the consideration 5:1 last I looked last night, and several members responded positively to my suggestion that we can handle it within the community.

I would like to request that all parties avoid further nastyness and retract any outstanding, such as your last above Communicat, that we can hold a constructive discussion on this starting now. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No offence was intended. It was a statement of fact, and it can be proved by me if or when arbom condones the opening of an evidence page.

As for community involvement: You know perfectly well that you yourself intervened some time ago, and absolutely nothing constructive came of it. If anything, you had the unintended effect of pouring petrol on the flames. Revived "community involvement" as mooted by you would IMO be pointless and irrevelant at this stage, because unless things change for the better in terms of POV bias and stricter adherence to NPOV policy, I want nothing further to do with that particular World War II overview article.

In the meantime, I suggest basic etiquette and procedure prevail by not prejudging the outcome of Arbcom's pending decision. Thank you for your interest. Communicat (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

If Arbcom choses to take up the case they can do so. They have indicated that they want the community to handle it, though that's not final yet.

You don't get to pick and chose among uninvolved administrators, if you create an issue that rises to our collective attention. If others want to get involved as well, that's fine and normal. But you've got my attention and are going to have to deal with and live with it.

Your reaction here seems to be on the border of intentionally burning all bridges with the rest of the community rather than giving us a chance to discuss this in an organized fashion. I would like to remind you that Misplaced Pages as a whole is not just the encyclopedia anyone can edit, it's the encyclopedia we all edit together. Even if you walk away from those particular pages, issues have been raised that call into question your interest in working with others constructively. You have also raised issues of systematic bias that need to be reviewed, but whether you can work constructively with other Wikipedians on these or other topics in the future are obvious and evident parts of the discussion that is to follow.

If you want to burn those bridges, you can walk away from the project entirely now at any time. You don't get to burn them and just change articles, because if there's a systematic behavioral problem on your side it's going to happen again at those new articles.

I urge you to step back from the precipice and to cooperate in constructive discussions on this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

GWH Thanks for acknowledging that there may be issues of systematic bias at milhist project that need to be reviewed. We seem to be making some headway. But as for constructive discussion at milhist project, that may be another story. IMO, the people there seem never able to agree on anything among themselves, and that inability has been a longstanding characteristic of their talk page since longggg before I showed up there a few months ago.

Consider for instance the protracted dispute about the start date of WW2. which dispute commenced a long time before the advent of my arrival. The dispute was eventually referred to mediation, where the argument then dragged on for so long that the mediator eventually walked away. The argument, unresolved at mediation, still surfaces from time to time. I’m not saying the same people are necessarily involved, but it’s certainly the the case that the same ethos prevails to this day.

Separately, you have stated above and in messages to my talk page, that I must "retract" my "personal attacks" both here and in my Arbcom application. Forgive my confusion, but it's not clear which specific words you are demanding that I retract. I have made no "personal attacks" that I am aware of.

Are you saying that I am not allowed to reply bluntly but accurately to serious allegations brought against me? Are you saying I have no right of reply, or to defend myself against such allegations? Are you saying that I am not allowed to state my grievances when applying for arbitration? If so, then what you are saying is unacceptable. Nor do I believe you have any authority to demand that I retract anything submitted to Arbcom.

Speaking of retraction: I note that you yourself have not as yet retracted your incorrect and prejudicial assertion that I was previously the subject of ANI notices. I also note your reference to the possibility of "a systematic behavioral problem" on my part, while at the same time you’ve not suggested any possibility of "a systematic behavioral problem" on the side of the filing party and/or his active supporters.

This indicates bias and prejudgment on your part since, as yet, there has been no firm ruling by Arbcom nor by any other impartial entity authorised to pass judgment in respect of the facts and matters currently at issue, nor are you entirely familiar with all the evidence relative to those facts and matters. This apparent lack of impartiality, together with your failure to retract an incorrect and prejudicial statement, does not make it easy for me to assume good faith on your part. But I'll try, anyway. Communicat (talk) 09:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

POV and propaganda by User:Jrkso

User:Jrkso is posting wrong information and fabricated nonsense in the article Afghanistan. He was asked to remove his claims or to provide reliable, scholarly sources on the talkpage of the article (Talk:Afghanistan#Selective_quoting_and_falsification_of_sources_by_User:Jrkso). He refused and insisted on his POV. I took the matter to Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Unreliable_source_and_falsification_of_sources_by_User:Jrkso. There, everyone agrees that Jrkso's edits are POV and factually wrong (quoting User:Paul Barlow: "t's palpable nonsense Misrepresenting sources is a blockable offence, which could be taken to WP:ANI"). I mentioned that once again on the talkpage of the article. But he is ignoring it and once again restored that false information (in addition to another POV issue which is being discussed at Misplaced Pages:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Ethnic_groups_in_Afghanistan; Jrkso is largely ignoring that discussion as well) and is blindly reverting. I won't revert him again for now (he has been reverted by User:Dmcq anyway). But I think that admin help is needed. This is not only just a POV issue, but a fact that this user is stubbornly inserting factually wrong and fabricated nonsense in the article. To make it even worse, he is actively falsifying sources to make his edits look "sourced". See my comments on the talkpage. The article is tagged. Thank you. Tajik (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Tajik (talk · contribs) is Forum shopping and I think that is blockable offense in Misplaced Pages; his behaviour is very disruptive; he's falsly accusing me of all these lies; he removes from articles sourced material that he doesn't like to see, and to mislead the admins, he turns around and quickly file reports on me, so that way the admins will focus on me instead. Tajik has been edit-warring and blocked so many times. The sourced information which he's accusing me of was there in the article for months. He removed it yesterday and when I reverted his edit he began attacking me.--Jrkso (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful for all parties involved to approach this more calmly. The quote in question certainly appears in the source that Jrkso specified, although its derivation is not made clear. It also, according to Google Books, appears in the Encyclopedia Indica of 1996, to which I don't have access. There are no surviving letters from Alexander but several ancient historians gave quotes that they claimed derived from his letters. In short, there is plenty of room to argue about whether the quote is properly sourced, but there is no good reason to claim that the quote was inserted in bad faith. Looie496 (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Except for Jrkso, everyone else agrees that the claim is unsourced and unreliable. Most likely, it is a fabrication. And I reported Jrkso in here after User:Paul Barlow refuted Jrkso's edits and explained that his falsification of sources (with the attempt of misleading the readers) should be reported to WP:ANI if he continues his behavior. The biggest problem with him is that he is aggressively ignoring discussions. He automatically edits or reverts and does not even bother to explain his edits. It would be a lot easier if he discussed his edits BEFORE changing the article. See Talk:Afghanistan as an example. He does not even dare to answer questions directed at him. He simply edits and reverts, ignopring all the rest. Tajik (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Paul Barlow didn't mention my name or anything what this Tajik is asserting. The user Tajik is twisting things intentionally. And anytime another editor or an admin is mentioned in here, they should be at least notified some you failed to do Tajik. You didn't notify me either.--Jrkso (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The quote appears twice, once in the book, another time in the Encyclopedia Indica, but in both cases the wording of what Google shows is identical, "In a letter to his mother, Alexander described his encounters with these trans-Indus tribes thus: "I am involved in the land of a leonine and brave people, where every foot of the ground is like a well of steel, confronting my soldier.", so I think we have one claim repeated by someone else. I've spent quite some time on this and not only can I not find another source mentioning anything similar, all we know of Alexander's letters is what has been reported by other writers long after the fact, eg about 30 in Plutarch (4 centuries after his death) and in the Alexander romance, with scholars pointing out that many are certainly forgeries. Thus I'm really just repeating what Looie946 says, that there is no reason not to accept that the quote was inserted in good faith, but I also think that there is every reason not to use it. But that's not a matter for this board and is being discussed at RSN. Both of these editors do indeed need to calm down and avoid the need for Admins to act. Dougweller (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Tajik is mixing up two things here. First, an argument about a quote regarding Alexander, where Jrkso was arguing too hard for a poorly sourced statement but seems to have given up. Second, an argument about the fraction of Afghans who are Tajiks, where the sources that Jrkso wants to rely on seem at first sight to be better than the survey Tajik wants to use. So I don't really see any basis for action here. What I will say is that Tajik should refrain from attributing the actions of other editors to an ethnic POV. Edits should be discussed according to whether they are justified by policy and sources, not according to the perceived motives for making them. These back-and-forth accusations of POV-pushing are very destructive and need to be stopped. Looie496 (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

All I am asking for is that Jrkso should use reliable sources and that he should discuss controversial edits BEFORE changing the article and BEFORE attempting to start an editwar. So far, he has done the opposite: relying on unreliable sources and ignoring the discussion. As for the numbers used in Afghanistan: please see the respective discussion. They are now added to the article, and even Jrkso had to accept it. Tajik (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Follow my contribution, no where did I use unreliable sources, so why you keep accusing me? Ignoring the discussion? Where? I have explained my self in all the discussions and I'm still doing it here, so again please stop the lies and misspresentations. I left the opinion polls in the 2 articles to avoid edit-war. I don't see how private non-governmental opinion polls using only 6,226 Afghans can be made into a representation of a nation of 28 million, this is "Mispresentation of Sources" and as User:Paul Barlow said, it's a blockable offense. Something like that is not done in any other nations' article. Leaving this in the 2 articles means Misplaced Pages fully backs the misleading misrepresentation. The polls have many flaws, they don't mention the Aimaq groups, period! The U.S. Library of Congress Country Studies confirms that in 1996 there were between 500,000 to 800,000 Aimaks in Afghanistan. The private polls, however, are telling us that there are no Aimaks in Afghanistan today, makes the world think that the Aimaks were all killed by the U.S. military and NATO armies during the 2001-present war in Afghanistan. Also, the incomplete polls have Tajiks 37% but when you google "Tajiks in Afghanistan" the results come back as 27% maximum, and none higher. These private incomplete surveys are directly in conflict with the official government statistics. On the one hand, I'm told here that sources must have complete truth and etc, and on ther other hand these ridiculous private polls are used to mislead readers, etc. I'm just confused and so I decided to stop arguing, and even when I do that the disruptive user Tajik is accusing me as the bad editor, and is seeking that I get blocked. I tell him to stop but he comes with more lies.--Jrkso (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

As an editor who reviewed material on both OR/N and RS/N; there appears to be some difficulty in the editorial community in relation to Afghan national and ethnic identities and the taking on board of expert external review of sources and claims at noticeboards. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Jrkso, the meaning and calculations of the respective polls were explained to you by other users. You also fail to understand that the number of the individuals in that poll - as a randomly-picked collective - gives a representative reflection. It is not a "100% minimized copy" of the actual population. But it gives a mathematically calculated hint at the actual population make-up. That's how polls work - everywhere! Your constant claim that the "numbers are wrong" because the polled collective is "too small" compared to the actual population of Afghanistan shows that you lack mathematical understanding of polls. Besides that, none of the sources you have provided is any better. Your claim that this or that American institution "confirms" this or that number is just laughable. Did the US send a special envoy to Afghanistan to count the actual population and register the ethnic identity of each individual?! Did they have representative polls?! Does the US government have official registration lists of Afghanistan's population in which every single man, woman, and child is registered?! So what makes you believe that the numbers of the US government are any more reliable?! It has already been pointed out to you that unlike the respective polls which are based on an ACTUAL poll IN AFGHANISTAN, the CIA Factbook numbers and those of the Library of Congress are nothing but guesses - totally baseless. That's why neither the Factbook nor the Library of Congress actually mention where they got their numbers from. Not to mention the fact the the only numbers based on official census results from the 70's (as provided by the Encyclopaedia Iranica) are much closer to these 2 recent polls than CIA's un-checkable and guessed numbers. Of course, since the Factbooks is widely cited, it is a reliable source according to Misplaced Pages standards and that's why it needs to be cited in the article in first place. But your stubborn claim that the poll numbers are wrong, misleading, etc is simply wrong. As is your laughable claim that the readers may think the Nuristanis were massacred by Americans. Calm down and think before you write! As for your unreliable sources: that your stance on an alleged letter by Alexander is solely based on an unreliable and un-scholarly source (everyone sees that, except you!) has been discussed and confirmed in another discussion. Tajik (talk) 02:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Again you're twisting my words around. I didn't mention Nuristanis in my last statement above, I said the Aimaq ethnic group came as 0% and you misquoted me. American Professor Louis Dupree spent around 20 years in Afghanistan studying the country and its people, he reports that during the 1970s there were about 500,000, Aimaks (Aymāq) living in the country. Afghanistan's ethnic composition is determined mostly by region, each region has a different race or ethnic group. It wouldn't be difficult for the US government and military (USAID , U.S. Embassy, Kabul, Naval Postgraduate School , UNHCR , UNDP, and others) to collect population data. Since you asked me a question about how US government got their Afghan figures allow me to explain this. Afghanistan has 34 provinces and each province is usually made up entirely or overwelmingly of one ethnic group. Each Provincial governor knows everything about thier province, they know how many districts there are and the number of villages in each district. They also know exactly what tribe or ethnic group lives in each village. Whenever someone is born they are registered in their birth district, and a copy of the birth record is sent to the provincial capital. If US military and government want to get this population info all they do is fly in their helicopters to the provincial governors headquarters and find it all there in the special records department. They can easily visit each district if they want. There are over 100,000 US military personell all across Afghanistan, they have 100s of military bases throughout the country. The CIA also has a special teams there, collecting all information about the people. They usally want to know where Taliban or Taliban supporters are so they like to know everything about the people. This is why American military and government always mention the ethnicity of Afghans in many of their websites. If you follow the CIA 2001 country report it said one thing but after US invasion, in 2002-present, it started changing the make up of Afghanistan's ethnic make up. Now, after telling you all this, you shouldn't question CIA or US government again. They are the most reliable networks in the world. The aim of your polls was to see how Afghan citizens feel about the latest 2002-2009 US-led war, current politicial situation, the economic and social issues affecting their lives, and things like that. It was not aimed at finding out the number of each ethnic group. You are using this in a wrong, confusing, provocative, and misleading way, by presenting it in Misplaced Pages sort of to say that these polls were conducted by all these popular news networks (NBC, BBC, and ARD) to show that Tajiks (your ethnicity) are not 27% as what CIA and Library of Congress always claim but possibly as high as 41%. This is misrepresentation of sources in Misplaced Pages according to my knowledge. This is not a place to laugh, this is an encyclopedia and we need to avoid putting such nonsense polls to present as a population census report. And to save yourself from trouble, you started all these discussion with things like "POV and propaganda by User:Jrkso" so that I get to be the center of attention when in fact it is you who is spreading ethno-centric propagnada and POVs. I know that all these things I explain in discussions is meaningless to you because your aim is to make Tajiks as high as possible in terms of percentage numbers. Your entire edits in Misplaced Pages are all centered around this, and your name is helping to confirm this.--Jrkso (talk) 06:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Jrkso, your speculation - again, totally unsourced and unproven - duly noted. But again: it's wrong. Speculating that the US government does this or that or that certain regional leaders have 100% knowledge of this or that province and that those regional leaders share their "knowledge" with US intelligence services is - to be frankly - the most unencyclopedic and most unreliable way to describe the population of Afghanistan (of course, like always, you cannot prove your claims and speculations). And, of course, you as an ethnic Pashtun, have a certain POV you want to publish in Misplaced Pages - like almost everyone in here. Your Pashtun ethno-centric and usually anti-Tajik edits were already criticized by others. But that's not the topic here. The only thing that matters is that your view regarding the recent representative polls - 2 independent, unrelated polls that came to (almost exactly) the same results - is wrong. That easy. I am telling you this, others are telling you this, and you are still stubbornly refusing to accept facts. The polls are reliable and checkable sources. And unlike the numbers given by the CIA, the NGOs who conducted the polls actually describe there methods in detail. Your speculations regarding the methods of the CIA are not a proof at all. Your word is not gospel. You do not accept the polls, because they simply do not support your Pashtun ethno-centric and anti-Tajik POV. It does not matter what the main purpose of the polls was. At the end, there is a direct question - a question that was answered by some 6000 randomly picked individuals from all across Afghanistan. And based on that, the ethnic numbers given in those polls are - by the law of mathematics - the most reliable numbers we have. Who cares if you are able to understand that or not?! By the way: it is funny that you mention Louis Dupree. Because it was you who removed the numbers provided by Dupree in the Encyclopaedia Iranica, claiming that they are "too old and unreliable". Interestingly, Dupree's numbers from 20 years ago are closer to the recent polls than the CIA numbers. That is your notorious "selective quoting" ... Tajik (talk) 12:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I have just blocked both of these editors for 24 hours, on the basis of a "battlefield" approach in which each editor accuses the other of promoting a given ethnicity. Both editors have been warned that they are operating in a domain that is under arbitration sanctions, and if this problem can't be gotten under control, substantially longer blocks will follow. Looie496 (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Block review

