Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:53, 26 April 2008

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Disruptive Editing on Archaeoastronomy

I am asking admin assistance in dealing with User:Breadh2o's edits since late December on Archaeoastronomy, its talk page and related pages, which have constituted a clear case of Disruptive Editing. Let me begin with a little background. The article was highly undocumented until April 2006, when User:Alunsalt performed a major rewrite. As a personal aside, that fine revision was one of the things that drew me to move from being an anonymous editor to editing under my own name. Among my other edits I continued to contribute to Archaeoastronomy, which developed to provide a solidly documented account of the growth, development and content of that complex interdisciplinary field.

Near the end of December, Breadh2o first appeared on Misplaced Pages (he occasionally edited under the IP 24.9.222.91).. He opened his discussion on the Archaeoastronomy talk page with criticisms of the article's content, criticisms of the alleged suppression of archaeoastronomy by archaeologists, and ad hominem attacks on Alunsalt. Those of us who had been actively involved in the article first thought we would "give him time and space" to improve the article, but it soon became apparent that this was not leading to productive edits, so on 21 March Alunsalt posted an informal request for comments on the five Wikiprojects associated with the article to establish a consensus on POV. Shortly thereafter, on 24-25 March, Breadh2o posted a formal RfC for Science-related articles, questioning abuse by "two academics". As the discussion became increasingly personal, on 30 March Alunsalt tried to address the subject matter of the article by posting a notice on the No Original Research/Noticeboard. In order to get a wide range of comments, friendly notices of these actions were posted on the Talk pages of the five Wikiprojects associated with the article. Despite these friendly notices, only a few editors: User:Alunsalt, User:SteveMcCluskey, User:Breadh2o, and User:Dougweller have participated actively in the discussion. In addition, a few other people have commented, and with the exception of Breadh2o all have endorsed the position of Alunsalt and SteveMcCluskey on the editing of the article. Despite this apparent consensus, Breadh2o repeats the same arguments for his unorthodox thesis.

On 13 April admin User:Kathryn NicDhàna posted a notice on the Administrators' noticeboard / Incidents pointing out, among other things, Breadh2o's OR, POV pushing, and insistence on unencyclopedic tone and questionable sources. On Breadh2o's talk page, another admin, User:Blueboy96, cautioned him against personal attacks and attempting to use Misplaced Pages as a soapbox; about a week later Kathryn NicDhàna added a warning to the talk page about WP:CIVIL and WP:OWN. A few days afterwards, Breadh20 had dismissed Kathryn NicDhàna's warnings as a case of her choosing "to side with Alun Salt's and Steve McCluskey's carte blanche to revert any edit I might attempt."

In the course of the discussion, Breadh2o identified himself as as Scott Monahan, who has "edited for over a decade" an off-wiki site to which he provided a link in the article (see footnote 3), who operates another website, OldNews, concerned with demonstrating that "Plains Indians had visitors from the far side of the Atlantic a thousand years before Columbus," and that he makes his living in internet, broadcast and cable video media, in which he advances these ideas.

Our substantive concern was that Breadh2o's edits were intent upon pushing his own point of view, by using the archaeoastronomy article as a vehicle to propagate the marginally related fringe hypothesis that Celtic people left inscriptions in the Colorado/Oklahoma region and which involves a hostile opposition to the archaeological establishment. Examples of this process included:

• In his earliest posts on the talk page he made clear his open hostility to archaeology "which looks downward" and his perception that "the agenda of archaeologists or anthropologists" was being used "to summarily veto legitimate inquiry."
• He presented an original research account of the origins of archaeoastronomy, which sought to place pyramidologists at the origins of the discipline and would conveniently remove archaeologists from any significant role in its establishment.
• He repeatedly insisted that critiques of the archaeological establishment for its refusal to accept diffusionist and other unorthodox ideas was an essential part of the article, placing it successively in two different places.
• He responded to a discussion under fringe archaeoastronomy of a site in West Virginia which was claimed to associate Ogham inscriptions with claimed archaeoastronomical indications, by adding a defense of diffusionism and an attack on the archaeological establishment for stifling dissent.
• He associated archaeoastronomy with the unorthodox hypothesis that Celtic inscriptions describing astronomical phenomena provide evidence of early trans-Atlantic contact.
• He engaged in repeated ad hominem attacks against editors who challenged his point of view, Alunsalt, SteveMcCluskey, User:Dougweller at the No Original Research/Noticeboard, against the archaeological community as a group, and against the academic system in general.
• He provided a link to his off-wiki site on which we find an extensive bibliography and long history of disputes going back to 1977 between advocates of Celtic influence in the Southwest and members of the archaeological establishment.
• He refused to accept an attempt at consensus and in the course of his refusal did not assume good faith, accusing User:Bwwm, a new, but active, editor in articles on the History of Science, of being sockpuppet.

I had not realized he had accused me of being a sockpuppet, as I am not engaged in the discussion in an active way. I was trying to help by offering my opinion on a dispute. In any case, an admin can easily verify this by looking at my IP to verify that I'm not anyone's sock. --Bwwm (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Breadh2o's edits have concentrated almost exclusively on archaeoastronomy; as of 7 April, 277 of his 301 edits have been on archaeoastronomy or its talk page, the other 24 have been on user pages and the No Original Research noticeboard. In contrast, only 104 of Alunsalt's 393 edits have been on archaeoastronomy or its talk page and only 120 of SteveMcCluskey's 4480 edits have been on the archaeoastronomy pages. His pattern of edits suggest that Breadh2o wishes to use Misplaced Pages as a vehicle to continue his long-running conflict with the academic establishment. This conflict is one of the identifying characteristics of Pseudoarchaeology and the hostile method he employs is characteristic of Disruptive editing. Given the decade-long history of this conflict, the lack of resolution at either the RfC or the No Original Research/Noticeboard, Breadh2o's continued insistence that his unorthodox POV, that "pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact" and claimed "Ogham archaeoastronomy in Colorado and Oklahoma" has something to do with archaeoastronomy, and his repeated expressions of hostility, I doubt that it can be resolved by any of Misplaced Pages's conflict resolution procedures.

Either Breadh2o should agree to voluntarily refrain from editing on archaeoastronomy and its talk page, or he should be permanently banned from the article and its talk page. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be expedient to remove me, as I have raised troubling issues about WP:OWN, WP:IDHT and WP:NPOV with Alun Salt and Steve McCluskey. Everything I have added to the article has been purged. I have not engaged in any article edits since the admin warnings of more than a week ago, and have only modestly engaged in Talk dialogues, moving the bulk off article Talk, onto my own user page, so as not to seem in any way disruptive. My belief is the dual authors are intent on controlling not only article content, but banishing me because I represent a contrarian, minority opinion. I do not have the time or patience to assemble an offset to the extraordinarily detailed and footnoted position statement by Steve McCluskey, above. I trust the edit history, the status of the present article with nothing of mine remaining and my good faith efforts to justify in discussion uncomfortable content that is notable, meets qualifications beyond tiny minority opinion, is sourced by reliable and verifiable mainstream news media organizations, and my appeals to common sense will suffice. If not, then so be it. Perhaps I haven't given it my best shot, perhaps I have been rude and uncivil at times, perhaps what I have to contribute as a journalist myself matters not one iota. I'll respectfully step back and await a determination on Steve's efforts to silence me permanently. I guess I assumed Jimbo Wales' libertarian idealism might have shown more tolerance than is to be expected in an organism that has matured over time to tilt more favorably toward what academics have to contribute versus what dedicated devotees think. I was BOLD and at times broke some rules to make the article better. But it's reverted now to only what Steve and Alun believe is suitable for readers to consider. -- Breadh2o (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the above shows the challenge of editing with Breadh2o. He is unwilling to cite reliable sources to back up his assertions, but believes the depth of his feeling is strong enough to justify the acceptance of his opinions.

Normally it would be possible to accommodate him by reading his bluster and attempting to discern if there's a valid point buried within it. However editing on the article is moving towards a state where peer-review would be useful to prepare for an FA application. This isn't really practical if sections of the article are going to be replaced with wild speculations about Celtic America and the cabal of archaeologists which aims to hide the truth (I suspect there are many so-called archaeoastronomers running around who are deep down inside hard-core archaeologists pushing an agenda of absolute control over archaeoastronomy.).

While Breadh2o hasn't edited the article since being warned by admins for his tone and personal attacks, his first edits after the warning were to launch another tirade against other editors on the Archaeoastronomy talk page. This signalled his intent to persist in re-writing a history which had been shown to be an original synthesis based on unreliable or irrelevant sources. In addition he added a George Orwell quote at the top of a draft of this on his userpage. When he chooses to be uncivil he's willing to devote hours to the project, re-drafting to find the exact phrase. It's flattering, but does suggest that his abuse is thoughtfully constructed rather than a temporary outburst of passion.

Despite this I'm reluctant to say there should be a permanent ban. It is a pity that he seems to have leapt into conflict rather than learning how Misplaced Pages works. A possible solution could be a ban from the Archaeoastronomy page and its talk page, which can be appealed against when he can show from edits on other topics that he can work with other editors in a civil manner. This would avoid punitive measures or 'silencing' him, while providing the stability to make a review of the article practical in the near future. If he continues to use his user page as a soapbox rather than productively edit then he will be choosing to make the ban permanent himself. Alun Salt (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This looks pretty bad. I'm tentatively endorsive of a topic ban for some time, simply to let people find other ways to work on Misplaced Pages and to dilute the personal conflict here. --Haemo (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Having tried to reason with Breadh2o (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and seeing admin warnings result in more attacks and POV-pushing, as well as a refusal to learn and follow basic WP community standards, I would endorse a topic ban on User:Breadh2o. Having watched the relevant pages and contribs for a little while now, I have not seen any of the other editors be disruptive. The others appear to me to be constructive contributors to WP. However I do believe a lot of their time has been wasted by having to deal with Breadh2o's POV pushing and personal attacks. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the support! ;-) Defendant's exhibit A: April 10 lead paragraph in History deleted six hours later by Alun Salt. Defendant's exhibit B: March 30 append to Fringe archaeoastronomy purged April 10. Defendent's exhibit C: read it and weep, if you value the scientific method. Defendent's exhibit Z: my bad-boy essay removed for cause, I'll agree in retrospect. However, for curious admins who may care, it summarizes in my most coherent rant why tilting at windmills matters. WP:BURO Good luck with achieving GA, FA, and the eternal gratitude of the archaeological establishment. -- Breadh2o (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope this means you'll be leaving this subject area to work on something where you have a less strong POV; it will make a topic ban unnecessary and this situation much more pleasant for all involved. --Haemo (talk) 05:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope that User:Haemo is correct, although I think Breadh2p's last comment about 'good luck' was sarcastic. I think that if he does not remove himself from this topic a topic ban is inevitable.Doug Weller (talk) 07:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be cautious about interpreting Breadh2o's latest as a promise to leave; about a month ago he said on the talk page "I'm out of here and you are on notice." He's still around. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 11:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Since we've gone almost a day without comment, could someone other than me, Alun, or Breadh2o please interpret the consensus before the BOT moves the discussion to the archives. Thanks, SteveMcCluskey (talk) 11:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban sounds reasonable. ThuranX (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest it premature to call for consensus after a mere 48 hours, particularly considering my request for mediation was submitted on April 9 and there has yet to be any response. On April 8 I had contacted user AGK seeking editor assistance, but moved toward mediation when Alun presumed consensus (which could well be interpreted differently, as the results were underwhelming after 3 weeks and 2 of 3 respondents did not engage in a consensus building dialogue) on the RfC and telegraphed an intent to resume edits. Indeed, on April 10, as I feared, he unilaterally purged both contributions of mine which I continue to believe met WP guidelines and policies for reliable and verifiable sourcing, is minority opinion (but exceeded "tiny" minority status) and which qualified both as notable and relevant. If and when mediation is forthcoming, I can make my case, unless I am silenced beforehand in a pre-emptive strike filed after my filing. It's confusing, I know. In any event, I believe a rush-to-judgment 48 hours after the post on AN/I would be premature, especially considering I have honored a voluntary suspension of any edits whatsoever since then, other than this response, and my two other replies above. -- Breadh2o (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in a great rush, I was just concerned that we not get archived by the BOT which, according to the recent history, has been archiving discussions after 24 hours of inactivity.

As far as I know, User:AGK has neither contacted anyone about your request nor has he scheduled this problem for mediation. I have posted a notice on his talk page so he is aware of this discussion on AN/I. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Although it might be somewhat early to close the AN/I, it is significant that in the month since this matter was first raised in an informal Request for Comments, the only person I recall who has come out in favor of Breadh2o's position was the anonymous editor who echoed his criticism on the edit summary to an article edit, and whom Breadh2o has called the Sunday vandal. The remaining responses were critical or neutral. On the AN/I, at this point six commenters (including AlunSalt and myself) favored imposition of some form of a ban and one (Breadh2o) opposed a ban and called for delay. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A statistical analysis that contrasts 7 science articles on Misplaced Pages (anthropology, archaeology, astronomy, biology, botany, chemistry and physics) to archaeoastronomy, shows how anomolous this article and its editors are, and illustrates the foundation of our conflict, my exasperation and, sadly, incivility at times. My two opponents, I believe, are driven by an agenda which hinges on a crusade to muzzle me. They make no secret they are interested in achieving GA or FA status, a reason Alun Salt notes above, making my continuing presence undesirable. See my 3 charts The article's footnote count more than doubles the most footnotes of any comparable science article. The number of editors on archaeoastronomy (eliminating the 9 who have only performed minor spelling or formatting corrections) are essentially the 3 of us, and my stuff has been purged for the past fortnight, leaving the two of them responsible for 100% of content. Comparatively, in each of the other articles, literally dozens of editors share in editing and consensus. McCluskey and Salt have asserted a special brand of possessiveness unseen in any of the other articles, as determined by their analysis of consensus. I am a challenge to them in that I represent a minority opinion. Few academics, outside of David H. Kelley, Vine Deloria II, Martin Brennan and some other renegades, would approve of my contrarian opinion, however it is backed up by multiple media accounts which I have cited and it is not a "tiny" minority that believes as I do. I am in no popularity contest or out to win accolades. I want the best article possible, fair and balanced, and I protest the apparent violations of WP:OWN which I hope to raise in mediation ASAP. Breadh2o (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the dates for the past 100 edits track back accordingly: anthropology (Feb. 13), archaeology (Feb. 18), archaeoastronomy (Mar. 22), astronomy (Mar. 11), biology (Mar. 30), botany (Jan. 20), Chemistry (Oct. 11) and physics (Mar. 20). Breadh2o (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A few Points: First, these data reflect the fact that archaeoastronomy is a small and highly specialized field; the number of active investigators is probably around 250 (a ballpark estimate of the number of members of ISAAC, SEAC, and SIAC). It is not surprising that there aren't as many editors on Archaeoastronomy as on the major science articles.

Second, the sample of 100 archaeoastronomy edits for the period from March 22 to the present reflects an anomalous period when the edit war was in full tilt and edits by the involved disputants would be expected to play a larger than normal role. I am surprised that as many as 12 different editors were involved during that contentious period.

Finally, given the small number of editors that Breadh2o has demonstrated to be actively involved, it doesn't seem reasonable to delay closure until we achieve some unspecified large number of comments. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

First, should only 250 people worldwide be permitted to opine on the WP archaeoastronomy article? Second, have there been contentious edit wars over on the biology and physics articles during the same period? Third, yesterday he was "not in a great rush" for closure. What has changed in 24 hours? Fourth, the chemistry article has no difficulty admitting alchemy was foundational to its history in the very first paragraph. But the authors of the archaeoastronomy article absolutely will not permit any acknowledgment of the tremendous interest in the Great Pyramid by British astronomers from the mid 1600s to 1894 (and especially in the last 35 years of that era) to be allowed as part of the article's history, though I tried including this documented genesis several times; none survived reverts. Instead, the origins of archaeoastronomy must be sanitized for peer review. -- Breadh2o (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure comparing edit numbers is helpful. For example on this thread there have been 8 edits by SteveMcCluskey, 13 by Breadh2o and this is my second. I don't think this says anything meaningful about the debate. It may be indicative of me writing first on a word processor for spell-checking, using the preview function, and taking a relaxed attitude to mistakes which elude me, so long as the message is comprehensible.

Much more interesting is Breadh2o's footnote comparison. He is absolutely right, from the sample he's selected Archaeoastronomy is anomalous. Unfortunately he's chosen the wrong sample. As he notes I'm interested in contributing to an FA class article. Comparison with this month's FA class articles shows that the average number of footnotes is around 82. It's probably fractionally higher, because of re-use of footnotes on articles like Ocean sunfish. The spread is wide. Just 19 on the Oliver Typewriter Company and 176 on Emma Goldman. The difference is probably due to the use of notes where necessary. This would be material that is likely to be challenged, and recent comments have asked for more citiations. Compared to the entries Anabolic steroids 138 and Rotavirus 124, given the contentious nature of Archaeoastronomy the count is consistent with an article editing with an aim for FA status. From his comments above and elsewhere it would seem that Breadh2o isn't convinced this is a good idea. I'm not sure what a Good Article attaboy is, but in context it doesn't seem positive.

There's another revision to make which I was going to try and write tonight, but I'm dropping my internet connection a lot for some reason and used my time writing this instead. Once it is done it'll need to sit a while to be copy-edited and revised as people think necessary. After that it will hopefully be ready for peer-review and then FAC. If Breadh2o insists on using the article as a coat-rack for archaeological conspiracy theories then this will not be possible.

While consensus isn't a vote count, it would be helpful to know what Breadh2o would consider evidence of a consensus to disregard his original research. Alun Salt (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"...Breadh2o insists on using the article as a coat-rack for archaeological conspiracy theories..." WP:IDHT my argument is specific to what TIME magazine, the Atlantic and Smithsonian chief archaeologist Dennis Stanford (via the BBC transcript) have to say about the institution's attitude toward diffusionism. An intolerance for pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact has a bearing on certain archaeoastronomical claims, such as the WV claim cited in the article (and the companion CO/OK claims to balance the case, which have been purged) that might be indicative of such. WP:NPA -- Breadh2o (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate Breadh2o's references to Stanford etc are new here, but it is a example of his repetitive line of reasoning. Breadh2o has raised the connection between Ogham, a 1st Mil AD writing system from the British Isles to Kennewick Man (9th Mil BC) and pre-Clovis settlement (~15th mil BC) (the TIME reference) and the Solutrean hypothesis (~25th Mil BC) (the Dennis Stanford reference) before (I stopped counting around April 8) The highlight is an apology for connecting Ogham to pre-Clovis material which turns into an accusation of dishonesty by the start of the next paragraph.

The connection between Kennewick Man and Ogham has been described as preposterous by Breadh2o, but we seem to see it again. Another common theme is that an essay on metrology by Eric Michael Reisenauer places pyramidology at the start of archaeoastronomy, even though archaeoastronomy is not mentioned and there's references showing that pyramidology wasn't really at the start of anything much. The CO/OK claims are a reference to claimed Ogham inscriptions at Crack Cave. There are, as far as I'm aware, no peer-reviewed articles on the site. This, it is claimed, is because One would not normally expect a peer-reviewed journal or conclave to be critical of widely held tenets of the institution it serves. The Atlantic article includes the following observation: "Kelley disagrees with Fell's theory that the Grave Creek symbols represent some sort of astronomical text." This would not appear to be supportive of Breadh2o's archaeoastronomical claims. The rest of the article is not about ancient astronomy, but Ogham-in-America.

So once again we seem to have irrelevant or contradictory references and no indication as to what Breadh2o will accept as evidence that he may be mistaken. Instead of anything to do with archaeoastronomy we have another argument against archaeologists. His response to the (frequent) request to justify his sources and their inclusion in the article is usually met with WP:IDHT, but WP:NPA is new. I think with claims of stealth archaeologists (see quote cited above on my 1st entry in this thread), peer-review acting as a barrier (examples of articles by Dennis Stanford and Vine Deloria in major journals have been given), the idea that editors are working for 'the archaeological establishment' (see his 2nd entry on this thread) and a proposed collusion between myself and Doug Weller (who he's identified as an archaeologist and thus by definition not impartial), there's prima facie evidence that Breadh2o is suffering from an unacknowledged POV and that commenting on his conspiracy theorising is not a personal attack.

It's disappointing, but not unexpected that he hasn't responded to any of the other issues raised in my previous posting questioning his analysis.

If his argument genuinely were '...specific to what TIME magazine, the Atlantic and Smithsonian chief archaeologist Dennis Stanford (via the BBC transcript) have to say...' then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Especially if we were talking about archaeoastronomy. Sadly I think this would indicate he has no intention of accepting a consensus, no intention of working with, as opposed to against, other editors and no intention of moving his speculations on hyper-diffusionism to a more appropriate article. Alun Salt (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Breadh20's editing appears to be an example of 'Civil POV-pushing', as explained at User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing. One of Raul's proposals is:

Accounts which use Misplaced Pages for the sole or primary purpose of advocating a specific agenda at the expense of core policies and consensus-based editing may be warned, restricted, or ultimately blocked by any uninvolved administrator. Care should be taken to distinguish new accounts from those with an established pattern of single-purpose advocacy. (Suggested by MastCell).

Though this is only a proposal, not a policy, I suggest that there is plenty of justification for just going ahead with an article ban in this case, based on our existing customs and traditions. All that we need is an admin who is willing to enact such a ban based on the evidence in this thread and the apparent consensus of those who have responded. EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) On the one hand, WP policy expects of us to assume Good Faith. At the opposite extreme, I'm facing a stubborn opponent who persists in a pattern of mischaracterization and false linkage of Ogham and Kennewick Man long after I have discredited it, pointing to what Stanford says about institutional intimidation toward colleagues digging below the Clovis layer as instructive of a generally held attitude toward anything diffusionist. This is classic WP:IDHT as is the narrow characterization of content of the Reisenauer article and the TIME article. The reason there's been so much repetitiveness is that Alun never concedes a damned thing I say, despite saying it a hundred different ways. I won't relitigate it all here,but perhaps some admins will now understand, especially if they take the time to read Reisenauer's piece on changing British identity 1859-1890 and other refs, how I can lose my patience with reverts based on disingenuous reasoning. Now I'm in the Gulag, facing a tonguectomy for the silliest of all things, losing my temper. Pray tell, who's disrupting who? -- Breadh2o (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this stupid thing is getting ridiculous. You're now alleging that this is a discipline wide unfair bias that you're using Misplaced Pages to fight against, but that that doesn't count as a civil fringe POV push? Sorry, that's like saying there's an unfair bias in science to believe in a spherical earth, and that the scientists are all wrong, it's flat, but there's such a huge conspiracy of ego that we just can't see how wrong everyone but you is. No, EdJohnston's got this nail on the head. You're engaged in a classic model of the 'Civil POV Push', and you really, at this point, need to drop it, leave the article, and move on to something else. Further, you seem to think Alunsalt is OBLIGATED to 'concede a damned thing' once in a while. That's not the case, sorry. the cooperative model here isn't so absolute that we have to allow lies and bullshit in, just to be civil or help find consensus. Consensus doesn't have to mean compromise, and so much more so when compromise means letting fringe bullshit in. Rigorous adherence to high standards of research and scholarship improve this place, even if it means fighting at a line in the sand. Finally, that little pity party at the end is enjoyable false martyrdom, but it doesn't mean much. Topic ban well justified. ThuranX (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(uninvolved Admin, who spent too much time reviewing this dispute) If you want us to assume good faith in your actions, then demonstrate it by not editting this article or its Talk page for a long time. Your stubbornness over adding material to an article that is, at best, tengential, is the kind of attitude that drives away valuable contributors. This article is not about possible trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific pre-Columbian contact; it is about what archeology can tell us about ancient opinions of the heavens. The only commonality these two topics have is that many of the same monuments are discussed by both. If you cannot see the difference between those two statements, you will continue to find your experience with Misplaced Pages to be frustrating. -- llywrch (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, looking this over, I'd say the only person not supporting an article/topic ban is Breadh2o (talk · contribs). While we have low participation in this article and this discussion, this is because it's not a mainstream or popular topic; despite low numbers, I think there is a clear consensus. I'd say a topic/article ban is in order, though I'd like to hear suggestions for how long it should be, or whether it should be indef (perhaps with the option for Breadh2o to petition to lift the ban after some period of time. Or not.). I think that if Breadh2o is not willing to observe an article/topic ban, and/or unwilling to cease attacking other editors on talkpages and in userspace, then a block is also in order. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Harrasment/stalking by User:Michael Hardy

User and I originally had a dispute over two years ago. This can be seen here: User talk:Hetar/archive1#22/7. I asked that the user keep the debate to the pertinent pages as I did not want to argue over it, and so that other people could also participate in the debate. This user refused to leave me alone, and continued to post on my talk page. Eventually I took the issue to WP:3PO

Other diffs from my talk page showing repeated attempts to get this user to leave me alone:

After I had posted the issue to WP:3PO he finally left me alone. That is until, recently, two years later, when he shows up, out of the blue, still posting about the same issue. After deleting this and again asking him to stay away, he posted yet again: , this time referring to me as a "hateful boor."

Please help me. I am not seeking any kind of contact with this user. I have not edited or gone near any articles he is currently working on (or has worked on for that matter in the last 2 years). I have no desire to be involved with him in any way - and yet he continues to stalk me. Any help will be greatly appreciated --Hetar 21:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Calling you a "hateful boor" is an violation of WP:NPA. I think that you deserve an apology for that. Darkspots (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Did someone mention an apology? Try Misplaced Pages:Apology - needs more editing! Carcharoth (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The occasion for my revisiting this issue is explained in this edit. I really don't understand what the motive is behind "Hetar"'s abuse---why my short respectful query asking for an opinion on a matter of Misplaced Pages editing would be answered by a tirade full of hatred. I don't think that user should be forever excused from having to be reminded of that episode before that question is answered. As for personal attacks: I am the target of that attack. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks is a non-negotiable policy. You called Hetar a "hateful boor," a clear personal attack, on his talkpage. The policy says no personal attacks, not to anyone. Yes, Hetar termed your repeated posts to his talk page after he had made it clear that he did not want to discuss a matter with you as "harassment" and "stalking". This seems to be the "attack" to which you refer. But, even if this were unacceptable behavior on Hetar's part, Hetar doing this does not entitle you to call him a boor. Again, I call on you to apologize--sorry, no wikilink, Carcharoth--for your personal attack on Hetar. This is the second time in two months that I have felt you have violated WP:NPA: is the first time I brought a personal attack to your attention, much more mildly. Nor am I the only user to have ever admonished you for your lack of civility: User:Newyorkbrad commenting on your user talk page: as an example. Darkspots (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

So if you accuse me of "lack of civility" on my talk page, that's somehow not a "personal attack" in violation of the policy, but if I call Hetar a "boor" on his talk page, that's a "personal attack" in violation of the policy? Should I have said instead that Hetar was "uncivil" rather than that Hetar is a "boor"? Is there some crucial difference between the two words that matters here? Michael Hardy (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither User:Hetar nor I have ever posted on your user talk page about anything. User:Newyorkbrad has, so I will inform him of this discussion. I do not intend to argue policy on ANI with you, an administrator; I have stated that I think certain of your edits are unacceptable under policy, but I am interested to see what other editors that watch this page have to say about your edits to User Talk:Hetar. I am often wrong. Darkspots (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Uncivil" versus "boor". If you call another user "uncivil" you're upholding Misplaced Pages's policy against personal attacks. But if you call another user a "boor", then you're violating Misplaced Pages's policy against personal attacks.
• If you post a short polite request for another user's opinion on Misplaced Pages editing when, unbeknownst to you, he erroneously thinks he has asked you not to post on his user talk page, then you're guilty of some offense, whose precise nature I don't know how to define.
• If the other user points to another page where he claims to have said to you: "Don't ever post on my talk page", and you respond that it doesn't actually say that, your response constitutes "harassment". But his erroneous accusations against you do not constitute "harassment" or any other offense.
• If a user writes on his talk page, "This is MY talk page and no one can post here without permission", how does that fit into Misplaced Pages policies? The talk pages exist for communication among Wikipedians, who are not supposed to live on isolated islands. How extensive is a right to forbid others to post on one's user talk page? Are they completely private property? Can I say: no matter what complaints you may have against my behavior, I forbid you to talk to me about them? Even on one's user talk page, which is not private property and which exists for a reason? Hetar claims a fully unlimited right to decide who can post on his user talk page. Only Hetar and the user who said no one can ever post on his user talk page have claimed such a right, as far as I know.
• Which is worse: to lose one's patience with a user when one SPECIFIES objections to their editing of an article, or to say "I have no objections to any of your contributions to Misplaced Pages, but I hate you for no particular reason so go away and don't do anything that might remind me that you exist"? Must one be meekly obedient to another user who addresses one in that way?

Michael Hardy (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

jeez louis, Michael Hardy done did it again, :-). one might guess here what happened. someone of relatively little mathematical experience made a, probably not very defensible or knowledable, comment/vote on a math related AfD. this is not uncommon and can be a bit irksome to professionals like Michael Hardy. when pressed further by Michael on their talk page, that person responded by being deliberately non-engaging/frigid/wikilawyer-ish. one might say both sides acted in a understandable, although not necessarily reasonable, way. let's everyone just drop it. Mct mht (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. The point is that everyone did drop it, then Michael Hardy came back two years later and started calling the user unpleasant names. This is a violation of WP:NPA, and it leaves this user thinking that as long as he contributes to Misplaced Pages, he is going to have to deal with User:Michael Hardy popping up and leaving messages about something that happened years and years ago. So maybe he stops contributing, because it's not worth the hassle (pardon me, Hetar, I'm getting hypothetical here, bear with me please) and we lose a user because of personal attacks. This, to me, is not "understandable" or acceptable, and therefore I'm not going to drop it.

So, Hetar has made his story clear. He has been through some dispute resolution, and yet Michael Hardy, years later, is posting on his talk page and calling him names. It seems to me that one of two things is true. One, he is being unreasonable to ask that Michael Hardy leave him alone on his talk page. Two, he is being reasonable to ask Michael Hardy to leave him alone. If #1 is true, then someone should politely explain to him why his request is not reasonable. If #2 is the case, then an administrator needs to get involved and make sure that someone explains to Michael Hardy that this isn't acceptable and that he has to stop, and back it up with action when and if Michael posts on Hetar's page again. The reality is that Michael Hardy has sysop rights on this website. It may very well be that the reasons of every administrator who has looked at this thread and not gotten involved have had nothing to do with the fact that Michael is an administrator. That still does not change the conclusion that the community can draw from this situation is that admistrators are above policies like WP:NPA. I might not feel that way (clearly), and you (the person reading this, not Mhc mht) might not feel that way, but that conclusion is still possible to draw from this set of circumstances. Darkspots (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Has been through some dispute resolution"? What does that mean, specifically, in this case? I think he posted on the "third opinion" page, and IIRC nobody answered. My reason for raising this again after, as you say, everybody did "stop it", is mentioned above: some issues were never dealt with. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The constant thread through your defense of your edits, Michael Hardy, is to compare your edis to the edits of other users. What you do not seem to do is compare your edits to the standards set by policy. You in effect are asking, if Newyorkbrad can characterize my edits as "uncivil", why can I not tell Hetar that he is a "hateful boor"? Why should my insults not be compared to the offense of Hetar's actions? What I believe you are failing to take into account is that WP:NPA is not a policy with an exemption for dealing with difficult users. I also wonder if you've noticed any of the short threads that have come and gone during this discussion with incivility reported, blocks and/or warnings issued, no fanfare. Darkspots (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I was not insulting him; I was accusing him. You're saying there have been threads where incivility is reported. But you tell me that when I am the one who reports incivility, then that is incivility on my part. Does policy say that I am the only one who is forbidden to report inciviility? It seems to be conventional practice to complain to the uncivil person that he is uncivil, before reporting it here on this page. That is what I did: I complained to Hetar of his incivility on his talk page. I used the word "boor" rather than "uncivil", and somehow that's being considered a different thing. I also said "hateful" and that appears to be factually correct: he hates me, for no reason at all that he's willing to identify. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Misplaced Pages community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia." The first paragraph of WP:NPA. Other users have commented on your edits; instead of commenting strictly on Hetar's behavior, you have summed him up as a person, made a judgement, and delivered in an attacking way; an insult. An attack. A violation of our policies. People feel differently when someone attacks them, personally, rather than decrying one or more of their edits. You could be driving contributors away with these sorts of edits. This hurts the project. I will not compare your edits to the potential lost edits of these contributors, and say one outweighs the other. I do think it is possible for you to convey your dismay with something without calling other editors mentally challenged or boors or liars. Quite effectively, in fact, and in a way that is much less likely to "deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia". Darkspots (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Have I ever called anyone mentally challenged or a liar? Michael Hardy (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• • boor , referring to User:Hetar.
  • mentally challenged , referring to User:SatyrTN.
  • liar , referring to User:Kurykh. Darkspots (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Well I can certainly claim that I was defending the victim against the bully when I wrote that second word, and I confidently stand by the word "liar". There really are such things as honesty and dishonesty. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

...in the case of "Satyr", I should have said that he was irresponsible and should have paid attention when he did that particular edit. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Colorado Avalanche had to be fully protected

Just a note regarding that article. It appears to have been the target of a coordinated attack today. Please see the last 250 edits. Enigma Review 17:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There's still vandalism there, see this diff: . The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Some admin please remove the last sentence from the "Jerseys" section. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Scarian 18:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Question: in a situation like this, where there's an apparent coordinated attack, are we blocking registered users on sight? 'cuz several of them were indeffed without warning, or with one warning after one edit; I warned a couple of them (trying to follow the general procedure for blocking), who were then blocked without further edits after the article was protected, and I feel silly now for not doing it myself. =P Tony Fox (arf!) 18:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Trolling of this type needs to be dealt with severely, I believe. They can always request unblocking. -- Flyguy649 18:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Just as an aside, a few of the users involved with this also vandalized the Jim Tressel article earlier in the week. I saw in some of the edits references to a local Detroit radio show, and I'm wondering if the hosts of this show are telling people to go vandalize the pages. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That would explain a lot. By the way, one IP went so far as to vandalize the entry at WP:RPP. Enigma Review 18:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and blocked the obvious perpetrators on sight. There weren't a great deal of them so that should slow down the vandal edits and I think it would be safe to unprotect the article soon. Doubt a user involved in such an attack would become a great contributor in the future if they low enough to coordinate disruption with other users.¤~Persian Poet Gal 18:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Normally I go back and warn all the vandals, but in this case there are simply too many anon vandals involved. The accounts are all indef-blocked, and that's the important part, I guess. Enigma Review 18:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect most of the accounts were throwaways anyway. No big loss. Not a particularly intelligent rivalry prank, really. Vandalism reverted, accounts blocked, and anyone reading won't know that anything happened. Good job, Wings fans. {rolleyes} Resolute 18:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm considering e-mailing the radio show in question. Do you think it's worth a shot, or is it just encouraging further coordinated vandalism? Enigma Review 19:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

radio show in question. Enigma Review 19:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

RBI.¤~Persian Poet Gal 19:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Did I miss something? How do we know, for a fact, that it was a radio station, specifically this one? And, *ahem* as a sidenote, don't group all of us Wings fans into the same group as vandals ;-) . - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you missed something. ;) Several of the vandals specifically referenced the radio show and its hosts. I would say there's a high probability that that radio show is responsible for the attacks on Jim Tressel and Colorado Avalanche. Enigma Review 19:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think emailing the show is just asking for trouble. The odds of them caring about[REDACTED] policy is close to none. The odds of them realizing they've got to someone and sending out a second wave, much higher.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. WP:BEANS. Just disappointed that we know what's behind this and can't do anything. I guess the other possibility would be to e-mail the actual station director, but per the responses here, that's not a great idea either. Enigma Review 19:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: It's confirmed that it was coordinated by the aforementioned radio station. User:Chaldean pointed me to this link, which discusses the coordinated disruption. Enigma Review 04:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)It was up all last night, but they took it down this morning. When I woke up, it was gone. I guess the people in charge don't want to be held responsible for the disruption. Enigma 15:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I am very embarassed as a Red Wings fan and a Detroiter. I am sick and tired of certian people out their taking Wiki for a joke and calling for the followers to do stupid things like this. Admins need to take quicker actions so that the non-Wiki people realize how quickly vandelism is stopped all at once. Situaitons like this actually can be used to promote Wiki's reputation if we handle it the right way. Chaldean (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

User:SynergeticMaggot

SynergeticMaggot (talk · contribs) a non-admin has twice closedMisplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nonviolent communication early. The first closure was within three hours of the nomination. This issue was raised at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts#User:SynergeticMaggot and his/her interpretation of WP:SPEEDYKEEP, from which I reopened the AfD as the closure wasnt within the criteria of WP:SPEEDYKEEP. After the reopening A number of users have explained that it doesnt meet Speedy Keep nor did it meet the requirements of WP:SNOW, yet SynergeticMaggot has again closed the afd this time citing Speedy Keep, Snow and WP:IAR.

SynergeticMaggot first action when logging on was to state he wanted nothing more to do with the discussion his next edit was to closed the AfD The second closure is well outside acceptable etiquette bordering on disruption to prove a point, rather than enter revert war over reopening the afd I like an uninvolved admin to review SynergeticMaggot's actions. Gnangarra 09:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't endorse the edit-warring (after being reverted once, he should have left it alone), but a speedy close was correct as there's no way it was getting deleted. I re-closed it as such. I have asked him not to edit-war on AFD closures ever again (if someone reverts your closure, don't edit war over it, admin or not - discuss discuss discuss). Neıl ☎ 09:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I did discuss it, and I reclosed appropriately (I look at it as fixing my mistakes). No intention of edit warring. For the purpose of disclosure, see here (but be mindful its a work in progress). SynergeticMaggot (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• The bigger issue here, IMHO, is not this one AfD, but rather that this user is walking all over WP:SPEEDYKEEP. Somehow, he seems to find these miraculous AfDs, where a group of editors all swoop in and vote and vote to keep, and then he closes it, and the AfD is listed for less than a day. I admit, it seems the Nonviolent Communication AfD was facing WP:SNOW, but standard practice and indeed common courtesy dictate that an AfD that is nominated in good faith and not withdrawn remain open at least one day. When I and others broached the subject on his talk page, and at Wikiquette alerts, we were met with nothing but derision and dismissive, even insulting arguments. The other issue I mentioned was not marking his closures as non-admin, and SynergeticMaggot's solution to this is to add the letters "NAC" to his closes, without linking it. A new or inexperienced user would still not know what is going on. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Zaphod above has a point. A non-admin should make sure that the closing was clearly and explicitly a non-admin closing. "NAC" doesn't quite fit the bill. John Carter (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the latest example, and I would add, in light of this page that this may all be in order to make a WP:POINT. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree at all - while edit warring, back and forth open and closures shouldn't have been done, SynergeticMaggot is simply WP:IAR for the sake of Misplaced Pages. Careful with WP:POINT as it is reserved for users who are deliberately attempting to disrupt wikipedia. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 18:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but neither IAR nor SNOW came into this conversation until I brought them up, then he started adding them as rationales to the same types of hasty closures. I just don't see what the rush is, why he feels a debate has to be closed in three or four hours instead of letting it run at least a day. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The whole "non-admin closure" thing is asinine anyway. If someone has concerns over the closure of a deletion debate, they can discuss it with the closer, admin or not. Either the debate was closed in accordance with consensus, or it wasn’t. A "non-admin closure" label just encourages straw-graspers to revert the close for no particular reason at all. Indeed, the only users who should be reverting non-admin closures are administrators. ➪HiDrNick! 20:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Beeblebrow: what you have to realize is the after the AfD was reopened, MangoJuice voiced a keep response, thus meeting a criteria for SNOW located on the WP:NAC page. I'd like to specify that I don't need another editor to bring SNOW up to use it closing an AfD. Agreed, I don't like non admin's overturning AfD closures either, but it happens. Maybe a change here and there needs to take place. DRV is a better venue though. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, what concerns me is not just this one closure, hence why it is not a DRV. What concerns me is that you make a habbit out of closing AfD debates that have been open less than a day. Now, I am all for improving articles, and I know that sometimes an article has the very problem that made it a candidate for AfD fixed while it is there. For the record, I think that is great. I would much rather see an article get turned into useful content than for it to be deleted. That having been said, if the article really has been improved, the improvements will speak for themselves and the "Keep" votes will come rolling in, not just from those who made the improvements, but from other users who see the improved article, and from those, like myself, who re-visit AfD's they've voted in to see if anything has changed. Leaving the AfD open for scrutiny a little longer gives other editors a chance to see the changes for themselves and evaluate the new, improved article, and can end up actually strengthening the argument for keeping. Rushing to a speedy keep when the very narrow criteria at WP:SPEEDYKEEP have not been met makes it look like you are trying to avoid scrutiny and just railroad through a quick keep. That's all I've been trying to say all along and I hope you understand my point. Beeblbrox (talk) 06:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh I understand. Really I do. I just disagree with you. Once 5-6 editors have suggested keeping, its a snowball. And after reviewing the history, the editors, and contributors and the opinions, its closed (there really is no difference between 6 keeps and 16, a keep is a keep). Speedy keep just denotes its closed sooner than the 5 day period. You don't have to agree with me at all. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I hate to go here, but you are Wikilawyering. That is, switching your defenses around when they don't seem to work, citing something when it suits your purposes, then discarding it when it does not work anymore, and trying to use the letter of guidelines like WP:SNOW and WP:SPEEDYKEEP but not the spirit of them. I don't have issue with rescuing an article from deletion, but, if the "Keep" votes mostly come from the rescuers themselves, that needs to be taken into account when closing. You still have not explained what the big hurry is to close, why you feel these AfD debates have to be shut down in a few hours, and, since you have now added WP:IAR to your reasoning, how your actions help the project more than the accepted practice of leaving it open at least a day. Also, is anyone else still reading this? I had hoped we would get a little more input from uninvolved parties here, since the two of us have gone around and around with this and seem to be at an impasse. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still reading this. I've worked (I assume rather well, SM, correct me if I'm wrong), with SynMag in the past. My question, Beeblbrox, is a simple one. Do you have a problem with the closes, or with the timing of the closes? Have any of the closes that you've witnessed specifically been ultimately wrong? I'm not saying yes or no here, leaving that to you. However, what I will ask, SynMag, since this seems to be a problem for at least one of your co-editors, and since it has come up before in your NACs, would you be willing to self-monitor yourself to not close anything with a date stamp that is the same day as your close? (regardless of SNOW, regardless of IAR?) As an admin, and as a regular Afd closer myself, I very rarely if ever close anything on the same datestamp that it is opened, as it can be seen (regardless of the # of !voters), as a bite of a slap to the nominator (again, right or wrong, at least one editor felt an article needed to be discussed). Would you agree to not close on the same datestamp going forward so this can all be put behind you/beeblbrox, and ANI? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally see no reason why SynergeticMaggot is so eager to be closing these AfDs so quickly. Since his closes have only been getting him in trouble, and there is no harm in leaving an AfD open for more than a day (besides cases of speedy deletions or BLPs), I'd say he should seriously restrict his AfD closes altogether, including completely refraining from closing same-days. GlassCobra 19:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that what I said? :-) If it is, thank you for agreeing with me. If it isn't, then what you said GlassCobra, is what I meant. I'm hoping it will come down to a "self-restriction" instead of a "community restriction". I've seen SM make some very good closes, in fact, I would say the majority of the time, his closes are valid, timely, and accurate. But there has been drama, so I'm hoping he is still reading this and would agree to slow it down. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you both for your remarks. Keeper, if I understand the intent of your question correctly, you are maybe asking if in retrospect they aren't bad closes so what is the harm and maybe we should IAR and let it go? Maybe you have a point there, we are all supposed to be here to build an encyclopedia, not to yell at each other, and, to be honest, I hate spending my wiki-time quibbling over little details instead of editing articles. Having said that, yes, I do have a problem with the timing of the closes, and not just because one of them was at "my" AfD, but because AfDs, unless they are begun in bad faith, deserve a reasonable period of time for comment by a variety of editors before closure. If we go way back here to where this whole thing started, it seems clear that what I mentioned above about Wikilawyering holds true. This seems to me to be more a matter of civility and honesty when dealing with fellow editors, as opposed to the specifics of these AfDs. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your civil response, Beeb. The intent of my question was to basically ask if this could be solved/resolved outside of ANI. I'm hoping SM will reply here/your talk/my talk with a self-imposed (and really, not just him, but any AFD closer), "wait at least one day, even if it's gonna be SNOWed". Hoping for a positive response from SM. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Continued revert warring and continued incivility of User:RedSpruce

User:RedSpruce has continued revert warring in article: G. David Schine. He doesn't like the quote function being used in the citations and continues to remove them. At RS request there was an RFC to determine whether quotes in citations were helpful for the article, or distracting. Two people responded that they benefited the article rather than distracted the reader. User:TonyTheTiger and User:Alansohn responded to the RFC with comments or by reverting the deletion of the quotes.

Why quotes in citations are important

• This appears in the Schine article: "Schine and Cohn were rumored to have a sexual relationship, although there has never been any proof of this. More recently, some historians have concluded it was a friendship and that Schine was heterosexual." Well, what exactly did those people say about Schine? To check the references, you would have to buy the books or get it from a library, and up to a month ago have to buy the article from the New York Times. You would also have to read the entire article to find the sentence quoted. You can't just use control-f to find the quote by typing in "gay" or "homosexual" or "heterosexual" because Tom Wolfe doesn't use any of those words. If we want to make Misplaced Pages better we need to make it easier to vet the article and harder to add in subtle nonsense. Anything that makes it easier to fact check the article is an improvement. The quotes consist of a single sentence or two. I am adding the quote when I am doing the fact checking, its a burden to require the next person to rebuy the article and reread the entire article just to patrol articles for reliability. With the actual words used now preserved, you can type the phrase into Google and refind the article, and the section of the article quoted. I have used it effectively in the past to reconnect links to moved web pages, especially when Associated Press is the source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• This appeared in the article: "He remained active in the private sector as a businessman and an entrepreneur, working in the hotel, music, and film industries, and he was a founding member of the Young Presidents' Organization."

The above cited reference makes no mention of Schine as a "founding member" of Young Presidents' Organization. So, I would say that going through the article and adding citations, and providing the actual quote, if the citation matches the information in the article is helpful and not distracting to the reader. The revert warring doesn't improve the article, only careful research, and careful fact checking does. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Miller, Neil (1995). "Out of the Past: Gay and Lesbian History from 1869 to the Present". New York: Vintage Books. Ironically, it was the inordinate concern on the part of McCarthy and his chief counsel, Roy M. Cohn, regarding the military server of McCarthy committee aid G. David Schine — a concern that may or may not have had a homosexual element to it — that was to precipitate the Army-McCarthy hearings that finally brought down the Washington senator.
2. Wolfe, Tom (April 3, 1988). "Dangerous Obsessions". New York Times. But so far as Mr. Schine is concerned, there has never been the slightest evidence that he was anything but a good-looking kid who was having a helluva good time in a helluva good cause. In any event, the rumors were sizzling away ... {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
3. Baxter, Randolph (November 13, 2006). "An Encyclopedia of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Culture". glbtq, Inc. Tall, rich, and suave, the Harvard-educated (and heterosexual) Schine contrasted starkly with the short, physically undistinguished, and caustic Cohn. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
4. On the other hand, author Tom Wicker refers to Schine as "Cohn's boyfriend:" Wicker, Tom (1995). Shooting Star: The Brief Arc of Joe McCarthy. Harcourt. pp. pp. 127, 138 & 166. ISBN 015101082X. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
5. McNees, Pat. "YPO: The First 50 Years".

Previous ANIs include

• ANI against RS
• RS ANI against me
• Second ANI against RS result was 24 hour block.

Past Redspruce incivility

• "You are a complete idiot and moron. Please take your stupidity to some other article."
• "It's obvious now that you don't know how to read ANY English at all. That being the case, you should not be trying to edit the English language Misplaced Pages. Please go away."
• "Since you don't, and have never, given any valid reason for the inclusion of the unnecessary, repetitious, distracting and pointless quotes in your footnotes, I assume you have no such reason. Here you don't even attempt to present an argument, but instead entertain yourself with paranoid fantasies about other editor's motivations. My motivation, in fact, is to make this article look less like it was written by someone with a communication disorder."
• "It's a tricky lil' ol' thing, trying to write in comprehensible English, isn't it? You should stick to copy-and-pasting."

Removal of quotes from article

Removal of quotes from article post RFC:

• 05:32, April 24, 2008
• 05:15, April 23, 2008 edit summary: "several corrections to hideous sentence structure, etc."

Removal of quotes from article pre RFC:

• 06:06, April 21, 2008

Removal of quotes from article pre RFC:

• 05:56, April 20, 2008
• 08:00, April 19, 2008

The above report was made by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Hiberniantears (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Attempts have been repeatedly made to expand a series of Joseph McCarthy-related articles that User:RedSpruce has taken strong WP:OWNership of. Efforts to add and revise material or add sources have been repeatedly and arbitrarily removed, often with no explanation or derogatory comments. In light of past and present incivility and edit warring, the time has already arrived to keep User:RedSpruce away from these articles. Alansohn (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Note to other admins - Potential article ban or Mediation required here? Scarian 15:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Concur I suggest Formal Mediation, and if that fails, an article ban will certainly be in order here. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I cautioned the user yesterday here. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Before y'all get too carried away with this little party, please note a few points:

• RAN's point above: "Second ANI against RS; result was 24 hour block." is inaccurate. No action was taken due to that ANI. I got the 24 hour block for 3RR violation.
• RAN has insulted me (by inventing various insult/fantasies about my motivations in opposing some of his edits) far more often than I've insulted him. See here, here, here, here, here and here.
• Alansohn's entry above is a complete fiction; I'll be happy to defend and explain any edit I've made to any article.
• What Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles "cautioned" me against was objecting to RAN's insults. I realize that the best response to insults is to ignore them, but I don't believe that it's WP policy that objecting to insults is an actionable offense.
• Part of the heading to this ANI is "continued incivility". No "continued incivility" has been mentioned, nor is there any to mention. The closest I've come to incivility is referring to RAN's defamations against me (see above) as "moronic insults."

RedSpruce (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe "continued incivility" comes from the fact that we keep having to come to ANI to discuss your edits. ANI 1 ANI 2 ANI 3 ANI 4 --Smashville 15:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Smashville, but that makes no sense to me. RAN dislikes the fact that I continue to oppose some of his edits, and so he opened this ANI. By what path of reasoning does that become "therefor RedSpruce is guilty of continued incivility"? If you have a complaint, it should be that RAN has opened a frivolous and dishonest ANI. RedSpruce (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Now the quote removal has moved over to Melvin Purvis, can someone please take a look over there.

Post ani, and post rfc quote removal:

• 05:38, April 25, 2008 quote removal

pre ani pres rfc quote removal:

• 04:44, April 23, 2008 quote removal
• 13:09, April 22, 2008 quote removal
• 09:32, April 22, 2008 quote removal

I have tried trimming the quotes as a compromise, but they still get deleted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

My own articulation of this dispute with RAN's style of referencing is here: User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#Discussion. This was posted to RAN's talk page a week ago, but as of this writing he hasn't seen fit to respond. RedSpruce (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Adminpedia

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

Discussion closed as There is no cabal. The editors being questioned have been empowered by ArbCom to handle the issues with these articles. This is not the venue to report abuse, it should be taken to ArbCom for review. Lara❤Love 18:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A group of admins including

• Raul654 (talk · contribs)
• Lawrence Cohen (talk · contribs)
• east718 (talk · contribs)
• Raymond arritt (talk · contribs)

seems to be:

1. unilaterally deciding on content issues systematically overriding the consensus and the ongoing discussions
2. implementing these decisions by means of topic bans on the people they disagree with about the content issues in very specific edits
3. also not respecting the arbcom sentence who clearly states that any "discretionary sanction" should be preceded by a warning.

These are facts:

• Thomas Basboll (talk · contribs):
  • He civilly discussed a proposed edit in a Talk page and made a straw poll evidencing unanimous consensus between several editors usually having different point of views and receiving no opposition at all
  • He implemented his proposal specifying that anyone disagreeing had to feel free to revert
  • Thomas immediately banned without any previous warning because: the admins above unilaterally decided that his edit was "POV pushing" (despite the consensus on the talk page displayed completely different opinions).

• Pokipsy76 (talk · contribs) (myself)
  • User:Haemo removed a paragraph (summary: "per WP:BLP") without any previous discussion, a paragraph which:
    • was in the article since months without any opposition
    • was never discussed before (at least since months)
  • I reverted the edit asking to check the consensus before (a very common behaviour when unilateral possibly disputable changes are made (*))
  • the subsequent discussion on the talk page about the alleged BLP issues showed no consensus about whether the paragraph actually violated WP:BLP
  • Pokipsy76 immediately banned without any previous warning because: the admins above unilaterally decided the revert was actually a "an article probation violation and a BLP violation all in one" (despite there was no consensus between editors about such a policy violation).

• Wowest (talk · contribs):
  • an editor asked to delete a section here and received opposition by all other users who replyed to him (i.e. consensus was to not delete)
  • another editor not involved in the discussion unilaterally decided to removed the section (summary: "rm uncited commentary")
  • Wowest reverted the deletion (Summary:"Restoring large section deleted without discussion or consensus")
  • Wowest banned because: the admins above unilaterally decided that his revert "runs afoul of our policies on original research and verifiability" (despite the consensus on the talk page was definitely to not delete)
• Xiutwel (talk · contribs)
  • this is the most astonishing case, an admin unilaterally decided to ban him indefinitely without any previous warning "after reviewing the arbitration enforcement posting concerning him" (NB: the arbcom didn't sanction Xiutwel) "and looking at this edit" (i.e. Xiutwel gave a warning about the arbcom decisions on a user talk page).

Worth noting that these 4 editors were all described by the person asking for these bans to be "POV pushers" promoting "fringe views" and making "tendentious pro-Truther soapboxing". "The time for nonsense on these articles has come and gone" he concluded. So this seems to be a sort of an "ideological" war where people respecting consensus and freely expressing and discussing their opinion are banned because admins disagree with their opinions about very specific content issues, even when these opinions reflect the consensus(!!)

I think this is an incredible series of abuses with exagerately severe sanctions for having done absolutely nothing, a series which will probably continue unless some kind of authority is going to stop or control these admins. I think[REDACTED] shouldn't toletate this kind of abuses.

Any comment by completely uninvolved admins and users will be appreciated.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(*) See for istance Okiefromokla, Ice Cold Beer, Rx StrangeLove, Okiefromokla 2, Rx StrangeLove 2, Haemo 1, Haemo 2

Just to let you know, Lawrence Cohen and Raymond Arritt aren't admins. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:12, 24 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Raymond must be an admin since he banned me.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Your block log says otherwise. Mayalld (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No he didn't.-Wafulz (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)User:East718 blocked you, not Raymon. He says in his block summary that you were being blocked for violation of your topic ban -- not for messing with an article that was on probation for BLP concerns. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:18, 24 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he blocked me because of the violation of the ban of Raymond.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

:::::What ban of Raymond's? Raymond is not an admin and cannot enforce a ban. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Whoops, so he is. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

He did, see here.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Actually I was wrong about that -- Raymond is an admin Raymond arritt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Sorry. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:32, 24 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Other facts - at least one of those four is not an admin. Orderinchaos 15:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm abusive because I supported giving Pokipsy76 (talk · contribs) a topic ban because of this egregious violation of WP:BLP, WP:V, and the general probation on these articles, as he inserted here, attacking BLP subject Larry Silverstein? I'm abusive for that?

Popkipsy, under what right did you add this BLP violation? You should be banned for that kind of nonsense, not just topic banned. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually

1. it is your opinion that there is a WP:BLP violation
2. this opinion didn't have the cosnensus in the discussion page
3. I don't see how my opinion about whether it was a WP:BLP violation, if wrong, should result in a ban. Are you suggesting that if instead you are wrong then you deserve a ban?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a BLP violation, because it makes claims about a Living Person and offers no sources that explicitly back said claims. They may be true, they may not be - but you cannot, cannot, cannot add such material with tags. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 15:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point, possibly I was wrong about this however I didn't ask to keep the text, I asked to discuss before. But now let's talk about the bans instead!!--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You edit warred to insert a BLP violation: if I were watching that article and saw this, and I were an admin, you would be on an enforced 24-hour break for that action. BLP is non-negotiable. No BLP vio? What do you call saying a living person profited and took a payout on the destruction of the World Trade Center and deaths of 2000+ people, UNSOURCED? Someone please topic ban this fella from any BLP period if this is the mindset we're dealing with. Your services are absolutely not welcome on any BLP if you believe this, Pokipsy. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Asking to discuss unilateral changes from previously estabilished version of the article before implementing them is normal practice, if this would be "edit warring" then I we are full of edit warriors.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And you don't need consensus to remove it. --Kbdank71 15:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It was the estabilished version of the article since months. People usually says that consensus is needed to change from the estabilished version. Don't you agree with this common practice?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not for BLP vios, no. --Kbdank71 17:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Which policies make exception?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a textbook WP:BLP violation. That's clear. — Scientizzle 15:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

1. It seems to be not so clear if there has been a discussion on the talk page reaching no consensus.
2. Misplaced Pages works through discussion and consensus, not through unilateral edits pretending to be the correct interpretation of the policy
3. It's not clear why if my interpretation of the policy is wrong in a particular case then I should be banned without any discussion, unless of course you are assuming I am editing in bad faith--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

For everyone's benefit: here's the current ArbCom enforcement discussion regarding each of these editors... — Scientizzle 15:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Look at this edit summary: "BLP does not apply to this entire section". Also, I've asked for semiprotection on RFPP for this article. This is a BLP nightmare. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Popkipsy, this is a tertiary source reference encyclopedia with very clear policies about its content relating to living persons. This policy is not subject to consensus, nor is it open to much interpretation. If you don't understand this by now, I don't think you should be editing BLP articles. Misplaced Pages is not the place to speculate, or even report on such speculation, about any living person's supposed undocumented thoughts, motives or actions relating to murder or property crimes. It doesn't matter a wit if there is any truth or likelyhood to it, it's still speculation about a living person. Please take it somewhere else. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, let's avoid to talk about whether I was wrong or right. It would not be a problem for me to recognize I have been wrong about an interpretation of a policy in this or that case. This is not my point. The problem I wanted to discuss here is how personal opinions on very specific content issues are being used to ban people without any discussion and without warnings. Did yopu read all the cases above? Does all of this seem an acceptable behaviour on your eyes?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You need to file with the Arbitration Committee, not here, if you feel it's unfair. The incredible misbehavior on these articles long-term caused an RFAR, and the Committee gave the community carte blanche to act on these perceived problems. File a new RFAR for review if this is not right. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Forget warnings Pokipsy, you've had plenty. Blocks can be lifted. Can you say anything which might sway editors into thinking you have some understanding of Misplaced Pages's policies on biographies of living persons and will abide by their meaning and intent? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Which warnings are you referring to? I never had warnings.
2. Why are you concentrating so much on me and my alleged "BLP violation" like if it was the worst thing a person could ever do? The topic is a series of *bans* given to user who edited in good faith and according to the consensus.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an issue of policy, not a content dispute per se. This is a textbook violation of WP:BLP's letter and spirit. The ArbCom case suggests that this is not a new or isolated problem. "Banning people of opposing viewpoints" is a somewhat selective reading of what's going on here; I think that "banning editors who insist on ignoring basic policy and using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox after exhausting the community's patience and every level of dispute resolution" would perhaps be more accurate. Given the length, scope, and ugliness of this dispute, I don't see the absence of one more warning not to violate policy as a major problem.

ArbCom empowered uninvolved admins to deal with the mess that has been created on the articles. Uninvolved admins are dealing with it. You can appeal their actions here, but know that pretty much any admin with a basic understanding of WP:BLP is going to find an insistence of reinserting this sort of thing problematic. Additionally, editors who perseverate in using Misplaced Pages as a platform to amplify and expand on a specific minoritarian view are generally considered detrimental to the project of building a respectable, reliable reference work, which is the ultimate goal here and drives the sanctions you're objecting to. MastCell  16:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Why are you insisting so much about a single alleged misinterpretation of a policy as if it would justify any kind of sanction whatsoever?
2. Why do you think my opinion about the WP:DUE weight about minoritarian view is wrong without having ever discussed this issue with me?
3. Is it really all right according to you that an admin deliberately ignore discussion and consensus and decide to ban people according to his opinion about content issues like WP:DUE or WP:OR even when the user is acting according to the consensus?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop trying to deflect from the larger issues. There is an arbitration committee sanction and probation in place. While the community is fully within it's rights to ignore or overturn any arbitration committee action it deems unsound, I really, really, really doubt we'd do so on this one. Take it up at WP:RFAR please. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking for third party opinions about a situation I consider to be problematic, what's the problem with this?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ask all you want, but you're in the wrong venue for any action on it. WP:RFAR is where you need to be. Is there a reason you won't bring this before the committee with evidence of wrongdoing, impropriety, or malfeasance? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• If the purpose of this complaint was to encourage those who support NPOV to heartily congratulate these four brave souls for taking on the mess of POV-pushing which is the 9/11 articles, then I will join whatever chorus arises to laud them. Raul, Lawrence, East and Raymond: well done. Guy (Help!) 17:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  You seem to be just deliberately ignoring the problem raised by me and trying to turn the discussion into a POV war.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Pokipsy76, what on earth did you think was going to happen when the Arbcomm case was decided that way? Nothing? You could just ignore it?--Filll (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I could never imagine that admins would be allowed to ignore consensus and ban whoever they disagree with about content issues. Maybe I have a too good idea of wikipedia?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should bring this to RFAR as directed instead of sniping here. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Pokipsy, the issue is that you inserted unsourced material into the article in violation of BLP. The fact that this material was in the article previously is immaterial. The fact of whether or not the material is true is immaterial. If Reliable Sources are provided that document claims about living persons, then they can be inserted - but, no matter how long the material was in the article or how true it may be, it had no sources. There is no consensus to be had, no debate, no discussion - it was about a living person and had no sources. The correct course, topic ban aside, would be to go to the talk page and offer sources to document the claim or ask the editor who removed it for clarification. You did neither. While I understand your frustration, I cannot recommend arbitration for this issue, as I believe it to be unlikely in the extreme that the committee would review the case. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 17:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

But I'm not claiming to have been right when reverting, I'm just claiming to have behaved in good faith. Anybody can have a good faith wrong opinion about a policy and ask to discuss. The problem is how this edit has been claimed to deserve a ban (without any previous warning), the problem is also all those other edits supported by the consensus claimed to deserve bans to the users listed above. Actually nobody is addressing the problem I am talking about.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Drop the stick and back away from the deceased E. caballus. Sceptre 17:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit too soon to pretend that the discussion is dead, isn't it?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't, this has been going on for way too long. In any case, the first Arbitration enforcement request wasn't about BLP anyway, it was this: which was a revert in a long line of reverts. You had a whole Arbcom case as a warning. As did others. RxS (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I find strange that when the victim of a sanction related to the arbcom ruling was MONGO the discussion could widely develop in this same discussion page without any oppopition while when the victims are common users the discussion is closed because now "This is not the venue to report abuse" anymore.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Repeated insults by Libro0

Libro0 has left several insulting messages (basically calling me childish) on my talk page and when he/she leaves edit summaries. Please take proper sanctions against this person. --I Hate CAPTCHAS (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What he said was not nice, but not something which anyone is going to block him for. I suggest, in the future, asking for some help from people who have dedicated time to explaining civility to others rather than requesting blocks. --Haemo (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The truth of the matter is that I make appropriate contributions to Misplaced Pages. I am trying to uphold the standards of this site. I Hate CAPTCHAS is persistent in obstructing this. It should have been my place to report an incident. However, I have been the one trying to use the proper communication channels without success. I have made my case and I would appreciate it if I Hate CAPTCHAS would cease diminishing the quality of this site. Libro0 (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Threat of Violence

Another suicide threat has been posted. Based on the past responses to this situation can we have immediate checkuser assistance and contact of the authorities?¤~Persian Poet Gal 22:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I just left a note on User:Deskana's talk page. Hopefully he is online. Rgoodermote  22:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I'm here. Hold on. --Deskana (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully this is a bluff from a stupid kid. Rgoodermote  22:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is being handled as we speak. It's likely that we won't take any action, it seems as if it's not a serious suicide note... --Deskana (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully it isn't serious. Mark resolved?done with out me noticing. Rgoodermote  22:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Threats of Violence is an excellent resource for these sorts of things. Bstone. Per WP:TOV, this is not a specific threat of violence but rather seems to be vandalism. A specific threat would be someone stating their intention to harm themself or others, a time/date/location and/or a mechanism. (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Since i watch that page, and noted that comment, when it was a legal not suicide threat, i should have reported them for them the legal threat. I apologise--Jac16888 (talk) 03:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

They would have been indefed for legal threats anyway. Their reaction was way out of line.¤~Persian Poet Gal 03:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Autoblock. - auburnpilot talk 17:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Editor removing speedy deletion tag

On the article Real social dynamics, User:Seresin has repeatedly remove the tag for speedy deletion that I added because it is a repost of Real Social Dynamics, which was deleted by AfD (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Real Social Dynamics (2nd nomination)) and is now salted because it was repeatedly being recreated.

The user now threatens to report me for 3RR if I restore the tag again. Presumably this editor is associated with this non-notable company. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not. The article that was deleted is not significantly close enough to the article as it stands now to meet the criterion. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

How do I know? The article is deleted and only visible to administrators. I do know that is is about the same company, which was decided by the AfD to be non-notable. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks really close to me. --Haemo (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It is up for AfD so let it just roll through AfD. Rgoodermote  23:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of the content has been re-written, and is less spammy than the first article, which was a concern in the AfDs. In addition, I am mostly noting that there are many more sources on the new article. While it may end up not passing the new AfD, I do not see enough similarity to the deleted article to require speedy deletion. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The current version appears to have substantive differences with the deleted versions from 9 February 2007 or 24 January 2007. That said, it still appears to fall far short of having notability proven via reliable, third-party, published sources. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The way, the truth, and the light, why are you wasting our time here? Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is an admin and has declined your request for speedy deletion. I would say "if you do not like having the speedy declined, send it to Afd" ... but it is already there. If you make the bad decision to edit war with an admin over a declined {{db-repost}} tag, then I fear that a 3RR block is the least of your concerns. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The above response seems a tad bit overboard to me. Bstone (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I was not aware that he was an admin and thus could legitimately remove the tag. Had he told me that, I would have stopped. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 07:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Anybody can remove a speedy tag except for the editor who originally created the article. Corvus cornix_talk 15:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused on this. Why does it matter that User:Seresin is an admin? As far as I have been made aware anyone that isn't the author of an article is allowed to remove the speedy tags. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

MyWikiBiz-like on Craigslist

I recently saw a Craigslist posting which purported to be an administrator who would post articles on Misplaced Pages for money. This is troubling, and I'd like to help put an end to it, as it clearly goes against our principles.

Specifically, the page in question is this Craigslist post.

Here's hoping to stop this abuse. Nihiltres 23:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Meh - if an article meets policy, who really cares why a person wrote it? Kelly 23:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

…Because there was an ArbCom case about the last person I heard about who did it? Because it constitutes a blatant misuse of community trust? Nihiltres 00:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm - he says "I've made hundreds of articles for business and individuals that didn't exactly fit Misplaced Pages's Notability Guidelines". So - who's got their own business and fancies seeing it on Misplaced Pages? After all, "You will not be charged until your article is up"! Black Kite 00:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So what are we going to do about it - sleuth the person out with a sting operation, or witch-hunt all admins for the most likely suspect? Let it go - if the article is spam or not notable, someone will spot it. Let it go, Misplaced Pages is not the Department of Homeland Security. Kelly 00:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, if this is not followed up on in the same manner as the previous case, the community, and more significantly, the administrators, look like hypocrites. That's not really an acceptable outcome, unless, corollary to ignoring this instance, the prior offender is unblocked, which no one wants to do. ThuranX (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to disillusion you, but I'm afraid the community and the administrators look like hypocrites every day. Kelly 00:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a waste of resources we don't have to investigate any and all vague claims of abuse -- need something actionable or at least specific enough to reasonably look into. This sort of thing does worry me, but I won't be losing sleep over it until we have evidence of some sort. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no illusions about the admins, Kelly. But encouraging reforms isn't a bad thign to me, sorry you so clearly disagree. ThuranX (talk) 04:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If he's really an admin, something should probably be done, but otherwise, its not all that much different from the Bounty Board is it? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 00:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

C'mon folks...who wouldn't want a "Professiona" article about their business? — Scientizzle 00:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone got a business email that wants to contact them? Mr.Z-man 00:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone stupid enough to believe the "permanent" tagline deserves to lose $200. Even an administrator can't keep an article up on Misplaced Pages if the subject doesn't meet the inclusion criteria. --clpo13_(talk) 00:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been pulled. Horologium (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record..the ad (from http://albuquerque.craigslist.org/bfs/651334771.html)

"Reply to: sale-651334771@craigslist.org

Date: 2008-04-21, 8:54PM MDT
I've made hundreds of articles for business and individuals that didn't exactly fit Misplaced Pages's "Notability Guidelines." I am a longtime trusted Misplaced Pages Administrator and Editor and clients are always thrilled by my ability to build them a website. Please email me by verifying your identity someone (for example, if it's a business with a website please email me from YourName @ Business Name .Com)

I need to make sure you're not a Misplaced Pages spy. :) Dozens of references available.

Articles on the wonders of Misplaced Pages

http://www.straightupsearch.com/archives/2007/10/three_reasons_w.html

http://www.thegooglecache.com/white-hat-seo/966-of-wikipedia-pages-rank-in-googles-top-10/

http://s281.photobucket.com/albums/kk231/googrankwizard/?action=view&current=FINAL.jpg "

The image used in the ad (at bottom) is sourcing from this account(googrankwizard) → http://s281.photobucket.com/albums/kk231/googrankwizard/. I'd suspect as far as promotions that the two links (or contained therin) may have some clues to this SEO'ers ident. Not seen many spammers pass up a chance to place a link to their site. IMHO--Hu12 (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A Google search for "googrankwizard" returns http://www.getafreelancer.com/users/648493.html Nakon 01:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

yup, and http://www.freelancefree.com/freelancers.php?viewprofile=googrankwizard →Provider Name: "Eli Faria" --Hu12 (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

From http://www.freelancefree.com/project.php?id=1205850228

googrankwizard US$150 90 day(s) 03/25/08 at 22:39:41
Misplaced Pages Articles are the best SEO on earth. 96.6% of Misplaced Pages Pages Rank in Google’s Top 10 for any given query. Even if you already have a business or personal website, it’s highly likely that a Misplaced Pages article will be found above it in a related search. Misplaced Pages entries will invariably raise your Google Page Rank. But more importantly, Misplaced Pages entries add legitimacy to your “brand” or to you as an individual. I cannot disclose how I get articles onto Misplaced Pages, so please don’t ask me. Unless you’re already a famous business or a famous individual it's nearly impossible to meet their strict "notability guidelines." People try making their own articles only to see them immediately deleted and their IP's get blocked permenently. Adding entries to Misplaced Pages is a delicate process that requires some artfulness. Clients say they'd have paid 10 times as much if they known beforehand how much a Misplaced Pages article would boost their reputation and raise their profile. Contact me with the details on what you want your Misplaced Pages article to be about and I'll let you know what we can do with it. You will not be charged until your article is up on the site. Contact me at GoogRankWizard@Gmail.com

--Hu12 (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

At first glance, it seemed pretty shady but once I thought about it, I don't really see anything wrong with it. As long as it is on the level and this person is actually going to write a proper article about a subject (without using "tricks" or violating policy), I don't think it matters. Lots of our articles are built by employees of companies, we just don't know it because they follow the policies. Go Daddy has one, I've noticed. As long as it's done the right way and this editor is just offering his services as a writer/researcher, I've got no problem with it. Redrocket (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Eli Faria
Misplaced Pages Article Writer
Username: GoogRankWizard
Location: United States, NY, New York
Summary
I can write virtually anything but my favorite thing to do is Misplaced Pages Entries.
Misplaced Pages Entries are the best SEO on earth. 96.6% of Misplaced Pages Pages Rank in Googles Top 10 for any given query. Even if you already have a business or personal website, it is highly likely that a Misplaced Pages article will be found above it in a related search. Misplaced Pages entries will invariably raise your Google Page Rank. But more importantly, Misplaced Pages entries add legitimacy to your brand or to you as an individual.
Unless you are already a famous business or a famous individual it's nearly impossible to meet their strict "notability guidelines." People try making their own articles only to see them immediately deleted and their IP's get blocked permanently.
Contact me with the details on what you want your Misplaced Pages article to be about and I'll let you know what we can do with it.
You will not be charged until your article is up on the site.
Contact me at GoogRankWizard AT Gmail DOT com
About Me
Profile Type: Individual
Number of Employees: 1
Adding entries to Misplaced Pages is a delicate process that requires some artfulness. Clients say they'd have paid 10 times as much if they known beforehand how much a Misplaced Pages article would boost their reputation and raise their profile.
Contact me with the details on what you want your Misplaced Pages article to be about and I'll let you know what we can do with it.
You will not be charged until your article is up on the site.

http://www.elance.com/php/profile/main/eolproviderprofile.php?view_person=GoogRankWizard&type=seller&catid=10208 (googrankwizard.elance.com) --Hu12 (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is so much effort going into trying to out some guy for writing articles? Is the intention to make sure they feel some pain in real life? Kelly 01:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as it's done the right way and this editor is just offering his services as a writer/researcher, I've got no problem with it. - isn't that the same thing MyWikiBiz was doing? Didn't stop him from being banned - on the theory, I believe, that being paid would make him unable to write neutrally even if he were committed to doing so. --Random832 (contribs) 01:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

And that was a fucking awful ban, for precisely that reason. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with what he was doing. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

But extrinsically it was wrong--Hu12 (talk) 03:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand why a person writing an article for pay, who therefore has a business relationship with the subject, wouldn't automatically fall under COI? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 03:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course there's COI, but we the issue is we cannot police COI because a lot of the time we don't know about it. Someone editing an article about themselves or their company is clear COI, but we're likely not going to know unless the person registers under their own name. Enigma 03:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't like to see people editing with an ulterior motive. If they came up and knocked on Misplaced Pages's front door and said, 'I think I could write a useful article about so-and-so for Misplaced Pages, but I myself have a conflict of interest,' few people would object. If they try to slip the article in while pretending they are a normal neutral editor, that causes concern. The lack of transparency is the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand, the MyWikiBiz ban was made because Jimbo was worried about image. Although I hear that the user behind MyWikiBiz has also played some tricks on the community (in their frustration) since then, that would make unbanning unlikely, but the point still stands. The guy was very open about it, pledged to follow the policies, went to the community first before doing it, and got banned. -- Ned Scott 04:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

And what MyWikiBiz wanted to do was far better than this craigslist guy, who we can't even track. At least with MyWikiBiz we could see what the user was actually adding, and to where. -- Ned Scott 04:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Guys, don't you all remember that gift certificates have been offered on wiki for people who will improve core articles? As long as someone follows the policies, especially NPOV, being paid for editing is no big deal. In fact, it may help improve the project. Cla68 (talk) 04:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

In general, yes, totally agree, but this Craigslist guy seems to imply that he's not following the rules. -- Ned Scott 04:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

And also seems to imply that he can "get round" notability guidelines because he's an admin. Otherwise, I agree, as long as the articles are notable and neutral, there's no problem. Black Kite 10:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So long as policies are followed, who cares what motivates the writer of an article? The only time I ever start questioning motivation is when neutrality seems to be lacking. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this advertisement does not offer to do anything wrong. But what concerns me is that the person who entered it is an administrator. Though he does not in the least imply he would use administrative power, I am not sure that it is appropriate for one of us to do this anonymously. DGG (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The person says that are an administrator, but that is very likely a bluff. They are not going to reveal their identity, so there is no way to check. Paid editing with full disclosure might be acceptable, but doing it secretly is probably unethical. Fake grass roots publicity is called astroturfing and risks a backlash. When business folks ask me for help with their Misplaced Pages articles, I tell them to go to the talk page and state clearly who they are and what they want. Jehochman 14:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

a) We'll never know who it was (if indeed it was an admin), b) For every COI spotted there's probably 100 that isn't, c) There would be a lot more COI identified if we weren't so absurdly against people getting paid to edit (I surmise most of this is jealousy) d) My personal opinion is still that paid editing should be allowed, but paid editors encouraged to make themselves known - anything that impoves the encyclopedia is good e) Suggesting that being paid to write makes you non-neutral by default is ludicrous, naive, and stupid. Are scientists biased because they are paid? Are journalists? Authors? Rubbish. f) I'm offering a bribe right now on my userpage for someone to design me a pimping new one. Am I evil? Neıl ☎ 14:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Haha! I mean, no, but yes, I agree with you :) Now, along this line, stuff like astroturfing will almost always stir up worries, since it's spun upon a lie. Meanwhile if a paid editor is truly following policy, making mostly neutral, uncontroversial edits and quickly backing off from disputes, nobody would look twice. As for an admin doing this, I'd say asking for mandatory disclosure of any paid editing here by an admin would be more than reasonable. I'd also say that advertising editing services as a "Misplaced Pages administrator" would likely be much frowned upon, as I think it should be. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Neil, suggesting that being paid makes you non neutral is not a valid conclusion to draw. As for your bribe, you're only evil if it's not worth it. :) ++Lar: t/c 15:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I refuse to disclose how much I'm paid by the scientific/medical/industrial complex to ruthlessly suppress natural cures for cancer and AIDS from Tijuana available for the low, low price of... I've said too much. The idea that being paid leads to bias is uneasily accepted in the scientific world - but it is accepted, hence the need for the conflict-of-interest disclosures which accompany any reputable journal article. Personally, I think the punishment for pimping your company on Misplaced Pages is the Law Of Unintended Consequences. It would be a shame to get a deletion-proof advertisement up on Misplaced Pages, only to have an editor turn up a Federal Trade Commission or Better Business Bureau complaint... I wonder if this editor-for-hire apprises his clients of that possibility. MastCell  17:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

MyWikiBiz (Greg) was NOT "permanently" banned for offering paid editing. When Greg's advertising of his services came to light, his edits were evaluated and it was found that he had created a very biased article on himself (strike one); then Jimbo told him a process whereby he could submit articles and trusted wikipedians could add them or not but he (according to Jimbo) misrepresented those conversations (strike two) and tried to negotiate on[REDACTED] for a different process (I fought for him being able to add potential articles to his user sub-pages) but in doing so he ridiculed Jimbo (strike three). So Jimbo banned him. Then he sockpuppeted, got involved with Misplaced Pages Review and was treated like an enemy, turning him from a self promoter (I believe he is in marketing/advertising and feels that lying is wrong but spinning with half-truths to influence others is perfectly ok - but Durova called it "lying" so he is now mad at her for what he feels is a libelous unsourced charge) into someone motivated to hurt wikipedia. He seems to be calming down now, though. Maybe we can make peace with Greg. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Free Greg and let's get on with what we're doing here. Cla68 (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I note that no one's hit on the real bias problem for paid materials: Paid writers will not be paid to create NPOV articles, but articles which are highly pro-client. When that article goes live, it will be subjected to the editing of the wider community. The client will see criticism appear on what it believed would be a pro-self article, and then complain to the writer, who will essay to make the article stay pro-client, lest writer lose the fee or be sued for false advertising (of the results). This is where the real problem comes to light. The risk of paid writers violating OWN is high, then they will get blocked, violate numerous other policies to prevent real world lawsuit consequences, and we've got a BIG can of worms. Getting around that obstacle is probably beyond our means, unless we provide to all writers the boilerplate waiver on future editing, which will probably knock most companies away from editing if they see it, so many writers won't provide it, then we're back to banning non-compliant paid editors. Not much benefit. Taht said, if paid editing comes back, we need to unban MyWikiBiz, as all his other violations constitute a fruit of the poison tree sort of situation. ThuranX (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to see how someone paid to create and maintain an article could avoid violating WP:OWN. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I really think ThuranX hit the nail on the head here; the core of the problem isn't just the inherent COI, it's the fact that they might legally have to violate our guidelines in order to avoid a suit for breach of contract, false advertising, etc. I mean, I wouldn't blame them in this hypothetical; I'd rather be banned from the project than be slapped with a megalawsuit. So it's really just best to head this whole mess off at the pass here and forbid paid editing. 02:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

FA Semi'd

I have semiprotected Ocean sunfish, today's FA, because it has fallen prey to the usual suspects. Please do not remove the protection (set to expire when the move-prot does); I am going to have to delete the page afterwards to remove targeted revisions. -Jéské 02:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Jeske's talkpage has been continously vandalized due to his reverting of today's FA.--RyRy5 (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier to ask for oversight on the targeted revisions rather than deleting and restoring the entire article? —  scetoaux (T|C) 22:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Oversight will not deal with these edits. I've tried with the death threats given Milburn and got better results asking him to do it himself. -Jéské 03:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Several comments removed, in need of repair

While looking at an archive of ANI to see if I had gotten a response to a past comment, I notice the comment wasn't even there. I saw that this edit was made right before the bot archived the sections. Several sections, possibly some that are still active, are now missing comments by several different users. I'm not sure if there's any easy way to fix this.. I'm willing to help if manual repair is needed. -- Ned Scott 03:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems User:Ultraexactzz repaired some of the discussions and archives, but just missed a few, so there probably isn't much left to fix. -- Ned Scott 03:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I ended up reverting to the edit immediately before the diff you mention, and then manually deleting threads that I confirmed to have been archived by Miszabot. Now that most of a day has passed, I'll probably just double-check today's archival to see if any threads get archived twice, and then correcting it. For my reference, Which thread were you involved in that ended up being deleted? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 12:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I restored the one I knew about here for Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive406. I tried to trick the bot into re-archiving a copy of ANI I had in my userspace, but I had the timing wrong (actually, I had the wrong bot, since the userspace bot, MiszaBot III, runs at a different time than MiszaBot II). But with the correct math, we should be able to do something like that to be sure everything was properly archived. -- Ned Scott 01:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Squiretuck

Hi, I'd welcome some guidance on how best to proceed regarding another editor. The editor, who posts both anonymously from various IP addresses and also as User:Squiretuck, is an admirer of the Marquis de Lafayette and has adopted a very firm opinion that using Lafayette's aristocratic title ("Marquis") is highly inappropriate, an opinion he evidently bases on Lafayette's renunciation of the title following the American Revolution. In support of these views, Squiretuck's undertaken the following:

• Found at least 60-70 Misplaced Pages articles whose titles include the word "Lafayette" and copied a block of text into each one. The text credits the Marquis de Lafayette as the person for whom the subject is named (though no corroborating sources are provided) and describes Squiretuck's personal opinion on the inappropriateness of the title "Marquis" (e.g.: " not offend him by heaping the senseless thing upon him"). The articles include towns, counties, schools, naval vessels, etc. Most such edits have since been reverted (multiple times in some cases) by myself or others.
• Made a number of sizable edits that describe Lafayette's renunciation of the title and that disparage any sources and individuals who hold differing opinions. (e.g.: "puffed-up noble title", "phony, undeserved fame", "repeated, old, Britannica Lafayette-name-smear", "typically Anglophile opinion", etc.)

In response to what we saw as redundancy and a non-encyclopedic tone, both I and Nyttend attempted to engage him in discussion on his talk page. The result, unfortunately, was a rather convoluted debate in which we were labeled (among other things) ignorant, monarchists, aristocrats, defamers, etc. So... not particularly productive. Anyway, I'd hoped things had finally settled down, but his editing now seems to have begun again.

I can tell Squiretuck clearly cares about the subject, and it'd be fine if he could contribute in a more appropriate fashion, but nothing I've said yet seems to have had an effect. Any advice would be great, thanks! Huwmanbeing ☀★ 03:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately Squiretuck is continuing his editing campaign about Lafayette using a variety of IPs. He hasn't edited Misplaced Pages using the Squiretuck account since 12 April. Yet Lafayette's own article has enjoyed several colorful additions today (all of which have been reverted) by three different IP editors. (One of the anonymous edits was so drastic it got the attention of an anti-vandal bot). I suggest two weeks of semi-protection of Gilbert du Motier, marquis de La Fayette in the effort to persuade Squiretuck to continue his work using his logged-in account. Though his Talk page suggests an idée fixe on this topic, he does engage in dialog, so there is some hope of persuasion. I don't think regular editors should have to risk 3RR by reverting endless IP socks, which is why I suggest protection. I would do the protection myself if there were support for the idea here.

Here are the IPs which appear to be operated by Squiretuck:

• 129.63.184.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 129.63.184.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 4.156.117.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I also can see that Squiretuck cares much about this subject and would make a good editor if he were willing to work with, or work to change, rather than against consensus. There's a lot of energy and knowledge there that would help WP. I agree with a period of semi-protection, although why not a week first, or whatever length you think appropriate. — Becksguy (talk) 09:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I semi-protected Gilbert du Motier, marquis de La Fayette for 10 days. Since the last update, a brand new account, 4.156.117.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) fought an edit war on this article with VoABot_II and got himelf blocked 24 hours for vandalism by User:Gb. Should we now consider that this is abusive sockpuppetry? EdJohnston (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

68.218.222.40 Disruptions

User:68.218.222.40 is involved in a number of personal attacks on various talk pages. Examples: (calling another editor a "shortbusser," slang for "mentally retarded") (out and out hostility and swearing towards myself for no reason). This unhelpful belligerence warrants a soft block, I think. Whoever is using this address is clearly not interested in playing well with others. Buspar (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 72 hours. The last several edits/edit summaries from that IP have all been trolling. Hersfold 04:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Buspar (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on their comments at a user's talk page, it looks like a bad-hand account of a registered editor. Can anyone spot a pattern to match to an existing user? MBisanz 05:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI semi-protected

I've semi-protected this page for a couple of hours since it looks like an IP hopper was having fun. Feel free to amend the protection as necessary. -- Flyguy649 04:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Two IPs and you protect? That's a bit of an over reaction.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There was identical vandalism from 2 very different IPs within 1 minute. I assumed it was someone out for lulz and protected the page. Perhaps I was over-cautious. But that's also why I posted it here for review/amendment as necessary. In retrospect 5 min protection probably would have been fine. -- Flyguy649 05:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Damn, I was hoping for the "There are no new reports at this time" vandal. seicer | talk | contribs 05:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Flyguy, I would say that your assessment was accurate given the edits and all the excitement going on earlier here and here. Unfortunately that kind of shit's a precursor to worse. I'd keep an eye on AN/I for a while. -Jéské 07:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, putting any sort of protection on this page such that it can expire, will remove the move protection as well as the edit protection.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I realize that... hmmm, maybe that would be a useful Bugzilla request: allowing separate expiries for Move and Edit protection. -- Flyguy649 15:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I see it's already been requested. -- Flyguy649 15:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Stanley Theatre (Vancouver)

An IP claiming to represent the theater management is methodically gutting the article. I don't know of this is vandalims of COI, but perhaps someone might suggest a vacation for a few hours for the editor? Loren.wilton (talk) 05:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

How about a day? He was blocked by an admin. Grsz 05:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What bizarre editing... the section that's being removed certainly doesn't seem controversial to me. Strange. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Very strange, especially since the rationale wasn't that the information was incorrect, but that the staff of the theatre didn't want it in the article. Hard to see why, though, it seems innocuous. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 07:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I can only guess they don't like or are worried about something having to do with the background on fundraising for the makeover, which was more than a decade ago. Either way, it seems like the old tale of someone linked to a topic, seeing the article as marketing copy rather than as an encyclopedia article (I wouldn't wholly believe the IP is speaking for the staff, by the way). Gwen Gale (talk) 08:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't - but it certainly wasn't random vandalism, the editor was tenacious about deleting that stuff. Must be a reason for it. As Deep Throat said "Follow the money." Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 08:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Could be local politics (money). The theatre has gotten millions in government grants/subsidies and corporate philanthropy over the past decade and there are wee hints here and there that the going's still tough, I've put some sources on the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything there that isn't typical of virtually every regioal theater company. It is the rare company indeed that can support itself just off of the ticket price. The only thing I can guess about the strange editing is that perhaps someone objects to the memory that a tobacco company was once involved in salvaging the theater. Loren.wilton (talk) 09:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd think they'd have only taken out that bit, then. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I sent a message off to ArtsClub (which runs the Stanley). They say they have nothing to do with it and like the article as it is. I guess that resolves that, a simple vandalism case. Loren.wilton (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

where to you report broken database problems?

I've been trying to revert a simple vandalism for about 15 minutes, and finally received an interesting page with the following content:

If you report this error to the Wikimedia System Administrators, please include the details below.

Request: POST http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_current_NBA_team_rosters&action=submit, from 68.183.103.112 via sq22.wikimedia.org (squid/2.6.STABLE18) to 208.80.152.49 (208.80.152.49)

Error: ERR_READ_TIMEOUT, errno at Fri, 25 Apr 2008 05:51:50 GMT

It looks like a broken disk drive, but I have no clue where to report that. Loren.wilton (talk) 05:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

For emergency problems on Misplaced Pages & sister projects, try to contact the developers by IRC (#mediawiki on irc.freenode.net) or on the wikitech-l mailing list (please subscribe to ensure that your message gets through and you receive replies). (see meta:MediaWiki feature request and bug report discussion) Bazzargh (talk) 10:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

KMweber's welcome template

If you are familar with KMweber, then you will be familar with his borg like utterances of Oppose; I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. at RFA and keep it exists at AFD. That's fine, if kurt wants to spend his time just cutting and pasting that from page to page - that's his business and I don't consider it a problem (because people just screen it out).

However Kurt seems to be getting frustrated with the lack of progress he has made and now is actively trying to recruit (and I don't think there is a better word for it) new users with this non-standard welcome. Now in theory, if people want to make their own welcomes we don't have a problem with that - my concern is that to the novice user, that template reads as "people might try and tell you we have rules, we don't". If Kurt wants to try that line of argument with experienced users that's fine but Misplaced Pages is a bewilding place and I'm concerned that suggesting such a stance to novice users might cause all sorts of wikidrama and problems for the new user. --87.112.5.130 (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I love it. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So do I. --Deskana (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

+me. That said, a link to WP:IAR in there would be nice, so as to not confuse a newcomer in the way the IP alludes to. But no, it's not a bad template...it's describing reality, after all. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As insane as some of Kurt's other proposal's have been (i.e. renamming the term "administrator" to "servant") I see nothing wrong with the message in this template, in any case it notes WP:IAR. The empty "power hunger" opposes are better discussed in WP:RFA, its not like that's going to stop him from thinking that anyways. - Caribbean~H.Q. 11:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The message is great. The IP's been hit for block evasion. east.718 at 11:34, April 25, 2008

It's a good message (and admins should be called servants, a janitor is a servant). DuncanHill (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting perspective. I would strongly suggest that you not address any janitorial or custodial employees you may encounter as "servants". MastCell  17:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not think it describes reality. Most situations are, fortunately, decided by policy rather than IAR, and the template clearly implies otherwise. I consider the present wording an encouragement to disruptive editing. Possibly a modified wording would retain the reality that nothing is actually totally definitive. But I agree the appropriate action is not here, but at MfD or TfD. DGG (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be one of the individuals who would have benefited from this message when you first started editing Misplaced Pages. The fact is, what I am saying is correct; anyone who has been around before 2006 or so understands this. There has been a trend over the past couple of years of new users who never had this explained to them, and so they started to treat "policies" as, as someone else said elsewhere "rigid rules to be applied rigidly." You, unfortunately, appear to be one of these. What I'm doing is trying to stop this trend that has victimized you and countless others. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

DGG, personally (due to dispute resolution experience) I've probably had more trouble with people wikilawyering and almost being banned; so I've built up the opposite opinion, where I think it's actually more productive for new editors to ignore the rules and just learn from people correcting them where they go astray. But there is merit to either approach, I guess. (some people want to know all the rules before they start, which is kind of tricky on[REDACTED] atm...) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

While it may truthfully describe common practice, I have a problem with the wording, which is easily interpreted as "ignore all rules" if it fits you, not if it fits Misplaced Pages. However, Kurt has a point; The distinction between the core policies such as WP:COPY and WP:BLP, and other policies that merely govern content has faded. The core policies should include only those touching Foundation issues, legal subjects (WP:COPY, WP:BLP), editor conduct (WP:3RR, WP:NPA and the like) and administrative issues... all the other policies should be demoted to guidelines, as they only deal with content and is in constant state of flux. In other words: we shouldn't have "policies" whose implementations are open to discussion and changing consensus; Those should be guidelines. Policies should be reserved for matters where their implementations are not subject to discussion. Otherwise, the real policies become discussable as well. Just my thoughts... — Edokter • Talk • 14:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Kurt's templates is good, but it needs links to some of the most basic, obvious policies. A link to the WP:5P would do it. (something along the lines of "If you do want to see what the most basic policies are, take a look here". Neıl ☎ 14:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Ehh, "Five pillars" just reeks of pretentiousness, which is part of the problem. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The trifecta or simplified ruleset are available as alternates, if you prefer them. Both have been used in new user templates before. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC) The simplified ruleset might take some dusting off. It's a wiki, feel free to edit. :-)

I have respectfully reverted the "resolved" template because I believe some further discussion is needed, either here or at another appropriate location. I have two concerns regarding this form of welcome template. The first, which is the more serious, is that this template omits much of the useful information found in the standard welcome templates. I am not referring so much to links to various "policies" and "rules," but to links that can be of immediate usefulness to newcomers, such as "How to create a page." Since the presence of one "welcome template" on a new user's page will generally prevent any others from being placed there, sensibly enough, I think this is a significant concern.

Second, I happen to agree with much of what Kurt Weber has said to the effect that the project is becoming too dominated by rules and policy, sometimes to the detriment of creativity or common sense. (Compare, Misplaced Pages talk:Pranking#Some thoughts for an example of such a situation.) {{Template:Welcome9}}, which I was using for awhile, may be an example of a standard template that risks overwhelming a new user with too many of both rules and resources. On the other hand, I fear that Kurt's form of welcome significantly exaggerates in the other direction, while confronting inexperienced users with an argument for one side of a wikipolitical or wikiphilosophical dispute. The practice of using new-user welcome messages for this purpose has been severely criticized (see generally, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Karmafist#Welcoming new users) and should not be engaged in. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I thought I had made it clear by now that I'm a supporter of Karmafist and see nothing wrong with what he did. He did what had to be done to keep new users from having wrongheaded, destructive, and disruptive ideas. Usually someone's first impression of how something works on Misplaced Pages will be the one he sticks with, and it's awfully difficult to change his mind after that. So what method would work better? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. So you advocate independent and critical thinking and resistance to indoctrination, and you act on this by trying to indoctrinate new users to your point of view before anyone else can? If you really believe that critical thinking and rational judgement are paramount, then why the need to carefully shepherd new users and keep them from being infected with "wrongheaded, destructive, and disruptive ideas"? The whole thing strikes me as a bit... contradictory. As to what method would work better, I find that the most effective way to be a positive influence on new users is to model the behavior you'd like to see more of. When I started here, I learned by example, not from what someone said in my welcome message or from the WP:TLA of the moment. MastCell  17:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Honestly now, doesn't this argument loose a little something after high school? It's somewhat akin to telling someone going on a fast, "so, you're going to stop eating things by eating nothing?", and punctuating it with a pointed snicker, lest they fail to acknowledge this clever use of irony. Unfortunately, it's a basic fact of human psychology that in order to be introduced to a new idea, one must be indoctrinated - otherwise the idea itself will be lost in a mess of gratutious Gestaltian qualifications and cross-idealogical pandering. In simpler terms (they're simple, so let's not attack the rather black-and-white nature of this analogy, nor the rather immature, gratutious heavy-handedness) - if I wish to share the notion that two plus two equals four, it's more useful to say "Hey, MastCell - two plus two equals four" than to say "Hey, MastCell - two plus two could equal anything. It could equal one, two, three, four, five, or six. Some would argue that it equals quatro, or quatre. There are people who might state that it equals five hundred and sixty seven, as well as people who would have no answer to the question. I kinda think that two plus two is four, but I'll AGF and agree to disagree". While Kurt's spreading an open-ended "why", rather than the simple falsifiable "what" in that analogy, it still amounts to him saying "two plus two is x", rather than boring everyone with long-winded open-endedness. If his idea is weaker than whatever the current status quo is, it'll flounder in the marketplace. If it's stronger, then it is, ipso facto, a better idea. There is no irony. There is no cabal. Four legs good. Two legs better. --Badger Drink (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know the history (karmafist and whatnot) but, I've had a quick go at trying to find a compromise wording. I'll place it on my talk page User talk:Jasynnash2#Welcome Template?.Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with the template as written. Although I agree with Kurt that what's best for the encyclopedia should be the fundamental, guiding rule, I am also of the opinion that we do need prescriptive rules laid down by the community, so that editors know what they can and can't do. The rule of law is a very important value, both in real life and on Misplaced Pages; if there are no formal rules, then those in power make up the rules as they go along, to the detriment of those without power. So while we should focus on what's best for Misplaced Pages, we should also encourage editors to follow the policies. Walton 17:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It could well be argued that the rule of law doesn't really do much to stop those in power from doing as they please - just imagine I wikilinked a bunch of recent political scandals there. =) --Badger Drink (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Gabef8008

@ article The Way to Happiness

Repeated insertion of unsourced material at this article, by Gabef8008 (talk · contribs). , ,

In addition, chunks of text appear to be copyvio, partially from . Despite repeated warnings on the user's talkpage, user is seemingly not able and/or refusing to provide citations to WP:RS/WP:V sources. User is also presenting primary sources as facts, without attribution, citing websites directly affiliated with the organization (owned by the Church of Scientology) instead of secondary sources.

Suggest an admin look into this, remove the offending unsourced/copyvio material if deemed inappropriate, and take action regarding this user. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've given him a COI warning for a start. But please use the preview button when you're editing to avoid filling up the article history unnecessarily. Stifle (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I know, I use "preview" quite frequently, but it is quite hard to re-format and standardize a whole bunch of citations at once in one save, sorry. Cirt (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly relate to that. Misplaced Pages's citation syntax is hard enough to use as it is... -- ChrisO (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Seems that we are back to getting legal threats on this one: --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a previous thread on this from August 2007 called "Anonymous legal threats create an impasse". (i'm at work so i don't have time to look it up). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Not blocking him for the moment per WP:DOLT. Recommend extreme care. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Have left a strongly-worded WP:NLT warning. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing this further it appears that most of User:Mofb's edits were acceptable or justifiable, whether rewording sentences or removing unsourced sentences and commentary. I've done a quick cleanup, made it a little more NPOV and added back links that should not have been taken out. I think we can put this to bed. Stifle (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well i personally think that we are now with a POV version - for instance the insertion of this (rather speculative) item:

...as dismissed by the court, which, however, expressed considerable sympathy for the petitioner's position and would have found in his favour if the Government had not discovered, at the last moment, a line item in the EU Budget authorizing expenditure on the Social Chapter under the Maastricht Treaty that the UK Parliament had previously expressly declined to authorize. The Government took Monckton's challenge so seriously that it put up the Lord Advocate personally against him. The outcome was such that the Government was unable to recover its costs in the cause.

Thats a bit over the top isn't it? That combined with a large deletion of criticism, and whitewashing of sentences (such as a change that he is only sceptical of "catastrophic" global warming - which doesn't jive with either his writings, nor articles about it. And the complete deletion of criticism of his scientific views (not personal ones) from climate scientists as well as Monbiot.

Is that justifiable?

Can i again ask why the COI version was edited towards NPOV instead of the original version? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)And whitewashing continues . Is the Scotsman article correct - or do we take the word of the person? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Received a further legal threat on this - leaving to other admins to see how best to deal with this. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've also protected Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley due to the combined issue of edit warring and this BLP problem. Stifle (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I have frequently expressed dismay over the trend to give subjects an effectual veto over articles, I need to say that some (but by no means all) of the corrections made by the subject appear reasonable, and that the tone of the article prior to his edits might need some adjustment. The protected version at present is, incidentally, the version the subject edited, with some appropriate corrections by Stifle prior to the latest threat. I hope he will decide to remove the protection and continue editing, because he seems an appropriate neutral editor, and I think may be accepted as such even by the subject--the threat was not directed at him. The subject, of course, would have done much better to continue working with us, rather than against us. DGG (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Intend to do so after an appropriate cooldown. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

From Monckton of Brenchley: I have specified what is factually incorrect on my page by editing it to remove the inaccuracies. I have also now instructed my lawyers to send to Misplaced Pages a list of 16 inaccuracies, with reasons, and with proposals for their correction - proposals which are fully reflected in the edits which I have made. Please inform me of how to complain formally about Mr. Dabelstein-Petersen's long history of distorting my biographical entry. His latest tactic, after being thwarted by your restoration of my edits (for which I am most grateful) has been to approach other members of the "global-warming" alarmist community to invite them to restore his errors piecemeal. So I must also say how grateful I am that you have frozen the page altogether for the time being.

Provided that the page remains substantially as it now is after your kind restoration of my edits, there will be no need for me to proceed to the courts: though, for my own protection against further attempts at libel, I have instructed my lawyers to send to Misplaced Pages the list of corrections to the biographical entry as it stood before I corrected it.

I am afraid that neither Misplaced Pages nor Wikimedia will be able to escape their obligations not to perpetrate or perpetuate libels if I am eventually compelled to lodge a petition at the Sheriff Court for an interdict, followed by a petition at the Court of Session for libel. My solicitors will if necessary join as parties the (relatively small) number of internet trunk carriers in the UK, whom the Court may - if it chooses - order to block any Misplaced Pages content that mentions me by name, as a way to prevent further circulation of the libels. Since Scots law is constructed purposively, there would be little that the carriers could do except to comply, particularly in the face of evidence that Misplaced Pages had sought to shelter behind a not-for-profit shell corporation outwith the jurisdiction. Those providers, many of whom operate not only in the United Kingdom but also in the jurisdiction that shelters Wikimedia, might well then take action themselves against Wikimedia within its jurisdiction of convenience to prevent it from permitting or facilitating the circulation of further libels on the networks managed or controlled by them. If I were to succeed, thousands of other disgruntled victims of Misplaced Pages libels would follow the route which our standing Counsel in Edinburgh will devise.

On balance, therefore, Misplaced Pages may prefer simply to see the back of me, by removing my biographical entry altogether and preventing anyone from creating one in future. That is my preferred solution. However, as I have said, for as long as the page continues to be protected to prevent malicious and deliberately inaccurate alterations to the unreasonable and unfair detriment of my reputation, I shall of course stay my hand. Thank you for your kind and helpful attention to my difficulties. - Monckton of Brenchley. Mofb (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that we will be removing the page, although that might be an option. On the other hand our forbearance on the Misplaced Pages:No legal threats policy is wearing thin. I would like other administrators to consider this case as a matter of some urgency bearing in mind the page complained of has been under WP:OFFICE previously. Stifle (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. This is the 3rd or 4th time that we've had this legal threat from a person/persons saying that they are Monckton. Including some that ended up in the media Did Lord Monckton fabricate a claim on his Misplaced Pages page? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Monbiot.com is probably not a reliable source. Left a message on WP:BLPN. Stifle (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Given all the problems that we have had with this article and subject, I believe it needs to go to arbitration. I will be posting an arbitration request shortly and will post the link to it below when it's ready. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be simplest to block the conflicted editor for legal threats and COI attempts to spin his own article. I'm not terribly sympathetic to any of this. We are protected under U.S. law, and if he wants to try embarrasing Scotland by trying to ban the Internet there he is welcome. He is of course welcome to submit complaints, suggestsions, etc., either through the discussion pages (assuming he is not blocked at the time) or via the OTRS system. Misplaced Pages has policies in place to develop truthful, unbiased articles, and we are as a whole more neutral and truthful than many other sources and news outlets. However, if the person in question is a global warming denier and upset over being portrayed as such, I'm not sure he and an unbiased reporting of the truth have a whole lot to say to each other. We should use our regular procedures on this one, which work pretty well. Wikidemo (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration is definitely unuseful here. Stifle (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree with you, Wikidemo. I propose unprotecting the article on Monday (once everything has had a chance to cool down) and dealing with the article under standard procedures, and explaining very cleary to User:Mofb that he will be blocked on ANY further mention of legal action. Stifle (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's definitely necessary. I don't know how familiar you are with the article or with this contributor, but I've been watching both for a long time. There are major conduct issues here that need to be resolved irrespective of the legal side of things. Please reserve your judgment until you've read the arbitration request. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will. I will shortly be going away and will be back on Sunday evening. I plan on leaving the article protected for the time being. Stifle (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot amuck

_GB 12:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please block the bot BoxCrawler—quickly? It's inappropriately putting WP:Wikiproject Schools boxes on all talk pages of people categorized in "Alumni of ." (I think it should also be the bot operator's responsibility to clean up the mess it's made.) Deor (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked, and message left on bot's talk page accordingly. _GB 12:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't resolved until the damage has been cleaned up. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hold on, I'll take the rollback button to the bot's contrib list. Stifle (talk) 14:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Everything up to 11:30 seemed like a valid edit. I've reverted all the bot's contributions since then. Way to increase my edit count, eh? Stifle (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking the bot. I misunderstood which category was being requested, I've corrected the problem. Once again, thanks. Adam McCormick (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who speaks German want to review my actions/sort this out?

It appears someone has created (at least two) accounts with names that are disparaging other editors:
User:DerHexer und Entlinkt steigen zusammen in die Badewanne!‎
User:Entlinkt ist ein Schwein!
The only German I know is by osmosis, listening to my dad speak it with some German friends of his about 20 years ago. Still, seems clear enough that this is some kind of dispute spilling over from the German Misplaced Pages, and that the usernames aren't appropriate. However, the actual interwiki linking they're doing appears legit. I've usernameblocked both of them, but didn't prevent account recreation, and left our standard semi-polite template. But if someone who knows what the heck is going on‎ over on the German Misplaced Pages could take a peek, and fix things (either unblock or usernamehardblock, depending on what's going on), I'd appreciate it. (Update just before I posted this: actually Misza blocked one, I blocked the other.) --barneca (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

New one: User:Am Arsch von Entlinkt stinkt es!. This is now disruptive, so I've usernamehardblocked this one (hopefully preventing creation of other accounts) until I (or someone in a better postition) can figure out what's up. --barneca (talk) 13:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Changed both to hardblock as attack accounts, clearly a harassment campaign over at de-wiki; related to userpage vandalism and other things there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, now i get that it's a garden variety jerk: . The legit interwiki stuff threw me off. Thanks. --barneca (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Fadiga and the IP 135.196.110.222

Hi. Please, look at the 135.196.110.222 Ip´s contributions and see the user Fadiga´s Aren´t they the same users???? It´s more than suspicious... Please, say it to an expert on this issues, I don´t know how to do this.

Thanks, --Ultracanalla (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If they are the same user, what difference does it make? Stifle (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The Huge difference is the he can edit wath he wants with the IP, breaking all the discussions and the warnings. In the anonimate of the IP, he can jump all the warnings that a rgistred user must recive because of an edit warring. He has two or three chances to edit, but we all know they are the same users... Isn´t it a cheat? My, God... Sometimes, I surprised about many answers... --Ultracanalla (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What discussions? You left the discussion and continued reverting his 'vandalism' when he didn't agree with you. MickMacNee (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If they are the same user, it's only a big problem if they are causing problems, because you can use another "account" (the IP isn't really an account) to evade the block. If you feel that that person is using multiple accounts to give the false impression of consensus or by multiple voting, then bring it up here, but otherwise, please don't speculate. x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

IP User 212.219.189.60 blocked yet still editing

The above ip user was supposed to have been the subject of a block for one week starting from yesterday, even though the notice on their talk page states it was an indefinite block. However, the anonymous ip address is editing today (see history of User talk:212.219.189.60) with there being no indication that the block was contested or lifted. Can someone look into this? I tried to report them again today, but some bot merelyt removed my message just now.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the block notice is wrong, it is a week's block. Second of all, when blocked, users can edit their talk pages (unless the talk page is protected). Metros (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for clearing that up.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete

Jonathan A.Kumin‎ article has been tagged for speedy deletion for a few minutes now but there seems to be a bit of a speedy backlog. I wouldn't normally bring this up here but the article contains some personal info, ie the subject's phone number. Could an available admin see to it being deleted promptly, please?
Thanks. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted by Woody. Stifle (talk) 14:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As it contains someone's phone number, shouldn't it be oversighted also?<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 18:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

98.169.241.244

This editor 98.169.241.244 is continually archiving relevant Intelligent Design talkpage discussions to make a WP:POINT, because his off-topic comments were removed. Erased the initial warnings, then vandalised Silly Rabbit's talk page. Erased final warning, and the continued with vandalising said talkpage. Also, let a message on my page calling my warnings "vandalism."Aunt Entropy (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Burzmali Incivility

User:Burzmali has recently posted some alarming comments to a couple talk pages.

• - "We all enjoy trolling the Paulites from time to time" (admission of disruptive/uncivil behavior to other users based on their political affiliations, an express violation of WP:NPA) and "doesn't run to ANI over the every little slight" (mocking the use of Wiki's dispute resolution procedure)
• - Accusations of "revenge blocks" and "gaming the system" for using Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution when handling a personal attack. In this case, I was advising another editor who had been subjected to personal attack due to his political affiliation on what he could do to resolve the case and stop the attacks. Burzmali's accusations of WP:GAME suggest an assumption of bad faith. The condescending edit summary "if you don't want to be stereotyped, try not to act the stereotype" supports this interpretation.

Buspar (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, Buspar, you do like to boast about 'having people blocked at ANI' a little too much. Also, please note that as far as I can tell (I could be wrong here though), the "personal attack" in question was the phrase "Ron Paul fan." --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin

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

Summary: Amicably resolved. (Good to remember this can happen!) Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

After some rather questionable edit summaries by OM, admin User:Hersfold left him a polite note asking him to refrain from such commentary. After continuing to make personal attacks like calling somebody a "racist little shit" (note "It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior"), then calling Hersfold "useless" (in the edit summary) and "incompetent", OM clearly does not understand his / her problem with civility and making personal attacks. Not sure what the next step should be, but clearly OM is being disruptive in this area, and needs to stop. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin needs to cool it, that is obvious. Not sure it warrants an action at this point. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Given OM and Hersfold's previous issues, I am surprised that Hersfold thought the best course of action would be for him to warn OM over anything at his talk page. This is not to suggest that OM didn't need a warning, but I think both users and the project would be better off if these two editors ignored each other. I am not in support of OM's actions, but the continuing dispute and this ANI really could have been avoided. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(EC) I have no outstanding issues with OM and brought this here as an unbiased admin party, as I'm not sure of the next course of action. Definitely could have been avoided had OM not made these attacks. I agree with Jossi in the sense that action may not me necessary at this time, but this is definitely something that should be noticed. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hersfold and OM definitely have a history (see here) arising from Hersfold's unblock of a self-avowed racist. Although one can argue that Hersfold's warning may have been technically correct, it showed poor judgment -- given the severe mutual antagonism, he should have asked another admin to place the warning. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Even so, that does not excuse continued personal attacks from OM towards Hersfold. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope Orangemarlin calms down soon, edits like these have only driven away some who are otherwise in agreement with him. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(EC) I agree with jossi. The last thing this situation needs is more stimulation. Obviously, Orangemarlin's attacks were unwarranted, especially considering the politeness of Hersfold's comment, but this doesn't require any immediate action. OM just needs to calm down a bit. Cheers :) ( arky ) 17:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the warning, the reason I noticed the edit summaries in the first place was due to an unblock request by User:ThomHImself. That user is blocked for a 3RR violation on an article OrangeMarlin was involved in reverting - it was in looking at the history I noticed the first edit summary, and decided some sort of notice was needed based on my past dealings with OrangeMarlin where he was also warned to calm down (for reference, see User talk:Hersfold/Archive 16 (April 2008)#You've got to be kidding and User talk:Orangemarlin/Archives 7#Re: You've got to be kidding). I brought the situation up in #wikipedia-en-admins, where I was active at the time, but when no response was given, I made the warning myself, trying to be as polite as possible. I would further note that the comments he has made towards me in the past are extremely rude and would likely be block-worthy if made by a user who was not so well established. To clarify, though, I feel as though a block *now* won't do much, as the recent comments are relatively minor compared to what has occurred in the past. Hersfold 17:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that Hersfold and OM avoid each other? If there are any serious admin issues about OM that Hersfold notices Hersfold can presumably find someone else to deal with them. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I conclude correctly that every time such an incident happens, it will likely be agreed that any course of action will be punishment and not preventitive? A few weeks ago, Hers did make a sizable admin gaffe, but I've basically seen OM have cart blanche to say whatever he wants to and about Hers. If there is nothing that will be done, there is nothing that will be done. Considering that any official warning/block of OM will only make him angry and in course escalate the issue, can nothing ever be done? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin's personal attacks and general incivility has gone unabated for quite some time now, not so dissimilar from User:Callmebc (who was bloicked indefinitely). He's made personally offensive comments towards myself and others genuinely interested in understanding and helping him. He constantly gets angry, and as a result, he engages in very rude behavior that is contrary to Misplaced Pages's policies. He has been warned and advised by admins and layusers alike many, many times, and each time he either ignores them or shoots back with attacks. Neither Rjd0060 or Hersfold are out of their place. ~ UBeR (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm on reasonably good terms with OM, I'll talk to him about this. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note on OM's talk page, and I think we've both agreed to ignore each other. Hopefully that will help some. Hersfold 17:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This was archived prematurely. What did OM say when this was re-brought to his attention? His response needs to be recorded here, because somehow I think his conduct is going to be an issue again in the future. Cla68 (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin left two replies, the second of which was:

Oh by the way, this is definitely water under the bridge, and I hope we can work together. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Loren.wilton (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Is canvassing article talk pages for arbcom participation acceptable?

HooperBandP (talk · contribs)

• Talk:Global warming
• Talk:Theodor Landscheidt‎
• Talk:Global cooling
• Talk:Timothy F. Ball
• Talk:Fred Singer
• Talk:J. Scott Armstrong
• Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by the United States

Is canvassing article talk pages for arbcom participation acceptable?--Hu12 (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: We aren't canvassing for either side but we are letting them know (which is required by Arbcomm to inform all parties). It was easier to put it on the talk pages were multiple users had has a problem with him then it was on each individual talk page. Hooper (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles need informing? see WP:CANVASS. --Hu12 (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, it was just an easier step in what will be a very sensitive case. If it is wrong, I just want to acknowledge why we did it and it was not just to get participation as much as to try to conform to the Arbcomm rules. It may have been best to go to each individual users talk page, was just trying to save time. But I do understand what you're saying. Hooper (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see enough of these yet to call it canvassing, however I do have some worries about the notion of building an arbcom RfAR project in a user sandbox. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Theres no harm in drafting RFCs, complex RFCUs, or RFARs in a user page, is there? I've done the same myself. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No harm indeed... What is the problem? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

(EC) The posts on the talk pages were more or less neutral, but an article talk page isn't really an acceptable forum for this sort of post, even if the users involved would see it (see WP:TPG). An article's talk page should only be used for discussing the article. While it might be tedious to individually inform each user on their own talk page, that should be the course of action that is taken :) Cheers! ( arky ) 17:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Understandable and makes perfect sense with the articles. If we come across anymore users that may need to be informed, we'll make sure to do it directly on their talk page. On Gwen Gale's comment, The sandbox is more or less to allow all the users involved the proper time (including the party being requested for Arbcomm, who has been informed of it) to compile the massive and spreadout different reports that they will have, so that Arbcomm's time won't be waisted. With it being an administrator, we're just trying to be as clear as possible. I'd prefer another way if someone had a suggestion. Hooper (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

My main worry would be that comments there might be swayed by a lack of input from some (very unintentionally) excluded editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Campainging through the use of the article talk pages seems quite inappropriate, and I would assume these are the articles that you have disputes with this user? This is oughtright WP:CANVASSing for arbcom participants.--Hu12 (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

On each of those talk pages, there are users who both support the user in question and users who do not support him. I also recently made sure to inform, on his user talk page, a user who highly supports the user. Trying our best to get as fair a response as possible. Hooper (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Much ado about nothing. The draft RFAR is plainly frivolous and has no chance of being accepted. Best ignore it and get back to our regularly scheduled whatever-it-is-we-are-doing-here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

An admin can be plainly proven to have went against admin policy and it is "frivolous". That is an interesting opinion indeed. Hooper (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It is considered frivolous because Jimbo and William know each other personally. My guess is that Arbcom, who Jimbo has the final say of who stays on or goes, will not want to ruffle the feathers of a friend of Jimbo's. Not even if he has violated the blocking policy twice this month, and the protection policy once. I worry if the laundry list posted to the RfC pans out, that this can end up getting news coverage if Jimbo steps in. --I Write Stuff (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not know William M. Connelly personally, actually. I do know dozens and dozens of admins, users, etc., personally, but not Professor Connelly. We have exchanged some email correspondence, none of it of a personal nature, something that I do with hundreds of people. Even if I did know him personally, though, I think we can all be quite confident that the ArbCom can judge matters independently. I think the ArbCom members themselves will testify 100% that they will vote for what they see as the truth, without regard to how I might feel about it. And I think they will also testify that I have never done anything to lead anyone to believe I would overturn a decision of theirs based on a friendship. (Though I must repeat that, in this case, I don't happen to know Professor Connelly, though I do admire his work from a distance as many people do.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that Jimbo will stick his head out and defend any blatant admin misconduct simply on the basis of his acquaintance with the offender. To do show would greatly affect and offend the volunteers, and moreover, I believe Jimbo to be a man of integrity. For example, I recall the incident of a personal friend of Jimbo's, having been hired, and served on arbom, etc. who was exposed as lying about his credentials. Jimbo, despite his friendship with the person abusing the communities trust, did not take his side; rather he was asked to step down. Likewise, there is no reason to think that William's abuse of the tools as a violation of the communities trust, will cause Jimbo would intervene in defenses someone if the facts show the person is guilty of the offense. I do not believe WP suffers from such crony corruption, as previous examples prove. Its essential that we all follow the "rule of law" here. The volunteer nature of this project demands these basic standards, along with transparency, and other appropriate due process norms in keeping with Wikipeda ethos.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"...William's abuse of the tools...." This has not been proved. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well said and I apologize for my statement. I do not think that Jimbo will read it, however I do believe you to be correct and I should have assumed better. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. In fact, every time I see a supposed "invincible" but absusive admin who violate WP core policies rebuked by the community, and stripped of those tools, I gain confidence and respect in the project. I'm thinking about Mongo, for an example. It should be a warning to heed for all admins not to let their feelings of being invaunerable and above the law, get to their head. To do so requires a reality check that will confirm the confidence we give the process.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not know this. I placed a note on his (Jimbo's) talk page, though he probably has assistants or something. Even if he supports William, he should be aware if they are acquanted and that acquaintance could tip the debate into POV either way. But this discussion is probably not warranted here. Hooper (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not have assistants to read my Misplaced Pages talk page. The media may like to pretend I am some kind of celebrity, but actually I am just a Wikipedian like you. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the notices from the talk pages. Talk pages aren't for gathering evidence against other users - they're there to help build articles.-Wafulz (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There's not any misconduct on the part of WMC, and should this frivolous arbcom case be accepted, I shall provide evidence that this is the case. Jtrainor (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You will not be alone by any means. AN/I has already reviewed and taken this view. But I doubt Arbcom will take it on since it isn't too hard to see through it. --BozMo talk 20:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This entire situation is a phenomenon that has been remarked on before here, with the following sequence of events:

1. Admin arrives and tries to clean up bad article 2. People with WP:OWN issues/POV warriors/etc edit war 3. Said people are blocked or otherwise sanctioned 4. Said people complain about an "involved admin" misusing his tools.

As I have stated before, people who attempt to game the system in such a fashion should be severely punished. Jtrainor (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is how you two feel you are more than welcome to sign on and show your side, whether on the current sandbox or when it gets sent to the Committee. All views are welcome. However, this discussion has steered away from the reason we are on this page, and continued discussions here should be discouraged so we aren't taking up time of those who maintain this noticeboard. You are more than welcome to voice any opinions or views on the sandbox talk page. Hooper (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not touching that sandbox in any way-- I refuse to acknowledge it as anything more than harrassment directed at WMC. Jtrainor (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You might wan to review WP:AGF. Your comments here violate this. Its not an option, its a requirement. Instead of focusing on motivations of editors, we should simply note the facts. The facts speak plaining enough, and those will stand out for evaluation by arbCom.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever that page is it is no official attempt to gather opinions. Opinions have already been given at AN/I, with a broad consensus of Admins (for whose opinion AN/I exists) supported the view that WMC had broken no rule. Until (and if) Arbcom agree to re-open what looks like a closed case I don't see much point in wasting our time. On top of which a correctly formulated RfC would seem to be a prerequisite for Arbcom accepting the case and is missing. Whether an RfC should be openned about the conduct of the accusers is another issue but I don't see much point--BozMo talk 21:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. There was no consensus that supported the view you cite. In fact several pointed out that what William did was a misuse of admin tools, or proper protocol with its use given his involvement in the dispute. I'm not sure how you can say you don't see much point, unless you think selectively only blocking editors with whom you are in an active edit war with, and placing protection and then editing through the protection, and as well as generally not respecting the consensus process--if all this is no big deal for an admin to comport himself, then, and only then, can I understand your point.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Connelley is one of the most incivil admins we have and this arbcom request is long overdue. Asking people in the global warming walled garden to participate was proper. Cla68 (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, the "walled garden" which contains a featured article, and has been favorably written up in the mainstream press where it was described by an independent academic as "a great primer on the subject, suitable for just the kinds of use one might put to a traditional encyclopedia"? () We could do with more such "walled gardens". MastCell  00:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I read this link. All of it. Spending a lot of my time reverting vandalism and other nonsense is really soul-destroying. It makes me wonder why I should bother. It makes me wonder whether the open model is appropriate. Reviews like this renew my confidence. Whether I am physically able to continue doing this remains to be seen. But it's hopeful, against all the ludicrous and mostly unjustified criticism we attract. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Justpassinby

A few weeks back, there was a lengthy case involving User:Justpassinby. He appears to be back as User:Justpassinboy and making the same kind of edits. Could someone intervene? Bondegezou (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked by Black Kite.-Wafulz (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

rangeblock?

I just sprotected Talk:Qur'an because of a persistent dynamic IP vandal. Since it's a talk page of an sprotected page, I really hate to do that. Could someone who knows what they're doing rangeblock the appropriate range (see page history; i think it was 5 different IP's before I gave up), and unprotect the talk page when they're done? --barneca (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me see what's going on. -- Avi (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Parent range seems to be 87.64.0.0/14, which is 262,144 IP's. 87.66.0.0/16 will take care of the bunch, but that's 65,536 IP's. I think we can get away with 87.66.64.0/18, 87.66.128.0/18, and 87.66.192.0/19 which is only 40,960 IP's. I'll take care of them now. -- Avi (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- Avi (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No idea how you did what you did (I should learn that stuff someday, seeing as it's the 21st century and all), but thank you! --barneca (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Start by reading mw:Help:Range blocks, that's what I did as a first step. There are plenty of resources on the net that give some good explanations too. -- Avi (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You'll be sorry you nudged me when I rangeblock North America by accident... --barneca (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You say that as if that would be a bad thing ;) --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

General rule, start simple. 0.0.0.0/0 -- Avi (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If this was IRC, evidently I would immediately head over here and give it a try. I assume the devs have already prevented that.... right? (oh noes, beans!) --barneca (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't block anything larger than a /16, so 0.0.0.0/0 is right out. --Carnildo (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Elspeth Monro socks

Elspeth Monro (talk · contribs), who is indefblocked with an enormous amount of socks and IPs, is back vandalizing with yet more IPs and new sockpuppets. His M.O. is changing his old sock's pages with to "sockproven, or removing the notice altogether with poorly spelled summaries and "sk" in the summary, and generally adding comments to his own socks talk pages. All of these edits are Monro as well as these . And if you look at the contributions, you'll see he's created new socks as well. Simply following the path of the IPs contributing to the userpages and talks of other accounts and so on will generally bring you down a path to find HUGE numbers of disruptive Monro socks. To stop this sock talk page vandalism I suggest protecting all Monro sock user and usertalk pages (like we do with a certain other determined troll). Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked the two IPs in question. My solution would be to just delete all their pages, but some people may dislike that.-Wafulz (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If the only thing he (she?) is editing is their own sock talk pages, who the heck cares? If it is incivil RBI, if not, ignore it? Loren.wilton (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Dennis Oliver

the article about Dennis Oliver was posted the first time back in January 2008. It has been reasonable deleted by the reason of not having references. In February 2008 I did the article again, this time with sufficient,notable and verifiable references to reliable sources like links to newspapers articles and websites. The same editor of name "Thieste" that requested the deletion back in January, was the same that requested the deletion again in February. (I hope it is not as a result of personal interest since that editor is closely related to "Dennis Oliver" in the same field). For second time, in despite of all the good references, verifiable references to reliable sources, it has been deleted solely by the decision of the admin of name "Pigman". The most notorious comment about the article is that "congratulations" for others editors has been noted in the page, and it has also been nominated by editor "gromlakh" as a good article. This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale and supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group. BUT IT HAS BEEN UNILATERAL DELETED!. Please help, I have put a lot of effort and days of work and love to reach a nice article. Thank you! RaliciaRalicia (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Restored. G4 does not apply to recreated articles that had previously also been deleted under CSD. However, the article is still subject to nomination for deletion under AFD, which generally involves a 5-day discussion. Thatcher 18:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Nothing444's Block

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

Please keep discussion centralized at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Blocked. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This user has been put on AN/I a few times before but I would like to bring his block to attention. He has been blocked indefinently mainly due to harmfull edits to the mainspace. He has been blocked at least five other times before. The indef started at this section on his talkpage. There are other discussions about his blocks all over his talkpage and archives. I would like other's comments about this block.--RyRy5 (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Already being discussed at WP:AN, where I recommend that further comments should go. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

tendentious reinsertions at 'Gakhars' & 'Kayanis (Tribe)‎'

Over at Gakhars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Kayanis (Tribe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), editor Amirkayani (talk · contribs · logs · block log) keeps inserting the same family-member directory over and over again, even though now some 6 other editors (5 established, 1 new) keep removing them and have noted their concerns on talk (to which Amirkayani has not responded).

He was on 3RR parole earlier today, but does not appear to have learned anything from it, since "new editor" Adilkayani (talk · contribs · logs · block log) picked up right where Amirkayani left off (the latter has since resumed the rv cycle). The former have no other contributions worth mentioning, and the latter has only reverts/reinstatements of the aforementioned lists.

Question: whats the most efficient way to put an end to this sorry tale? RCU/Code E for block evasion + 3RRV + 3RRV + ... ? -- Fullstop (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've extended the "older" account's block for a week. The newer one I'm not 100% sure of.-Wafulz (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Openly anti-Semitic edits

User:Codreanu and probably his dynamic IPs keep inserting openly anti-Semitic phrases like "Jewish lies" and "lies about false numbers of Holocaust" into National Revival of Poland (Polish far-right extremist party) article. M0RD00R (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you please provide diffs? Bstone (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked User:Codreanu indefinitely - that wasn't a difficult decision - and will keep an eye on that article for the IP abuse. Black Kite 18:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Have semi-pp over the weekend, before you blocked. If you think it may need unprotecting, fine. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No, being semi'd for a few days given the situation isn't a problem. Black Kite 19:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use review: Kirby hobo festival.jpg

Can an uninvolved administrator take a look at Misplaced Pages:Fair_use_review#Image:Kirby_hobo_festival.jpg? There appears to be a consensus that it violates fair use, but the uploader is insisting that no such consensus exists. I'd appreciate it if others could weigh in and close it. Thanks, Metros (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no clear consensus. 2 editors have raised concerns, 2 editors have called for deletion, and 2 editors see nothing wrong with the image. I have told both Metros and the other user involved that the matter should be brought to IFD and consensus determined there.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 20:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Review of evidence at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dr.Jhingaadey

A shared interest in homeopathy, similar IPs, and some geographic evidence connects User:Happening, with the banned user and puppetmaster User:Dr.Jhingaadey. Review and action (block/dismiss) by an uninvolved admin please. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Would it not be better to move this to WP:SSP, Tim? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on the evidence presented at the checkuser request, I've gone ahead and blocked Happening (talk · contribs) indefinitely as a block-evading sockpuppet of Dr.Jhingaadey (talk · contribs). Briefly, the evidence is overlapping subject matter, congruent IP's with a somewhat suspicious pre-emptive excuse on the checkuser page, geographical similarity, and shared editing tics and habits. Even in a best-case scenario, it would be hard to make the case that we need more single-purpose agenda accounts at homeopathy, but this looks to me like a fairly clear-cut sockpuppet. Review welcome. MastCell  21:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Shapiros10 (talk · contribs) sockpuppetry

I checked the Chris is my name (talk · contribs) account, blocked as a troll, with CheckUser, and found that it was operated by Shapiros10 (talk · contribs), who was mentioned by the sockpuppet ("this Shapiros10 person went for an RfA the day after he graduated from adoption. This is stupid that we let them edit!"). Don't ask me why he would use a sock to insult himself, but upon checking, I have found a number of other socks. A couple used for odd trolling related to user "adoption," a project which Shapiros seems to be very involved in, including MadMan3, PA3296. Others are just general trolls/vandals: The Change is Coming..., Le Noob, Vengaboys Rock!, F Yo Mama, Kambula, The Old Hat Restaurant. Other socks are also Stjimmy61892 (which he welcomed), Iroc555, and Goggreen. I haven't blocked any of these myself, but I recommend that an administrator consider taking action. Dmcdevit·t 21:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Doing it. -- lucasbfr 21:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's disappointing. My interaction with Shapiros10 was okay. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Assuming Good Faith, I think it might be friends or family of the user who could be the socks. But for some reason this case reminds me of User:Green Kirby, in which his dad got on here and did several things (I can't remember though). During that case, User:Green Kirby was blocked for his dad getting on his account and saying bad things. Kirby contested it, but was denied because it was done on his account. I guess it is kind of the same thing as in just different people at the same IP. But still, we aren't certain that there are even other people at all. Well anywho just a hunch and 2 cents that helped with nothing. :D <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Editor COI and COI/N proposal + review my actions

Could others please comment on two aspects of COI issues relating to Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs) and Vereniging Basisinkomen.

• Firstly on Misplaced Pages:COI/N#Guido_den_Broeder_vs._others (and lesser extent Talk:Vereniging Basisinkomen#COI) - does that consitute fair and appropriate view to block this editor, notwithstanding his decission to not listen to that discussion & rejection that COI should restrict his editing involvement ?
• Secondly, rather than impose a block with a warning as COI/N seemed to propose, I elected to merely notify him of being community partially banned on just that one article. Was my interpretation and actions appropriate ?

Guido den Broeder responded with RFAR 3.1 Request to lift article ban. It seems pointless to duplicate the background details, links and references that are set out there, so please review those comments. (I note Robotje's comment of his mutiple filing of RFAR at Dutch Misplaced Pages, but I suspect that such actions elsewhere are immaterial here in English Misplaced Pages).

So does Guido den Broeder have COI issues sufficient to warrant action or a specific level of warning (as per WP:COI/N) and were my actions appropriate or handled as well as I could/should have? David Ruben 23:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Please remove your reference to perceived events on nl:Misplaced Pages. Such a mention only serves to put me in a bad light since I cannot comment. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

@David Ruben: Can you provide some diffs of disruptive editing? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that the COI/N procedure mentioned by David relates to a completely different article, Melody Amber chess tournament. Since the COI/N, consensus has emerged on the talk page of that article that supports my stance, and opposing user has been warned for stalking. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Not so, and further illustration of your failure to accept COI on this article and viewpoints of multiple other editors/admins. That COI/N's first posting was by Aecis on 16 April who stated "The user has also created articles for ] ...", and on 17 April points out specific edits to that article's talk page. Gordonofcartoon observed on 18 April "The bottom line is, if a number of independent editors view your edits as self-promotional, they probably are and you should defer to that view." WLU's posting on 20th included "See ] in my archive,". On 23rd WLU stated ". Revert-warring isn't a good sign, ever" and EdJohnston posted "I suggest that blocking might be considered, in the light of Guido's ". So the COI/N made repeated reference to this article (as well as some other articles in passing). David Ruben 00:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see a level of disruption that would warrant a ban. The user should be advised to exercise caution, and most certainly not to engage in edit-wars with others. After all, it should be very easy to check the article and see if there is material that should not included, or vice-versa, COI, or not COI. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jossi. I believe that I am exercising caution, and said checking is presently taking place by cooperative co-editors. David is welcome to keep looking over my shoulder if he still has concerns. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, Guido. As an editor that has a COI myself in some articles, my advice is this: you need to edit not only with extreme caution, if you edit at all, but you should do it so cleanly that it will squeak, so that anyone checking your contributions could not make a case that you are disruptive. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(editconflict)Hi, I come to this page from Vereniging Basisinkomen which is still on my watchlist because I was following it in a recent Afd. In my view the removal of the COI notice made some sense. The article itself was cleaned up and to my knowledge all the COI material and other coattrack stuff has been removed(at least that was my impression). If I hadn't seen the discussion on the talk page I would of removed the COI notice myself. Going back a bit further there have been a number of editors posts I wouldn't say has been WP:CIVIL towards 'Guido den Broeder', perhaps it is just because there is a difference of opinion on the subject(clearly the case) but I think many of the posts are personal, which is quite inappropriate and gets nowhere to making the article a better article. To that end I have no understanding why 'Guido den Broeder' has been banned from that page. He(Guido den Broeder) seems to be the victim of the situation, and so the recent ban actions sense questionable to me at this time. SunCreator (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Tikiwikicop

Several newbie users have nominated a newbie and added supports for him at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Tikiwikicop. Could somebody delete the RfA and caution these users? Corvus cornix_talk 22:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

They also removed my Oppose, though that hardly matters. Corvus cornix_talk 22:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh, I thought that was vandalism and reverted it. Sorry (I think!),  This flag once was red  22:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive accounts whacked, page gone. east.718 at 22:36, April 25, 2008

Duplicates

Nick37 (talk · contribs · count · logs) appears to be a child, who keeps creating duplicate articles by copying and pasting the campaign sections from the main articles of the candidate discussed. It would be helpful if an administrator deleted the articles listed below and politely warned the user to stop creating duplicate articles.

• Bill Bradley presidential campaign, 2000
• Bob Graham presidential campaign, 2004
• Gary Hart presidential campaign 1984
• Gary Hart presidential campaign 1988
• Jesse Jackson presidential campaign 1984
• Jesse Jackson presidential election 1988
• Wesly Clark presidential campign, 2004
• Richard Gephardt presidential campaign, 2004

There are probably other articles that I did not catch. Thank you in advance.--Southern Texas (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright Violations

I am requesting administrator assistance in regards to the constant copyright violations by User:McLeod1 (talk). This user has in particular frequently added copyright-subject episode summaries to the Category:McLeod's Daughters seasons, most recently in McLeod's Daughters (season 6), which I reverted only minutes ago. Most recently, the user has created new articles about individual McLeod's Daughters episodes (see McLeod's Daughters (season 6)#Episodes). These articles are composed completely of copyright-subject material and ought to be deleted.

I, as well as numerous other editors (User:Ultraexactzz, User:Bidgee, User:Collectonian), have warned McLeod to stop contributing copyright-subject material but the user has not taken any notice whatsoever and has continued to add copyright-subject material.

I beleive User:McLeod1 should be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages to prevent any more copyright violations, to protect the project's reputation and to save other editors the time for having to clean it up.

Thankyou, Daniel99091 (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC).

Botched Article Move

Chwyatt (talk · contribs) apparently tried to move Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan: Allies to Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan: International support, but went about it in the wrong way:

1. new page created as retitled copy of old.
2. redirected old page to new copy.
3. created new talk page as copy of old.
4. redirected old talk page to new copy (actually, botched into a null redirect).
5. and links from articles modified appropriately.

I've reverted #2 and #4 for the moment, pending resolution. For one thing, I don't know if the name change had consensus. If it did, then Chywatt's new versions will have to be deleted first, as they lack full edit histories. Could an admin look into this, please? rudra (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, before the situation gets any worse, I've reverted the two link mods in #5 also. rudra (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

All fixed - and I even histmerged their comment on the "new" talkpage into the old one for good measure. east.718 at 01:06, April 26, 2008

Great, thanks. At this point someone who knows what they're doing can rename the page(s) properly (I don't think there will be much objection, but checking/fixing the incoming links could be tedious.) rudra (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:POINT

Swiksek (talk · contribs) is trying to make a point with their contributions. Could someone please check into this? Dismas| 00:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

He stopped after I warned him, I believe. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC) NonvocalScream (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I am however unsure of whether or not to revert them. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I did. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Heliac blocked

Heliac (talk · contribs) seems to be on a spree of abusing various Misplaced Pages processes. I warned him about a run of harmless names he posted to UAA, and then I thought to check the archives.

Turns out he's had these warnings before, multiple times. He's also been warned for biting newbies, and he's just had his rollback powers removed because he used it to revert people he disagreed with... such as people saying he shouldn't have rollback powers. He's now reverting randomly using TWINKLE. He's been warned about basically all of these things, including a large number of warnings for disruptive reverting.

After seeing the sheer enormity of the list of warnings he's removed, I blocked him for 24 hours. I have a feeling this won't be sufficient.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps he should be denied twinkle too, at the very least--Jac16888 (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to deny someone TWINKLE? That would be a new one on me. Or would this be a sort of "topic ban" against using TWINKLE? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. you simply blank their monobook, then protect it for as long as you want to deny them tw.Admittedly, it will only work after they close their browser. Also, i find the amount of times heliac's talk page has gotten comment's from ips telling him they weren't vandalising quite disturbing, several of these seem like legit edits were reverted--Jac16888 (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think he's got TWINKLE turned on through Gadgets, not through monobook.js.

And yeah, the things he's been reverting seem to be a mix of vandalism and legitimate edits. I'm looking at his recent contributions, and cleaning it up is going to be a bit of a daunting task. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yikes. You're right about that. I'll help out where I can with that task. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No twinkle in his monobook, so yeah, either ask him to move it there and disable the gadget, or just keep blocking in such cases, until he learns. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Damn, forgot about the gadget way of using it. May not be possible then. shame. By the way, Heliac is requesting unblock.--Jac16888 (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

, is very odd.--Jac16888 (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's conceivable that Heliac is going to be a constructive user at all, I think we're going to need to topic-ban him from making edits with automated tools for a while. Does this sound like a good idea? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Ottava Rima

First, let me say that I have only very reluctantly brought this to ANI. As I rarely, if ever, end up in situations like this, let me also apologize if I have done something incorrectly.

I had hoped that Ottava Rima was acting in good faith, but after interacting with this user several times over the past few weeks, I can only come to the conclusion that this user is a disruptive editor. While Ottava Rima has contributed some worthwhile content to Misplaced Pages, s/he has been very unwilling to listen to the suggestions of others. I first encountered this user at the FAC for The Drapier's Letters (a series of pamphlets written by Jonathan Swift). Although not a Swift expert myself, I do study the literature of the eighteenth century, therefore whenever any literature articles on the eighteenth century arrive at FAC, I usually take the time to review them thoroughly. I could tell from the FAC that Jbmurray had had an unpleasant experience trying to copy edit the article, so I thought I would try to help out. Sometimes where one editor fails, a different approach can work. I spent several hours copy editing the article. I listed the questions I had after copy editing the article in great detail on the article's talk page. Almost every suggestion I made was met with an explanation rather than a change. I had to follow up each one with a second explanation of why the sentence needed to be improved. Even worse, Ottava Rima would just assert some items that were false. For example, I asked if a particular quotation was quoted correctly because the typography looked incorrect to me (eighteenth-century typography is rather distinctive). S/he asserted it was. However, I found the exact edition s/he had used on Google Books and linked to it to show him/her that the quote was incorrect (see line 142). At that point, it seemed to me that s/he was just lying. However, it could have been an honest mistake, so I kept trying to help Ottava Rima improve the article.

The trouble really began when I began to dig into the sourcing for the article. It used some unreliable sources and lacked up-to-date scholarship. When I pointed this out, Ottava Rima's first edit summary response was to take my concerns to a noticeboard. Ottava Rima did not even want to discuss the sources concerns. His/her poor understanding of what constitutes a reliable source is illustrated by our discussion about the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. For example, here Ottava Rima asserts that the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica is reliable, here I explain why it is not, here Ottava Rima asserts it is reliable for Misplaced Pages, and finally another person enters the discussion to mention the 1911 WikiProject. This fundamental understanding of WP:V is part of what leads me to believe that Ottava Rima is a disruptive editor.

After the FAC for The Drapier's Letters failed, Ottava Rima started reviewing many more FACs. She reviewed two that both Jbmurray and I were involved in: Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Mario Vargas Llosa and Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/The General in His Labyrinth. At Mario Vargas Llosa, Ottava Rima demanded that the editors include the original Spanish quotations and translations in the article for each and every Spanish source used. Ottava Rima's interpretation of the policy was unnecessarily strict and attitude about it was unnecessarily rude. I have seen no one invoke this rule before in my year and half at FAC and there was hardly a ringing consensus for the inclusion of the translations. However, Jbmurray offered to do the necessary translation. Although Ottava Rima changed her vote from "oppose" to "conditional support", she identified almost every inline citation that was sourced to a Spanish source as needing translation. This rendered the policy quoted by SandyGeorgia during the FAC moot: "Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others might challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content." Apparently, everything was open to challenge for Ottava Rima. See: Talk:Mario Vargas Llosa/Archive 2#As Per Sandy.

Now, Ottava Rima has written a review for Boydell Shakespeare Gallery FAC, a nomination I entered. Again, Ottava Rima has misunderstood the policy regarding citation. S/he has repeatedly demanded that inline citations be placed after almost every sentence even though I have explained that the article meets and exceeds WP:V numerous times as has one other editor (see top part of diff). S/he has also begun disputing the factional content of the article without understanding the sources or the statements being made. For example, the article states that Shakespeare (as a national icon) was used to represent rising British nationalism in the 18th century. Ottava Rima disputes this, saying Shakespeare was English. He was - in the 15th and 16th centuries. That is not the question under debate. I have provided her with sources to read, Qp10qp provided a quotation to support the article's sources as well. She has continued to dispute the article's contention without understanding it and without stopping to listen to what other editors are saying.

I cannot prove beyond any doubt that Ottava Rima is deliberately disrupting the encyclopedia. However, her intentions have also been questioned by Jbmurray. Regardless of this user's intentions, it is becoming difficult to work with Ottava Rima at FAC and as Jbmurray notes in the diff above, people are going to become reluctant to comment at FACs where s/he is reviewing. This is not a a net benefit to the encyclopedia. I do not know what is usually done in these situations. I am primarily a content editor and I create articles in my little backwater. I am relying on the administrators here to offer some help. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a word of advice, that post is far longer than what I usually commit to reading. _(1 == 2) 00:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I'm an English major - I write long. Should I revise? :) Awadewit (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Long of the short, from someone who's also worked (sometimes frustratingly, sometimes not) with Ottava Rima; user seems to act against or misinterpret WP:V, attempts to impose this misinterepretation on others, and has been disruptive in some cases. Incivility is also brought up as a concern. My interactions with the user are limited (IIRC) to WP:Featured article candidates/Age of Empires, which is ongoing. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Where does Vandalism come up anywhere here? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, I see V was piped to Verify. And misinterpret? So you are saying that four sentences per paragraph on obscure 18th century don't need a citation? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This AN/I thread, concerning civility, was just closed. I won't comment during an ongoing FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

So, instead of making the appropriate fixes, she turns to ANI. Does anyone here believe that, for a Featured Article, having more than 2 sentences linked to one citation at the very end of a paragraph on an obscure 18th century topic is not one that is challengable? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

As someone who's written 8 FAs (admittedly, not on that topic, but I have reviewed in that area too), no, I utterly disagree with you. For a featured article especially, it is assumed that the reference at the end of the paragraph covers everything (2 sentences, or more) within it. The only exception is for direct quotations or claims that are highly likely to be challenged. I encountered the same thing in my FAC; I found myself duplicating the same reference 3 times in a row to satisfy your request, on relatively minor (ie. unlikely to be challenged) issues. Kindly cease. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

And when someone adds a detail later or decides to rearrange a sentence, what do you do then? Your suggestion is impractical nor does it abide with the fact that Misplaced Pages changes over time. We don't allow "Ibid" for this reason, why would we allow an invisible substitute? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Addition of new details should be accompanied by a source for that detail, if it doesn't come from the same source as the rest of the paragraph. The rearrangement of a sentence should be done in a way that doesn't contradict the source used for that sentence (and paragraph). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that doesn't stand up to the test of time and is impractical. The new users might come by and not even know what part of the sentence is sourced. You are assuming far more than what can be assumed, and you do a disservice in your assumption. There is no information provided for future users on the nature of the information put forward, nor is there anything in Misplaced Pages MoS, Policy, or Essays, that say "if its not cited except at the end, that citation covers everything else". Ottava Rima (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If a new user comes by and adds information without a source, you can either revert, or find a source yourself. There is nothing in essays that requires a source for every sentence, either. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O)

I have never said every sentence, and it is incivil for you to blatantly misstate what I have said. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• (edit conflict:) Comment. I second Awadewit's summary. And likewise, I am contributing here with some reluctance: I am not someone who seeks to have fellow editors punished; rather I try to work constructively with other editors wherever possible. But I'd also note that, in addition to the ANI discussion to which SandyGeorgia points, Ottava Rima has managed to antagonize a whole range of editors across a wide variety of different contexts.
• Above all, perhaps, Ottava Rima has a pronounced tendency to dig his or her heels in regardless of the consensus or evidence that s/he is shown. There have been plenty of discussions along these lines at User talk:Ottava Rima, though that page is not archived, and critical comments tend simply to be deleted.
• At various points I had thought that Ottava Rima was starting to adapt better to the culture of collaborative consensus-seeking that characterizes Misplaced Pages. But then s/he will return to a stubbornness that does indeed, I believe, constitute a form of obstructionism.
• Awadewit has shown great patience in her dealings with Ottava Rima. She has truly gone beyond the call of duty in attempting to respond to any concerns raised, and in assuming good faith. Unfortunately, Ottava Rima does not respond. This is not good for the encyclopedia, it frustrates the important process of Featured Article candidacy and reassessment, and it is clearly a drain on the resources of Awadewit, one of the project's finest and most prolific contributors of featured content. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If she is showing great patience, why could she not add the simple citations? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Because she chooses to abide by WP:V and not a misinterpretation of it. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O)

Two points:

1. Awadewit has shown great patience in attempting to explain to you why she disagrees with your interpretation of citation requirements. These patient explanations have also, I would say, convinced others who are contributing to the discussion. Patience is not the same thing as agreement, or as doing what you would bid; Awadewit has been extremely patient in her civil disagreement.
2. The point is, I believe, that there is a pattern of obstructionism here, that is not limited to this particular Featured Article candidacy. It would perhaps be better not to concentrate solely on the details of this specific disagreement, but rather to the way in which you often (if not exclusively) conduct yourself at FAC and FAR. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

She can disagree all she wants, but the fact that there are multiple lines that have important details without citations does not mean that she is correct. Furthermore, your second point basically says that you are here for revenge. If that is not the case, please make it clear now. I have not made comments that were unfounded, and I have only put "oppose" to articles that have severe deficiencies or those which the editor refuses to fix. I have worked with many editors to help turn their article into FA status and fix multiple problems. FA is not a pat on the back. Its a serious thing that examines articles in regard to MoS. I have been completely fair. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to make it clear, if it needs clarifying, that I am not here for "revenge." I am here because I have been invoked (following our interaction primarily on the FAC for Drapier's Letters, which also as you are aware spilled over onto various other talk pages; I can dig out the diffs for those interested), because I sympathize with Awadewit's frustrations, and because I agree that too often (if not always) the way in which you conduct yourself in these discussions is, as I have said, obstructionist and bad for the encyclopedia. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You can use the term "obstructionist" all you want, but it is a pejorative regardless. My concerns were valid here and they were valid there. Your own students recognized that. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed a criticism (which seems to me a better word than "pejorative"). But that is why you are here: the way in which you interact with other editors is being criticized. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I have just proven that your comments are exaggeration. The vast majority of people I have interacted with have no problem, and even the members of your group seem to be perfectly fine. You, the complainant, and the individual Wasted are the only ones to have had any real problem. It is especially strange that such a simplistic, easily fixed thing could lead to such stubborn refusal. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. It's worth saying also that numerous people have tried to advise Ottava Rima that the approach that s/he employs is likely counter-productive. Here are just a couple of recent examples, in addition to my own comment cited above: "do you really think you're helping your case by fighting against every single person who tries to talk to you?" "Your arguments may indeed by right, but your methods of making those arguments anger a lot of people" "Your phrasing often comes across as combative, which hopefully is not intentional. A calmer tone will often get better result" Again, it really is notable that in the main (if not exclusively) Ottava Rima has not taken that advice, and has apparently decided rather that defensiveness, or even offensiveness, is the better course. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If simple, abstract, impersonal words anger anyone, then that is not my fault. There are plenty of editors who I have interacted with who were appreciative of my contribution. I find it offensive that you would go against WP:CIVIL by making misleading statements about my character like that. This for example. This editor didn't have a problem. Or even here where Dihydrogen oxide even thanked me for my work. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing misleading about pointing out that at various times other editors have tried to offer you advice, and that you have not taken it. And again, it is not that your contributions are never appreciated; rather it is that there are sufficient times that you have been perceived to be disruptive that a pattern has emerged. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Questions for Admin I would like to ask the following questions of potential admin who look at this case based on many of the things that Awadewit has claimed as bad actions on my part. I would like to know the answers to these:

1. "Almost every suggestion I made was met with an explanation rather than a change." Does this mean that discussion of changes are no longer important before making them? Are talk pages there to list demands and expect no discussion? If so, is Awadewit acting inappropriate for arguing about my concerns, as she claims that responses are acting inappropriately?

2. "However, I found the exact edition s/he had used on Google Books and linked to it to show him/her that the quote was incorrect (see line 142). At that point, it seemed to me that s/he was just lying." Are accusations of lying appropriate when the quote was copied and pasted directly from the online version of Project Gutenberg, and that if there was an error, it was with them? Furthermore, the quote was changed, so isn't it just a tad rude to accuse editors of lying about such things?

3 "It used some unreliable sources and lacked up-to-date scholarship. When I pointed this out, Ottava Rima's first edit summary response was to take my concerns to a noticeboard. Ottava Rima did not even want to discuss the sources concerns." Actually, I took it to the noticeboard, because that is where reliable sources are determined. Is that wrong? I must pointed out that community consensus verified my case and said that the book was verifiable and appropriate. Was that wrong of me to do? According to Awadewit, it was. Is she correct? It can be found here.

4 "Although Ottava Rima changed her vote from "oppose" to "conditional support", she identified almost every inline citation that was sourced to a Spanish source as needing translation." As someone without the sources, is it wrong for me to analysis and point out the various uses of the text to make sure that the sources can be verified? Also, my analysis didn't point out that many major problems that needed to be addressed, and did lead to a few important changes. Is that really so wrong?

That should be enough. Thanks for answering. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The recently closed incivility thread referenced above was not just any incivility: Ottava Rima told four (mostly longtime) editors to "leave Misplaced Pages" because they disagreed with Ottava Rima on an MoS guideline interpretation. More remarkably, in the long ANI discussion that followed, Ottava Rima persisted in being contentious and disagreeable with everyone who commented or made suggestions. Ottava Rima seems incapable of recognizing how his or her actions are perceived, and does not either know how, or want, to change his or her behavior. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wasted, you do know that misrepresenting the truth of the matter is against CIVIL, correct? And that you are being incivil and off topic, yes? That matter was closed with a decision. The decision was not the one you wanted, and you have no right to try and seek some new decision on it here. Your claims were unfounded, your place for putting them were unfounded, and there was no need for admin intervention as decided. ANI is not the place to try and settle your grudges. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Then good, we're both happy for people to read that full discussion and judge for themselves. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What I have seen of the user's own comments above seem to confirm the statements made by the user who reported this incident. Just went through the user's blocklog. It appears that he has been blocked in the recent past (last month) for making legal threats against users and the Wikimedia Foundation.--Jersey Devil (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Jersey, if you read the account, you would see that the block for "legal threats" was made improperly and removed. I never made legal threats, and that was clear on my talk page. Your accusations of such should be struck. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, your actions following the March 21 block make it quite apparent that you issued a legal threat via email, given your immediate claims that a threat made off the wiki wouldn't count. For example, you removed a post mentioning the threat on the grounds that it discussed a private email, posted carefully worded posts that repeatedly deny only making a threat "on Misplaced Pages" but do not deny making such a threat, then move to justify your use of email to issue the threat; in the days following, you were engaged in an argument at Misplaced Pages talk:No legal threats over the meaning and spirit of the policy (arguing that the email was acceptable), and were eventually blocked for edit warring on that page. You regularly insist that users who criticize your actions are behaving in an uncivil manner and should stop commenting or remove their criticisms, and continue that trend here. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Luna, if that was true, my block would never have been removed, and admin would never have spoken on my behalf. That "on Misplaced Pages" was in addition to. My email was forwarded to other admin, and they agreed on two parts: a) that she was acting improperly by blocking on her own and b) that there was no actual legal threat. Misstating the facts is incivil and this is a serious matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the long post to my talk page, I had a hunch that would be coming. A single user's comment is certainly relevant, but does not speak for the whole community and is not authoritative in this situation. If you made no legal threat, it's very interesting that you were unblocked after a retraction of one. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

For those curious

The above user, Awadewit, has challenged my claim that certain text needs to be cited. Now, if you do not feel like going over to the FAC review to look at the examples, here are some of the key ones:

"Apart from these popular editions, scholarly editions also proliferated. In the first half of the 18th century, these were edited by author-scholars such as Pope (1725) and Johnson (1765), but later in the century this changed. Editors such as George Steevens (1773, 1785) and Edmund Malone (1790) used painstaking care in collating their editions and included extensive explanatory footnotes from previous editors as well as themselves. The early editions appealed to both the middle class and those interested in Shakespeare scholarship, but the later editions appealed almost exclusively to those interested in scholarship. ""

This is three sentences, followed by a third that was cited. It has claims to dates, the term "popular" and "scholarly", "extensive" and other such keywords that make it necessary to cite.

"The print folio, A Collection of Prints, From Pictures Painted for the Purpose of Illustrating the Dramatic Works of Shakspeare, by the Artists of Great-Britain (1805), was originally intended to be a collection of the illustrations from the edition, but a few years into the project, Boydell altered his plan. He guessed that he could sell more folios and editions if the pictures were different. "

This long passage, with another that supposedly has the citation to it at the end (that would be at the end of the third sentence), has, in this section, "intended", "altered", and "guessed", which would demand a citation to verify such claims, especially when it goes to speculation about a state of mind.

These are only a few examples.

If you have any questions, please, ask. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

ANI is not for content disputes. That said, in both cases, I believe Awadewit was correct. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I have repeatedly said on the FAC page, almost every piece of information in the Boydell Shakespeare Gallery article (including the statements cited above) is sourced. Not every sentence has an inline citation after it, but every set of topics does. This goes above and beyond the requirements of WP:V. There is no unsourced information in the article that Ottava Rima can point to. There is no requirement that the footnotes appear at the end of every sentence. The one sentence that was missing a note that she pointed out, I added a note to. Awadewit (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If Awadewit is correct, then that means that my analysis of the above as needing to be cited is wrong. Are you saying that such paragraphs above do not need direct citation? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally I would like to see a citation at least for each paragraph, but yes, there is no requirement for that, and I believe your analysis is incorrect. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That is your right, and that is merely your opinion, nothing more, nothing less. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit is correct as even a cursory look through the existing featured articles, conveniently listed at WP:FA, will confirm. I like footnotes as much as anyone, but one for each and every sentence is rather too much of a good thing. I would advise a short break from FAC reviewing while you familiarise yourself with the precedents. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the recent Tale of a Tub demotion. Articles without enough sourcing have been demoted left and right. Furthermore, could you not mischaracterize my statements? I have put up chunks, not one sentence here and there, but large chunks that make claims that need citation. As soon as the article is edited to add additional information, no one but the original creator is capable of knowing what the uncited information came from and will be unverifiable. This has happened constantly. Please, before you make such claims as you have above, do review the actual precedence. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I did the sourcing on Tale of a Tub and I would agree with its demotion; it was not possible to reconstruct the notes from the bibliography. However, the inline citations on Boydell Shakespeare Gallery are far more numerous than the handful that existed on Tub and any reader checking the inline citation on Boydell would find the information cited in the article. This comparison is spurious. Awadewit (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

They were not numerous enough if you have four sentences running before there is a source. If Sandy does not believe that I have a footing, then she would ignore my oppose. If she believes I have a standing, she will accept it. However, it is not acceptable to turn to ANI in order to bully a review into agreeing with you. It is a simple fix. You refuse to make it. I am not the one being stubborn here. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an ANI about a larger pattern. Please read the entire statement I wrote. Awadewit (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you think ANI will solve? That my "vote" will be overturned? That it is even a vote? Only Sandy has the right to determine if my concerns are legitimate or not. You cannot stifle discussion in a review by turning to ANI and issuing a complaint. I brought forth a legitimate complaint. If you don't think so, fine, don't change anything. You have shown that you are unwilling to listen to what others may feel are problem. This isn't a game. This isn't a war. Stop acting like this is some kind of battleground. The change recommended was simple. You refused. You took it here for who knows why. Administrators have no authority over a discussion. Only Sandy and Raul have the authority to determine if a concern is legitimate or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, a deliberate misinterpretation of policy (or a refusal to understand policy) is disruptive editing. It is not uncommon for relatively new users to misunderstand policy, but they are expected to learn from their mistakes. Numerous long-time editors who are very familiar with the policy have (politely) attempted to educate when your policy interpretation has been off. Rather than consider that they may be explaining what is consensus, you badger people and insist that your interpretation is the only one that is correct. That is disruptive. I've followed several FACs with which you have been involved and I have tried to continue to WP:AGF, but the pattern continues to repeat. I think you could be a very valuable FAC contributor, but you must have a solid grasp of policy (as consensus understands them to be) before that. I think it would be wise for you to watch FAC for a while longer, read many more newly promoted FACs and gain a better understanding of WP policies before commenting again. Karanacs (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs, I have never seen anything that says that you can have four sentences in a paragraph with a citation at the end and that they should all be considered as verifiable. If you think that is true, then please, edit the citation guideline to show such. However, you have stated what is not in the policy, and you have done a great disservice to this community by making it seem far more clear cut than it actually is. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed restriction: Ottava Rima banned from WP:FAC except for own nominations, reviewable after one month

Ottava Rima has an extensive and recent block log and responds aggressively to feedback. Awadewit has written two dozen featured articles and has been scrupulously patient and polite. Don't blame her for this thread, please. I urged her to initiate it. The plain fact here is that Ottava Rima's disruptive actions pose an imminent danger of interrupting the productivity of our most productive Wikipedians (Awadewit and others). I propose a partial ban of Ottava Rima from WP:FAC; Ottava Rima may nominate his or her own material and participate fully at those nominations, but may not comment on any other nominations. This restriction would be reviewable after one month and may be lifted if Ottava Rima's civility and responsiveness to feedback improve. Durova 04:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hold on, how does this work? You "urged" Awadewit to initiate this ANI, you don't comment on it, and then come in with this solution... I mean, whatever the merits of the proposal, this doesn't look very good. It rather looks as though you had decided that it would be a good idea to ban Ottava from FAC, and then asked Awadewit to initiate a complaint so that you could do so, regardless of the discussion. This may not have been what happened, but frankly something looks a little fishy here. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Where did this conversation happen, Durova? Off-Wiki? Did you consult Raul or me during this decision? Does every nominator who is unhappy about a FAC oppose get to suggest a ban at AN/I now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What happened was this: I asked Durova for advice because I rarely get into sticky situations like I got into with Ottava Rima. Durova suggested that I take the issue to the noticeboard. I was reluctant, as I stated in my statement, but I did so anyway. The pattern had become pronounced in my opinion. I read the page about disruptive editors (which I found on my own after reading the instructions at the top of this page) and I spent over an hour working on my statement and finding the diffs. Later on in the evening, I mentioned to Durova how terrible the entire situation has made me feel and she took a look at the thread and proposed this solution. She mentioned that it is always good to propose a solution when posting something to the noticeboard. I apologize for not doing this earlier. If I should have mentioned that I consulted Durova about this issue - that I tried to get advice about a difficult user - I apologize - but that is the whole story. It was one user asking advice from someone more experienced. Awadewit (talk) 05:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Awadewit. In retrospect, it might have been best had either you or Durova mentioned at an earlier stage that you had been in contact; and indeed had one of you mentioned the proposed solution at an earlier stage. I should say that I haven no problem per se with such off-wiki conversations: it is quite understandable that you should seek advice in such a way. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse As an uninvolved administrator, I have just spent a while reviewing Ottava Rima's contribs and history. Ottava Rima shows no understanding of the featured article criteria or of the verification policy, and shows no respect for widespread consensus. Ottava Rima is unneccessarily aggressive in pusing his particular and peculiar interpretation of policies, and does so to the level of disruption, to the level that it becomes impossible to have a constructive discussion on any FAC that he involves himself in. I give my full support to this restriction. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse seems like a reasonable solution though if disruptive behavior continues beyond this further action may need to be taken.--Jersey Devil (talk) 04:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - also as an uninvolved administrator, I have spent the good part of an hour (with a small break) to read through the history surrounding this thread and agree with what Jayron has said above. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Endorse it? Hell, I'd do commercials for it. I've tried for several days to get this editor to calm down and simply realize their style of editing and arguing was angering everyone who tried to converse with them, and they've responded with wikilawyering in the extreme. I would endorse any action designed to get this editor to realize their way is not the cooperative way of the wiki. Redrocket (talk) 04:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Slippery slope. I recognize and sympathize, but this is an unprecedented and (so far) unnecessary measure for handling a dispute at FAC (or FAR). Has Raul been consulted on the practice of banning editors from FAC discussions? I am very uncomfortable with such a precedent being set so precipitously. I will drop a note on Raul's talk page. If he concurs with this measure, then I may reconsider. Ottava Rima is certainly not the first, and won't likely be the last, editor who may not fully understand WP:WIAFA, and we don't ban people from the page after a few disagreements (which include one FAC where Ottava raised a valid point no one else had considered). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Follow up: if there is a civility issue or a policy violation, block the editor for that. But banning someone from FAC for objecting sets a very dangerous precedent, particularly before other measures have been tried, and considering that no FAC nominator is obligated to engage any Oppose. Raul and I are perfectly capable of deciding if an Oppose is valid or not, and AN/I intervention isn't needed to settle FACs. Now, civility, other policy violations, yes, those can and should be settled here, but no editor is obligated to engage an Oppose they disagree with, and FAC is not a vote, and the director/delegate will not be swayed by invalid or unactionable opposes. This intervention may be warranted if the pattern continues, but is not now, IMO. Does AN/I really want to be in the business of deciding FAC outcomes? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, I was just leaving a note at your user talk page, Sandy. Didn't realize you had already posted here. Durova 05:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• I can respect that Sandy, and I really would support anyone's right to oppose any FAC... However, the level of disruption caused by Ottava recently isn't just about the director/co-assistant-associate-director-deletegate being able to filter out his disruption; it seems that his disruption is reaching a level where it is difficult for other editors to even contribute meaningfully to the FAC process. The problem is not that he opposes, or even the things he opposes for, its that he monopolizes the conversation with his point of view, to the level where it is driving away other editors who would review FACs, but don't because he scares them away. That level of disruption is a problem and needs to be addressed... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• It takes two to tango; an opposer can only monopolize if someone is engaging (or not trusting that Raul or I will overlook an unactionable oppose). And, other dispute resolution measures should be tried before we set this dangerous precedent that nominators can come to AN/I when they don't like FAC !votes. Note that the previous thread on Ottava Rima focused on civility, which is appropriate AN/I business. Please reconsider whether FAC reviewers should be intimidated by this kind of action. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: I used evidence from FACs to make a case about disruptive editing. This ANI is not about any specific FAC vote. It is about a pattern of editing that extends to talk pages as well. The most damage has been done at FAC, which is why Durova suggested the remedy she did, but in no way is this a usurpation of forthcoming FAC decisions. Durova nor I have asked the admins here to decide any FACs. Awadewit (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Sandy, it's not really accurate to say that what's proposed is "banning someone from FAC for objecting." That would indeed constitute a "dangerous precedent." Rather, what is at issue is the way in which this user (often, but not always) engages with others, at FAC and beyond. I think the justification for an FAC-only ban is that the problem often arises at FAC, though it is then perpetuated elsewhere, in an often ever-widening circle. But anyhow: the issue is not that Ottava Rima has objected. Nobody has any problem with that. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose As an uninvolved observer, I think this might be something to take to an RfC, but I don't think this is the appropriate forum for this measure. I do think Ottava is causing problems--heck, looking at Ottava's comments where Ottava accuses everybody of incivility is an indicator that problems exist.Balloonman (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, RFC or WQA are the appropriate places to handle this. We have a hard enough time getting enough reviewers at FAC and FAR that we don't need to head down the slope of banning editors who have had a few disagreements and made some valid observations; this will act as a deterrent to vigorous discussion and strong reviews, and could lead to a decrease in FA standards. FAC has a mechanism for dealing with this: the director/delegate can overlook invalid or unactionable opposes, nominators do not have to engage editors or opposes they disagree with, and FAC is not a vote. This is not AN/I business; the previous thread on civility was AN/I business. If the pattern continues after appropriate dispute resolution has been pursued, then maybe, but if AN/I wants to start banning problematic or difficult editors from FAC and FAR over a couple of opposes (one retracted after discussion), I can pass a very long list to AN/I of the real problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support. His incivility and constant rules-layering and stonewalling are impediments to getting anything done. Mr.Z-man 05:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Then block him for civility. Don't start a trend of banning editors from FAC over opposes, unless we want to scare off reviewers and see standards decline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Wrong place (wrong forum). Perhaps a user-conduct RfC Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct should be initiated. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• As I said at the beginning of my statement, I rarely get involved in these disputes so I am unfamiliar with their processes. What I do understand is that Ottava Rima is disruptive and draining time away from improving the encyclopedia. Why should we engage in this same discussion all over again somewhere else? I don't really understand that. Awadewit (talk) 05:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Although this might be the wrong place for this, it is obvious from the responses that this editor has been disruptive. Even the editors who defend his FAC rights preface it by saying OR doesn't seem to understand the concept of civility. If this is the wrong place for this argument, so be it, but something has to be done. OR's actions are occupying far too much attention on the wiki, and not just in terms of FAC. Redrocket (talk) 05:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• If you haven't heard an opinion from Raul or me about Ottava Rima's reviews, you don't have a full view. And I'm not giving an opinion with ongoing FACs as that would disrupt the FACs; that's another reason this dispute doesn't belong here, is inappropriate, and the normal channels of dispute resolution should be followed. Something has to be done? Nominators can ignore reviewers they disagree with. Done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Jayron's comments above. Ottava Rima's arguments in The Drapier's Letters FAC show a strong lack of understanding of the FA criteria. Coupled with the incivility and stonewalling attitude, I endorse Durova's proposal. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have voluntarily struck my comments from the FAC in question here. I shall withdraw myself and go on a Wikibreak for a few months. I will (explicitly) not make further comments or edits on articles that involve Awadewit, Jbmurray, or Wasted Time R during this time. I will also make no further comments or edits on articles that involve others stipulated by the community. I hope that such will satisfy all parties involved, and remove any need for admin to take intervention that may set a precedence that will only harm the future of the FAC process. I am one editor, and as such, I am as replaceable as all other editors are. However, the process is not replaceable, and takes time to recover. I shall spend my time editing my own user space, or the handful of articles that I have created/majorly worked on as of late, unless the community shall wish to ban me, then I will be limited to my user page, unless the community then decides to remove that from my ability.

I hope this satisfies all, and this shall be the end of my communication upon this in order to begin the above. Thank you for your time and your consideration. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Spanish WP editors disrupting english WP football articles

I tried to explain in the UEFA Cup filing above, and there hase been a subsequent filing from the user about 'cheating', but there is a Spanish? based editor Ultracanella (talk · contribs) pledged to wage war on the English wiki until all football article reflect his POV, to the point he is canvassing EN wikipedians to his cause in Spanish. The issues have been dismissed time and again by admins as a content dispute, but frankly, you cannot discuss anything with this user due to his poor English, his obvious misunderstanding of en-wiki rules, and his obstinate nature. I am already on record as supporting some of his views, but frankly, it's gone beyond that, and his capital letter reversions and odd behaviour have marginalised anyone who wants to talks about this. It is time someone in authority actually took a sustained interest in this and other users, or suggested an appropriate way forward beyond talk it out, because that has been tried, and all that is happening now is furhter disruption to several articles, now with solicited foreign reverts. MickMacNee (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's really bad. Needs a long block here, and reference to this situation on that Wiki as well. ThuranX (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I can translate you every word at the discussion. My english is not so poor as you say, and everybody can discuss with me; but with respectable sources in his hands. At least, I can speak in a few languages... And I do understand all your personal attacks, that comes from a looong time. I´m not a devil. I only try to help to improve the articles related with football. --Ultracanalla (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Por favor, pare. Usted está en violación de WP:NPOV. Usted debe ser neutral aquí en la Misplaced Pages en Inglés. Por favor, modifique la Misplaced Pages en español si no puede seguir esa regla. Rgoodermote  00:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

To those wondering, it says you are in violation of WP:NPOV and if you can not follow that rule please edit the Spanish Misplaced Pages instead. Rgoodermote  00:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that really what you want to say? Or am I mistaken to thin that WP:NPOV should apply to every language Misplaced Pages? JuJube (talk) 00:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

My Spanish is bad forgive me but I will go check out the es site to check that out. Rgoodermote  00:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I check the Spanish site they do in fact have a WP:NPOV..o and sorry I get POV and NPOV mixed all the time. Rgoodermote  00:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I´am neutral, only other users are not. See my contributions, please and look if i´m neutral or not . In addition, I translated the post I did in the Dante´s page . I assume this mistake. Do not discriminate, please. This is more serious than a post in spanish... --Ultracanalla (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

He escrito en español para que sea más fácil para usted. Perdón. I checked and translated the diff. I got exactly what he wrote. Rgoodermote  00:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What did you wright in spanish? And I forgive you, of course! Your spanish is not bad. Take this with a bit of hummor. See you, --Ultracanalla (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither is your English mate. This doesn't need admin attention it seems. But I suggest that you use English or go to some one who can can speak Spanish when you want to communicate. This is basically how this started. As for writing in Spanish. I was referring to what was typed. Rgoodermote  01:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, my friend. Thank you very much! I appreciate the manner you trated me, in comparison to other users that are english speakers. It´s ok, I assume my mistake and I can afirm that It won´t happend again. See, you, --Ultracanalla (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems to have been a language barrier issue. I am marking it resolved. Rgoodermote  02:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Metros

Metros (talk · contribs), a respectable admin, has been exhibiting bad judgement recently. Duering a civil conversation regarding the misuse of User:RyRy5's rollbacking tools, RyRy5 asked a question to Metros:

OK, but I still have one question for metros. Why do you sometimes revert edits on your talkpage that is not vandalism and it is just a simple comment?--RyRy5 (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

To which Metros responded:

You've got better things to worry about than what I do. Metros (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that comment just made my face go :| I know that admins are usually fairly condescending but that was just ridiculous. -- Naerii 22:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. Metros (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This simply cannot be tolerated from some of the high ranking users of the project. As I have said, admins are given too much leeway compared to regular users and rollbackers such as RyRy5 and myself. I think that some type of measure should be taken for this, and I have suggested removal of adminship, however this may be too harsh and I would like some feedback from other admins. Editorofthewiki 00:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said on RyRy's page, Metros is (at worst) guilty of bad manners and (at best) of bad verbiage. To suggest sanctions for an uncivil comment is simply absurd. - Philippe 00:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems rather petty and unimportant to me. Admins are not expected to be perfect, they are human. I suggest dropping it and getting on with something more productive. --neonwhite user page talk 00:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Erm...users are allowed to revert whatever they like on their talk page. Even non vandalism. Where, exactly, is there a problem (and where is admin intervention needed)? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I have thought things through, and I think that Metros is just doing his job as an admin, even if it doesn't seem like it. I do not believe that anything is wrong here anymore. Shall this be resolved now?--RyRy5 (talk) 00:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Aye. Hersfold 00:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

While I do see many proper uses of rollback I do also see the use of rollback to remove several user's good faith comments. If I saw this from a non-admin I would most likely remove the rollback permission from the person. While you are welcome to remove content you find objectionable from your user page, the use of special tools to do so is not appropriate. I do not think any action needs to be taken other than urging this admin to use his/her tools with more discretion. _(1 == 2) 00:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

See, this is the issue that I have with your argument: Rollback and Undo are, essentially, the same action. Rollback just tends to be much easier to use when undoing multiple edits. I don't have a dog in this fight, but there's something to consider. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing Metro's talk page as it stands I can see that he tends to be rather curt in a number of situations. I don't know him and have not had any interactions, but I can see why this might rullfle feathers in some cases, at least those of random bystanders that may not know what is going on. The only revert I see at the moment was reverting a comment from Uga Man rather than answering it. This leads me to guess that there are some minor bad vibes between these two editors for unknown reasons, but I presume they can work it out themselves. Given an editor can delete content from his talk page using Undo, and not leave an edit summary, I fail to see why using revert would be a problem. For a single post undo it is a precisely equivalent action. I think this business of reverting is a storm in a teacup. Loren.wilton (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this is over. I overreacted, as usual. Editorofthewiki 01:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback should only be used for reverting vandalism or uncontroversially "unproductive edits." I've seen a consensus that an established, experienced editor can use it for uncontroversial reverts on their own talk page. I'm ok with the latter if there is a consensus for it but would suggest that using rollback on the good faith edits of any user can inadvertantly escalate misunderstandings. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Do people really think "What?! He rollbacked that edit I made instead of undoing it?! I could have handled an 'undo' but a rollback?? That's just a slap in the face!"? Is that what people really think? Or do people realize that a revert is a revert? Metros (talk) 03:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think editors realize a revert is a revert. I'm not sure that administrators as a class do. They seem to have imbued Rollback with some mystical significance that is beyond me. Loren.wilton (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think rollback's style of marking itself as a minor edit and not allowing for a descriptive edit summary makes it seem a bit cold and detatched to some admins. Redrocket (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Repeated posting of unsourced material on Alvin and the Chipmunks Deux

The Alvin and the Chipmunks Deux article is currently being discussed for deletion as a hoax/speculation. While the entire article is unsourced and unverifiable, I deleted particular sections linking individual actors' and actresses' names with this project . However, these have repeatedly been re-added and expanded by User:71.67.120.184 (for example , , and most recently ) despite warnings on his/her Talk page. My understanding is that when people's names are mentioned without citations, it is not acceptable just to tag them with the "Citation" tag, and the sections have to be removed. Is this vandalism, or have I over-reacted? --DAJF (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd just let it play out and do reverting to only the most obvious hoax information. The AfD is about to hit the WP:SNOW threshold and will be closed out in due time. Nate • (chatter) 01:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Gone, dead, dodo. Nothing on Google to support its existence. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tom Lloyd

Because such actions have a history of being contentious, I am noting here that I summarily closed this with a deletion per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Summary deletion of BLPs, after learning about the issue at WP:BLPN. CIreland (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you have actualy done your job per the rules, but actually failed because a simple google search shows that, far from the single piece of gossip shown in the google cache of his previous wp bio, there are at least 4 other notable reasons for his documentation, not least invlolvement in one of the biggest police cases in the UK in the 2000's MickMacNee (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Mick, the close doesn't stop a rewrite that is NPOV. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Carld2002

After being blocked indefinitely from Misplaced Pages Carld2002 posted the following image: Image:Hellfffo.jpg. (enter at own risk) Can anything be done? Thanks. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 04:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleting the pic may be a good start!!! --Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (talk) 04:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow that was quick. Good work. --Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (talk) 04:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)No problem ;).¤~Persian Poet Gal 04:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, now I have to go clean out my brain. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 04:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards