Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) at 19:54, 4 March 2011 (→Ritual Decalogue: new section). 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 admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

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

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

Conflict of interest by an admin

Cundallini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

SchuminWeb has a long and checkered past with the Portal of Evil and Old Man Murray websites. He should not be involved in nominating nor arguing for their deletion. He posted and was posted about voluminously on both sites. Cundallini (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Quack quack. GiantSnowman 23:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Moo? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Vacas escritoras? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Where's My Cow? HalfShadow 22:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Why a Duck? Yworo (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"Who are you people and where's my horse?". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No Wife, No Horse, No Moustache. Yworo (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Because I've been seduced by the duck side of the farce. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

What also floats in water? A duck! Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:BIGDUCK LiteralKa (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

How a user with a total of 2 edits would know about someone's "long and checkered past" is hard to say. Cundallini, meanwhile, had a short and checkmated present. Ironically, Cundallini is an old Italian word meaning "Boomerang". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Re-read Cundallini's post. He says SW had a long and chequered past on those websites. Many WP editors use their WP handles elsewhere (I do this myself) - so it's not unreasonable for a "noob" to know about it - esp if SW posted on them "Hey I'm getting your WP pages deleted!" Sure doesn't sound like SW, but I think your reaction a little hasty. Rich Farmbrough, 04:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC).

I'm inclined to unblock here. This user is not a sock of anyone but rather another person who came from the Old Man Murray site as a part of the current AFD dramafest currently going on. I don't think we have AGF'd very well here; moreover, if the user is intent on being disruptive, then let him get blocked on that instead of on a spurious claim of socking. –MuZemike 22:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed my previous comment due to the new evidence provided below. This is good block. --CrohnieGal 13:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised by all this. The above user has apparently been ridiculed by 10 experienced users some of whom are administrators. I assumed they knew something the rest of us didn't (or at least I didn't) and didn't pay much attention when I first saw it. But if these latter posts are correct (I have no clue one way or other) then I'm appalled. Either way, could one of the admins who posted above give an explanation of this lack of AGF and whether it's justified. DeCausa (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• There is an external website whose members have had a years-long habit of harassing SchuminWeb in all sorts of venues. There have been postings like the above trying to incriminate Schumin here on ANI periodically for several weeks. Once you've seen the pattern it's quite obvious that this posting was part of the same campaign. Besides, Cundallini (talk · contribs) has now also been CU-confirmed to be a sock of some sorts; see latest messages on his user talk by CU Tiptoety. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - relieved to hear it. DeCausa (talk) 12:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Been reading through the Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Old_Man_Murray_(2nd_nomination) out of sheer nosiness, and I found it interesting that User:Kade miraculously rose from the dead after 4 years of inactivity after several blocks for PAs and harassment, only to be indeffed for PAs and harassment. I am dying to know whom this User:Kade is a sock of. What otherwise law-abiding Wikipedian has such an evil puppet? --64.85.220.182 (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you have to have someone to compare it to before the CU's will go fishing for you. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Mindbunny - disruptive editing on Women's rights in Saudi Arabia

I’ve been trying to reach agreement with User:Mindbunny on a content dispute in Women's rights in Saudi Arabia and have found Mindbunny to be confrontational, unwilling to discuss meaningfully, as well as issues of WP:OWN and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and generally disruptive editing, underpinned by a POV. In a sense, the content issue is not that significant, but I am concerned enough to bring it here because I believe this user has driven other editors away from this article in order to keep control of it e.g. please see this and especially this posted by another editor. Mindbunny forced this into the article (fairly clearly lacking in NPOV), by edit-warring here here here here here here here and here. An opposing editor posted these on Mindbunny’s talk page, gave up and has not edited the article since. The Mindbunny account has only been in existence since 1 December 2010. There is a strong suspicion that this user is a sock of User:Noloop who supposedly retired last November – another editor has begun an SPI on that (see here, the result is not yet known. Noloop largely created the article as it now is and was under scrutiny for disruptive behaviour (see also this revert of Noloop's Talk page) – that’s covered in the diffs in the SPI report. (Incidently, 5 editors in total have expressed the opnion that Mindbunny is a sock - see SPI diff plus this

On the specific issue of my current content dispute with Mindbunny, the summary is as follows. I introduced this edit at the beginning of Feb., which Mindbunny reverted. I couldn’t get Mindbunny to discuss this meaningfully and regretfully I got into an edit war. I admit I was at fault on this as well but it was out of frustration in Mindbunny’s lack of proper response. I reported it to AN/3RR (here. This was how far I got on the Talk page with the user at the time I reported it. Mindbunny was blocked and then unblocked in part because I was not sanctioned (the reviewing admin thought I was at fault as well.) After this Mindbunny posted a proper response to my edit on Talk, I responded by radically changing my edit here (with Talk comment) on 8 February. Actually it was a completely different edit albeit with te same underlying point. The article was edited by about 10 editors over the next two weeks including one editor who made some minor changes to the text I added and Mindbunny herself who edited other text in the section it was in on 21st February. None (including Mindbunny) removed the text or commented adversely on it. To me (and maybe I’m wrong on this) this indicates consensus acceptance of the text. Then on 22 February (the day after the SPI on Mindbunny began, to which I posted a comment on the 21st) Mindbunny removed the text. After two reverts, and an exchange on the Talk page I proposed that we get a WP:Thirdopinion here, but there has been no response despite asking a second time. I believe that the reason for Mindbunny’s latest reverts is (a) because I supported the SPI (the timing indicates that) and (b) it is contrary to Mindbunny’s strong POV on this subject. The original edit and this edit are completely different texts but with a similar underlying point. This point is valid and would provide the article with some balancing NPOV – it would appear that Mindbunny objects to that. Mindbunny's edits (as with Noloop) are generally along the lines of being overtly hostile to the Saudi treatment of women. Just to be clear, I have absolutely no sympathy with the Saudi position, but there is a question of maintaining NPOV credibility. I've informed Mindbunny of this post. DeCausa (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, on February 7, the user was not blocked (or, rather, the blocking admin quickly reversed their block), because at that point in time (February 7), they had not been given {{uw-3rr}} or some other warning making them aware of that policy. Since that time, Mindbunny's edits have contained very little other than edit warring and some fundamental misunderstandings of policy (eg "undo violation of BRD by Decausa" - what does that even mean?). I support something being done here. --B (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It would appear that Mindbunny has adopted a similar approach on Lara Logan - see this. DeCausa (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Entertaining to see so much edit-warring by those complaining of edit warring. The link above is a threat by Eriklectic to start edit-warring, complete with a time and date: "I will be reverting the Lara Logan edits by 10am EST tomorrow". This, on a page that has been protected for much of the last week. B, who "supports something being done here" has chosen to do it by reverting my revert on Women's rights in Saudi Arabia. His comments on the Talk page? Nonexistent. His edit summary? Nothing to do with content. That's a great way to diminish edit warring! As for Decausa, the actual sequence was that he plopped an enormous list down into the article, saying he had found it in Saudi Arabia and needed a place to stick it. ]. I undid it with an edit summary, and he immediately reverted my revert, complained that my reasons weren't "proper," and accused me of edit-warring. Smart! Due to confusion caused by sloppy "recent change patrollers", I was blocked twice. Both blocks were undone by the blocking admin on his own initiative. Decausa's description is erroneous in many other ways. This is wrong: " Mindbunny forced this into the article (fairly clearly lacking in NPOV), by edit-warring...." I didn't add that; I undid its removal. There is more nonsense in his account, but it's not worth belaboring. My only other comment is that I will edit war to keep out the details of someone's sexual assault in a BLP that she didn't authorize and that is sourced anonymously. There is no public right to know that Lara Logan was or was not raped that can be bequeathed by anyone by Lara Logan. To date, she hasn't chosen to make that information public and we should respect that.Mindbunny (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Saying "I will edit war...", for any reason, is not the way to win friends and influence people. There are lots of things that lots of people would rather not have the public know that are reported and verifiable through reliable sources. Should they be removed from articles just because the person the article is about has neither confirmed or denied them despite the fact that reliable sources state them as fact? Also, a BLP that she didn't authorize - are you referring to the release of the information (which, if the source of the information is anonymous, how do we know they aren't speaking on her direct behalf?), or are you suggesting that the subjects of BLPs must give their consent to their Misplaced Pages articles? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

We're talking about a recent sexual assault. So, yes, she must give her consent before the details of exactly how she was or wasn't sexually assaulted are declared "encyclopedic" by a bunch of assholes with Misplaced Pages accounts. Mindbunny (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny, what makes you the enforcer? Why are you deciding for the community rather than letting the community decide for itself?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I for one, am the enforcer on the issue, as the previous blocking admin (note: I'm not even sure what the whole edit war is about, so I can't be biased on the issue). And that statement was entirely inappropriate. Yeah, I kind of goofed up that block history; the first block was only not deserved because the user wasn't given a proper warning - although later talk on the user's page now gives the impression this may not be the user's only account. The second block was definitely deserved, but I was feeling lenient.

Mindbunny, please stop hitting the revert button and being rude, now, or you'll see yourself blocked again. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly why would I be blocked for "hitting the revert button", rather than, oh say, those who are hitting the edit button without consensus? As for civility....If you think you're entitled to know whether somebody was raped, you're an asshole. If you think that detail is encyclopedic when it is reported anonymously, you're truly uncivil. The idea that admins care more about the word "asshole" than compliance with something truly respectful, civil, and humane in the description of a sexual assault is offensive and disgusting. And, exactly why is all this crap being directed at me? Somebody just announced an intent to edit war beginning precisely at 10 AM tomorrow. A reader of this page just went over to Women's rights in Saudi Arabia and reverted my revert--to prevent edit warring. So now you're threatening to block me for editing other pages because I said "asshole" on AN/I? That makes no sense. Mindbunny (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the reasoning, referring to other editors by that term is uncivil and borders on WP:NPA territory. It has nothing to do with the article or its content, it has to do with how you choose to present your case. (And on the subject of the article and its content, does it strike anybody else as odd that the, presumably positive, statement that the assault was NOT rape is what's being demanded to be removed?) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Suppose I told you that I had been sexually assaulted. Would you ask me "Well, were you raped"? If you heard from someone who heard from someone who probably knew the truth, would you run around announcing that I hadn't been raped, and put it on the Internet? I sure hope not, and if you did do those things, you would be an #*$%. Privacy is privacy. You don't ask such things, and you don't tell them. If they're not volunteered, you live without knowing. It's for the victim to specify, or not. And, the BLP guidelines pretty much say that. Mindbunny (talk) 06:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support blocking for disruptive behavior and incivility. There doesn't seem to be any getting through that he/she is not in charge and we have to work with others.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 06:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support blocking for disruptive behavior and incivility. Despite clear, eminently civil requests from the community, Mindbunny appears intent on being uncivil, and of the mind that that is the only way (s)he will be able to make her point. We don't need that. Even if the substance of MB's issue is one (s)he is correct on. Would also suggest a CU, as this appears a likely second problem.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI, Account is stale for CU purposes, but the behavioral evidence is very strong. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support blocking for disruptive behavior and incivility. I wasn't exactly sure what should happen when I made the original post above, but with the User's responses (which is, by the way, typical of the way the User always behaves and edits) it's difficult to see that he/she will ever learn to behave in a reasonable way. This is particularly so, given the disruptive track record of the user's previous probable account, User:Noloop, who "retired" with the words "I am just fed up with Misplaced Pages: the cultural bias, the abusive administrators, and a "dispute resolution" process that ultimately has no method other than the popularity contest". DeCausa (talk) 10:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey -- Noloop may have a legitimate basis for some of his complaints. Or not. But whether or not MB is the same editor, MB's performance here in this string is sufficient for a block. IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support block User has shown complete inability to assume good faith and thus assumes everyone else is wrong. Incivility and tendentious editing issues as well, on top of violating WP:CLEANSTART. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

A block would solve everything. Do it! The best way to teach editors to assume good faith is to block them. The best way to teach them not to edit war is to revert their reverts. Do I assume everybody else is wrong? It seems to me I've spent hours giving reasons and researching Misplaced Pages policies. I must be hallucinating. Block me! Hallucinating editors can't help but be disruptive. A block would solve that. Do it. Mindbunny (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative. In this case, it would help adjust clue level. The way you have been editing is not agreeable with the community. That's why this post is here.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Given the last post, I'm beginning to doubt if this user is ever going to get it, whatever the sanction. (Btw, Noloop was blocked four times before retiring, twice for edit-warring and twice for disruptive editing. At the last block in July 2010 the blocking admin.'s log summary was "apparently didn't get the message last time".) DeCausa (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The community is disorganized and careless. In a case like this, one can hardly blame it: this is a petty personal dispute. I think there has been a single comment from an editor not previously involved (Epeefleche). What is presented here to the community is a tip of an iceberg, a tip slanted and defined by the complainer. Your antagonistic entry into the discussion I started at the Village Pump was a good example. I tried to turn a negative into a positive. You didn't do your research, assumed I was an asshole, and talked to me accordingly (to your credit, you corrected your mistake later, after I did your research for you). Magog blocked me twice--and undid his own blocks both times--because he didn't pay attention to detail. The recent change patrollers reverted me 3 times without even bothering to look at the Talk page--again, a failure to really care about the facts. I've tried to research some of the issues I've seen on this board that caught my attention. I always give up because it is hard and not that important. It takes a long time to sort out the history of a dispute. Nobody cares that much, nobody will bother. What is written here is not written by "the community." It is written by a few complainers with a prior history of conflict with me, and with a track record of distorting the facts. Mindbunny (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"Pay attention to detail" and "really care about the facts": it wasn't me that entered your Village Pump discussion. Don't you ever wonder why different editors from different articles all have the same reaction to you? DeCausa (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict. The "you" in my comment refers to Bearean. Mindbunny (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you had previous conflicts with Bushranger and B? You've had a conflict with B since s/he left the post above but was there one prior? How was my response at the Pump antagonistic? I cited WP:BOOMERANG because you were guilty of calling Tide Rolls polite warning "vandalism" when you were there to accuse others of misusing the term. I didn't assume you were an asshole...I couldn't make up my mind whether you were a klutzy, complaining noob or someone's sockpuppet. I asked for diffs of what you said because I overlooked them (a mistake but not for lack of looking). I helped you by linking to the diffs once you pointed them out.

Ever since that time, I have been watching you. You really edit in just 2 articles primarily...and unfortunately the edit-warring and disruptive patterns are in both. You've proven above that you are willing to edit war regardless of policies or consensus and I'll add that I've seen you wikilawyering (that is most of what you do) to the point of being disruptive. Those two articles have ping-ponged back & forth in my watchlist with you arguing way too hard for you to have been anything other than someone's sock. Newbs don't jump into BLP arguments and initiate ANI threads or ask for automated tools to be created which penalize RC patrollers and vandal-fighters. I have yet to see you really compromise anywhere or admit that maybe the problem is yours. Sit back and look at the number of folks telling you to consider your actions...stop accusing everyone of being assholes and that everything is broken because things don't go your way. We're trying to clue you in.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. I argue and wikilawyer, and also refuse to respond and edit without discussion. Both are true. It makes perfect sense. I edit war against consensus, although there is no consensus and I'm not trying to change any article. That makes perfect sense too. I edit war regardless of polices, except for when I cite policies such as BLP and BRD, at which point I am being disruptive. That's fair. Thank you for teaching me. Mindbunny (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll ask the question again: don't you ever wonder why different editors from different articles all have the same reaction to you? Don't you think there might be a clue in so many saying pretty much the same thing about you but from different incidents? Or do you just think everyone else has got it wrong? DeCausa (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

They don't. The only editor here who has actually edited with me is you. You could go round up some other editors from Lara Logan, while ignoring those who agree with me. Given your prior interactions with me, I believe that's exactly what you'd do. You are dishonest. You say I tried to add things I didn't try to add, that I didn't explain my objections when I did, that I'm promoting an anti-Saudi POV when I'm not. You cherry-pick links and diffs to present a slanted view, and that slanted view affects the first impressions of others. Also affecting first impressions is my Talk page. It is plastered with erroneous warnings from recent change patrollers--not once, or twice, but three times. All invalid, but nonetheless giving a certain impression to visitors. (Amazingly, the patrollers all claim it's not their responsibility to take 60 seconds to look at the Talk page to see if what they're reverting really is vandalism. Like I said, the community is disorganized and careless.) My Talk page is plastered with block notices that never would have happened if not for the false positives by recent change patrollers. Both blocks were undone by the blocking admin, but nonetheless it give visitors a certain impression. Erikeltic showed up and bared his fangs and outright threatened to edit war with me at 10 AM sharp the following day. Typically, you linked to this as evidence of my disruptiveness. You are dishonest. I'm not going to comment here again. Mindbunny (talk) 05:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I see. I'm the mastermind behind a conspiracy against you. I can see you've decided to improve first impressions of yourself on your Talk page.DeCausa (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny is reverting cited material from the London Times declaring it "has no consensus". This is making good on the promise of edit-warring. Please block...enough is enough.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support block From checking this and looking at this editors manner of responses it's time to issue the block. The reverting is continuing at the page which is not good. The uncivil manner of talking along with being totally disruptive I think the time has come to allow the block so that real work can be done at the articles. I also think that this editor should be made to put their other account name on this account since cleanstart has been breached. --CrohnieGal 12:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

GiacomoReturned NPA Restriction

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

Archived, pending closure, see #Uninvolved closure sought. MickMacNee (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved closure:

The raw count of positions here is 19 in favor, one weakly in favor, 16 opposed, 1 weakly opposed, and 4 others. A number of the opposes could shift into the weakly opposed category depending on interpretation, but I am leaving them as simple opposed.

We have a 20 out of 41 raw count for "support", and that's 20 out of 37 for those giving a clear support/oppose. That is either slightly below or slightly above 50%, which fails to meet our usual standard for consensus.

In terms of arguments presented, however, there is a strong trend. A majority of the opposes indicated that they were opposing on grounds of futility rather than truly opposing the sanction. That is significant and should be noted and considered in closing.

I do not feel that closing with a "community sanction enacted" with less than clear majority support is appropriate. I am not enacting the sanction with this closure.

However, a plurality of those commenting felt that Giano is doing something wrong. I am noting here and will note on Giano's talk page that there is a community consensus that his behavior has not met the standards the community expects. This is not a "green light" for stricter enforcement in any way, but should be taken as indicative of slow exhaustion of community patience on this issue. It is generally wise to step away from behavior which is moving towards exhausting community patience.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I realise this may be akin to "political suicide" :) but I would like to propose a community restriction on GiacomoReturned based on WP:NPA. Yesterday Soundvisions1 opened a WQA thread about Giano's actions in this file deletion discussion. The file appears to have been nominated as part of a separate dispute over the {{keeplocal}} (the TFD discussion has the history).

To summarise the specific concerns raised at WQA; Giano took offence at the image nomination (note: I don't necessarily blame him) and viciously abused the nominator and one other person who voted delete. His language included calling them idiots, morons and one specifically nasty sentence: an ignorant, stupid little admin who has not the remotest idea what you are talking about. (see WQA thread for diffs and other abusive language).

Soundvisions1 left a template message with a personal customisation to remind Giano of our civility policy. Perhaps the wrong approach per WP:DTR but I believe that his actions in both places was in good faith.

Soundvisions1 immediately started receiving advice on his talk page to approach the matter differently; these were civil comments but it looked like the start of a potential flood. In light of that, and the drama that such WQA threads (about Giano) usually create I closed the discussion and tried to engage with Giano on his talk page. This was an attempt to avoid community level mess by giving Giano the opportunity to once again address his behaviour.

Giano has rejected this attempt; he initially tried to justify his actions on the basis that the image was being attacked. However it does not seem reasonable to call people morons based on that, and indeed our WP:NPA policy expressly says it is unacceptable to do so. He then advised me to leave him alone and to look at civility issues within "corps d'administrateurs", suggesting that until everyone else is civil he does not feel a need to be. He continued further justification of his actions; "I see nothing wrong in telling someone behaving like an idiot that they are doing so". Whilst on some level I approve of the idea of calling a spade a spade I feel it is still unacceptable to do so with abusive language.

It appears to me that Giano holds little respect for the editing community in general and admins in specific, and those he does respect have not been able to impress a standard of civility on him. Giano appears to believe that our policy on civility does not apply to him and, more concerningly, he appears to believe that it is appropriate, and indeed his right, to act as he did.

During the discussion he treated me with disdain and portrayed an arrogant attitude. Had he said "Sorry, I snapped and it was inappropriate" then that would personally have been satisfactory to me. But he seems to believe that the attacks were justified and had no respect for my attempt to help.

Because I was unable to have a mature conversation with him over this issue I feel I have to bring this back to the community for discussion, along with a proposal to sanction Giano. Note that at this stage I am not asking for, and specifically oppose, any form of a block. However I would like to propose a sanction to impress on Giano that guidelines of WP:NPA still apply, especially given his past long history of incivility and battleground mentality. --Errant 09:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment from Soundvisions1: I just want to, again, clarify something. The message I left was based on a template but it was not a simple "Just hit the warn button and walk away" post. I believe there are two sentences from {{uw-npa1}} in use. I find it rather silly that there is *any* focus on that at all when the context of the issue, which I personally "authored" in a warning, is that nobody should be calling *any* editor, admin or not, "idiot", "ignorant morons", "ignorant, stupid little admin who has not the remotest idea what you are talking about", "idiotic little twits" and/or a "mental retard." I was not a participant in the deletion discussion at all, nor in any template discussion which is being pointed out now. I have never, to my knowledge, encountered GiacomoReturned before or had any interaction with them. Likewise, to my knowledge, I have never had interaction with the two editors who posted on my talk page, one of which who threatened me with a block unless I backed off. I have since learned that GiacomoReturned has a rather long tack record of being a rather controversial figure at Misplaced Pages and has supporters who do not feel behavior such as this is out of line. I received a minor taste of that yesterday and suspect my posting here may result in more, however I want to state, again, that there was no secret motive behind my initial warning other than what I explicitly said, in non-templateed form (ie. - I said it on my own), on the users talk page. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed sanction

I object to Errant's closure of his own proposal, and requested him to set it aside so that an uninvolved person can re-close it, to give the actual consensus view. Further info on his talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved closure sought

Pursuant to Errant's final comments , I've set aside his closure so that an uninvolved person can review and close the above proposal. MickMacNee (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Outing comment

I came across this“outing” comment made by User:IntrigueBlue. IntrugueBlue claims he based his outing comment on this post purported to be placed by the person who has been outed. Given the extensive vandalism that has been going on at the Sunshine Village article (much of it directed at the person who is the subject of this outing), I think it would be wise to follow the procedure explained at WP:OUTING, to make a request for Oversight to delete both of these edits from Misplaced Pages permanently – but I do not know how to do that. Fages (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I have RevDeleted the supposed "self incrimination" and WP:Outing issue. I shall leave IntrigueBlue a gentle reminder not to believe unreferenced content on WP and a strong hint not to repeat it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The following edits concerning the WP:Outing issue may have been missed for the RevDeleted process:

• (good faith removal which actually serves to archive the outing)

Fages (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed :) --Errant 16:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Was it necessary to RevDel my edit, which redacted the discussion? I thought that deleting the edit immediately before mine would prevent the material I removed from being visible in the diff. January (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'm not sure I understand how this was a contravention of WP:OUTING. From the linked description (emphasis mine):

Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Misplaced Pages. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Misplaced Pages. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors. It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for Oversight to delete that edit from Misplaced Pages permanently. If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, their wishes should be respected, though reference to self-disclosed information is not outing.

The IP user in question posted their own name in relation to an edit, which I then repeated elsewhere. Unless I am mistaken, the individual did not redact this self-disclosed information, so the last sentence in the quote above does not apply. It wasn't my intention to incite harassment, merely to make other editors aware that someone with a strong WP:COI was repeatedly editing the article. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 16:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No, an ip posted under a name which they said was theirs - we have no evidence that it was; it may have been a Joe job. As such, saying an ip is who they claim they are can be considered trying to disclose an identity without knowing that the individual has released that information. I know that it is a tricky concept, so that is why I only advised you and strongly urged you to be more careful - privacy expectations is such that the usual response to a disclosure attempt is an official warning or even sanction. To sum up, we do not know for sure that the subject has edited Misplaced Pages and that noting they have by referring to an ip comment claiming to be that person is considered WP:Outing - and it should not happen again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

What? The IP claimed to be the person. While that may be a lie, it is absolutely not |outing]] to repeat that claim. It may be wrong, but it has repeatedly been held that as soon as a person outs xyrself, it's no longer outing to repeat that claim. If I state here that I am John Travolta Madonna Joe McJoeyson , it doesn't matter whether or not that's true--any other editor is safely able to repeat that information ps, none of those are true. There is no violation of policy here. Furthermore, that RevDel was not appropriate: editors are allowed to self-identify. Now, if they did so without realizing the consequences, and later asked for the info to be retracted, it could be allowed, but I see people self-identify all the time and I've never once seen that self-identification removed (outside of minors giving too much info, but that's not the case here). I believe both LessHeard vanU and Fages need to explain more clearly why they've contravened policy here. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, and ErrantX, since xe's the one who actually did the revdel. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I simply followed up on action already taken (i.e. one revision was removed and someone added that there was more), you'd have to ask LessHeard vanU. --Errant 08:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Here you go, from WP:OUTING;"If you see an editor post personal information about another person, do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information. Doing so would give the person posting the information and anyone else who saw the page feedback on the accuracy of the material. Do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts for the same reason." On the basis that you, nor me, cannot confirm that the ip is the person they say they are (as you note, you can call yourself anyone) it can be taken that they are attempting to connect a real person with an ip address - and by confirming it, without knowing it is true, you are involved in outing that individual. I would really appreciate it if you would AGF that what I am saying, although quite arcane, is correct, and that I have been exampling as much good faith as I would want you to extend that I am explaining and providing a rationale for my comments. You made a mistake; we all do, and it is hoped that we recognise and understand the situation and move on. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I AGF that you think I (well, actually Intrigueblue) made a mistake, but I actually think that you made the mistake. This was an editor posting personal information about himself. It may be a lie, but it was not posting personal information about another person. By your logic, I could never repeat anytime anyone self-identifies. For example, on your user page, you claim to be "Mark James Slater." By your logic, I "cannot confirm that you are the person you say you are" because "you can call yourself anyone." Thus, by repeating what you yourself have written, I am violating WP:OUTING. A lot of IPs sign with a name, because they don't know how or don't care to bother creating a Misplaced Pages identity. By both the implied logic and the explicit wording of WP:OUTING, I may refer to that person by that name (of course, accounting for the possibility of dynamic IPs). So, if you're confident in your interpretation, I would like to you to clarify under which circumstances referring to a person by a name that they have themselves revealed is acceptable, and when it is not. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

“Confirmation” presupposes additional knowledge. If I had somehow gathered the named individual's IP address from elsewhere and stated that indeed the statement was correct (or that it were incorrect), I would be providing confirmation and giving “feedback on the accuracy of the material”. I never made any such attempt to confirm or deny, only made the good-faith assumption that the anon user's statement was correct and repeated it elsewhere, as explicitly permitted in WP:OUTING (see bold text in blockquote above). As for your comments, AGF does not mean “assume that I am correct”; I don't attribute any malice to your perspective, merely a faulty interpretation of events and/or of policy. I hate to be stubborn, but your subsequent attempts to explain your reasoning seem to require a leap of logic that I'm not following.

Regardless, I would like to hear you justify using RevDel unbidden on a user. Can you redact John Travolta's comments above because you think he made a mistake in posting his “name”? Can you redact this post because I just “confirmed” that Qwyrxian is John Travolta? What if I stated on Talk:John Travolta (which I won't) that Travolta was editing the article under the name Qwryxian? Where does the distinction lie? —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 00:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Just use common sense and reasonable judgment, taking into account the nature of the claims, and the type of person named (in terms of their likelihood to inspire imposters). It's not helpful to concoct weird edge cases and wikilawyer over them. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If that's the standard, then in this case the RevDel was even more inappropriate, because, due to the edits the IP made and the deleted statements made on the talk page, it seems highly likely (i.e., common sense) that the person is who they claimed to be. Again, this is common practice for IPs, to "sign" in plain text. Again, by LessHeard's logic, if an IP writes something on a talk page, and signs it "Bob Bobber," and then in the reply I write, "Bob Bobber, I think you're wrong," then I am guilty of outing. If an IP or user self-identifies, then that automatically means WP:OUTING no longer applies, and the policy makes this explicitly clear. If a second party says "That IP is actually Bob Bobber," then that second party is outing, and if I repeat the second party, then I am also guilty of furthering the outing. It really seems very simple to me. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Highspeedrailguy

Anyone any clue what User:Highspeedrailguy is up to at his user page? I know he's caused trouble before - is any action needed? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked by NuclearWarfare. 28bytes (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I was skeptical of the WP:GOTHACKED explanation the first time around, but this is just getting tiresome. This is the 8th (!) account or IP he has edited under due to clean starts, renames, compromised accounts, etc., and despite the efforts of a number of editors to guide him in the right direction, he just can't seem to avoid the drama. I think a short-term ban is in order. 28bytes (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I find it hard to believe the "hacked" story, especially as he seems to claim he was online at the same time as the hack - there are only so many times we should fall for "The sky is falling". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Left a final warning. T. Canens (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I support Tim's warning and thought process behind it. Killiondude (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Concur with all of the above. Editor has rebutted the presumption of good faith, and is no longer entitled to AgF.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Further warning requested

Enough is enough. This user started as User:Perseus, Son of Zeus, then User:Perseus8235, then User:Highspeedrailguy. Now editing as User:173.49.140.141. Only the Highspeedrailguy account is blocked. This user has repeatedly requested deletes of talk pages and user pages, and is a highly disruptive user. Further examples include SPI accusations, cleanstart attempts, odd village pump requests, revealing personal information inappropriately, bad CSD tagging, Misplaced Pages account being hacked at least twice...the list goes on. I ran CU and found an additional linked account, User:Sheep Say Baa, which I blocked, and which he later claimed was "his brother".

This user seems to believe that only editing from one account at a time is within policy, and does not seem to get that disruption is a blockable - and bannable - offense. I would warn him myself but that would be poor form, as I've tried to engage, and have expressed some frustration myself. Having run a CU (and blocking an account as a result) definitely makes me involved. Would someone take a look and put him on a very short leash? I am thinking of something along the lines of one account, period, and further disruption will result in a ban, not a block.  Frank  |  talk  22:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: User is aware of this renewed discussion.  Frank  |  talk  22:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I would absolutely support a one-account restriction. The question is, which account? I believe both User:Perseus, Son of Zeus and User:Highspeedrailguy are permanently blocked as compromised, and him editing under an IP or IPs is not ideal given the obvious need to keep an eye on his edits. Does he get a new account, or should he resume editing as User:Perseus8235? Whatever account he chooses, I think we definitely need to proceed with the understanding that it's the last account he gets: if it gets either compromised or "compromised", that's it. 28bytes (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No. He's had, what, eight chances? He needs to, as he said, focus on grades, and not let hackers distract him from RL. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

What did you have in mind? A 3-month block? Indef? 28bytes (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd think a reasonably lengthy ban would be in his own interest as well as that of the encyclopedia. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I know this was marked as resolved, however the Perseus8235 account is not blocked... --Jezebel'sPonyo 14:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not sure what got resolved exactly... the IP he's been using is unblocked, as is the Perseus8235 account. We also need to decide what his main account will be, for the purposes of the inevitable unblock request. My suggestion would be to consider Perseus8235 to be the main account, block both it and the IP for 3 months for disruption, and make clear that (1) Perseus8235 is to be the only account used, and (2) further disruption either from that account when it is unblocked in 3 months, or from any socks during or after the block, will extend the block to indef, and will likely lead to a ban discussion. The other accounts are indef-blocked at the moment, and should stay that way. I think a permanent ban is premature, but a 3-month block/ban of any editing would be appropriate. 28bytes (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm leaving the Perseus8235 account unblocked, if he chooses to come back, he should not make any new accounts. I don't think restrictions are necessary; if something happens again, block indef. Eight chances is too many. He's already stated he will not return, though, so hopefully this is not needed. In reality, this is just an editor who needs to focus on life now. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Funny story...

User:Secrets floating in the sea is a  Confirmed sock of Perseus. TNXMan 15:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Perseus8235; user is either displaying absolutely no control of any accounts or is playing games with us. –MuZemike 16:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. So much for not returning. This is just sad. I think "come back in three months and don't sock in the meantime" would have been the best thing for both him and the project, but I can't really argue with an indef either given the obvious not-getting-it. 28bytes (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I wonder why he came to my talk page asking to be adopted, other than to waste my time. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Suicide threat reported to WMF already. I think it's time to let them handle this now. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

He's just taking the piss - has been all along. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Almost certainly. But regardless, passing it up to WMF was the right thing to do. 28bytes (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, definitely -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

User has been active on Simple under Highspeedrailguy in the last few days. Should some note of this be made there? I could just see him trying to hang around over there and cause trouble... -PrincessofLlyr 17:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of his activities here, his first Simple edits appear to be edit-warring with an antivandalism bot, which isn't too encouraging. 28bytes (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. But is it advisable for me, or someone else, to make a note to active Simple editors to keep an eye out for him, or just leave it for them to figure out? I'm semi-active on Simple, and I know of at least a few cases recent cases where problem users from here just continued their problem behaviour on Simple, exhausting AGF until they were blocked. PrincessofLlyr 18:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason not to give folks over there a heads-up. I note that he's registered simple:User:Perseus8235 in addition to simple:User:Highspeedrailguy; no idea what other accounts he may have over there. 28bytes (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the Perseus account. I checked the latest one (Secrets...) and didn't find it registered. I have left a warning note on his talk page there and will post something on the noticeboards for the general community. PrincessofLlyr 18:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

TheLostHero2012

This user edits against consensus. He/She also has never even tried to explain their actions. This user has never edited a talk page or even leaves an edit summary, He/She doesn't understand that Misplaced Pages is a community. JDDJS (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sure TheLostHero2012 won't care, and won't respond here, thereby maintaining a record of not having a single talk page edit in the contribution history. For the most part, edits don't seem to be disruptive, and there isn't much I see that demands discussion. Failure to give edit summaries is a problem (because it increases workload for others who have to check the edits), but isn't really a blockable offense. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

He edits against consensus. Like on Generator Rex. He keeps on adding characters that other editors have found not necessary. I feel he needs to be blocked, thereby forcing him to learn how Misplaced Pages works. JDDJS (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

He needs to communicate, full stop. I've told him that and said he'll be blocked if he won't communicate and work with others. Dougweller (talk) 10:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Dougweller. I 100% agree with what you said above and left on his talk page. JDDJS (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

My Kenken link repeatedly deleted

Could you assist me in this matter. I have notified both Dreamguy and Bongomatic that I am making a complaint. I have posted most of this material on their talkpages, and also the talk page of the Kenken article. Sorry if the way I have approached this is not the proper and official way, but it is the best I can do for the moment. I feel that I am being bullied by these editors, and I also believe that the link is entirely within the scope of what Misplaced Pages aims to do. Myles325a (talk) 03:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Unambiguously inconsistent with WP:EL. Don't know what all the fuss is. _matic 03:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Content disputes should go to the talk page and or WP:ELN, but that one looks like link spam to me. If the further links eminating from there are useful, maybe they could be submitted to dmoz and the Misplaced Pages article could then link to dmoz. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Forum shopping. I wrote in my edit summary to use the talk page of the article plus I gave you the reasons why you were reverted and why the link was no good. I answered on the talk page but you ignored and headed here instead. So this is the 4th place you've decided to post all of this. Is English your second language? I ask this because of your post "You write like a moron" which has this wonderful followup. This user has civility problems which I picked up on from DreamGuy's talk page as well as Bongomatic's talk page. If anything is to be done here, it's Boomerang.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Notified DreamGuy of this thread.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Myles325a is also at this point subject to blocking under WP:3RR. Myles, you absolutely have to stop edit warring like that. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 05:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Note:Checkuser has confirmed this was a sockpuppet but on AGF, he has been allowed to edit....Noose knot. Time to let the trap door fall.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The master account, Karmaisking, does not normally edit articles that Myles325a commonly edits. Kik is also pretty sophisticated with his knowledge of WP policies, and would have been unlikely to push a site that so obviously fails WP:EL. I wouldn't use the sock connection to add any weight against Myles325a. I think his own actions are more than enough though. Ravensfire (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read all of this tl;dr prose, but what does "back live" mean? Corvus cornix_talk 18:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Emmanuelm and 1RR on Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations

Emmanuelm (talk · contribs) -- The article in question is subject to ARBPIA. I note two reverts in less than 24 hours: (edit summary includes "reintroduced") and ("complete re-write"). The editor was blocked for 1RR on this article just over a month ago; in addition, there was an ANI discussion a couple of days ago on the same issue , resulting in a warning (because of "misinterpretation" of the 1RR policy). It would be difficult to conclude that the message is getting through. There is some pretty heavy POV-pushing going on, which needs to be dealt with in its own terms -- but the first step imo would be to insist on putting a stop to the 1RR violations. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not pay attention. Emmanuelm (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It has been suggested to me that it isn't clear enough how both of these edits are reverts. This one restores the following text (for a second time after I had removed it twice):

His job description, or U.N. mandate, deliberately excludes Palestinian human-rights abuses. As Dugard said on October 19, "I have a limited mandate, which is to investigate human rights violations by Israelis, not by Palestinians." The pre-determined outcome, however, has never been a problem for this lawyer. Far from being embarrassed, he launched into this year’s diatribe this way: "Today I deliver my annual criticism of Israel’s human rights record."

The source is an op-ed entitled "The U.N.'s Spokesperson for Suicide Bombers" -- so among other problems this editor is putting statements like "far from being embarrassed, he launched into this year’s diatribe" in the voice of Misplaced Pages, not of the writer.

The second one changes an assertion that the Israelis bombed two schools in Gaza to an assertion that they bombed only one. "Sorry I didn't pay attention" might be adequate the first time -- but again we are now on the third instance of a 1RR problem here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

TurkYusuf1 (talk · contribs)

There has been, for quite some time, a slow edit-war over the population-figure of Turkey. The above user keeps changing the number back without ever having used the article's talk page. Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) started a section on the talk page to no avail; I have contacted the user on their talk page, where s/he did reply, but keeps going as before. This is becoming silly and tedious. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion either way on this one, in terms of which source should be used. I would like to note however that this has been a very slowmoving edit war on a FA, and TurkYusuf1 has as stated not posted his position on the talk page. I think there should be some warning about further reverting without discussion, they may have a point, but unless they use the talkpage we don't know what it is. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

67.85.84.168 (talk · contribs) on Australia's Next Top Model, Cycle 4

Whilst reading this article, I found that there was false information provided in this article. I have seen episodes of this series and found inconsistencies with the article and the episodes. I checked the edit history of the article and found out that 67.85.84.168 (talk · contribs) has been making these edits and the previous changes were correct (due to another user undoing 67.85.84.168 (talk · contribs)'s actions. In addition, this user has been warned for editing articles such as Australia's Next Top Model, Cycle 2 and Australia's Next Top Model, Cycle 3.

I'm not sure if I have addressed this correctly because I'm kind of reporting this user as well as content issues. 115.64.53.181 (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion.  Notified 67.85.84.168 (talk · contribs). -- DQ (t) (e) 17:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there some problem editor who specializes in adding hoaxes to articles on this series? I don't recall the name, but I know I've seen this editorial syndrome before. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

User pratullobo

pratullobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaging in a pattern of wide ranging bad behavior including canvassing, copyvio, coi, vandalism and my little brother defense. Brianhe (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Add possible sockpuppetry -- editing CoI article as 114.143.166.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). — Brianhe (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I know I'm arguing above about what constitutes OUTING, but Brianhe posted a link to an external website in this diff connecting Pratullobo with a real world identity. Admins may want to consider if that should be oversighted. Also, if you look at the various claims Brianhe is making on the talk page, they may look a little odd to you, like reporting the user for vandalism done over 2 years ago. I don't know what's going on here, but it worries me a little. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I second Qwyrxian opinion. Neither am I sure what Brianhe is upto. --Pratul (talk) 08:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible nationalistic content dispute

This was originally brought up at WP:AIV, but this is going to be the better venue. IP user 195.28.75.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was reported by Nmate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for changing cited information on several articles, including this and this. I glanced at the diffs, as well as a couple of other edits the IP user made, and it looks to me to be a nationalistic content dispute, but I'm not knowledgeable enough in the subject matter to tell what's what. The issue that worries me is that although the IP editor has cited sources, he/she has deleted cited sources in the process of making their edits, and I'm not convinced their new sources are considered reliable as a secondary source for use in a Misplaced Pages article. Can someone who's familiar with the topic look things over? I'm all for bold editing,, but this may cross the line. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you are right (Nmate also). This could have a nationalistic connotation. The primary state of the article (pre-IP) is definitely the correct one. This could be one of those edits 1 - I reverted it. Adrian (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not vandalism and you should not refer to it as such, but a content dispute. The only way to handle this is by using dispute resolution, bringing in additional editors. If the IP edit-wars, then you can apply to have them blocked for edit-warring. If the editor uses multiple IPs in order to evade a block, then you can apply for page protection. TFD (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that...the other two editors might not be. My concern was the issue of replacing one set of citations with another, and whether the new set was reliable. Again, I don't know enough about the subject matter to make a reasoned, informed decision, which is why I brought the matter here. The odds were much better that there's an admin floating around with more knowledge who could make that determination. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not think they can though. It is a content dispute and while the edits may seem extremely tendentious, that is not a call an administrator could make. TFD (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

System gaming harassment of User: SchuminWeb incoming.

See here. HalfShadow 18:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow. 1995 called, they want their top-down bbs thread back. Tarc (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone want to block the new account NotSchuminWeb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (created 16:37, March 3, 2011) preemptively? — Scientizzle 19:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This all seems very WP:POINTy to me. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

There are some people out there who really need some new hobbies. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

New hobby? HalfShadow would disagree: , & . That troll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.48.221 (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Userboxes

Hi, could someone have a look at this conversation. To me it looks like the meaning of the userboxes are being changed, but perhaps the change of the earlier template makes it the same. I am not good at templates plus I don't care much for userboxes. :) Garion96 (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I looked over the changes made to the template, and there doesn't appear to be any real back-compatibility, so what used to be the right option number no longer is in many cases. I commented on Buaidh's Talk page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

So basically user User:Hamrolly who "lives in Canada" also "lived in Canada" before the change. :) Thank you for checking it out. Garion96 (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

More like someone who "is interested in Canada" now shows as "resident of Canada", or similar awkward and unmonitored changes. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You're serious? That's what I thought. So the change does alter the userpages significantly! Garion96 (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

User:149.4.115.3

This ip address is removing content from Ohio State University, that is against a consensus at the University Wkiproject to have consistency across all article. How do I maintain the integrity of that consistency and consensus, without violating WP:3RR, because a ransom ip doesn't care about wikipedia policy and will revert all day long.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You could request semi-protection at WP:RFPP. Mjroots (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Doubt I'll get it if its only one ip doing it. If the ip is not discussing, and is editing against a consensus, that would be disruptive. Yet I don't want to make too many reverts personally because I don't want to be perceived as edit warring, and I believe in the WP:3RR policy.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a short semi to get the IP to either look elsewhere or try and gain consensus? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks as if the ip is from Queens College and has a history of vandalism and disruption. Here is the previous discussion Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Universities/Archive 7#Article consistency--Jojhutton (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Jojhutton and the IP are both edit warring, with Jojhutton labelling an edit that looks reasonable on its face as vandalism. The address itself is a shared school address that has templates piled up forever. There doesn't seem to have been any attempt to discuss the actual edit on either 149.4.115.3's talk page or the article talk page. I'll leave a note. Anyway, semi-protection is inappropriate if there's only one non-autoconfirmed user involved. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Jojhutton also got a bit over-excited in the earlier discussion about the article lede that's now being revert-warred. Let's try to be a bit calmer; this isn't an emergency. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The unexplained removal of content is considered vandalism. Twinkle and Huggle both have tools that address removing content without explanation.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I think Jojhutton does not know what vandalism is. He repeatedly labels innocent edits as "vandalism", if they run counter to his POV. Regarding this case in particular, he keeps repeating that there's removal of content. Where? Enigma 21:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

As I'm being attacked, please link where I Continuously label innocent edits as vandalism. As far as the removal of content goes. The ip was removing words fromthe schools official name.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the old dispute about "Ohio State University" (the common name) vs. "The Ohio State University" (the way the school likes to style itself). Whatever the current concensus is, should be honored. The IP's attempt to change it qualifies perhaps as edit warring, but not as vandalism. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

There were several huge debates on the article talk page regarding the lead. The edit you reverted multiple times was not vandalism and was not removal of content. The school's official name is still there. Enigma 22:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I will accept that the edit is not being considered vandalism, although its a fine line, when an ip removes or changes content without any explanation. Remember that Twinkle and Huggle have warning templates that cover removing content without explanation. I do not however accept the unexplained attack on my character by Enigmann. I would hope that he/she would decide to retract that statement.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

How exactly is it a fine line? This is clear as day. A content dispute is not vandalism, and it certainly can not be called removal of content when no content was removed. Also, my name is not "Enigmann". Enigma 22:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That Huggle and Twinkle have those buttons and that people keep misusing them is a perennial source of annoyance at ANI. I do see there is a lot of actual vandalism at that page (example), maybe enough for semi-protection to be ok, but that's not what I'm seeing here. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The page definitely gets its fair share of vandalism, as any big name school does. Looking at the history, though, it's not occurring frequently enough to typically merit semi-protection. Enigma 22:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

usually as a rule, if an anon ip, with a history of vandalism and 4 previous blocks, shows up on a page that the ip hasn't edited before and removes or changes content without explanation, that edit will get reverted as vandalism, with a warningJojhutton (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You have to judge the edit, not just the editor. Changing the school's name from their self-styled name to its common name IS IN NO WAY VANDALISM. It may be contentious editing, it may be edit warring, but it is not vandalism. Vandalism would be nonsensical blanking, or comments like "Hi, Mom!" Arguing over the school's name is not vandalism. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

So what are you saying? That you call IP edits vandalism regardless of what the edits actually are? Enigma 23:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If a given editor has been specifically and repeatedly warned not to defy consensus, then we're starting to get into something akin to vandalism, although it's really more to do with contentious editing and disruption. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Jojhutton, please see the big template at the top of User talk:149.4.115.3. There is no reason to think that all the edits from that address are coming from the same person, if they are reasonably separated from each other temporally. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Never said that it was the same person, only that the ip had a history of vandalism. That was pretty clear from the user page. Also, for you vandalism fighters out there, its not uncommon to have multiple people from a school ip vandalizing for years and years and years. I have accepted that the vast majority here have stated that the removal was not vandalism, and I concede on that.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

ongoing WP:HUSH incident / User:Baseball_Bugs

Please, I Need Help

I am not filing an ANI against any specific user. I am just earnestly requesting some kind of help. I have just been informed I will be subject to a second sock investigation in four days and this one will take place in private once a "trusted admin" can be identified to conduct it, I will not be "tipped off" it is occurring and it will take place offline.

Last week, after a six month unblemished edit history on Misplaced Pages, I made a Legal Threat. I deleted it within four minutes - without being asked - before the person at whom it was directed saw it, and apologized. I was blocked for several days. I have repeatedly acknowledged and apologized for this lapse in judgment and taken full responsibility for it.

However, I am now being subject to repeated lobbying of admins by one user for various punishments and new investigations of me. I have offered this user that I will quit Misplaced Pages at the end of this week but that hasn't seemed to call off the dogs. I know that, eventually, if enough complaints are thrown against the wall one will stick because at some point I'll slip-up and won't devote enough time to defending myself from everything that's being thrown at me, though that is almost my exclusive focus on Misplaced Pages now. Every minute of time here I have to spend defending myself against complaints being made by one user.

I just need some help in getting the dogs called off for a few days. I promised this user I'd delete my WP account once I finished Drakkar Noir entry and I will. I'm at a complete loss and at my wits end. I know this is not appropriate use of ANI but I don't know what else to do at this point. Detailed background is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Jmh649#Felix_again.

In an attempt to defuse Drama I asked him repeatedly to stop posting on my Talk page so we would not have to interact. He refused and I requested (see above) an Admin admonish him to stop, which they did. I specifically said I didn't want him blocked or punished, I just wanted him to stop posting on my Talk page because it was likely to inflame things. That backfired and it has inflamed things even more and he's now coming at me with both barrels.

I believe I have contributed to WP - not as much as some - through my edits to Wikileaks, Paul Akers, Samsung Galaxy Tab, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, etc. and should not be treated like yesterday's trash. I don't know why this is happening to me, all for a four-minute lapse in judgment last week. I've been told I have no choice and he is entitled to file as many charges against me as he likes, even if they're not being upheld, but I'm not sure that seems right. Anything that anyone can do, even just words of encouragement, would be appreciated. Thank you. Felixhonecker (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're subject to a sock investigation, just be cooperative and truthful and everything will be fine. Don't worry about Baseball Bugs. He's not going to report you to the police or the government; he made a joke and has already apologized for it. Just forget all of this and focus on constructive article contributions. The more time you spend improving articles and the less time you spend on this noticeboard, the happier your stay here will be, I guarantee it. 28bytes (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

As I indicated on Viriditas' talk page, there are some odd timing coincidences, but I am not yet persuaded that Felix and Berber are socks of each other. That burden-of-proof ball is in Viriditas' court at this point. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing stopping you from editing Drakkar Noir right now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Pictures of Underage users

...are these User:Ninjaman11221/Ethan_Wold_Cook allowed? Also, it seems this user is only here to promote himself and his web works. Phearson (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That whole page is a copy of an article that was deleted at Ethan Wold Cook already, and it is a terrible idea regardless of whether it is technically speedily deletable. Note that the image itself is on Commons, so deletion would have to happen there. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the article slightly out of process. If anyone believes it should go through XfD, feel free to undelete and nominate. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with your deletion. FWIW, let me report myself here for a possibly out-of-process perma-blocking of User:Munich357 who was an obvious sock trying to recreate the same material. Kim Dent-Brown 23:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That user is also the commons uploader, so I agree that they were the same person as the above account. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe Kim to be acting appropriately in regards to the sock. We don't need to be overly bureaucratic when blocking obvious socks. Phearson (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Old Man Murray

Can an admin restore the talk page contents at Talk:Old Man Murray? (might need to restore some losts posts after un-deleting, as it was deleted a couple times). I had a request on my talk page requesting this - but I'm not currently using my admin account as I don't have a secure connection at the moment. --- Barek (talk) - 23:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

incident / user:SchuminWeb - abuse of admin privileges

extra eyes

I would like some extra admin eyes on this case Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#Copyrights_and_translation as I am uncertain of the copyright related issue regarding translated copyvio material. It is a possible largescale copyvio issue.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Improper posting to my talk page

I have repeatedly requested that User:Ronz not post to my talk page. She/he has ignored my request. Is there a way to block her/him from posting to my talk page? History: On Feb. 25th, after s/he templated my talk page and that of two other editors with whom she is involved in a dispute, s/he edited my talk page to restore an unpleasant message from her/him that I had deleted: . I responded that the template was inappropriate: . On February 28th, after many more unpleasant postings to my talk page, I asked him/her not to post on my talk page any more in this edit summary. S/he then immediately posted again, so I explicitly asked, on my talk page, that she stop posting to my talk page: . Since then, she/he as continued posting to my talk page: , , . Please note that in a 3rr warning on Ronz's talk page yesterday, admin. Beeblebrox concludes: "You are way beyond 3RR already. Discussion is what we do instead of edit warring, it is not a free pass to continue warring behavior". In declining Ronz's request for page protection at Musical theatre, Beeblebrox wrote: "So talk on the talk page and stop edit warring. This could easily have boomeranged on you, I would be completely justified in blocking you right now, so cut it out or you will leave no choice." You may also find the recent discussions at Talk:Musical theatre of interest. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll say that your reply to Ronz's apology was less than graceful. I've blocked Ssilvers for edit warring on Musical theatre. Toddst1 (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Was there any particular reason you blocked one participant but not the other? Shell 03:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Prompt block review requested

I'd like this block reviewed, please. The diff cited is three days ago, and blaming Ssilvers for this edit-war (no one else was blocked or even warned) seems bizarre. I also note that Ssilvers has been editing for five years, has 70,000 edits, has (had) no block record, and appears not even to have received a warning, which is certainly in order before blocking a good-faith user of this tenure. (Disclosure: I have met Ssilvers at meetups and at the Gilbert & Sullivan Society and cannot claim to be entirely disinterested.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

People are routinely blocked these days, while those who should be don't; it's no surprise. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Good-faith editors should rarely, if ever, be blocked without being warned first that their behavior is problematic. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• I support an immediate unblock. There doesn't seem to be any warnings and there was little harm being done to the encyclopedia. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Unblock Seriously? -FASTILY 03:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Unblock
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock, quickly. Dayewalker (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Unblocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Sorry, I should be clearer. I'm not saying he should be unblocked, I'm saying I did it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock - Lulz. If Giano had said something as milquetoast as that, we'd be giving him barnstars for his improved tone and congeniality. Tarc (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

↑ -FASTILY 04:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I have been unblocked, thanks to everyone! May I delete all that block stuff from my talk page? And, can it be cleared from my log? Also, in view of this, I'd like to broaden this ANI inquiry to request that someone review of the edits at Musical theatre since February 23 to see who has actually been edit warring there, and what the consensus actually is (as opposed to what involved editors say it is). For example, see these reverts, all within a 24 hour period that violated the 3rr rule: , , , , , . Thanks for help and/or advice. BTW, I agree with the blocking admin that I handled my responses to Ronz poorly and hope to do better in the future. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and delete it. It can't be "cleared" from your block log as in memory hole cleared, but my unblock rationale tried to make clear that I wasn't just unblocking to be nice, but that people actually thought it should not have been made to begin with. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Much appreciated! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Note The dust seems to have settled while I was asleep, but I feel I should point out that I specifically warned Ronz to stop edit warring and he simply removed the warning and seemed to be saying that I don't understand the situation and need not be concerned. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

User Toddst1's blocking in general

As I was looking into this block by User Toddst1, I noticed another section about blocking for 3RR for a separate user on a separate issue, which you can find here. Going to the talk page of the user that was blocked, I found this section. I then proceeded to the article in question where the reverting took place, namely Thiruvananthapuram. I then looked at the history of the article, found here, and became instantly perplexed. User DileepKS69 had not violated 3RR as far as I can see. In fact, going back to the 22 at least, s/he hadn't reverted more than once within a 24 hour period. What the 3RR seems to be based on is the series of 4 edits made on February 25, which were, it seems, all reverts, but there were no intervening edits by other users. As far as I know, doesn't that mean that it qualifies as a single revert? A series of edits without any intervening edits by other users, I thought, counts as one edit or revert in terms of breaking policy. Silverseren 04:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't count and isn't 3RR, but who cares if the worst that ever happens to you is a cute little trout on your talk page? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is really not helpful. :/ Silverseren 04:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hm. Un-sarcastic? What is this section for? You know that nothing is going to happen; the only thing people get desysopped for is when they go to someone's house and stick an iron rod up their ass. We can give a "warning" or a slap on the fictional wrist, so go ahead. Then what? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Both blocks appear to be inappropriate. Are there further similar instances? N419BH 04:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• I haven't checked. I'll take a look and report back. Silverseren 04:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Just from his talk page for the past month, I don't see any other outstanding incidents, but I am relying on the blocked people to comment on his talk page, which isn't really all-encompassing. Silverseren 05:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This might be better suited for a) a nice discussion with the admin or b) an RfC/U. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I know, I just wanted to bring this to people's attention. I am not opposed to either course of action. I was actually hoping that Toddst1 would respond here himself. Silverseren 05:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

My next question is actually exactly that, has this been brought to the admin's attention previously. If it has, then we're likely looking at a RFC/U. If it hasn't, then we're likely looking at a discussion with the admin. N419BH 05:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean has he been informed of this section or has he been reported previously for similar actions? Silverseren 05:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I informed him of this section. What I'm wondering is roughly how many incidents of questionable blocks we are dealing with, and has his general blocking behavior been the subject of previous discussions. If we're only dealing with a couple recent iffy blocks we don't really have that much of a problem; everyone screws up from time to time, including admins. If we're dealing with a longer-term problem then we have issues to discuss. If it's been discussed previously then we likely have a RFC/U on our hands. If it hasn't the first step in dispute resolution is to discuss the problem with the individual. So my question is really to determine the extent of the problem and where we are in the dispute resolution process. N419BH 05:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we're being a little to quick to light the torches and wield the pitchforks here. Two possibly bad calls on blocks does not a bad admin make. A quick perusal thru ANI archives for topics on him show one that apparently went nowhere and one that WP:BOOMERANGed on the reporter. Tarc (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. I have always found Toddst to be an excellent admin, often in trying circumstances. We all make mistakes and I have more than one misjudged block on my own record, as I'm sure do the majority of admins who use the tools on a regualr basis. Let's back up a little bit and examine this in the context of his thousands of highly effective actions (including over 8,000 blocks). Maybe part of the reason good admins are so hard to find is that folks at ANI are so quick to turn things into a lynch mob? If there are genuine concerns about a particular admins' actions, the correct venue is their talk page and then a noticeboard iff and only if it can't be resolved amicably. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I also agree. This is exactly the sort of thing that leads to users getting the impression that there are witch-hunts. Give the guy a bit of good faith and chance to respond; it seems quite obvious that he went offline after blocking (possibly to sleep or work or whatever other engagements he has in real life). People can make big mistakes, even under great pressure, but can graciously address them, and in such instances, there's no need to jump at all. It would be a different story if there was already knowledge of several previous instances which show for poor judgement where the post-handling of those instances was also concerning. Given that there is no knowledge, and this isn't even at a point where we can determine if this particular incident is resolved or not, this subthread does seem to be unhelpful altogether. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

@N419BH: It's going to be rather difficult to determine that, considering that Toddst1 is an admin who is involved in a lot of blocks. As other people have put it before, he is the admin that is complained about the most on ANI. However, most, of these reports are entirely unfounded and the original poster gets reblocked or warned. If there are other cases of questionable blocks, one would have to wade through all these other discussions.

@Tarc: I'm not calling for him to be de-sysopped here or anything like that. I'm just wanting him to be more careful in his blocks and, especially, to be nicer to said people. I'm also noticing a significant amount of incivility on his part toward the people he blocks, whether they deserve the block or not. Silverseren 05:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

So really what we're dealing with is a couple iffy recent blocks; nothing more. People screw up from time to time. Let's see what his response is in the morning and go from there. N419BH 05:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Silverseren 06:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If you never do anything, you never make a mistake. Agreeing with Tarc in this thread. An active admin who makes many appropriate blocks will make a few in error, and regrettable as that is, the real test is if he is responsive when questioned on the mistakes. He has done a lot of good work as an administrator. Does he correct his errors and strive to improve performance? Civility is appropriate even when dealing with those needing a block. Edison (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Edison. I admire Toddst1's work on Misplaced Pages. I have not looked into the details of this report, but have seen a lot to like in the past. Jusdafax 09:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

From Toddst1

Hey folks. I’ve been out for a while. Just checked back in. I’m not going to try to defend my apparently ill-advised blocks today. Apparently I F-ed up. Apologies to all involved and no malice intended. Consider a trout (or maybe a salmon - they're bigger) - applied.

I will say that I had a RL incident earlier in the day that I’d rather not get into that probably contributed to a lapse of judgment.

If folks want to conduct a broader review of my many blocks, please do so. I've been a particularly active admin and there's a lot to review and probably a lot to improve upon. I will say I've always tried to act at least in good faith and to defend the principles of the project. I'm sure there are many opportunities for improvement in my history.

I think it’s time for a wikibreak for me. If my peers are amenable, I hope to be back in good form soon. Thanks for your patience. Toddst1 (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose there's no real point in responding to this, since you left on a Wiki-break, but I suppose I will anyway in the hopes that you'll read it when you get back. First off, you are an amazing editor Toddst1 and I know situations like this are few and far between in terms of your editing and your active work as a blocking admin. The one thing, however, that I would ask that you work on is your attitude toward the people you block. I've noticed that you are generally quite curt, if not outright rude, toward them when they come to you seeking answers. Even if some of them are obviously not on your talk page for the proper reasons, that doesn't mean that you should respond badly to them. If you could just work on this when you get back and also be a tad more careful and less impulsive in how you block, I think events like this will stop happening, for the most part. Silverseren 16:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Eyes, please

I'm about to take off and read this great book I picked up today. In the meantime, a clever editor is using us to make some point about a business conflict involving CFX Bank. In the two edits I reverted here, they first added what look like OK sources, but in actuality these are just partisan posts, and in the second instance they changed the link to the bank's website (from .co.zw to .com) to instead redirect to some partisan site. Clever indeed. Oh, they just did it again. I leave it all to you; somehow I expect to find the Chief indef blocked tomorrow. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Tarc

Could someone possessed of more patience than I can currently muster please impress upon Tarc (talk · contribs) that calling one's fellow Misplaced Pages editors "undersexed basement-dwellers", and suggesting that they "worship a sexualized image of a prepubescent girl", is less-than-ideal behavior? Kirill  04:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

He's not necessarily wrong, but it's unfair for him to generalize that way. It's a cute cartoon character. But apparently some read far more into it than mere cuteness. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment #1 was a bit heavy-handed upon reflection though it is from almost 2 weeks ago, you're a bit late in the game if you're gonna carp on that now. #2 is what it is; many people, mainly from one niche wiki-project, are screaming to the rafters that precious Wikipe-tan is not lolicon, when it, um, kinda is. This stuff is swill, leftover from a bygone era of the Misplaced Pages, and it should not be given an ounce of room in project-space. As some opined in a recent AfD on a related page (linked below), this is the sort of thing that drives away potential new editors, particularly women, which has been a concern voiced at the highest levels of the WMF of late.

At the very least, this An/I should bring Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan (2nd nomination) to the attention of a wider audience, just as the last one didn't really see a groundswell of opposition til the pro-tan clique tried to railroad the nominator into silence in an earlier AN/I filing. Good job, Kirill. Tarc (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of possibly going over old ground, could you supply a diff or two where women stated they were leaving wikipedia because of this cartoon character? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

What I was referring to was several respected (IMO) editors opining to that effect at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan!, not a specific person saying "I am leaving because of this". Tarc (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect they're making assumptions. Unless they are also providing diffs? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)There are making what I believe to be reasonable assumptions, yes. I don't mean to be rude, but does this tangent have a point? I never claimed specifically that women are leaving or refusing to join the project because of the presence of this Wikipe-tan project-space page, I only noted that others called for deletion of a related -tan page based on presumption of such. It seems like you're setting me up for a fail because I have no diffs for something I didn't really say in the first place. Tarc (talk) 05:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm just trying to get my head around what the real issue is. Apparently there are variations on this kind of cartoon character which are X-rated. But does that automatically mean that any representation of an anime character is suspect? The key question: Is there reasonable evidence that the continuing presence of this cartoon figure could cause significant damage to wikipedia's reputation? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Using images of a 9-10 yr old girl in various poses, sayings, and outfits just creeps me the fuck out, to be honest. And others, apparently, though I certainly don't claim that others share or approve of my colorful commentary above; that's my responsibility and mine alone. Are all the images of this thing overtly sexual? No. But IMO there's enough of a taint with past imagery...whether it was the blackface or the french maid outfits of the "Think of Wikiped-tan" image gallery, or the outright pornography that Jimbo deleted from Commons a ways back...that I think this stuff just needs to be buried in a deep, dark hole. Tarc (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Explict stuff can and should be gone. But the "normal" stuff is something most people either enjoy or couldn't care one way or the other about. Saying that we need to discard all of it because some of it was bad is classic throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and claims that "women might be driven off" sounds like a textbook case of WP:BEANS to me. Contrary to the popular stereotype, there actually are a lot of women who are fans of anime/manga. And we have a lot of more important things to do rather than debate over whether G-rated cartoon personalisations should be trashed because some idjit was stupid with R/X-rated versions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You're seeing stuff in it that I'm not seeing. However, I'm not up on this "lolicon" stuff. Given that Jimbo is the visible face of wikipedia, has anyone asked him about this? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

He's commented about it recently:

I think this article was misleading in saying that I "recognized" Wikipe-tan. My removal of the sexualized version from commons was in no way an endorsement of the standard versions. I don't like Wikipe-tan and never have. I recognize that some people do, and I'm not particularly agitated about it, but my name should not be invoked in a way that might lead some to believe that I approve. Thanks!--Jimbo Wales

As far as I can determine, while he's not a fan, he doesn't view the character as being particularly problematic either. Kirill  05:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It sounds to me like he would be just fine if it went away, but he doesn't feel the need to force the issue. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen any mentions of specific examples, and I don't expect that anyone else has either. It's certainly possible that something of the sort does indeed take place, and it's a worthwhile topic for discussion; but there doesn't seem to be any concrete evidence either way.

Regardless of that, though, I don't think Tarc's comments about the editors who support the retention of this page are warranted, particularly given the scurrilous nature of the allegations he makes. Kirill  05:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree; indeed, the diffs linked to in the first post are certainly WP:CIVIL infringements, and even seem (to me, anyway) to be violations of WP:NPA; a "people who state X are Y" statement is no different than "you state X and are therefore Y". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• The diffs presented by Kirill appear to show at the very least distasteful comments by Tarc not in keeping with WP:AGF. While one is free to have an opinion on the matter, calling everyone with the opposite opinion what is alluded to above is not in keeping with the consensus-based discussion model. I would suggest Tarc keep his arguments focused on the content, and not other contributors. N419BH 05:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Tarc should be admonished to avoid attacking those who present views different from his in forums such as AFD. There has been a long history of attacking, demeaning, and ridiculing other editors, both in his comments and his edit summaries, rather than simply discussing the issues in a civil manner as required by WP:NPA. Twice in the last couple of months he has characterized "Keep" !votes as "fraudulent" in AFD , and has shrugged off requests on his talk page , that he strike the incivil postings, just adding accusations of "making up things that don't exist" and then deleting the request (without archiving it). He then characterized a DRV request in an AFD which the closing admin and other characterized as difficult and complex as "To "whine" doesn't accurately reflect what this DRV is; the Brit's notion of a "whinge" just seems to capture the essence far better than us colonials can muster. This is whingeing, the classic case of filing a DRV not over admin wrongdoing or mistakes, but because one disagrees with the result. ". In that DRV, he attacked several opposing editors with comments such as "That is quite a lie there." Tarc, please do not try to win in every dispute by insulting and attacking other good-faith editors. Discuss the issues instead. When people bring a concern to your talk page, do not just disparage and delete. Edison (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This is what we call "piling on". My dear Edison, that has nothing to do with this; if you have a beef with something said at DRV then you should have taken the appropriate steps to lodge a complaint at the time, not hold it in reserve to pounce at a convenient moment. Honestly, that turns your complaint into more of a pointy action rather than a legitimate grievance. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

As long as your pattern of attacking others in AFDs is being discussed at this forum, it is an appropriate and non "pointy" time to bring up the long history of such behavior, which is not limited to the one DRV as you claim, at which others noted your past habits of such behavior. Clearly you want any complaint limited to the one individual abuse without demonstrating a pattern. That way each personal attack, taken by itself, might be insufficient to justify a block or a restriction of some sort, than a larger pattern might require. This thread should not be an AFD or a DRV as such about any one article. Edison (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, just to clear this up; there is no real concern in my mind over Wikipe-tan being a "sexualized image of a prepubescent girl". I'm not really a fan of the image, but the suggestion in that deletion thread seems to be that she verges onto the wrong side of child porn. Or that people who like such an image are in some way disturbed (or worse). My expert opinion on this is that there is no issue; Wikipe-tan is about as far from Child porn as you can get, and the people who enjoy such imagery are, psychologically speaking, nowhere near to pedophiles. If we are to get technical imagery like this is usually intended to evoke the tragic innocence of youth (personified by a girl or effeminate male) - tragic because you quickly lose such innocence. It's supposed to be beautiful rather than creepy, and the image some people obviously have of guys furiously masturbating to pseudo-CP is way off base ;) This is an unfortunate side effect of a society where the social crime of paedophilia is (rightly) treated with extreme disdain. My point being that concerns over sexualisation and "worshipping" of this image are unfortunate, not based in any form of factual reality. :) Although I entirely understand and sympathise with such thinking. Leaving Tarc a note about cooling off. --Errant 09:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Some of the images, however, are concerning. I have nommed one for deletion to test the waters over removing the worst offenders. --Errant 12:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment if as Tarc says "images of a 9-10 yr old girl in various poses, sayings, and outfits just creeps me the fuck out, to be honest" then I strongly suggest he never looks at a family photo album. Exxolon (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

  This strawman has been attempted in the MfD several times, and easily refuted. I am speaking about THIS image in THIS specific context, not of imagery of children in general. Please don't attack positions that I am not actually taking. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• At the end of this we still have the same issue; a vocal faction decrying attacks on their "unofficial mascot", a mascot that was until quite recently used in some merely suggestive imagery, and some outright pornographic. I'm sorry if said faction feels aggrieved, but understandably there's very little tolerance for what this image has been put to use for. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• At the end of this we still have the same issue: Tarc still dodging acknowledgment that his attacks on others, in multiple AfDs despite his own strawman, are unwarranted and violate the basic principles of Misplaced Pages.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Copypasta of someone else's words with your own twist at the end really isn't a productive, helpful, or rhetorically imaginative response. Regarding the comments, perhaps in the future I shall think of more creative and less directly caustic ways to express my disdain for those who are in favor of retaining suggestive imagery in project-space. At the end of the day, a WP:SPADE is still just that. Tarc (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Just a comment on the original complaint. Which seems to have been successfully obfuscated in the ensuing conversation. Tarc is experienced enough and literate enough to not engage in personal attacks. Tarc started in the right direction when he called it heavy handed. Though he veered in the wrong direction IMHO when he qualified that admission, and then focused on the fact that it was two weeks old. But for those comments, I would have viewed this as much ado about little. But under the circumstances, I would simply caution him to cut it out. He can make his point while remaining civil, I'm sure, and I expect it would be more readily received were he to do so.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Indeed, I don't ever seem to recall Tarc assuming good faith or being diplomatic about anything. He may indeed do so on occasion, but what sticks in my mind is a series of posts (e.g., at DRV) that demonstrate overtly and overly partisan deletionist behavior. The fact that this is an outgrowth of that does not surprise me at all; the fact that Tarc has not yet been sanctioned for repeated incivility is more of a surprise to me. Jclemens (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The above two comments sound like RfC material rather than points relating to this "incident". The issue at hand is not whether or not the editor has a history of being rude, but if particular comments he made about a particular issue were a policy violation. I believe they were beyond civilized discourse and it would be good if he were admonished, but I doubt there is much else to do about them. Should some of you think this and other issues warrant a RFC/U then I suggest starting one. Piling on here is not right though, IMO. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Anyone familiar with Tarc will know that comments such as those leading off this discussion are not uncommon for him. He knows what's appropriate and what's not. Its been duly noted for anyone keeping track, and the ANI can be closed.--Milowent • 18:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sock Hearing Occuring in Userspace

A sockpuppet hearing against me is currently occurring in userspace. I would prefer it occurs in ANI, as the last two sockpuppet hearings against me this week did, but I obviously don't want to levy sock charges against myself. It's also getting a little out of control and has descended into name-calling between me and the person charging me. I'm as guilty of this as he is (my nerves are a bit raw at the moment). I apologize if I don't know the proper etiquette for sock hearings in userspace, I learned about this when the filer notified an admin a hearing would happen against me "offline" so I wouldn't be "tipped off" (http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Jmh649#Is_it_okay_to_post_in_ANI.3F) so accept my advance apology if this request cannot be actualized or is in any other way inappropriate. Can an admin review and handle as appropriate? http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Viriditas#Felix Thank you. Felixhonecker (talk) 06:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no "hearing" going on. You're simply arguing with people on multiple user talk pages. I recommend you stop. 28bytes (talk) 06:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, 28, I may have been misled. Bugs has been telling people they are gathering evidence against me to post "offline" (here - http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Tonywalton#Help and http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Jmh649#Is_it_okay_to_post_in_ANI.3F). Is there another way I can have an opportunity to defend myself in an "offline" complaint? I'm not familiar with these terms or the concept of "offline" complaints, or complaints anywhere outside of ANI. It's possible no such thing exists and they're just trying to get a rise out of me, if that's the case I apologize for my naivete. I admit I don't know as much about Misplaced Pages policies as I should. Up until last week I had never had to deal with the political side of WP and had simply edited in peace for the preceding many months. I just don't want to get banned out of the blue without a chance to defend myself. I guess I don't understand the process by which one "gathers evidence" to file a complaint "offline." I'm hoping I have a chance to respond to Bugs daily accusations against me in a transparent manner.Felixhonecker (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about Baseball Bugs. I expect if you disengage from debating him on user talk pages and this noticeboard, and instead focus on article improvements, the "political side" will fade away. I notice that of your last 150 edits, zero have been to articles and all 150 have been to user talk pages, user pages, noticeboards, etc. I suspect if you reverse that trend and return to article work you will find the Misplaced Pages experience more peaceful. 28bytes (talk) 07:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I would like nothing better! I generally spend 20-30 minutes a week on Misplaced Pages editing entries and that's it. Today I spent 5 hours editing 0 entries; it was all playing Law & Order. Unfortunately, if I ignore complaints being made about me - especially when they contain factual inaccuracies that are being repeated with knowledge of their inaccuracy - I face the very real possibility of being blocked. In the last 3 days Bugs has posted 19 messages of complaint on admin Talk pages about me, all for the same issue that was adjudicated by admins last week and concluded in a way in with which he, apparently, did not agree. If I'm having dozens of complaints lodged against me, and don't respond to any, eventually one will "stick" just by sheer volume of the noise machine. Then it's lights out for me. Is there a way I can seek an admin to use methods of compulsion to require Bugs stop registering complaints about me multiple times each day? Perhaps he can be required to condense all his complaints into a single mega-complaint once per day? This would solve all my problems and put me back into my modest 20 minute/week editing footprint I used to enjoy.

Also, I'm still unclear if the "evidence they're gathering to use against" me "offline" is something about which I should be concerned? I'm not sure exactly what this is about and would appreciate some clarification. I'm still learning how to defend myself against complaints as it's nothing I've ever had to deal with until a few days ago and now I've just got a kind of baptism by fire with so many hitting me from Bugs at once. I guess I'm just concerned I'll wake up tomorrow blocked. None of this is enjoyable for me but getting blocked is even less enjoyable. I really just want to edit articles. I don't know how I can get Bugs to lose interest in me. Felixhonecker (talk) 07:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You just need to shut up. Seriously, continue in this vein and you're blocked again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wouldn't be concerned about the "evidence-gathering". Baseball Bugs has agreed not to post to your talk page, and if he says something elsewhere you take exception to, I suggest ignoring it. If you're editing articles constructively, not acting controversially or against policy, and not posting to the admin noticeboards all the time (hint), I am confident you will be able to edit in peace. 28bytes (talk) 07:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You will not be judged by the number of complaints against you and there is no need to challenge any factual inaccuracies in them. You will be blocked (if at all) for what you have actually done, not what someone else says you have done (even if they say so multiple times). For example, if you are not socking you will not be blocked for it - no matter how often someone accuses you. So stop reacting to every post made by someone else, get on with editing the encyclopaedia and everything will calm down. Kim Dent-Brown 07:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed.  Sandstein  14:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Fut. Perf. above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Is Misplaced Pages actually under the heel of this new regime?

I would like confirmation from the community that the regime content editors are now under, according to Bwilkins, is in fact actually the case. --Epipelagic (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why Bwilkins felt the need to respond as he did; perhaps you and he have a history I don't know about? Or maybe just having a bad day? But your underlying question is too vague to really comment on; you said to Beeblebrox "You subsequently announced your campaign to block well established editors who attempt to protect articles on the grounds that they are edit warring. You indicated that you would do this unless content editors operated within certain highly circumscribed parameters, although you did not make it at all clear what those parameters are.". Could you point me to this conversation? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Holy crap. I have Beebebrox' talkpage on my watchlist, and I saw a vague yet extremely angry tirade against him. Without trying to clarify, I gave what I thought to be quite gentle, polite advice regarding 1RR. As a response to that, I was effectively called a Nazi and "one of the most problematic" admins on Misplaced Pages. I look back, I have called nobody names, and honestly thinking that Epipelagic has me mixed up with someone else, because becoming the target of wrath for politely helping makes no sense. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That was not "quite gentle, polite advice". Every response the two of you made in that section on Beeblebrox's talk page is worse than the comment it is responding to. If you want to solve problems, de-escalation is more useful than escalation. But that's kind of a side issue. The question I have is, what is the background that lead to Epipelagic's first post? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

In response to Epipelagic's question, I can confirm that what Bwilkins wrote is correct: namely, edit warring is forbidden and certain articles may be subject to particular additional revert restrictions.  Sandstein  14:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

But is it true that any admin can unilaterally impose additional revert restrictions? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No, only where they are authorized to do so by explicit community or ArbCom decision. You are right, Bwilkins's response does not correctly represent policy in that regard.  Sandstein  14:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I was just gonna ask the same thing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 14:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm just up for a moment, it's 4 am where I am. I'll see if I can find relevant difs latter. Thank you for your most "gentle, polite advice" Wilkins. It was you, not me, who called you a Nazi, I merely reflected back to you precisely what you said, which was that my position was "filth". I have no doubt that if anyone had said that to you, you would have blocked them for a long time, and that no other administrator would have challenged your block. But I am a powerless content editor, therefore dispensable and of no consequence. As you say, just filth. One rule for administrators, altogether another for dispensable content editors. Sandstein has endorsed your position of the draconian control admins can exert now, where content editors who try to protect Misplaced Pages may have little leeway, not even to make one revert. Why now would any any sane being choose to be a content editor on Misplaced Pages? Content editors are not posting much on this matter. Perhaps there is too much fear. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

My advice to you at the moment Epipelagic, would be to get some sleep, come back here when you're slightly more relaxed, re-read what users (Sandstein in particular) are saying, and try to take a less melodramatic approach to fixing this issue. - Kingpin (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Epipelagic, we forbid edit-warring because content editors may legitimately disagree with each other about how articles should read. The rules that restrict reverting are there to prevent such disagreements from being continued through reverting rather than resolved by discussion. Admins who enforce revert restrictions do not do so to penalize editors or to promote their own point of view (in fact they may not block editors with whom they are in a content disagreement), but to enable pacific discussion rather than confrontative reverting. In other words, revert restrictions are content-neutral, and they apply to all editors (including admins) in the same manner, no matter how much the editors believe that they are correct.  Sandstein  16:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• This is just to indicate that I have read and am aware of all this and basically have nothing to add except that WP:EDITWAR is a policy that applies to every single person who edits here. Period. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Reporters Without Borders and Press Freedom Index

An editor using several IP addresses in the same range has been waging a slow-motion edit ear on these articles, adding unsourced attacks and also abusing other editors. IP has also posted attacks on BLPs, including Antony Loewenstein, Jon Lee Anderson and Orhan Pamuk. I have found at least 14 such IPs, all locating to Colombo.

As well as inserting unsourced hostile material, which has been reverted by at least seven other editors, the IP has posted personal attacks on various talk pages, , .

I'm not sure if this editor (and it is clearly all the same person) has technically breached 3RR; but this is still edit-warring and uncivil behaviour. RolandR (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Your header links to the same article twice. I find it useful to use {{la}} in such cases.  Sandstein  14:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The IPs referred to are

• Special:Contributions/123.231.80.111
• Special:Contributions/123.231.80.225
• Special:Contributions/123.231.82.137
• Special:Contributions/123.231.82.23
• Special:Contributions/123.231.84.222
• Special:Contributions/123.231.85.184
• Special:Contributions/123.231.85.56
• Special:Contributions/123.231.86.167
• Special:Contributions/123.231.88.210
• Special:Contributions/123.231.91.115
• Special:Contributions/123.231.93.190
• Special:Contributions/123.231.93.200
• Special:Contributions/123.231.95.71
• Special:Contributions/123.231.114.221

Sean.hoyland - talk 14:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• I hope Roland doesn't mind: I replaced the duplicate mention in the article with another article edited (in a decidedly biased and unverified manner) by these IPs. I agree with RolandR's complaint, but Roland, let me ask you, why didn't you put warning templates for soapboxing, personal attacks, etc., on all those IP talk pages? It may be redundant in the sense that it may not help, but it shows that you did go through the motions and that the user(s) is (are) warned. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Because each of these IPs appears to be used for just one day, on a spree of reverts and attacks, and is then abandoned for another. I didn't think that the next IP would look at notices on the user talk page of the previous IP. RolandR (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Drmies here. Most of the talk pages are still red links. Please try posting warnings etc. in the usual way and then report back here or to WP:AIV if that fails to stop the problem. Thanks. --Diannaa 16:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, for what good it's worth I have warned each of these IPs. But, since the next disruptive editing is likely to come from yet another, there may not be much point to this. When that happens, I will report it here; and I think we may need a range block. Meanwhile, I will request semi-protection on these two articles. RolandR (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree warning them now is pointless; I guess I wasn't very clear in my first post. I meant that while the events are happening, someone should drop a warning on their Talk. For example, they used 123.231.93.190 for nearly an hour, and no warnings were issued. Page protection is a good idea. --Diannaa 17:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This user is continuing disruptive edits from Special:Contributions/123.231.85.184, with edit summaries and talk page personally attacking me. RolandR (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

123.231.85.184 is now blocked. Tiptoety 18:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Disagreement over Eurovision content

Hi, I have a concern User Parishan has removed a huge part of text on the Armenia-Azerbaijan relations in the Eurovision Song Contest article see here. Claiming its not sourced and that it doesnt belong on the article, I have tried to reason with the user and stated that we needed a third party opinion. Instead the user reverted it back to his version and basically said that because he has been on Misplaced Pages longer he is right and I am wrong,and he/she did this in a very patronising tone overall. Also referring to Misplaced Pages:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball which isnt any reason for removing the content as that guideline says that speculations and unsourced material arent welcome, this section are neither speculations or neither unsourced or not good sourced. Quite the opposit. The material removed by Parishan were sourced, and my personal main concern is my feeling that the user sometimes edits with a Azerbaijan bias. I have noticed that his edits often are pro-Azerbaijan and not Armenia. He has also been blocked twice way back for editing with a pro-Azerbaijan bias. I would request that the content removed are restored and that the user are told not to remove it again. Its up to you.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking over the page history and the talk page exchange between you, it appears that Parishan was making a very reasonable point, while you were just reverting him for the sake of it, avoiding substantial debate of the content issue and instead engaging in procedural lawyering and ad hominems. If anybody is not looking too good in this incident, I'm afraid it's you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree ofcourse, first let me remind you that I was the one who wanted a third party opinion while Parishan didnt listen at all reverting back. But now this isnt a who is right who is wrong discussion, it is a discussion about if the content removed should be restored or not. I have nothing personally against Parishan. And you are ofcourse entitled to your opinion but I have to disagree I felt personally that Parishan were unwilling to even wait for a third party opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If a user is that confident of his own edit then it doesnt hurt to have a third party opinion. Especially when another user specifically says that, that is what he/she wants to feel confident about the removed content.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I also have to question if the content had been removed had it been Azerbaijan that complained about Armenia. As the user has in fact edited alot of Azeri articles in a pro-Azerbaijan manor. That is no insult is a fact when looking trough hes/hers edits. I think the obvious answer to that question is that the content had not bene removed had it been Armenia turning off its airing of the JESC.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I personally don't see a need for a third opinion, as long as nobody has bothered to present a second opinion. You have not, as far as I can see, presented any coherent argument, based on the merits of the content, why you would want to the content to stay. In the absence of such an argument, I don't see why he shouldn't have gone ahead and made the edit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

By your response I can see that you dont give any good reason at all for your decision/opinion. You totally ignoring my very very mutch so detailed explanation to why it should be reverted back. I am not interested in having any argument or meta-discussion with you, but let me just say it like this, I think you are not seeing the very good reasons for reversal just because you simply dont want to. And to say that I didnt give a reason when you dont give even a reason at all for your opinion...hmmm.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I also has to ask if you actually has read trough my original message? I really wonder, because if you had you wouldnt say that a second opinion hasnt been raised.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Please block my account Indefinately

I'm not sure where to ask this but can someone please block my account indefinately. I am not longer interested in editing in Dramapedia. Due to the number of edits I have done in the past I don't want someone to vandalize anything if my account gets compromised. --Kumioko (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Smacks of an overly dramatic exit. If you want to leave then just leave. Flag your account with "retired". No one needs to block your account. If off the off chance you get compromised we can just block you then. S.G. _ping! 16:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You may also want to look at blocking requests for further options. Who (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Its no big deal to me, if knowone cares. I just wanted to try and do the right thing in case it happens. --Kumioko (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not that we do not care, there are just strict policies. Take a look at the link I provided, possibly try the javascript auto-block. Who (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that abandoning you account is the easiest solution. If you really want, you can exercise your right to WP:VANISH. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

As the account has over 25,000 edits, renaming by local bureaucrats is not possible. –xeno 18:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The user scrambling his own password would seem like the best approach. He'd be locked out of his own account, and presumably would end his wikipedia stay "cleanly". (Well, almost cleanly. He had one 16-minute block.) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with BB, if you want to leave for good, you should just do it by scrambling the password.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The self-enforced wiki-break would work too, as it would leave an "escape clause" in case he changes his mind someday. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Mysterious glitch

There was a mysterious addition of the phrase "Bold text" that I definitely did not put into an edit that I made, even though it appears that I did. It disrupted the editing. Could someone explain how this could have happened and possibly investigate it? 75.47.148.36 (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably just a slip of the mouse. If you click the "B" button above the edit window it will insert that. Just make the edit again and use Preview to double-check before saving, and everything will be OK. No harm done. 28bytes (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like your second try was successful. 28bytes (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. While we're on the topic, theoretically is it possible for an administrator or someone else with privileged Misplaced Pages tools to covertly make such an alteration of another person's edit? 75.47.148.36 (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes: Nope. (I could imagine that some serious hacking from a dev could do this). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't take all that much "serious hacking"; anyone with write access to the database could do it in five seconds (assuming they knew the database schema, etc.) --jpgordon 17:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Something permanent?

I just ran across User 216.51.166.26 making this series of edits. Normally I would just add a warning or report to AIV if there was enough warnings recently. However, as you can go and see yourself, I ran across a talk page with a myriad of warning spread out across years. I'm not sure if this is something that AIV would deal with, since this would be the first vandalism since January, but I do think this account should be indeffed, as it is clear there is nothing good coming from it. Thus, I brought it here. Silverseren 17:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of teh stoopid coming from that IP this morning for a full set of warnings. I dropped a uw-longterm on it. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Silverseren 17:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

A revdel would be good there also, for (apparently) the same reason as in the next section. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

RevDel needed at North Shore High School (New York)

 Done --Diannaa 17:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Another bored and unimaginative high school kid inserting crudely derogatory comments about private persons, presumably classmates he dislikes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Oscar776

Not sure what to think of Oscar776 (talk · contribs). I see up to a level 4 warning for disruptive edits, a very large number of creations that got AFDed or speedied. Nothing is terribly wrong with their edits, but I do have to question their competence:

• Here, they completely fail at adding an image.
• Here, they somehow manage to add categories from a band's article to one of their albums' articles, somehow adding a {{good article}} tag in the process.
• Changing an image's name to the name of a nonexistant image, then changing it back a minute later
• Trying to push Black Tide through GA, showing a complete lack of understanding of WP:WIAGA
• Constant addition of good faith but unsourced material
• Egregious typos
• Creation of very short stubs about songs, with little more content than an infobox
• Complete ignorance of talk page — user has never posted to another's talk page, nor have they responded on their own.

Again, nothing too major at this point, but several small issues put together can become big. This user seems to have a poor signal to noise ratio, and I was wondering if anything should be done. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 16:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thread got archived in less than a day. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 19:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Bumping again since I'm clearly being ignored as usual. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 18:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like s/he needs some mentoring. I get the sense that s/he is quite young. Blackmane (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Presumably being ignored because no use of the admin tools is required at this time. 62.25.109.195 (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Their most recent edits seem harmless. Hopefully they're (very slowly) getting the hang of things? If any bad edits need undoing, go for it, but I'm not sure what else can be or needs to be done. 28bytes (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ritual Decalogue

The situation at Ritual Decalogue has gotten ridiculous. The article had been stable since July; now a group of editors who work together at Ten Commandments and who once accepted that version have been deleting sourced material, adding info they know to be inaccurate, and making the lede about the name of the article rather than about the subject.

On stable articles they work on (such as recently with myself and Jay at Holocaust Denial), they quite rightly require refs for any changes, and do not expect refs to revert unref'd changes. However, they have a long history (over a year) of making changes to other articles without references, and then demanding that refs be supplied to restore the stable version.

In this case, they have deleted the well-sourced statement that the laws in Exodus 34 are called the "Ten Commandments" in the Bible, and have added the inaccurate claim that the better-known Ten Commandments are thought to have been composed at a later date, ref'ing a discussion of 19th-century scholarship to justify that, and replacing a more accurate statement summarizing three common scholarly interpretations. The also use the wording "The Ritual Decalogue is a term used in Biblical criticism for a list of commandments given in Exodus 34". That violates the MOS, in that articles are supposed to be about their subject, not their title. And they've deleted various alternate names used in the scholarly literature.

We've edit warred over this; they insist that I cannot revert to the stable version without references. Well, more refs are a good thing, so I recently listed nine references on the talk page that Exodus 34 is called the "Ten Commandments" in the Bible: not that biblical critics think it is, but that it simply is, and that biblical critics debate why it is. The refs I supplied are Jewish and Christian, liberal and conservative; they include refs that are used on multiple biblical articles on WP, as well as such obvious sources as the Oxford Annotated NVSV Bible. One ref is from an evangelical publishing house that finds this a difficult passage, as it doesn't square with their understanding of the Ten Commandments. They are not engaging in biblical criticism, but nonetheless state that the Bible calls the laws in Exodus 34 the "Ten Commandments". I've also supplied references for the alternate names. All of this was just reverted.

I don't assume good faith any more: Well-referenced material is deleted, along with the references (with no indication that the refs are in any way inadequate), while a knowingly inaccurate definition is added. The literal reading of the Bible is not the traditional understanding of what the Ten Commandments are, and we say that in the article (perhaps we could go into more detail, if they like), but there is a concerted attempt here to censor the Bible itself, to deny that it says what it's so easy to demonstrate that it says; and also (I don't know why) to misrepresent what scholarship says about it. Variations of this argument have gone on for years, with these same editors, and numerous scholarly interpretations have been discussed in addition to the single old view they keep adding to the lede, a view which one of the editors says is anti-Jewish, but nonetheless seems to prefer.

They succeeded in getting all mention of this third version of "Ten Commandments" removed from the lede of the Ten Commandments article, and I long ago gave up on trying to fight them on that, but now they've brought the fight to the one remaining article that covers this material.

I'm going on vacation and don't know when I'll next have an internet connection, but this really is ridiculous. Please help! — kwami (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards