Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:40, 8 July 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

Block review of User:Betacommand

Moved to subpage Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Block review of User:Betacommand. —Wknight94 (talk)

Issue is marked as closed, I think it's ok to archive now. NanohaA'sYuri 03:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User;CarolSpears

Due to recent discussion at WP:AN/I diff the editor was advised that they had been banned from editing. I have a couple of issues with the conclusion;

1. the discussion had comments from editors opposing the action, including an editor who has had extensive contact with the editor, including content disputes.
2. the discussion focused on wikilawyering over how a series information should be labeled PD rather than PD.
3. the most significant issue that the discussion only took place over 2 days, noting that XfD's have 5 days and RfA/RfB run for 7 days

I have some concerns over this though agree that a block was an appropriate action in the short term. What I see is the issue of calling it a ban, especially as one of the issue raised was the lack of response to the RfCU despite being told not to respond go do something else for a while yet in doing just that other editors only inflamed the situation by following her around and revert edits. I'm inclined to unblock now when looking at the way these event have transpired, though I do recognise that there are some legitimate concerns so suggest consideration resetting the block to a specific period. Gnangarra 14:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I come at this from a Commons perspective where I have interacted with the user for some time now. They are a little unusual. Force/bullying/threats really do not work. Interaction has been successful there despite the odd call for a block. A challenge - yes, indef block or whatever - not in my mind. --Herby 14:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• You are right - the consensus was for an indefblock, not a ban, and I hope that has now been clarified. Please see my rather long comment on her talk page. I've tried to give her a full explanation of what happened and why - ongoing copyright violations are not a trivial concern, and action had to be taken. However, despite being willing to unblock her myself, I would strongly object to resetting the block until we've had some assurances from her regarding editing and behaviour (preferably including accepting mentoring). EyeSerene 14:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• I am not comfortable with an unblock or a reset until a consensus can be achieved here regarding the matter. We can't keep the charades going for much longer; blatant and ongoing copyright violations are a serious matter, and she has so far refused to modify her behaviour. I would feel comfortable with a reset on a block if she accepts mentoring. seicer | talk | contribs 16:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Please stop accusing me of stalking Carol Spears based on her say so and no diffs ("that other editors only inflamed the situation by following her around and revert edits"). I reverted 5-6 of her edits on new plant articles she created based upon the discussion on the RFC talk page. I told her this. Her edit history shows clearly that these were the only articles of hers I reverted. I did not follow her around to do this, and, in fact, only looked at her edit history after being accused of doing so. I found the articles from the new plant articles, which I monitor and sometimes banner talk pages.
• If the basis for the desire to revert the community ban is solely that she was stalked, provide some evidence. Carol provided none, because there was none.
• Please remember the plagiarisms are a minor issue in comparison to the fact that most of the information she has inserted into articles appears to be factually wrong, except for the taxoboxes. All of this information should be corrected before she is allowed to edit again. She not only refuses to help, but she added these new articles, including one which was a major misinterpretation of the article she referenced. I don't think Misplaced Pages readers deserve to be given wrong information. This is particularly problematic in the case of plant articles because Misplaced Pages is a main source on internet source engine returns for plant species articles. All of her wrong information must be removed before she's allowed to add new wrong information. This request is what led up to the ban. --Blechnic (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

  "Block", old bean, block... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Wait a minute, Gnangarra. I'm rather stunned by this and I'm having trouble reconciling this statement with the fact that you previously blocked Carol for one week for this comment. I certainly wish you would look at some of her more recent comments with a similarly critical eye. You say you feel "inclined to unblock now" because you don't agree with "calling it a ban". This makes no sense to me and even less when I see you saying that you agree a block was warranted. You made this statement some two hours after I had already corrected the incorrect non-admin closure and had removed her name from the ban list. If you think it's been closed too early and should stay open for another couple of days, then by all means remove the tags and reopen it but to use a mistake by a non-admin as a basis to lobby for overturning a clear consensus discussion seems like the very definition of wiki-lawyering to me. If such a thing warranted overturning a block in the face of strong consensus, then we're screwed. You compare the discussion length to XfDs. Consider also that an incorrectly closed XfD simply gets corrected and a closing mistake by a non-admin closer does not corrupt the entire process. You say that there was wiki-lawyering in the block discussion but it feels to me like your argument is wiki-lawyering because the issue of the incorrect closure was already fixed. I do believe that there was a consensus for an indefinite block with *only one* person opposing the block. I opposed the initial proposal two weeks ago because I felt that she just needed mentoring and education but she has been resistant to both and I feel this is our last option. The people who have spent the last two weeks cleaning up her copyvios and incorrect information she added to articles should be commended and supported, not blamed. I do not support unblocking now and I would not support a fixed term or unblocking until there was some undertakings from this user, including the acceptance of a mentor. The discussion regarding this user and the extent of her damage to the mainspace took place through at least three separate ANI sections, an RfC and over a period of 16 days; it wasn't simply a two day discussion. Carol needs to be blocked until we have undertakings from her about her future editing and an agreement to accept the mentor, whether that means that she remains blocked for one hour or one year is entirely in her hands but I will not support an unblock without such undertakings. Please consider, instead of doing this, helping carol by helping her see how a mentor like LessHeard could help her and the importance of our copyright, verifiability and other content and behavioural policies. Sarah 20:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this summary. We're dealing with chronic disruption that is going to take weeks to fix, and if the user had had a better attitude about helping to rectify it, we wouldn't be here. If we saw a major change in attitude and a willingness to help fix past matters, then I'd be minded to support an unblock, but I think it will need some fairly solid (and enforceable) undertakings. Orderinchaos 01:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Related issue -- ban template on her talk page

I disagree with a ban template being put on her user page, though, and would like this to be discussed, since so many uninvolved editors feel strongly about templating her page. Is this necessary under the circumstances of this particular ban? --Blechnic (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I reverted it back in by error by misreading the talkpage, I have no strong feels about the use of the template otherwise. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. --Blechnic (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have now protected the Userpage; the editor has now retired, is indefinitely blocked, and is therefore no longer contributing in any way to the encyclopedia. There is therefore no need to cause any further distress to the departing individual. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, she has said she is considering coming back as a sock , but hopefully won't. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Just taking the piss

see here, lock it down, let her email someone if she has a valid reason for unblock. --Allemandtando (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Why? Ignore it, if it irritates you. Perhaps a decreasing audience may encourage her to address the communities concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It shows the utter contempt she has for the community. She posts nonsensical ramblings in response to the clear, well thought out explanation to her block. I can't believe anyone still thinks she will ever work within the community standards. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 14:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Closing down the page is not necessary to protect the encyclopedia. If you dislike what you see when you go there, then I suggest you take the advice of a doctor who replied, when told "It really hurts when I do this!", "Then stop doing it." LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think it's helpful to give this troll a forum? At this point that is all that she is. People keep going to that page to keep an eye on the situation. There are, evidently, people that think that her feelings are much more important than policy and will unblock her as long as she promises not to do it again, but they won't bother to actually follow her and check her work because that would be insulting to the poor abused editor. This is a symptom of a bigger issue on WP. People who operate in contravention of community standards and WP policies are allowed to do whatever they want as long as they are "doing important work". So go ahead and unblock her, but be sure to warn the foundations legal team because you can be certain that she will continue to pass off other people's work as her own because she simply refuses to accept that it's wrong. We'll have lots of pretty plant articles with stolen passages and incorrect information, but Carol's feelings will not be hurt so everything is good. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 15:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

When someone is blocked, they're only supposed to use their talk pages for requests for unblock, or non-controversial stuff. If not, then typically the talk page will be protected, to shut up the whiner. But if the talk page in this case is to remain unprotected, anyone going there should forget about being upset, and simply consider the entertainment value of it. Baseball Bugs 17:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I do see the entertainment value, I mean I haven't heard such disjointed rambling in quite some time. However, as I said, there are some of us here to keep others honest and keep her from being unblocked while she continues to rant and refuses to (or simply is incapable) of seeing what she is doing is wrong. Why does she have so many defenders is my question. She's rude, sarcastic, and obstinate, not the qualities we'd like in a member of a collaborative community. I don't understand how anyone can read the myriad threads about her and still think we can redeem her? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 18:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That user has less chance of being redeemed than Frequent Flier miles from Braniff Airlines. Baseball Bugs 19:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Any redemption should be mindful of the editors trying to correct her existing garbage. One of her major articles is being edited right now, and, yes, it's full of incorrect information--the article where she said the mountains of Central and East Africa are just like the European Alps because the mountains of northwestern Africa (a different and far more ancient by hundreds and hundreds of millions of years tectonic regime) are like the Alps. These are good editors who could be contributing to Misplaced Pages in other ways, but are instead deleting pages and pages of misinformation posted by CarolSpears.

In addition, if she can't communicate to others in English designed to convey information, which she apparently cannot, how can she communicate with a mentor? She ought first be required to learn to communicate in a usable English on her talk page before being assigned a mentor.

I do suggest folks stop reading and replying to her until she does that. The problem with getting up in arms against her current level of communication is the assumption that she is trying to communicate. I think she continues in this way because she gets feedback from it. Really, it's not as clever as the space it has consumed, and it wasn't, even the first time. When people willfully choose not to communicate, instead of fighting to understand them, is it too much to ask that they make an attempt? If you really think she can write encyclopediac worthy articles, then how can you think so if you think she can't communicate in colloquial English with her peers writing the same Encyclopedia?

A mentor of her own choosing will, imo, have to be monitored, creating more work for editors already overburdened by her "contribution." How much should Misplaced Pages continue to be burdened to accommodate one editor whose clean up is going to take months? Let's ask her to learn to use her talk page to communicate with people first. Then, if she can learn that, she might be able to learn to write articles. Her word games are not clever or interesting or part of writing an Encyclopedia. They're just nonsense. What part of writing an encyclopedia includes nonsense? Besides correcting CarolSpears' existing nonsense, that is. --Blechnic (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Good points, and ones on which I will give an opinion - for what it is worth; she has communication difficulties, and I think that may be the case no matter what degree of faith she is currently editing under. Our/My inability to engage with her is no basis on which to close down the page. She has also obviously got access to some very good sources; ones which would be very useful if ever we could persuade her to channel them positively. Penultimately, she has brains - they are not being put to the best use at the moment, but perhaps a little more time will permit her to see that the only way she can indulge herself within the community is to follow the standard practices. Lastly, we iz zee goot guyz unt gurlz; We prefer to give everyone one final chance to contribute usefully. Your patience may be exhausted, and I respect your right to voice your feelings so, but mine is not quite. I think this weekend will be sufficient to see if there is indeed no further point. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I for one would like to see linked evidence of her good sources and intelligence when it comes to writing articles. One of the articles she objected strongly about reverting (earlier than this current incident) she claimed that she mixed up two species on two different continents because she figured insects couldn't tell the difference. Unfortunately, the sources she used for the two species articles were far from the major sources for the species, all of which she ignored. Ignoring them removed the highlights of why her mixing up the two species was so bad, these were two species of plants that have been extensively studied in different locations and are well known throughout the literature for the studies being done on them. One, a British plant that has unique geographical records of its being introduced that go back hundreds of years, and the other a plant that has been famously discussed for its insect pests.

I have not found this show of good sources in her articles. A good source wrongly applied is worse than a second rate source. If you read a source about the mountains of northwest Africa being like the Alps of Europe and decide that is good enough for saying the mountains of Central Africa are just like the European Alps, you are not using good sources, but wrong sources, and you are not using intelligence, imo. --Blechnic (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think her current behavior on Commons, where she has not been banned, is going to be a good indicator of her potential for future success on en.Misplaced Pages. "I am left to interpret your silence when I asked you if you considered yourself to be intelligent enough to know that sometimes, areas have names which also means areas." --Blechnic (talk) 05:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have now protected CarolSpears talkpage for 48 hours, as the level of discourse there (which does not involve the participation of CS) was becoming unseemly. The editor is indef blocked (with no current likelihood of the block being lifted) and cannot edit WP, and we have no jurisdiction here over what happens on other Wiki's. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Socking

I'm not sure why we're even debating this now. She's just created Spears, Carol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to get around her block, and after a CU, it was found she created TheConsensus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to support her feature picture candidate a month or so back. There's a lot of disruptive behaviour here and the evidence just gets more damning. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. The gift that keeps on giving. That should add at least 2 more weeks to the user's indefinite block. Baseball Bugs 03:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record she's recently used an IP to write to my talk page.

Also, for the record, TheConsensus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created for sockpuppeting at Custard Apple, and particularly its talk page, and was only later used at FPC.

However, in the first case she didn't hide her identity, and used it for the purposes of communicating with an involved administrator, while her talk page was blocked for reasons unrelated to her behaviour. IMHO, that is hardly an egregious offense. (But it would have been nice if she had been capable of being patient enough to wait for a 48 hour block to expire - she could also have used that - or another involved - administrator's page on commons.) Also, compared to what has happened since, a little past sock-puppetting pales. If Carol takes stock, and resolves to reform and behave in a collegial manner, IMHO this would not be grounds to refuse to let her back. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, once the protection expires, someone might mention on her talkpage that if she socks so that she might "communicate" then she has no need for a talkpage - and it may as well be protected indefinitely. She may be further reminded that any block evading alternate account may be also indef blocked/protected. I had no compulsion in protecting her from unseemly comments, and I have no compulsion in protecting others from hers. I would make such a comment myself, and take the necessary actions, but I am too involved - and would not wish to appear to be appeasing any side. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I fibbed; I have gone ahead and commented per above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleo123

User:Cleo123 has refused to respect my wishes and remove off topic comments from my talk page. As you can see here, I made it clear that my talk page is not for those comments. Cleo123's comments were then duplicated here, which verifies that they do not need two copies of the same comments especially when it is addressing that other user. Other pertinent information can be found here and here. Could someone please explain to them about talk page respect? This user insists to fight with other members of the community on my talk page, and I do not enjoy it. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Remove the comments yourself. Since it's your talk page, you can do that. Then tell him to kindly refrain from posting to your talk page and to use article pages instead. If he persists in this behavior, let us know. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Did that, twice. Hence why I am reporting it now. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

For the diffs, see this, this, this, and this. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

They have responded to my alerting of them of this thread here. As you can see, I am accused of posting derogatory remarks and being incivil by removing comments. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Reprinted from my talk page:

":: Well, let me begin by apologizing. I did not intentionally revert your removal twice. I was, in fact, still editing my message when I lost power. I mistakenly thought that it had not posted the first time. You had apparently reverted my remarks unbeknownst to me. I did revert your second removal (which I thought was your first) which occured within one minute of Tendancer's removal of my message from his talk page. Now there is a very odd coincidence! Nice edit summaries - very civil. The time stamps and similarity in tactical strategies, will also undoubtedly be of interest to administrators. Perhaps you can explain what would appear to be very uncivil behavior. You and Tendancer post derogatory remarks about me on a notice board with a link to your talk page. When I attempt to respond to these false allegations with facts, both of you seem to be reverting me with in seconds of one another. What's that all about? If you truly object to "our dispute" being on your talk page, please, explain why you haven't removed Tendancer's "off topic" remarks? Cleo123 (talk) 03:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)"

More pseudo legal threats from the above user and claims about "libel" and "defamation" that are not based on actual text found here. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, enough is enough. As the link from the BLP noticeboard clearly indicates, I was explaining WP:LIBEL and WP:BLP to this disruptive editor for the umpteenth time. Can he be blocked for incivility and disruption? This is getting to be ridiculous. Cleo123 (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Enough is enough. Forcibly restoring comments which have been removed by the editor on whose page the comments were placed is unacceptable conduct. The editor in question is under no obligation to explain to anyone which comments he chooses to remove. The above editor's failure to recognize this is troubling. John Carter (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Stalking editors from page to page and harassing them, as John Carter has been doing to me for over a year now is unacceptable conduct. It looks particularly bad when an administrator continues to engage in behavior of this sort against an editor in good standing, after they have repeatedly been asked to stop. It looks even worse when that same administrator escalates his campaign of harassment after the editor (who has good cause to complain) supports a motion to have him desyssoped as I did here and here. John, again I ask you to stop following me and attempting to create conflict and confrontation on articles that I am editing. As I have stated previously, I deliberately avoid articles you are involved with. Extending me the same courtesy might be considered conduct befitting an administrator. Cleo123 (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears that on top of attacks and claims about rule violation without any real proof, the user also resorts to bullying others as seen here. Not only is the above user dramatically reinterpreting Wikipolicy, but making outrageous claims about US law. This disruption has spread to multiple talk pages and seems to revolve around one person in particular. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have reinterpreted policy? Gee, WP:BLP seems pretty clear cut to me. What part of this do you think I'm misinterpreting?

"Basic human dignity. Misplaced Pages articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Misplaced Pages aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Misplaced Pages editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."

Now the numerous sources available make it clear that Steve Windom was the victim of defamation that resulted in criminal charges. The incident is currently discussed in a neutral and fair manner in the article. Yet, you have been arguing for a detailed reprinting on Misplaced Pages of the material that a court ruled to be libelous. You have even encouraged a new, inexperienced user to create a free standing article in order to showcase this libel, insisting that Windom who you claim to have contacted in real life, (in violation of Misplaced Pages's policies on original research) will have to sue Misplaced Pages if he wants to get it removed! When users attempt to explain Misplaced Pages's libel policy to you, you have repeatedly taken the unusual stance that only actual libel victims are allowed to mention the word WP:LIBEL on Misplaced Pages.

For the record, I do not think I've made any "outrageous claims" about US law. I've said that a court ruled the material in question to be libelous, which it did. I've cautioned you about knowingly reprinting libel on Misplaced Pages as you could be exposing Misplaced Pages to potential legal problems. I think WP:BLP is very clear that libel about living people is to be removed immediately. Please, explain what part of these policies you think I am reinterpreting? And if you are, in fact, so confident that your interpretations of WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL are correct, please, go right ahead and create this free standing article yourself instead of encouraging a newbie to do it for you. Cleo123 (talk) 01:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you just admit that your incivil actions are based on the possible language of something you have not yet seen? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. You entered the article's discussion late in the game and have been defending the view of an editor who was repeatedly inserting defamatory material into the article. It would appear that you may not have taken the time to review the contribution history of the editor you've been encouraging. I have "seen" the material, and removed it from the article in accordance with WP:BLP some time back. The editor in question has apparently "seen the light" thanks to my intervention and stopped reinserting libelous material into the article. As I see it, the conflict between the two editors was resolved a while ago. For reasons unknown, you are still on the page fighting like hell to "mediate" a dispute that no longer exists, even going so far as to contact the article's subject and argue for the creation of a separate "scandal" article for reasons unknown. You seem to be trying to create some sort of new conflict, not mediate one. Cleo123 (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Game? You think this is some game that you can go around making up rules, harassing users, and the rest? No editor is listening to anything you say, because you are a disruption. Audemus and Dem came to terms before you started attacking people. They are waiting for you to stop your harassment so we can continue to expand the page. You already admitted that you are here to attack people, and now you admit that you have no grounds for your attacking people. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am a disruption? LOL! Sorry, but that is downright amusing coming from a user who has been banned from participating in FAC discussions (for behavior that is strikingly similar to your conduct in this matter), cited by numerous editors for extreme incivility and blocked numerous times. I, by contrast, have never been blocked for anything during my years on Misplaced Pages. Please, do not make false accusations against other users. I have not harassed anyone. I have not edited the talk page of the article in nearly a week. So, I'm not sure what anyone might be waiting for. Although I haven't edited the article in a while now, none of my edits to the article have ever been reverted by anyone. Considering Dem1970's message on your talk page, in which he says I am "right on", your above statements seem to be very misleading at best. Cleo123 (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

None of your statements have support except by yourself. That should clue you in about the nature of your comments. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think its obvious to everyone here how blatant your misuse of the truth is especially when you quote that I was "banned" while linking to a post I made in which I stated I would be gone from the FAC review process until the end of the summer. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Upon closer review, I see that the vote was never actually tallied. Although the majority voted to ban you, you essentially banned yourself and took a wikibreak before the vote could be tallied. My apologies. It was not my intention to mislead in any way. Cleo123 (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's more fact twisting by Cleo123--as usual. Looks to be like John was open to recall for desysop'ing while involved in a content dispute with another couple editors, and haven't even corresponded with Cleo123 for about a year. Then Cleo123 can't let go of his old vendetta after all that time--which's really sad--and WP:STALK'ed in and reposted his old WP:CIVIL-violating diatribe from the year-old and already-resolved dispute from List_of_converts_to_Christianity, a dispute which Cleo123 lost and twice refusing to accept the outcome of mediation (against him) and insulted the mediators, and got his tag-teaming friend User:Bus_stop indef-banned for disruption, incivility, tendentious editing among other vices (The mediator back then already noted Cleo123 has a tendency to misstate facts and "twist other's words in obvious ways", this is just another example). Don't worry, RFC is coming in a few days once I find the time to assemble the factoids, hope you'll all participate. Tendancer (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Please, provide some links for these less than civil allegations. Cleo123 (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You have provided the links re: John's self-open-to-recall which in turn contained a diff directly to your own lengthy diatribe against John Carter two posts above, as if you think your WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL violations are something to be proud of. Not to mention you already twice vandalized my talk page in response to the links I provided re: a mediator's comments against you. In light of that fact and your sudden amnesia about those diffs and your requests for links; it seems at best disingenuity, at worst yet a disruptive ploy to waste other editor's time. The links above to List_of_converts_to_Christianity and User:Bus_stop also contain reams of info about your tag-team edits and how that eventually got Bus_stop banned (while you pretended to go on a wiki-break to hide from actions against you ), it's actually rather comical if you're actually claiming you need links/references to that history as you were centrally involved for months. Please stop being disruptive. Tendancer (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I filed a report over Cleo's personal attacks found above here. I do not appreciate being attacked in such a way. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of BLP

The above user has proven that they are using a misinterpretation of BLP to make unnecessary changes. Look at this current string of actions which incorporates WP:CHILD, a policy that has nothing to do with pages on notable children - here, here, and here. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Your posting here is quite misleading. Why not provide copies of the messages I've exchanged with CalendarWatcher, which you've clearly seen, as they explain the very routine edit that you are taking issue with. I made a very minor edit to the biography of a child actress, removing the exact day of her birth while leaving the month and year. As I explained:

I believe that both of the policies I cited do, in fact, apply in this case. WP:BLP specifically states:

"Privacy of personal information

"Misplaced Pages includes dates of birth for some well-known living persons where the dates have been widely published, but editors should exercise caution with less notable people. With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their dates of birth as private. When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth."

The minor in question does not appear to be widely notable and her DOB has not been widely published. More importantly, the private information may well have been posted by a WP:CHILD".'

I honestly, don't see what you seem to think is so controversial about this edit. The information does not appear to be publicly available anywhere. The user who inserted it, has edited little other than articles related to the child actress. I think one can safely assume from the user's edits, that they may be a child. More importantly, the young actress does not appear to meet Misplaced Pages's notability standards. I am simply exercising caution, in accordance with policy. It seems to me that you are following me about. You also appear to be trying to create conflict where there shouldn't be any and disrupt Misplaced Pages. Please, stop. Cleo123 (talk) 06:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I will also note that considering the substance of Ottava Rima's latest complaint (a minor edit to a date of birth), the title he has given this thread "Abuse of BLP" could be seen as a violation of WP:CIVIL Cleo123 (talk) 06:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Child has nothing to do with pages, only with Misplaced Pages users. That is just one of a constant trend of outright miss-attributing policy. Furthermore, birthdates are not personal information. They are part of public record. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The editor in question has on more than one occasion cited a non-existent policy that notability requires "wide notability" (an undefined term) and stating that notability should be established by national sources, a statement which is in no way supported by policy. I believe the editor in question would be very well advised to review the policies in questions, and, should they wish to make changes to those policies, to request such on the talk pages of the relevant policies, rather than by fiat elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. Please, do not misrepresent my statements. Cleo123 (talk) 06:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

outsideish note

I'm not uninvolved here (see my talk page), but it seems to me like John Carter and Ottava Rima are in the right here. Cleo123, you're GROSSLY overstating the issues here with vague threats about lawsuits and the like. You are not the subject of the article (who I might add, is a public figure, being the Lt. Governor of the state. If the subject of the article has a concern, (apparently not, since they're supposedly in contact with Ottava Rima), they can contact the foundation with any legal threats. You keep bandying about libel this, libel that, without any significant evidence that it is in fact libel. I reviewed the article and found a perfectly neutral article on the subject. Misusing BLP the way you are, and you're starting to edge into the "chilling effect" zone of "no legal threats". ⇒SWATJester 01:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes! The article IS perfectly neutral, thanks in large part to my edits! I think you need to slow down and review the article's contribution history and the talk pages, before jumping to conclusions, which is what you seem to be doing. I do not object to the article in it's current state - it's my version! LOL! As I see it, there is no dispute. The dispute seems to have been resolved. The problem is that Ottava Rima, who seems to have appointed himself as some sort of mediator, now seems to be arguing that the libel which was removed from the article should now be expanded upon and showcased in it's own free standing article, based on some unseen offline communication he claims to have initiated with the article's subject.

As for "legal threats" - I have done absolutely nothing of the kind. That's a really outrageous statement. You need to go back and review the discussion. And I am not "bandying about libel this and libel that" - OMG! The article that we are discussing concerns a libel case, for goodness sake! I've responded to Ottava Rima's unusual interpretations of WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL. Cleo123 (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not say the article in its current state. I said the article as I reviewed it. You are indeed bandying about libel this and libel that. The article concerns a libel case. Ok fine. It's not libel for us to discuss the case in the article. Commenting on documents of public record, which are allegations made by others, does not equate to libel committed by us. That's the part I don't think you seem to get. I saw the article with all that material in, and I didn't see anything that struck me as BLP-worthy that should bring out the machetes. ⇒SWATJester 21:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a little note - if any admin wants copies of the emails that the Lt. Governor has sent to me, I can provide. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Kossack4Truth disruption on the Barack Obama talk page

User:Kossack4Truth is someone I've generally agreed with on the Talk:Barack Obama page, but this behavior is now more of a hindrance to all of us.

A little while ago, LotLE added a comment on the talk page that attacked me.

I ignored it, and other editors asked him to remove it. and

Wisely, he did.

Today, Kossack4Truth took LotLE's removed comment and added it back to the page, then posted K4T's own message condemning it. ]. Touching LotLE's comments on the talk page violates WP:CIVIL as pointed out here and this kind of behavior is so over the top that the relevant WP:TALK section doesn't even contemplate it.

LotLE then removed his own comment again.

One might get the impression that K4T is simultaneously trying to provoke two editors into a fight. When you think about it, it's actually pretty creative. Also destructive, disruptive and pretty damn far from encyclopedia building. I thought about leaving a note on his talk page, but I'm not going to bother. I'll notify him, and LotLE, that I've left a note here. Admins, please do something about this. If we had administrators continuing to watch the shenanigans going on at the Barack Obama and related articles, this would already have been dealt with. Noroton (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor comments

I'm inclined to block for at least 48+ hours for this kind of provocation, especially as the editor already has two blocks (both for edit warring -24 hrs, and 48 hrs) and the ongoing problems surrounding the Obama article. But I would prefer to get a sense of the community for how long it should be. What say you? R. Baley (talk) 04:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is not the first time he has appeared on ANI and elsewhere, and given this is more of a longer-term abuse issue, I would recommend at a minimum, a 55-hour block that would increase with each offence. seicer | talk | contribs 04:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• • I was thinking it should be higher myself, but given the lack of admins/editors who want to deal with this stuff so far, I'm not sure what the level of community support is. R. Baley (talk) 04:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • I'm uninvolved with the situation -- outside of reading the comments here at ANI and at the talk pages, and wouldn't mind watching the pages when I am back at home. seicer | talk | contribs 05:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Wow, I've seen (and been a part of) a heated discussion in my short time here, but this really surpasses anything I've seen. I agree with the initial post that it appears he was trying to provoke two editors into a fight. This is extremely disruptive, and counterproductive to the mission of the project, which is creating good content. As I'm just dipping my toe into thinking about these kind of issues, I'm not sure how much weight my opinion carries, but I would think a much longer block (on the order of 1 week or so) would be in order. This prevents both further disruption, and would (hopefully) allow the conversation at the page in question to proceed more productively. In the alternative, perhaps a total topic ban might be in order, which would at least accomplish the latter of the two objectives. S. Dean Jameson 05:03, 5 July 200
• Mastcell already blocked for 72 hours. Beat me to it. I'd suggest the next incident results in an immediate page ban of at least one month. Any support for this?. Barak Obama now on my watch list. Spartaz 08:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  Per my above comment, I'd definitely support a long page ban for this editor. S. Dean Jameson 14:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support 6 month topic ban for Kossack4Truth per MastCell and FCYTravis below. R. Baley (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Involved editor comments

• The other Barack Obama article-related thread on this page is here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WorkerBee74 on Obama page, yet again. It links to some previous ones. I think there have been about six over the past six weeks. I welcome seicer's eyes, but the talk page generates an enormous amount of volume and the bad behavior has sometimes spread to related pages. I've suggested in the past that a group of admins watch it because the page is crazy and big. Noroton (talk) 05:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Noroton and I don't agree on some Obama content issues, but I completely agree with his bringing this here, and with his request for an increase in admin involvement in dealing with disruption on the Talk page which has also included possible vote-stacking. Tvoz/talk 05:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• If it's worth anything, I would advocate for a longer term topic ban—e.g. for three months —instead of any outright block. This duration seemed to be rough consensus of admins on an earlier AN/I report (see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Barack Obama pages). K4T has predominantly edited Obama related article, and mostly been disruptive doing so. However, his/her contributions to other areas seem to be productive and reasonable. Ideally, s/he could continue to do useful things elsewhere on WP. LotLE×talk 07:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Since I've looked in on behavioral issues on this page in the past, I've blocked Kossack4Truth for 72 hours, essentially for the reasons outlined by Noroton in the initial post in this thread. In doing so, I note a long history of focused advocacy-driven and disruptive editing by Kossack4Truth on pages relating to Barack Obama. I had previously proposed a topic ban for this editor, and he apparently took a voluntary, though relatively brief, break from Obama-related pages. I would support a formal 3- to 6-month topic ban as well-earned at this point, but will leave that for further discussion and for another admin to implement if there's consensus for it. MastCell  07:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Concur with topic ban proposal. The user has shown that he/she is fundamentally incapable of editing articles relating to Barack Obama in a collegial manner. FCYTravis (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This witch hunt is unbelievable. With the exception of this one incident, there is exactly zero indication that since returning from his 22-day "relatively brief" Wikibreak, K4T has done anything except demonstrate exemplary collegial conduct. Here is what actually happened, without the spin-doctoring:

1. K4T takes a Wikibreak from Obama related articles.

2. LotLE posts an endless series of snide remarks, personal attacks and false accusations against Noroton and WB74.

3. Noroton approaches LotLE and requests removal of the false accusation against Noroton. LotLE complies, but he leaves his personal attacks and false accusations against WB74 intact.

4. Since he is on Wikibreak, K4T is unaware of Event #3.

5. Upon his return, K4T notices LotLE's attacks against WB74 and starts going through LotLE's diffs on the page, copying all of his snide remarks, personal attacks and false accusations, including the one against Noroton that had been refactored.

6. K4T posts all of these excerpts as part of a warning to LotLE to stop making such offensive remarks or he will be reported.

7. And MastCell blocks ... K4T ?!?!?

That was the last straw. WorkerBee74 (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

WorkerBee74, you're absolutely right that other editors on that page have been responsible for some bad behavior. But K4T's response was essentially to bring a gun to a knife fight. Since some admins have shown a willingness to watch the page and get some perspective, the thing to do is present problems to them and bring along some diffs for evidence. The thing not to do is respond in kind and worse. The Talk:Barack Obama page doesn't function well as a behavior-changing noticeboard, and its function as an article-changing forum is hurt when we use it that way. I blame myself for responding to some bad behavior by occasionally scolding the parties on that talk page in the heat of argument, and I hope that bad example didn't influence K4T. I've apologized for doing that. Misplaced Pages has a system for dealing with bad behavior. Either deal with the frustrations of Misplaced Pages's barely navigable, clunky, stalling, backfiring, inefficient, inadequate, bruising, exhausting, often rude and sometimes perverse dispute resolution system or put up with some of the abuse or walk away. Lowering the tone of the page even further is a worse option. Noroton (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec):::During K4T's self-declared break from the Obama article he filed a bogus AN/I report to try to get one editor blocked / banned on a false accusation of lying and edit warring on the Obama page,, left an uncivil notice about the foregoing on the editor's page and another involved editor's page,, defended an apparent sockpuppet against evidence of sockpuppetry on the pages by repeating an odd hypothetical having to do with racism and rape, repeated his taunt that people he opposed on the Obama pages were "Obama fanboys" and accused one of "false allegations" while accusing administrators dealing with the matter of "censorship", accused them of POV pushing, "revenge", and again of lying, asked another editor to represent his interests on the page, agitated on an administrator's talk page over the issue accused then of "whining", holding discussions hostage, bad faith, and lying yet again,, and again and again, jumped into an edit war on a related article to support edits for which WorkerBee74 had just been blocked, filed an inaccurate and apparently retaliatory 3RR report against one of the editors WorkerBee74 had been edit warring against leading to that block, got into some kind of edit war in another politics-related article and was referred to AN/I for that, made uncivil accusations and began meatpuppeting yet another tendentious editor, As soon as he did return to the Obama article he immediately began baiting and accusing other editors on the talk page, initiated another edit war (see WorkerBee74 AN/I rerpot above) by breaking the agreement to avoid making changes to a particular section until consensus was reached, then made the edits for which he was just blocked. The "break" from the Obama talk page was in name and form only - he continued the pattern of aggressiveness on the matter of Obama, just on different pages. The time on other articles does not seem to have changed his outlook or behavior on the matter. When he (and WorkerBee74) returned the tone of the page rapidly deteriorated, and the consensus that was building seemed at least for the moment was jeopardized.Wikidemo (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"Since he is on Wikibreak, K4T is unaware of Event #3"

K4T was not on a Wikibreak. He has clearly been monitoring the discussion and contributing by proxy (just 8 days into the "break") so it is not unreasonable to assume he was aware of the comments. Also, these comments were not aimed at K4T in the first place, so I'm not sure why he felt it was necessary to re-light a fire which had already been put out. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the comments occurred on LotLE's User Talk page rather than Talk:Barack Obama, it is most definitely unreasonable to assume he was aware of the comments. But I see that all of the Obama campaign volunteers have arrived to ensure that any admin reviewing the block is deceived into believing it has "broad community support." WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that would seem to be a pretty blatant personal attack. Not everyone who disagrees with you (and Kossack) is an "Obama campaign volunteer." We're just editors who happen to find Kossack's action in this case (and previous ones) completely unacceptable. Before noticing this thread, I was completely uninvolved, just for the record. S. Dean Jameson 18:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It disgusts me that LotLE was the one posting personal attacks and false accusations, but K4T was the one who was blocked 72 hours for warning LotLE to stop. No good deed goes unpunished. And LotLE is still here unblocked, urging admins to take even more draconian action against K4T for warning LotLE to stop making personal attacks. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

He seemed to be intentionally reopening bitter wounds by readding a retracted statement. This combined with his history at Barack Obama makes the block completely justified, in my view. S. Dean Jameson 19:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If you'd bothered to read his explanation on his Talk page, you'd have seen that he was unaware it had been retracted, or that he was reopening anything. But I see that he's deleted all that and hung out a "Retired" sign, so you got what you wanted: K4T is gone, and the Barack Obama Whitewash Brigade remains. WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'll ask you again to stop with personal attacks. I've made not one edit to Barack Obama or Talk:Barack Obama. How am I part of the "Barack Obama Whitewash Brigade"? I came to this with an open mind, as a completely uninvolved editor. S. Dean Jameson 20:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

We really need to do something about WorkerBee74 as well. This one has been socking under IP accounts, name calling, incessantly accusing people of lying, edit warring, antagonizing, calling perceived opponents "Obama campaign volunteers", dragging neutral third parties into the accusations for trying to keep the peace, and the like for more than a month and is a large part of the incivility - a few days ago blanking the article inadvertently in an attempt to edit war from a cell phone. The two of them have been enabling and joining in each other's disruption for some time and show no sign of letting up. Repeated warnings and blocks have done no good, obviously. All that is very clear if you look at the edit histories and this page's archives. Wikidemo (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's plausible that K4T made a mistake in not seeing that LotLE removed that comment. It's also a point in K4T's favor that other comments by LotLE remain on the page, even now (something I hadn't realized until now -- the comments K4T were quoting came from 2-3 different spots on the page). It's also true that K4T's decision to post that on the talk page was harmful. I think this is worth considering. I think the subsection "LotLE's recent behavior" that I'm posting below also puts it in some context. I don't claim to know what would be appropriate for a block length or a topic ban. Noroton (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

LotLE's recent behavior

I took a look at Kossack4Truth's (K4T's) recent comments on his talk page (here and here; since replaced with a "retired" sign). I see I was inaccurate in my initial posting here: I thought K4T's scolding post simply added back the single LotLE posting that attacked WorkerBee74 and me. Since LotLE had taken that post down, I thought the problem with LotLE had been solved, at least for now, by LotLE himself. But that's not true.

K4T took LotLE quotes from different spots, and LotLE still hasn't taken down those (they're on the page right now). And they are also venemous attacks:

• I take it the 2-1/2 editors swipe refers to WorkerBee74 as the "1/2", which is a nasty insult; the "condemnatory enough" is impolite. I'm happy to skip 'nonetheless', it probably even reads better without it. 'Although'... well, I suppose 'While' would be OK also. Generally the wording is very nice. It's all moot though, however, since there are 2-1/2 editors who will never be satisfied that wording is long enough or condemnatory enough. LotLE×talk 21:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC) diff

• Accusing another editor of want the article to be as negative, even slanderous, as possible is a personal attack. LotLE is also urging editors to move away from discussion and simply impose their will on the page, although even when he posted this various editors were working together constructively, so this post was disruptive, as well. I'd forgotten it, but when he talks about his/her goal is to prevent a "rough consensus" is actually a personal attack; have no complaint about his other comments about me, because simply being a bit snide and inaccurate isn't worth considering here, and I was willing to ignore them: Workerbee74—who has happily been blocked for a few days (not long enough, but it's a start)—simply wants the article to be as negative, even slanderous, as possible, apparently out of a political antipathy to its subject. Those "concerns" can most certainly never be addressed within an encyclopedic article, so our only choice is to simply disregard and ignore any comments by him/her. Noroton seems primarily concerned with an avenue for his/her long political essays (probably 30k words on the topic by now, far in excess of every other editor; probably all others combined). I have suggested with a genuine absence of ill-will that a better forum for these long essays is a personal blog, or other opinion publication. A WP talk page is just not an appropriate place for this type of material. In any case, it appears that his/her goal is to prevent a "rough consensus" from settling, because doing so would remove the justification for the continued essays. So please everyone, just let the discussion fall silent. Let's use this talk page for productive discussion, and let the article keep it's perfectly neutral and concise version of the Rezko material. Dont' feed the trolls. LotLE×talk 18:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC) diff

If these were occasional, in the heat of argument, and not representative of LotLE's contribution to the discussion about Rezko (or below, mostly about Ayers), then I'd discount them quite a bit -- but they're a significant proportion of the occasional comments that LotLE has contributed to the discussion about Rezko; they aren't in response to someone attacking him, and the one removal of his one attack, at the request of other editors, wasn't accompanied by removing any other attacks on WorkerBee74, who's made some solid contributions to that talk page (it's obviously not a competition, but WB74's contributions are a lot more focused on the subject matter than LotLE's, from what I've seen).

I've previously brought up two of these quotes at AN/I , and I'm posting them again to show that it's a continuing problem, not a flash in the pan (a two-week break from the Obama page was suggested at one point, but LotLE was never issued a block or even a warning for these, and I never asked for one, but I did bring it up):

• LotLE edit that's relatively mild: 17:13, 2 June 2008 diff

• LotLE edit I removed (it was in response to an edit I made which ended with me saying he was guilty of some of what he was accusing others of, it's worth looking at in context on the page) 17:40, 2 June 2008 diff
• LotLE edit I partially removed (quoted because it's short): The problem with Noroton's characterization is that it is at best WP:OR, and at worse an outright lie. LotLE×talk 00:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC) diff of the removal
• Another LotLE edit worth looking at: 08:21, 6 June 2008 this diff seems to encompass the whole comment

On a page that's had a lot of harsh words, these rank with the harshest. In context, they brought down the level of discussion, although just about every contributor to that talk page has probably made comments they regretted (including me). This amounts to continued, disruptive behavior that clearly led to Kossack4Truth's response, and WorkerBee74 is right to be annoyed that it hasn't been dealt with. I think administrators should consider his behavior as contributing to the ongoing bad atmosphere on that page. Noroton (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You're too late, Noroton. You got rid of K4T, which is what they wanted. The only way you're going to get anybody's attention is if you demand sanctions against me too. The people who are here to whitewash the Obama article get a free pass. (No Jameson, I'm not talking about you. Let me spell that out for you.) WorkerBee74 (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You're doing a great job of making sure no one listens to you, WorkerBee. Noroton, I see the issue you're describing; what do you propose we do about it? MastCell  23:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I was afraid I'd be asked that. I don't know what to do about it, specifically. I'd like to see what he has to say about it. I'm not an admin and I don't pay much attention to what kind of sanctions tend to be given for what kind of behavior. I do know we need to stop this kind of behavior on that page, and LotLE has significantly contributed to that bad atmosphere. I see an attitude behind these comments that doesn't seem to recognize that people who disagree with him about Obama are sincere and worth listening to (somebody please correct me if there's evidence to the contrary). Either some kind of civility restriction, which would have to be monitored, perhaps with a mentor, or simply topic banning him until after the election. I'd like to see what other editors familiar with the page think about that. If he can't take down the attacks on WorkerBee that are still on the page, I'd give him a block for incivility. I can accept whatever editors on this page want to do about it, as long as the problem is addressed and, going forward, we've got some reason to believe the Obama talk page and related pages will be more civil. Noroton (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This is worth something: I just went to LotLE's talk page to inform him about this new subsection, and I read this there: I apologize for initially making the overly hot-headed comment... the process has been frustrating for many editors, as I am sure you are aware. LotLE×talk 04:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC) That's a good sign. Noroton (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Watch and learn, Noroton. LotLE will get a free pass. He might get another useless warning on his Talk page which will be ignored and deleted. That's it. WorkerBee74 (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting to address question not directed to me) Thanks to Noroton for thinking to remind LotLE. As I understand it the goal of blocks and topic bans is to stop ongoing disruption and prevent likely future disruption. All to maintain a productive, civil editing environment. Many on the Obama page said something out of frustration, suspicion, etc. But will they cause disruption if they stay, and will removing them quell the trouble? That's a separate judgment to make in each case. We don't ban people out of fairness, punishment, setting examples, trying to be balanced, avoiding perceived article bias, other content concerns, etc. Nor do we avoid blocks simply because someone is a good writer. From my observation, LotLE and to some extent some others have been aggressive in their comments, and have the block history to show for that attitude. My hunch is that LotLE will probably be contentious in an unsupervised contentious environemnt, but will not initiate trouble where none exists. WB74 has had many chances and after a month and counting is still repeating the very taunts that nearly earned a ban a month ago. He/she seems unable or unwilling to edit one of Misplaced Pages's most important articles without attacking peers. But that's just my hunch. If there's anything short of removing these editors that will ensure calm (and assuming no proven sock puppetry), that's preferable. I can't think of anything but there are wiser editors here than me! Wikidemo (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I respond out of frustration when well-established practice on WP biographies and quotes from WP policy, are ignored in a campaign to keep anything resembling criticism out of the article. A lot of work has been done by Noroton, by me and by others and we have proven WP:NPOV and well established practice require us to give criticism as much space as it's been given in comparable articles. Responses? Relentless personal attacks, false accusations, badgering, baiting, and lies about policy and the facts. When anyone responds out of frustration to the baiting, the lies and the personal attacks, you come running to WP:ANI. WorkerBee74 (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this editor accusing me yet again of lying and abusing AN/I process? That would be at least the 5th or 6th time in a few days. If not, exactly who is he accusing of lying (not to mention the other things)? Wikidemo (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It's most peculiar how you have always come running to WP:ANI after any real or imagined slight from Noroton, WB74 or K4T, but you never seem to notice the outrageous misconduct of such editors as LotLE until someone points it out for you. Please explain, WD: if you now concede LotLE has been "contentious" (another impressive understatement), why have you never reported him? WorkerBee74 (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that question is predicated on an untrue premise and seems rhetorical so I won't respond. I've given my opinion of WorkerBee74 and LotLE's prospects for good behavior, and I'll leave it for any willing administrator to make of it what they will in fashioning a course of action.Wikidemo (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice dodge. Like I said: watch and learn, LotLE will get a free pass. He was baiting everybody who disagrees with him; and now that someone has taken the bait and been blocked for giving him a warning, he posts a bogus apology and expects others to clear away any remaining bait. Then he'll wait for the next inevitable content dispute and start putting out bait again. Classic passive aggressive behavior. WorkerBee74 (talk) 10:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no one has come to AN/I to complain about me (not that that gives me a warm feeling inside). K4T was blocked for a history of behavior culminating in a pretty incendiary way of warning someone. When you're in the gunpowder house, don't go handing out lit torches to help people out. Noroton (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

As I mentioned to Noroton before much of this current AN/I discussion happened, I regret having adopted an uncivil tone at some points in the discussion. I think he did not see my talk page comments until the last couple hours. The comment on my talk page was this:

Thank you! Your report on ANI is very reasoned and calm, and I appreciate that you are working toward a good article and willing to consider compromises. I apologize for initially making the overly hot-headed comment... the process has been frustrating for many editors, as I am sure you are aware. LotLE×talk 04:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If there are any comments I have made on Talk:Obama or elsewhere that any editors feel continue to inflame the discussion, I authorize their removal, and will thank editors for doing so. LotLE×talk 01:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Translation: "I don't want be bothered. Clean up my mess." Would this be an awkward time to bring up the fact that LotLE retaliated against an editor who disagreed with him in a content dispute, by posting that editor's real name? Isn't that some sort of serious policy violation? WorkerBee74 (talk) 02:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The previous comment is typically inflammatory and unnecessary, seeing as it is in response to an apology - as well as misleading. The post WorkerBee refers to was the editor's extremely common first name and last initial only. Perhaps not the best move, but hardly "that editor's real name". (And it was readily available to all with information the aggrieved editor had posted himself on his user page.) I'm not defending the post, just clarifying for readers that it was not as WorkerBee chose to describe it. Tvoz/talk 05:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The goal of any administrative activity is to prevent disruption and improve the editing environment. It is always preferable for an editor to see that their behavior was causing problems and to voluntarily amend it than to have them blocked, banned, etc. In that sense, LotLE's apology is a step in the right direction, though of course it needs to be substantiated by a visible commitment to civil interaction and lowering the thermostat wherever possible. I don't know what other admins' practices are, but I'm not about to sanction someone for something they've just finished apologizing for. If actions don't follow the words, then that's a different story.

When an editor apologizes and authorizes anyone interested to remove any of their posts which are deemed inflammatory, it reflects remarkably poorly on WorkerBee74 to spin this as "Translation: I don't want to be bothered. Clean up my mess." In the end, one of you at least provides a reason to think their behavior might improve, while the other confirms that they'll view this as a WP:BATTLE to the last, no matter what olive branches are extended. Is that how you want this to play out? MastCell  18:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I told you so

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Barack_Obama_pages#Kossack4Truth_banned. That was the last individual editor that was left on the list (made by Scarian and myself) who needed to be sanctioned in this area. What else can I say? Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you did tell us so. You were right. In looking over that three- and four-week-old page, I see suggestions then for months-long topic bans based on behavior up to that point, including a long topic ban for Kossack4Truth and something short for LotLE. In light of the more recent behavior, what do you think is appropriate now? Noroton (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If Kossack voluntarily found a completely different (non-controversial) article area to be involved would be a great step forward. Misplaced Pages isn't the place for edit warring or controversy. I'd suggest another voluntary wiki-break for K4T from Obama. He was doing so well staying away from it. Perhaps this next wiki-break from the article area could be permanent? Scarian 20:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

K4T was not doing well staying away and arguably not away at all - please see my summary above under the "block" subheading of a dozen and a half disruptive article-related edits during the self-described break. "Voluntary" is not going to cut it - the editor's blown at least half a dozen chances in the past few weeks to reform on his own. If the "retired" message truly means retired, fine... but there has been a lot of game playing and strong hints of sock puppetry. Are we going to have to start this whole thing up again from scratch if he does it again? Wikidemo (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit concerned that we will soon see a newly created account making all the arguments of K4T, in the same tone, on the same pages. Any advice on what to do if that happens? LotLE×talk 04:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Try WP:SSP first. Otherwise, leave a post here on ANI. But he's retired, for now anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You know what would work well here: something similar to the ArbCom remedy used on Derek Smart topic banning the user and all surrogates of the user (i.e., suspected sockpuppets advancing substantially the same arguments as the user). That way, you don't even need to go through a complicated process every time you see a newly created account making the arguments of K4T. The first time they make the edit, you revert and inform them of the sanction on surrogates. The second time they do it, you block the account for a short time, and warn them that they are topic banned from that area. If they violate the topic ban again, they're indefinite blocked. Simple.⇒SWATJester 13:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The enforcement instructions at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart were pretty intelligently laid out (and repeated at the top of Talk:Derek Smart). They only applied to SPAs, and they cautioned against mechanical enforcement. When you start talking about "surrogates" or any account "making the arguments of K4T" or "advancing substantially the same arguments as the user", whose arguments overlapped with many of my wise, finely tuned and always reasonable comments, we start getting into territory that a number of people are going to call censorship in a prominent article that's already received media coverage for its editing. As I understand it, it was never so much K4T's opinions that were a problem so much as his incivility and edit warring. Every new account that shows up on that talk page is going to get a colorectal exam from the editors there, given the past history of comments there about SPAs and IP accounts. When we concentrate on discussions there rather than votes, that kind of bad behavior is even more weakened. I think demanding that reverting editors get themselves over to the talk page before reverting further, maybe linking in the edit summary to a Derek Smart-type of statement at the top of the talk page about 1RR or 2RR restrictions on the page, would help. Noroton (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've restored this discussion from archive. Kossack4Truth resumed editing right around the time Misza archived this thread. His 48-hour "retirement" seems to've been a diversion to escape the sanctions being discussed above. Shem 20:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: 4-month community topic ban

I propose a four-month community topic ban for User:Kossack4Truth on all Barack Obama-related articles per MastCell, FCYTravis, and others above. Discussion on a six-month ban tapered off once K4T had "retired," but he resumed editing around the time the thread was archived. I personally find six months excessive for any sort of sanction, and the election will be over in four months regardless. I believe K4T could perhaps become a constructive editor on politics articles once the immediate heat of the elections has passed. Shem 20:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed stalkish attack post

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

• 72.76.8.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 72.76.0.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) posted some seemingly concerned comments about David Shankbone who was sadly driven away from this project by wiki and real-world stalking. It directs to an offsite blog which seems to be nothing but the attack site of the stalker likely responsible for driving him away. Banjeboi 00:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Help please. 72.68.117.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is now attacking me as well. Is this a case of floating IP so we just have to revert and ignore? Banjeboi 01:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree as do many people with Benjiboi's description of why david left, this site and blog are unlikely to be his. If you do a 'whois' search on the domain it reveals that it was only created a month or less ago, and the person does not disclose their name etc even setting up the site, but use a proxy email or something which doesn't show their location. Sticky Parkin 02:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

David's own account of why he left (linked from his talk page) explains that he was being stalked. I don't dispute his account and indeed got residual nonsense likely from the same person who now seems to be back. Banjeboi 02:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Help please! they have nothing better to do apparently. Could someone at least semi-protect Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject LGBT studies? Banjeboi 02:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

A block on 72.76.8.234 would also be in order here. Banjeboi 02:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Maxim and myself have blocked the two Verizon ranges he had been using tonight to vandalize this thread and post the unwanted content at the talk page of the WikiProject.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, hopefully it's over. Banjeboi 03:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I semi-protected the wikiproject talk page for 36 hours before I learned of the range blocks. Accordingly, if the project wants to undo the protection just let me know and I'll unprotect or anyone else can. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Please look at this comment left by an IP user on my talk page relating to David Shankbone: . — Becksguy (talk) 04:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

See above: WP:ANI#Removed stalkish attack post. I've reverted this trolling and blocked the individual IP. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That particular IP was in one of the blocked ranges. This is resolved unless he finds a new IP within the next 12 hours.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This is what happens when you don't understand rangeblocks. Should I undo my block? -MBK₀₀₄ 04:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Leave it be. I'm pretty sure that if you unblock it, it will undo the entire range block (or something). Check mw:Help:Range blocks.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

72.76.87.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) — Another IP comment here on David Shankbone. I reverted. Changed tag to unresolved. The semi on the LGBT project pages expired, but he has only commented on my talk page so far. — Becksguy (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• 72.68.125.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) seems to be the same one who wikistalked David Shankbone, please block this IP and semi-protect Talk:Twink (gay slang) and Twink (gay slang) - their latest interests. Banjeboi 01:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and blocked both of these IPs, however with just a couple of edits to Twink (gay slang) and its talk page, I am hesitant to protect them unless the IP strikes again. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. If it's the same one that we've seen a few times their interest is gay porn and those that edit them so they cycle for a few days and then return. A semi is likely only needed if they just kept targeting the same article. I feel in almost every case the net result was - perhaps unintended - improvements to the articles so will repost if this gets out of hand. Calling me "bentjewboy" doesn't help their case much either. Banjeboi 02:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I initiated a RFPP on the twink article also, however, I requested full protection due to edit waring, but will remove that request since it's here also. See comments on talk page. BTW, did someone block 72.76.87.231 for the comment on my talk page? — Becksguy (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. You can click on "block log" even if nothing is posted to their talk page. Banjeboi 03:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully this will stay resolved for a while. RFPP request removed, so I think we are done for now. — Becksguy (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem's solved for another 12 hours. If he comes back, I'll reblock the ranges. Contact me on my talk.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ha! I knew this anon had done some other work - posting here for tomorrow's round. User:David Shankbone/72.76. Banjeboi 03:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• 72.68.115.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Anon user changed caption yet again with a different IP. Restored consensus based and appropriate caption. Left comment on Ryulong's talk. <sigh> — Becksguy (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

At least they're consistent. Banjeboi 20:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• 72.76.10.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) another. Banjeboi 23:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Stop posting new mentions here. I'm blocking both ranges, again. We do not need this thread to follow the problem. List them at AIV from now on and refer to User:David_Shankbone/72.76. If he continues to hop around, the ranges will be blocked. This thread has been resolved and will remain resolved because there is nothing more that we can do.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Disgusteddad

Could a (tactful) administrator do something about the recent edits by User:Disgusteddad? See and . I know that content is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages, but I'm hesitant to get involved myself, since I don't have much wiki-experience dealing with concerned parents. (His claims are not totally bogus; if you do an image search for Avengers 71, you'll see what he's talking about.) Zagalejo^^^ 21:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, his edits to Joe Quesada have been reverted. Still, it would be great if an administrator could politely tell him what he did wrong. Zagalejo^^^ 21:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have left a {{welcome}} and references to WP:RS and WP:BLP. Also pointed out this is not a forum for complaints. I think he just wanted to blow off some steam. --Rodhullandemu 21:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 21:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If DisgustedDad is in fact Victor Randall, WP:No original research would be most on-target. Has this alleged incident attracted news coverage of any kind? — CharlotteWebb 18:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't gone quiet. He's forum-shopping now. Baseball Bugs 22:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a blog that shows the illustration. He's not wrong about the racy nature of it. But note that the blog is 3 years old, and I think the comic is from a couple of years prior. So I'm not sure what this guy's on about. Baseball Bugs 22:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• The nature of the illustration is irrelevant; we don't host it. Neither do we link to it. Neither are we a platform for complaints, or even a bastion of free speech. His remedy, if any, lies elsewhere and I have pointed that out to him. Any more and I'll block him for disruption. --Rodhullandemu 22:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It's now closed on the other page as well. It has now been "resolved" twice. :) Baseball Bugs 12:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Requesting 48 hour block for User:Blechnic

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

Based on his abuses of AN/I and his rampant hostility, and the obvious underlying tantrum, I'm requesting a 48 to 72 hour block to allow him time to rethink his current repeated vandlaism/ edit warring path. While 'chill out' blocks are bad, blocks which prevent edit warrign at AN/I are good. He's not listening to reason, support, or anything. Block him before he gets himself community banned next to Carol Spears. ThuranX (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe through my previous run-in with Blechnic, that you're using the wrong gender specific pronouns, but that's neither here nor there.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, double public apology then. One, i no longer think the block is needed, per a reply on my user talk, and two, I don't know gender of most editors, and default to 'he' because i'm anti-PC like that. ThuranX (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I just say they or there if I don't know there gender. Bidgee (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Or "their". :) Baseball Bugs 00:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) chillax, mate. BLechnick's just venting. If he has some problem with Carsolspears, who IS a banned user for a reason, he should be forgiven for lashing out at bit as a communtiy that he believes betrayed him. Just let him vent his frustrations, he'll cool off after a few days or weeks, and he'll contribute very wel. Smith Jones (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• I endorse a block, based upon the blatant incivility in this edit summary, and the above drama-mongering and edit-warring. Being pissed off doesn't justify his/her behavior, no matter what SmithJones says. S. Dean Jameson 00:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If so, ThuranX should be blocked along with him for his extreme incivility to administrators and CarolSpears.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That's extreme incivility? Hahahha. I laugh at you. Go back and read all the lead-up to this. Some admins DID call him a stalker, and support Carol Spears, and they are flat out wrong. You want to stir up trouble and get an internet flame war going, you can go have fun with that, but you'll be doing it alone. ThuranX (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, I guess many people already laugh at this closed show. Keep up the good works.--Caspian blue (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, ThuranX's post was entirely reasonable - it was simply saying things as they were, but not in an offensive way. Orderinchaos 03:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You may want to read above about the gender. ;) Also I don't think a ban would cool her down. I think it would fire her up more which would lead to a Community ban. Bidgee (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

With no comment to Smith Jones's post, I believe that a block is unneeded, at least at the current time. Things seemed to be calmed down now, and the flames need not be stoked again. —Kurykh 00:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The whole Carol Spears thing needs to die down, and blocking yet another editor won't help that.--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose There's a class of victim who seem to enjoy self-immolation, in sometimes Wagnerian style. My opinion is that a block would merely stoke the fires under the pyre in this case. --Rodhullandemu 00:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I d have to agree again with this users. The idea that we should bully and toy iwth a user who appears to have withdrawn from the project (retired, as per his rtalkpage and userpage) seems punitive, which is furthermore against the policy of the adminsitrative block as humanly possible. Besides, if we blocked her we might have to block a good user like User:ThuranX who has expressed simialr views in the past as per: Caspian blue and that would be an and of itself a travesty and a defiance of the policy of WP:aGF

IF he comes back and does the same nonsense, then blocking her might be appropriate. Now, it wuld be inordinately punitive. Smith Jones (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: In all fairness, he's been goaded quite badly, by CarolSpears (who claimed that fixing her copyvio, etc, was harassment and stalking, and kept reverting attempts to fix the copyvio) and a few of her defenders. A block will only aggravate the situation and serve to drive him off. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why this is still going on. When I made the request, Blechnic had just run a little edit war falling on her? sword here on AN/I, and removing all comments of support with quite hostile commentary. When I Posted that I no longer saw a need for it, it was because after reverting MY note of support, she? Then visited my user talk, and left a note that had the tone of someone who was moving into the quiet cooling off period after a tantrum; as such, I then felt such a block would ONLY piss her off and stoke the fires unnecessarily, pushing her back into trouble. That everyone here is now commenting, without regard to my follow-up seems like a tinge of the dogpile, or 'me too' thing. As for Smith Jones' comment, well, that's sour grapes for my comments supporting a block on his AN/I thread of a couple days ago. ThuranX (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, dont snap at it Me, Thuran. I feel that blocking anyone in this case is ainppropriate at this time and that your comments on her talkpage were immeterial to this discussion. I only mentioend it above because I was baffled as why to his was mentioned at all? Smith Jones (talk)

Uncivil and NPA remarks by User:Beamathan

Nothing for admins to do here. Orderinchaos 03:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Beamathan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) left quite a nasty remark on my talk page after I asked him three times to place comments about a particular project on the project page. I am really confused and do not understand why this editor thinks I am insulting him, thinks I am a jerk, etc. Perhaps an admin can remind him of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and other appropriate policies? I see he has been blocked several times for incivility and other similar infractions, so perhaps this is more epidemic? Confusingly yours, Bstone (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Storm in a teacup, isn't it? Beam thinks that some comments are better off not on Misplaced Pages talk:Ombudsmen Committee and you think that they do. When these opinions collide, lots of nasty things happen. I'll go and leave a message. x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, x42bn6. Can probably mark this resolved. Bstone (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No. This is not resolved at all. Bstone, you still have not read my comments apparently. The comments were not about the project, they were about you. Hence, I put them on your talk page. You posted a problem on an Admin Noticeboard regarding someone reverting your addition of a policy tag. You claimed you had consensus, they reverted because you don't. As i say on your talk page, I just wanted to make sure you saw that you didn't have consensus, at least that pump. I didn't want you to keep making false statements, looking foolish. It had nothing to do with the actual project itself. Instead of reading my comments, you belittled me by ignoring them and saying I should post them somwehre else. I tried again to explain the purpose of the comments. Yet AGAIN you said post them somewhere else...again i explain the purpose and then you mock me, using italicized "please" and telling me that was "the sum" of your dealings with me on a talk page. You completely acted like a jerk.

Instead of actually reading my comments, or admitting you understood them you mocked me. I pointed this out and what do you do? You come and try to blacken my reputation within the community. I'm sorry your project does not have consensus. I thought it was out of ignorance that you claimed it did. I was trying to help you, so you don't look foolish in the future. You acted like I didn't understand what a talk page is for. Those comments were about you, not the project.

And, regarding my block history, since you cared enough to bring it up, perhaps you'd care enough to check out the history between me and that particular Admin, as well as the conclusion and resolution of all those blocks through mediation. Hint: it's not as it appears.

I will consider this resolved when you apologize, or remove this attempt at making me look bad within my community. This is the "sum" of my comments towards you Bstone. Beam 03:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've requested both parties apologise to each other. To me, Bstone gave the impression unwittingly that he didn't take Beam's comments into account while Beam persisted with posting on Bstone's talk page despite being told to take it elsewhere. Whether either one is correct is immaterial since there's little point in dragging such a small issue through the mud. Bstone has enough drama on his hands with his OmbCom proposal, so <<shake hands here>>. x42bn6 Talk Mess 03:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As a note, after reviewing the comments at his proposal for the project Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#Ombudsmen_Committee_formal_proposal I think he may have acted like he did towards me out of frustration regarding his latest attempt at this project failing. Bstone, I have nothing against you personally and I'm sorry your project isn't going too well. There was still no need to act like that towards me. Beam 03:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Beam, please, sir, please assume good faith. You made some comments regarding a project which I had to ask you three times to refer to the project talk page. You believe I was mocking you, acting like a jerk and another nasties. You're clearly not assuming good faith as I never desired, intended nor actually did mock you, act like a jerk, etc. So, without further ado, I will move on and hopefully you'll stop referring to me as a jerk. Agreed? Bstone (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No. You haven't read my comments yet! They weren't about the project. They were about you. I didn't call you a jerk, you acted like one towards me and I pointed it out. And you did mock me. Faith has nothing to do with it, just the facts. And if you call that an apology, you may want to head over to the Wiktionary. Beam 05:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Can an admin please intervene here? We're getting nowhere and I grow weary of this drama. Thank you. Bstone (talk) 05:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If you grow weary of the drama, I would suggest from personal experience that you unwatch this page, at least temporarily. Short of that, I don't think an administrator acting in the capacity of an administrator—i.e. blocking, protecting, etc.—could help resolve the issue of "getting nowhere" or drama/conflict: surely neither issue merits a block? --Iamunknown 06:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I support Iamunknown's suggestions. I don't want you blocked Bstone, :) Beam 13:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Consist and I: one of us here needs some advice

About a week and a half ago, I noticed this report on ANI, and because I operate in articles that are often concerned with phylogeny, I took interest in the activities of User:Consist, the user in question. For those coming late to the party, Consist is the handle of Mats Envall, who had a paper in the May 2008 issue of the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society and is now going through classification articles such as Cladistics, Clade, Phylo Code, and Linnean taxonomy and inserting his position that he has falsified cladistics as the be-all and end-all. When questioned about his edits, he responds with lengthy rambling posts to talk pages, or discusses his personal enmity toward cladists (see previous diff), who he explains have attempted to suppress him for 14 years. His main point is that he claims to have "falsified cladistics' denial of paraphyletic groups," and he apparently regards cladistics as some sort of great negative that needs to be overturned.

I and others (EdJohnston, Sjö, and C.Fred) have attempted to communicate to him several times and explain to him how Misplaced Pages works. He appears to simply not care that what he is doing is not how things are done here, displays the classic disruptive editor sign of blaming problems on the actions of other editors, and generally behaves as if he is on a mission of great importance that is not to be disrupted, above the rules, and will not be stopped. He occasionally issues borderline insults regarding the competence of those who question his actions (see for example the fifth and seventh sentences in this reply to Sjö, and the ninth and tenth on this reply to me). From where I sit, he is acting as a disruptive editor with little chance of becoming productive. I would like someone else who is not as close to take a look, though. It may be that none of us who have tried are communicating properly. What gets me is that he obviously has communicated with others in the past, in order to get his paper published, yet he so far is not taking advice from others here. J. Spencer (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Not terribly cool that he's declared his intention to continue editwarring, despite your referring him to lots of very relevant policies. I'm keeping an eye on this.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for having a look. I'm going to disengage from him for the time being, as the situation is not doing any favors for my editing, and he may well be a better editor without my attention. J. Spencer (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni33 part 2

Please leave this thread open for a while so people can discuss their concerns, and please be respectful toward the banned user. Thanks. - Jehochman 05:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

See prior ANI thread

Some of us are very uneasy about Giovanni33 (talk · contribs) getting banned indefinitely based on a very short discussion, and when he's already been banned by arbcom for a year. It certainly wasn't a decision that the community came to. To avoid another edit war on Misplaced Pages:List of banned users I'm asking that this be discussed without premature archiving. -- Ned Scott 05:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick clarification: the disputed community ban preceded the ArbCom ban (the community ban occurred while ArbCom was voting on its ban). Ned's account unintentionally implies the opposite. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. -- Ned Scott 05:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Now that nine arbitrators have unanimously declared him guilty of having "repeatedly engaged in prohibited sockpuppetry and/or some form of proxy editing", is there anyone who feels the community ban was in error? If the positive CU results presented in the ban thread were available before the ArbCom case, there probably wouldn't have been any need for the case at all. (Also note the various legal threats on his pre-blanked talk page.) Since he's hard-banned by ArbCom for a year anyway, the only practical effect of the community ban is that we must agree to him being unbanned after that point in time. Sounds like a reasonable precaution to me. - Merzbow (talk) 05:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are we even discussing this now? It's not even an issue for another year. Let a year pass and G33 can appeal to be reinstated. The flames will have died down and the uneasiness will be put in perspective. But discussing now will only create more drama with the onl youtcome beign that Giovanni33 is banned for at least a year. Close this down and move on. Ignoring this now as there is no resolution that changes the status quo. Stop the drama. --DHeyward (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"...nine arbitrators have unanimously declared him guilty of having "repeatedly engaged in prohibited sockpuppetry and/or some form of proxy editing", is there anyone who feels the community ban was in error?" Yes, those who don't trust this ArbCom on sockpuppetry, for excellent reasons. --User:Relata refero 06:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose, considering my comments elsewhere, that I should be counted as one of those uneasy regarding the indefinite ban. Indeed, I am concerned. But, at the same time, I find myself in agreement with DHeyward: waiting a while (perhaps not a full year, or perhaps a full year as DH suggests) before revisiting this particular issue seems like an acceptable plan. --Iamunknown 06:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

To DHeyward, the reason I bring this up is because we should not take "community banned" lightly, regardless of the situation. I could easily see this as working against Giovanni when a year is up, and he asks for his ban to be reviewed. There are a lot of admins that will blindly support a ban without looking into the matter, seeing that it was listed as a "community ban" and trusting that it really was. This is a calm and rationale discussion, demanding that it be closed and saying things like "stop the drama" is exactly what creates the drama in the first place.

In general: Arbcom went with a one year ban, not an indef. Their decision is not an endorsement of the indef ban in any way. -- Ned Scott 07:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The Committee 1 year ban is a standard remedy. Even if an administrator is willing to unblock (god help us all), this will not change the fact he will remain blocked as part of the ArbCom remedy. It's futile and tendentious (and some might suggest it's trollish) to insist a ban be reviewed when an overwhelming number here continue to say "We are not willing to unblock. We will reconsider after sometime, whether it's before or after the Committee year-long ban is up, but not now." Take note. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

For about the 20th time, in the 30th place, an admin being willing to unblock, only invalidates an undiscussed community ban that exists when NO admin is willing to unblock. However if the ban has had community discussion the willingness of a single admin to unblock, will not overturn the ban. That requires more community discussion. The first is an effective community ban, it exists when an indef blocked user cannot find someone willing to unblock them. The second one is an actual community ban - a ban in effect after community discussion. (Ncmvocalist this is not specifically aimed at you, more at everyone who perpetuates that myth) Viridae 11:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. To clarify: I was making a massive assumption that after discussion, the community agreed for the 'willing' admin to handle it (even if it meant that the community-ban was overturned). Essentially, my point was that even with that assumption, the Committee ban isn't going to move, so those jumping up and down for review of this ban should go worry about that first. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you maybe clarify the wording of WP:BAN? If the discussion end changes the situation so much, there should also be a stated minimum length of time to discuss to help prevent gaming the system (like we have on RFA and other processes). Jehochman 11:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• There is a reason the arbitration committee only does blocks/bans for a year - it trusts the committee in a year's time to get a review right. The community is more fickle and changeable, so it does indefinite bans because that both allows more and less flexibility (early unblocking and ignoring the matter forever). I said at the time that there was no need to have a community ban discussion, and that ArbCom had matters well in hand. Leave it as a year-long block and trust the committee in a year's time to handle the matter. Carcharoth (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any uninvolved admin willing to unblock Giovanni33 AND the ban will be in place after the discussion. Can we endorse and close this ? --DHeyward (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that this discussion is kind of pointless. If, in a year's time, there is a good reason to unblock Giovanni33, we can do so then. Nothing we decide now will bind us anyway. Sam Korn 13:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose ban and discussion closing. Ned Scott makes a lot of sense. I'm also very uncomfortable about the rush to close either of these discussions. This discussion is not pointless nor is it drama, as process never is. And since Giovanni is ArbCom banned for a year (without auto renewing), why even bother with a community ban. The ban discussion earlier was extremely short and occurred during a extended national holiday in the USA which clearly reduced participation well below the level that could be considered necessary for a community ban. This discussion should stay open for a significant time period, like the five days we normally give AfDs or seven days for RfAs. — Becksguy (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• I really think this is much to-do over nothing. "Indef" does not mean "permanent." Given the ArbCom decision, this will be reviewed in 1 year anyway. If the ArbCom decides there is no need to reniew their ban, then the community can discuss the community ban as well. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, I find it difficult to believe that anyone would be willing to say G33 is innocent with a straight face after looking at the mounds of evidence to the contrary, and especially since he's been making noises about legal action all through the arbcom case and even after it on his talk page. Jtrainor (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• He certainly should have an indef ban while he threatens legal action. --DHeyward (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Recreation of article that just finished AFD Malik Abongo Obama

A couple of hours ago the AFD for Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Abongo Obama was finished with a delete, and the article was redirected (and remains so). However the identical material has been recreated at Malik Abongo Obama (a variation on the name of the person). Someone tried to speedy it as A4G4 (recreation of deleted material) but someone else removed the template (why that's even allowed for an A4G4 I don't know). Oddly the creator immediately nominated it for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Malik Abongo Obama. Seems to me it should be speedied asap, and the parties involved advised to proceed to WP:DRV. Nfitz (talk) 06:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm spread thinly here, so I'll be brief: By self-nominating the article after adding sources, the creator made a de facto deletion review. He should be applauded for doing so, saince he was actually doing the right thing in a slightly unusual way. - brenneman 07:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any admin attention is needed (other than what we already have). This is in fact an unusual case, and the creator might not of know of drv? Regardless, the AfD should go on as it is, for the true fate of the article. — _Maggot 07:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

To anyone contemplating this I removed the speedy as being out of process. It clearly doesn't fit the G4 criterion because the article as recreated overcame the reason for which the article was deleted in the first place, namely notability. The new article includes a number of sources that were not previously in the article and were not considered in the deletion discussion. One need not go through deletion review to recreate an article in this way, though the person should have either done that or actually integrated the new sources and revised the article prior to recreating it. However, now that the article is here it would be pointless to speedy it because that would leave the notability question unanswered. Wikidemo (talk) 07:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you have it wrong. The closing admin has stated that the article was near indentical to the original (save a few external links) and is in fact subject to speedy. But a speedy is not subject to G4. — _Maggot 07:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I meant to show this diff instead, taken directly from the AfD, and not his talk page (although he says it there too). But to expand for a second: No, this is why we have DRV. To bring up things such as notability that in which were overlooked or were not discussed in a prior afd, and allow for recreation. Relisting at AfD could have been a likely conclusion, and since there is an AfD open, it should stand. This should summarize whats going on at this moment. — _Maggot 07:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe Wikidemo has simply mistyped in mentioning G4. I nominated the article under A4, and he removed the Speedy. While I disagree with the judgment, Wikidemo is, I believe, claiming that the article is not "substantially identical" because of the addition of some references. I'd still prefer Speedy and DRV, but the closing admin has stated a desire to let this be "DRV by other means". LotLE×talk 07:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, G4 really is the one that (perhaps) applies... it was me who mistyped in the original speedy nomination. LotLE×talk 08:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, A4 doesn't fit either, so I doubt it. Unless I'm just completely confused. — _Maggot 07:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

G4 not A4 - ooops. Nfitz (talk) 08:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologize to the community that I didn't know how to do a review of an AfD decision. Incidentally, where it only had two sources, the article now's got more than eight and contributors (well, primarily User:Wikidemo) have doubled the bio's length through additions of new material.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 14:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletions in contested cases accomplish nothing, they just leave the issue open. AfDs have the sometimes annoying tendency to require interested passers by to clean up articles so as to overcome the objections of those who wish to delete. DRv doesn't do that so well so it's perfectly appropriate to recreate an article in different form if that addresses the reason for earlier deletion. Just, as a matter of decorum, it's best to wait a bit and introduce it in already-rewritten form. In theory notability should be based on the sources available, whether cited or not and whether or not integrated into the article - notability being an attribute of the article subject, not the article. But that's not always how things work in practice. Perhaps this is best addressed on the talk page of the AfD. Certainly nothing here that requires administrators to step in and police things. At this point it's a routine, if slightly unruly, AfD discussion. Wikidemo (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This really should have been G4ed and sent to DRV. The current situation is just making a mess --T-rex 20:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

TinucherianBot and Issues with WP:FOOD Tagging

A bot which I operate TinucherianBot was employed by the WP:FOOD project members for WikiProject Banner Tagging of {{WPFOOD}} on talkpage of articles on Category:Food and its subcategories. I didn't run the Bot blindly and recursively on the Category:Food , but created a list of categories from main list, removed the possible wrong categories from them ( with my limited knowledge on the subject matter ) ,gave the list to the project members and got it further cleaned . It was then I created the article list by manually supplying only the 'approved' categories....and finally running the bot over the talk page of the articles ...Altough this was done in good faith , there were issues due to some misassumptions with the categorization and the bot was blocked and I had stopped the bot from running further. As the bot owner, me and the Project members are actively sorting and cleaning some of prossibly wrong tags added.

The whole issue is being discussed here at Misplaced Pages:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#TinucherianBot. Upon my explaination here at Misplaced Pages:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#Explanation_by_the_Bot_Operator , an admin, MaxSem unblocked the bot. But another admin, User:Davidgothberg blocked the bot again TWICE ( The bot had stopped 24hours ago before he blocked it) after this unblock and persistently unwilling to unblock the bot inspite of recommendations by most people. Those interested may comment at Misplaced Pages:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#TinucherianBot to avoid scattering of the discussion at different places . This is just FYI -- TinuCherian - 07:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have notified Davidgothberg also regarding this here -- TinuCherian - 07:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, Tinucherian was feeding his bot a list of about 1100 categories which means he was tagging somewhere around 10-100 thousand pages. He only announced that list at 1-2 WikiProjects and only for some hours before he started the bot run. That is hardly enough time for people to have a chance to check such a huge list.

Then when people protested against the massive mistagging of pages he did not bother to respond to the questions and suggestions. It wasn't until some hours ago after his bot had been blocked for several days that he bothered to give any kind of comprehensive answer to the questions and suggestions. (Instead of just complaining about the block.) Those answers now have to be discussed.

And regarding "blocking twice": I reblocked his bot to correct my block comment, since I had done a mistake in my first block comment. Thus it really is one block.

It is unfortunate that the only way to get Tinucherian to communicate properly is to block his bot for several days.

--David Göthberg (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

David, As you know, this is just bad faith accuse. It is evident from my talk page and this discussion Misplaced Pages:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#TinucherianBot that I have been trying to explain and convince you. Apparently everyone except you have understood it. I summarised again everything at Misplaced Pages:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#Explanation_by_the_Bot_Operator . It has been asked by almost everyone ( including lots of admins ) to unblock the bot like this , 2, 3 , 4 5 6 , 7 8 , 9 10, but you are still holding on to your bad faith and personal judgement. With all respect to you, you are abusing the admin powers and trust upon you -- TinuCherian - 13:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This must be the one that tagged Wrigley Field. Since when is Wrigley Field a food? Baseball Bugs 13:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Great, another crappy project-claim-o-bot spamming a hundred thousand talk pages and getting about half of them wrong (but it is vital that projects claim these articles!). I blame the stupid GA/A-class/B-class system for this. Bad targets instil bad behaviour. Um, the consensus there seems to be to unblock the stupid bot. Neıl 龱 13:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, here's where Betacommandbot might come in handy. Luckily, all this idiot bot is doing is tagging talk pages. So whoever is on that project will have 100,000 pages to look at. That should keep them busy. Baseball Bugs 13:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Before calling the bots and project members idiots, I request you to kindly read this to know what had happened here at Misplaced Pages:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#Explanation_by_the_Bot_Operator. WP:FOOD project members had requested by the Bot Operator ( see User:TinucherianBot/Autotagg/WPFOOD ) to tagg articles in Category:Food and its subcatergoies. I didn't run the Bot blindly and recursively on the Category:Food , but created a list of categories from main list, removed the possible wrong categories from them ( with my limited knowledge on the subject matter ) ,gave the list to the project members and got it further cleaned . It was then I created the article list by manually supplying only the 'approved' categories....and finally running the bot over the talk page of the articles ...It was agreed that project members and the bot operator should have paid further careful attention in selecting and eliminating the possibly wrong categories. Wrigley Field came from Category:Food companies of the United States > Category:Wrigley Company. The project member s and the bot operator is actively working on cleaning the wrongly tagged articles. Having said this, It is too be noted that more than 95% of the tagging was related to WP:FOOD only. All these have been discussed and agreed upon for future course of action by the bot or the project.

The issue now is that an admin David Göthberg is still unwilling to go by the community consensus to unblock the bot and still holding it on his personal judgement and bias.

We would appreciate further discussion on this at Misplaced Pages:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#TinucherianBot to avoid fragmentation of discussion. This note at ANI was placed for the information of a larger audience -- TinuCherian - 14:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the alleged "consensus", tagging 100,000 articles is idiotic and the bot should be kept blocked until some common sense is brought to bear. Baseball Bugs 14:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs , Wow ! I still cannot understand from where did you get the figure of 100,000 ? It tagged only around 6,000 articles. Are you aware of WikiProject Biography having already 523534 articles and WikiProject Military history has 68567 articles etc. If you are not aware of why and what for are Wikiprojects, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Council/Guide should be a good starting point -- TinuCherian - 15:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I got it from the earlier comment "he was tagging somewhere around 10-100 thousand pages". And don't lecture me. Just realize that the more items you tag, the more fragmented your project will be, and will likely run out of steam. Unless that's OK. Personally, I don't care about the tagging. But it seemed silly to me for Wrigley Field to be tagged as a food. And why it was in the food category is equally baffling. They sell hot dogs there. So what? Baseball Bugs 15:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I can only assume it was there because of Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company, a chewing gum manufacturer, who undoubtedly should be in the category as a food product producer. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 15:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, since the exact numbers now are under discussion: I looked around and at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Food and drink#Bot Tagging Tinucherian himself (the bot owner) claims: "This is a huge effort that involves around 1500 categories and approx 24,000 unique articles."

You failed to mention in your comment above that the reason your bot "only" tagged around 6,000 articles is that we blocked your bot.

--David Göthberg (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, both Wrigley Field (Chicago) and Wrigley Field (Los Angeles) got tagged, evidently because of their being categorized with "Wrigley Company". That illustrates the risk of using categories blindly. Categories are often added (or not added) at the whims of the editors. For example, Busch Memorial Stadium has an obvious connection to the Busch brewing company, but no one put the stadium into a Busch category, so it did not get tagged. Unless the guy running the bot intends to personally sift through all umpteen-thousand items and fix the ones that obviously don't belong, his bot program should stay blocked. Baseball Bugs 16:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I would hope that the wikiproject itself would have its act together, for lack of a better term, before handing off a request of this magnitude for some poor bot op to get hammered on. That said, I think the request was made and handled in good faith, and in a manner consistent with current policies and practices for how such things are usually done. I think more time should be taken in vetting the list, but I think the bot op has agreed to exercise more care in the future (and with the remainder of these tags, if and when), and so should be unblocked - acknowledging that there will be a lot of eyes on his bot for the near future. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 17:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Fittingly, did you know that "bot" is the root word of "botch"? Baseball Bugs 18:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I did, actually... which is specifically why I stay as far the hell away from them as possible. Why I've found myself discussing two different bots this week is beyond me. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 18:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should really be questioning why Wrigley Field is in Category:Food companies of the United States? Really if WP:FOOD wants all these articles in their project then they are free to do so. The fact that this bot is still blocked at this point is insane. --T-rex 20:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not in the food category, at least not directly. It's in "Wrigley Company" category, which is in the food category, which seems fair. But they are taking too broad an approach here. Part of the problem is relying on categories. As far as I know, Wrigley Field was never owned by the Wrigley company, it was owned by the Wrigley family - which, by the way, is also now tagged with the food category, e.g. Philip K. Wrigley. The stated goal of the project is, "This WikiProject aims to provide a centralized location for the discussion of standards for work on food and drink articles in Misplaced Pages. This covers but is not limited to beers, wines, restaurants, chefs, recipes, etc." I wonder which category P.K. Wrigley fits into. He's not a beer or wine. He's not a restaurant or a chef. I don't think he's a recipe. And what about Wrigley Field? Is it a "restaurant"? Not really. Baseball Bugs 20:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Not directly, but it is. theoretically any article in a category, also belongs in all parent categories. As for Philip K. Wrigley, he's a food inventor. That one makes sense to me.

Well, his father was, maybe. P.K. just ran the company (and the Cubs) after his father died. Anyway, I hope the project members have fun editing 100,000 articles. Who needs vacations? Baseball Bugs 03:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with T-rex. I would myself be willing to unblock the bot. The project is free to determine which content is relevant to it, not others. However, it does seem to me that it might be best to at least have the bot operator review the categories he's considering, and possibly tag them with the project's banner, before running the bot. John Carter (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked the bot. While there is still discussion about the details of tagging process, there is obvously no consensus for blocking a stopped bot. MaxSem 21:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So, when those spurious tags start showing up on pages we happen to be watching, are we supposed to just let them be, or delete them if they look stupid? Baseball Bugs 22:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

MaxSem, Thank you for unblocking the bot. I concur with the valid concern that the bot operator and the task requester should carefully and diligently review all the categories before the bot run to the best way possible and with the best efforts. Simply running the bot recursively over a category to all its sub-categories is fundamentally very very dangerous. The bot task requester or the bot operator , if at all wants the bot to run over a category and its subcategories , should first collect the list of the sub categories either manually or using tools like AWB,then eliminate any possible wrong categories and prepare a final 'cleaned' list before the bot run. The bot run should be only on these 'selected' categories. Project tagging based on categories is how we always used to do and one of the best methods to identify articles in the scope of a particular project. Having said that, Wiki Categories is very useful but NOT perfect. And hence 'false positive' tagging may occur any time. Having assessed hundreds of articles myself for lot of Wikiprojects I work for, I have seen manual stupid tagging as much as bot tagging ! Baseball Bugs , you have every right to remove a project banner if u feel that it was wrong tagged. In your own words , You have every right to delete them if they 'look stupid' ;). There are issues and concerns from some Wikiproject members whether 'they should allow' tagging the article by another project in their project scope. Like whether WP:FOOD and Drink can tag WP:BEER articles. Personally I feel such a ugly situation of Ownership is aganist our fundamental Principle of a 💕 that anyone can edit. If that is the case, soon the day will come when a WikiProject will not even allow anyone other than the project members to edit the article itself. Well, This is something we need to have a very serious discussion , but it is beyond the scope of ANI. Being also a member of WikiProject Council , I will start a discussion on this topic to arrive at a community consensus . -- TinuCherian - 04:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

To follow up , discuss and resolve some of the important issues on multiple project tagging ,an important discussion on " Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ? " is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. -- TinuCherian - 14:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

ClockworkSoul doesnt agree to the discussion and closed the discussion. I am being WP:BOLD and reverted the closure here -- TinuCherian - 15:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In23065

In23065 has repeatedly violated WP:3RR when dealing with a issues on Big Brother 2004 (UK). His conduct to the way he interacts with editors over votes from the housemates that were apart of a twist concerns me. He has tried to get all articles relating to Big Brother (UK) semi-protected when the only article that needed protection was Big Brother 2008 (UK) due to high IP vandalism. This request only resulted in Big Brother 2004 (UK) being semi-protected.

His conduct when dealing with both registered and anonymous users is at question as it seems he as WP:OWN issues with the Big Brother articles mainly Big Brother 2004 (UK). In a reply on his talk page he replies "No there not, who told you that. I am not going to change my mind but I will let you contribute if you promise not to add these nominations" to 92.8.110.17. Sounds like WP:OWN to me.

His conduct on both Talk:Big Brother 2004 (UK) and User talk:In23065 to 92.8.110.17 is not acceptable and discourages new potential editors from editing Misplaced Pages. Also by having Big Brother 2004 (UK) semi-protected when there was no real vandalism prevents 92.8.110.17 from making contributions.

He also has a habit of uploading high resolution logos for mainly Big Brother UK articles instead of lower resolution logs as per Misplaced Pages fair use. He also edits high usage templates like Template:Big Brother housemates and Template:Big Brother endgame to suit his own style which has also affects other Big Brother articles indirectly.

His conduct though about the suitcase twist in Big Brother 2004 (UK) is what I am most considered about as he won't listen to anyone else and replies in ways that makes other editors feel beneath him to or stupid in some cases. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 08:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Alucard 16

Alucard 16 has repeatedly violated WP:3RR when dealing with a issues on Big Brother 2004 (UK). His conduct to the way he interacts with editors over votes from the housemates that were apart of a twist concerns me.

On this page he has said "He has tried to get all articles relating to Big Brother (UK) semi-protected when the only article that needed protection was Big Brother 2008 (UK) due to high IP vandalism. This request only resulted in Big Brother 2004 (UK) being semi-protected", however me and him discussed this and he agreed that it was an OK thing to do. Sounds like a bit of a bitch to me.

His conduct when dealing with both registered and anonymous users is at question as it seems he as WP:OWN issues with all Big Brother relating articles.

His conduct on Talk:Big Brother 2004 (UK) and other page relating to Big Brother to ] is not acceptable and discourages new potential editors from editing Misplaced Pages.

His conduct though about the suitcase twist in Big Brother 2004 (UK) is what I am most concerned about as he won't listen to anyone else and replies in ways that makes other editors feel beneath him to or stupid in some cases. In23065 (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Two near-identical, equally lame threads merged. This is an incredibly lame thing to edit war over. The difference between your two versions is virtually nil, yet neither of you will concede any ground because you both believe "you are right". Alucard 16, it is lame that you thought the best place to resolve a minor, minor content dispute was to report it to admins to try and get your opponent blocked. In23065, your copying of Alucard 16's message here was equally bad.

I suggest you both drop this, and go and find something better to do; at this point, anything would count as something better to do than this lameness. Counting blades of grass, or idle whimsy on just how orange is an orange. Neıl 龱 12:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Red or tangerine? All lameness aside though, looking at the various pages In23065 does seem to have some ownership and civility issues, and both users have edit-warred. BTW, I notice the page protection on Big Brother 2004 (UK) should have expired yesterday, but the page is still showing as semi-protected... am I reading this wrong? Anyway, I've left notes on their talk pages. EyeSerene 13:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

May I comment on my behalf here, I do admit to being in disputes with him but I never agreed on having all the articles related to Big Brother (UK) semi-protected as you can see here I said if they need protection then fine and I also said he could go ahead if he wished but it will most likely be declined which was the case. And his complaint against me for the most part is word for word my complaint against him. I have never talked to anyone that way and I was reporting him based on his conduct towards the anonymous user he was talking to. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 19:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Complicated legal threat situation

I'm an involved user in this situation, so I will take absolutely no admin action here, but I'm not sure if any admin action is needed or not. User:Guido den Broeder posted on the 3rd July on the talk page of User:Oscar, an admin on the Dutch Misplaced Pages and the mentor of Guido den Broeder over there (it's an arbcom appointed mentorship, but is not recognized or accepted as such by Guido den Broeder). Guido was blocked by Oscar on the Dutch Misplaced Pages, and posted here: "Oscar, ik raad je aan om per onmiddellijk mijn blokkade op nl:Misplaced Pages ongedaan te maken. Beschouw dit als je laatste kans." (Translation: "Oscar, I advise you to lift my block on the Dutch Misplaced Pages immediately. Consider this your final chance.") Another user interpreted this as a physical threat, which seems unrealistic to me. However, some four hours after this message, Guido den Broeder has been indefinitely blocked on the Dutch Misplaced Pages by decision of the Dutch Arbcom for making serious legal threats. Quote: "Na het indienen van deze zaak heeft Guido den Broeder in een email van 3 juli aan gebruiker:Oscar en een afschrift daarvan aan de arbcom aangekondigd strafrechtelijke stappen te zullen ondernemen tegen Oscar." (Translation: "After starting this case, Guido den Broeder has in a mail of July 3rd to user:Oscar and a carbon copy to the arbcom announced to take legal action against Oscar.) The Dutch arbcom has also contacted Mike Godwin.

I know that normally actions and blocks on other Wikipedias are not transferred to this one, but since the user has brought this problem to the English Misplaced Pages as well (and to meta]), and has made a post which, in light of what followed, can hardly be interpreted aas anything but a veiled legal threat, should he be warned and/or blocked here as well until this is resolved? Fram (talk) 08:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course. Good analysis of the case. The threat was made here, and in any case, even if it wasn't, these two users, with recognisably the same user identities as on nl-wiki, would pose the same problem if they had to interact here on en-wiki while at the same time engaged in real-life legal issues, so yes, the spirit of NLT would demand that we block him even if he hadn't spoken about it here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've always found WP:NLT' reasoning rather tenuous. I do wish we'd treat it simply as an extension of being civil and polite, and that we'd ask that users make no threats at all, rather than giving tenuous legal reasoning. — Werdna • talk 09:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• In addition to using English Misplaced Pages to further conflict on another wiki and make legal threats, Guido was blocked several times for different kinds of misconduct here, so I don't think that unblocking him will make any sense, even if he retracts the legal threat. As such, I propose to impose community ban on Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs). MaxSem 09:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • From what I saw, Dutch[REDACTED] editors followed him here. Possibly both sides are "using English Misplaced Pages to further conflict on another wiki". I said this last time, and will say it again. In the era of SUL (single-user login) we need to think more about cross-wiki issues. Traditionally, sanctions and remedies on other wikis were not applied here, and I think that should continue. I also think the tradition of giving people a second chance on other wikis is sometimes good, but also shouldn't be abused. The language issues are a problem as well. I am always uncomfortable relying on people to translate what has been said on other wikis - it is simpler to look at behaviour on just one wiki. Carcharoth (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban, leave blocked until legal issues sorted. I haven't looked recently, but I don't think his problematic editing conduct warrants a ban. Legal threats are not allowed, though, and those issues need to be resolved before any unblocking. Unfortunately, we can't judge the legal threats aspect of things properly here, as there is off-wiki stuff (Godwin and Dutch Misplaced Pages). If Guido withdraws the legal threats he can be unblocked - but we need a way of making certain that the legal threats have genuinely been withdrawn, I don't think just a post to his talk page would be enough. On the other hand, (for example) a lack of response from Mike Godwin (has he responded to confirm anything, or has someone just sent him an e-mail hoping for a reply?) or a lack of response from the Dutch Misplaced Pages, might leave Guido in a particularly nasty kind of limbo, even if he has withdrawn his legal threats. Anyway, as I was saying, if the legal stuff gets sorted, I'd be happy to mentor Guido on chess articles. From what I can see, the most problematic of his editing is on medical articles. Carcharoth (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with Carcharoth, who basically said what I was going to say, but better. Having dealt with a few disputes that have spilled over from other wikimedia projects, I find the best thign to do is to deal with each in isolation. Neıl 龱 12:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Block him indefinitely, tell him to convey his legal requests to info-en@wikimedia.org, he's welcome to be unblocked when he removes his threat. Simple. As well, the lack of response from Mike is not a big deal, he does not deal with every single legal threat we get, the majority of them are dealt with on OTRS before they ever get serious enough to go to him. ⇒SWATJester 13:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The point I was making was that the comment "The Dutch arbcom has also contacted Mike Godwin" is pointless and shouldn't be taken to mean anything unless someone hears from Mike Godwin. We shouldn't take the word of others that a particular situation is urgent or serious enough to require Mike Godwin's attention. The only person who can decide that is Mike Godwin himself. We should be wary of people using the phrase "we've contacted Mike Godwin" as a way to bolster their argument. We should also avoid getting into a situation where people say "we haven't heard back from Mike Godwin yet, don't do anything". Carcharoth (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The comment Guido made contains the kind of "intimidation" contemplated by the legal threats policy, although I don't see that it affects the free editing of articles. If Guido agrees to stay away from Oscar here, I think unblocking would be OK, but the precipitating comment doesn't reassure me that he'd do so.--chaser - t 10:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have clashed with him before, but I cannot see how one can threaten legal action on one wiki and remain an editor in good standing on another. It is unacceptable behaviour regardless of whether it has happened here or elsewhere, and it should be discouraged in the strongest possible terms. JFW | T@lk 19:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Alex191

I protest the treatment at WP:AIV regarding Special:Contributions/Alex191 . The user contribs is 100% vandalism. This is not an IP, but a registered editor who was final-warned two weeks ago, and now decides to vandalize again. Do we reset the vandalism counter for registered editors who's contribs would fall into vandalism only account? Yngvarr (c) 11:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• The user has been indefblocked by User:Ryulong as a vandalism-only account. Just to note, per WP:BLOCK, such accounts can be blocked on sight (there's no requirement to follow the warning escalator). Thanks for your report. EyeSerene 11:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you cite the rule to that effect? Seems to me I've seen entries on WP:AIV where admins claimed that insufficient warning was given to a reg. user. Baseball Bugs 13:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
    • It's a bit relative - if an account has both good-faith edits as well as the odd bit of vandalism, it would rightly not be indef-blocked as a vandal-only account. Similarly, a users first edit or two( ("oh my god I can actually change this!" or "Hello") may look like vandalism, but would get the benefit of a doubt, and warnings may then also be given rather than an indef block. Probably about five or six edits are enough to realise an account is vandal-only (unless the first edit is something obviously bad faith). I bet I haven't cleared it up at all, have I? Neıl 龱 13:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Yep, thanks Neil ;) Warnings are a courtesy to editors who will then hopefully read the linked policies and change their behaviour. If an editor has had warnings in the past (and this one did, up to and including a final warning), and has only used their account for vandalism, there's no need to reset the warning escalator or give the benefit of the doubt just because we're in a new month. As Neil says, the same wouldn't necessarily apply to new editors or those with a more mixed edit history. EyeSerene 13:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
        • It sounds like there is no rule, a such - it's a judgement call. Well, it's usually pretty obvious when a user is vandalism-only, although the first edit by itself may not be so obvious. Typically I don't issue a warning at all unless they do it a second time. Baseball Bugs 14:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There are no specific rules on this, but I generally would not report an account to AIV unless they have had three warnings, one of which includes the text "final warning", and there was vandalism after the "final warning". (This depends on context, of course -- e.g. some types of edits call for an immediate final warning. Just use common sense) I look at AIV as a place to get "rubber stamp" blocks, because you never know the position/attitude of the responding admin. For stuff that requires a judgment call, go to ANI. I reserve AIV for stuff where no judgment call is required.

As far as "resetting the counter," I reset for IPs after a couple of weeks, but I only reset for registered accounts if they have had a lot of constructive contribs between warnings. If somebody registers an account, vandalized up to a final warning, then comes back a year later and vandalizes, block 'em.

(I have marked the thread as resolved, since no more admin attention is required, but this does not prejudice further comments about the process here) --Jaysweet (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In difficult cases I flip a coin; Heads means block and tails means flip again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. :) Baseball Bugs 22:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That's actually a corollary to this Grouchoism: "I'll consult my lawyer. And if he advises me to do it, I'll get a new lawyer." 12:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Fasach Nua

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

Way past the realms of constructive comment or issues requiring administrator intervention. Neıl 龱 08:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is another thread. He's now gone on from IFDs to disrupting the featured article process. Of the five discussions he's joined, he has opposed all of them - four for fair use issues. Two of note include opposing the television episode FACs: "The Stolen Earth" and "The Shape of Things to Come". Of note, in each FAC:

• The Stolen Earth - he brings up his (far stricter than the policy prescribes) interpretation to say two images fail NFCC#8. He also brings up Image:TARDIS-trans.png, claiming its trademark status means it should not be used, despite recent consensus that it may;
• The Shape of Things to Come: opposes solely because "neither of the two non-free images have valid FU rationales". I checked their pages - they do have rationales. This is obvious bad faith against a helpful content-contributing user who passed her request for adminship yesterday.

If this was the first transgression Fasach has incurred, I'd ask for a warning. But no. I filed a requests for comment seven months ago, and he's still continuing the disputed behaviour. When are we going to stop giving him rope? If he wasn't dealing with fair-use images, he would've been banned long ago. I think he's become a net negative on the project: he's already created a chilling effect with uploading images. But disrupting FAC is crossing the line. Sceptre 13:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this something the ANI page needs to deal with do you think? Each nominator will encounter spurious opposes. I know I have in the articles I've nominated. SandyGeorgia will judge how serious the opposes are and make a decision to promote or archive. There are some nutty opposes that can't be addressed, and there are opposes that appear nutty then start to make sense. They have to be taken into account for each FAC. --Moni3 (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If it was his first action, I'd note it on the FAC and not bring it here. But this user has been disruptive for eight months (and ANI archives will show) and I've exhausted all other options except for ArbCom. Sceptre 13:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Are these your FACs? I suggest addressing the issue directly in the FAC. If so, be honest and say that you don't think the opposes are actionable, and for what reasons. If opposition gets more heated, or even nuttier things come up, leave a note on Sandy's talk page explaining your issue. But she reads all the FACs anyway. --Moni3 (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

One of them is mine. The other FAC is thedemonhog's. The FAC issue is only supplementary: he's still disrupting Misplaced Pages process. Sceptre 13:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you've answered your own question on what to do next. Neıl 龱 13:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

RFAr is crumbling to bits at the moment (Giovanni33, Orangemarlin, Giano). Any request for arbitration will stay stagnant for a month or two while that gets sorted out. Sceptre 13:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this user's conduct since the RFC, but if it's becoming a problem, then take it to arbitration - it shouldn't be too complex. More straightforward like...Yorkshirian, for instance. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If your immediate concern is getting your FAC promoted, address Fasach Nua's comments the same you would any other editor's. If you disagree with it, say so and say why, being respectful, of course. That's a record for SandyGeorgia to see when she reviews each FAC. If, say, Fasach Nua gets blocked for being a pain (I have no idea what this story is, by the way), and another editor makes the same oppose, you'll have to address it eventually. --Moni3 (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise opposed the same way, but as he is highly partisan in this matter, I don't think he should've voted. Sceptre 14:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The only disruption here is Sceptre's. He's engaging in blockable harassment by repeatedly throwing about spurious accusations just because he doesn't like F.N.'s opinions. What has F.N. done this time? He has expressed a well-founded, serious opinion that is well based in policy. The image use in that article is questionable. There is an image in an infobox that is not in any straightforward way related to analytical commentary in the text that it would be necessary to support. Questioning that image use is absolutely legitimate and necessary, and I would personally say F.N. is right with respect to at least one (possibly two) images. If there's poorly integrated and poorly justified non-free content, the article can't be featured, it's as simple as that. Shouting "disruption" just because you don't like to hear people reminding you of policy? If you think you can get F.N. sanctioned that easily, think twice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. About the Tardis image issue: There certainly was no "recent consensus" that the image is okay; the discussion stalled with opinions divided, and F.N. is certainly not alone in his opinion. And as for the images in The Shape of Things to Come, yes, they have rationales, but are they valid ones? Like in so many other images, they are meaningless boilerplate text with little or no individual explanation of what makes the image necessary. F.N.'s objetion here is, again, legitimate and deserves to be taken seriously. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it legitimate just because he's got the same viewpoints as you on fair use? Sceptre 15:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It is legitimate because it is a seriously considered viewpoint on fair use, based in policy consensus. You may disagree, politely. You see, I am not calling for you to be blocked or sanctioned because I disagree with you. You are doing these things. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not the viewpoint. It's the behaviour. Sceptre 15:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What behaviour do you mean, apart from the fact that he expresses that viewpoint? That's all he's been doing. And, last warning: Stop the personal attacks. Call him a "disruptive user" one more time and you're blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

FPaS, I don't think it would be a good idea for you to be the one to block. Let another admin decide if a block on those grounds has merits. Seraphim♥Whipp 15:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I will gladly hand off that decision to someone else. But I won't stand idly by as yet another legitimate image patroller, yet again, becomes a victim of a "we can shout louder" mob. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, he's editing tendentiously. That can't be denied even if he isn't disruptive (and there's a fine line). At least nine tenths of the images he's nominated are Doctor Who ones, and he's showing no interest in helping with compliance or doing the same for other episode screenshots. Legitimate image patrollers are indiscriminate. Sceptre 15:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! I too do not understand the blanket amnesty these people get. There is a bigger issue at play here. If image patrollers are having so much trouble, doesn't that mean that consensus opposes the current restrictions? I'm trying my damnedest to iron out these issues that WP:TE keep citing by engaging in dialog at WT:NFC, but it has been difficult. I would invite other editors interested in fair use to come join the discussion. If you don't like what F.N. and others are doing, the only way to stop it is by changing policy. --Dragon695 (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't look like anything in this thread that requires administrator attention - even though it includes a user who has had run ins with ArbCom etc. in the past it appears to be the quintessential content dispute. Can we archive this, so that other elements of this dispute don't accumulate on this page where they don't belong? Avruch 15:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I maintain that there may soon be a need for administrator attention, not against F.N., but against Sceptre, if he doesn't stop his spurious block-shopping. Apart from that, no objection against closure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it is F.N. who needs to be blocked for being a highly partisan, WP:TE editor. --Dragon695 (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec, and maybe I shouldn't have added this, but...) It should be noted that WP:NFCC only discusses copyright fair use, not trademark fair use, and we don't have a policy on trademark fair use.

We should. (If you point me to where that discussion is or should be taking place, I have no objection to archiving. This is only tangential.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think pre-emptive archival will only serve to shoot us in the collective foot, as I think this problem with F.N. is going to keep recurring. He is fundamentally unwilling to exercise the policy and guidelines as they currently are, and until someone draws a parallel between his behavior and the defense of something else equally fringe, like considering any images of children as an example of child porn (since a pedophile can find any image of them to be provocative). He uses an interpretation that few others use, thereby offering undue weight to his fringe interpretations via nominations. This isn't simply a content issue; it is a behavioral one. We would block others for precisely this sort of behavior, and have. Why are we offering Fasach Nua a free pass not once but twice? - Arcayne () 15:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, except that, no, not really. As the success rate of his IfDs clearly shows, F.N. acts on the basis of an understanding of policy that is safely within the mainstream (not the mainstream of editors writing fiction articles, but that of people who actually deal with image policy on a regular basis). He's towards the more restrictive end of the spectrum, but well within the bounds of legitimate interpretation of policy. People have no other complaint against him than that he expresses these convictions frequently and forcefully. No, we do not block people for that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Gmaxwell has started an essay on this at Misplaced Pages:SOSUMI and there is a template for such content at Template:Trademark. --Dragon695 (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's time for you to back slowly away from this discussion, Future Perfect at Sunrise. Threats to block Sceptre are completely ridiculous. - auburnpilot talk 15:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Depend on it, I will not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of this particular case, I can appreciate the complaint about Fasach Nua's general approach. You can't treat other editors like Epsilon grade morons and expect them to lap it up, never mind seriously appreciate your point of view. He's arbitrary, he never explains, deliberately walks away from dialogue, and would sooner stomp you flat than lend a hand up. There's no need to be so aggressive and essentially be picking a fight at every turn. This keeps coming up because its frustrating to deal with an unresponsive editor who preaches down at you. Points to you FPaS for your response at User_talk:Fasach Nua on the Samantha Smith image. I would never imagine that sort of evenhanded view and helpful suggestion from F.N. That sort of thing appears to beyond him and I find it hard to see how in the long term he expects to continue to usefully contribute if his participation is rooted in contempt for other editors. Wiggy! (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps repeated attacks for trying to enforce policy has given Fasach the point of view that you identify. Corvus cornix_talk 23:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No, he came to the table with that point of view and has been very up front about it. He unnecessarily earns repeated appearances in places like this through his disdain for other editors and an unbending and narrow interpretation of "the rules". Wiggy! (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree F.N. is not the nicest of Wikipedians. Not the most communicative either. Few image specialists are. There is a special type of recurrent dynamics here. Image policy enforcement is such a hugely unpopular and thankless job. You get so much flak. Nice people don't do it. Nice wikipedians want wikipeace and wikiharmony, so even if they agree with the restrictive understanding of the policy in principle, after a while they will walk away from the topic. That leaves only a particular type of editor doing it in the long run. They are: stubborn, a little bit obsessive, not particular flexible, not particularly communicative, with sometimes a certain evil streak that might even derive some underhand pleasure from "winning" a case against bitter opposition. They are the Abu badalis, Fasach Nuas, Betacommands, TTNs, Jack Merridews of Misplaced Pages. You need to be a person like that (or an arrogant authoritarian bastard like myself) to stick around image patrolling. It's sad, but we need these people, they do an important job and apparently only they can do it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunatly we can't use the excuse that "they're the only ones that do this job" forever. Luckily (on the whole) it's not this extreme, but what if such contributors regularly made personal attacks? Would the argument still be "Well yes, they shouldn't be making personal attacks, but at the end of the day, we need them todo this job"? Absolutely not, or at least I hope absolutely not. This general 'brick-wall' behaviour (for want of a better expression) is permisable to an extent, but at some point a line needs to be drawn, and it needs to be recognised when said line is crossed. It is unfortunate that in my opinion (and that of others), the line has already been crossed by Fasach Nua and Betacommand. _TalkIslander 23:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Regularly? He hit out against you the other day, because you performed a pretty horrible block against him as an involved admin (previously edit-warring against him and strongly involved in the Dr Who project). Not nice, but you are really not in a good position to complain. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

But it seems the only way to get this guy to the table is to stand up to him in such a manner. He just won't bend. I tangled with him on some logos and got painted as an edit warrior when he's the guy that threw the first brick (and a mittful of others) by deliberately chasing down and targeting my work in the middle of an on-going debate and tagging it all according to his narrow perspective, which in this case was just bald face wrong. And it doesn't faze him. As an experienced guy I could stand up to him, but its wrong to watch him bully folks that are less practised. Wiggy! (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The thoughtcrime accusations continue. He did nothing but nominate some images for deletion. He may have overshot the mark in that instance, but that's why we have IfD, if a nomination is ill-founded, it gets rejected and all is well. You still want him sanctioned for his opinions about policy and the fact that he expresses them. So, who's bullying who here? I do see a lot of bullying, yes, indeed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

FPaS: Re. the 'hit out' - check logs, I blocked him (rightly or wrongly) after trolling accusation. That aside, as I'm not commenting on it here, what do you mean 'Regularly'? I'm talking about a line where crossing it equals a sanction, not a line where, crossed once or twice, nothing comes of it. It comes back to the fact that your argument seems to be based on "they do something we need, thus we must be more accomodating" - no. There is no reason why any editor should be treated any differently than any other, and let's be blunt about this, there are patterns of behaviour here that would have gotten 'newbies' blocked a while back. _TalkIslander 00:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Certainly throwing essays and so-called consensus at other editors under the cloak of "enforcing policy", when those editors are perfectly capable of exposing the weaknesses in the arguments, isn't constructive. What is constructive is trying to fix the policy so it is a usable policy all round, but I see little will to bite that bullet and actually consider how the policies we have can enable the building of an encyclopedia within the Foundation's Exemption Policy. It's perfectly possible to achieve this, as our current policy is framed as enabling rather than disabling. --Rodhullandemu 23:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh this is rich! You know what, FPaS? We don't need you or anyone else in particular. You are not special and neither is F.N. The problem is a small minority trying to push this very misguided ideological purity on the rest of the editors. So, people go a little overboard with the fair use? Who gives a fuck? Does it really injure the project? Quite frankly, a lot of people have had it with mindless pedantry, which is why you people are getting attacked. Fair use is a part of life, so just suck it up and move on to more important things like finding real legal threats to Misplaced Pages. As for Abu, I say good riddence! That clown was one of the people who drove our most productive free image creator off the wiki (the stalking was the last straw). You don't get to poison the well and then complain about it later. It is thanks in part to you image clowns that we've lost many great free image creators. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for at least admitting that your stance is contrary to the project's policies. So you are bullying, attacking and insulting people because they uphold a policy you don't like, right? Can somebody now please block this editor? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds almost like the textbook definition of malicious compliance. Orderinchaos 04:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

At this point, there is nothing constructive being added to this conversation. Marking as archived. If you want to trade insults, do it via your talk pages. Neıl 龱 08:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive talk page removals by User:Otterathome

See #Rollback BLP issues. Despite having no support, he insists on removing talk page sections. The Talk:David Icke section actually seems quite relevant; the others probably aren't worth fighting over, but there's no real reason to remove the comments, per WP:TALK. The WP:BLP "violations" are completely bogus, even though the fact there is no reply on the BLP notice board other than our argument suggests a systemic problem there. There's still no relevant WP:BLP claim, but it's possible that the two latter ones should be removed for irrelevance; however, WP:TALK suggests that only disruptive irrelevant comments should be removed, and the only reason these are disruptive is User:Otterathome. David Icke's seems relevant. Misplaced Pages is very slow for me at the moment, but the total number of removals by the Otter since July 4 is 6, and the total number of my restorations is 5.

Talk:David Icke

Talk:Paul Barry

Talk:John Reid (politician)

Any comments? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've just commented above, but since you've posted a competing thread... I don't think you ought to be aggressively revert-warring with this editor over these comments. I agree that there really is no BLP violation inherent in linking to Uncyclopedia (although, given its history, I imagine others will disagree vehemently). Having said that, edit warring over it is a bit ridiculous. Is the person who made the edits upset at having them removed? I've requested the talkpage be protected at RPP - I expect that once it is, in whichever version, you'll leave it. Avruch 15:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It was a blatant misuse of rollback on both sides. I removed the feature from the Oterathome; however, please do not use rollback during edit wars. It is forbidden. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

From his appearance on March 5th 2008, User:Otterathome seems to be have been using automated scripts to search for mentions of uncyclopedia and delete nearby comment. No human being could have made this edit for example, reverting the inscrutable User:SineBot.. The rapidity of some of his edits also seems beyond human capabilities. Mathsci (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

CadenS - Homophobia, incivilty and more

Hi a number of weeks ago I made a wikiette case against the editer "CadenS" because of his offensive behaviour. He calls it the "Homosexual Agenda", which is a right wing way of saying "gays are plotting against the world".He called one user who is a member of the LGBT community "Heterophobic" for not agreeing with him. I know that the editer was very offended by the comment. Now being conservative and christain is fine with me, but this is going too far, i see these unhealthy ideas spouted on Conservapedia and honestly its dangerous. These were the links I provided at that wikiette case.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 - im guessing "this" means homosexuality? 11 - and again, Caden has found another example of the "Homosexual Agenda", running wild in wikipedia

After that things blew up and CadenS went on a 4 week break, we were all hoping it would cool him off but it didn't. He came back and continued on a rampage.

Quickly he got new warning on his talk page about grossly uncivil edit summaries such as `Use common sense and quit pissing me off with your reverts` seen here and `It's specific enough so quit undoing my edits. Your really starting to piss me off` seen here. He has already started commenting on controversial talk page articles such as "male rape research" seen here and "heterosexuality" seen here

Today he asked another editor if they were heterophobic for no reason Seen here. Then he removed the LGBT wikiproject from another article seen here. He loves doing that.

CadenS went on a month long self imposed wikibreak which clearly didn't weaken his dislike of homosexuals. — Realist (Come Speak To Me) 15:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of WP:TLDR, a number of my thoughts on this topic are here (I was going to attempt to mediate). Executive summary from a not-at-all-uninvolved editor:

Prior to his Wikibreak, Caden made a number of highly problematic edits, as evidenced by the diffs provided by Realist2. There has been a marked improvement since the break, but there are still some problems. For one, Caden needs to stop removing Wikiproject LGBT tags from articles, as they are very WP:POINTy removals and generally not appropriate. He also tends to slip very easily into an us vs. them mentality, as evidenced by some of the diffs provided by Realist2 (e.g. -- although in that case, it is worth mentioning that Caden eventually worked things out with the other editor in a civil manner on their talk page). Caden needs to understand that most people here are not out to get him.

I am sure Realist2 is acting with the best of intentions here, but it may be advisable for him to back off and give Caden a little bit of space. At this point, both editors are clearly following each other's contribs, and it is not a healthy situation.

It would also be highly desirable if CadenS would back off from articles that involve sexual preference, as he has difficulty editing neutrally in this space and very easily slips into conspiracy-theory-mode. (e.g. the "heterophobic" accusation, which wasn't for "no reason" as Realist2 stated, but it still was uncalled for)

Those are my thoughts, at least. Not sure if admin action is necessary at this point, but feel free to peruse. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The BLP element of some of those edits is actually more important than the tendentious editing, which while irritating and disruptive has no real world ramifications. The edits about the EO Green shootings and the two kids involved clearly beat against the BLP policy, particularly since the people involved are minors. Avruch 16:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

He had a 1 month break and is still accusing people of all sorts. He forum rants and soapboxes as well about his theories. Enough is enough at some point, you know? — Realist (Come Speak To Me) 16:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Caden's edits to E.O. Green School shooting were extremely problematic, as were the edit summaries he used at the time. However, all of that was prior to his Wiki-break. I would prefer to view his actions before and after the break as separate. Prior to the break, CadenS was a highly pov-pushing editor cruising rapidly for an indefinite block. However, some folks were able to get through to him, and his behavior since the break, while far from perfect, is much more manageable. There are still problems, but I'd prefer to address those issues independent of each other. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if you just look at his edits after the wikibreak. He is still accusing people of heterophobia, he is still telling people to "piss off", he is still removing project tags and making pov edits. Its hardly ideal is it? — Realist (Come Speak To Me) 16:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I quit. Before I do I want to make it clear that I am not homophobic as Realist claims. I find him to be a bitter, angry and vengeful person who has personally hated me from the very beginning with no reasons whatsoever. Also, all of my edits were done in good faith and I tried to do my best as an editor. I wanted to help and nothing more. Sure, I made mistakes along the way. I'm only human. I am, and I repeat, I am truly sorry for the mistakes I've made. But just so you understand my past edits (which I have since changed from repeating) a little more or why they were taken the wrong way, I will explain since Realist has now forced me to do so. My story is no different from Jesse Dirkhising or Jeffrey Curley. The difference is that I lived and they did not. In 1997, I was drugged, bound, raped and sodomized for roughly three hours by next door neighbors. The drug "G" was put in my apple juice, which caused me to vomit uncontrolably during the time I was being sexually assaulted. And because I was gagged, I literally began choking on my own vomit. I slipped into an unconscious state because I couldn't breathe. This nearly ended up killing me. It was near fatal. Because my horror story didn’t fit the agenda of the biased mainstream liberal media, nobody got the opportunity to hear or read about the crime committed against me. The evil monster, aka political correctness, played a big role in this. What happened to me received no coverage at all. It got virtually zero attention. But that's the North American liberal media for you, biased as hell and only interested in being politically correct at all times, because God forbid they should offend anyone. Ignoring my story is how they dealt with it. But regardless of this, I changed the way I edited on here. My recent edits reflect that. I guess only Jay was able to see that. Thank you Jay. I don't understand why my past edits are being used against me once again. It was my understanding that we had dealt with the WQA and were finished with that. Looks like I was sadly mistaken. Well I guess it no longer matters. I hope that you are now happy Realist. Thank you for destroying my chance of becoming a good editor on Misplaced Pages. Now, I think it's best that I quit sine you've made it impossible for me. Caden S (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please, don't blame homosexuals or liberals for your issues. You have a conflict of interest, you just admitted to that. I'm sorry for you, but it has warped your ability to edit articles regarding sexuality. — Realist (Come Speak To Me) 17:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not blame all homosexuals nor do I blame those who are liberal. I never once said that I did. I blame the monsters involved (who just so happen to be also both homosexual and pedophiles). I also blame the biased liberal mainstream media and society to an extent. But I blame no others. Caden S (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Caden, I'm very sorry to hear all of that. FWIW, the US media is pretty random when it comes to what they cover at the national level and what they don't, and it's not all to do with a "liberal agenda". For instance, a couple years ago you may remember there was a church charter bus that crashed in Texas and killed five people, and it was plastered all over CNN for several days. What you may not remember is that the very same week, a church charter bus crashed near Rochester, NY killing seven people (if I recall correctly -- maybe it was 9 now that I think about it...) under fairly similar circumstances. This made the local news in upstate New York, but that was it. Almost identical incidents, same time frame, but one was picked up by the national media and one was not. Messed up, huh?

Given what has happened to you, it is probably best if you avoid articles related to sexuality. I for one could not possibly be neutral if something like that had happened to me (I don't make edits to articles such as Intelligent design, because I know I could not separate my own personal bias from my edits, for instance). Anyway, it is up to you, and if you do want to leave Misplaced Pages I can respect that. I am sorry your experience here has been so negative. Best of luck. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal experience can alter someone's perspective. To equate a homosexual rape with homosexuality in general makes no more sense than to equate heterosexual rape with heterosexuality in general. People sometime become crusaders for a cause once it directly affects them: Jim Brady on gun control, Chris Reeve on paralysis, Michael J. Fox on parkinsons', etc., etc. That makes it risky for them to be editing[REDACTED] articles, since it's hard to maintain the NPOV rule. Baseball Bugs 17:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever your person problems Caden, something that happened to you a decade ago does not give you the right to tell strangers that they are "pissing you off" (thats after your 4 week wikibreak too).— Realist (Come Speak To Me) 17:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with admitting some users piss you off. I'd admit it if you pissed me off. Beam 02:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, there was plenty of media coverage of the Catholic priests molesting altar boys, including within the so-called liberal media. It's just the whims of what they cover and don't cover, randomly, as per a previous note. Baseball Bugs 18:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I see I have gotten to this discussion a few minutes too late. Instead of the long, detailed comment I had written going through each of the post-wikibreak diffs provided by Realist2, I'll just say I agree with Jaysweet, and am very disappointed that Realist2's overaggressive reaction to CadenS's bias (and we all have biases) has resulted in the current situation. CadenS, I encourage you to stay and help out as much you want (keeping in mind to assume good faith), but I now realize that certain editors will probably continue to follow you wherever you go, even when asked by several editors not to. If you want to start fresh with a new username, you may do so as long as you completely discontinue use of your current one. -kotra (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that smacks of irony, why not assume good faith on my part that I was making a legitimate complaint against an editor who has been breaking numerous policies for numerous weeks. I really couldn't care for his warped bias, we all have our thing. I do however care when an editor is so grossly incivil as to label anyone who disagrees with him a "Heterophobe", tells people to "piss off" and proclaims that homosexuals are plotting to take over the world with their clever "Homosexual agenda". Regards. — Realist (Come Speak To Me) 18:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I never assumed bad faith on your part. I merely said your complaints have been overaggressive. The improvement in CadenS's edits has been significant since his wikibreak (which was designed to put these old issues behind him), and it's unfair to describe his behavior before then as being current. Since then, he made one moderately uncivil comment (the "heterophobe" comment you mention), but the "pissing me off" comments were resolved civilly. As for "homosexuals are plotting to take over the world", I don't believe he ever claimed that. He did mention the "homosexual agenda" several months ago in one of his very first edits, but "homosexual agenda" does not mean a conspiracy for worldwide domination, and anyway it's surprising to me that you would bring such an old issue up again at this late stage. Regardless, it is not fair nor productive to continue to accuse CadenS, since he has apparently left. -kotra (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

He used the agenda quote multiple times, anyway we have had this talk before and it's going off topic slightly. His unacceptable behaviour speakes for itself, it seems unlikely that he won't be back to his usual tricks soon. — Realist (Come Speak To Me) 20:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, but my reasons have already been stated and I see no point in continuing the discussion at this point anyway. In the event that CadenS returns and his behavior again comes into question, please let someone else take care of it. If it is a serious problem, another alert editor will bring it up. If you want to discuss this with me further I suggest a change of venue to my talk page. -kotra (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no question that there is, in fact, a "gay agenda". That is, to try to get society to the point where homosexuality is "no big deal". The kicker is that some of us think that's a good thing, some of us don't care one way or another, and others (like the editor in question) think that's a bad thing. But if you look at where things are vs. where they were 40 years ago, let's say, that "agenda" has made great strides. But it's never "over". Baseball Bugs 22:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I never said it was a bad thing. If it's used for the right reasons, then it's okay and could be a good thing. But when it's used against you as a young child, I will say it is very bad and evil. When it's used against you during a trial as a weapon to rip you apart, or to rip your family apart, as it was done to me then it becomes a very evil thing. Caden S (talk) 02:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Your story sounds similar to what often happens to heterosexual rape victims - the accused tries to turn it around and become the accuser. "She made me do it... she wanted it... she's a slut" or whatever. That mindest has nothing to do with sexual orientation, it has to do with extreme narcissim. Call it evil, if you want. Not everyone is a rapist or a narcissist. There are plenty of good homosexuals and bad homosexuals, as there are plenty of good heterosexuals and bad heterosexuals. I'm vaguely reminded of an activist named Andrea Dworkin, who I gather had really bad things done to her by men when she was young, and as a result she hated all men, or at least that was her public stance. It's misplaced hatred. If an individual does something to you, it's not some social classification that committed the crime, it is that individual that did it. Baseball Bugs 03:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's not beat a dead horse here. As CadenS said above, he realizes not all homosexuals are bad, and he is not blaming homosexuals in general for his experience. Besides, this isn't the proper venue for this subject anyway. -kotra (talk) 03:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a dead horse, i.e. the issue is not yet marked "resolved". The editor has been accused of pushing a homophobic POV in his editing. It's important to find out what's going on with that, as long as he's willing to discuss it. Too often, blatant POV-pushers won't talk about things. Let's not be too eager to squash those who will talk. Baseball Bugs 04:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said in my last comment, CadenS already addressed your concerns earlier in this thread. I quote: "I do not blame all homosexuals nor do I blame those who are liberal. I never once said that I did. I blame the monsters involved (who just so happen to be also both homosexual and pedophiles). I also blame the biased liberal mainstream media and society to an extent. But I blame no others." What else is there to say? -kotra (talk) 04:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I should note that I have just taken CadenS on as an adoptee. The purpose of the adoption is to mentor CadenS in wikiquette in hopes that, going forward, there will be no longer be accusations of POV-pushing or personal attacks like we see here. With the patience of other editors, I believe this will go a long way in resolving this longstanding dispute. -kotra (talk) 04:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll let this go for now, he's apologized (of sorts), he's agreed to adoption and agreed to avoid articles on sexuality. I have no problem with him editing the `male rape research` article so long as someone has it watch listed, favourably his adopter. If someone doesn't watchlist it then I will. If CadenS continues on this path it's quite easy for me to drag these links up at a later date. For my part at least, feel free to mark as resolved. If an Admin still wants to take action however, they are free to do so — Realist (Come Speak To Me) 10:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest this be marked as "Resolved" for now. I am probably too closely involved to mark it myself--Jaysweet (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've watchlisted Male rape research. -kotra (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka banning me from Atropa Belladonna

For a long time, I've been arguing that there isn't very good sources for the prominence of homeopathy to atropa belladonna. There are megabytes worth of text to this effect, but recently User:Ludwigs2 arrived at the talkpage and argued that the use of this plant was just an extension of ancient cures of maladies. I pointed out that one cannot make the jump between ancient uses and the (relatively) modern development of homeopathy and he balked. Then I suggested that he was confusing homeopathy for naturopathy and he seemed amenable to changing the wording. I was happy for this and said so on Talk:Atropa belladonna. However, his change was a bit problematic. There is no such thing as a "naturopathic preparation" for one, and for two, the sources that were being used in the statement did not mention naturopathy at all. So today, I change the wording of that phrase slightly and removed the two sources which did not mention naturopathy. Then User:Elonka decided to ban me from the article and talkpage.

I ask you, was this right? I thought I was behaving very well. I'm also concerned that Elonka has banned User:Ronz from Talk:Quackwatch a few days before while not calling out User:Levine2112 for his disruption. I think there is a peculiar precedent being set here.

Thanks.

ScienceApologist (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist has been edit-warring at this article, and just came off a block (his third block so far in July). Then he went right back to the article and deleted multiple reliable sources such as this one,, leaving a paragraph completely unsourced (and he then replaced the sources with a {{fact}} tag). It is my opinion that he could have reworded the paragraph, or requested a citation for a particular word, but just deleting every single source was not appropriate. The article is within the scope of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy, where uninvolved administrators can place discretionary sanctions. Based on ScienceApologist's most recent action, plus other recent edit-warring and disruption, I placed a mild page ban of one week on him, for this one article. I recommend that ScienceApologist simply find something else to work on for a week, and then come back fresh. --Elonka 16:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight; you tell us that you suggested changing the article wording from "homeopathy" to "naturopathy". Then you wanted to remove reliable sources because they say "homeopathy" instead of "naturopathy"?!?! The thing you should have done was to say, "Oops, I was wrong in suggesting the change away from homeopathy" and yourself changed the article text back to "homeopathy", as it read before you began the edit war over the section, because that text is supported by the references. What you did instead does not look at all reasonable. Combined with your prior edit warring, giving you some time off from this page is a good idea. Hence I have to say that Elonka is completely correct here. GRBerry 17:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No, Ludwigs suggested it. I merely am pointing out that the sources do not support this statement. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That is at least slightly credible. Reviewing the talk page more closely, you suggested to Ludwigs that he was "confusing homeopathy with naturopathy which is a different subject." He replied "if that's the way you choose to look at it, then I can resolve this problem right now by changing the word 'homeopathic' to 'naturopathic' in the article. since homeopathy is a subset of naturopathy, that shouldn't be a issue, and your problem disappears." Then you said "Sounds good. Change away!" If you were going to disagree like this, that last should have been "no, no, homeopathy is not a subset of naturopathy" (though that article contradicts) or "well, but then we would need sources about naturopathy" instead of "Sounds good. Change away!" You aren't helping yourself with this sort of behavior. I still see Elonka's action as reasonable. GRBerry 18:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I should have said something more in-depth about why Ludwigs is wrong. But now I cannot. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on with the redaction. I wanted to know where this totem pole for administrators is - and more specifically where I am on it... —Wknight94 (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's just north of the administrators' tennis courts. Last time I checked, you hadn't been added yet. Jehochman 18:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, see how the edit warring continues:

No one cares.

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Having read over the references and the article, user:ScienceApologist is correct in there removal. Yes, he should have written on the talk page, especially due to the edit warring block he received. However, I do feel that this page ban is an overreaction. In future I would urge SA to be more engaging on the talk page after (or before) he removes references in this manner. In addition, based upon the comments above, one cannot help but feel that there is a certain amount of friction between SA and at least one of the admins involved. Mayhap another could mediate? Mark t young (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I likewise find a page ban to be excessive. Frankly, I find the entire push by the homeopaths to get SA thrown off Misplaced Pages, which rolls forward each and every day nonstop, to be problematic. The games, the wikilawyering, the bait and switch tactics... the list goes on and on and on. We really need to get this shit to stop. Are there places on[REDACTED] for Homeopathy? sure. However, this idea that since anything, within the rules of homeopathy, can be reduced to an 'essential' idea, allows Homeopaths to claim everything under the 'botany' umbrella counts, we're up against what is little different than seeing some extremist religious nut run through the entire project and tag anyone and anything a sin or sinner for crossing his worldview. From within, it all looks right ,from a neutral standard, it's not right. ThuranX (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Articles on Botany should not be polluted with fringe views. Articles about fringe views can explain them, and there could be a list of homeopathic preparations indicating what each plant is used for, but this content should not be in the plant articles themselves. Otherwise, every tiny view could run amok through the encyclopedia tagging whatever topics they liked with their fringe content. Elonka's action here is harmful to the encyclopedia and should be reversed. Jehochman 00:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

...there could be a list of homeopathic preparations indicating what each plant is used for, but this content should not be in the plant articles themselves. A list like this one? — Scientizzle 00:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Jan Scholten, whoever that is, has apparently conducted homeopathic provings on the lanthanides. Should every element in the periodic table contain information on its homeopathic uses? Botanists may stand for this, but I doubt chemists will... Skinwalker (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a neutral party (I edited the nightshade page solely because of this thread), I think it may be warranted for SA to not edit the page - he's in perennial dispute, even breaking 3RR at one point. While I agree that the article should be botany first and foremost, edit warring is not the way to do it. At the same time, lack of sanctions against Ludwigs doesn't excuse behaviour either. Sceptre 00:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Weren't there just a handful of threads about Ludwigs2's conduct? I even recall commenting in at least one recent thread he's been in. ThuranX (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably because he's civil, while somebody else isn't (apparently, or is that 3RR, or removing sources....or what exactly because the real reasons don't agree with the actual reasons supplied for blocking...). It's business as usual over in woo-land, the civil POV pusher will win everytime, especially while SA is there to allow admins to focus on unCIVILness :-( Shot info (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages: We may not be scientifically accurate, but at least we're friendly. --Badger Drink (talk) 02:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I share ThuranX and Jehochman's concern over these page bans. Though I have admired Elonka's work in the past, I find her recent administrative actions in altmed/homeopathy areas to be very questionable. Surely someone who ferreted out PHG's abuse can see how pro-pseudoscience editors misuse and misrepresent sources. This misrepresentation and tendentiousness is highly damaging to the encyclopedia, arguably more damaging than calling these tendentious editors to task for their behavior.

On a different point, I question whether Elonka is uninvolved, and I believe she is obviously taking sides. In recent days she has edited the main homeopathy article, and started pages on highly obscure altmed journals with low impact factors. It is a favorite tactic of pro-altmed POV pushers to fluff up the importance of the places where their non-blind, uncontrolled studies are published, and I worry that having articles on these non-notable journals will cause further tendentiousness. Also, she has banned Ronz from editing the Quackwatch page under the auspices of the homeopathy decision, which stretches even the "broadly interpreted" clause of the discretionary sanctions. The homeopathy decision applied only to homeopathy-related articles, not altmed articles in general. Why have Ludwigs2 and Levine2112, both of whom are currently gaming 3RR and tag-team reverting, not subject to page restrictions as well? These page bans on SA and Ronz should be overturned and policing of these articles should be handed over to more neutral admins. Skinwalker (talk) 00:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm hardly an apologist for homeopathy, and I've seen Elonka having a remarkably good effect on articles marred by constant edit-warring. A week long ban from one article is hardly excessive, or even remarkable, and I fail to see why this lengthy discussion is required. The only issue here is behavior, not content, and if other editors have issues with the article content, let them repair to the article Talk: page post-haste, where they can make their points and achieve consensus. Jayjg 01:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

First, as to QuackWatch being covered by the Homeopathy arbcase, which says "homeopathy, broadly interpreted"...Since the last sentence in the lead to QuackWatch is "The –site has also been regularly criticized by the groups it investigates, such as nutritionists, herbalists, homeopaths and other alternative medicine supporters.", I'd have to say yes, that QuackWatch is covered by the ruling. Second, the content dispute herein is separate from the topic ban made on SA by Elonka, eventhough they involve the same group of people. As to the topic ban, I have to pretty much agree with User:GRBerry's 18:16, 7 July 2008 posting and User:Sceptre. Basically, SA returned from a block and began edit warring. I agree the article should primarily be on botany, but edit warring is not the way to go about it and lack of action, right on wrong, on another editor does not make edit warring excusable. I find User:Elonka's action reasonable. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree totally in that Quackwatch falls under the Homeopathy Arbcom case restrictions. Rlevse, notice that the ban is "any homeopathy-related articles or talkpages", not just that one article. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Sorry if I was confusing, many articles fall under Homeopathy. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are we here, the Arbcom permitted discretionary sanctions in their field, Elonka enforced one, end of story, I don't see what this thread's aim is, since it certainly can't be to overturn an arbitration enforcement, being that we have pages and processes dedicated to that. Its a temporary ban and its at one article, we have 2.5 million articles, what makes this one so special that the parties cannot take a step back and cool down for a week? MBisanz 02:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a legitimate concern. An editor above has expressed concerns that Elonka has been editing homeopathy and thus may be too involved to serve as a neutral administrator. I would like to hear Elonka's response to that allegation before this thread closes. Jehochman 02:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Because, if you would read this thread, you might notice that there are those who feel Elonka's action was heavy-handed and rather un-called for. --Badger Drink (talk) 02:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Atropa belladonna has a history of traditional, alternative, and homeopathic uses and studies (search belladonna and belladonna homeopathy on PubMed). Look at the talk page and article histories and you will notice that SA has been removing all material and compromises trying to document this from RS's, resulting in edit warring and stagnation of the article. Look at the improvement to the article today after telling SA to stop editing Atropa belladonna for a bit. Coincidence? I do not think so. There appears to be no hint of hoards of rabidly biased editors intent on taking over the article either. I support Elonka's response. Ward20 (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

My point being that if SA really wanted to challenge the topic ban, we have an enforcement page, a clarification page, and a mailing list # arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org to which to appeal topic bans, I see this as a forum shopping endeavor at the moment. MBisanz 08:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There's only one question here: is The Oxford Book of Health Foods a reliable source? I think the answer is yes. Is there a good reason to remove it? No. So removing it is disruptive, which is what SA and some others (Cacycle, ect.) have been doing, followed up with edit-warring. Unfortunately, it appears here that many people have not looked at the source and action, and are preferring to comment on the user ("SA is being unfairly attacked, Elonka is no uninvolved, ect".) These are not that relevant to the issue. SA has been pushing the limits lately with actions like this, and subsequent edit-warring, which is likely why he's been facing perhaps more criticism than usual. II 03:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I just happened to have removed exactly that source without being aware about this thread. I have explained my reasons on the article's talk page: one of the cited references does not even mention any of the stated symptoms, the other one is a twelve-sentence "chapter" in a very general and completely unreferenced book. I would not object to mention the plant's use in homeopathy if it is an exceptionally notable preparation and it should be easy to find reliable sources for that if so (the exceptionally notable part is important as in homeopathy anything, including every plants, all chemicals, or even physical effects, can, have, or could be used for their preparations.

In summary, what SA has repeatedly removed (and what was repeatedly re-added by Ludwigs2 and Levine2112), was definitely NOT valuable sources, it was one misleading and one totally unreliable source. I now understand that the situation is a bit heated, but we should not discard normal Misplaced Pages standards for articles just because of that. Cacycle (talk) 05:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that Elonka is enjoying flexing her new found powers against any and all editors that are not supportive of the altmed argument, regardless of the content discussion on the relevant article's talk page . Shot info (talk) 06:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, Rlevse and Mbisanz have summed up my view on this too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

She made one edit to homeopathy, that I can find. That's a really thin sheet to hang an "involved" claim on. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought at first...but now I think there might be cause for concern outside of this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka said, "ScienceApologist (talk · contribs), was page-banned from the article earlier today," in threat to another good faith editor, who commented above. The source in question is not appropriate for a natural science article, but here's Elonka threatening editors who have removed an inappropriate source. That's not acceptable. If something is debatable, a user should not be threatened with a block or ban. (Obviously, edit warring is a different matter, but I see no diffs to suggest that this editor was edit warring). Jehochman 10:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC) at 13:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned she's declaring a source reliable, as if sources are placed on the page at her discretion. While content and conduct are linked in some ways (like BLP vios), I'm not comfortable with the mingling of issues here. And if there's no sign of edit-warring, then there are clearly some issues here with Elonka putting on her admin hat in this area. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, I do not understand why the article Atropa belladonna (as opposed to single editors) is under the scope of Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy as stated by Elonka on my talk page. Thanks, Cacycle (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Why articles rather than editors - because in the long run remedies addressing the topic of long term dispute are also useful to address new accounts without going through another full ArbComm case. Why this article - because before SA showed up and started this edit war over reference to homeopathy back in January, the article had said the plant was used in homeopathy for more than a year and a half (e.g. July 2007 January 2007 , July 2006 ). The mention of homeopathy was first added in February 2006 by a user who is quite obviously not a homeopathy pushing SPA. GRBerry 14:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Like Jehochman, I am concerned by Elonka's threats against other editors. Further, Cacycle's assessment of the sources in question is pretty clear and well thought out. As to his question about articles not people, some Arbcom decisions go to people ,regarding their behavior and editing patterns across the project. Other decisions relate to how consensus has been formed to handle certain hot topics, and thus apply to all editors seeking to push some POV or other which has been seen in numerous articles which relate to a given topic. Similar 'article/topic' based decisions exist for hot topics like the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the "Troubles", and so on. ThuranX (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, it took quite a few minutes to wade through all the junk and tangential issues that have been tossed into this poor thread, but I'll take a stab at commenting. It looks to me like SA was edit warring on an article (regardless of whether or not his was the "right version"), was recently blocked for this and finally given a very short ban from the article. This appears to be in line with the sanctions allowed by the Arb case and I don't see any evidence that would make Elonka an involved editor or otherwise ineligible to make this call. It looks like a lot of the discussion here belongs on the talk page of the article to help figure out the content issue there.

That said, a more general comment on the other junk that's been tossed on here: The issues with Homeopathy and other related junk aren't ever going to be solved until both sides can figure out how to behave. For example, making exaggerated claims about Elonka's involvement and claiming she's making threats or calling a standard Oxford text by a well respected botanist junk doesn't do anything to help your case and is going to make uninvolved admin's think twice about the validity of your other claims. Take the rhetoric back a few notches and deal with this civilly and you're more likely to be able to point out the cranks for who they are. Shell 15:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice way to dismiss all editors who didn't just fall into line with Elonka, Shell. All that 'junk and tangential issues' are all relevant, and not junk, and not tangential. People are concerned by Elonka's behavior, and by a growing presence of editors who want to see a precipitous and ridiculous accrediting of Homeopathy in any and articles. SA pushes back against that, and invariably gets ramped up into incivility and such. Then his opposition runs here. I honestly do not know whether these are actively coordinated actions, or simple coincidence, or in between, where enough editors have seen what works to keep SA occupied while they push their agendas. I notice that no one here has spoken to Cacycle's assessment of the sources in question, one which seems to thoroughly discredit them. Instead, in the name of 'narrow focus', we keep hearing 'dogpile on SA'. No. Dogpile on the fringe, please. ThuranX (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was not dismissing any editors, but instead dismissing the reliable sources and article content discussions since they're not really appropriate here, (nor is this board really the place to talk about Arb sanctions either, but that's at least not such a stretch). Your attempt to paint my discussion as dismissive and a pile-on is exactly the behavior I was addressing when I said that you're seriously weakening the ability of uninvolved admin's to believe your claims. Stop with the hyperbole and rhetoric and your points will be taken more seriously. If you think Elonka (or anyone else really) is getting the wrong idea about what's going on in these disputes, try hitting their talk page and calmly explaining things (with diffs preferably).

As I said, I agree that behavior on both sides is terrible at this point and is going to require a lot of continued work to fix. I made a suggestion about how better to do that since you (and others) claim that one side is responsible for goading the other into all this problematic behavior - make a concerted effort not to respond to the goading for a bit and see how much easier it is to point to their behavior as inappropriate. Or maybe put together some specific points on editors you're most concerned with and request that the ArbCom sanctions be applied to them. Or explain your concerns over an article to an uninvolved editor and let them wade in for a bit while you get a break from the nonsense. No matter what direction its approached from, it is going to be a lot of work to deal with, but whatever you do, don't wait till things blow up and then starting pointing fingers without some pretty clear evidence.

Oh, its completely off topic, but Cacyle's assessment of a Oxford Press book by a famous botanist isn't exactly what I'd call spot-on; you guys might want to take a look at that book (or the later 2006 edition really) because it actually deals with science and debunks a lot of homeopathic and naturopathic claims, but again, shouldn't that be a discussion for the article talk page or reliable sources board? I'm not sure how its being used in the article or what it suppose to support, but calling the source itself junk is an incredible stretch. Honestly though, if this is just in this thread to say "yes, someone edit warred, but they were right, please count me out. Shell 17:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

On the bright side... the article itself actually looks quite reasonable in its current state. It mentions alternative medical uses of belladonna, including its use in homeopathy, succinctly with reasonable refs, and includes the statement that there is no evidence of its safety or efficacy. The section is reasonably sized and not overly polemical, as far as I can tell. That's encouraging, right?

I think Shell Kinney has a valid point about baiting. It takes place, yes, and it's bad. But there's only one way to fix that problem: don't take the bait. If you take the bait and respond with edit-warring or incivility, then Ye Olde Uninvolved Admin is not going to see it as black-and-white - they're going to see a bilateral mess. Right or wrong, them's the facts. I won't get into what an awful idea civility parole is in general, and what a negative impact SA's civility parole in particular has had on the community - that's for another time.

As a meta-note, I am a little tired of the constant insertion of "According to the National Institutes of Health..." before every statement of accepted medical fact. Does Brittanica feel the need to use ridiculous contrivances like: "According to the NIH, the CDC, and the World Health Organization, HIV is the cause of AIDS"? Then why do we? But I digress. MastCell  17:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So you're just here to line by line support Elonka's behavior. Got it. ThuranX (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In answer to some of the above questions: No, I am not involved in this topic area. I made one edit to Homeopathy a few days ago, to add a link. That does not make me an "involved" editor. See WP:UNINVOLVED. I have no opinion on whether homeopathy or naturopathy or alternative medicine should or shouldn't be in the Atropa belladonna article. I do think that ScienceApologist's actions were disruptive. He had been blocked three times already in one week. Then when off the latest block, he went right back to the same article, the same paragraph, and deleted reliable sources. I therefore opted to ask him to take a time out, and avoid the article for a week. If anyone has opinions on whether the sources were or weren't reliable, please bring them up at Talk:Atropa belladonna, because debating the details of a source is not relevant for ANI. Here at the Administrators' Incident Noticeboard, we are here to discuss things that need urgent administrator attention. ScienceApologist came here to protest the ban. I placed the ban because I felt that ScienceApologist's presence at the article had become disruptive, that he was spending toooooooo much time there, edit-warring too much and reacting to nearly every change. ArbCom has authorized uninvolved administrators to place discretionary sanctions, per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy, and that's exactly what I did. It was an appropriate action, to ask an edit-warring editor to stay away from the article where he had been warring, just for a few days. This was not a grand statement about whether or not I am for or against science or alternative medicine or anything like that. To be clear: I don't care. What I do care about is longrunning disputes, identifying reasons for disruption, and applying course corrections to certain articles, to see if I can break the pattern and get them out of their vicious cycles of edit-warring, while still keeping them in accordance with Misplaced Pages policies. I've had a lot of success with this in other topic areas, though I'll freely admit that I haven't done much in the topic area of alternative healthcare. But that's a good thing, because that means I'm uninvolved, and having a neutral and uninvolved administrator is one of the key things that can help calm a nasty dispute. So I'd appreciate if everyone that's reacting here and attacking my character and methods, would just take a deep breath and Chill Out. I am not going to take actions to "ruin the project". I'm here to help. Now please, give me a chance. If I get out of line, okay, I'm sure you'll let me know. But I see a lot of people here reacting as though I'm some kind of rogue admin here, because I dared to ask one (1) editor to stay away from one (1) article for one (1) week. I took a proper, appropriate, and measured action, I acted in the best interest of the project, and the article has improved dramatically since my involvement. Having this long angst-filled ANI thread is way out of proportion to what I did. Now, can we please go spend time on things that are a bit more important, than a one-week one-article ban, on one edit-warring editor? --Elonka 20:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I for one am satisfied with your explanation. Please keep the various concerns in mind. Jehochman 20:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

They're not listening to me

I have been trying to make a page for very notable Odie the Talking Pug and these upstarts and teenagers won't even let me start and have been calling me abusive names. I just want to help. Can you ask them to leave me alone and stick to their own business? Pug power (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me give you a piece of advice. Insulting others by calling them "upstarts and teenagers" is not the best way to secure help from admins. I've looked at your contributions. You have tried to create a page on a novelty dog called Odie, but apart from one spot on an entertainment show you have failed to show evidence that this dog is "very notable". Unless you can do that we cannot have a page on him. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please can you show where you have been called an abusive name. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You could write your prospective article contents on your user talk page and let others judge its notability. The only "Odie" I know of is in the Garfield comic strip, but he doesn't talk, he just drools. Baseball Bugs 16:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Does WP:CSD#A7 apply to dogs anyway? Not that notability was established in any case. --Rodhullandemu 16:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Dogs are people too :> Marasmusine (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"This article may meet the criteria for speedy deletion because it is about a real person/animal/plant/fungi/protozoan/alien/rock and it does not indicate why the subject is notable, important or special. (CSD #A7b)" . :D J.delanoy_adds 17:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I would think that appearing on Leno or Letterman would automatically qualify. Baseball Bugs 17:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Qualify to survive speedy deletion, yes. Qualify to survive AFD, no (at least, not by itself). ⇒SWATJester 18:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's more the fact that the article was deleted before I could 1 put enough information in it to prove notability. Search for Odie the Talking pug on the internet and you will find lots of hits. You should at least let it have the chance to go though some kind of deletion review rather than deleteing it because its a talking dog. In fact, the article had gone before I could even write hangon, and then I got told off for vandalism when I wrote holdon. I understand you might not all like pugs - they are my life. And after learning of the upsetting news of Odie's death I thought this would be a fitting memorial. Pug power (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for calling you upstarts and teenagers but there definately was a teenager - i have had years of experience with pugs and know my stuff! I was a bit worked up perhaps with the original text. Please dont call me a vandal though - I'm not here to make trouble, just to spread the word about pugs. Pug power (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If the dog can actually talk, that might be notable. Baseball Bugs 17:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I know this is a mixed metaphor, but when I hear the term "pugs" I can't help but think of one of Harvey Korman's lines from Blazing Saddles. :) Baseball Bugs 17:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Simply having a lot of hits is not enough, the subject must have coverage in reliable third party sources. You should read the page I linked to. If you can find some sources, include them in your references. J.delanoy_adds 17:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Pug Power, I don't have any comments about the notability of Odie either way, but you might want to see WP:MEMORIAL for some information that is relevant to what you are trying to do. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Aha, so it's the late Odie the Talking Pug. Someone needs to find out what its last words were. Probably something poignant from Shake-speare. Or perhaps from Snoopy. Baseball Bugs 17:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have to sit here and take that sort of comment, "Bugs". That's an unkind joke to make at any time, least of all to someone who has just discovered the death of a pug they have always admired and were fond of. I know I'm new to this site, but I would have expected better.

I will try and find some sources for my article about Odie the talking pug, and hopefully it will become an article worthy for far more than many of the articles on here. Pug power (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You had failed to mention that it was your own dog that had died. Baseball Bugs 19:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't my own dog, but I was upset to hear of the news. There's stuff about it on Otie's website Pug power (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So, is it Odie or Otie? And I must ask again, did it have any last words? Why do you assume that question is "unkind"? It's a talking dog, it should have something to say, right? Baseball Bugs 20:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Doing a little research on Odie, the dog was featured on Montel Williams talk show for saying "I love you". Outside of that though, I really can't find any other sources. Is a 1-time appearance on a national talk show enough notability for an article? Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Pug power, Baseball Bugs' joke was in poor taste and off-topic anyway. But regardless, as others have mentioned here, Pug power, you need to provide diffs of the "abusive names" if you want administrators to act accordingly. As for the article being deleted before you could finish it, consider creating a subpage where you can work on the article in peace, then I suggest asking an experienced editor if they think it would survive as a true article (they may say the article needs more reliable sources). If they say it has a good chance, then you could copy/paste the article to Odie the Talking Pug. If you want to get back the article text that was deleted, you can follow the steps outlined here. Hope that helps. -kotra (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not "off-topic". It speaks to the notability (or lack thereof) of this dog. There have been countless animals on talk shows. Does that make them notable? Probably not by itself. And the "memorial" aspect of this, which appears to be the main point in posting the article, makes it questionable. But if the animal can be demonstrated to be "notable", the article could exist, even without the "memorial" aspect. A good guideline would be other notable animals, such as Lassie or Rin Tin Tin. Baseball Bugs 21:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the "last words" joke. Sorry if that wasn't clear. If it was clear, and you're serious that the joke "speaks to the notability (or lack thereof) of this dog", then I don't understand how. Most notable people don't have their last words recorded. -kotra (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's claimed to be a talking dog. That's the reason it was on Montel or whatever. It has no other claim to notability that I can see. And if it talked, it would be interesting to know what it had to say, if anything, near the end. Baseball Bugs 03:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What does it have to do with the dispute in question? Discussing and acting on incidents is what this noticeboard is for, not random curiosity about a tangentially-related topic. -kotra (talk) 04:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The core issue is that the editor wants to create an article about a supposedly talking dog. The core question is whether that animal is notable or not. Baseball Bugs 04:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If so, then how would the dog's last words assert any notability on the part of the dog? Anyway, I acknowledge this line of discussion is leading nowhere, so this is my last comment. -kotra (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it in good taste for someone to make sure everyone knows when he or she finds something offensive or in bad taste? If someone takes offense at a deserted forest, should anyone give a shit? By morning, I told the joke about the four nuns in Northern Ireland, by afternoon I told the joke about the two rabbis in Dachau, and by night I told the one about the three Jains in the Thunderdome - what am I? And just what is the sound of one hand taking offense? _{Bugs' question neded to be asked...} --Badger Drink (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

To answer your first and second questions, I don't see why not. To answer your third and fourth questions, I won't be answering your third and fourth questions. -kotra (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Badger Drink, it sounds like you have a cob on your shoulder. I didn't come here to be told a load of sick jokes. I hope that when your pets die you are surrounded by the mockers as you stand weeping with the forlorn and still bundle of fur in your hands.

As a response to Bugs's question, which to be fair did sound unkind and facetious to someone trying to create an article 1. about a dog that has recently passed away and 2. about a dog they have admitted fondness to. Isnt there a guide on wikiedia to not wp:bite people? But as the only words that Odie ever said were "I LOVE YOU", I imagine his dying words would have been the same. And what better words for a dying pug to utter to his beloved owner?

I dont want to let my love of pugs cloud the issue - Odie will be remembered by thousands of people whether or not he is on the Misplaced Pages. Personally I think he is notable but I guess you all will be the judge when I re-make his page. I will put it on my usrpage so it can't be deleated before I even get a chance to hangon. That's all I ask - that and a bit of civility on this page Pug power (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Bugs has, eh, a caustic nature about him at times, but he really is a good guy and wants the best for the encyclopedia. I am sorry for the lack of sensitivity that you have encountered here. ANI can be a pretty dramatic place, and when somebody comes in yelling about "teenagers and upstarts" calling them "abusive names" (without providing any diffs, mind you -- and please check this link if you don't know what a diff is or how to create one) just because a pop culture article they created was deleted, we tend to get a little dismissive.

In addition, for many of us humor is our way of dealing with the crushingly fleeting nature of life on Earth. I am sure Bugs and Badger didn't mean anything malicious by their comments.

If you would like to create a memorial page for Odie, I suggest MySpace ] as the appropriate place. For now, I am marking this thread as Resolved because I do not think any further action is necessary. And I once again apologize that your experience at Misplaced Pages has so far been a negative one. I hope you continue to participate on the project. Thanks, and happy wiki-ing! --Jaysweet (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Bugs' comments are completely inappropriate and disrespectful. As for the subject: please create an article on this subject, along with a reference(s). If you do so it should not be deleted without first going through our Articles for Deletion process, and if it is you can complain about it here. Everyking (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

These are fair points Jay. I was definately worked up when I posted the first bit because it seemed that a load of teenagers were removing my article not only before I could finish it, but before I could even put hangon. I also don't appreciate being called a vandal. And I would have expected to be treated nicer on this board from the people who are in charge. However I accept your point, and can cartainly see your point about Bugs - he does seem a particularly flippant character, but maybe I was over-reacting. However, Badger's comment was full of foul language and sick jokes. It might be appopriate in certain circles, but not to someone who has come seeking help. I agree with you, however - there is no point going over this again. I hope you will at least give my article the benefit of the doubt when I have finished creating it. Yours, Pug power (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Your article will be judged by the quality and sourcing. Badger felt that we shouldn't have to tippy toe around the aledged "offence" felt by someone who's username is the exact same name as that used by the dogs owner on myspace, who's admitted writing a "fitting memorial" for a bloody dog, who wrote started this thread by being rude to people who were clearing this encylopedia of cruft.Baseball Bugs is not required to be respectful of a novelty dog! This is a serious encylopedia after all. Enough of this sillyness. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If this was a "serious" encyclopedia, we wouldn't have articles on Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog, any of the nearly 500 Pokemon, Lolcat, or GEICO Cavemen. Misplaced Pages doesn't restrict itself to "serious" subjects. We also have a whole slew of articles on "bloody dogs". That said, I agree that the article will be judged by the quality and sourcing. Anyway, the issue is resolved for now. -kotra (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Review of a block

I blocked Arthur Rubin (again) for 3RR. He made a report to 3RRN, I blocked him and the other user (48 and 24 hours respectively). Same as last time, I feel a bit iffy blocking another admin, so I'd like to request a quick review (Evidence of edit warring: , , and ) Scarian 16:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Might want to get PeterSymonds' opinion - I'm assuming that, based on my protection requests (he protected all the articles in question where edit warring was occurring) which pointed to the 3RR concern, he had decided not to issue a block to either party and only removed rollback from the one. Avruch 17:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Maybe getting too picky but Arthur Rubin only reverted three times on each of those talk pages. Considering his history of edit warring and that it was warring across multiple pages, some would probably still consider it a good block but I'm on the fence. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And, to anyone interested, this is the third thread on this page about this same issue. Avruch 17:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So it is. I linked above. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

How is it that we have an admin who has had five blocks for edit warring in the past six months? Naerii 17:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. That doesn't look good, does it? As Arthur Rubin is currently blocked, I suggest waiting until the block expires, and then opening a request for comments. Please let's not have a pile-on here while he is blocked. Carcharoth (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I guess the only way to redress it if you believe Arthur is unsuitable would be to ask Arthur to voluntarily step down (an RFC on this may assist in obtaining the community's opinions), and if he refused, filea request for arbitration. Neıl 龱 17:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I wondered if it was just me that noticed that. I can't recall an admin with a longer block log... —Wknight94 (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

, for one. There are others. — CharlotteWebb 17:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Betacommand was blocked quite a bit while he was an admin, probably edit warred even worse than AR. --Dragon695 (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Patience is a gift I guess. However unless he is edit-warring on a protected page, or protecting pages he is edit-warring on, or unblocking himself, etc., there is no compelling rationale for this. Would removing (or resigning) his adminship would make him likely to edit war? No, that would be punitive, not preventative. It would also set a chilling precedent. — CharlotteWebb 17:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

An editor who had such a block log would never pass RFA. I think it would set a good precedent; admins ought to be following the rules and setting an example for others. One of the things we urge editors to do is to communicate, not edit war. Neıl 龱 18:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Seven blocks in the last six months does seem a bit over the top. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've extended the block to 1 week. This admin who has already been blocked 4 times in the last 6 months for edit warring is too likely to begin edit warring again after only 2 days. However, I would like a review of my action. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

not a fan of block extension, without additional provocation. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the block log of Arthur Rubin makes me think of highly problematic editors and vandals. We hold admins to a very high standard and it's important that they not be allowed to slip by just due to being an admin. He needs to voluntarily resign or be referred to ArbCom for desysoping. Bstone (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Upping the block looks like it's been done on the basis of already adjudicated conduct, which could (and I put it no higher than that) have been taken into account when imposing the block. --Rodhullandemu 19:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Gwen, but not a good block; there is an ArbCom at the moment relating to extending blocks on the basis of further transgressions (and another a while back which was initiated for the same thing resulted in a desysop) and this has no further transgressions. The initial judgement call should be respected. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is only my own take on it and if I don't have consensus I'll likely shorten it back, noting that in the log. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

48 hour block? Fine. The extension? I'm not a fan. There's also more to this story at WP:BLP/N, User talk:Otterathome & User talk:Arthur Rubin. They shouldn't have edit warred, but the whole issue is about links to uncyclopedia in article talk pages and differing views on whether BLP applies, which might warrant an actual discussion. — Scientizzle 20:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose the retroactive extension, no comment so far on the original block. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom case opened. Bstone (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, then, an unblock solely to allow ArbCom activity is warranted? — Scientizzle 20:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the ArbCom case is premature. Its unlikely that a block of a week is going to make more of an impact than a block of 48 hours if none of the prior blocks have made a dent. What we're looking at here is three instances of administrator review of the same conduct, with three different outcomes - no block and a warning, a 48 hour block, and a week long block. If nothing else it demonstrates that the appropriate response is a bit ambiguous in this case. Personally I'd like to see what Arthur has to say before coming to a firm conclusion on what the block length, arbitration case or RfC should look like. Avruch 20:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's too soon for arbcom. Meanwhile I've set the block back to 42 hours. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It certainly is concerning - but an RFC is needed first to give him a chance. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nicole Wray

This needs to be speedy-closed per WP:SNOW, WP:BADFAITH, and WP:DISRUPTIVE. It doesn't take an administrator to do this but due to some of the sockpuppet allegations going on, at least one uninvolved administrator should start watching the article and the people making or on the receiving end of sockpuppet allegations. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I stumbled across this AfD through a user talk page and quickly closed it as a speedy keep. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to move the new nomination to a page at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nicole Wray (2nd nomination). Per this diff, it looks like there was a previous nom that was overwritten by the IP. I also note that the previous nom was deemed to be trolling as well. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 17:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like both noms were made by the same editor. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So I've blocked the IP 48 hours for sockpuppetry, in the hope this might stem further disruption for now. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem - formatting is  Done, with notations linking the two debates and their contribs. There is probably a better way to do that, but it's a minor thing. As for the editor, I concur that there are some similarities, including the fact that both of the IP editors involved in the old and new AFDs resolve to the same ISP. Good block, I think. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 17:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile the IP is asking to be unblocked (having skillfully found and filled out the unblock template on their own). Gwen Gale (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That IP range has grown pretty skilled at requesting unblock (and abusing the template, as well). Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Soccermeko(8th) should probably be dealt with if people have already bagged and tagged the IP. Note that User:KingLilTroy is mentioned there as well, and I'm willing to concede that the evidence against KingLilTroy is a bit weak, although I am quite certain that time will tell.
Kww (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh :/ Gwen Gale (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You need to keep a smile on your face when you sigh, Gwen. Personally, I found the accusation that Jayron32 is my sockpuppet amusing enough to be worth the price of filling out yet another sockpuppet form.
Kww (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

<joke> How clever of you, to send a note to Jayron32 to hide your sockpuppetry. </joke> :) Gwen Gale (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Rollosmokes again

This is essentially a continuation of this ANI thread which ended with no resolution. The user continues to try to impose his will on certain TV station articles, particularly his continued insistence that The CW does not have the right to call themselves The CW. It's not just original research and POV-pushing on his part, it's also disruptive behavior, since he refuses to discuss the points made to him. His answer is "I'm right and you're wrong". There are now at least a couple of pages protected to keep him from his antics. Are we going to have to protect the pages one by one? Or can something else be done? Baseball Bugs 18:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

From reading the previous ANI thread, it seems that he is continuing his pattern of disruptive editing. Regardless if it is grammatically correct or not, the fact that the company name is The CW trumps the grammar rules when it comes to editing. If the editor continues to make these edits against consensus, and article need to be protected to PREVENT the user from doing so, a block may be in order. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Two articles today have been protected for just this purpose. Please note the attitude in the user's edit summaries: Baseball Bugs 18:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have recently warned this editor regarding edit warring over a related matter. I suggest the bluntest of the clue sticks need applying. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The second of the two incidents I listed came after your warning, and used the same "I'm right and you're wrong" language that the first one did. It's plain to see that he isn't really interested in what anyone else thinks about it. When an ANI thread comes along, he waits until the heat is off, and then starts up again. Something needs to be done. Baseball Bugs 21:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Between Among the two threads, I've seen various admins say that "something" should be done, but so far no one has acted upon that "should be". Baseball Bugs 03:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There was one more edit by the editor after the one linked above, and the article concerned was then protected. Let us see what the editor does when they resume. I will execute a short block if there is any revert warring in the next 24 hours from this account. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

He'll be watched. Baseball Bugs 13:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

He's back and doing it again... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the CW and WB stuff, he's also making needless reverts like this one to change "Ultra high frequency" to "ultra high frequency". What's up with this guy? Baseball Bugs 17:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

He's telling selected users that he's "taking a break", presumably another tactic to take the heat off. Baseball Bugs 17:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, let him take a break. If he doesn't take a break, than maybe action should be taken to prevent further disruption/incivility. Beam 17:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that his user page says his break is "to let the tension die down". Well, the tension is of his own doing, and if he doesn't change his approach, the "tension" will resume immediately upon his return. FYI, I intend to roll back his nonsensical UHF / VHF changes. The articles start with upper case U and V, so his changes to the links to lower case were pointless. Baseball Bugs 17:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Also please note what amounts to an "enemies list" he has compiled on his talk page, as reasons for why he's "taking a break". Baseball Bugs 17:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I am correct on this -- and I will prove it all to you when I return. - so he's not going to change. --Allemandtando (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)From what I can see it look like he is trying to game the system here. He makes these edits, it's brought to AN/I, pages are protected, and after a day or so the editor "takes a break". Come back a few days later and it's the same thing all over again. It's disruptive, at least to me and some action needs to be taken regarding this, especially if article have to be repeatedly locked down due to his actions. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I love how he paints himself as the defender of what is right, and throws around thinly veiled insults ("an oversensitive editor", POV puushers, "IP abuser", "vultures") at those who do not share his views. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Response

First, despite what Baseball Bugs says, I have discussed my opinion on this issue ad nauseum. (See Talk:WGN-TV#Here we go again..., Talk:WGN-TV#Before anyone loses their carrots... User talk:TV9, and my own talk page.) This is not "my will" or "POV-pushing" -- THIS IS CORRECT, PROPER USE OF GRAMMAR. You should ignore what you see and read the various writing style manuals I have cited (Penguin Handbook for Writers, the Chicago Manual of Style, MLA Style Manual, etc.).

Second, this has gone way beyond bizzare. Baseball Bugs has appointed himself as my own personal watchdog? Nitpicking over every single edit I make? Who made him a private dick, or a Misplaced Pages administrator? And why is his name all over this place? To me he's nothing more than a bully.

Finally, as far as me taking a break, I will not discuss that other than what is written on my talk page. If you feel that it's "to take the heat off", believe that if you want to. I'm done. Have a good summer. Rollosmokes (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The editor continues to ignore the issues raised, specifically that it is not his place to tell The CW what they can call themselves. Their trademarked name trumps so-called "grammer rules". Baseball Bugs 17:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Your "correct, proper use if grammar" is a misinterpretation of the style guides. Others, including myself, have given you other links to show you that your interpretation is incorrect, and that other style guides show that for some uses ("The CW" being one of them), the capitalization of "the" is correct and proper. This should no longer be an issue, if you would just admit that you made a mistake - we all do from time to time - it happens! TheRealFennShysa (talk)

A far more pressing question is that when we reply to the user who made the above comment, is it grammatically correct to say, "I agree with TheRealFennShysa," or is it more appropriate to say, "I agree with theRealFennShysa"??? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Based on Rollosmoke's "going-away" posts, he'd just call me "the Vulture". :) TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

All I see here is a single editor edit warring with multiple other editors over a long period of time. If he continues to ignore consensus (which he cannot claim not to be aware of at this stage) - he should be blocked for progressively longer periods of time. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Almost pointless disruption. Surely there's something more pressing here for him to be doing. How about address the countless uncited assertions and unreferenced articles that we have? Amazing how many people spend all their time on stupid stuff when we have important matters to deal with. File this thread under WP:LAME and let it die. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• If the editor is wikibreaking and if they return with a will to edit collaboratively per consensus then there is no need to end/force the break with a block. I am certain that this matter will be raised again if the editor returns and resumes, and I think we can then respond a little more quickly. In the meantime, I'm off to mediate a grammarian dispute at Spud U Like Spud You Like Baked and Filled Potato's One Is Partial To... er, KFC? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The user has virtually "promised" to be disruptive if and when he returns. He'll be watched. Baseball Bugs 21:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

WorkerBee74 again

In the last 12 hours or so, WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) despite this conversation and after a month-long history of the same (Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive440#Repeated incivility by User:WorkerBee74 (also a SPA), Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive438#WorkerBee74, Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/WorkerBee74, Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/WorkerBee74, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive442#WorkerBee74 on Obama page, yet again), edit warring and contentious comments. Removed edit war caution from talk page and responds on an editor's page with the same taunts and AGF violations discussed above ("Barack Obama whitewash brigade", "obstruct this material until after the election (their obvious goal)"). Plus this contribution to the above: ("nice dodge", "bogus apology", "classic passive-aggressive behavior"). Wikidemo (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's been made pretty clear to WorkerBee74 that his attitude has been an ongoing distraction for the rest of us trying to edit the encyclopedia. Some of his arguments at Talk:Barack Obama have been sound and useful, but I'm not sure too many people are taking them in, given the stuff pouring out of the abuse spigot. Why not give him a final warning, and if that doesn't work, a very long block? Noroton (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And yet another disruptive post on the Obama talk page. Could someone please do the deed - either block or issue a final warning now? He's repeatedly declared me one of the "whitewash brigade" / "obama fanboys" / "obama campaign volunteers" / liars / etc. for my objections, so my warning is unlikely to do any good. Wikidemo (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And now this. WorkerBee74 is fresh off a 3-day block for edit warring and it's become apparent he's learned nothing. Despite a truce on a previous edit war which called for a moratorium on editing the Rezko language in the Obama article until consensus is reached, WB74 made these edits . Although he claimed he thought there was consensus for the version he added "word for word" , anyone following the discussion could not have reasonably believed that version had anything close to consensus, especially for the word "simultaneously", which had almost-universal opposition. This is despite the fact that WB74 had been advised to use "extreme caution when declaring consensus" due to his past efforts to assert an inaccurate consensus (note: in this diff WB74 blanked the article, apparently in error, the edit summary is the important item here).

At least as important, however, is WB74's personal attacks, incivility and generally disruptive behavior. We made more progress toward consensus and toward incorporation of conservative viewpoints (WB74 falls on the conservative side of the issue) during WB74's 3-day absence than we did during the preceding two weeks. Since I offered to help mediate the discussion two weeks ago, I've bent over backward to ensure that conservative viewpoints, though underrepresented in the discussion, were heard, fairly considered, and accommodated. His participation has proven disruptive to the discussion and to any effort to reach consensus. Given the egregiousness of this behavior, coupled with the fact that this appears to be a WP:SPA, I recommend a 4- to 6-month topic ban for this editor. --Clubjuggle /C 19:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A 4- to 6- month ban seems a bit overdone to me, given that this primarily looks like a content dispute. I'd rather see this move through dispute resolution first. His language, while intemperate, does not, in my mind, cross the line -- unless I've missed something obvious in his diffs. I'll drop a comment on his talk page, though. Nandesuka (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Perhaps there is a kind hearted soul around who would mentor this fellow? He may very well benefit from it. Arkon (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a week per the above and my own investigation of the behaviour since the last block. I think a 4-6 month ban is excessive at this stage and I tend to agree with Nandesuka's comments (although there is a strong behavioural element). It is important in my view on contentious BLPs that we try to ensure the highest standards of behaviour and do not encourage rank incivility between contributors. It is questionable whether people unable to contain their own strong political views (note there is nothing stopping people with strong political views from editing so long as they can adhere to WP:5) should be editing BLPs to begin with, so a topic ban might in the end be called for. Orderinchaos 04:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to this. On a related note, would you mind looking over the activity of User:Shem as well? Although I do not believe any blocks or other similar actions are necessary for him, my perception is that his approach toward other editors has at times been more confrontational than necessary, so some guidance from an uninvolved admin may be beneficial. For that matter, if there's anything I'm doing that you feel I shouldn't be, or am not doing that I maybe should, feel free to cluebat me as well. Thanks, --Clubjuggle /C 10:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitic smears or innuendoes

I am against wasting admin time but this is becoming farcical, it is the fifth time in one year. Could someone bring to order two editors with a rap over the virtual knuckles who have laid against me, in lieu of source-based arguments on the difficult text we are editing, tag-team accusations to the effect that I am an antisemite (and this supposedly explains my edits in wiki). The two editors involved are Amoruso (diff) and Shevashalosh (diff) on this page . I have explained why, despite Amoruso's prevarications, his remarks constitute an antisemitic accusation, on my talk page here. Shevashalosh appears to have a poor grasp of English, and therefore I find this first offence excusable, since it may be overreading remarks he cannot quite understand. But Amoruso also seems to be engaged in WP:STALK, also, since he, after a year, had edited the Shuafat page immediately after I began to edit there. If the two have the slightest evidence to corroborate these grave charges, I would appreciate someone inviting them to present the evidence at the appropriate noticeboard, since if this were so, I should be banned from editing Misplaced Pages immediately. Apologies for the disturbance, and thanking you in anticipation. Nishidani (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This discussion probably belongs on WP:AE. Regardless, I've notified Shevashalosh of the ArbCom sanctions, and given him a warning. PhilKnight (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You're supposed to notify other editors when you begin threads about them here. You didn't do that. Since Phil seems to have handled this and I don't want to import unnecessary drama to this page, I won't either, but please take note that it's supposed to be done. (Full disclosure: I am not an administrator.) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In the last few minutes Shevashalosh has acknowledged that his earlier comments were out of line. I'll continue to watch the page, but I'm not convinced that a ban is necessary at this stage. PhilKnight (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies then. I have stayed clear of all complaint pages because I've seen far too much abuse of them in incredible haggling, 'unnecessary drama', that takes time off editing. I don't understand the rules governing them either (notification, which page). I didn't even intend to make a thread about the two, merely get this sneering innuendo stopped in its tracks. As PhilKnight notes, Shevashalosh has withdrawn his comment, and that's more than enough to make me happy. As to the other, the problem is incorrigible, and bickering and whingeing on the appropriate page won't fix it. (Though I have posted a note of apology on Amoruso's page for my oversight, which is due to ignorance) Apologies for any trouble caused to all then, and thank you, Phil Knight. Nishidani (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Shared and disruptive account

I have removed this thread. The account in question has been blocked and their edits will be oversighted. east.718 at 21:19, July 7, 2008

Update: all problematic edits have been removed. east718 (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

alternative medicine dispute tags

I'm having trouble with keeping a dispute tag on Alternative Medicine, on the section Critics' explanations for the appeal of alternative medicine. ScienceApologist and OrangeMarlin keep removing the dispute tags I enter, preventing any broad scale notification of the problem I see. see these diffs: here, here, and here. the tag is appropriate, and while I am happy to discuss the matter on the talk page to reach a resolution, I cannot get proper feedback unless the dispute tag remains in place.

I mean, it would be one thing if this were a content dispute, but removing dispute tags is just petty and ridiculous. can an administrator please assist? --Ludwigs2 20:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've left a comment on the talk page. I don't see why you need the tag in order to get feedback OTOH I don't see why they feel the need to remove so hastily either. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Coloneldoctor

Coloneldoctor (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

• guessing this isn't polite
• Clear anti-Semitic references
• BLP violation

Thoughts? Avruch 21:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Woo, and a special winner here. Avruch 21:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ban him. Now, please. Bstone (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was musing on that but awaiting some more consensus...oh wait, I see above. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking through his contribs, his user page and talk page, he seems to have started reasonably enough but has apparently turned into a sneering intellectual with a superiority complex. I doubt we have room for editors like that. That's my view anyway. --Rodhullandemu 22:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse indef. Unlikely to make positive contributions at this time, and has clearly abused many people. If they decide to stop playing games and want to treat the project seriously they can apologize and appeal, but an indef is appropriate now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Fastest with the Mostest

Andrewb1 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly removed the {{or}} tag I placed on the looooonnnnnggg plot summary he has written in this article. I'm at my revert limit, so I won't do it again, but he's up to three warnings for removal of tags. If he refuses to provide a reliable source for the plot, would I be in the wrong if I removed the entire plot summary? Corvus cornix_talk 22:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So then every single plot summary I have produced for this series, and Tom and Jerry as well, would be liable to be removed?

Because they all came from Youtube cartoon viewings. Andrewb1 (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) While Misplaced Pages:Plot summaries is only an essay, this bit rings true with me (comma splice notwithstanding): "Where the plot is of one single piece of work, it is not necessary to add a citation, for example, if your article is on a stand-alone film, book, comic, television or radio programme, the citation would be the work itself." Does it not enjoy wide acceptance?

This doesn't negate the requirement to keep plot summaries concise and encyclopaedically-written, of course, but I thought writing plot summaries from a primary source was fairly well-established practise. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I certainly hope not, as it would seem to egregiously violate WP:V. In addition, Andrew is now on his fifth revert of the article. Corvus cornix_talk 22:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:V doesn't prohibit the use of primary sources. As for the edit-warring issue, I've warned him. If he reverts again, I'll block. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As well, note that he's only reverted four times, not five (the fourth of the five revisions he's made to the page since your addition of the OR tag wasn't a revert), and he seems to be under the impression that the fourth revert was just fixing an error made by a bot (I admit that RyanLupin's edit - the one being reverted with the fourth revert - was one that looks to me like it was made in error). That's not what happened, and I'm discussing it with him on his talk page, but I'm not blocking for 3RR just yet, even though it was violated. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think Sarcasticidealist is right. Plot summaries are assumed to be sourced to the episode/book/film/whatever, and in my experience, even at FA the only parts of a plot summary that explicitly require sourcing are direct quotation from the work. EyeSerene 22:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Fine. OK, plot summaries violate WP:V and can get away with it. Now I understand. Corvus cornix_talk 22:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify which portion of WP:V you think is at issue? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, just to start. Then add If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it.. Corvus cornix_talk 22:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Nah, writing a summary from your own viewing/reading of the primary source is fine, just as writing a summary of the argument of a secondary source is. We have lots of horribly bad plot summaries, but their problem is not an over-use of "originality" ("OR") on the writer's part. Quite to the contrary: to get better plot summaries, we need more originality, not less of it. We should encourage editors to be "original", in intelligently condensing and structuring a plot summary, rather than doing what most of them do (sticking slavishly to the source in the sense of following the work scene by scene and just retelling it.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That said, the page (I hesitate to call it an "article") in the present case is of course among the horrible ones. Is there no CSD for that kind of stuff? There should be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Plot summaries necessarily "violate" WP:V, or you would never have a plot summary. If you quote someone else's summary, you're violating copyright. And it's pretty hard to "paraphrase" what's already a summary. You might want to look at how the latest Indiana Jones film has been covered. An extra effort has been made by several shepherding editors to keep it relatively short and to the point; to keep out fluff; and, especially, to keep out speculation, spin, or reading-between-the-lines. That's where plot summaries get into trouble. If you report exactly what's on the screen, without applying spin to it, then you have a verifiable plot summary. Then you use editorial judgment and keep the fluff to a minimum. One example is the attempt by various editors to insert something about Mutt picking up Indy's hat and trying to put it on. There are various ways of interpreting that, but there's nothing in the movie that places any significance on it, so it doesn't belong in the plot summary. "Just the notable facts, man." Baseball Bugs 23:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said. It's now clear that plot summaries do not need to follow WP:V. Corvus cornix_talk 01:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I still think that you may be perceiving a contradiction with WP:V that doesn't exist. When I asked you to cite the portions of WP:V that you think this contradicted, you cited Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it. All of that is true: if there are no reliable, third-party sources in existence about this episode, the article should be deleted. Moreover, for the article to comply with Misplaced Pages standards, it should rely primarily on these sources. The article needs to be expanded to include its release date, writer, canonical significance (if any), critical reception (if any), etc., and none of these could be sourced to the episode itself. I think perhaps your mistake is interpreting "article" and "article topic" to mean "every piece of information within an article". But as WP:NOR (a core policy just like WP:V) says, "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Misplaced Pages passage agrees with the primary source." A properly-constructed plot summary would seem to comply :with this. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case it violates WP:NOT#PLOT! Hope that helps spot the violation :) Wikidemo (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly the article as it stands violates WP:NOT#PLOT as well as WP:V. I'm not defending the article at all. I'm defending the principle that an article can include a plot summary drawn from primary sources, provided that it's succinct and encyclopaedically-written. I don't see any contradiction of this principle in WP:NOT#PLOT. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Plot summaries are well-accepted on Misplaced Pages and when given several ways to interpret a longstanding policy, everything else being equal it's best to choose an interpretation that does not conflict with a widespread practice. If one play's the devil's advocate one can interpret almost anything to contradict almost anything. It was a bit of levity on my part to play spot the policy violation. Something's clearly wrong with that particular plot summary but it doesn't make a strong case for saying the policy is kaput or widely disregarded. Simpler just to say it's a bad article. Cheers, Wikidemo (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So now if that appears to be resolved, why then do Fastest and Scrambled Aches redirect to the main Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner page, while Zip 'N Snort, the other cartoon that I created the page for and posted the plot summary to, goes to the actual cartoon page? And if you're going to delete cartoon summaries without citations, why are cartoons 1-9, 11, 12, 16, and 20 going to the cartoon pages as well? I wrote the plot summaries to all 13 of those cartoons without incident. Andrewb1 (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There are several courses of action that should have been taken instead. First of all, what should be removed are either all three cartoons or the two specifically that were created from scratch. Instead of completely deleting the page and making it inaccessible, just remove the plot summary and let's talk it out as to whether it should be kept. Though that has not been an incident for the previous 13 cartoons. Andrewb1 (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

sock block needed

Please block both User talk:Tennis scores Federer and User talk:Tennis scores Nadal as painfully obvious socks of User:Tennis_scores. Their pages are identical to the deleted contribs of the puppetmaster and of his other sock.

Related link for the interested: Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion/Tennis_scores#User:Tennis_scores --Enric Naval (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. MastCell  22:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Ohio state buckeyes football68

This user is getting to be more of a detriment than anything. He's had several warnings recently on User talk:Ohio state buckeyes football68, from different users. His contributions are a curious mix of factual stuff and out-and-out vandalism. It's almost like there are two different guys using the same account, which as far as I know is against the rules. Maybe something could be done here? Thank y'all. P.S. I took this to WP:AIV recently and they advised me to bring it here. Baseball Bugs 22:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User posted on my talk page. It turns out he was trying to fix a problem. I believe it is now resolved. Bcspro (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That does not account for other incidents, like this . Baseball Bugs 03:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Although unusual, that is what he did to fix the problem. I don't see how it worked, but that's the way he explained it to me.Bcspro (talk) 12:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

He's also messing around with the Packers page where he's been reverted several times for a deletion that he apparently refuses to discuss (his normal pattern). Baseball Bugs 12:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Green Bay Packers issue is essentially a content dispute, but the edit warring is starting to become disruptive. I have left a message which hopefully will encourage dialogue. Further reverting without discussion should result in a stern warning and eventual block. — Satori Son 13:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

As was my specific issue with him, 1882 vs. 1869 as the Cincinnati Reds founding date. The basic problem is, he won't respond. I looked through his contrib list and only saw 2 occasions where he has posted to a talk page, since starting here in April. His unwillingness to discuss things is the primary issue. Baseball Bugs 13:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Page moves

GianniRBergonzoni (talk · contribs) seems to be new but has been making a massive number of page moves that go against WP:MOS. Article names should follow the most commonly used name of the individual. This user is changing article titles to the birth or other names of individuals. There are far too many moves made to try and undo each one. --Ave Caesar (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Heavier Sanctions needed

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.

Being discussed in a thread further down the page. MastCell  17:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Muntuwandi was blocked for a month by User:Elonka after he resumed edit warring in a pattern that got him blocked for two weeks earlier in the year. A day after his block started he began creating socks to do his work for him. Please see: Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Muntuwandi. The basic problem here is that Muntuwandi simply refuses to accept the consensus version of Origin of religion instead trying over and over again to edit his own, several times AfDed version of the entry into Misplaced Pages. Since it is clear that he is incapable of editing this topic collegially I'd like to see something more than simply a one month ban here from the community. Can we get a topic bad? OR a some kind of topic related restriction, should he return? Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

See also below: Misplaced Pages:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed indef block of User:Muntuwandi. Something needs to be done about this. I'm more than happy with topic bans as opposed to an indef block or community ban.PelleSmith (talk) 10:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked Muntuwandi, and this is being discussed in a second thread further down the page - let's centralize things there. MastCell  17:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring under multiple IPs

It started with an anon revert warring of a piece of material in Charlotte, North Carolina: .

Editor also vandalized (at least) my user page .

Editor was blocked. He came back and persisted and so was blocked for longer.

Then an anon with a different IP reverted the same piece of material, but stopped on the 3rd change to avoid a 3RR block:.

Then an anon with a different IP did the same thing:

Could we get some kind of protection on the page, or a block of these accounts or something?--Loodog (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFPP. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought protection is a last resort when there are far too many IPs attacking the page. If it's just one person, don't we just block, with rengeblocks if the person is too persistent and the collatoral damgae not too high? hbdragon88 (talk)

Seeing as how it was denied, that would seem the next course. I suggested RFPP because the IPs were so different. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 04:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: more.--Loodog (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

RFPP was denied, saying user should be blocked.--Loodog (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Report to 3RR then. Obviously the same user, so that should work. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 04:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Magellan (book) article

Please see:

• MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#viartis.net

A new editor, Juan de Leon (talk · contribs · count), has just created an article for a new book "Viartis" is publishing and has requested we remove viartis.net from the blacklist. viartis.net is blacklisted as spam since links to it were persistently added in the past by General Tojo. For background on General Tojo, see:

• Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse/General Tojo
• Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of General Tojo
  • over 100 confirmed sockpuppets
• Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of General Tojo
  • over 700 suspect accounts

I have declined the blacklist-removal request. The book appears to be non-notable and I have tagged it as such. --A. B. 03:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg's deletion of Global apartheid

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

Take this to DRV please. Spartaz 07:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Could I please request that an uninvolved administrator review User:Jayjg's deletion of Global apartheid. His summary statement for the deletion is "(G5: Creation by a banned user)".

The problem is that Jayjg left out something important: General Criteria for Speedy Deletion #5 indicates that articles may be deleted if they are created by banned users in violation of their ban, with no substantial edits by others. The editor who created this article was in good standing at the time of its creation, and several other editors had contributed to this page over its two-year history.

On the face of it, this seems to be a misapplication of policy. I'm not going to undo Jay's actions myself, as I'm currently involved in a controversial discussion related to the page. I'll simply note that I don't believe that Misplaced Pages needs any more gamesmanship over the "Allegations of apartheid" articles at this stage. CJCurrie (talk) 06:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just had a look at this, and I don't see how it was created by a banned user at all, let alone one in violation of a ban. The article was most recently created by the decidedly unbanned Kendrick7 (talk · contribs) (although just as a redirect) and then expanded into an article by Lothar of the Hill People (talk · contribs), whose user talk page gives no indication of a ban. All of that said, is there a reason this article isn't speedy-able under G4, given this? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There are two points that need to be addressed here: (i) It seems that you're correct -- the article was most recently created by a non-banned user (I was referring to the article's original (2006) creation my first remarks, and didn't realize it had been re-created once since then), (ii) this deletion was subsequently overturned on appeal, and three subsequent afds have been started since then (one is currently in progress). In any event, "Global apartheid" is a different article. CJCurrie (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd completely missed the fact that the AFD resulting in the deletion of the article was actually for a different article, to which Global apartheid redirected at the time. That being the case, I don't see any valid speedy deletion rationale at all. In the interests of WP:AGF, I'll drop a line on Jayjg's talk page to ask him to clarify his rationale before I undelete. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I allege apartheid against articles about apartheid! ;) MessedRocker (talk) 06:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is covered under WP:Allegations of allegations of apartheid apartheid. CJCurrie (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been hoping to get User:Krimpet/Fake link to featured status, myself... krimpet✽ 06:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thought my mouse was broken... Viridae 06:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The article had already been deleted once, then on April 16, 2007 the article was re-created as a simple re-direct by User:Kendrick7. Those were the entire contents of the article (REDIRECT Allegations of apartheid) until the disruptive sockpuppet of a banned editor User:Lothar of the Hill People showed up on August 21, 2007 and created the entire contents of the article. Since he was responsible for essentially the entire contents of the article, and therefore the article was "created by banned users in violation of their ban, with no substantial edits by others", I deleted it as a WP:CSD G5, per my summary. CJCurrie's complaint (about which he failed to notify me) was premised on his failure to realize that the article had already been deleted once. Finally, I'll also simply note that I don't believe that Misplaced Pages needs any more gamesmanship over the "Allegations of apartheid" articles at this stage, and in particular not from people claiming not to want any such gamesmanship. Jayjg 07:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite that straightforward: the article wasn't created by a banned user, though you're correct to note that its content was mostly created by one (something I failed to notice in my initial post). If your point was to undo the work of a banned user, then you should have reduced the page to a redirect, not deleted it. The timing of this deletion (coming so soon after this was filed) also strikes me as a bit odd.

On another matter, I don't see how you can state that I "fail to realize that the article had already been deleted once" and simultaneously imply that gaming the system was involved. CJCurrie (talk) 07:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The timing was no coincidence, since the AfD made me notice that yet another sockpuppet of that banned editor had deleted the relevant content from the Allegations of Apartheid article, and instead inserted links to his article. In fact, he did that for several articles, but most of them have already been sensibly re-directed to other articles, so there was no real point in deleting them. I suppose I could have re-directed this article too, but since the article had no content aside from that created by a banned editor, it qualified under CSD:G5, and since CSD:G5 is there for a reason - to discourage exactly this kind of behavior - I chose that route. And gamesmanship and "gaming the system" are not the same thing. Jayjg 07:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Not that it matters now, I suppose, but I still disagree on the main point: the article wasn't created by a banned user, so speedy-deleting it wasn't the appropriate course of action. To rephrase my second-point, I would tend to think that gamesmanship and a good-faith error are mutually exclusive. CJCurrie (talk) 07:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

From the deleted histories of the article and the user page of Lothar of the Hill People, it is clear that the deletion was proper. After the article was recreated as a redirect following the second AFD, its primary contributor was the sockpuppet of a banned user. Had another sock of a banned user (not sure if it's the same person) not tagged the page (and several others) with {{indefblock}}, it would be clear to see to non-administrative users. For admins, there's this and this to look at, in particular.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not a matter for this noticeboard, but for deletion review. I recommend the closure of this thread.  Sandstein  07:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed indef block of User:Muntuwandi

I hereby propose an indefinite block on Muntuwandi (talk · contribs). The user has claimed to have "retired", but afterward came back with several socks to evade a block: it was certainly not the first time, either: Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Muntuwandi. I came across this editor for the first time nearly a year ago, when he was edit warring to insert a picture of Barack Obama into white people, and using a likely sock to back it up. This user has unfortunately done little other than engage in POV pushing (mostly racial agitation), and edit warring (he is currently serving his seventh block for this offense). It is clear that increasing block lengths have done nothing to tame this user, nor will they ever. This proposal is to make it clear that Muntuwandi, or any of his socks, are no longer welcome to edit Misplaced Pages on account of disruption. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

An indef block seems sound. Numerous blocks on his record show he's not getting the message, and using multiple socks to evade a block is a dead giveaway he's not going to follow the rules. Dayewalker (talk) 07:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Or at least a number of topic bans and a longer block. I posted about this above but have had no response yet: Misplaced Pages:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Heavier Sanctions needed. Still waiting for the community to take some kind of action other than simply indef blocking his socks.PelleSmith (talk) 10:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Before this turns into mob justice, at least MW should be given an opportunity to defend against some of these allegations. Evil Spartan for example has made one accusation that is clearly false. Unless he provides evidence that MW used socks on the white people article, he should take that statement back. BO's is half white.Muntoowandi (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Another sock? Mathsci (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, him and Bucky Burnside (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I would make the standing one-month block at least a three-month block, and would have no qualms about making it indefinite. Sam Korn 14:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, I have semi-protected origin of religion. Sam Korn 14:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

As we know indef blocks are not community bans, and can be shorted. So if the block is lengthened, even to indef, I would like to see a community sponsored topic ban or other types of topic related sanctions that apply should he return as Muntuwandi or under some other name.PelleSmith (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

← Using at least 5 socks to evade his latest block is sufficient for me, given his long history of disruption and lengthy block log. I've blocked Muntuwandi indefinitely; future socks can be blocked on sight or with checkuser confirmation. MastCell  17:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Seeking Reviews of Actions taken to address a BLP violation

I'm bringing this here because an editor has challenged administrative actions that I have taken to removed BLP violations from the article Edward de Bono (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Relevant policies are RS and BLP . Discussions have taken place on article talk and user talk pages and .

Yesterday I removed a serious allegation of plagiarism from this article because the sourcing was inadequate and was reverted by Harry the Dirty Dog‎ (talk · contribs). The source quoted as a primary source that did not meet our requirements for sourcing serious allegations so I removed it again and started a talk page discussion that was supported by a regular editor of the page. This morning, Harry reinsterted the allegation with another obviously inadequate source with an edit summary that suggested they would continue to do so - "(Reverted 1 edit by Spartaz; I will look for other sources, but in the meantime the allegations were made, and ackowledged by de Bono. WP:BLP should not be used to censor..)". I therefore removed the material again and protected the article to prevent its reinsertion per BLP and continued the discussion on the article talk page. One regular editor of the article has supported the removal of the text and I do not believe that there is any consensus to restore the material until such time as the sources have been agreed. Further, BLP does not allow the inclusion of poorly sourced serious allegations and this claim must be properly sourced from a decent reliable source. Harry clearly does not agree with the position I have taken and has taken umbrage to messages I have left him on his talk page. My position is very clear here - the material is inadequately sourced to meet BLP, there is also no consensus on the article talk page to restore the material and the onus is on any editor who wants to include material to source ít and obtain consensus. Harry on the other hand believes that since the offending material has been in the article a long time the onus is on me to show why its should be removed. He also comments that because it is an old allegation it would be hard to find reliable online sources for it. He

I would appreciate review of my actions. Spartaz 07:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The section was not about the allegations of plagiarism themselves (no POV was taken on that) but about the controversy, which both protagonists acknowledge. WP:BLP clearly allows for primary sources to be used when the writer is the subject of the article, so using de Bono as a source is perfectly valid. The issue is also mentioned on the article about Michael Hewitt-Gleeson (which Spartaz only edited after I drew his attention to it. However , he left "In New York in 1985, due to a dispute over publishing rights and attributions, Hewitt-Gleeson closed down the School of Thinking, which he started with de Bono. In 1988, Hewitt-Gleeson re-started the School of Thinking in Melbourne. There was also a dispute over ownership of course materials such as the School of Thinking's Six Thinking Caps." This is totally unsourced, but refers to the same allegation that he removed from the de Bono article. Why remove the reference to the controversy from one person's article but leave it in the other? I will leave it to others to judge these actions, but I will say that the material removed from the article certainly did not violate WP:BLP (we were referring to a controversy acknowledged by both participants, not commenting on the merits of one side or another). The controversy was serious enough to cause Hewitt-Gleeson to close down the company he founded with de Bono, and is therefore notable and worthy of mention without taking any view on the merits of either man's case. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts: this is an incredibly petty outside squabble between two academics. It is not Misplaced Pages's job to monitor blog sites and publish a digest. In my opinion the point at which this argument would merit serious coverage in the article would be that at which press releases, writs, and the like were exchanged. It's a matter not so much of sourcing (both sources moght well be relevant to de Bono) but of due weight. --Jenny 08:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This occurred in the mid-80s. So finding online sources is difficult, but I am trying since Spartaz won't accept the validity of the source even though WP:BLP allows for it. I agree that we shouldn't publish a digest of blog sites but I hardly think that a three-line mention of a controversy that is central to both men's professional lives constitutes that. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Just a quick note that I have to go to work and will probably not be able to monitor this discussion and do not have time to respond to either comment. I'm quite happy for someone else to resolve this if a consensus on my actions emerges in my abesence Spartaz 08:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the lack of mainstream sources for the accusation/refutation, I don't see how this section can be allowed by WP:BLP. If it were, then Gleason could make any heinous accusation and have it included here, with a refutation by de Bono offering the appearance of neutrality. I concur with Spartaz' actions here. Kevin (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I endorse Spartaz's actions as well. BLP issues should be seen to quickly, and if the admin happens to be involved, there should be no issues with protecting the article. BLP falls outside the boundary of "content dispute", so this decision is correct. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: Yet again, can we please focus on the real issue? It is not about the allegations (there is no allegation made in the article) but the fact that there has been a controversy (not denied by either party) and Spartaz's inconsistency in how he has handled the de Bono article and the one on Michael Hewitt-Gleeson, the motives for which I will leave others to judge. Harry the Dog WOOF 10:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the merits, yet, but I'd ask that you Assume Good Faith in regard to Spartaz's actions. As I'm sure you are aware, WP:BLP is one of our most strictly enforced policies. An admin need have no "motive" for removing poorly sourced material other than enforcing the policy. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 12:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith, and I don't believe that Spartaz is editing to an agenda. But we are talking about his judgement as an admin here, at his request. I leave it to others to judge (or Spartaz to explain) why, after making such a big deal about the section on the de Bono page (a big enough deal to invoke full protection) he left reference to the same controversy on the Michael Hewitt-Gleeson page despite editing it heavily. If the same issue caught his eye on one article, I am surprised it didn't on the other. That's all. If you are going to go so far as to escalate it the way it has been, I would at least expect consistency. As to the content, I have said what I have to say on the article's TP. Harry the Dog WOOF 13:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Gee, anyone would think I had an agenda. I'd say the other article is such a mess that my first thought was to delete it in its entirety but goodness knows how that piece of administrative activity would have gone down. 0_o - unlike some others I don't have mountains of spare time to spend on[REDACTED] so I think that having a go at tackling what should have been the easier of the two articles first is hardly an unreasonable choice or one that should lead any reasonable observer to the conclusion that I'm editing to an agenda. I'd much prefer Harry to discuss content rather then editors. I'm also tempted to point out that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS but that would be rude so I'll just strike that bit out.. Spartaz 13:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, both articles are a mess. Ronz and I have spent a lot of time removing OR, unsourced and libelous material from the de Bono article, and it has been tagged for neutrality, peacock terms and references since May. Maybe both need to be deleted or stubbed until better sourcing can be found. (The de Bono article quotes mostly sources authored by him - where it is sourced at all - not only in the deleted section). This is what I said on the TP back in May: "Thanks Ronz. I've deleted some more, but the article is still dreadful, frankly. It shouldn't be that hard to source info on someone as famous as de Bono, but right now the article fails to meet Misplaced Pages standards by a long way, which is not good for a BLP. If sources (beyond de Bono's own site) can't be found soon, more will need to be removed." So I am not disagreeing with Spartaz in that sense. Harry the Dog WOOF 13:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Obsessive linking to Barefoot

While RC patrolling these past few days, I've noticed a rather bizarre pattern with a set of accounts who apparently have an obsession with barefeet. Various new accounts are adding links to barefoot to artists, fictional characters and other topics. These are then all linked into the article making a huge mess of a list. The edits are usually marked with "minor copyedit" in the edit summary. Looking at the backlinks for barefoot, the obsessive edits are extensive.

I'm not quite sure what to do with the whole mess as undoing everything is going to take a lot of work and it's a bit late here and I'm getting a little punchy. Here is a list of the sockpuppets that I've found, but I know the list is incomplete:

Thoughts? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This smacks of either an internet message board-organized prank, or a sudden insurgence of foot-fetishists. I hope for the former, and pray for the latter. Dayewalker (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This actually sounds like the work of User:BorisTheBlade, although foot fetishism is common enough that he wouldn't be the only one with a foot fetish wanting to make Misplaced Pages be in line with his perversion. JuJube (talk) 09:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There was a ridiculous section on "characters renowned for being barefoot", which was a list of every fictional character they could find that did not wear shoes; I've removed this. Neıl 龱 09:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What? If it was sourced, why did you remove the list? Seems odd to remove a list, albeit a freaky list, but of course I AGF no matter what all the time forever and ever, so can you explain your actions? Thanks! Beam 14:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've started on the cleanup :P Are all these from the same IP or IP range? (too much to hope for I suppose) EyeSerene 10:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser says there are dozens .... and dozens of new accounts, all SPAs like the above, and all under the one domestic IP. I can maybe list them here (it'll take ages!) but for the meantime, I'm hardblocking the IP - Alison 10:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That's good news at least. Will listing them here achieve anything? If it's all the one IP, and that's blocked, hopefully they'll stay inactive from now on. EyeSerene 10:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've blocked all the ones in Gogo Dodo's list above, and rolled back their contribs where I can. Neıl 龱 10:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed - the following accounts, all under the same IP and all barefoot-obsessed. Each account is a throwaway one, used a few times and then ditched for another one:

1. Libbelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. DuffJee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Celestone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. SpecLady (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. Anodice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
6. Nekkra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
7. TaraJungle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
8. JunglGrrl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
9. Nmrita (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
10. Marrinna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
11. Vlcnm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
12. DCWS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
13. Bmygirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
14. MadmX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
15. BftGpsy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
16. Acronm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
17. FlyDive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
18. ODF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
19. PrincessPowera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
20. TTekkenn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
21. Necrom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
22. Slimdancer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
23. GoodGoth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
24. Twilekzone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
25. Silverelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
26. Undrwtr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
27. Creattor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
28. G-Surf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
29. SignetR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
30. Sweetbiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
31. JuneRites (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
32. Starylt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
33. Deviwings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
34. Gemmisat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
35. DFDren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
36. OroRogue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
37. Cherylene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
38. Veneshare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
39. BikiniGL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
40. CaveGrrrl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

.. and moar! I need to take a break .... this is about half.

 IP blocked

Someone might want to take the onerous task of going through the edits histories and reverting the nonsense. 4am here :) - Alison 10:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It's in progress - I was going through backlinks from Barefoot, but your list will make it much easier :) EyeSerene 10:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed - the rest:

1. Gurat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. EveApples (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Pantheons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. AnthrosCave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. R24U (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
6. Trailong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
7. Gypyss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
8. JessesRun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
9. Dreamstimes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
10. Treadssoft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
11. DanceGrrrl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
12. ObsidOne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
13. SurrfGirrl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
14. SoGoodFine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
15. Shareline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
16. VampiSire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
17. RockGrrl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
18. TheTimeMachine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
19. Gorunner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
20. OnTheatre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
21. Purecountry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
22. Deepfile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
23. Shelldiver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
24. SlickZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
25. Alatem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
26. Lightriders (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
27. Doooz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
28. Firehearth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
29. Tinderset (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
30. Gfren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
31. Tinsm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
32. Acrodance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
33. GracefulDance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
34. AeonFlexed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
35. AthleticDiver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
36. MaxiMage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
37. My-Chi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
38. Mythics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
39. SoulfireGrace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Note to self: all checked above this line. EyeSerene 14:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

1. RomKnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Dolphinin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. DownTownM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. CenterStaff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. Emeraldt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
6. AllTheseDays (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
7. Salvationrun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
8. Seasideplace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - the first account, apparently, dating from mid-May.

Ok, that's the whole drawer emptied out. Lots of "grrl", "girrrl" and "dance" names. Thanks, guys, for starting on the work of sifting through all this mess. Ugh! - Alison 11:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

And a /18 sweep of the IP range shows everywhere else is clean - Alison 11:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

All these are now indef blocked. Kevin (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well done, All; Quite the project, I should say. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 12:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, nice work all, and good catch Gogo Dodo. I've now been through the contribs of Alison's first list of 40 - I've left wikilinks in place, but removed everything else. Don't think I'll ever take my shoes off again... EyeSerene 12:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic, y'all might be interested in Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Creepy Crawler. I wrote an essay based on inspiration from this guy/girl. I actually don't recognize any of the userids, but based on the editing pattern have been tracking him/her for a year or so now. User:FisherQueen has been my usual point of contact mostly because I know her, but if there's a better way I'd love to take it. See here and here and here. At what point to we track down a real person and staple shoes to their feet? WLU (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's truly extraordinary behaviour. I'm currently going through the contribs of sock no. 57, and after who knows how many articles and ~80 corrective edits, I'll happily put up the cash for shoes, a hammer and nails, and a large pot of glue. EyeSerene 13:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thus far, I've tagged all 87 of the above as Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Seasideplace, but if a CU comes back linking these to the 70+ of Creepy Crawler/EJBanks, I'll update the tags. — Satori Son 16:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(bing)I've also posted a note here on WP:COMICS since s/he seems to like spamming barefoot to comic pages. I'll leave a link to this discussion and if there ever arrives a centralized solution to him/her, they'll probably be able to help ID any new socks or contributions. WLU (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

*amused by the irony of someone obsessed with bare feet having so many socks* —David Eppstein (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

*HAHA!

Lol :D Cleanup is now finished, I think, with massive thanks to Neil, Ryulong, Smith Jones and all the others I've noticed in the article histories while wading (in boots; big, heavy boots... with thick socks) through this horrible mess. Great work all ;) EyeSerene 16:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of banned User:General Tojo

Juan de Leon (talk · contribs), H.M.Revenue (talk · contribs), and Jan Van Leer (talk · contribs), encountered at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Magellan (book), an AfD for an article that the first-named user created and the last-named is defending. Can I get blocks for these obvious puppets? Deor (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. - all three. Rather obvious Tojo socks - Alison 12:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Rezistenta, Mirelam, KhoiKhoi and other stories

Right, bit of a long and winding situation we have here. I've heard a number of sides to this whole debate, including a private one with the currently blocked Rezistenta (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log). An attempted summary of the situation (according to Rezistenta) is as follows - involved users in bold:

• Rezistenta (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) creates an account for Mirelam (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) for the latter's benefit, presumably.
• Khoikhoi (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), a user that Rezistenta has had disputes with in the past, files a report at WP:SSP attempting to link Rezistenta with seemingly unrelated user Feierabend (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log). The checkuser case ends with no link between these two, but a link with Mirelam, Rezistenta, and another user, Sebi mihalache (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) is uncovered.
• Third party admin Tiptoety (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) blocks Sebi mihalache indefinitely as a sock of Rezistenta, who is then also blocked as the puppeteer. Mirelam was already blocked indefinitely for incivility.
• However, Rezistenta claims (in an obviously private conversation with myself) that they only created Mirelam (as aforementioned) and that Sebi could simply be a sockpuppet of Mirelam. This seems plausible.

My personal thoughts: Khoi has it in for Rezistenta. I wouldn't exactly endorse an unblock at the present time, but the alibi and editing patterns do indeed suggest that Rezistenta's story is true. I will await further response. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the users involved were created in the order: Sebi in October 2007, then Rezistenta in November 2007, then Mirelam in April 2008. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry about my rambling :D ) but it looks like Mirelam may well be a sock of Sebi. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that Mirelam and Sebi mihalache would be socks of Rezistenta. Mirelam and Sebi edit from a location apparently many km away from Rezistenta. Not impossible, of course, but the technical evidence of direct sock puppetting is not strong. That's not to say Rezistenta should not be held responsible in some way for knowingly helping to create sock puppets for another user, and Mirelam and Sebi can stay in the bit bucket as far as I am concerned . Thatcher 15:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've made an error here, I don't know how that happened. Mirelam and Sebi mihalache are socks of each other, but Rezistenta is unrelated. I'll have to apologize to Rezistenta. Jayjg 21:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There's something I don't understand here, an earlier CU showed them sharing IPs and other characteristics - that's the way I came across Mirelam in the first place - but now it doesn't. I've forwarded the earlier results to Thatcher, because they're baffling. Jayjg 21:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Mindv

Can I get a block on Mindv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for continued addition of "MindVisualizer" to List of mind mapping software, despite repeated userpage warnings and obvious WP:COI? Thanks. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I filed a report at WP:UAA as well, since clearly the username is being used to promote "MindVisualizer". --Jaysweet (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Kalindoscopy

This user recently broke a 3RR on Maltese language against 3 editors who each consecutively attempted to undo the user's changes. The user appears to have a history of uncivility, particularly directed at User:Yolgnu.

The user was warned about the 3RR on their talk page. However, they continued to edit war, and removed the comment from their page. It clearly states on the templates page on Misplaced Pages that a warning does not have to be a warning template, but can instead be handwritten, as this one was. At WP:DRC it states that comments related to blocking may not be removed. A warning is a comment on a potential block, and therefore, the user does not have the right to now start edit warring on their talk page to hide the warning.

I think it may be time for a little break for the user. 78.151.142.191 (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you were looking for the Administrators' noticeboard/3RR? --Kralizec! (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I should clarify here ... if the IP is wishing to report the 3RR violation on Maltese language, it should go to WP:AN3RR, however if the IP is wishing to report the 3RR violation on User talk:Kalindoscopy, he or she should just stop harassing Kalindoscopy as editors are permitted (via WP:USER) to remove messages at will from their own talk pages. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The original user is incorrect on the removing warnings front. A user is most definitely allowed to remove warnings. It is only block notices that must remain Mayalld (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The user has now swarn in Maltese at me (). Based on their previous incivilities to Yolgnu, their 3RR on Maltese language, and their latest personal attack at me by swearing, I suggest a block of 24h at least. 78.151.142.191 (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

'Sworn', and not. Where is there a single word that could provoke offense? I suggest you get your facts straight before launching into any sort of 'attack'. Re:Yolgnu, I'd hope that any kind of hostility was at an end, we've seen little of each other for a while now! golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh let's not be ridiculous. We both know what it means, and I am not going to repeat the obscenity here. Anyone with an understanding of the language, or with access to an online translator can work it out for themselves. This disruption is becoming tiresome now - perhaps a longer block may be suggestable. Not only have you had incidents with Yolgnu, but the entire history of your talk page is full of comments about your civility. 78.151.142.191 (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)