• 76.124.180.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have blocked this IP to prevent disruption. I believe that I may crossed over into content disputation, however, and would appreciate input. This IP has been adding what appears to be promotion of a neologism and a website/theory without any discussion across several holocaust/genocide related articles. I've not reverted any of their edits since their block in the event I have over-stepped. If I need to unblock, please let me know. Thanks Tiderolls 16:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Good block. Clear spamming. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, you'd know... ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 16:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse block—textbook case of intentional disruption. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 16:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse block -FASTILY 18:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse block – Good block. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 22:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse block Inka888Talk 03:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Block discussion: persistent copyright

• User:Ivankinsman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have blocked this user for two weeks for yet another blatant copyvio. Frankly, if the copied content were not as brief as it is, I would have indeffed him, as he is the subject of an ongoing WP:CCI and does not yet seem to have indicated any understanding of our copyright policies. My request for this block review is really more by way of an "is this enough?" and because fresh eyes are always helpful.

The incident that prompted the block: this paste from this source. See most recently this notice and the subsequent discussion. Previous ANI threads: here and here. His CCI is here. It has recently been undergoing review by another contributor who is finding more issues and who notified me of the most recent violation.

If you think I should have blocked for a different length of time, please feel free to do so. --Moonriddengirl 19:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

In terms of not understanding: his response. (FWIW, see his talk page for bolded runs of duplicated text.) --Moonriddengirl 19:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh! He really doesn't get it. Support an indef block until he does. Jon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.247.25 (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that response which fails to understand how expression of facts can be copyrighted, two weeks sounds pretty generous, if they really don't get it that bad they are a danger to the project. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to extend the block further now. But I have left another final warning concurring with Moonriddengirl. If he doesn't get it and will ask and discuss before doing anything else we can salvage his contributions going forwards. If he does it again, he's gone; I'll indef him if he does it again, or support anyone else doing so. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Winchester2313 summarized

Background: See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive646#Comment:

In response to requests from admins who have not made a firm decision, here is the central case against User User:Winchester2313 these are the three most important complaints that clearly warrant sanctions against User User:Winchester2313:

1. User Winchester2313 (talk · contribs) has in the past been warned by at least two admins to stop edit warring, see: (a) User talk:Winchester2313#Edit warring on Menachem Mendel Schneerson; (b) User talk:Winchester2313#Edit warring on Elazar Shach; (c) adding defamatory stuff User talk:Winchester2313#April 2010, (d) requested to stop blanking, vandalizing pages and personal attacks at User talk:Winchester2313#May 2010 and has been requested a few times on other talk pages to stop his intimidating behavior on several pages that he violates WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASSMENT when editing.
2. At Talk:Elazar Shach he has displayed crude and ruthless behavior, name calling against editors who disagree with him. He has intimated that he is WP:OUTING as he taunts them "Now be nice Yonoson (or is it 'Rabbi' Rosenblum...)", that he's a "a brainwashed robot" (violating WP:NPA), as he directs his attack against User Yonoson3 (talk · contribs) naming him as Jonathan Rosenblum.
3. He is conducting an edit WP:WAR at the Yitzchok Hutner article, not allowing me to add references and citations (see the diffs of my work that was in progress on citations there are a few more) while he blanket reverts them all in the process violating WP:3RR, and hurls accusations, as he has done at other editors in the past in the hope of intimidating them away. He has already reverted the Yitzchok Hutner article 4 times in 24 hours with blanket reversals in utter violation of WP:3RR that destroy my good work and ignoring pleas to talk at Talk:Yitzchok Hutner#Expanding the article discussions.

The above three complaints summarize the situation. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Note, the user has been notified, see User talk:Winchester2313#Refiling complaint @ ANI. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Although Winchester2313 did violate 3RR, that was on October 27. Other than that, what you have here is an argument about fine details of content. You claim that you are using sources properly, Winchester2313 says you are not. There is no way that admins are going to be able to resolve this. Unless you two can find some way to compromise with each other, your only hope of making progress is to find some third party who is interested enough in the article to spend the time to figure out what is going on. Looie496 (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Looie496: Thanks for commenting. Content is where it starts, but unfortunately Winchester2313 has a terrible habit of trying to "resolve" matters his way by going totally overboard, be it violating WP:OUTING which you need to note, WP:3RR which is serious and he knows it he's been warned by other admins about it previously, and by WP:WARRING in very blunt ways against users who disagree with him. He is not new to WP, he's been around at least since December 2009 and knows the ropes yet violates them all in the name of "sources, sources, sources -- now, now, now" in dictatorial fashion, while not letting the natural process of article development and writing proceed and sources added as it goes along and he has done the same thing in the various other articles he got involved in, as you can see in the comments left on his page in point (1) above. It is one thing to ask for sources in a WP:CIVIL way, no problem, we all know it's needed and I have spent much time in my life on WP adding sources when articles needed them in a reasonable time and civil manner and when they were requested, but he has to turn every edit into a bloody battleground as if it was trench warfare hoping to grind down and eventually fend off his opposing editors as he goes for the jugular of WP:OWNERSHIP of the article's content editing it from his own POV. And it's always either a pro-Chabad POV he is foisting or trying to insert in violation of WP:NPOV and he does this all by screaming "sources, sources, sources" and then he "reverts, reverts, reverts" like crazy even blanking out fairly neutral and good work, for every word, quote and phrase he wants to beat to death just because he does not like it that is no excuse. IZAK (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Incident at Mortal Kombat II

User:Asperchu and I have conflicting ideas on how to proceed on an edit to the page concerning a rumored (but heavily cited) remake of the video game. I revert his entire edit as he rewrites the page to create more appropriate edits but also removes the conflicting information as well. We have been discussing it at Talk:Mortal Kombat II but it is to no avail as consensus cannot be established. This fails under WP:CIVIL and Content Issues and almost goes under WP:3RR. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to note the personal attack on User:Geoff B that this same user has made. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for this. Courcelles 20:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

FINISH HIM! HalfShadow 20:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That was a tad inappropriate, HalfShadow. Nevertheless, the block was good. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 22:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Given the subject, I thought it was kinda apt. What can I say; some of 'em work, some of 'em don't... HalfShadow 22:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I also thought it was funny :-) Finish Him will be understood by anybody familiar with the Mortal Kombat games. And I checked again and :-) ...yup, still funny. --HighKing (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Support the humor. I rofled. --Jayron32 02:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hilarity 1-0. Shadowjams (talk) 09:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

MickMacNee - talk protected.

MickMacNee (talk · contribs) was blocked per an earlier ANI thread. Some people were trying to negotiate an unblock on terms, but Mick wasn't cooperating. On seeing this edit summary, I concluded that the talking was futile and protected his page. It was immediately unprotected without discussion.

I think we are at the point where talking is obviously futile and this user should be considered community banned.--Scott Mac 22:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I note that PeterSymonds had already reblocked with talkpage disabled, that's probably a better way anyway.--Scott Mac 22:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Of note that has now been reverted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

So, two admin action have been reverted by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) with no discussion whatsoever? This is very poor. I'm still waiting explanations.--Scott Mac 22:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The answer is, of course, "Fish". HalfShadow 22:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) (Disclaimer: I'm the admin who made the initial block; that discussion is now at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/BISE/October 2010#MickMacNee.) The full protection was not a bad idea, since it also prevented others from edit-warring about the addition of unnecessary commentary (but that seems no longer a current problem). As with any potentially controversial reversal of an admin action, of course, HJ Mitchell should not have undone the protection without speaking to Scott MacDonald first. The same applies to changing the block parameters to restore talk page access, which HJ Mitchell has now also done apparently without talking to Peter Symonds, the admin who removed talk page access. Unless a good explanation is forthcoming, this reversal of two equivalent actions by two other admins has the flavor of a wheel war, and may need arbitral action to address.

I agree that MickMacNee seems to have no interest in discussing the reason for his block or conditions for a return to editing, and that therefore, in view of the aforementioned discussion, he is subject to a de facto community ban. I suggest that we leave it to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee, which he apparently intends to seize of the matter, to take any further action that may be required with respect to this ban or block.  Sandstein  22:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Generally agree with Sandstein here - reversing the actions of two different admins without discussion is really not a good way to go about this, though I can see HJM's reasoning. I appreciate that there's a chance Mick may get back to editing with some appropriate restrictions, but it's also clear that he's in no mood to deal with it at the moment, and that the community's in no mood to listen. Protecting the talk page and encouraging him to go via the Ban Appeals Subcommittee is probably the best way of this situation moving forward without further anger from Mick and trolling from others. ~ mazca 22:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there consensus to relock Mickmacnee's talkpage and refer him to the arbcom ban committee for any appeal?--Scott Mac 23:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems the best way forward to me. The discussion actually seemed to be deteriorating the situation. Courcelles 23:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I object. Removing talkpage access is a serious step that is not warranted here. Gimmetoo (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Mick's talkpage should be unlocked, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• I dislike McNee as much as he dislikes me, but I don't like to see anyone locked out of their talk page as it only serves to further bad will, If people don't want to see what he writes take it off their watchlist. If Arbcom ban him for ever and flog him off the site, then that's another matter, but so far that has not hapened. So leave the talk page unlocked..please.  Giacomo  23:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Lock it and get this sorted out ASAP. This whole episode is doing nothing by harm to the whole project. Either get Mick to agree to some very clearly defined restriction and if that can't happen throw away the keys. Bjmullan (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a section on his talk page for Mick to suggest any editing restrictions for himself. Ask him if he is going suggest any for himself then take it from there. To be honest, if he refuses to take part in that then he's doing himself no favours and a talk page lock would then be appropriate. Jack forbes (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That's been done. He told us to go fuck ourselves.--Scott Mac 23:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

C'mon he was being pretty baited. I doubt he meant it to you personally.  Giacomo  23:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? Well, my opinion has just changed. If his reply to a request is go fuck yourself then locking the talk page might not be a bad idea. Jack forbes (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

PS; Do you have a diff for that Scott? Thanks. Jack forbes (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

several--Scott Mac 23:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

This is the pertinent one I believe. That diff also as a comment about seeing admins "in hell" or before an ArbCom appeal-Cailil 01:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Leave his talk page unlocked. That edit summary was pretty brutal, but no less than BilCat's utterly boneheaded comment that caused it - and I don't buy for one second that he was not attempting to bait Mick. I've no opinion on his block, but if the people entering his talk page to discuss the larger issue do so with the intent of resolving the situation rather than inflame it, there is no need for a lock. Resolute 23:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

So what? Is he not in control of his actions? He didn't have to respond to the bait. If someone is baiting, take that up as a separate issue, but if Mickmacnee isn't in control of his actions and has caused this much drama already, throw away the key.--Crossmr (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Since Bwilkins added the suggestion that Mick discusses what restriction might be put in place here Mick has edited eight times at his talk page without once adding any suggestions of what restrictions might be place on him. The guy doesn't want to participate in any real discussion about how his behaviour can be changed in order to allow him to continuing editing here. Bjmullan (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

He didn't respond to it the first time. It was only after BilCat posted it a second time that he responded. If you want to add a civility parole on any unblock request, fine. But locking Mick's talk page did not appear necessary until someone seeking to inflame the situation came along. Given BilCat has agreed not to return, locking Mick's talk page could only be seen as punitive at this point. Resolute 00:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I support leaving Mick's page open to him in this case because he was indeed pretty badly baited, but if he does it again, I support cutting it off again immediately. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• It has been nearly four hours since I tried to discuss BilCat's block with the blocking admin. On the admin's talk page, an admin (Sandstein) and an editor also suggested unblocking. Two other editors, who I believe are admins, supported either an unblock (MilborneOne) or a reduction (Courcelles) on BillCat's talk page. BilCat agreed to avoid Mick's userspace pages, though it seems reasonable to exclude "obligatory" notices (ANI, AfD). Since the blocking admin appears to be offline, is there any reason not to unblock BilCat under this agreement? Gimmetoo (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It has now been over 12 hours since I tried to discuss with the admin who blocked BilCat, and still no reply. Gimmetoo (talk) 10:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Traditionally we give a large amount of lee-way to blocked editors, who tend to be understandably aggrieved that they're blocked. In this case there's also been a fair amount of baiting. My view is that—at this point—Mick should be free to edit his talkpage. If other editors persist in baiting Mick we should firstly consider full-protection. If Mick persists in using posts or edit summaries to breach WP:CIVIL we should consider revoking talkpage access. I'm aware, obviously, that both these things have already occurred; however, they occurred hot on the heels of Mick's block. Good faith editors were trying to de-escalate the situation, and I'd like to see that continue now that—hopefully—the attraction of wading into to a heated situation with unhelpful comments has diminished, and the attraction of mouthing off about blocking admins and baity editors has diminished. As regards BilCat's block: good block, but at this point it's punitive, not preventative - BilCat's indicated that they've learned from their mistake and won't repeat it. Further baiting—by any editor—should be dealt with primarily by full-protection, not blocks (obviously I've no objection to blocks used in conjunction with full-protection, where appropriate). TFOWR 09:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• If editors bait blocked editors, then we should act against the baiter, not the target. I support Mick having access to his talk page. Although he hasn't suggested any restrictions he may be willing to observe yet, he may do so later. Mjroots (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

  No argument from me, and that's exactly what happened here (hence BilCat being blocked right now). If the problem persists, however, Mick's talkpage may need to be protected. We shouldn't protect Mick's talkpage against one editor - obviously a block is the better option. Protection becomes the better option when multiple baiters are involved. TFOWR 09:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• If only we could lock the talk page to all except admins and Mick. *sigh* Mjroots (talk)

• Pages ending in .js behave that way. Gimmetoo (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• I've never had contact with this editor before. If you would like I would be willing to politely ask him if he has any suggestions to help himself get unblocked. I also think his page should be left open, at least for now, for this editor to be able to communicate with everyone. Anymore baiting, I suggests like what has be said, that the baiter be blocked. --CrohnieGal 11:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd support an unblock of BilCat when he accepts that his actions to bait both HJM and Mick were wrong, and promises not to do so again. Personally, I read his latest comments as being "I'm sorry I got caught" rather than "I'm sorry I screwed up", especially given he is still trying to shift blame elsewhere. Resolute 14:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Article at User:Klitem1999 spam?

I'm unsure what exactly to do about this article. It is linked from craigslist, and does not assert notability. It's also been edited only by one user, presumably the founder or an officer. I would delete for CSD A7, but this is in userspace. G11 may apply, but I'm not certain enough to just delete outright. Therefore I'm bringing it here for further review. --Chris (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Feels like G11, but I'm no expert. Vodello (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

And CSD'd as G11, unambiguous promotion or advertising. Applies in userspace as it does in articles. Rodhullandemu 00:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article. FYI, my reservation about G11 was not about where it applies (as the general criteria apply everywhere) but whether the article content was unambiguous promotion. --Chris (talk) 04:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't really hurt to tag it anyway if you get a spammy feeling from it. At worst you're wrong. HalfShadow 04:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point, I'll probably just do that in the future. As an admin I didn't really see the point of tagging since I could just delete, but that would be a better way to request review from another admin rather than bringing it here. --Chris (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Everything Everywhere

Hi. Could an admin with a bit more clue than me (not difficult) please take a look at recent contributions by 91.109.7.124 to Everything Everywhere? These are 1 2 and 3 - I suspect that the editor is not genuine, and may be up to no good, but I don't know, and hope you might. The editing has bad spelling, which does not inspire confidence, and neither, really, does the whois record for the domain, which sounds a bit improbable. The address given looks on Google Maps like an ordinary street of houses - I can't see where a comms HQ might fit in there. Sorry, I know I should WP:AGF and all that but it did strike me all as a bit unusual. Can a clued-up Sherlock forensic interwebs type please have a look? If it is genuine I will apologize most prettily but I am worried that it may be fraud/joke/phishing/whatever and I'd rather err on the side of caution. Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

As a non-admin I've given the user a warning. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that very fast response. I continue to worry that it has actual fraudulent potential to harm people - what happens to data typed in if the links are followed? I still feel very dubious about the whole thing - if it is real, then their approach is - er - unusual, and if it's a joke then why go to the trouble of getting a domain? I'm confused. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll confess myself to be just as baffled as to the motivation here. It certainly looks non-genuine, but if you look at the links provided on the linked (very dodgy-looking) site they go to perfectly valid pages on genuine T-Mobile and Orange websites. One way or another these edits are either (a) wrong or (b) promotional, though, so continued reverting is definitely the way forward. ~ mazca 22:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone trying to sneak in a dab of spam. HalfShadow 22:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I suppose what is/was making me nervous was the fact that they'd gone to the trouble of getting a domain, and it's unclear to me what the function of this was. I know the links on their page go to real sites but they also do so from within a frame so not all users can be quite clear what's happening, and I was mildly worried that the frame might somehow facilitate access to information to which they are not entitled. However, it seems to have stopped, at least for now, and thanks, all, for your help. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Domain names are available for as little as $1. More popular domains (like "dot com") normally are available for as little as $10, if the name isn't already taken. It is not at all unusual for schoolchildren to own one or multiple domain names. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

RFC on Gavin Collins needs closing

This RFC needs to be closed with some sort of rational recommendation. This editor has been given ample opportunity to deal with the issues raised in the RFC and this discussion on his talk page fairly well sums up the editor’s view of the WP world. Those of us involved in the RFC and with this editor will move on once this one is closed.--Mike Cline (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

If no one else has taken this one on within the next day or so, I'll close it. Jclemens (talk) 07:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. Looks like I commented in the last ANI thread on him, so someone else can do the honors. Jclemens (talk) 08:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Dropping a link to the previous ANI for reference. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Multiple accounts abuse at the refdesk

Laser elements (talk · contribs) See contribs. Thanks. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. Same idiot has been haunting the humanities' reference desk a couple of days ago. Hope our range block and edit filter colleagues can throttle it. Favonian (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It's continuing; Harribry7 (talk · contribs) now. → ROUX ₪ 13:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Not too sure a range block is indicated. I saw a single ip edit that was vandalism and I reverted it. The User:Laser elements account is blocked already. Am I missing some ip issues here? Glad to figure a range block but I need some numbers. JodyB _talk 13:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Apparently at least some of the edits are coming via Tor nodes, which is a problem. Not sure if they all are. you'd have to look at deleted revisions from Saturday evening (yes, this has been ongoing since then) to find original IPs. → ROUX ₪ 13:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I took a look at the deleted revisions. Most are from registered accounts, likely socks, who have now been blocked indef and their ip's were autoblocked to prevent further account creation. I can't range block registered accounts as I don't have checkuser status and cannot discover the underlying ip address(es). There are a few ip's which were troublesome but they are to far spread apart to range block. I think whack-a-mole is the only option here. Sorry. It has been a mess. JodyB _talk 14:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they're using proxies so a range block would be impossible even for a checkuser. The 3 times they have edited via an unmasked IP, the IP's have geolocated to France, Germany, and Canada respectively, and all three of the IP's were found to be Tor nodes and have been blocked for 3 months. I think it's unlikely that this is actually multiple people. —Soap— 14:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• • See EF 372 - obviously can't be a permanent solution, but should help for now. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    • There's been upwards of 30 of them so far. I've suggested it to another admin, but why not just SP the page? The filter from yesterday doesn't seem to be working anymore. HalfShadow 17:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Regulars at the refdesks complain when they get semiprotected. Apparently the disruption is more useful than IPs having to get accounts and wait a couple of days. → ROUX ₪ 17:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Please see this investigation for more details. I've blocked more Tor nodes today than I have even seen since I've started here. If more accounts pop up, please add to the case or ping me. TNXMan 17:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Page protection please

I know that these usually go to the page protection board but I feel this should be done as quickly as possible per the history of the article. Apparently some IP's are having some fun with writing inappropriate things that got revdel but also redirecting it. I would appreciate an administrator giving this article protection for a while to allow the article to calm down with the behavior going on. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal 10:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Protected for three weeks. SirFozzie (talk) 10:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I appreciate it. --CrohnieGal 11:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, this too can be closed. Again, thank you SirFozzie, --CrohnieGal 14:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Revdel needed?

I rolled back this edit, but it occurs to me that it should probably be deleted, as it appears to name an actual individual. Deor (talk) 10:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Man

Sorry if this is the wrong venue for this (and I expect plenty of people have seen this already). There has been a content dispute going on at Man over an image of a naked man for some time, with an RfC that petered out. In the past few days some of those arguing for the removal have been taking unilateral action by removing the image (one has been blocked, along with a sock), and now removing the {{censor}} tag from the Talk page.

I know it's a content dispute, but I can't help feeling it might help for an uninvolved admin to have a look, offer a judgment on whether any consensus has been achieved and whether the {{censor}} tag should be removed, and recommend the next stage for those who are still dissatisfied. I know it's asking a lot, as it's a very lengthy disagreement, but any who could help would certainly earn my gratitude. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

They really could use more opinions there so if anyone has a moment, please take the time to give an opinion. I've already done this for the record. I've asked them to calm down a bit to allow others to come and comment. I don't want this to get out of control which is possible. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal 14:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll keep my hands off it now and see what others offer. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Mostly Outside Observation

My only comment was a short statment in the RFC, but I have been observing it for a while. Its been two months of IDIDNTHEARTHAT and quite tedious editing. There may need to sanctions imposed here becuase its a brick wall of one sided dialogue of accusations of Nudist perverts controlling[REDACTED] The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, "Nudist perverts controlling wikipedia". What are you talking about? --CrohnieGal 15:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be a fairly accurate summary of what the people saying the pic shouldn't be included are saying. → ROUX ₪ 15:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

@Crohnie: Didnt you know that being supportive of anatomical figure on the page means your a POV Pushing Nudist Pervert? You can see why exactly why i think some action needs to be taken as its been going like this for a while. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Just for info, the dispute goes further back than what's currently on the Talk page - see Talk:Man/Archive_3 too. My main desire here is really just to get the endless argument to stop, to stop the intermittent edit wars, and if necessary get people to progress to some future stage of the resolution process - that's why I was hoping for some reviews of what's gone on already and some opinions on whether any form of consensus was reached (I think the answer to that is obvious, but my opinions don't belong here). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation of that comment. I guess I fall into that category. ;) I think an administrator needs to go and remove the problem editors. Some have been blocked I noticed but if this has been going on for so long than it's time to stop it now. Editor Boing (sorry name too long, hope this will do.) has been kind enough to stop responding to allow others a chance to read and comment. I didn't look at any archives when I commented. To me it was obvious that there is nothing wrong with the male image. I just didn't like the way the montage was set up which can be reworked once the problem about the image is resolved. The only editor still arguing about the nude image is SAT85. Would someone talk to him and get him/her to back off? Thanks, --CrohnieGal 16:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Since when do adult white males lack pubes? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

What Softball Lola doesnt like it shaved there? thats a rarity The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

She likes lotsa hare. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

As an update, we have just had another attack from someone else starting an edit war to remove the image, and the article is now protected. I really think we need someone to force this to a resolution by some means, as it cannot go on indefinitely like this - I'm open to any suggestions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I don't see any corresponding edit war at Woman. Maybe what's needed is a more clinical illustration rather than what looks like some show-off editor's self-portrait. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that does seem strange, though there does appear to have been some argument about the images on Woman. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That was the first thing I checked on too. Double standards ftl. Resolute 19:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I posted this on the talk page, but then realized the discussion had moved here. I agree that a more clinical picture or perhaps a sketch could be a compromise. Here is my original statement:

Outside perspective: Saw this thread on ANI. The image is useful and has a purpose, and the article would NOT be improved if it was removed. The picture illustrates in a clinical, NPOV way that a men are visibly different from women, in that they generally have flatter chests, more muscular builds, and, more specifically, a penis. Note that the Woman article includes a picture of a naked woman. The Boy article has a picture of naked boys (non-clinical; they are swimming). The Girl article does not contain nudity. If anything, the picture is blurry and is not of good quality. Could a sketch or drawing of a nude male be a compromise? Still, the "does removing it improve the article" argument is going to be hard to overcome for the exclusionist camp. It seems to me that those wanting to get rid of the picture in this article would most likely be in favor of removing all nudity from Misplaced Pages. I am sure there is a forum for that discussion somewhere. If so, perhaps someone could link to it. The Eskimo (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

User:A.arvind.arasu

This editor was previously blocked for (among other things) copyright violations and edit warring (see talk page sections). The block was for a month duration. Despite this, the user has returned to uploading blatant copyright violations and (albeit slow) edit warring to push the logo of his favorite team onto the Twenty20 article, where it has been removed several times with explanations (see his talk page) (and mine) as to why it is inappropriate there, including violating WP:NFCC #10c. He has uploaded additional copyright violations at File:Cmrl.jpg and at File:Hpca venue.jpg. He knows full well from the prior block that taking things from the Internet and claiming them as his is unacceptable on Misplaced Pages, and in his unsuccessful unblock request back in August he promised he would not do it again. I also suspect that File:Csk clt20.jpg is a stolen image as well. I'm quite concerned about a number of other image uploads by this editor. I'm requesting this editor be blocked again, leaving the duration to the judgment of the blocking administrator. Editor has been notified of this discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Since a previous block made no apparent impact, and the copyvios are clear (copyright images ripped off from other sites) I have blocked him indefinitely. If at some stage he should develop clue, others may unblock as they see fit. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Bad Faith Editing

Hah! I see what you did there. HalfShadow 17:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

GoodFaithEditor (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

This is bad faith editing? I think I'm going to need slightly more commentary than simply a diff, because the first one I looked at seemed fine - an improvement to the article, in fact. TFOWR 14:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Never mind - I suspect I showed a little too much good faith in my response. TFOWR 14:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Good faith is never a bad thing, unless its an editor named 'GoodFaithEditor'. Syrthiss (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Strangely enough, User:ObviousSock is still available. I would have guessed that they'd try that first... --Onorem♠Dil 14:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Not anymore I'm not.ObviousSock (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Didn't you read WP:BEANS? I'm tempted to administer a large wet fish. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked sock is blocked. Edits by banned users are reverted on sight. Syrthiss (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Could you provide a little more detail, please? Did you notify User:Ohnoitsjamie? Are you aware that s/he is reverting edits made by a blocked editor? → ROUX ₪ 14:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Most of these seem to be cosmetic changes. The few that aren't seem to improve the articles. /shrug. --Onorem♠Dil 14:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to reinstate any of the edits that you feel improve the article. Then they would be your edits, and not the edits of a blocked user. Syrthiss (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Edits by socks o banned users are required to be reverted like that. Access Denied 14:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I was responding to the complaint as if it was actually made in good faith. The changes that I said improved the articles were those made by Ohnoitsjamie. (Added comment after edit conflict: No, edits by banned users are not required to be reverted like that, although they can be reverted for any reason...) --Onorem♠Dil 15:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

OIC. Syrthiss (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: "GoodFaithEditor" is a sock of banned Long-term Abuser Techwriter2B. This sock account is the fifth that the LTA has registered in the last three days (and the sixth in a week). These socks were all quickly blocked for block evasion as well as for being used exclusively to disruptively edit, Wikistalk, and/or impersonate other editors, all of which are practices that this individual has been consistently engaging in on WP for at least three years. For details of this record of misconduct see his/her very extensive Long-term Abuser page here. Centpacrr (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Brandywell Stadium

Inappropriate move from user page to article space

For reasons best known to the editor, User:Ejhaay has moved his user and talk pages to Edward Joseph Tagle. I'm not sure how to fix this. The histories of Talk:Edward Joseph Tagle and User talk :Ejhaay need to be merged as I added content to his talk page before realising what had happened. I haven't notified the user of this discussion because his talk page is part of the problem. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done Both moved back to userspace. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with this action, by Ron Ritzman (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

BenOneHundred

BenOneHundred (talk · contribs) seems a little suspicious. All of his edits so far are to AFDs, with flawed reasoning:

• "Looks notable to me."
• "It is obviously not Random house, but size does not necessarily equal notable."
• "Agree with Slon02"
• "I agree with Rick"
• "Family Guy is awesome and may become iconic, and writing one episode is notable enough."

I strongly suspect sockpuppetry. Should I be looking for a checkuser yet? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 16:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Might be an idea; bizarre one though, mixture of Keeps and Deletes. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Who do you think it is? --HighKing (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That's the real issue; "looking suspicious" isn't really enough unless it looks suspiciously like someone in particular. Remember that checkuser isn't a fishing expedition, and it doesn't seem that the user is supporting the views of any particular other user. GiftigerWunsch 17:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

With edits first starting off as editing Afd, it one of the key charecteristics of a sock. Sock case filled. No need to know who it is (per CU policy), just need to have evidence that multiple accounts may exist. (aka not fishing, see Checking an account where the alleged sockmaster is unknown, but there is reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry is not fishing @ WP:Checkuser#"Fishing") DQ.alt (t) (e) 17:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

 Fair enough GiftigerWunsch 17:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hoops gza moving albums/songs unnecessarily

User:Hoops gza appears to be on a spree of moving articles on albums and songs, adding completely unnecessarily disambiguation. logs. I've explained that this isn't necessary and asked them to stop, but they are ignoring me. I have to go offline for a while, so maybe someone could sort them out? If not I'll deal with it later. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

These edits help Misplaced Pages. I already explained this on your talk page, but you refused to listen. These article (album) titles have other article (song) titles of the same name. There is a clear need to distinguish them from each other. Also, there is no case in which clarification is a "bad" thing. It can only help, never harm, both now and in the future. You have absolutely no argument for why these edits are "unnecessary".Hoops gza (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Friendly word of advice: Listen to Michig on music topics very carefully, if you want to avoid looking silly. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The entire point of the (album) and (song) additions to the article names is to distinguish between songs and albums of the same name. If there are multiple songs of the same name, then we get into more detail - usually in the manner you suggest (see, as an example, 1 (disambiguation)#Songs). But when there is only one song with a particular name, it is absolutely unnecessary to differentiate beyond (song). Clarification can be a bad thing if it results in article titles that are less clear than they were before the clarification took place - which is why some of your moves have already been reverted. Please stop and discuss the matter here before performing any more moves, Hoops gza. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 19:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm also concerned by the rate at which you were moving pages - that's an awful lot of moves just in the past two hours or so. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 19:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• You are now edit warring - So (album) has been moved back to its correct title four times by two different editors including myself. I strongly suggest you read the advice above and stop before the inevitable happens. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

...And I've move-protected that one for 6 hours, to cool this off. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 19:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Re. some of my page moves; I hope that you are aware that the world of music is nearly limitless, which means that no editor or group of editors on Misplaced Pages knows all of the songs for a given song title (all cases where different songs or albums share the same common name), which means that at any time an article can be created for a song or an album where an article for a different song of the same name already exists. What I've done is save the trouble of future editing. Also, on a similar point, just because one particular song with a given title is famous does not make it the only song in existence with that title. So it is inaccurate to simply add "(song)" or "(album)" to those articles' titles. This is particularly true with titles that are common phrases or words, for instance, there is probably only one album in existence called "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band", whereas there likely exist multiple albums called "Transformer".Hoops gza (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Nobody needs to know all of the albums and songs that exist, because disambiguation is not needed until new album or song articles are actually created. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

To prove this, I just searched for albums with the title "Transformer" on a music site (which, of course, is likely missing many releases), and there are at least eight different albums called Transformer. Just because Misplaced Pages only has an article for one of these does not mean that Misplaced Pages should imply that it is the only album in existence with that name.Hoops gza (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You're missing one of the several points I'm making. I've saved other editors the effort of editing if or when that might happen. Another example that clarification never hinders, only helps.Hoops gza (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That's as may be, but we currently only have one article on any album named "Transformer", and that is the controlling factor here. The title is not definitive, the article is - and there the article clearly notes that it is the Lou Reed album and none other. If the other "Transformer" albums were notable, then they could be listed at Transformer (disambiguation). You're missing the point, though - multiple editors have expressed concern over your position, and we need you to Stop Moving Articles until this has been discussed. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 19:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• And seriously - moving The Smiths (album) to The Smiths (The Smiths album)? That's not just pointless, that's absurd. Also, you didn't, as is required when moving pages, fix any of the double redirects made by your page moves (although that's probably just as well, since most of these will undoubtedly be undone). Black Kite (t) (c) 19:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: the editor just reverted my fixing of that one as well. It would be a good idea at this point for someone uninvolved to have a serious word about why edit-warring against consensus is a seriously poor idea. I've moved that particular obvious example back again, but I'm going to stop whilst the editor is behaving like this, it's a waste of my time (and everyone else's). Black Kite (t) (c) 19:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Erm, how is changing them all now, when only a few may need changing in the future, "saving effort", exactly? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I have Warned Hoops gza against further page moves, pending this discussion. Diff. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 19:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that consensus is against these moves. Any dissenting voices before I move the remaining articles back to their original titles and revert the associated link changes?--Michig (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:POINT and topic bans.

This edit to WT:PHYS is of possible concern. Excerpt:

I have therefore decided that I will no longer recognize the validity of the blocks/topic bans on people like (list omitted). I encourage all of them to ignore any bans/blocks as that only poses a problem for the corrupted processes that lead to these people being bocked

Could someone with more tact and persuasiveness than me please convince the editor that this might not be the most productive stance to take? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, do you think that coming to ANI and getting this user blocked on sight fulfills your stated objectives of "tact and persuasiveness"? Dr.K.  21:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Because this seems to me more like an offer that Count Iblis could not refuse than an attempt at diplomacy and tact. Dr.K.  21:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Notice diff: . To clarify, I think that this editor is capable of contributing usefully to Misplaced Pages and is acting in good faith. I just think a spectacular error in judgement has occurred (not malice). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't Iblis himself once banned from advocating on Brews Ohare's behalf? Is that still in force? Tarc (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That ban is no longer in force. I have however blocked Count Iblis for 24 hours for disruptive editing. Deliberately and explicitly encouraging editors to violate blocks and topic bans is not on. Looie496 (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Enforcing bans and preventing socking can be difficult things to do, but that doesn't mean we should give up. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an isolated incident, as Tarc and Looie note. Protonk (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Count Iblis has posted an unblock request and I have commented there. Protonk (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I don't agree with this block. Evidently any topic bans and blocks need to be enforced as long as they are in force, but merely voicing an opinion about particular topic bans and blocks does not damage or disrupt Misplaced Pages, and is as such not blockable under our blocking policy. Only acting on that opinion (i.e., evading blocks or bans) would be disruptive, or possibly soapboxing about such issues at disruptive length, but we do not seem to be there yet. I recommend that the block be lifted.  Sandstein  21:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and evidently the opinion is entirely ... misguided, but that in and of itself is not grounds for a block. If we were to block all who have ever said very stupid things in community fora, Misplaced Pages would be a much smaller community.  Sandstein  21:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• If this were all in a vacuum, I would totally agree. CI's statement alone is pretty innocuous. But taken as part of the overall campaign and Reichstag climbing w/ brews and the speed of light case, and it becomes just another example of boundary pushing and disruptive editing. Protonk (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Bad block, certainly. Agree with Sandstein completely. --jpgordon 21:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, any admin is free to unblock or reduce the block. I don't believe that passively allowing editors to encourage other editors to violate policy is a good idea, though. Disagreeing with policy is no problem, but actively undermining it is. I also note that we've been seeing a steadily escalating pattern of provocations from Count Iblis, and at some point a line needs to be drawn. Looie496 (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. On the basis of your agreement, I'll unblock Count Iblis now, because the block is explicitly only for the one comment at issue, which in and of itself is not grounds for a block. However, Protonk is certainly correct that Count Iblis's constant involvement in these disputes is widely perceived as problematic, and I do not think that I would object to a sanction that may eventually be imposed on the basis of a full consideration (and, if required, discussion) of the editor's contributions. I also strongly advise Count Iblis to take the hint and stop what looks like a futile crusade against The Man, or eventually the community will be so fed up with them that more substantial sanctions may result.  Sandstein  22:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Deben Dave and TXE

This AN/I post is for information/discussion purposes only; it requires no action.

Deben Dave (talk · contribs) is a telecoms engineering expert; a highly subject-skilled editor who has put considerable amounts of time, effort and knowledge into developing an article describing a historical type of British telephone exchange, TXE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The article editor has also contributed a number of useful copyleft images about the exchange for including in the article. The article itself is, in fact, a good and interesting read and contains a wealth of extremely detailed information.

There are however many unfortunate problems with this article: the most serious is that the entirety is practically unsourced and much is likely unsourceable, despite it not being a copyvio; the few general (non-inline) citations present in the article being largely unrelated to the large quantity of content. Dave is also determined to have an Acknowledgements section included, where a series of collaborators are credited for their various contributions for the article (though do not appear to be sources as such). I have tried to explain to him on multiple occasions that Misplaced Pages policy is that all content must be sourced, that personal acknowledgements are not permitted within article space, and that material is not included in Misplaced Pages simply on the strength of an article being written by a subject expert and must be sourced (e.g. WP:V, WP:RS, Misplaced Pages:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought, WP:COI; diffs , , .)

Regretfully, Dave has engaged in tendentious article ownership behaviour in response following my engagement with him, revert-warring to protest the addition of cleanup tags, removal of the worst of the unsourced material and the removal of other inappropriate material such as the "Acknowledgements" section with combative edit summaries (, , , ) and at one point blanking the page (). He appears to be under the impression that his expertise justifies this behaviour. He does not appear to be very communicative. There are no other involved parties.

I am extremely reluctant to place blocks on him for disruptive editing as I am absolutely certain he is acting in good faith, but I do not appear to be getting through to him. I note that other editors have attempted to discuss this with him on his talk page relating to other articles, to no avail. I would appreciate comment from other editors on what to do. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You've been nothing but polite and helpful to the editor - and he just does not seem to get it. This is problematic. As well-intentioned and as positive as his additions have been, this is an encyclopedia and needs full sources - verifiability is a pillar of Misplaced Pages. I look forward to his comment here in ANI before anything additional. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing the article history and the editor's talk page, I agree with all of the above. This is very regrettable, but I would support a community-imposed ban from the article (not the talk page), if Deben Dave does not indicate that he understands that despite his good work on Misplaced Pages, he still needs to comply with our community norms, notably WP:V and WP:OWN.  Sandstein  21:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism-only IP user

I'm not sure if this is the right place to report this, but I think admins ought to take a look at the contributions from 209.34.114.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). As far as I can tell, all of this user's contributions are vandalism. Some of the most recent examples are . This user has already received numerous warnings about vandalism in their user talk, and been blocked for it twice. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Eyes requested at Lauren Hodges

An WP:SPA, MR90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has been disruptively removing non-contentious, referenced content from the WP:BLP Lauren Hodges. I have tried various forms of dispute resolution, including discussing the matter with this editor on his/her talk page and the article talk page. I also raised the matter at WP:BLP/N a few days ago, but got no assistance. At one point, the article was protected because of edit warring related to this matter (I admit I was not entirely blameless there).

Although the actress is notable enough for a BLP (several notable movie and TV appearances), there is a distinct lack of references available. Nevertheless, the current version is fully referenced and contains nothing that would violate WP:BLP and related policies.

I would appreciate some administrator assistance and/or guidance, even if it's just to kick me in the backside and tell me I'm doing it wrong. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Clearly something has to happen here. MR90 has been repeatedly removing sourced information with entirely misguided reasons, and it has been explained repeatedly that those reasons are flawed. It started with MR90 believing that the information is entirely not encyclopedic and now it appears to be "two users not involved in editing dispute slimvirgin and orangemike found hodges has dubious notability. therefore biographical material inappropriate on[REDACTED] page." thus no biographical information at all can be included. Which is quite silly. Underlying issue might be that the source is a biography at AMC.com, which I believe shouldn't really pose a problem. _Xeworlebi  22:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards