Misplaced Pages

I don't want to seem cold-hearted here, but given this editor's insistence on changing others' posts to censor, and in doing, break wikilinks, their inability to comprehend rather clear complaints about behavior, and worse of all their intention to adopt another editor (and thus spread this problem) I think this editor may be too dangerous to be allowed to participate at Misplaced Pages any further. While I believe their intentions are good, the disruption they are causing is not, and I don't see any way that disruption can ever be prevented short of a block. -- Atama頭 21:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers. She could be a poster child for that policy. "We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility." She has been editing since December 29, 2011, barely a month. She's created several useful articles in that time: Hacker T. Dog, Stacked (TV film), and Hacker Time; if the most disruptive thing she's done is argue to defend her articles and user talk page, that's hardly a net negative to the encyclopedia. Give her a break. --GRuban (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"if the most disruptive thing she's done is defend her articles and user talk page, well, there are worse crimes, aren't there?" Oh, I'd agree. But they aren't. Have you read this thread? Editing other editors' comments for purposes of censorship is not allowed, period. If these were newbie mistakes I'd understand. But they aren't. They come about from obstinance. This behavior has been pointed out multiple times and ignored. Let me ask you then, what are we supposed to do here? Kindness and patience don't work. How do you make someone listen and understand? What tools do we have that will resolve this situation? Keep in mind, I've helped many new people, people with COI issues, I've acted as a mediator a number of times. I'm always in favor of guiding people and talking things out. But this is like trying to have a conversation with a person who can't understand what you're saying... As they're smashing holes in your walls with a hammer (with the best of intentions). If your suggestion is to pretend she's not doing anything wrong, sorry, that's not acceptable. -- Atama頭 22:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

@GRuban: I don't see her running away. In fact, she even once posted that she was leaving, yet came back to write something else. Calabe1992 22:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with GRuban here. I've had interactions with this editor and, to put it mildly, she is, um, challenging, to say the least. But I didn't know the first time an ANI discussion was started and I don't know now what the goal here is? Block? I think the editor is, at times, misguided, obstinant, argumentative, and without a basic understanding of policies and the collaborative nature of the project but I don't see that she's done anything to warrant even a block at this time. Edits have been reverted, discussions (I'm describing them charitably here) are started, but... I'm feeling misguided passion is still passion and should be encouraged and developed. Hence my attempts at adopting the user (one of which I did very poorly, I'm afraid). My suggestion is not to engage in the seemingly endless back and forth with the editor. If she refuses guidance, so be it. When she goes off the reservation she can be reverted and warned. Eventually one of two things will happen: she'll get the message and improve or she'll accrue enough warnings to be blocked. Right now, I think that we're piling on and picking a scab when we should just say, "here's why that's out of policy" and move on. Wikipelli 22:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to take any action myself. But mark my words, unless she has an epiphany at some point this isn't going to end well. I'm not sure what else can be done when neither warnings nor advice are effective. It's a very bad sign that absolutely nobody has anything to suggest aside from a block. And a shame, too. -- Atama頭 22:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you know, maybe the best solution is to keep it simple. She has engaged in blockable behavior (and yes, repeatedly editing others' comments without justification is blockable behavior). Maybe the best thing is to offer formal warnings, and when those warnings are ignored, issue out blocks as we would to anyone else. I guess when you get down to it, it doesn't really matter if warnings are understood. The behavior is still continuing, and the disruption is the same. -- Atama頭 22:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with GRuban and Wikipelli. I too have had interactions with the editor in question. She has responded well to my advice, though not always followed it to the letter. This editor's incompetence is, in my opinion, more naivety due to lack of experience than any malevolence. She needs support, advice and guidance. The welcome template is good for experienced readers but still full of Wikispeak. She admitted to not understanding it. Also, on looking round Misplaced Pages talk pages, which she has obviously been doing, there are some awful examples of rudeness and argumentative behaviour. OK, if there is no change of behaviour a block could be appropriate but can we first try telling this user what is acceptable (in simple plain English) rather than being negative.--Harkey (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Pointless complaining again. Three days after your last time posting a case here you start a new one for the same thing. You insult someone for making new articles you don't believe should exist, but as someone pointed out to you last time, consensus in the AFD so far says many agree they should be kept. This editor felt "crap" was a swear word and shouldn't be on Misplaced Pages. A simple mistake. Some families do teach their children that is a swear word. That issue should be renamed Other Things Exist instead of the insulting word "crap" being used to refer to other people's articles. And if someone post something on your talk page after you removed it, you have a right to complain. And why would refusing to be "adopted" be a point against her? If a stranger offered to "adopt" me, I'd find it rather creepy myself. Eagle seems to be doing some wrong too such as removing part of an AFD post quoting a well known rule of Misplaced Pages claiming it was a copyvio, instead of just pointing out she should link to where she got that from. Dream Focus 22:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• "And if someone post something on your talk page after you removed it, you have a right to complain." Androzaniamy told the user who added a WELCOME template to her talk page that if they added it again, they would be reported to AIV. This is the kind of behavior that is acceptable here? Removing "swear words," even if bad ones (i.e. the F-bomb) after being told not to do so in violation of WP:TPG, is unacceptable. Regarding your comment about adoption, Androzaniamy does not believe the adoption offer was "creepy," as she was trying to adopt another user herself. You want to see rude comments? Here, here, and here. And these comments were made before my supposed "rude" comments toward these user. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• I was joking about the 'creepy' part. I always felt it rather condescending to tell someone they don't know what they are doing and you want to "adopt" them though. I don't see any of the three things you just linked to as a problem. Did the person remove it again after it was explained to them properly? Seems like just a misunderstanding to me. You can in fact report someone for refusing to stop placing the same thing on your talk page after you already removed it. Dream Focus 00:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Based on the user's behavior, I think education would be preferable to blocking, at least for now. Androzaniamy, if you're listening, I strongly urge you to reconsider adoption; based on your account's age and current circumstances, I don't think it's a good idea for you to adopt anyone right now anyway. It would greatly benefit you, and the alternative is WP:ROPE as far as I'm concerned. Let's not do that. If you really don't want to be adopted, you should at least spend some quality time with the various policies and guidelines people have linked you to. If you don't understand something, come to the help desk and ask! Don't assume that our policies will cater to your wants/needs: they won't. And ignore all rules isn't carte blanche to do what you want, btw. One other thing: I tried to review the user's talk page history, and none of you people know how to use edit summaries, it seems. --NYKevin @102, i.e. 01:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I just want to clarify something that I think some people are missing: the user says xe doesn't want to be adopted because xe wants to adopt someone else. That is, this user thinks that not only do xe not need help, but that xe is so well-versed in Misplaced Pages that xe is ready to dispense advice to others. While I agree that blocking is premature, Androzaniamy cannot be allowed to mentor anyone, and Androzniamy needs to start taking into account the concerns of other editors, because Misplaced Pages is a rule based project, and a collaborative one. WP:IAR does not mean "I get to override any rule I don't like"...it actually says something more like "if an action is obviously agreeable to the entire community, do it even if a rule prevents it." In the case of keeping or deleting articles, the majority of the community tends to believe that deletion discussion mostly get things right, and that WP:GNG does apply in the majority of situations. Please, please, most everyone here really is trying to help you... Qwyrxian (talk) 06:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I've left a rather lengthy ramble on their talk page, which will hopefully reassure them that the administrator corps is not out to get them. Perhaps gentle nudges from another, relatively new, editor who is not a highly seasoned veteran may prove to be the support that will guide them in the right direction. Blackmane (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure this is not the response you were looking for. "Oh, and the other link still had a swear word in it so I did not read it." Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI for those watching this discussion, Androzaniamy posted this message on her talk page (and spammed it across others' talk pages as well) in which she attempts to address the concerns raised here. Unfortunately, there still appears to be a disconnect in regards to what the problems actually are, especially with the line " ontinue being polite and competent." Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Eagles24/7, what do you want to happen as a result of this discussion? I still don't understand. I was a recipient of the message, too. I didn't consider it 'spam' and, no matter whether the editor follows through or not, took it as a good faith message. I'm not going to slam her for that. My response to her message? Ok, let's move on. I thought Blackmane's message was excellent and I think the gist of this discussion is, let's put our efforts into guidance rather than picking at it. It's really time to move forward. Wikipelli 18:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

What do I want from this discussion? A block, a mandatory mentorship/adoption, or a change in behavior. I don't see a change in behavior and adoption has been refused. If we continue to promote this behavior in editors, they will see that they can do whatever they want as long as they claim they are acting in good faith. There is no doubt this editor is acting in good faith, but the problems with her behavior will never be corrected. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Since this is her first trip to AN/I let's assume that she'll get the gist of it and stop her behavior. At this point she's been warned and her account has drawn the attention of multiple editors so she'll be on a somewhat tight rope. If she does it again we can block. One thing I am concerned about though is her refusal to read posts that have swear words. Swearing is a huge part of the English fucking language and she's gonna have to get used to it :). The presence of a swear word is not justification not to listen to the concerns of other editors and whether intended or not, that type of response is indicative of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality - collaboration means that sometimes you work with editors who think and act differently, being okay with this is required to contribute here. Nformation 00:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It may be part of the language but it isn't compulsory. Using swearing to make a point looks a bit silly. Tigerboy1966  00:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Um.... yeah... I think being afraid to see the word c*ap is oversensitive, but I have to disagree with the contention that swearing is a "huge part of the English f-ing language". I find the F-bomb offensive and, while I'll still read posts that have it, I absolutely don't think it's necessary or appropriate in this forum. Plus, you've pretty much guaranteed that the editor in question will never read this discussion again. While we might condone the use of it, can't we be sensitive to the fact that the involved editor is offended by it? Pushing civility here :( Wikipelli 00:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No I don't think so. She joined our community, not the other way around. We don't accommodate the preferences of every individual editor who arrives here and wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. We have a culture, and whether or not it's right swearing is a part of this culture. Offense is a totally subjective concept and things that don't offend you might put others into a rage - the people that rage over things that don't bother others too much are generally not welcome here. Nformation 07:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

NOTCENSORED is not the same thing as GOINGOUTOFTHEWAYTOOFFEND, which is what "huge part of the English fucking language" clearly is in the circumstances. Surely part of living in a community, as we are, involves not trying to cause others in that community distress? I think you stepped over the line there, Noformation, and in the process ensured that the subject of this discussion will feel unable to participate, which is not clearly to the benefit of the community. Cheers, Lindsay 10:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to summarize this discussion, and anyone please correct me if they disagree on any of these points.

• Androzaniamy has not done anything at this point that warrants a block.
• Misplaced Pages isn't censored. There will be images and language that could potentially offend an editor, and we don't remove such things simply to avoid offense.
• Androzaniamy is new to Misplaced Pages and by admission doesn't have a strong grasp on policies and guidelines.
• Androzaniamy has been resistant to instruction in Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, due to a desire to not be mentored, but also to avoid language considered offensive.
• Androzaniamy has shown a desire to mentor another editor, but given her lack of policy knowledge she should be discouraged from doing this.
• Androzaniamy has edited others' comments in an attempt to censor words she finds offensive, which is not allowed.

I think that seems to cover things. I've said before that if her behavior continues as it has, and she continues to ignore attempts to help her, we may be forced to block her, but that is my opinion only. For now I think it's fair to give her a chance. -- Atama頭 19:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Atama has summed up the situation pretty well. Would an admin kindly mark this as resolved with the WP:ROPE caveat Blackmane (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Cluestick needed for repeated BLP violation

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

The was a recent deletion discussion for Jocelyn Wildenstein, an article so poorly sourced that it includes "Five-Star Baby Name Advisor: The Smart New Way to Name Your Baby" as a reference for the subject's fame. This article had been deleted on the grounds that the subject was only known for one thing (namely extensive plastic surgery), but was recently resurrected by User:Stvfetterly. During the second deletion discussion I noticed that Stvfetterly had placed a picture of a Siberian tiger next to the subject's name in a list on their user page of articles created. I removed the image and told them that I had done so because it was a clear violation of WP:BLP. Stvfetterly has replaced the image. Can someone please give Stvfetterly a gentle tap with the cluestick? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there some background we should be aware of? I don't see how that image is a BLP violation. — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

"Jocelyn Wildenstein has had extensive cosmetic surgery to her face over the years, creating a "very unnatural appearance" intended to elicit a more catlike look. " Bulwersator (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Still not seeing how that's a BLP on Stvfetterly's user page. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully someone who actually has a cluestick will see the issue. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you search her name in Google Images before talking --Enric Naval (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what she looks like - that doesn't mean that putting an image of a Siberian tiger next to her name is acceptable. You should probably re-read WP:BLP of you think it is. Editors who are not familiar with her appearance can consult this high-quality source (tagline: "CELEBRITY PLASTIC SURGERY, NEWS, GOSSIP") used in our article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Still not seeing how this is a BLP violation. Can you please explain explicitly why this is bad? Keep in mind, I tend to be pretty strict about BLP, but I fail to see how this is either damaging to the subject or offensive. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• My desire to not be an overbearing admin policing the minutiae of everyone's userpage is conflicting with my desire to not allow someone to mock another person on his user page. What would have been wonderful is if someone had asked Stvfetterly to remove it himself, but now that his back is up I doubt that's going to happen (still, Stvfetterly, if you're reading this, please remove the image). If he doesn't, I guess I'd lean towards saying it should go. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Hey all . . . can someone explain why this is a BLP violation? I read the BLP information and don't see anything that applies. From what I can see, this Carbuncle guy seemd to just be angry that he couldn't get the page I was working on deleted and is trying to find some way to retaliate. I'm not trying to mock Ms. Wildenstein. There's no free image of her. Her plastic surgery was done to in an effort to make herself look more like a cat, and she was pleased with the results. She went to considerable trouble, pain, and effort to make herself look that way . . . it doesn't make sense that referring to her as cat-like/using a picture of a cat would be offensive. It should also be noted that when Carbuncle decided to edit my user page without comment, I asked him to discuss it on my talk page (Articles for deletion/Jocelyn Wildenstein. He chose not to do so, but rather to bring up this ANI. He seems much more interested in beating me with a 'cluestick' than caring about the image.

If you look at other images I have on the page (like the one for Defense Soap when there's no image available I like to grab something that reminds me of the subject (in the case of defense soap I grabbed an image that looked like a white bar of soap). The user page is primarily viewed by me, and having images makes it easier to locate articles that I'm working on.

Regarding the 'poorly sourced' sourced article that was mentioned . . . perhaps someone could introduce Carbuncle to the other 24 sources listed in the Jocelyn Wildenstein article. --Stvfetterly (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit familiar with this as the admin who closed the AfD. I recommend that all involved stop this tempest in a teapot and go do something useful. Delicious carbuncle, placing a tiger's image next to this person's name is, in my opinion, a silly and tasteless thing to do in these circumstances; nonetheless it does not violate WP:BLP because it makes no false statement of fact about the person nor does it insult or otherwise attack her. This is completely not worthy of an ANI thread. Stvfetterly, if other editors are in good faith offended by something inconsequential you do, the sensible and collegial thing to do on your part would be to stop doing it and move on. I see no need for an admin action here.  Sandstein  21:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll get around to contesting your closure when I have more time, but there's no reason for that Tiger image to linger there any longer than necessary. Would it be a violation of WP:BLP if an editor put File:Chimpanzee-Head.jpg on their user page next to a link to Barack Obama? Would it be a violation of WP:NPA if I put File:Chimpanzee-Head.jpg next to a link to User:Stvfetterly? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Both would be rude, but not really BLP violations without more explicit motive behind it. — The Hand That Feeds You: 23:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not really a valid comparison though. Aside from the racial overtones of linking a black person to a primate, Barack Obama hasn't spent his life going from plastic surgeon to plastic surgeon in order to make himself look more like a chimpanzee.--Stvfetterly (talk) 05:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I am aware of the racial overtones. I chose the example quite deliberately to make it clear why actions such as yours are a BLP violation (sometimes people here have trouble extrapolating from specific situations). I suspect that Wildenstein ended up with "cat-like" features by virtue of typically bad plastic surgery, not as the result of any desire of her own, although I'm sure you can offer some source suggesting otherwise. The fact that you believe a living person looks -- or rather, looked, since she appears to have had some new procedures done -- like a cat does not not give you license to make that comparison with images. Labelling my removal of the image as "vandalism" is a bit petty, don't you think? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You suspect wrong. There was no botched surgery, she really intended to look like that. The article already had a source saying that it was deliberate, I added two more that quote the husband. Of those two, one has Jocelyn saying that she kept making operations to fix this and that. I haven't seen any sourced statements stating that this was a result of botched surgery. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Since BLP applies across all wikispaces, and since based on the above there's no real perception of a BLP problem here, I'm assuming that it'll be OK for me to add the image and caption shown at right to the article Jocelyn Wildenstein. Right? Or am I missing something? Herostratus (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say no, it's not alright, because the choice of an image of a tiger to illustrate "catlike" is actually an interpretation of what that means, and, as such, requires a citation from a reliable source. "Catlike" can mean many things, it does not necessarily mean "like a tiger", it could mean "like a jaguar" or even "like a sphynx". The choice of a tiger to illustrate the expression is analysis or interpretation, and without a citation from an RS, it's OR and not allowed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

However, someone is perfectly fine in choosing to use such an illustration on their own userpage, where OR doesn't apply, and it's not a BLP violation to do as such. Silverseren 22:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I find my self in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with Silver Seren.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, because I do think it is a BLP violation. Without knowing, via a reliable sourece, just what it is she is trying to achieve, what she means by "catlike", ascribing one specific vision of what it means to her anywhere on Misplaced Pages seems to me to be a clear-cut BLP violation, since we are stating as fact what we don't actually know is a fact. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

No, someone is ascribing their own opinion on their userpage. And we can be pretty sure it's tiger, RS or not. It wouldn't be that hard to find a source saying tiger. Silverseren 22:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and since when have we allowed potentially derogatory opinions about public people on user pages? That goes far beyond their purpose, it seems to me.

Why are "we" pretty sure it's a tiger? I've looked at her pictures, and I don't see anything particualrly tiger-like about he looks, as opposed to panther-like, or cheetah-like or sphynx-like. (In fact, the sphynx appears to me to be the closest analogy.) And if it's so easy to find a source, why doesn't someone find one and settle this question? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It is your opinion that it is derogatory. Stv has already explained above that he didn't mean it to be as such and a number of people agree that it is not.

And considering that Tiger Woman is one of her monikers after all. See here, here, and here. Tiger Lady also seems to be a fairly common name for her. Silverseren 22:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it's my opinion that it's potentially derogatory. We can't know for certain, so we do not publish stuff like that unless it is solidly supported by citations from rock-solid reliable sources With BLP, we err on the side of caution.

And are you saying that she uses "Tiger Woman" to describe herself? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

We err on caution in articles. But if someone isn't making an outright derogatory statement on their userpage, but is using an image to represent someone that reflects their nickname, since we don't have an actual image on the subject, it is not a BLP violation.

And you're not going to find a quote for or against from her on the subject, so that question is pointless. Silverseren 22:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The BLP policy applies across the entirety Misplaced Pages. Clearly, we're not going to agree here, so I'll sum up my position and then stand down: with BLP, OR, RS, and user page concerns about this, I see no upside to allowing such "opinions" on userpages, and little downside in disallowing them. There is no guarantee of freedom of expression here, there's nothing of encyclopedic value in connecting her name to a unrelated picture, and very little of project value in allow potentially derogatory personal opinions on user pages. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• I would like to note that we are talking about a mere juxtaposition of a picture and a name here. No text is making any connection between the picture and her looks and even if it were it is doubtful it would be a blp violation. What precedent are we setting here? I have a skull on my userpage and the names of several politicians? Is that a problem? Is it perhaps an veiled threat? I think that we don't need to invent problems to take care of - there are enough actual problems to take care of. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Please, we're going to stand on faux-naivite here? "No, really, I put up a picture and put her name on it but I wasn't making a suggestion that those two totally disparate thing are in any way connected, because I didn't write it down." Please, really. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This thread is WP:LAME and should be closed. Pointing out that something obviously looks like something else, especially with no malice aforethought, should not be considered a BLP violation. Nformation 00:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

"Something"? Try "someone", and a living someone at that. What's "lame" here is making fun of celebrities for no particular good reason. Until we get a citation that says she calls herself "Tiger Woman" or is attempting to make herself look like a tiger, it's a BLP violation, and shouldn't be anywhere in the encyclopedia. Our user pages aren't blogs, onto which we can throw any old opinion we care to share with the world. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I did not mean to insinuate that she is merely a "thing." My vagueness was vague intentionally so as to confer the general concept, not specifically referenced to the subject of the article. As far as making fun of her goes...sorry she kind of brought that on herself, it truly is funny (th ough also sad). Some people do things that are universally ridiculed, it's disengenuous to ignore it for the sake of civility when it's simply a joke (or in this case just an illustration) on a user page. Article space is one thing, but this is something we should all just chuckle over. With that said, I'm now part of a WP:LAME discussion and by the transitive property I am now lame, so I will be backing out before I get any lamer :). Nformation 07:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, if I came across her story on a blog, I would probably think "How bizarre" and maybe even have a laugh. I might find the tiger image clever and funny. That's not the point, though, we're not a blog, we're supposed to be here to make a serious popular reference work, and even our supporting pages are supposed to maintain a certain standard. We routinely block people who cannot understand that their user pages are not their personal fiefdom, to do with as they will, and we've set up standards to follow. Some of them are only applicable to articles, etc., while others are applicable everywhere. BLP is one that is applicable everywhere, and that means that we are not free to make derogatory remarks or denigrate celebrities on our user pages at will.

Obviously, this is a rule which is honored more in the breach than otherwise -- I suspect that many nasty things have been said about famous people in talk page discussions, and I'm not advocating a search-and-destroy mission to weed them out, but when an instance comes to light and is reported, there really is no option except to follow through on policy and remove the offending remark, or, in this case, image and caption.

There is a constant tug of war on Misplaced Pages between being a reference work, and being an online community. Obviously, the community aspects are necessary to support the people who do the work of making an encyclopedia, but when push comes to shove, we're only an online community to that degree, and no more. When the blogging starts to override the serious part, it's got to give. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The BLP policy is a malignant tumor that grows more disruptive to Misplaced Pages every month. Going after this userpage image has nothing to do with encyclopedic reliability or any conceivable lawsuit; it's just trashing an editor for recreation. BLP from the beginning has been an insult to every principle of Misplaced Pages. It may be that Misplaced Pages, like many people with cancer, can survive only by dying and perhaps sprouting anew from some forgotten seed. Wnt (talk) 06:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You forgot to put your caps lock on. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Many people in this discussion appear to be under the mistaken impression that Ms. Wildenstein is the victim of some horrible surgery gone wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth. She WANTED the surgery that she got, she LIKES the surgery that she got, and she INTENDED to look like a cat (caps added per Carbuncle's above request). But don't take my word for it . . . let's check a few of the references from the article:

1. - Jocelyn Wildenstein "may hold the world record for undergoing cosmetic surgery, having even persuaded doctors to help her achieve the cat-like look she craved."
2. - Her husband claims that her surgery 'was engineered to make her look "like a cat."'
3. - Her husband claims that 'she wanted to look "like a cat"'
4. - Jocelyn Wildenstien "took her husband's love of cats a little too far when she had her face surgically transformed into a catlike mask in an effort to keep him from leaving her"
5. - "Jocelyn realized that Alec loved his jungle estate, and the cats that inhabited it, more than anything else in life. So, armed with this information, she returned to her plastic surgeon with an unusual request: She wanted to be transformed into one of the giant cats that Alec loved so much. Though surprised at this unorthodox request, the surgeon did his best to comply."
6. - "her eyes were artificially widened to make the outer corners of her eyes curl up to give them a feline aspect"
7. - "Lizard Man, Stalking Cat, and Jocelyn Wildenstein all of whom have,through various surgical, tattooing, and piercing techniques, attempted to look more animal-like."
8. - "Jocelyn Wildenstein, a New York socialite famous for her feline-styled cosmetic surgery"
9. - Jocelyn Wildenstein is "ecstatic with her work. She feels beautiful. She looks in the mirror and she loves what she sees. She got exactly what she wanted."

Now, in light of this . . . how is putting an image of a big cat next to her name on a user page in wikipedia a violation of WP:BLP? It's like putting an image of a car next to Mario Andretti on a talk page. Something he's associated with and proud of. Where is the insult? The only insulted party here is the person who is miffed that he couldn't get the Jocelyn Wildenstein article deleted . . . Delicious Carbuncle. --Stvfetterly (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken, I'll take any of your three cats over this one. Brrr. I also see that this discussion isn't over yet; I wish it were. I don't have much of an opinion and I am not comfortable yet closing this thread. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • • Always good to see chivalry in action. Are you quite sure you’re a neutral party in this, dottore? Don’t make me regret I voted for you ;) On a serious note, could you please initiate a deletion review for the article on Ms Wildenstein? Beauty’s in the eye of the beholder, but this socialite has not done anything noteworthy other than subject herself to a number of surgical procedures. I tried and failed to find any involvement in charitable organisations or business ventures. If you compare her achievements to those of Diane Latiker, whose biography was recently deleted, I see a clear bias in favor of a rich person famous for her looks over a lady of modest means notable for helping vulnerable youngsters. Whose biography would you rather read? Best – Draco 13:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The intent of the image is to mock her. As such it violates BLP. It is certainly possible to use an accurate description in a context which is mockery. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Tell you what, since now I'm being tried on the assumed intent of my actions on my user page. In keeping with the spirit of the Hammurabic Code, I'll remove the image of the tiger from my user page as soon as Delicious Carbuncle removes the image of the 'no sign' from the box on his user page indicating that he is not Pauline Berry. The 'no sign' is clearly as much of an intentional slight against Dr. Pauline Berry who is referenced next to it as the tiger is next to Jocelyn Wildenstein on my user page. For those of you who claim that this is a ridiculous demand . . . I wholeheartedly agree, but when in Rome . . .

What do you say Carbuncle? :P Or would you prefer that I simply edit your user page as you did with mine? --Stvfetterly (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That is not the Pauline Berry who I am not. I prefer not to comment on whether I am that Pauline Berry. You seem to think this is about you - it is not. I would have the same reaction to the image regardless of where I found it. I will, however, take you up on your offer - I will remove that userbox if you remove the tiger image. Deal?Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me. Tiger image gone and will stay gone (assuming that your user box disappears in the next 24 hours). An eye for an eye and all that. --Stvfetterly (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of Hammurabi's Code, but let's pretend that this is in some way "an eye for an eye". You want me to remove my eye, but you have only half removed yours. I am perfectly willing to remove the userbox from my page if it gets the matter settled, but I ask that instead of having File:Censored rubber stamp.svg, you simply have it blank. Other entries have no image, so it won't make that much of a visual difference. I think this would show goodwill on your part. Do this and I will remove the userbox from my userpage (or feel free to remove it yourself once you have removed the image). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You modified my user page without asking me about it, then raised this ANI without discussing anything with me, and now you're asking for goodwill? All that you've done is tried to bully me into doing what you want. We're far past the goodwill stage. You're asking me to censor my page, based on your interpretation of what I'm thinking about an image . . . but not to indicate that it has been censored? Nope. I've been more than polite and accommodating with you. The very fact that you're arguing this shows that you don't care about the image of the tiger next to Jocelyn Wildenstein at all (since it's now gone), you're just playing out some wiki power trip. I'm not jumping through any more hoops at your behest, 24 hours take it or leave it.--Stvfetterly (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I was willing to remove something from my userpage if that was what it took to get you to remove that image, but you don't seem interested in a win-win situation. I continue to believe that this is a violation of WP:BLP and that you should be blocked if you put that image back up. Ultimately, I am confident that this will end with the article redirected and the image removed from your userpage, so enjoy your win while you can. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I couldn't give two craps whether someone wants to illustrate their talk page with a tiger picture, but how the HELL did that close as a "Keep" at AfD? She's known for having been married to X, receiving a divorce settlement, and having had "extensive facial surgeries" — and that's IT?!?!? This doesn't need to be at ANI, it needs to be at Deletion Review or back at AfD. This is a You've Got to Be Fucking Kidding Me™ BLP... Carrite (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • She's notable, and not just barely. What people are known for, beyond ONEEVENT, is irrelevant to judgements of notability. Get over it. Fences&Windows 23:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • It wasn't closed as keep, it was closed as no consensus. And you didn't ask me, but if you had, I'd say she's known for being a socialite, and the things you mentioned (marriage, divorce money, and surgery) enhance her notability. Right or wrong, people pay attention to stuff like that. CityOfSilver 23:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Pattern of disruption by User:HuskyMoon at Phillipe Kahn

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

Editor HuskyMoon has repeatedly changed the sourced 1952 birth year to 1962 at Phillipe Kahn without explanation. The following are all since 22 Apr 2011:

The editor also removed {{POV}} and {{Like resume}} tags: and has been removing other editors comments on the article talk page at Talk:Philippe Kahn: to be fair, the stuff from the beginning of the talk page probably didn't belong there in the first place, but the discussion in the "Checking Neutrality" section was also removed.

Another editor has expressed suspicion that "he is either Kahn himself or someone closely associated with Kahn". Mojoworker (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like this has caused google to return "Best guess for Philippe Kahn Date of birth is March 16, 1962" when searching on "philippe kahn born". Google is basing that on Misplaced Pages, Wikimedia, and answers.com (which is citing Misplaced Pages as the source). I just went and changed it at Category:Philippe Kahn on commons, but it looks like the problem has cascaded. Mojoworker (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the correct date of birth, I will warn the user not to remove cited material without explanation, to engage in discussion on the talk page and not to abide by talk page guidelines. --RA (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully one of us will eventually get them to understand. Any idea if Google and answers.com will eventually correct themselves if the Misplaced Pages and Wikimedia dates stays stable? Mojoworker (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That is one crappy article. You'd think that the PR people would hire a decent writer. Drmies (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

still 1962—French Misplaced Pages: fr:Philippe Kahn (Google Chrome can translate) Wbm1058 (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat on the Village Pump

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

Hi, someone brought it to my attention that a legal threat is posted on Misplaced Pages's Village Pump page by PaoloNapolitano (talk · contribs) against our website Misplaced Pages Review — Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Wikipedia_Review_-_libel.3F ... I looked up WP:LEGALTHREAT and reporting the comment here, as per what people said it'd unlikely work out very well for anyone trying to take down an internet watchdog, but it does count as a threat per the rules (I'd also comment if the discussion were not closed that the attack claiming we supported SOPA was totally false and the comment was warning the public that it would return, there's a thread bashing on SOPA in Politics that goes on for several pages for crying out loud) ---Mistress Selina Kyle 05:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You seriously shouldn't be wanting to go there Selina. Suggest closing this with a trout. Y u no be Russavia 06:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

LOL. Misplaced Pages Review is an 'internet watchdog', is it? Yeah right.. Grow up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Whether Misplaced Pages Review is an "internet watchdog" or "the worst site on the internet" is irrelevant. The policy forbids making legal threats, period.VolunteerMarek 06:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm the one who pointed it out on WR. Given that a lot of people who post on WR (including admins, current and former Arbs, etc.) also post on/edit Misplaced Pages, calling for a libel lawsuit to be launched against WR DOES IN FACT constitute a LEGAL THREAT which is explicitly forbidden by WP:LEGAL. Or hell, if the poster threatened a libel suit against "some completely unrelated website called xyz" that would still be a violation of WP:LEGAL. In those circumstances standard procedure is that the person making the legal threat gets indef banned until they retract the threat.

Now, I totally understand that a lot of Wikipedians don't like WR. But that's irrelevant. The policy doesn't say "it's okay to make legal threats against websites which we don't like, just don't make legal threats against websites we like". It says DON'T MAKE LEGAL THREATS. And that's what an accusation of libel - combined with an explicit call for a lawsuit (!!!!!! - how much clearer can that get????) is.

Of course, I have enough common sense to realize that Paolo in what he wrote above was being just stupid, either out of too much Misplaced Pages-is-teh-awesome-and-sue-anyone-who-says-otherwise kind of zealotry, or out of some desire to kiss the abstract-collective ass of WMF/Wikipedia, or some combination of both. And so, despite the fact that I've seen people get indeffed for much weaker kinds of legal threats I don't think that AT THIS POINT they should be indeffed blocked (though seriously, if there was any kind of consistency to policy enforcement he would have gotten blocked when the threat first appeared). Just warned, trout slapped and the legal threat should be removed and rev-deleted per standard procedure in such cases.VolunteerMarek 06:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Something to keep in mind: one reason that we don't allow legal threats is because it can be legally problematic for wikipedia to have an editor who is suing us be in contact with us in any way but through our lawyers. This is a very common practice in the US, wherein when a party is part of a lawsuit they will only communicate about that lawsuit through their lawyers. Legal threats against WR have nothing to do with Misplaced Pages and so this policy doesn't apply in that context, though Selina might want to stop communicating with the user for the sake of her site. The second reason we forbid legal threats is due to the chilling effect it can have, but on wikipedia. I haven't read the diffs and background here so I cannot comment as to whether this threat effects WP, but effecting the WR is not our business.

With that said, unless the user is causing a chilling effect, there is not necessarily a cause to block the user whether or not he retracts, though if he continued to push the point it would probably move into WP:TE and WP:CIVIL violations. That's my take on the matter as a TV lawyer. Nformation 06:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually no, or at least not exactly. That may be "one reason" but it is not the "only reason". The WP:LEGAL policy states:

If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, it is required that you do not edit Misplaced Pages until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels. You should instead contact the person or people involved directly, by email or through any other contact methods the user provides. If your issue involves Misplaced Pages itself, you should contact Misplaced Pages's parent organization, the Wikimedia Foundation. Do not issue legal threats on Misplaced Pages pages.

and

While you may sue in a court of law, Misplaced Pages is not the place for legal disputes. Making legal threats is uncivil and causes a number of serious problems:

• It severely inhibits free editing of pages, a concept that is absolutely necessary to ensure that Misplaced Pages remains neutral. Without this freedom, we risk one side of a dispute intimidating the other, thus causing a systemic bias in our articles.
• It creates bad feelings and a lack of trust amongst the community, damaging our ability to proceed quickly and efficiently with an assumption of mutual good faith.
• We have had bad experiences with users who have made legal threats in the past. By making legal threats, you may damage your reputation on Misplaced Pages.

And it is simply not true that Legal threats against WR have nothing to do with Misplaced Pages and so this policy doesn't apply in that context, - that's about as wrong headed reading of the policy as I've seen in my 6 years here. The policy doesn't just prohibit making legal threats AGAINST Misplaced Pages, but making legal threats ON Misplaced Pages, against whomever. And yes, making legal threats against non-Misplaced Pages entities is usually dealt with via an indef block. If Joe threatens to sue Sue for libel on Misplaced Pages, that's a indef block right there, whether or not Sue edits wikipedia or not.VolunteerMarek 07:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages and the WMF have no legal connection to Misplaced Pages Review, and a legal threat against WR has nothing whatsoever to do with Misplaced Pages or the Foundation. It certainly doesn't qualify under WP:NLT, unless we're going to expand the penumbra of our policies to anything and everything that's vaguely related to us, in which case, let's include Wikia, and Conservapeida and anywhere else our editors might contribute. Perhaps we should block anyone who makes a legal threat anywhere on the Internet, on the theory that one of our editors might read it and be disinclined to edit afterwards.

No, l et WR deal with it in whatever way they want to, it's got nothing to do with us. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Again (how many times does this have to be repeated before it sinks in?) - the policy doesn't say it's okay to make threats against entities who "have no legal connection to WMF", it says NOT TO MAKE LEGAL THREATS, period. *I* have no legal connection to WMF. But if someone were to make a legal threat against me on Misplaced Pages it would certainly qualify under WP:NLT and the person in question would be indef blocked. Same thing here. Please learn a policy before commenting on it.VolunteerMarek

I think you're right in the literal interpretation but wrong in the interpretation of the spirit. If I threatened to sue say...Coca cola no one would bat an eye because it doesn't have anything to do with WP and it doesn't have a chilling effect on editing. Again, I didn't read the background here so I don't know if this meets those qualifications, if it has a chilling effect then it's certainly a policy violation. Nformation 07:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No, that would be a WP:NLT violation as well, and it could (would) get you blocked (seen it happen). The problem is that these kinds of threats - however empty they may be - can potentially create legal problems for Misplaced Pages. That's why they're banned outright. One more time: it does not matter whether the person or entity being threatened has anything to do with WP or not. Or think of it this way; pick a politician or an actor, at random. Chances are that politician or actor "doesn't have anything to do with WP". You still cannot make legal threats against them on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is just NOT a place to post legal threats. VolunteerMarek 07:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "legal threats against Misplaced Pages or Misplaced Pages's editors or blah blah blah" is definitely implied (and considering that someone went and misinterpreted it so badly, should probably be added explicitly) since only a legal threat of that sort would have the chilling effect that NLT is intended to stop. WP:COMMONSENSE, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The use of the "blah blah blah" in your comment is more or less an explicit admission that you have no clue as to what you're talking about. Please stop contributing negative value added to the discussion.VolunteerMarek 07:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it means I'm not going to give your nonsensical interpretation any more thought than it deserves. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree. Though I will reiterate that repeated discussion of legal workings can simply be considered disruptive without appeal to NLT since it's not helping the encyclopedia any. Nformation 07:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

He's right, the page doesn't even mention the WMF, it seems to be talking about legal threats to other users (MANY people from Misplaced Pages also use Misplaced Pages Review...)? If that's ok, then ok, but it didn't give that impression to me... --

And what is the theory behind how a threat to sue WR would stop Misplaced Pages editors from making edits here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Taking any kind of action against Weekly Reader would only boost its visibility and credibility, and reduce Misplaced Pages's credibility at the same time. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ya think, Bugs? I dunno about that. How about this scenario instead: WR gets sued and loses, and disappears from the scene, and we no longer have to deal with their b.s.

Incidentally, I'd be more than pleased if WR was truly an "Internet watchdog" which help to keep Misplaced Pages on the straight-and-narrow, an outside ombudsmen to keep us and the WMF honest, but from what I've seen of it, it's got far too many trolls and malcontents contributing to it, whose only aim seems to be to cause trouble, whether or not it's justified or necessary. It my opinion, it's totally worthless, and an impediment to true oversight. I've certainly never found anything there that justified, to me, it's existence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

A good fantasy: Weekly Reader gets sued and disappears forever. Reality: They would just pop up somewhere else, with an even worse attitude - and maybe offshore where we couldn't touch them (thanks, in part, to our opposition to SOPA and PIPA). In fact, every time their very existence is acknowledge on wikipedia (including this, for sure) it feeds that troll child. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 10:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah well, one can dream... Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

To dream, perchance to sweep (or mop); eye, there's the rub, to shuffle that mote of coal off the internet, or to at least to give them a pause, to refresh ourselves. Alas, poor Weekly Reader; we knew them hornblowers; especially in the Biblical sense. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 10:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) Why would anyone sue WR? It's comprised of people who were banned from here and mainly exists to provide them a rant forum where they can nurse grudges. If that's what people choose to focus their daily life on then that's kind of sad, but really up to them. In any case, the "legal threat" is not credible. Maybe WR haters should set up a new site "Misplaced Pages Review Review"? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Or you could simplify it simply to "Bitchipedia Review" :) Y u no be Russavia 16:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Just for clarification - if someone comes here and vandalises the Skoda article threatening to sue their local car dealership, then that's just tedious, and they would probably end up blocked for disruption (not legal threats). If they threaten to sue the editor who reverts them, that falls under NLT. If they discover that the owner of the car dealership edits here, and threaten to sue him, that falls under NLT too - pursuing an off wiki legal action onwiki. Paolo would have to threaten to sue Miss Selina for it to be a blockable legal threat. Note: I am not recommending anyone do this. If Paulo wants to pursue this, he should contact the WMF, although I don't think he would get anywhere. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Elen, unlike in regard to some of the others involved in this discussion, I actually have some respect for you. So let me just say that your interpretation (the Skoda example) is NOT how WP:NLT has been applied/enforced over the years. WP:NLT doesn't specify that only legal threats directed at Misplaced Pages editors are prohibited, but rather than in general legal threats are prohibited. And with good reason. A policy against legal threats in general actually protects Misplaced Pages.VolunteerMarek 18:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Marek, I can't personally think of a single occasion where an editor has been blocked under NLT for threatening to sue an outside organisation, without in some way threatening to involve Misplaced Pages editors in the lawsuit. Blocked yes, under NLT no. There has to be a threat agains a wikipedia editor or editors - Acme Foocorp sell defective cars, and I will sue anyone who takes this information out of the article; I have started a lawsuit against Foobar Records to prove that Ron Jones played guitar with the Flailing Hairnets. Editing this information will make you a party to the action - these come under NLT. Paolo's actions come under the heading of "Plum Stupid".--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: I have just Removed numerous personal attacks by administrators user:AndyTheGrump, user:Beyond My Ken, user:Baseball Bugs and user:Russavia directed at me and other users (including other administrators!) who visit Misplaced Pages Review. This is extremely poor conduct for administrators, who should be acting to a higher standard than users, not acting any way they want because they think they can get away with it or whatever. I'm really disappointed by the lack of professionalism and maturity... --Mistress Selina Kyle 18:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

And I have reverted you for refactoring other's comments. GiantSnowman 18:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

GiantSnowman beat me to it. I'd have undone the refactoring first if I'd been quick enough. There was impoliteness and impatience but no outright attacks. I don't know you personally, Mistress Selina Kyle but I suspect that your editing style here may need you to develop a thicker skin. Bugs and Malleus to name just two would laugh off those "attacks" as fleabites. Kim Dent-Brown 18:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I attempted to reverted this too, but was beaten to it. If you consider such comments 'personal attacks' then I suggest you raise the matter at the appropriate place - though how anyone defending WR can have the gall to complain about 'personal attacks' is beyond me. And by the way, I'm not an admin... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Mistress, either you are saying those editors are Administrators at WR, or you don't know how to tell which editors here are Administrators. Which is it? Dougweller (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hm. Mistress Selina Kyle is unblocked less than a week, and teh drahmahz ensue. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Drama is the mainstay of AN/I, come on, if it wasn't this, it'd be something else. People like Baseball Bugs need something to do here. And this particular episode was generated by somebody who thought it wise to start making legal threats. Sorry, can't turn this one around on Selina.VolunteerMarek 23:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you see #Restoration of personal attacks that I removed against me? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a little silly. First of all, my VP proposal was posted to get people's opinions on WR and the fact that they possibly might be posting libel and slander on their forums. Ironically, this was about Misplaced Pages suing WR, not me or anyone else suing Misplaced Pages, which obviously is what the NLT policy is about. I do feel AGFing is hard to do in this case, there is something POINTy about it. PaoloNapolitano 12:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

User:KimvdLinde: Canvassing, disruptive editing, false polling, etc.

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

There is a discussion about WP:Manual of Style wording, at WT:Manual of Style#Species capitalization points. As usual any time this issues comes up, it turned into a huge debate with WP:BIRDS at the center of it because of their insistence on capitalizing the common names of bird species in Misplaced Pages articles because ornithology journals do so. The debate is actually about tightening the MOS language, to indicate that WP:BIRDS insists on an exception to MOS's general rule (adopted in 2008, after consensus favored the idea at WP:VPP in 2007). KimvdLinde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) arrived early in the debate and has engaged in a constant pattern of obstructionism and disruption, especially a) "I didn't hear that" refusal to recognize the points actually being raised and always returning to the idea that the wording changes are an attack on her and her project (they're in fact the opposite; they're a concession; I can get into that later if anyone asks); and b) continually couching the debate in terms of violence ("kicking us in the ass", "attacking us", etc.). I warned her against this four times, in the page and in edit summaries. While once or twice is just a verbal tick, doing it every other time you post is a pattern of not-so-subtle suggestion that those who disagree with you are have dark, violent motives, a gross assumption of bad faith; and after four warnings it takes on the shape of a thinly-veiled ad hominem attack. I can provide diffs of all this if deemed necessary, but this is background, really, not the main issue, and doing so could take a couple of hours.

As further background: KimvdLinde's issue seems to be that she does not believe, or rather does not want anyone else to believe, that the capitalization of bird names on Misplaced Pages ("Bald Eagle") is controversial, when it has been one of the most controversial idea here ever, for seven years running. The proposed tweaks to MOS would take MOS's extant recommendation to use lower case for the common names of animal species, not that WP:BIRDS prefers to capitalize them in ornithology articles and that this is controversial, and advise no to do this in other categories of articles. Very simple and 100% accurate. Noting when something within its scope is subject to serious controversy is standard operating procedure. I have been entirely open about the fact that I oppose the birds capitalization as imposition of a strange specialist practice in a generalist encyclopedia (the same main argument others have raised for seven years) but that it is far more important to "firewall" WP:BIRDS and stop the strife, while ensuring MOS makes it clear that people need to quit taking the birds example and going and capitalizing things like "Lion", "Bottlenose Dolphin", "Mountain Dog" and "Przewalski's Horse" (real examples), except where proper names appear in them ("Przewalski"). MOS should arguably not mention birds at all, just the default that it recommends and let WP:BIRDS do what it does under a claim of WP:IAR, but MOS regulars have attempted to compromise. And been rewarded with personal attacks and a canvassing campaign of tendentious, hostile chaos.

The first main issue is blatant canvassing by KimvdLinde, here, leading to this thread, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Birds#Caps warriors at it again, a blatant violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND. It contains a direct personal attack on me here, by Kim. I was not notified by anyone of these accusation either. The project has long displayed an attitude and belief that they are a sovereign unit who can make up their own rules and that they control the bird articles.

The second main issue is that KimvdLinde has launched this pseudo-poll, where she is deciding who is and isn't in favor of (her intentionally skewed misrepresentation of) the proposal and essentially voting for people, based on her assumptions about their statements and intent (wrong in several cases), and then proceeded to manipulate the pseudo-data to indicate that her opposition was divided. I could go on.

Kim has essentially totally derailed, through a campaign of tendentious histrionics and a drama-mongering, what was once a sane conversation about which version of a mnior tweak to a guideline paragraph to use, after a long and stressful debate finally wound down (coming to no new conclusions about birds, only about how to clean up the MOS wording on animal names). She has made a massive WP:SOAPBOX of the issue, and generated a WP:FILIBUSTER and general chaos by canvassing. She is now questioning clear consensuses, demanding that they be "re-consensused", an obvious form of "asking the other parent" and wikilawyering, and seems to be unaware that consensus does not require unanimity. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 05:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like we just reached the next step in the "codify-in-the-MoS-that-WP:BIRD-editors-do-it-wrong" war that User:SMcCandlish has been waging for several weeks now. The facts at the page speak for themselves, and I am sorry that I busted his proclaimed consensus for codification that does not exist. -- Kim van der Linde 05:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW, it is obvious to me that the issue is controversial, we just disagree on WHY it is controversial. So, that claim above can be thrown into the trash. -- Kim van der Linde 05:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That's the end of that debate then. It is standard operating procedure for MOS to note that something like this is controversial; it is not the guideline's job to blatantly lie or hide the truth just to make a particular group of editors feel better. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I am glad that you are deciding for me that this is then the end of the debate. That is actually the problem here, because you are trying to push your point though using heavy handed techniques such as proclaiming consensus when there is not and starting polls based on that with limited choices. Furthermore, there is no controversy in the bird literature about this; the controversy is with the editors who oppose the bird literature. And as such, if anything about the controversy is codified, it should be about those editors. But you keep insisting that the BIRD editors are generating the controversy, which is false. -- Kim van der Linde 06:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You've been arguing all week that there is no controversy. Now you've conceded there's a controversy after all. That automatically means that the debate about that has ended. Basic logic isn't pushing anything through heavy handed whatever. Please stop re-re-re-re-raising your perennial straw man that "there is no controversy in the bird literature, so you must be wrong". Not one party to the debate in seven years has ever, ever, ever suggested that there was a controversy in the bird literature, and you know that full well, and you know full well that is not what the debate is about. Cf. the article Handwave. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, there is indeed a manufactured controversy that is maintained by some editors at WP:MOS. That does not mean that it should be codified as if the bird editors are the problem. They are not. It would be nice if you get the point. -- Kim van der Linde 07:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing manufactured about the controversy; it's raged for 7+ years all over the place. Your pretense that all evidence handed to you doesn't exist, followed by simply re-re-repeating the same arguments you've made before and which have already addressed is is the very definition of tendentiousness. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 08:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Another point. Yes, I do not trust SMcCandlish because of his repeated proclamations that he will keep battling about this. He is not in the discussion to solve this in a good way, he is in it to eventually change the practise at WOP:BIRD. So yes, I have good reason not to trust him and to assume good faith. Here are some diffs of the proclamation Your behavior, however, is actually making me want to go after the birds capitalization and get rid of it., I want to stop that, and leave the birds issue for later resolution, which could take another 7 years, basically. Another piont why I don't trust him is that he already has drafted a ArbCom request-- Kim van der Linde 05:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Disagreeing with you and feeling compelled by you to continue disagreeing with you, and to say so, is not acting in bad faith, and no grounds for personal attacks by you. I have no need to try to change practice at WP:BIRDS; many, many other people are opposed to your inappropriate-in-an-encyclopedia typographical practice. I'm far more concerned about people capitalizing things like Horse and Goldfish. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

If you feel compelled to continue disagreeing with me, that is your problem, not mine. I do not appreciate that you try to make me responsible (feeling compelled by you) for your behavior. I would suggest in this context to read Misplaced Pages:Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point as going after a whole wikiproject because you disagree with me is exactly that. -- Kim van der Linde 06:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You're quoting out of context. I was obviously being arch. The passage you're treating as if it were a smoking gun is immediately followed by "But I'm about as tired of this as Sabine. I just want to firewall your project so others stop emulating it, and in way that makes it clear that MOS is not acting as ArbCom ... it's more important to compromise for the good of the 'pedia than for me to get my way." The rest of this I've already addressed. I've never engaged in an actual WP:POINT violation in my entire 6.5+ years here. Let's not be silly. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It was not me who stated: Your behavior, however, is actually making me want to go after the birds capitalization and get rid of it.. Yes, that is a thread to disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point. I don't think that is silly, I think that is childish and if executed, bannable. -- Kim van der Linde 08:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

To use your "it's not my problem" dismissiveness: It's not my problem if you have no sense of humor and cannot understand when someone is being ironic and exaggeratory to get a point across to you about your behavior. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 08:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ultimately, the issue is whether the MoS should codify when they deem something controversial. -- Kim van der Linde 05:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:MOS is just a guideline; it doesn't "codify" anything. MOS routinely notes when something within its scope is controversial (a.k.a. does not have Misplaced Pages-wide consensus). It is effectively bound by policy to do so, since to not to do would be to assume WP:ARBCOM's role and declaring the debate over and in whose favor. The other alternative is to not mention the issue at all, which is my preference. I would rather that MOS simply stated that we do not capitalize the common names of species, and if WP:BIRDS wants to keep doing it, they can defend the practice against WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on a WP:IAR basis, since they believe their position to be a strong one. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

When checking WP:MOS, the claim that WP:MOS regularly codifies that things are controversial is a hoax. Please check yourself. Just another claim that does not hold true. -- Kim van der Linde 06:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh? I said that MOS does not "codify" anything; it's not a policy, much less a law. What are you talking about? — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, I use codifying a bit wider than just law, like it is explained here. -- Kim van der Linde 07:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean. There isn't anything at all bad about "the process of precisely formulating a statement", so I'm not sure why you use it in a pejorative sense. (Not the definition I'm used to, but it's actually applicable here, in a good way.) Anyway, this "hoax" claim of your is another great example of your playing the WP:IDHT game. In the very first paragraphs of the debate, and to you directly, I cited a pile of examples because you demanded proof that MOS regularly does this. Below, in a new outdent, I've given them to you again, and there are many others.

No, when you make a claim, you can provide the evidence. Showing a few examples at SUBPAGES does not make it regular. In all those cases, there is no consensus within the wikiprojects itself and there is a generic statement. In our case, it is a rather specific statement that codifies that it is the WP:BIRD editors that are the problem, while there are far more editors in other projects objecting as well. Furthermore, there is NO dispute about this among bird editors. So yes, you can expect opposition to your specific version of codification of the dispute. -- Kim van der Linde 07:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC) PS. this comment was disconnected from most of the post it was a reply to because of refactoring after the reply was posted.

Oh, and if notifying the wikiproject that is under discussion for special treatment is canvassing, I will plead guilty. -- Kim van der Linde 06:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Issuing a call-to-arms titled "Caps warriors at it again" is not a neutral notice per WP:CANVASS. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it was not clear to me that you had a problem with the title. Will fix that immediately, although I think the title is factually correct. fixed -- Kim van der Linde 06:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a bit late for that; the damage already done. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Could be. I think it is childish to just raise the issue at ANI, while there would have been multiple locations you could have solved the issue just as easy, like my talk page, or per e-mail. -- Kim van der Linde 06:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment on MOS and amending text. See WP:REDACT. I am not sure if changing a heading is consistent with MOS. Perhaps, as MOS suggests, that it would be better to put a "strike out" through the original heading and put in the amended heading below, with a "~~~~" to indicate clearly when the amendment was make. This is because there is a lot of text under the heading, and I would have thought that the original heading needs to be visible to avoid changing the context in which several editors comments may have been intended. Snowman (talk) 10:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, as a procedural matter, but I don't personally care if KimvdLinde sweeps it under the rug; page history exists for a reason. However, it should at least have a {{anchor}} with the original title, since I think it was linked to at the original title from this debate. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and why do we have such a problem with this. In the Bird Literature, names are caped. Here is a just a short list. Just seconds ago, SMcCandlish proclaims that it looks illiterate and childish to the average reader. This kind of labeling of the work of one of the more prolific wikiprojects really does not help, especially considering that Capitalized Bird Names are the norm in all the relevant literature for all these species. -- Kim van der Linde 06:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

An exemplary case in point of WP:IDHT. Kimvdlinde has been provided with the answer to this question too many times to count. It's because this is a general encyclopedia for a general readership, and capitalization of bird name is a specialist practice by specialist writers for specialist publications read by a specialist audience. I didn't "label the work" of the project, I pointed out what typical perceptions are. I'm hardly the first to note this. Even ornithological papers from thirty years ago criticized the practice on the same basis. But this is not WT:BIRDS. This ANI is about canvassing, intentional disruption, poll falsification and personal attacks, remember? — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this ANI is about not asking someone to refractor a header that is perceived as non-neutral, proclaiming you have a consensus when you have not, starting a poll to codify a dispute in the WP:MOS using a false dichotomy of options based on the previous, filing a ANI report on the editor who exposed your false claim for consensus, threatening to disrupt a whole wikiproject because you are fed up with me, using ancient literature you make your point (Even ornithological papers from thirty years ago), ignoring WP:RS, and more. All because you want to have your claim that the Capitalization of Bird Names is controversial included in the MOS. -- Kim van der Linde

• Comment: "The project has long displayed an attitude and belief that they are a sovereign unit who can make up their own rules and that they control the bird articles." <- that is the crux of all this nonsense. A false argument that assumes bad faith beforehand from highly active and productive WikiProjects that normally do not get involved in the superficial wikilawyering going on in the rest of Misplaced Pages at all. It's also the reason why SMcCandlish's proposals have been met with such hostility by not only WP:BIRD participants, but WP:TOL members as well. All the accusations leveled against Kim are exhibited by SMcCandlish, particularly the part about being tendentious. Truth is, everyone but the MOS-people are already extremely tired of this discussion being brought up again and again. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 06:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Except that I haven't brought the issue up in ages, and even when I did last time (at WT:MOS), it was about rampant capitalization all over the place, of things like Lion and Ball Python, not birds specifically. You're barking up the wrong tree. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Deets: The last time I brought the issue up at MOS was here Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_126#Capitalization_of_animal_and_plant_names_now_rampant, five whole months ago, and it wasn't about birds in particular. The last time the WP:BIRDS practice was raised as the major subject of discussion at MOS was at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_119#Bird_names on 25 January 2011, in a discussion I wasn't party to. I brought up animal caps generally at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_116#Dispute:_Life_form_capitalization_run_rampant way back in May 2010. The two post of mine shown here are what has led to the current proposal; I've shown that that capitalization of animal names, willy-nilly, has become a massive problem. I was not the first to note this: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_94#Animal_capitalization, in which I barely participated, dates to December 2007, and seems to be what led to the MOS consensus for a solid default in favor of lower case. The idea that this is some personal campaign of mine is absurd. I was barely present, and made a single passing comment. I did bring the issue up earlier, at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_87#Common_names_of_animals in July 2007, but again not about birds in particular. Only a month earlier, the WP:BIRDS practice, however, was the focus of Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_81#Capitalization_of_Common_Names_of_birds, in which I didn't participate at all. And so on. Yeah, that's a real damning pile of evidence of tendentious anti-WP:BIRDS behavior on my part. Can we get back to the canvassing, attacks, and false polling issue now? — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Kimvdlinde has again WP:IDHT'd, having demanded evidence that MOS routinely annotates disputes that affect its guidance, been given the requested evidence, the conveniently "forgotten" it; above she claims that such cases don't exist. Here they are again, word for word, from my original reply to her. And there are many more:

  ...the MOS has quite frequently contained "it's controversial" or "it doesn't have consensus" statements when they were pertinent, and various guidelines still (and always) do at any given time. E.g. Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Macedonia-related articles: "There is currently no clearly defined consensus about how to refer to the Republic of Macedonia in articles about Greece", as just one example. It's quite routine, really. ... Here's more: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/France & French-related: "Present English usage itself varies on how to spell such French forms and there is currently no consensus among editors on the issue...." Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles: "...decided to leave the article on the island at Ireland and the article on the Irish state at Republic of Ireland until consensus changes." And so on. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 09:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

  I found those in a matter of minutes. It's not my job to do your research for you. It's ironic to me that all of the chaos of this canvassing, attacking, I'm-gonna-quit-Misplaced Pages, poll-manipulating tirade of yours, on the basis that MOS can't say that something is controversial, could have been avoided by five minutes of reading that would have shown you this isn't true.

  Actually, it's not ironic, it's just inexplicable, since I already provided all of this to you, word for word, at your request, at the very beginning of the debate. There shouldn't have been a debate (not that kind of debate anyway, but a calm discussion). You generated one. Then left in huff, but came back when things were calm and generated another flamewar. Then when things weren't going your way, you canvassed an entire WikiProject to come to your aid. And then manipulated data about what their actual opinions were, subverting the actual poll. And even editwarred when I tried to undo some of your data manipulation. Please explain.

  — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No, when you make a claim, you can provide the evidence. Showing a few examples at SUBPAGES does not make it regular. In all those cases, there is no consensus within the wikiprojects itself and there is a generic statement. In our case, it is a rather specific statement that codifies that it is the WP:BIRD editors that are the problem, while there are far more editors in other projects objecting as well. Furthermore, there is NO dispute about this among bird editors. So yes, you can expect opposition to your specific version of codification of the dispute. -- Kim van der Linde 07:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? It's pure accident that right this moment all the disputed stuff happens to be on subpages; MOS changes all the time. Subpages of MOS are as much a part of MOS as the main page; MOS just gets split into subtopics when it gets too big, just like WP:SUMMARY style for articles. The proposal's specific, because you and other bird editors insisted that it be so (my original wording said "some editors" not "WikiProject Birds".) Yet more WP:IDHT selective memory games. Whether there's a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at some project is irrelevant. That policy was created, after various ArbCom cases, precisely to stop projects from going off and making their own rules and ignoring site-wide ones. You don't understand the policies, nor the guidelines, nor even the proposal language, which protects WP:BIRDS far more than it should. You're thrashing. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 08:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to take this up at WP:DRN if you are; I don't see much of any other way that further discussion between us can be productive. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 08:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a matter that could be better resolved at an appropriate dispute resolution forum, rather than ANI. I do not see any personal attacks leveled against SMc, yet I do believe the canvassing that has occurred is regrettable. I strongly urge Kim to stop using the phrase "cap warriors" as it is unnecessarily provocative. I do not believe any administrative action needs to be taken at the present, although I do urge the parties involved to cool down with the accusations. I believe an RfC will be more helpful than posting this at ANI. —Dark 07:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

DarkFalls, I think it is customary that when a specific wikiproject is singled out for special, especially negative, treatment, that it is notified. That was not donw by SMcCandlish, so I did it. That is not canvassing. As for DR, I agree, it should go there. -- Kim van der Linde 05:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 08:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

PS: Just for the record, the personal attack was a direct public accusation of bad faith, posted at the WT:BIRDS thread: "There is NO good faith at SMcandlish side" — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 08:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack. It's just plain bad faith. —Dark 09:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. I've taken it to Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard as suggested, and Kim accepted the DRN moderation which is (slowly) underway, though I'm being talk page stalked by her now, which seems inappropriate at least while DRN is ongoing. But whatever, I'll live. I didn't care all that much about the alleged personal attack; I was more concerned about the canvassing and false polling (the latter of which was never addressed here) attempting to derail the discussion; they actually succeeded, in spades, so it's all moot now, and disruptive editing wins again. This discussion can be closed. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Uninvolved comment. This dispute seems closely related to the ongoing arbitration case Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation. So, I doubt it can be solved at ANI or that is even appropriate to bring it here at this late stage. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It's actually not. I got dragged into that case as a party despite no connection to the events at issue, and started to try to include the MOS/BIRDS issue as an evidentiary example of what seemed to me to be the issue, but have actually deleted my evidence post, because I don't think it would be helpful to the case. KimvdLinde isn't involved in the case. I've asked to be removed from the case as a party, since I'm not actually involved. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Two thoughts:

• If either SMcCandlish or KimvdLinde want responses from other people, they both need to stop posting to this thread. Creating a wall of unpleasantness is not going to encourage helpful responses.
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice_pages might be of interest to people who haven't read it before. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Jamieclaymore edits and stubborness

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

User:JamieClaymore has made alot of edits in the Claymore (manga) related articles. Editing featured list articles into her/his own format he believes is best. These edits got me stressed however kept my cool and reverted most of them and brought up some tips in the talkpage in which ignored and reverted. i asked for justification and wanted me to answer a rather uncivil and irrelevant question in which i did but instead of an answer the editor ignored me per previouus discussions in my talkpage not relating to the topicand continues to revert without any justification. Also warned him/her that this is potentially cheating the system and could be banned. Person claims that it was my intention from the beginning. Imm getting stressed and the articles are being vandalized as we speak for no justification at all. So forgive me if this is not where it suppose to be posted but the editor will not listen anymore.Lucia Black (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

We can't settle content disputes here at ANI because those are for you, the subject experts, to work out between yourselves. However I've left Jamieclaymore a note on their talk page. I think you too need to be reminded that edit warring gets editors blocked (four reverts from you on Claymore (manga) today) and does nothing to help to resolve these disputes. I notice that Jamieclaymore seems to have accepted your advice about using IMDB as a source, so clearly you've been able to help them there and they haven't ignored you. Hopefully you'll find that if you stop reverting each other and calling each other's edits "vandalism" (which they are not), you'll be able to cool the atmosphere down enough that you can come to some sort of compromise. EyeSerene 14:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What happens when its reverted? Ive seen this before though on here. Dispute is looked against both parties regardless of how the situation is brought up. i havent called it vandalism yet. I have assumed good faith and attempted to fixed it by iscussing. I didnt come here so you can side with me with content dispute, but the issue lead me here because the editor didnt want to discuss. So i brought it here to see if it was potentially cheating the system (avoiding discussions and making his/her own edits regardless of revert)Lucia Black (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Will reply on your talk :) EyeSerene 09:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Block review request: User:SweetieBelleMLP

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

I've just blocked SweetieBelleMLP for 31 hours for harassment and attempting to impersonate me be using my image on his user page. His edit is an obvious response to my removing a sexually explicit image from his user page per wp:userpage. I'm requesting the review for two reasons:

• I'm personally involved
• I'd like the block extended to indef as the user is obviously here to disrupt rather than contribute to Misplaced Pages. Rklawton (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Reviewed, approved, and extended. I point your attention to PP4L, a somewhat puzzling redirect that can only have been created in reference to this sort of thing. A Google search is insightful. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - That the user has a history of disruption is an aggravating factor for an extended ban.--WaltCip (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not the only suspect redirect. I'd like to suggest that an editor review all of this user's contributions for disruption remediation. Rklawton (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a pretty obvious troll account, so yeah, good block. --Conti|✉ 17:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Good block. As a side note, I have just declined an unblock request. Salvio 17:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; they had no intention of contributing positively here. GiantSnowman 17:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This particular account is part of a larger, more sophisticated problem we could loosely describe as related to the GNAA which also involves various other sock/meat accounts. We would do well to go backwards and look at this account's interactions with and ties to other accounts - especially those accounts which have actively worked to defend them as there is no reason to believe active sock/meat puppets still exist. Rklawton (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Pickbothmanlol has a list of accounts that are most likely connected in one way or another. --Conti|✉ 17:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support blocking this account + socks + ban Bulwersator (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Comming out of the retirement to address another issue, I like to add that the user Fluttershy who is one of the sockpuppets of the GNAA attempted to blackmail me through email into providing administrator access on Rainbowdash.net through an account connected to "Ghost" which is part of the GNAA's troll podcast "Capitalist Radio". The reason was that I wanted to edit MLP articles under this account, and keep my main account separate from those edits, which is perfectly within policy as long as I reported myself to ARBCOM (which I have done, + reported the Blackmail) but this user threaten me with checkuser, plus thought I had no idea how policy worked here, and tried to leverage that to get admin access to the site. I have no idea what GNAA's interests are to MLP, but add blackmailing users to that list. Cabal-of-rdn (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Pretty obviously part of a recent trollfest here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Attack on the premise of a wrongful assumption, refusal to communicate further

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

As can be seen in this diff, I was told the following: "You know very well who WMC is, so I won't play your little game." I would like a clarification and an apology from Viriditas. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

WMC is User:William M. Connolley - and frankly unless you edit in his preferred areas, you are quite unlikely to remember his initials. You "intersect" with him at such major topics as 1.Al_Gore, 2.Asperger_syndrome, 3.Jesus, 4.Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute, 5.Monty_Python's_Life_of_Brian and 6.The_Soup_Nazi. Noteworthy topics, I am sure, but not ones where I would expect you to remember his initials. I think Viriditas should emend his comments thereon. Collect (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't even know what WMC stood for and I am well aware of who William M. Connolley is.--v/r - TP 18:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am familiar with the full username, as Collect pointed above. My problem is with the way Viriditas communicated, refusing to post further replies, as if he is trying to make a point, which I'm still not getting. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Viriditas has one of the most aggressive styles of editing I have experienced anywhere on the en wikipedia - imo if you are expecting an apology from them you will wait forever. I advise you (and anyone else for that matter) to take his account, and any article you have encountered him on, off your watchlist . Youreallycan 18:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are the exact words of my response to Hearfourmewesique's query on my talk page, explcitly and very politely declining to engage with him: "Heh. I think I have to pass on this. When I go on a Fox News bender, it usually lasts several weeks, and I really need to focus on other things right now. But please keep me in mind." Please point out the "aggression" you see, Youreallycan. The user was asked to go away, refused, and continued to harass me on my talk page. I think the aggression is obvious here, and it's not from me. Hearfourmewesique can't take no for an answer, so he comes here to continue his dispute. Pretty transparent if you ask me. Viriditas (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hearfourmewesique, you were politely told that I had no wish to discuss anything with you and you were also told where to find the answers you were looking for. After you were informed that I had no wish to discuss anything with you, you deliberately ignored my wishes and continued to try to discuss the topic on my talk page, and harass me. This thread title should be changed to "Harassment of Viriditas by Hearfourmewesique" and Hearfourmewesique should be informed that when a user politely declines to engage in a discussion with him, he should accept it rather than hounding the user for answers over and over again. Viriditas (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see how Viriditas here did anything improper. The diffs above seem clear enough. The complainant is urged, simply, to stay away. Case closed. Drmies (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh wow... now you've gone ahead and changed the thread title to make it even more suitable to "the hunter becomes the victim" agenda (not cool). This is not what my original complaint was. You actually continued the discussion as if nothing happened, and attacked me on the premise that you thought I was playing some kind of game with you when all you needed to do is say "WMC is William M. Connelly" and that would end it all. This is called being a dick, and it has nothing to do with the other thing that's been brought up. Please, deal with the specific sentence that I referred to in the original complaint. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Lihaas

User:Lihaas is harassing me at my talk page and spreading information about me to another user I have been in dispute with to try to get me in trouble. I told this user to cease posting on my talk page, I do not want a discussion with this user because I fundamentally do not want to converse with someone who is a self-described fascist and a self-described National Socialist (aka Nazi) on his user page, I know Holocaust survivors and I do not want to be faced with conversation with a neo-Nazi. I told the user to stop posting on my talk page, he has persisted with threats to get me in trouble over a statement in which I informed users on an issue involving discussion of the Albanian-Serb ethnic conflict in Kosovo that he is promoting a POV because he represents an extreme perspective on the issue - he staunchly supports Serbia's sovereignty over Kosovo as stated in a userbox on his user page as well as other controversial taking-sides on multiple nationalist conflicts, and mentioned that he is a self-described Nazi. I left that discussion a month ago, the issue is over. I do not want Lihaas commenting on my page, out of respect to the Holocaust survivors I have met and respect - I have heard from an elderly Polish Jewish man I knew who survived Treblinka as a 12-13 year old boy who worked there as a slave labourer and saw his friend of the same age have is face and body smashed to a bloody pulp dead by Nazi guards because he was a few minutes late for a routine in the camp. I demand the right to not be harassed on my talk page after I have told the user in question to cease, by a person who fundamentally stands against every moral value I hold dear and out of the respect of Holocaust survivors and their relatives that I have met who survived horrific brutality by the Nazis.--R-41 (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Lihaas' infoboxes, whilst ill-advised, are clearly meaningless. He has many contradictory infoboxes, including being from India and Pakistan, being supportive of Palestinian independence and a single state solution, and being in favour of self-determination for all and the resurrection of the British Empire, being for Scottish independence and a federal UK. Despite this you have repeatedly accused him of being a Nazi in this discussion. He also has one claiming that "Lihaas totally supports world peace and loves everyone!" I don't see why he should be forbidden from your talk page, but I think he needs to sort his infoboxes out as this has caused other editors to make similar attacks before. Number 57 20:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

57, Lihaas's user boxes are not the problem here (though I grant you that it's an electron-consuming 223,181 bytes-long mess). Please don't muddy the waters. A user has a right to ask another user to stay away, and that should be respected. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually I think this is exactly the problem. Based on the infobox, R-41 has repeatedly called Lihaas a Nazi. Lihaas then issues a warning not to make personal attacks, leading to this spurious claim of harassment. If it wasn't for the stupid infobox, none of this would have happened. Number 57 20:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Which infobox? There's a million there. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The one that says "This user is a National Socialist". Number 57 20:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You're shitting: there actually is one like that? I'll have to use Ctrl+f to find it. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, 57. I've asked Lihaas on their talk page to remove that. I have no objection to anyone being righteously offended enough to take it down. Honestly, I didn't think there were people stupid enough to have shit like that out in the open somewhere. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Let's please focus on the issue. One should not derive Naziness from user boxes, unless on has a "I'm a Nazi" user box. But even that is beside the point. The issue is this: please point to a precise diff where you told Lihaas to not post at your talk page again (preferably you told them on your talk page). Also, I don't see harassment in their posts to you yet. I have the feeling this is going to end with "please both steer clear of each other" or a more formal interaction ban. Please show us that diff, quickly, so we can move on and see what possible violations of that request may have taken place. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

He is a self-described fascist and a self-described "National Socialist", look at the userboxes - yes there are many, but they are there. I am asking for the right for me not to be harassed by a user - I told the user to cease posting on my talk page and he has refused to accept this. I have deem moral sympathy to the Holocaust survivor for his suffering by the Nazis, and I do not want to be forced to accept harassment by a self-described fascist and national socialist. I want him to NOT be able to post on my talk page because he has violated by request to cease this.--R-41 (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but he is not harassing you. On the other hand, you seem to be creating a lot of drama recently. Number 57 20:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

True, 57. Enough already, R-41. Bringing Holocaust survivors into this is totally unsavory. You have not been able to provide a diff in which you clearly ask them not to post on your talk page again, and this stuff about what their user boxes are supposed to say is a. neither here nor there and b. irritating (even more so than the million user boxes). Here's what I propose: You place a note on your own talk page and on theirs asking them not to post on your talk page again. You don't even have to ask nicely. From then on, Lihaas will not post on your talk page again. Simple. Lihaas, if you're reading this, please do not post on R-41's talk page again. Let's close this thread. Oh, R-41, one more thing: stop calling people Nazis (unless you can prove that they, or God, say that they're one) or be blocked for a personal attack. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Whaddayaknow--here's the notification. If I understand it correctly, you said in the post before that that you never wanted to post on their talk page again, and then you posted on their talk page that you didn't want them to post on your talk page again or have any other conversation with them anymore. And then you called them a neo-Nazi and a fascist (and maybe some other things, but who the hell is counting). R-41, you have given yourself a complete interaction ban with them (voluntarily!), which may be enforced by any admin who sees you interacting with Lihaas. Wonderful: this thread can be closed. Just to make sure, I'll post on Lihaas's talk page, ahem, that R-41 et cetera. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's see: Lihaas has a collection of infoboxes which in toto are obviously self-contradictory/sarcastic/amusing, but in isolation can be read the wrong way. Nothing surprising here. WP:SARCASM and other subtle hints may backfire on the internets. R-41 brings drama to the main drama board. Again, not terribly surprising. As you were! ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Aahwooo! Drmies (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

So you are calling me a "drama queen" and say that this is "not terribly surprising". The user is a self-described National Socialist harassing me. If I was a Jew would you laugh off a National Socialist posting repeatedly on my talk page after telling them to stop. Go ahead and laugh, go and try to laugh off National Socialism as not significant here, even though many people are more than offended tha it killed millions of people because of their ethnic background, if you think it is a joke of the sufferings upon this Jewish man I mentioned - who used to be a neighbour of mine - are insignificant to my moral objections - then I wonder if you take anything seriously. Bottom line, I learned my education about the Holocaust by that elderly Jewish man who survived Treblinka before I learned it in school, and I do not want to talk with a person who in their userboxes says they are a fascist and a National Socialist.--R-41 (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• For the record, Lihaas has objected to anachronistic and European-centric understandings of the phrase "national socialism". Americans who remember President George H. W. Bush leading crowds in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance should recall witnessing a nationalist socialist revival.

  There were discussions of Lihaas's contradictory user-boxes and his objections to mono-semantic understanding of nationalism & socialism before at ANI, my RfC, and even (in a particularly dull moment for WP administrators) in my block record.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Harassment? He insults me on his presumptious whim and im harrassing? I was simply bringing (in polite forms) to his attention that there was hypocrisy to his ACTIONS in that HE harrassed said user with restating a section on the ta;lk page simply because he wanted to see it...not that it was his right.

From harassment he goes on to a nazi accusation and he says IM harrassing him? is thta serious?! I duly brought it to hsi attention of whathe did, he also posts on my page and then says im harrassing him?

Then he brings about a new call to carry out some personal vendetta that he is offended by the CLAIM (unsubstantiated) that im a nazi and he should get offended he were a jew? Then in that case anuone whyo proclaims to be an australian, from the americas or from an imperialist state with a record of killing MILLIONS in a genocide far bigger should get offended with the offensive userbox being removed?!Lihaas (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Still, the "This user is a National Socialist" userbox may be disruptive in itself

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

The userbox itself is clearly causing strife among Wikipedians. Per Misplaced Pages:UP#Excessive unrelated content perhaps Lihaas should be asked to remove it. As Kiefer.Wolfowitz points out, it has come up before. I recall that User:Hail the Dark Lord Satan‎‎ was indef blocked recently for causing disruption by choosing a divisive persona. This issue isn't very far from that. Disputes about the meaning of national socialism (which Kiefer mentioned above) should be resolved on the redirect's talk page, not via userboxes that are prone to misinterpretation and may cause unnecessary aggravation of some good faith editors or just act as flamebait. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between having a divisive username and putting a userbox proclaiming your political orientation, controversial or not, on one's own userpage. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. The use of the National Socialist userbox is highly problematic, divisive and should be removed. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 22:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Nearly any userbox which exists should allowed be placed on userpages. If you think the userbox violates those policies, you should propose the template itself for MFD. If the userbox is hard-coded, then it should just be removed. NW (Talk) 23:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It was hard-coded in this instance. I can't imagine a userbox template like that to survive for long. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 23:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington seems to misunderstand that soapboxing is for user pages vs. articles. What is the pt of userboxes? One can remove all userboxes in that case. Or delete all articles of offensiv content (a la Mohammed cartoons), regardless of whether the euro worldcview deems itokey then,.

Unstead of meaningless arguements over someone think-skin need to censor what is not likes it would be MUCH more productive to go on adding content to pages itself.Lihaas (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is this user permitted to edit? Hipocrite (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

What does that mean? does that comment firther anything. Lihaas (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The entire user-page was disruptive

A 220kb user page, consisting mainly of transcluded userboxes (*spit*) is disruptive in and of itself, and I have blanked it. Hipocrite (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The userboxes were not the problem - the massive wall of text, on the other hand... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the blanking. I checked out the userboxes and found that they tended to contradict each other, making their use almost meaningless. 220kb userbox pages? That's absurd. Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Umm there are numerous user pages and subpages that go on and on and on. If you dont like dont read it, its not an articleLihaas (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You clearly are not getting the point, Lihaas. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No YOU areclearly not getting the pt. 1 . its not unrelated to WP if you see thae page, 2. size doesnt warrant disruption, 3. blanking is vandalism especially per IDONTLIKEIT.Lihaas (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You have just demonstrated that you are not getting the point. →Στc. 03:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I am concerned about the comments about Lihaas above, e.g. "Why is he allowed to edit?", per WP:NPA and WP:Civility.

Lihaas spends most of his time writing about contemporary political events, always with a great concern for the weakest or worst treated, as a traditional humanitarian. His conflicts often have arisen because he has been outraged by a lack of attention given to non-European and non-Biblical victims (in comparison). In word and deed, he is obviously opposed to the fascist celebration of humiliation and degradation of the weak and the nihilist worship of power.

In the past, Lihaas has reminded us that nationalism and socialism have been intertwined before, after, and outside of the (German) Nazi party, especially outside of Europe. The user-box was, ineffectively and counterproductively, part of that legitimate exercise, I believe.

In this light, please consider whether the hysterics (apparently exclusively by men) were needed or constructive here. Lihaas has been editing some of the most contentious articles on Misplaced Pages for years, and really has made a great contribution to the project. (Nobody has claimed that he or anybody else is flawless, of course.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Coda

I suggested that Lihaas rephrase his user box, and he has, now clarifying that he is "a democratic national socialist and not a Nazi", etc.

Most of us are more responsive when approached in a conversational manner by a colleague or friend, and few of us respond well to shouting or being denounced.

I wish that those who have written impulsively or wrongly consider apologizing to Lihaas (who has been called a "Nazi" on many pages now)---or help edit one of his articles as private penance.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ivalo2

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

Please can someone take a look at new user Ivalo2 (talk · contribs), which I am sure is a troll account. The very first three edits by the user were unconstructive reverts of edits of mine on three separate articles (two of the articles are in a similar topic area, one is completely different: , , ), and the user has continued in this pattern, clearly revealing their agenda in their edit summaries: , .Rangoon11 (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think trolling is putting it a bit strong here. Unproductive, certainly. Vandalism, not yet, IMO. Edit warring, yes--and they will be blocked for that if they persist. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I use the word 'troll' purely to convey that they are clearly singling out a specific editor for their unproductive behaviour - i.e. myself - the account's first three edits have no other explanation within the realms of probabilty. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, that seemed to be the case, yes. Problem is, it takes a couple more edits, IMO, to make that case convincingly. Any editors you've had trouble with recently? Drmies (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I initiated an SPI recently (Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Edinburghgeo/Archive) which led to a large number of socks being blocked and it did cross my mind that this might be connected, particularly as the sockmaster in that case and Ivalo2 have a similar writing style (and spelling issues). I have no definitive proof however.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ivalo2 has only made 2 edits aside from the reverts to your edits. They were to ESPN (UK) and Bournemouth, and while they don't seem to be articles that Edinburghgeo has edited in the past, they're not so far off the topic area that the sockmaster was interested in (UK-related articles). Not a slam dunk but it does lead credence to the possibility that this is yet another sock. It might be worth asking SPI to check. -- Atama頭 01:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Good call. A comparison of edit summaries clearly points at a duck the size of Edinburgh. I am blocking for evasion and will add to the SPI, for the sake of completion. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

A question or two

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

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

This is in regard to Kyle's talk page:

I just have a couple of questions that maybe an admin can answer:

1. By what right does an editor who falsely accused me of a personal attack, somehow get license to issue personal attacks themselves?
2. By what authority does another editor get to issue a profane attack while apparently assuming ownership of that talk page?

Danke. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Bugs, stay off that page, and drop the subject entirely. Risker (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm stunned. You're an admin. Are you saying that I do not have the right to defend myself against false charges? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm telling you, when someone with whom you have just tangled at ANI tells you to stay off their page, stay off their page. Risker (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I AM REQUIRED to notify someone when I am taking them to ANI. And it was ANOTHER USER who told me to "stay off" that page. Unless Tarc = Kyle, it is not his place to do so. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Why are you bringing MSK to ANI? It seems it is because she told you to stay off her page, and when you refused to do that, someone else told you, more forcefully, to stay off her page. So...stay off her page. Risker (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Kyle never told me to stay off the page. Tarc did that. Kyle called me "a troll". That's a personal attack. Why is Kyle being allowed to get away with personal attacks like that, as well as falsely accusing me of making personal attacks? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Bugs, this one wasn't necessary. She read your first one, and removed it--you know what that means: it means she read it. So she calls you a troll--big deal. You've been called worse, and what's more, I will say you're not a troll. Look, the Superbowl is over, but there's still college b-ball to watch; we don't need more ANI drama. Oh, as for your question (the first one): by the license of "we can't just block everyone". Tempers have flared; let's let them cool down. Please ask Mrs. Bugs (on my behalf) to make you a nice dessert. As for the mistress, well... Drmies (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I thought it was necessary, as the comment suggested they didn't realize that I am required to notify someone. However, it's becoming clear that there is no possibility of reasoning with this Kyle. The question below begs an answer: Why was the user unblocked? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • In fact, my posts on Kyle's page assumed good faith on the editor's part: (1) that they did not know what my "Weekly Reader" reference was about and hence misunderstood; and (2) that they did not realize I am supposed to notify about ANI postings. I apologize for assuming good faith. I won't let it happen again! ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi after the previous discussion was closed (RE ) Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has now started attacking me on my talkpage comparing me to a children's book then attacking me for saying he's trolling (after his many insults to me before mentioned previously) - he is now continuing to revert war on my talk page after I made it clear I don't want him leaving me "fan mail" there...

Apparently he has was previously blocked for "Attempting to harass other users: repeated personal attacks directed towards other Wikipedians; incessant verbal attacks, despite warnings; incivility; disruptive editing habits" then only in October last year for making sexist jokes and similar harassment against a female user ... and banned indefinitely in December due to "disruption" but allowed to return on some condition it doesn't mention

If you read the previous ANI it was about a legal threat someone else made against me/my site Misplaced Pages Review, that is why he was posting the "Weekly Reader" insults here then moving onto my talk page when admins apparently gave him the all clear that what he was doing was ok --Mistress Selina Kyle 00:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Harassment on talk page by user:Baseball Bugs

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

Hi after the previous discussion was closed (RE ) Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has now started attacking me on my talkpage comparing me to a children's book then attacking me for saying he's trolling (after his many insults to me before mentioned previously) - he is now continuing to revert war on my talk page after I made it clear I don't want him leaving me "fan mail" there...

Apparently he has was previously blocked for "Attempting to harass other users: repeated personal attacks directed towards other Wikipedians; incessant verbal attacks, despite warnings; incivility; disruptive editing habits" then only in October last year for making sexist jokes and similar harassment against a female user ... and banned indefinitely in December due to "disruption" but allowed to return on some condition it doesn't mention --Mistress Selina Kyle 23:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I have NEVER EVER personally attacked the editor. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Serious WP:Boomerang here.Edinburgh Wanderer 00:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears that the admins here have given this Kyle a free pass to issue all manner of falsehoods without reproach. I never insulted Kyle, and I never compared Kyle to Weekly Reader. I merely provided a link to it, as I suspected Kyle did not understand why I called WR by that name. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Uh, Miss Kyle, he wasn't comparing you to a children's book, he was letting you know that what you linked to in a diff in the previous ANI referred to a children's book. I've never interacted with you nor Bugs (although we may have bantered somewhat here) and thus I'm definitely a neutral party. Please do not look for offense where none was intended and escalate this unnecessarily. Also, do not see this as a sign that I'm supporting Bugs in any way, but merely as a comment from a bystander--Blackmane (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC

Kyle argues that any criticism of WR somehow equates to a personal attack on Kyle. Apparently, WR is supposed to be allowed to rag wikipedia mercilessly, while WR is not supposed to be criticised. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If you read the previous ANI it was about a legal threat someone else made against me/my site Misplaced Pages Review, that is why he was posting the "Weekly Reader" insults here then moving onto my talk page when admins apparently gave him the all clear that what he was doing was ok --Mistress Selina Kyle 00:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This user ( User:Mistress Selina Kyle ) was unblocked - Why? - diff to who or why did that please - Youreallycan 00:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: "Youreallycan" was actually in that discussion... This seems more attempts at trolling to try get me to say something that will break the rules... --Mistress Selina Kyle 00:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The user was actually indef'd 6 years ago, but somehow the block didn't "take" or something. So the user was re-blocked and immediately griped about it and got unblocked. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Miss Kyle, I'd really, really recommend you just avoid ANI. Forever. It's not healthy. Either there is no cabal, everyone disagrees with you, and you should stick to editing articles; or there is a cabal, it's out to get you, so you should just go back to editing articles. You can choose whichever reality makes you feel better, but nothing good is going to come from you hanging out on this board and trying to police incivility. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Stop it: stop this thread. This is getting ridiculous. Mistress, if you wish to complain, do it in one of the already existing sections. Drmies (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Interaction ban proposal

It's clear that these two editors (Baseball Bugs and Mistress Selina Kyle) are misusing Misplaced Pages for their two-way drama (see this thread and the one just above it), so I propose an WP:IBAN between them mostly for everyone else's benefit. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict × 2) Clarified who the two are, and gave link. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Who, pray tell, are you? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

(Insane amount of edit conflict) - Agree and suggest a topic ban from AN/I for a week for both them. This is some weak shit. You got one editor baiting another and the other one playing along with it just for the sake of drama. That ain't the purpose of this page (though a casual observer may be forgiven for thinking otherwise).VolunteerMarek 00:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

And who are you? No, let me guess... you're a WR contributor. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Mistress Selina Kyle has now been indefinitely blocked so we can close all these discussions - Youreallycan 00:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Fucking A'. Congratulations Baseball Bugs for being the supreme shit of this page. Do you actually do anything else on Misplaced Pages except grief people? This whole thing is a disgrace and perfectly illustrates why sneaky little creeps whose sole purpose is to engage in baiting and harassment rule Misplaced Pages these days. And why this place sucks so badly. It worked. You baited Selina into getting reblocked. Accolades. You're still a pathetic nit.

Off2riorob, I would like to say that I'll be laughing when the shoe is on the other foot and you get the same treatment - cuz given your history, I am *certain* you will, sooner or later. But I'm not the kind to laugh when bad things happen to people, even when they deserve it.VolunteerMarek 00:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Spoken with all the eloquence and maturity of the typical WR contributor. And you wonder why I call it "Weekly Reader". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

VM, the taunting isn't necessary. Knock it off. BB, I'm with you on this one, but just drop it. Buffs (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

User: Hipocrite threats

User: Hipocrite has unilaterally decided to remove my page because he doesnt' like it without any consensus on an ongoing issue. and he cites it as "disruptive" then he complains/threatens that i should be "blocked" because he thinks a page is "too large" and "disruptive" to him (note: without saying anything as to why it i s so in order to generate consensus by discussion, but he seems to simply wants to have it his way as demonstrated by the 2 links in this section). WP works by consensus and there was none whatsoever for him to vandalise my page and then call for my block! He doesnt seem to be aware of WP guidelines despite his talk page notice

Thanks.Lihaas (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Accusing him of vandalizing your page when he didn't is against the rules. CityOfSilver 01:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG. The userpage in question has been nominated for deletion. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 01:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Um blanking a page without consensus per IDONTLIKE is vandalism? its not contructive at all, and if it s not constructive then its vandalism. Or do you digress with that? Please see your own words "has been nominated" that means there is a consensus discussion? BOOMERANG?

Furthermore, above on this page the said user has again made unconstructive edits and the same NPA "why is this user allowed to edit?" Thats his preregoative to make a call without due reason on consensus building? Or is that too a constructive edit? VCalling someone a nazi on an own whim and starting a NEEDLESS ANI is not npa?Lihaas (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"that means there is a consensus discussion?" There is a discussion and the page has not been deleted in the meantime. Consensus is leaning heavily against your page's existence, though, and using personal attacks in edit summaries ("thin skinned") isn't helping your cause. CityOfSilver 01:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, Lihaas, I said WP:BOOMERANG. Upon examining your complaint I found the individual you accused had made a single edit which you promptly reverted and given an opinion in an XFD. I do not personally agree with User: Hipocrite wiping the page and I do not think you should be banned. But the point stands that neither action equates to harrassment/vandalism requiring admin intervention. But by the act of reporting it here you drew a spotlight on the fact that your userpage is currently being discussed for deletion as possibly being inappropriate. That was my meaning. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 01:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Im not personally attacking anyONE, im making a statement on my personal page.

Converserly, this users actions were not done by consensus which has ben criticised elsewhere as well. Furthermore, he has at least twice called for my block for no reason whatsoever. Thats a threat/attack.

dont think were "heavily leading to 00a delete" per the pahe discussion.

but ill withdraw it if yall think its better? although you didnt say why its boomerang because he did perform said actions as unilaterally unconstructive.Lihaas (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You mean withdraw this complaint? I find it very difficult to read some of your comments and to discern the overall structure of your argument. It should be clear (to you) (now) that the page wasn't blanked because someone didn't "like" it: it was blanked because a number of users thought it highly disruptive. In other words, this isn't the kind of thing that requires admin intervention. I've been involved in this mess so I won't close it, but if I read Lihaas's comment correctly and they don't protest, perhaps someone else can close this. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Lets take this as withdrawn, then. The XfD will run, the users will avoid one another, and everyone will be happy. Rich Farmbrough, 02:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC).

Agreed and I told the user as such to aboivd each other.

Just a pt though per Drmies, thats what consensus is to discuss not to arbitrarily rmove whats deemed consensus.

above user resorted to more threats and a sustained personal lobbying campaign off discussion avenues to block me. and again without reason or notidficationLihaas (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: I was not notified of this thread by Lihaas. I still wonder why the intrepid (well, intrepid when blocking literate english content contributors like MF), has done nothing to prevent the disruption that a 220kb userpage consisting mainly of a bunch of transcluded userboxes (*spit*) designed to anger users causes. Bravo! Hipocrite (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Baseball bugs block review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• - blocked for one week - User:Risker has blocked Bugs for one week for disruptive editing - imo - it seems a bit excessive - Youreallycan 00:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn No frickin' kidding. Buffs (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse block. Seems fine to me given that the other user was indeffed over similar behavior and BB has a block log for similar past misdeeds. I would have preferred that this drama ended with an IBAN, but I guess people like to see the big guns in action on ANI. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• 'Overturn - the other user should never have been unblocked - a disruptive user was mistakenly unblocked and disruption occurred - good faith users should not be punished unnecessarily for that mistaken unblock - Youreallycan 01:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• No, this isn't ready for archiving. I think one week is too much. I think a warning of some sort should have been made first. FWIW, I also don't agree with the other's indef. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Honestly? Given that the other user embroiled in this mess was indeffed, and that BB was the clear instigator of all this drama, he's getting off easy with a one week block. Extend the block to indef until he promises to stop pouring gasoline on every fire that shows up on AN/I or topic ban him from it all together. Risker was being nice. Keep that in mind.VolunteerMarek 01:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)might even work :-)

I can't keep that in mind since I don't agree. Note also that Bugs wasn't the only one involved in the earlier thread and that his ANI thread has some merit to it. Well, at least in my opinion it did, and he closed it. I commented on the Mistress's talk page as well. I don't like this tit-for-tat ANI-ing, but tit-for-tat blocking doesn't make it any better. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Yes I agree , both restrictions seem unnecessarily punitive and we can do better. Youreallycan 01:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn as excessive for the actual violation. Collect (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• It's a shame, but Risker had clearly warned Bugs to stop, so nobody should be too surprised that she blocked when he didn't. Bugs is very visible in this "kitchen", and occasionally getting singed by the "heat" is probably an occupational hazard when that's where you play. Begoon  01:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

  Imagine if I said, "You shouldn't post on ANI or your user talk page any more"...and then I blocked you for violating that "order". Truth is, no admin can/should do that. Buffs (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, but that's not what happened. Anyway, I don't want 2 bans from Floquenbeam, so I'll leave it at that. It's a shame. Begoon  01:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

  Then I guess we agree to disagree. If Floquenbeam can start their own dictatorship and enforce such a block, I'll take three such blocks. Until then, Admins don't get to make up their own rules. Buffs (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

  Well, we don't really disagree about much. I haven't said anything really except that it's a shame, and I'm not overly surprised. A reduction or overturning would not be something I opposed, either, with community support. Begoon  01:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn poor block, excessive and no explanation to the "disruptive editing" in the block summary. The block itself seems to be also punituve. Bidgee (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Block everyone who has posted in these 4-5 related threads today (including me). --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that might even work :-) Begoon  01:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • • No, insufficiently punative. Block everyone who's read the threads as well ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Shut down AN/I for a week and see if WP falls apart. (I'm guessing "no". :) Manning (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn 1) block is obviously punitive and not preventative especially since MSK has been reblocked. 2) Considering the blocking statements here MSK should never have been unblocked in the first place and Bugs block is just giving justification to MSK's trolling. MarnetteD | Talk 01:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• (double e/c) Overturn - Unnecessarily punitive and excessive general block where an interaction ban would have sufficed.--WaltCip (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Unblock I don't why the frick MSK was unblocked in the first place, but their agressiveness certainly proved that their block was valid. BB got caught in the overall stupidity of that unblock, IMHO. For God's sake, it's time to community ban MSK from this project for good if this is the going to be the result (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No, the aggressive here was BB. Yes, this is something that should have been forseen. An editor who was potentially unpopular with some people (who have been critizied by WR) gets unblocked. And the moment that happens a whole bunch of these people, led by BB (who honestly - can someone point me to some actual contribution to the encyclopedia itself rather than continuous participation and fueling of pointless drama?) set up upon her. Now, these folks are obviously much better skilled in how Misplaced Pages works and so they were successful in baiting Selina and getting her reblocked. I don't understand why this kind of bad faithed, "let's get her cuz she's an easy target" behavior should be condoned. However inappropriate Selina's response may have been, it really is the people who started this whole pecking party that deserve a sanction slapping.VolunteerMarek 01:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment by blocking admin: Bugs most certainly was warned, right here on this page: "Bugs, stay off that page, and drop the subject entirely. Risker (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)" In addition, he is a longstanding contributor who has repeatedly run into problems with continuing disputes unnecessarily and provocatively. Bugs knows better. There was baiting going on from both sides here, and I'm not willing to give Bugs a pass just because the other party was also poorly behaved; the block is to prevent him from continuing this behaviour, since he did not stop his baiting behaviour even after the other party had been blocked. A week is reasonable given his history. Risker (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Risker, I didn't see that--my apologies. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Consensus does not appear to be in favor of this unpopular block. Even from reading the above logs, I have seen unchecked incivility and drama of far higher magnitude than what Bugs engaged in. His long-running status does not give carte blanche to block without a more clear and present warning on, say, his talk page (which I do not see). Telling someone to knock it off in the midst of a messy dispute does not subsequently entail bringing out the big guns.--WaltCip (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Give it time.VolunteerMarek 01:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems more like that you're clutching at straws. Bidgee (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn Excessive and punitive block. Edison (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Reduce to a day or two: unless MSK or Risker shoots an elephant in their pajamas Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Wow Really?. must I say more?--JOJ 01:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn. I don't like Respect my authoritah blocks, which I think this was at least in part. A solid trouting would have been sufficient. And no, BB, I don't participate at WR. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn or reduce This seems excessive in the circumstances. The experiment of unblocking MSK did not work. Mathsci (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse, but recommend only one or two days His actions in the above sections was insulting to others and he wouldn't take the hint when told to stop, but then started insulting the users telling him to stop. Kyle was definitely in the wrong here, but Bugs placed himself in the wrong by abusing other people throughout the discussion. He's done this before and he really needs to learn to stop or he's going to cross the line one day and get indeffed. Silverseren 01:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say that actually, he did cross the line here - enough to get a week. Perhaps after a week, he might possibly realise that this sort of behaviour is unacceptable. MSK's behaviour was not acceptable either, but simply because she's been indeffed doesn't mean that we ignore unacceptable behaviour on the part of an AN/I regular. Risker (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed on the latter part of what you said. Bugs definitely needs some sort of reprimand so he'll stop doing this in the future, but I just think a week is too long. Silverseren 01:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn. BB certainly wasn't helping things when he jumped in to the mess, but the tail end of his involvement, what ultimately earned him the block, was actually justified in context, in my opinion. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

He wasn't just helping, he instigated the whole sorry mess.VolunteerMarek 01:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Diff? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support the intention but no objection to time-served Regulars from the satirical site Misplaced Pages Review are leading us a merry dance, insofar as we chose to go along with them. Whether MSK was constitutionally incapable of remaining unblocked, or was doing it on purpose does not really matter. BBB should know better than to let them get to him. Rich Farmbrough, 01:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC).
  
• Reduce I like Bugs, but it does seem like he had really crossed a line by the end. That being said, a week seems a bit excessive to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn. BB's reply where he implied that Volunteer Marek was less than mature (the edit Risker cites as the blocking reason ) was in response to being called: (1)"...a pathetic nit, " (2)sneaky little creep, and, wait for it. . .(3)"...the supreme shit of this page." The response seems measured to me. R. Baley (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Personally, a block resulting from that diff comes across as entrapment. I don't know about anyone else here, but I admit that I'd have a hard time measuring an even-tempered response to that.--WaltCip (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Maybe reduce - No, wait, let me guess; following my removal of Bugs' stick-poking on Selina's talk page a few hours ago, he went on another spree, was reverted again, then posted in torrents to another half-dozen ANI threads about it. Bugs' shtick here is like that SNL skit that was really funny the first few times then grating on the 20th. A week away would do a world of good, but a reduction wouldn't be completely unreasonable either. Tarc (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support block, recommend reduction to three days. Bugs seems to like dancing close to the flame, have a bug in his ear on certain topics, and cede the last word in any thread at vanishingly small frequency. But he does learn and slowly modifies his behaviour after heavy sack-beatings, so I think three days is enough to prevent him revisiting the topic. Franamax (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Reduce - The block was justified, Bugs went overboard, something I believe he's now aware of, but the length seems excesssive to me. Although some would like to paint Bugs as a "drama monger", I find his comments on AN/I to be generally trenchant and frequently humorous without, usually, being too pointed. His instincts about sockpuppetry are, for instance, usually dead on. He's also done yeoman's work on the Help desk. I won't pretend that I wouldn't be happier if less of his edits were to Misplaced Pages space and more were to articles (and I think Bugs would be better off for that as well, as he'd have a more balanced Misplaced Pages experience which might take he edge off his cynicism), but, considered overall, he's an asset to the project. That doesn't give him a free pass, of course, but I do think it merits re-evaluating the length of the block, especially considering the track record and attitude of the editor he was in dispute with, who is most definitely not an asset and should be banned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse block. Reduce Selina Kyle's to a week as well, and have an interaction ban between the two. --JN466 02:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support block but reduce to three days, per Franamax. Bugs seems to enjoy the role of agent provocateur and over time he seems to have become more bold about pushing the bounds of civility and etiquette. The bottom line here is that he was warned but persisted anyway, perhaps under some misguided belief that the warning he received didn't apply to him. I have other concerns about ANI and its 'regulars' but those are endemic to the way ANI is set up (possibly related to NYB's thread on the topic below) and not relevant to this particular case. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Reduce to two or three days, but endorse the block. This kind of behavior is nothing new. Baseball Bugs immerses himself in any and every noticeboard drama he can, and more often than not he inflames rather than helps the situation. I would support an interaction ban, but wouldn't mind seeing him restricted to the number of posts he can make to noticeboards either. AniMate 03:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support block but not opposed to reduction, even to time served, following usual unblocking procedures. Begoon  03:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Reduce block Behavior was ridiculous, but a week is a bit excessive. --Rschen7754 03:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse. I like BB, but he went on a fishing expedition here. And quite frankly, we should not be encouraging editors whose primary purpose at Misplaced Pages is to encourage drama. Resolute 03:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy unblock'. Selina Kyle's unblock inevitably led to this. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Unblock - Time served. The editor he went after is indefinitely blocked and has a horrific block log, which is ironic considering she brought up Bugs' log. There is clearly no consensus to uphold the week-long block, and it should have been reduced at this point at the very least. This should not be about what some think about BB, but instead the circumstances of the particular case. Doc talk 04:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

So it's okay to behave egregiously if one is going after someone more unpopular? Risker (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course. I would think you'd know that by now. That's always been how ANI works. If you can get the mob focused on someone they dislike more, you're scot-free. Surprisingly, it looks like we're close to even this time. Silverseren 04:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard of Selina until today, though I certainly have heard about the Review. So I can't speak to who is more popular between Bugs and Selina. But shouldn't the fact that Selina is currently blocked indefinitely be considered? In any case, there seems to be no consensus support for keeping the block at a week even among those who think he should remain blocked. Doc talk 04:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse - I think this is more a matter of "the straw that broke the camel's back" rather than simply this one incident. The statements regarding BB's long-term behavior are accurate (but avoided mention of his often off-topic comments), and as he was warned here already, and I'm sure he has been warned in the past, then this might be a message that the behavior has finally exceeded its limits. Conversely, it might have no effect at all. That's up to Bugs. If he really cares about what he does here, a week off might give him time to reflect. what is at stake is the principle of the matter; poor behavior is poor behavior, whether the community at large agrees with it or not. If we become entirely subjective in passing judgment, then we prove our detractors right. MSJapan (talk) 04:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Unblock: at this point it serves no purpose and I'm not sure it was warranted in the first place. Toddst1 (talk) 05:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments made after unblock

• Strong Endorsement this block is overdue. Bugs continues to engage in disruptive and uncivil behavior. 76.118.180.210 (talk) 05:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse I know I am late to this party but this is what I have to say. I would have indefed BB for bating and general drama causing. He subtracts more to the pedia then he adds --Guerillero | My Talk 05:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Note - He's already been unblocked. So now we would be at "reversing the unblock", I think. Perhaps a separate section or thread should be started if this is the next step. Doc talk 05:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: out of 34 unique contributions to this discussion, 14 (41%) agree with an immediate unblock. Toddst1, since you unblocked BB based on 'consensus', could you explain how the minority represents consensus here? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Per WP:His adversary was even less popular I'd wager. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse Block Obviously harassing a fellow editor based on their links to Misplaced Pages Review. --Surturz (talk) 06:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• His conduct is disruptive, and if nothing else, he needs to take a good long break from the AN pages. I'd unblock him contingent on him editing nothing but articles for the next week. Everyking (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

So what are we voting on at this point?

Bugs's block, the reversal of the block, the reversal of the reversal, or the reversal of the reversal of the reversal? --NellieBly (talk) 05:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. We do need something new to vote on, eh? Well, as I said, I like BB, but he spends a little too much time on the drama boards, and not enough building an encyclopedia. Therefore, I propose that he be topic banned from all AN boards (unless an issue deals specifically with him) until he writes one FA or five GAs or brings ten Stubs to (legitimate) B-class status, whichever comes first. (I am, of course, joking... kinda) Resolute 06:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

For the record, even though I probably would have supported the block, Toddst1's above assessment is accurate. So please, no more discussion on whether consensus was achieved. If you want to start a topic ban discussion, start a thread on AN. Manning (talk) 06:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Manning, why not just flip this whole thread over to AN, where it should have been in the first place, and then we can continue. There was most certainly not consensus for an immediate unblock; there was consensus developing for a block reduction, but it wasn't there yet. Risker (talk) 06:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Consider it done... Manning (talk) 06:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion moved to here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Baseball_Bugs_-_Block_review_and_topic_ban_discussion

"Consensus"

Edit conflict with Bartlett above, whom I disagree with I see Toddst has pretty much unilaterally unblocked Bugs and closed the discussion. Reduce is not the same as overturn. Trying to combine the two is insulting to those of us who believed that Bugs should do some time, but that a week is too long. Silverseren 06:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

'Bartlett' is me, for those who don't know. And Silver, I am probably guilty of just trying to dampen rabble-rousing here, as both you (and Risker) raise valid points. Regards Manning (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Copied from my comments at Toddst1's talk page: *Sorry, Toddst1, but this is not resolved. I have been watching this discussion very closely throughout its course to see if consensus would develop, and it most certainly has not. Why are you closing this discussion after only 5 hours? Let's try 24 hours before you do this. Sorry, but this isnt' consensus, it's you imposing your own preference. Please reopen the discussion now. There was consensus developing for a reduction in the block, but certainly no consensus for an immediate unblock. I am surprised that an administrator of your experience would have this much difficulty discerning consensus. Risker (talk) 06:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I was also surprised the block was removed entirely rather than reduced. But calls for Bugs to "do some time" help illustrate the difference between punitive vs. preventative. As Manning said, a new thread for a topic ban needs to be started. Or a RfC/U, if that is what is thought to be needed to prevent disruption. But hurt feelings between some good administrators should not get in the way of the next logical step. Doc talk 06:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that this is meant to be preventative in regards to Bugs behavior. Just letting him get away with attacking others isn't the way to go. Having a short block should, hopefully, though I wouldn't bet on it, be preventative in his future actions. Silverseren 06:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have a feeling that the next ANI thread will be about Todd's inappropriate unblock of Bugs and/or Todd's fitness as an admin. 76.118.180.210 (talk) 06:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Is being called a trolling sock appropriate for an admin? 76.118.180.210 (talk) 06:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No, in my opinion, it's not. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, great. So now heads are going to roll? Over this. (Sigh) Doc talk 06:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully ArbCom gets on with its Civility case. Misplaced Pages as it currently stands seems to take delight in irritating dynamic IP contributors, waiting till they go to ANI or a similar project page on a fresh dynamic IP, then accusing them of sockpuppetry. Toddst1 should have filed an SPI or shut up to put it bluntly. Would you be pleased with me if I roamed around undoing edits I disagreed with, but with inflammatory edit summaries like "Trolling", "Vandalism", "Drama mongering"? No. You'd block me. The same rules need to apply to all editors. --81.98.21.251 (talk) 10:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

They'd specifically roll over comments like that. This is entirely inappropriate unless toddst can provide proof. Heads need to roll a little more often here to be honest--Crossmr (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of proof however, the accused IP gets banned for "trolling" and "drama" without any links to what policy is being enforced... --81.98.21.251 (talk) 11:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That's egregious! Unblock the IP - it will help everything calm down. Doc talk 11:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Eh, grammar please: dangling modifier. An admin called someone a trolling sock. How is this not trolling? Or, at least, hounding? One wonders who this is, this editor that seems to have it in for Beyond My Ken and Todd. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion moved to here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Baseball_Bugs_-_Block_review_and_topic_ban_discussion

Todd's inappropriate unblock of Bugs and/or Todd's fitness as an admin

Per WP:SARCASM, WP:HUMOR and WP:IAR. Amazing foresight by the IP...

Most were against the block and/or for shortening it. In short, let's just drop it and move on. Nothing to see here. Buffs (talk) 06:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I much appreciate the humor in the title of this subthread. :) 76.118.180.210 (talk) 06:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

An overall concern about AN and ANI

(relocated to AN - Manning (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC))

RPP backlog

There's a backlog that must be cleared by an admin at WP:RPP.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Jasper, are you blind? Can't you see we're busy here, insulting each other and blocking left and right? Drmies (talk) 04:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • AN got no response. Surely there's some admins not involved in the messes that occur on the drama board.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Well that wasn't so bad. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
      • You still get a beer :).Jasper Deng (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • You know, a couple of hours ago I seriously considered full protection for ANI. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
      • No problem.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

obvious sock 76.118.180.210

76.118.180.210 (talk · contribs) seems to be someone logged out to post to ANI. Would someone uninvolved in the discussion above take a look please? Toddst1 (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears I am a trolling sock. 76.118.180.210 (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It also appears I am not worthy of being notified of this thread, as it utterly required. My talkpage is still a redlink. Todd, what gives? 76.118.180.210 (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Stop the DRAMAZ PLS. Buffs (talk) 06:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe Drmies had a good idea above. Full protect ANI? Someguy1221 (talk) 07:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You know, it's times like these when I am reminded what "ani" means in Italian.--Shirt58 (talk) 07:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The Spam and Open Relay Blocking System has flagged this IP address as an open proxy. Toddst1 (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

User: Grundle2600 sock

Would be grateful if an admin could deal with this situation please, see User talk:9c47#Wind power. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Johnfos does have a good point. Based on past experience, I'd say that that is definitely a sockpuppet of Grundle2600. Good call on spotting it! 9c47 (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Indef'd as self-admitted sock of banned editor. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Today's Featured article on the Main Page

Personal attack by User:Volunteer Marek

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

(Excuse me for being brief, I was in a hurry when I wrote this). Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) has been making personal attacks directed at users participating in a debate about Misplaced Pages Review. . I feel that this needs admin attention. (I will write more when I get home later today). PaoloNapolitano 13:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned neither of these is actionable. this on the other hand would have been, in my view; the language and sentiment is much more extreme. However as far as I can see Marek later struck these comments. I will ask Marek to tone down the rhetoric, but that's as far as it need go, IMO. I would tend to now close this but you said you wanted to write at length when you get home; if you feel a warning from me is sufficient thejn perhaps you don't need to write much more and we can close this? Kim Dent-Brown 15:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

(Copied from User talk:Volunteer Marek As I said, I was in a hurry when I wrote my post. I saw the two edits and in my opinion they were uncivil and impolite. I understand your warning and I will take it into account the next time. As for the edit you presented me with here, go ahead and block him if you want to. I agree that the edit is even more incivil than the other two. PaoloNapolitano 16:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw that he "struck" his comments now. (Didn't understand what you meant). He is still responsible for his edits even if he takes it back, reverts it, etc. It is all about thinking twice before editing. PaoloNapolitano 16:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)''

I would love to close this and get it out of the way, but I am concerned about Marek's editing, which is clearly influenced by his emotions and not thinking twice. PaoloNapolitano 16:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment has been struck, the issue is closed. Let the sleeping dogs lie, and focus on constructive article editing rather than discussing others. Dramu is not needed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3RR x 20 Urgent reaction needed

Look at this. diff --WhiteWriter 15:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

IP was blocked even before you posted this. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Editor has jumped to a new IP address. I reverted the edit but semi-protection might be in order. SQGibbon (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article. Overrule me if you think I'm overexaggerating. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection for a few days is very reasonable. Rklawton (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia

Two days ago, User:SandyGeorgia removed one of my DYKs from the main page and posted at WT:DYK and in several other places accusing me of being a serial plagiarizer and copyright violator. Her explanation at WT:DYK also included the accusation that my articles were each copies of a single source "with a few words juggled", which is simply, factually false (See, for example, one of the articles she named, which has significant content from at least nine different sources), and some gratuitous complaints against DYK as a whole.

Though I responded to her concerns on each article within minutes , SG refused to engage with me directly, pointing me instead to her post at WT:DYK which denounced me in the third person, offered no specific examples, and no constructive suggestions of any kind. She also denounced me on the talk page of another editor before being willing to speak to me about the problem directly, dismissing the good-faith questions I was trying to ask her --and which she never actually answered-- as my "continued resistance".

After a preliminary review, the consensus at DYK appears to be that my articles are fully within Misplaced Pages policy. (See, for example, , , ) Even SG's requested arbiter, User:Moonriddengirl, examined one of the articles and found that while it could benefit from minor changes, even in its present form, it "would be very unlikely to rise to the level of a copyright concern". The articles in question remain untagged and unaltered by any editor who has looked at them.

I don't blame SG for having not having a full command of Misplaced Pages copyright policy; I'll be the first to admit that I don't either. But even if I had been found to need work on close paraphrasing, I'd be unhappy with her refusal to engage me directly and civilly as a good faith editor, and her insistence on seeing my "case" as part of a broader DYK battleground. Her focus on bashing DYK editors as a whole instead of discussing specifics of my edits was notable in every forum she posted in (review any of the diffs in the first paragraph). Even in a later post to my talk page, she said that she was sorry I was taking her accusations personally, but that I needed to see it in context of her ongoing struggle at DYK.

SG appears unwilling to take this advice from anyone involved at DYK, so I ask at a minimum that an administrator speak with her about her responsibility to AGF by engaging other users directly and constructively rather than "exposing" them in public fora (particularly until she herself develops a better understanding of WP:COPYVIO and WP:PLAGIARISM). I also ask that she stop behaving as if DYK is a battleground. I was a long-time good-faith user (28,000+ edits, 100+ new start-class articles, 60+ DYKs, a GA, etc.) and didn't deserve to be called a serial plagiarizer across the wiki without direct and polite discussion, nor did I deserve to be dragged into SG's "War on Plagiarism". I'm glad to have my name cleared, of course, but it shouldn't have come to that in the first place. 184.59.31.77 (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC) (formerly User:Khazar)

Plagiarism is a serious issue, so our first task is to determine whether or not SG is right in that plagiarism remains a problem at DYK. If it is, then she needs some backup. If not, then she needs some persuasion to back down, but since questions of plagiarism is the heart of the matter, we should address that first. Rklawton (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me clarify that I don't mean to stop SG's plagiarism investigations themselves; she's exposed some serious violations in the past, and I would hate to see her stop working in this area. What concerns me is the way that she conducts them. No matter how pervasive she thinks the problem is at DYK, at least a part of her response should be to directly, respectfully, and constructively engage the editors she believes to have issues with citation or close paraphrasing, especially if she wants to pursue borderline cases along with the egregious. WP:PLAGIARISM suggests that "plagiarism concerns should be addressed calmly, with a view to educating rather than pointing the finger", and I think that these are words SG should take to heart.

It would also help if in borderline or disputed cases, she sought a second opinion before going into full public denunciation. Had she done so in my case, that denunciation would likely never have taken place, since her requested second opinion (as well as community consensus) cleared me of wrongdoing. This solution was proposed at DYK, but SG has unfortunately already moved to oppose it. 184.59.31.77 (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC) (formerly User:Khazar)

Another example of Sandy having made a false accusation was here, where Moonriddengirl was asked here and said no problem. Sandy never did apologise or redact the accusation. --LauraHale (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Sandy has a very high standard for copyright issues and a very high degree of certainly that her bar is set correctly. I think she needs to acknowledge that while having a high bar is a good thing, she should realize her bar is both higher than legally required and probably higher than needed (though not higher than desired!). Certainly higher than I expect of my students (as long as they cite the source). Having someone else double-check her before she does more than discuss (politely) on the subject's page would seem ideal. Hobit (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

So why is this here at AN/I? There appears to be no incident requiring our janitorial services. Rklawton (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

::shrug:: Maybe I am in the wrong place, but three days ago I was casually and falsely denounced for a serious offense, without a second opinion or a moment's discussion; my accuser then dismissed my attempts to ask clarifying questions out of hand, implying that they were evasion and that my plagiarism was clear. It seems to me that's a breach of WP:AGF, but I've never been good with the policing side of Misplaced Pages. Coming from an academic background myself, I don't take this accusation lightly; I've failed a lot of people for plagiarism, and in one unfortunate case, seen it destroy the career of a colleague. Do I really have no recourse here? All I ask is that someone in authority talk with SG about what she's done here to avoid repetition of the problem; call it a formal warning, I suppose, if that's the language that's needed to get consideration here. 184.59.31.77 (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC) (formerly User:Khazar)

Well, SG did post this message on your talk; to me that seems to be an attempt to engage with you. Are you sure that this isn't mostly a case of you guys talking past each other? henrik•talk 21:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I see that you already linked this, I must have overlooked that link. Still, I don't interpret her message quite the same way, it seems to be an effort to do exactly the sort of engagement and talking directly to you. Mistakes are sometimes made, and intentions are hard to convey over text. I'd hate to see you go over this. henrik•talk 21:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, while I did appreciate SG's message, she posted it five hours after accusing me at ], and after evading and mocking all of my earlier attempts to directly discuss her accusations (see , , ). It was only after I had posted that I was leaving Misplaced Pages that she made any effort to talk directly. My point is that talking to me directly and respectfully about my editing should have been her first step, not her last; instead, she leapt straight into making a serious false accusation on a project page and 4-5 other places. I appreciate your efforts to give SG the benefit of the doubt, but this is behavior that she needs to reconsider, regardless of motive. 184.59.31.77 (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not really possible to talk directly with you when you've demanded that I not. In fact, asking me not to post to your talk again-- and then coming to ANI because I don't respond-- doesn't look very good. I'm very sorry to hear about your chronic fatigue syndrome, again, and I wish I could help, but if you refuse to let me speak to you, I don't see why we're here. And, for the person who asked if there is a real problem at DYK:

1. It predates but includes the time before the Rlevse resignation, and has not changed at all: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page
2. This is a list of only the ones that one editor is catching, after they are passed: Misplaced Pages:Did you know/Removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi SG, if you'll review the above, the whole of my complaint has to do with your serious false accusation and your posting it across multiple boards without substantively discussing it with me first or seeking a second opinion. I posted here because of your initial behavior only. If you would like me to acknowledge that you behaved better six hours later, I will readily do so, but again, it took my leaving Misplaced Pages for you to take what should have been your first step. Other editors have already suggested that you pursue these cases differently in the future, including me; you've not agreed to do, and there didn't seem any point in pushing this further without an outside opinion that you would listen to. Cheers, 184.59.31.77 (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC) (formerly User:Khazar)

Well, that strikes me as a failed AGF-o-meter, particularly since I did try to talk to you and you rejected attempts. So, from my seat, it looks like you're doing what you accuse me of-- that is, spreading something across the Misplaced Pages, in spite of me attempting to discuss with you. And now I'm actually confused about why I'm here talking with an IP, when I'm prohibited from talking with you on your page. I asked that you wait for MRG to weigh in, but when she did, I was forbidden to discuss with you. Following a discussion across multiple pages is time consuming; consolidating it on one DYK thread made sense to me, although I see it didn't to you. I still don't know why we are here, at ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

SG, what you say is fair enough, and I do apologize for not continuing this conversation more directly when I was on with you yesterday; you're right that I owed it to you, no matter how you'd been behaving before. I'm willing to withdraw my complaint, then, but I do want to again urge two policy suggestions on you. First, that you consider engaging editors directly and respectfully before making an accusation as sweeping as yours was; second, that you consider getting a second opinion in borderline cases before making a public accusation on project pages, not after. I realize you're unlikely to accept these suggestions, but building a Copyvio "best policies" page at DYK as others have proposed and you've resisted would be a benefit to everyone. There's no reason to have unfounded accusations like this flying around when we're all doing our best to work together. All the best, 184.59.31.77 (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC) (formerly User:Khazar)

Oh, and the IP is because I already scrambled the password to my account to remove the temptation to get to my watchlist. =) Cheers, 184.59.31.77 (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the IP explanation makes sense (hadn't occurred to me :) So, if we can figure out now where to carry on the conversation-- or if you even want to continue-- we can resolve the remaining. If you're really leaving, and considering what you've said elsewhere about your health issues, I'm not sure you want me to continue to take your time on this (that was the clear message I got from your posts yesterday). The real issues are at DYK, the failure there to put processes in place, and are not and should not be individual or personalized. I'll note that I didn't pull the article from the mainpage (that's not in my power) and attempted to consolidate a general discussion of the Plagiarism Dispatch on the talk page for increased awareness of the issue, and I'm sorry you interpreted that as something aimed at you (discussions about paraphrasing/copyvio/plagiarism et al are always sensitive). Again, I did not remember we had spoken before, and it was not my intent to single you out. It's curious that someone in this very discussion is suggesting I'm supposed to have a shorter memory, while others prefer a longer memory :) If I kept a list on Wiki of every DYK editor with whom I've discussed paraphrasing, that would be against some policy or another, and if I kept a list in my head, that would be a grudge, so again, I'm sorry for not recalling we had past interactions on this. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't just an isolated incident. A couple weeks back SG came storming into WP:FAR making all sort of unfounded accusations against myself and another editor and also spread those accusations on multiple talk pages. SG uses editors' diffs to produce synthesis to make the case. There's also a large amount of snarky edit summaries. Sure ok; everyone has a bad day now and then but this appears to be trend. Brad (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You mean about the time you called Bishonen (talk · contribs) a Bitch during a FAR, causing her to turn in her tools and leave? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This edit admirably demonstrates Brad101's point. If anyone wishes to propose sanctions against SG, I'd support them. Misplaced Pages works best when its editors keep short memories. Rklawton (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you can clarify what you find troubling about my response. "Accusers" give no diffs, I query and give diffs and direct responses, and Brad101 is allowed to accuse, but I'm not allowed to respond? And I can't respond on Khazer's talk, but she can come here and expect me to respond here, but when I do, there's an (as yet unspecified) problem? Please explain to me why Brad can say I "came storming in to FAR" without providing any diff to the incident, but when I diff the incident (which by the way arb Risker agreed with), that's a problem? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue here is not about my behavior but yours. Yet you just gave another classic example of your synthesis of events. I did not call Bishonen a bitch during a FAR and you're the one who decided that my behavior at that particular FAR is what "drove Bishonen from the project". It does seem to be true that Bishonen turned in the tools; I saw the request but there was no reason posted as to why the tools were being turned in. I am not responsible for the behavior of another. If you would like to continue believing your version of events that's fine but these accusations being spread all over talk pages is unwarranted. Anyone who chooses can go over to WP:FAR and WT:FAR and see what has been going on over there. You've attacked reviewers and the FAR admin for not carrying out things the way you want them to or think they should. As a former FAR admin you should remember that "former" is the keyword. Brad (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you asked Bishonen? You might do that. FAR has instructions; following them will help articles and editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You aren't defending, you are attacking, and if you persist, I will recommend you be stopped. As for Bishonen, there were significant health issues involved with her winter hibernation, but you would deliberately deceive people here into believing she left over a single world. Shame on you! Rklawton (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Clearly there is are no apologies in the offing for understandably offended editors, so I am proposing as a remedy that SandyGeorgia stays away from DYK. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to hear, preferably from a party not directly involved in this dispute (or any other with Sandy), what her involvement with DYK is before we go on to considering whether a topic ban is warranted. Does Sandy contribute to the DYK project? If so, in what manner? Does she write, review, or submit hooks? Does she actively patrol hooks for copyvio problems? Is she a regular at DYK in any fashion? Or does she pop in randomly when she notices copyvios? If she does, what is the manner of her engagement when she apppears at DYK? Is she collegial? Accusatory? Was the behavior reported on above standard for her when she's at DYK, or was this an anomaly? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Admin needed to act on article probation violation re: Men's rights

User:Cybermud has repeatedly engaged in incivility, violating the terms of article probation described at Talk:Men's rights/Article probation. He was warned about the incivility by User:Kaldari and User:Kgorman-ucb on his talk page, and he responded with "...do whatever floats your boat princess...", calling Kevin Gorman, a campus ambassador for UC Berkeley, a "princess". Kevin and Kaldari were pointing out to Cybermud the following infractions of the probation: , , , and . In response, Cybermud told them to "STFU on my talk page".

I see the foul response by Cybermud as a signal that he is unwilling to follow article probation terms. Cybermud should not be allowed to continue in this vein. Binksternet (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I have placed Cybermud under a one-month topic ban.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

According to your comments on my talk page you have banned me for this edit. Just how does this diff merit a one month topic ban? Or is asking you to justify something, that's as as clear as mud to me, in violation of some other unknown policy that I also can't be informed of?--Cybermud (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"Should WP not refer to Nazi's as Nazi's because people have taken a dim view of the things they've done historically? Because you seem to be implying it might be okay to whitewash the fact that some sources have discredited themselves by not clearly acknowledging them." - commenting on editors, not edits. "Michael Flood/Messner/Kimmel have well established reputations of being pro-feminist misandrists." - violating BLP with regards to Flood, Messner and Kimmel. A couple of days ago, you stated "I'm trying to add balance to the subjective edits of the feminist task force that descended on this article and defaced it with Wikilawyering and excessive demands of "higher quality" sources and then, once they had driven the non-feminist editors out, allowed you to use crap sources so long as they confirmed their pre-existing biases." More recently today, you made a factually untrue statement in an attempt to discredit another editor. Here you threatened to out another editor. As the probation page says, "Very little leeway is allowed in pages under probation, so contributors need to show themselves to be model Wikipedians". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with all of your characterizations of those diffs, but more importantly, why not just admit you made a knee-jerk reaction based on the misrepresentations of my edits made by other editors? For starters, it's never good to start shifting the goal posts for why did you something, much less after the fact. According to you, YOU BANNED ME for this edit not any of the other ones you are now backtracking and trolling for in an attempt to justify an action you've already made. Some of these new edits you're scrambling for are not even in the Men's Rights article. Secondly, contrary to your BLATANTLY AND EGREGIOUSLY FALSE allegation that I threatened to out anyone, I suggested to an editor, who used his own name and is a faculty associate of the person whose article he's editing that there are COI policies on WP he may be violating. Read the edits. They are clear on this point. I do not take your banning me personal, I know admins deal with a lot of crap here, but I do ask that you give me valid reasons, not make them up as you go, and put forth the effort to understand the situation you jumped all over once you start getting feedback, like mine, which claims your actions were unjustified.--Cybermud (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"To avoid potentially outing an editor I will refrain from expanding upon that point for the time being" --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you frequently find evidence that supports the exact opposite of your contention and put it forward to advance an argument anyway?!--Cybermud (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Deja Vu Binksternet?] In any case, it's all about context.--Cybermud (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that the diffs speak fairly well to why sarek was justified in topic banning cybermud, especially this one and this one, so I'm going to let them speak for themselves.

Cybermud has continued to edit the article on Michael Kimmel, in violation of his topic ban, even after being warned that continuing to do so was a violation of his topic ban. (Michael Kimmel is a sociologist whose work frequently deals with men's rights issues, and the use of his writings on the men's rights page was one of the major issues that cyermud disagreed about.) Although disagreeing with an administrator and questioning their actions is fine, choosing to ignore a topic ban - especially one stemming from community sanctions on an article - is not fine.

I think that Cybermud's responses to this post have demonstrated that he cannot be a productive editor on men's rights or related issues at this point. I would request that Sarek's one month topic ban be extended to indefinite with the option of appealing at some point in the future if he can convince the community that he now sees what was wrong with his behavior, and convinces the community that he will not repeat his former behavior. I would also request that he be blocked if he continues to fail to respect the terms of his topic ban. Kevin (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron again

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

In a blatant case of I didn't hear that, a day after the rescue tag got deleted because of overwhelming concerns about its use for canvassing, User:Northamerica1000 created a list that essentially does the same thing in a more covert manner. Had I not seen editors like North and User:Dream Focus jumping into a recent deletion discussion I initiated I probably wouldn't have thought to check for ARS involvement in the discussion. I certainly would not have noticed the delsort linking to the list included there since they are generally small and easy to overlook. Again, just like with the rescue tag, the effect has been that ARS members jump into an AfD and start voting keep. What is particularly troubling is that North apparently doesn't seem to care about the concerns raised here at ANI about canvassing that led to the deletion of the template. Instructing people that it is not about casting votes is meaningless if they are free to just cast votes anyway without making any significant contributions to the article, presuming they make any contributions at all. It is essentially like telling people to not shove beans up their noses. Seems North just refuses to get the point and other members of the ARS are apparently not bothered by this behavior at all. While it is easy to act like North is the problem editor here as a way to preserve the ARS itself, I cannot see how anything short of restrictions on ARS involvement in AfD or eliminating the WikiProject altogether is going to stop this behavior from just being repeated by other editors with a similar agenda.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The closing administrator specifically did not mention canvassing as a reason. In the deletion review he specifically stated it wasn't because of canvasing, but for other reasons. Dream Focus 19:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, the list was mentioned in the DR, and wasn't really considered an issue there. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

How else are they supposed to notify one another of which articles might be worth saving? Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want an article rescue nomination to be more obvious, then maybe the rescue template shouldn't have been deleted. Alpha_Quadrant 19:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

There are certain deletionally-inclined sorts that are unhappy that AfD isn't quite the abattoir that they envision in their fondest dreams, so the pretense (unproven) that there had been "canvassing" with the rescue template was used in a more-or-less successful attempt to kneecap the ultra-inclusionist members of the Rescue Squad. It was one of the worst Misplaced Pages decisions in the last 12 months, up there with ArbCom whacking Cirt. Now there is tension over Rescue Squad trying to reestablish themselves on a new basis, as is their right. So it goes. Carrite (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I suggested creating similar list as a solution of problems with rescue template Bulwersator (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Why was it deleted? AfDs are not votes, so I don't see a problem. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Many see it as a political thing. Not really sure. They also blocked me for a week the day they erased it. Anyway, I have just posted a message at the top of the list of this discussion, since it involves people on that Wikiproject. Dream Focus 20:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Well, this'll perhaps a bit surprising considering the source, but I don't know... If they wish to discuss articles to save within their own wikiproject, pretty much as many others do via WP:DELSORT, is that really a problem? Tarc (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

See "I don't think additional keep votes without sourcing backup are going to help." This sort of behavior seems to convey to me that this page could be used as a staging group to collect "keep votes."

See also "Can some help me with this please?" "I de-speedied, will take a look at it later today!" This really does look like ARS members are canvassing to get each other to do things they can't do themselves and not disclosing their combined activity when working on each others' behalf. MBisanz 20:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That article is perfectly valid, so what's the problem? Anyway, there is a tag used in all AFDs to inform people it was mentioned there. There is nowhere to place that in speedy delete removal bit. Someone thinks an article has merit, they can ask for help with it. Additional sources were added, although at the time it was nominated for speedy delete it already had two references from the New York Times in there. We improve and prevent the erasure of perfectly valid articles. Dream Focus 20:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

MBisanz I get that, but that's getting into actual editor misdeeds, whereas I saw this in generic "can a project do this on a project page?" thing. If all you do is stomp on another ARS anthill, they'll just pop up another one a few feet away in short order. Either squash the project or squash the editors (figuratively) at this point.

MBisanz - that oddcast example you use is a perfect example of what the ARS is doing right and what you are doing wrong. I would not have de-speedied that oddcast article unless it was valid to do so. Indeed, what happened to that article is really ridiculous. Why don't you nominate it for deletion if you think its not notable?--Milowent • 21:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• I see no issue with the list itself. If ARS wishes to collaborate to improve articles so that those which are notable can stave off deletion, that is a fine and noble goal. If such a list is used for the sole purpose of canvassing for keep !votes, then that will become obvious soon enough (not to mention pointy, and consequently, blockable). Resolute 20:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I think the template is better than the list as it makes it clear to everyone that ARS is involved. But the template was deleted. It would be nice if folks added a note to the AfD about the ARS listing (just to keep the issue fully disclosed). SnottyWang was doing this for a while. SW, if you are reading this, could you make a bot that handled doing the AfD notice? Hobit (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I believe every single thing AFD ever on that list, has had a notice placed in the AFD. We function just like other wikiprojects do. Dream Focus 20:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Additionally, the notice placement is part of indicated practice with the list. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• (e/c)The distinction, as far as I can tell, is that the list sparks conversation and actual improvement, whereas the tag was (sometimes) more of a drive-by flagging with potentially canvass-y effects. If you look at the list, when articles are added to it the adder generally provides some sort of rationale or discussion, and people respond in kind. I also note that, accusations of cabal-ish behavior aside, NA1000 invited me to join the ARS shortly after I posted a comment to the ARS list board indicating my suspicion that one article on the list was not worthy of inclusion. I bring that up to point out that they don't appear to be out for blind inclusion blood, at least not exclusively. Or maybe just NA1000 is a good level-headed chap, I have no idea. Regardless, the List was raised at least once as a solution during the many discussions around the former tag, and I don't recall any objections to it. I was adamantly opposed to the Tag, voted for its deletion, and am now an interested and active participant in the List. It's more well-considered stuff, less drive-by.

  Basically, I think if you remove this List, you really do have to start considering whether you want any kind of ARS to exist at all. You'd be removing their only on-Wiki means of collaboration. Indeed, you'd probably drive collaboration off-Wiki, which I doubt is a desirable side effect. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)