Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:54, 23 December 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)

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

Article ownership

Could a few neutral veterans keep an eye on the Rashid Khalidi article? I came to it after a third opinion request weeks ago. An editor has removed an entire section of sourced content and has refused proposal after proposal after proposal and won't allow any compromise to restore it. The section has good sourcing, and the good faith editors involved are open to it being modified as needed and as appropriate with well sourced and reasonable modifications. But there comes a point where obstruction, wikilawyering, and gaming the system become real concerns. If you go to the talk page you'll see what looks like good faith discussion, but what you won't see are the three or four archives of discussion and obstruction over this same few short section. I'm willing to go into more detail about the specific nature of the problems, but if people are willing to help with the process and help to resolve it in a reasonable way, I'd rather not engage in a big drama filled battle. But I challenge anyone to read all the archived discussion and conclude that the process hasn't been abused. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

As a neutral observer of the article during the last several weeks, I'd like to point out that there is a serious question of WP:BLP violation with ChildofMidnight's addition of marginally sourced and Unduly Weighted content. The talk page tells a very different story than CoM's version here. The Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard (WP:BLP/N) may be more appropriate for this discussion. Priyanath  03:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I doubt anyone will have time to read the entire discussion that's gone on for several weeks, but regardless, these disagreements are currently being worked out by several editors. This should be clear from the talk page, as well as the request for mediation that was filed not long ago but is on hold while discussion remains productive. ChildofMidnight, for whatever reasons, has decided that one side of the discussion is being obstructive, and so he has repeatedly shown up and re-added material that was removed in accordance with WP:BLP. He has just done this again, ignoring the discussion on the page, and I've just listed the problems with this version of the material here. I had previously raised the issue on ChildofMidnight's talk page without much success; I would only ask here that an admin confirm the assessment that editors should not repeatedly re-add material to a bio that is actively being worked out to ensure that it does not violate WP:BLP, and perhaps that if ChildofMidnight believes one side is right or wrong he should explain this on the talk page in order to reach consensus. Mackan79 (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

(ecX2) The original complaint above is a pure content matter - an editor can't impose the content he wants in the article, a claim that Khalidi is a former "PLO Spokesman", which was part of the overall "Obama pals around with terrorists" line from the recent Amercan presidential election. Other editors who refuse to agree to the edit, he reasons, must think they own the article, be playing obstructionist games, refuse to compromise, be pushing their POV, and so on. I would call it a "content position" but hey, one man's content is another man's WP:POV.

The real problem is that ChildofMidnight has several times reverted in material that was challenged on BLP grounds as either being poorly sourced, synthesis, or a misleading account of the sources, after being warned repeatedly by at least two editors not to insert BLP violating material and to wait for a consensus resolution. The last of these, which he just revert-warred back into the article despite the editors on the page being close to consensus on a different version, is also arguably a BLP violation because it basically accuses Khalidi of lying about his career. Worse, even though I am clearly not the only one with BLP concerns this editor has fixated on me for incivility, threats, accusations of bad faith, grandstanding, disruption, etc. using words like "shameful", "should be ashamed", "lousy", and "delaying tactics", "whitewash", and "not a reasonable good faith editor",

ChildofMidnight has also been goading another inexperienced editor, historicist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), into doing battle against me. As part of his month-long campaign to accuse Khalidi of being a PLO spokesman, Historicist resorts to calling me juvenile names like "high handed", "not as stupid as pretend", "Mr. Pure argumentativeness", being an "obstreperous editor", considering Khalidi my "hero", and many of dozens of other insults, then pretending he wasn't talking about me. Historicist encourages ChildofMidnight's behavior, saying " threatens and bullies... it's all there. I'm very glad to see you standing up to him.", and wondering how the two of them can "stop such a manipulative fellow" as me.

At long last Historicist admits he is here for reasons other than to improve the encyclopedia, accusing Khalidi of being a "PLO Spokesman" as a breaching "experiment" based on a colleague's challenge to show whether he can "try to get accurate information to stick" on Misplaced Pages, and concluding that he wishes this "vile" place would "collapse."]

This is all very toxic and unwelcome. Although the players are different this reminds me uncomfortably of the pre-election POV sockpuppet attack on all of these articles, on the same subject, Obama = friend of terrorists. I should not have to be abused and taunted by editors who are trying to prove a WP:POINT about the WP:TRUTH so they can demonstrate Misplaced Pages's wretchedness, nor by editors who poison the well against consensus because they have convinced themselves I am some kind of troll. I have begged, pleaded, and warned both of these editors, dozens of times, to stop attacking me, and to use the talk pages for article improvements rather than complaining about other editors. Historicist's behavior has improved in the past day or so, although I still question whether he desires to improve the article or this is still part of his "experiment" to see if he can make his content stick. ChildofMidnight continues to disrupt.

I'm not sure what I want out of this notice board - I did not bring the complaint. I would like to be able to edit the article in peace, and to urge editors who are not here to improve the article or establish consensus to stop editing the article outright. Hope this makes sense. Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring / BLP

Despite bringing the matter here, and being warned not to revert nonconsensus material editors claim to be a BLP vio, the complaining editor is now revert-warring the content. Wikidemon (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Despite the edit-warring there does seem to be a genuine desire to resolve this dispute, so I've given the article one month's full-protection to allow all parties to engage in the on-going mediation case without distractions. I'd strongly encourage every interested editor to participate in this - failure to so could be seen as evidence of an intent to ignore consensus and continue disruption. I hope this helps. EyeSerene 11:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is no closer to becoming inclusive and balanced than it was two months ago. Most of Wikidemon's accusations are false or misleading. Indeed Khalidi has been a controversial and polarizing political figure, but you'd never know it from the article. I haven't objected to a single version of the content added by Wikidemon. My only protest is to the exclusion of ALL material about Khalidi's past work and his politics. This has been covered extensively in the mainstream media and in academic circles. Every effort as dispute resolution has been rebuffed by Wikidemon's refusal to participate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 13:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

What is there to mediate? This editor continues to fixate on me as their sole obstacle to telling the WP:TRUTH. I stand by what I say 100%. Half a day ago mediation was on hold pending a "breakthrough" on the article talk page where the four most active editors were nearing consensus of their own accord before ChildofMidnight showed up to disrupt things again. In six sequential edits:

Me: "I generally agree ."

Avi: " should be agreeable."

Historicist: "Let's go with ."

Mackan79: "I don't mind ."

- then -

ChildofMidnight: "The obstruction and blocking of well sourced content in favor of this awkwardly written and defensive whitewash is a strange thing to behold. It's a triumph of 'politically correct' nonsense....bias, wikilawyering, and gaming the system....editors who have diverted the good faith ....in favor of this sham, should be ashamed of themselves. And don't go harassing me on my talk page. I don't want to hear from 'you'." (reverts in BLP vio)

What can mediation do to help abuse and disruption? The participants have a consensus already. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, particularly after this (ChildofMidnight, in response to my saying we seem to have consensus, accuses me of "disruptive obstruction" and "silly distortions and twisting of the truth"). Can we please have an administrator take a look at the unabated WP:AGF and WP:NPA violations? Let me make this clear. We should not have mediation unless we can ensure a civil process, and if the consensus process is unfinished we cannot finish it in an atmosphere of accusations and abuse. Wikidemon (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The administratrators should know that we have reached consensus before, and posted the material on th page, only to have ] remove the material, Protect the page, And start the duscusson again. Wikidemon appears to have infinite time and infinite determination to block this material from the page. Using a endless and varying array of threats, page blocks, repetitive and ever-changing arguments, he has prevented this material from being entered on the page for two months, and appears willing to go on arguing and blocking sourced material forever merely because he dislikes it. I would welcome an administrator who would take a close look at Wikidemon's behavior.Historicist (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, pah! Historicist has been repeating this flat-out falsehood to score points at every opportunity. He is describing a failed stunt he and another editor pulled to push through something nobody agreed to. It's already the subject of a previous bogus AN/I report against me two weeks ago so it's hardly worth the keystrokes to respond again.

The long and short of it is that Historicist (and with him, ChildofMidnight) want to add some hot-button political content to the encyclopedia as some kind of process "experiment" and cannot get consensus for it. Consensus requires editors to entertain plausible content proposals in good faith, but it does not require an editor to agree. We've been close, and we may be very close to an unobjectionable version that can stand. But the objections to other versions have been real, serious, and fundamental - some versions proposed are severe BLP violations, others synthesis, or WEIGHT problems, improperly sourced, or contradicted their sources. So the discussion has continued, on and on. That is all fine, a content matter.

What isn't fine are the constant, unceasing, petty accusations and personal attacks that, other than the completely made-up stuff, seem to amount to a claim that it is a policy violation to disagree with a content proposal. This is exactly the kind of thing I need help with, telling contentious editors to keep these kinds of attacks off the talk page and stop playing process games so the editing environment is not so poisonous. Wikidemon (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

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

I did not post the material here that bears my signature - an editor copied it, out of context and cropped misleadingly.

"The "fix" editors agree on is the one you call "politically correct nonsense", a "whitewash", and a "sham". I'm afraid I cannot help you fix that. Unless you have a reasoned argument why your BLP violation is better, the consensus version is the one we should go with.Wikidemon (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Great! If everyone agrees on it let an Admin (know) and they will put it in the article. I'm thrilled that you've finally agreed on a version of the information that's acceptable to you personally. As you know all I've been asking is that the information be included and that you stop your disruptive obstruction. I'm not fooled by your silly distortions and twisting of the truth. Anyone who wants to can read the archived discussion for themselves. I'm thrilled this is finally at an end. Please let an Admin know you're ready to add the section you removed back, so we can all go back to constructive contributing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)"

Guess what happens when Wikidemon gets called on his bluff? Anyone? When offered the chance to add a version he says he agrees to, he's happy to do so and ends the conflict right? :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This is getting a bit too mudslingy. Dial it back a notch maybe? // roux   07:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

"Getting" is not the right word. Historicist and ChildofMidnight have been throwing this kind of mud at me for weeks, and it is continuing on the article talk page as this discussion progresses. Wikidemon (talk) 09:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Cropped misleadingly? That's what you wrote and that was my response in the exact order in which they appeared. I've simply explained your refusal to abide by your own agreements. You said you agree to a version (not for the first time) and then you come up with new arguments why the version you agreed to can't be added. You've refused to participate in mediation and have refused to allow any version of well sourced content to be added. That's obstruction. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Again with the made-up nonsense. My behavior is fine and is not the issue. This editor is fixating on me as an excuse for edit warring and disrupting the article. It's weird and needs to stop. Wikidemon (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a short housekeeping note that everything below this comment and Wikidemon's comment regarding "made-up nonsense", edit warring and disruption (what?), and his behavior being fine and not the issue, is part of a different and unrelated ANI notice. Not sure how it got merged, but I just wanted to make that clear. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's focus on the matter at hand here. This is all spawning from an admin who was much too thick-skinned and erroneos I might add in what he was stating was a personal attack towards himself. Even if anyone felt the comment should be removed, the manner in which he came to Law Lord about wasn't the right manner as Law Lord shouldn't have been accused of making personal attacks. Law Lord came to this Noticeboard about that admin's behavior, and suddenly the issue was removing this harmless comment of this editor finding some of 'some admins don't have good manners' as if it were some hurtful insult. Cheers dude (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That has absolutely zero to do with anything. --Smashville 22:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that was supposed to go with the closed section further up about Law Lord's userpage, rather than this article issue. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering the editor and the fact that he had already written the exact comment in a different thread...you can never be too sure. --Smashville 22:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday I noticed that CD had posted that here and then posted it in the intended section about the Law Lord, without bothering to remove it from here. I could have removed it myself, but I thought it was better to just leave it here, for its unintended entertainment value. Baseball Bugs 13:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism and Dispruptive Behaviour Despite Earlier Ban Satanoid

User Satanoid is refusing to learn from earlier ban. These words from Satanoid reflect very strong feelings and some personal vendetta against an assumed identity and is worrying me, this is very serious. Please see here-- --Sikh-history (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sikh-history, I saw an earlier report, and was trying to think who he reminded me of. It could be worth requesting a check user to see if he's a Hkelkar sock. PhilKnight (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi PhilKnight, I have experience of disruptive edits of user:Hkelkar (from one of his sock Goingoveredge). From a long time experience of Satanoid I was being continually reminded of the editing style,tone and tactics of user:Hkelkar. However, I let assumption of good faith override my suspicion. Now, I find some more weight in my suspicion as a third neutral editor (PhilKnight) has felt the same. If this editor really comes out to be another sock of user:Hkelkar I'll really be dumbstruck with his inspiration of hate against Sikhs and his never ending list of sockpuppets on wikipedia. --RoadAhead 20:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry o not know how to do it? --Sikh-history (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sikh-history, I'm not sure if PhilKnight actually intended to point to WP:CHU, I think PhilKnight wanted to point to WP:RFCU. The page WP:RFCU (called "Request for Checkuser") has some examples of already filed checkuser requests. --RoadAhead 01:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I meant WP:RFCU not WP:CHU. Sorry for the confusion. PhilKnight (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Cheers dude

Well, I disagree with a lot of things on this earlier ban report you've provided. As one example, you use his use of 'son' and 'extremist' as examples of personal attacks on that page which aren't personal attacks in my mind. Perhaps mild incivility at best, but nothing on that report falls under the category of personal attacks and a reason for blocking in my estimation. If those were the reasons behind his last block, I'm in disagreement.

Anyways, you go on to say he hasn't learned from that and provided this diff here. No, he shouldn't be commenting on irrelevant matters that don't pertain to improving[REDACTED] articles on your talkpage but I don't see where you make friendly efforts to explain to him that the user talkpages are meant for discussing how to better[REDACTED] articles. All I see is perpetuating irrelevant conversation by responding to him on the irrelevant matter he has brought up or criticizing him about previous blocks which is also irrelevant. Reminding the editor of previous blocks is not going to help matters. Rather, friendly attempts should be made in explaining to him[REDACTED] policies and what is and is not allowed and making sure that you are following those policies yourselves.

Bottomline, I see no reason to block this editor. I feel an attempt of relaying of[REDACTED] policies in a civil fashion should have been taken, before this was brought to the ANI noticeboards. As for the sockpuppets suspicions, I'm not sure if this is the place for that. Just my opinion. Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Cheers dude, I could not relate your comments, edits and experience with the edits of Satanoid. Have you been editing the same articles as Satanoid. I am baffled, what brings you here on Administrator's noticeboard on something filed on Satanoid? Do you usually provide feedback on reports filed on ANI? Regards, --RoadAhead 07:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Despite having only 351 edits, nearly twenty per cent of User:Cheers dude's edits (66) are to this page alone. He may be energetic and/or well-meaning, but he doesn't seem likely well-versed regarding how things are done on Misplaced Pages generally. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok Cheers dude, put yourself in my position. You come onto[REDACTED] in good faith and help edit materials in fields you feel you have some expertise. You meet someone who you think may have some prejudice towards some of the material you are dealing with. You still assume good faith. THe attacks get mopre personal, resulting in insults towards your religion. You still carry on. Then that person start leaving messages about an identity he percieves you to be? Some pretty hate filled and insulting messages. Do you not think this is at least a little bit creepy? Surely this is not the behaviour of editors on wikipedia? Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 09:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

As user:cheers dude rightly says, the terms 'son' and 'extremist' don't amount to uncivil remarks to warrant a block demanded by tou and sikh History. You need to state exactly where on the Sikh terrorism or Sikh extremism related articles I have actually been abusive. Kind regards Satanoid (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you have been abusive enough as demonstrated here. Like I said above. To make fun of the Guru's children is offensive, but to make fun of the brutal murders of two children in it's own right is offensive. --Sikh-history (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Roadahead, you do not have to edit the same articles as the users of disputes in order to provide feedback on those disputes on this page. In fact, its best that people who provide feedback on disputes have nothing to do with users so as to provide a neutral opinion on the matter. Please be aware that by bringing an issue here, anyone in the community is allowed to give their feedback and try to help.

CalenderWatcher, I ask that you would address solely the topic at hand and not get off point and discuss me or my editing history. The topic here has to do with Satanoid and I gave my feedback on the topic while you have not. If you do not agree with my feedback, that's fine and you may explain why, but please do not bring up irrelevant matters about myself that have nothing to do with this discussion. Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 09:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I am addressing the topic at hand, namely your lack of fitness--by way of experience, judgement, knowledge of policy and knowledge of the situation to hand--to pass comment, and am now saying, explicitly, that you should stop muddling issues that you're not involved in until you have a better grasp on things than your 361 edits and less-than-a-fortnight's experience imply. You've already had to retract some of the 'advice' you've given previously on this page, which should tell you something. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Sikh, I'd agree with you that that type behavior is very offensive but I just haven't seen the diffs to support those claims with the exception of the identity issue (which I've already said I felt wasn't responded to the right way as the replies I saw didn't relay to him[REDACTED] policy and how discussion about things that have nothing to do with improving articles is not allowed but rather engaging in the same behavior addressing the matter he brought up). Other than that, nothing I saw from him was a personal attack or any attack to your religion. If you'd like, you could provide me other diffs of what you perceive as insults to your religion and personal attacks! I'd take an entirely different stance on this issue if you could show me that the behavior really is as bad as you're saying it is. Hope this helps! Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 10:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to read his entire code of conduct. I really cannot see how you could have missed the insults he posted.--Sikh-history (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Cheers dude", please butt out. These guys are trying to discuss ongoing patterns of vandalism about which you almost certainly know too little to make an informed comment, unless of course you are a sockpuppet. To those above, Hkelkar's latest IP was hardblocked two days ago - see Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hkelkar - but it may be worth contacting Nishkid privately to see if there is crossover to Satanoid. Otherwise you probably need to go to WP:RFC or some other dispute resolution mechanism, because the comments highlighted (and they are not alone) are distinctly unhelpful and indicative of an off-wiki agenda. Guy (Help!) 11:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Guy, I highly suggest you take a good long look at WP:Civil and take a look at and study up on the policies regarding giving feedback on this page especially considering the fact that you are an administrator making those types of comments. That's all I will say to you. Sikh, I haven't seen anything related to personal attacks or attacks to your religion. However, judging from the history of edits on Sikh extremism, there seems to be a very lot of disagreement that's gone on for weeks. I see a lot of disagreement over what should and shouldn't be added into that Sikh extremism article. I would suggests that you all reach consensus by introducing more parties into the discussion on the article talkpage so there will be less friction. That's just my opinion. Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Given that Guy has been editing for nearly three years, has over 54,000 edits, and is an administrator, I'd suggest he's very well up on policy. That said, I don't believe such credentials are necessary to realise that your 'advice' is unhelpful and carries little weight. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is a classic example of a personal attack. Now insulting the Sikh Guru's children aside, to make an off the hand comment about two young children who were brutally mudered is simply not on. I agree with most of the comments here. I do not think you have enough experience to make a comment on this user. Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 11:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• You've nicely proved my point, I think. Either you do not have enough background to offer valid commentary, or you are a sockpuppet. Either way, I don't think you are actually helping here; I suggest that if you want to try your hand at dispute resolution you start with what appears to be your area of expertise, Brooke Hogan. Guy (Help!) 12:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• Guy, see below. Please either validate your sock accusation or AGF and tone down the rhetoric. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• He's merely invoking common sense, so I'm not sure what 'validation' is called for here. This is regarding an editor who's been here--including his IP edits--less than two months, and has already managed to inject himself energetically into disputes, at least one of which he admits being wrong about. For a new-comer, he found his way here fairly quickly. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I have made no comment about the content, but about the way it is conveyed. However, if I were to comment about the content I might - using Guy's rationale - decline to do so with you since as you so identify with Guys viewpoint I suspect that you are his sockpuppet... Now, once you have warned me on my talkpage for the personal attack please take the time to consider how making such comments do not advance the discussion; concentrate upon the content and not the contributor - and even if the account is an alternate, who are they teaming up with to violate policy? If Cheers dude's claims are baseless then explain why and then let it go. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call your suggestion of sockpuppetry as personally attacking as I would delusional: if you're not serious, you appear to be disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove some kind of moral-superiority point, and if you are, your judgement has been demonstrated to be seriously impaired. If you'd like to continue to be unhelpful and stir up a side drama for whatever your purpose is, as with User:Cheers dude I can't stop you but I can point out that scolding a fellow editor based on nothing at all it doesn't help your case. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate it LessHeard! As CalenderWatcher still hasn't been able to come up with arguments to refute any of the opinions I've provided, but rather continues to try to debate with you on irrelevent matters related to me, and has only brought up the manner he believes I gave my opinions in, referring to it as "scolding", I'm assuming that may be the real issue here. To the users whom I directed my comments to, if you felt the manner I came off in that original comment was harsh, I do apologize to editors I directed those comments to.

As for Guy and CalenderWatcher, however, redirecting this entire discussion to my edit history and making attacks based on sockpuppets, something about Brooke Hogan, etc., is far more incivil than anything I've said in this discussion. Thus far, I haven't entertained these users' attempts to throw off this debate by responding on irrelevant matters pertaining to myself they have effectively turned this discussion into, and I refuse to. This is not the place for it. If they have a beef with me and would like to have a full-fledged debate over it, they're more than welcome to take it to my user talkpage or another forum and discuss matters civilly with me there, but I feel their comments and incivility don't contribute to the matter at hand so this is not the place. Cheers dude (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• I see you are still determinedly missing the point, so let me spell it out once more. People come here to discuss policy issues with the admin community. The input of long-standing non-admin editors is also very often helpful. What is not helpful - actively unhelpful, in fact - is newbies chipping in with no apparent knowledge of the issue at hand, the policies involved, the past and present users being discussed, and even the content area. Your editing shows absolutely no evidence of expertise in this content field, and unless you are a sockpuppet you cannot plausibly have any significant experience of dealing with Hkelkar, to name one of the more prominent accounts under discussion. Your "tell the nasty man to go away" style complaints are also not exactly improving your standing. And as noted below you seem to have weighed in on the wrong side most of the time, which indicates that you are a newbie not a sock; as such you should be wary of getting involved in things you clearly don't understand very well. And you should be doubly wary of asserting that the problem lies with everybody else and not you. Now I suggest you go and find some articles to work on. God knows why I am bothering to write this, I doubt you'll believe it any more than you've accepted any other comments, but this is just my opinion: your clueless verbiage is annoying me, and I'd rather you didn't thanks. Guy (Help!) 20:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

If the above comments just written by Guy aren't a clear example of what I'm talking about in terms of unacceptable, incivil behavior from this administrator, I don't know what is. Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Then you don't know what is, I'm afraid. I requested Guy to address you in non antagonistic terms and that is exactly what he has done - I never had a problem with most of the content of his remarks other than the vague sockpuppet accusation, and he has now clarified that he does not think you are one (don't worry, CalenderWatcher was also unaware that I was addressing form and not content and didn't understand my response either - I am polite but obviously not so good at communicating as might be desirable). Guy appears to be correct, in that by attempting to educate seasoned practitioners you are exposing your own lack of understanding. It really would be better if you gained more understanding of the intricacies of maintaining this project before making statements that generate much more heat (as a byproduct of friction) than light. You are being advised to desist commenting upon matters you are not familiar with; it is good advice, now addressed in the appropriate civil tones, and I suggest that you do so. It is not incivil to point out your faults, when you choose to exhibit them against the advise of old hands. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't mistake disagreement for misunderstanding. You've certainly misunderstood the meaning and rhetorical intent of Guy's conditional clause as an accusation rather than a logical inference in your hurry, so I wouldn't talk of others not understanding if I were you. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm done with this discussion as I'm not into playing games. As I said, the comments were uncivil and out of line. In regards to me providing feedback, show me a policy that states that states that editors must have a certain amount of edits before providing feedback on this page. Until then, I will keep providing feedback. If you don't agree with that, too bad! Cheers dude (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as I recall, at least one editor has been or was banned from this page for constantly commenting without being familiar with the subjects discussed, so there is apparently precedent for consequences--if not explicit policy--regarding continual uninformed feedback. But if you're looking for a rules-based approached, I'll note that policy and rules here are not written in stone and handed down from on high, but evolve from consensus, so if you keep demanding to be shown policy, you'll likely find it will be created just for you. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add that blatantly stalking an editor that disagrees with you and drawing them into an edit war is a pretty quick way to get invited to a block party: . --Smashville 00:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: My edit has been wrongly used by the following statement made by Cheers dude in the closed discussion below. Cheers dude said -"The behavior of these two users is clearly disruptive and incivil and as noted here even by the user who made out the complaint ". (stress mine) No, I did not say that in the diff to which Cheers dude has linked. The only purpose (and obvious) of that edit was to keep both discussions categorized so that they can be addressed appropriaretly. I'm not sure how and why Cheers dude is interpreting in the way s/he has claimed. --RoadAhead 02:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned on CD's own user page, he was previously 65.31.103.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and you can see he's been contentious from day one, although "day one" was only early November, so unless he had another IP before that, he's still a newbie chipping in. Baseball Bugs 14:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Administrator Guy and CalenderWatcher

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

Could someone, preferably uninvolved, kindly take a look at the section of this page titled Vandalism and Dispruptive Behaviour Despite Earlier Ban Satanoid. I have been respectfully giving my opinions and suggestions on an issue and these two users, one of which I was surprised to find out was an administrator, are pushing me to butt out of the situation based on my edit history. The administrator has become quite uncivil suggesting sockpuppetry with the user in question because I said I haven't seen any personal attacks or religious-based attacks from Satanoid (the user being reported), telling me to Butt out, worry about Brooke Hogan or something along those lines. I have tried to remain civil and neutral in viewing the matter and giving helpful suggestions and my honest opinion, however this admin keeps responding with incivility for some reason and CalenderWatcher keeps changing the subject to my amount of edits and how they should prohibit me from commenting and trying to help. Please help! Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 12:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You are being unhelpful, and have been told why. You've been unhelpful at least once before by you own admission. Being informed that you are being unhelpful when you are being unhelpful is not uncivil, it's educational. Being advised that you should take the time to understand what you're giving opinions on and perhaps learn what the rules are before jumping in isn't uncivil, it's good advice. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers dude: Usually, when editors come here, they're seeking admin opinions/intervention. When someone (no offense meant by this) who has comparatively little experience, has no knowledge of the situation at hand, and is not an admin starts commenting on the issue, people start getting frustrated. I admire your enthusiasm, but I suggest that you quietly excuse yourself from this board, become extremely familiar with WP policies, obtain some more article edits, and then maybe come back. Again, no offense is meant by this. Hermione1980 15:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed...no offense, Cheers dude, but you seem to be betting on the wrong horse in every single dispute you've involved yourself on since I had my first dealing with you and help to create unnecessary drama (see: User:Law Lord). It's okay to have opinions, but quite frankly, I haven't really found any to have been very well-informed. Obviously, in time, you probably will be...but right now, please take the time to learn and lurk and make edits to the articles which you know about before you start involving yourself in the wikiprocesses. --Smashville 17:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comment above. Again, none of this should be brought up in the debate above like it was which is titled Vandalism and Dispruptive Behaviour Despite Earlier Ban Satanoid. If these are legitimate concerns, redirecting an entire debate in an uncivil manner to myself which is what was done above is not how to address them. I'd be more than willing to discuss matters like this with these users or anyone in the appropriate forum, that is, if their willing to behave in a civil manner and not make accusations of sockpuppets and similar attacks. Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• In my experience editors who seem to think that it's always everybody else who's wrong tend to have a short and turbulent life on Misplaced Pages. Another piece of useful advice: when a significant number of people tell you that ou are wrong, it's usually because you are wrong. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The behavior of these two users is clearly disruptive and incivil and as noted here even by the user who made out the complaint they've effectively thrown off the debate and turned it into an entirely different issue and continue to in the above thread. Cheers dude (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't it you who created the "Administrator Guy and CalenderWatcher" sub-section? Despite your unwillingness to digress from the actual topic, you seem to have no problem in continuing it here.--Atlan (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• The language used, and the views expressed here, are in my opinion well within the bounds of normal "civility" on Misplaced Pages. Nobody has leveled any insult. The "accusation" of sockpuppetery is nothing of the sort. It is a fair comment that a very new user engaging in debates here is unusual and an expression of the view that, unless you are a sockpuppet, your edit history means you probably aren't experienced enough to comment. In other words, you are being given the benefit of the doubt that you may have more experience than your edit history suggests. I see nothing worthy of any action. Unusual? Quite 22:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Sigh! As noted above, I'm done with this discussion as I'm not into playing games and engaging in antics. As I said, the comments were uncivil and out of line. In regards to me providing feedback, show me a policy that states that states that editors must have a certain amount of edits before providing feedback on this page. Until then, I will keep providing feedback. If you don't agree with that, too bad! You might want to do that on my user talkpage as I don't even intend on looking at this thread anymore. My advice to certain users is to quit harboring grudges over prior debates on this noticeboard. Now I'm done! Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheers dude (talk • contribs) 22:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, and I'm not involved, other than the action I'm taking. This discussion is pointless. The OP was requested to step back, yet continued to push the issue. Now, by the OP statement directly above, he's done, so this particular thread now no longer serves a purpose. May we get back to our originally scheduled Misplaced Pages issues? Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:OUTING violation

And while you are arguing Satanoid carry's on writing creepy message and vandalising my page. Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

And with that, I gave him a week off. A WP:OUTING violation is enough for me. I don't care if he hasn't been warned about that before, he's known long enough to quit screwing around and he won't stop. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm heavily involved with him over at Sikh extremism and Sikh terrorism, I would like to ask for review. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay by me. The chilling effects of attempting to out editors are huge; the editor in question could use some time off. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ in a one horse open sleigh 11:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I have requested Oversight of the above diff. Don't post oversightable material on a noticeboard, please. Jehochman 11:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Makes it difficult to review the block, but yes, fair enough. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ in a one horse open sleigh 11:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Catch-22: Catch-22 states that agents enforcing Catch-22 need not prove that Catch-22 actually contains whatever provision the accused violator is accused of violating. One way around this is to email Oversight and let them place the block. Jehochman 11:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I completely forgot. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

There are a few more diffs that need would need to be oversighted. See Sikh-history's talk page for more attempts at outing.--Atlan (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi All, I am actually quite scared by Satanoids behaviour. I feel like just deleting my account and leaving wikipedia. I do not wish to take the chance that he thinks I am Randip Singh (someone he obviously hates and thinks is an extremist ). I am very scared. Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 13:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Best thing to do in that case is to retire this account, and come back in a few days/weeks to make a new one. You might have to avoid certain topics for a bit, so it's not easy for them to point and identify you again, but it'll let you get back to editing without such fears. — The Hand That Feeds You: 20:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I have decided not to run away. Speaking to my Professor, he has convinced me I would be bowing down to those who would wish to stifle freedom of speech. Thanks you for all your concerns.--Sikh-history (talk) 11:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Intervention at Hoagie

His comment can be found here BillyTFried (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to ask for admin intervention at Hoagie. I believe that an editor is using a RfC as a sideways attempt to delete this article. And is trying to push a POV in the text of the article which supports his claims and thus distorts the RfC. I see this as a conflict of interest for him to be editing (diluting) the article while at the same time trying to eliminate it through merger. I think that the editor is cleverly using the rules of WP to subvert the spirit of the rules. Offering diffs will not display the cumulative efforts here. I am not seeking any dicipline here, but I'm asking for someone to give us a reality check. I got involved here trying to be neutral, but have been dragged into an unpleasant and embarrassing contest. --Kevin Murray (talk) 07:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Response

Hello! I have been working towards a merger of the individual stub pages for 4 regional names (and many others that don't have their own articles) for the same sandwich, Hero sandwich, Hoagie sandwich, and Grinder sandwich, into Submarine sandwich (the most common name per Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions_(common_names)). All have been successfully merged except the Philadelphia regional name Hoagie, for which I created an RfC and a Straw Poll which currently stands at 11 to 6 for merge. And all content in the Hoagie stub page is now included in the sourced and more comprehensive page Submarine sandwich. Therefore the current Hoagie page violates WP:Content fork, WP:REDUNDANT, and WP:Redirect#Alternative_names. I also provided many sources, a few of which were already and still are being used on Hoagie's page, to prove they are all the same sandwich. Nobody has ever proven otherwise. However, I've still gotten resistance from two editors, a self-confessed "Phili-phile" named user:SummerPhD who appears to want to defend her city's name for this sandwich at all costs, and user:Kevin Murray, who has used polite, but tricky tactics from day one to try and block the merger. In my efforts to merge these article I have made a great deal of effort to treat each regional name for this sandwich with as much care as possible which has resulted in the Submarine sandwich page I am merging to being described by Kevin Murray himself as "excellent". Also I was asked to have an uninvolved admin step in and when one happened to on his own accord, and called it consensus for Merge, they still did not relent. I made a request for Conflict Mediation which is ongoing, but Kevin has continued to remove info from the Hoagie page that has cited sources, and replace it with unsourced info that simply reflects his own point of view. And when it became clear the majority was going with Merge he decided to add a Merge Proposal to the Submarine sandwich page saying he now thinks All Sandwiches should be merged into Sandwich. That proposal isn’t going well for him as it is being seen as intentionally disruptive editing. So, after he reverted my edits 3 times in a row today, I added a 3-RR warning to his talk page hoping he'd stop, but instead he responded by adding the same warning to my talk page and then reverted my edits for a fourth time, and then reported me to the admins.

Here's a few examples of Kevin's wp:Good faith efforts in this situation:

• Kevin's first action in this situation was when a week after I posted the Merge Proposal Tag, Straw Poll and RfC he politely claimed that "no consensus has emerged to support a merger. Result: close RfC and remove merge tag. Cheers!", and then unilaterally removed the merge proposal tag and closed out my RfC, instead of allowing me to pursue that process which goes for 30 days, and despite the fact that the poll results at that time stood at 6 to 3 for Merge (now 11-6). When I caught on to what he'd done I reversed it and confronted him and he politely admitted he was wrong, but continued his polite but tricky tactics.

• His next shady action was when he removed a pic of the British Holland 1 submarine that a cited source in the article said the sandwich was named for saying it was an "unrelated" image that had a bad date under it, and then when I restored it and removed the date under it to satisfy his complaint, he turned around and removed it again and replaced it with a pic of a different submarine not mentioned in the article and then dated it himself by putting WWII under it. I just walked way from that one.

• Then he decided to tell me what he thought of me on my Request For Mediation page by making a new section called "Wiki-Drama? BTF" (my initials) and stated that "You are cluttering the discussion with so much wikidrama and distorting the processes by continuing to vomit your emotional rhetoric". When called on that one he again politely apologized and then changed his comments to be less offensive, leaving my remaining replies looking overblown. I thanked him but reverted his edits and ask that he just use the Strike Out tag, but he reverted my edit and told me if I didn't like it then call an Admin.

• Then he took things a step further by placing a Merge Proposal tag on the Submarine Sandwich page suggesting it and other sandwich articles be merged with Sandwich stating that "Since there seems to be a strong and vocal group advocating a reduction of the number of articles about sandwiches, I suggest that we study the options including a more complete merger to one article about sandwiches". As I said before, that one isn't going well for him as it is being seen for what it is.

• Then he started making changes to the Hoagie page which contradicted what its own cited sources said in order to try and boost the notability of the page that was facing a merge. When I caught this, I change the content to accurately reflect its sources, then he reverted my changes, then re-re-revert, and we ended up here.

Just as I have stated about the Phili-phile, SummerPhD, I feel that Kevin Murray may fall into this category regarding the current situation: Consensus is not the same as unanimity. "Every discussion should involve a good faith effort to hear and understand each other. But after people have had a chance to state their viewpoint, it may become necessary to ignore someone or afford them less weight in order to move forward with what the group feels is best."

I had avoided taking things here as I thought or hoped it was not necessary, but now that we're here, I hope that you will give Kevin Murray the "reality check" he is asking for. Thanks! BillyTFried (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It's amazing to find this oddity sandwiched in amongst heavier disputes. I don't see why we need multiple articles for the same subject. I recall a TV ad featuring Subway founder Fred De Luca, in which he said, "Some people call them submarine sandwiches, some call them hoagies; I call them Subway Sandwiches." I see the same illustration is being used for both articles, also. Maybe the complainant could explain what the practical difference is between a sub and a hoagie? Baseball Bugs 12:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:LAME, anyone? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Verging on WP:LAMEST. – ukexpat (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It needs more meat. Baseball Bugs 16:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sick of eating hoagies! I want a grinder, a sub, a foot-long hero! I want to live, Marge! Won't you let me live? Won't you, please? --Smashville 18:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

"But even in Britain, where they don't bother to dub the original American voices (for The Simpsons), probably only a few get the joke. You see a hoagie, a grinder, a sub, and a hero are one and the same thing. They are simply regional names for a sandwich served on a large Italian roll and filled with Italian meat, cheese, lettuce, tomato, onion, and sprinkled with olive oil and spices. Variations on the basic recipe are made by filling the sandwich with other things, such as tuna salad, roast beef, ham and cheese, meatballs, and all manner of other ingredients. Subs can be served either hot or cold. All the exotic things that Homer associates with travel are simply roses by another name."

Yeah its lame, I know. But trust me, some people would shoot you dead for calling their sandwich the "wrong name" faster than they would for calling their God make-believe! I think maybe someone just needs to buy Kevin this shirt for Xmas. BillyTFried (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, this has made me hungry...I think I'm going to head off to Jersey Mike's. --Smashville 20:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That's so funny that they have one in Nashville and call em' Subs! I may have to head over to Jersey Joe's in San Carlos, CA where they call em' Hoagies! BillyTFried (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm in Chicago... so I'll have an Italian beef sandwich instead. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 02:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

And do you say "sand-wich" or "sam-wich" or "sa-wich"? Baseball Bugs 07:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought everyone says "sammich"! Shit I better start a new article for Sammich! :-P BillyTFried (talk) 09:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I tend to say "san-wich" with a three P's and silent Q. I hope everybody has their own personal intervention with a Sub/Hoagie/Grinder soon. ♪BMWΔ 12:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It's plain to see that everyone here is well-bread. Baseball Bugs 13:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

That was a pretty crummy pun. Horologium (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Observers often comment upon my rye sense of humour. Decorum inhibits me from repeating those comments. Baseball Bugs 13:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this entire line of discussion should be toast. ♪BMWΔ 14:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I gotta roll anyway. BillyTFried (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Seeyou

Well, .. this has been going on for some time now, and to specify, I'm referring to the noted user's apparent unwillingness to follow, or even understand our policies here. A quick overview of the said user's talk page notes that many, including myself, have tried to reason with this editor over various breached policies, including, but not limited to WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:OR, WP:AGF, WP:CANVASS, WP:TALK, WP:CONSENSUS.

Many of these 'conversations'(re: see talk page), have not really had the desired result, and the editor in question refuses to either understand the policy, or acknowledge that he or she had done anything wrong. Please weigh in.— Dædαlus 08:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, let me just message that this report was made after the final warning was given to this user regarding the insertion of OR.— Dædαlus 08:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh that's awkward. He hasn't done anything blatantly negative I don't think, but he doesn't seem to understand most of the policies you linked to...--Patton123 14:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The Bates method article is covered by the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions, and Seeyou has been notified, so this discussion could be moved to ArbCom Enforcement Noticeboard. PhilKnight (talk) 14:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

There has been some recent disruptive editing of the Bates method article, so I think a 1-week ban from the article could be justified. PhilKnight (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

More Canvassing: , , .— Dædαlus 01:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going thru Seeyou's contribs to get rid of the canvassing edits. I can't plant any sanctions on him because I'm involved (and have been for a while), so I leave that to other editors. Likewise, I'm not going to try and understand AE's instructions because I was absent for the most recent spate. -Jéské Couriano 02:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked for a week, because of disruptive editing and canvassing. PhilKnight (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Azad chai

Azad chai (talk · contribs), also known as Azerbaboon (talk · contribs), is back. The contributions of Baboner (talk · contribs) and 128.122.195.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are very similar to contributions of the banned user Azad chai. Usually he goes around making vandal edits to the articles and calls Azerbaijani people baboons or makes other racial slurs. CU data would be stale by now, but the contribs leave no doubt that it is the same person. Grandmaster 05:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I caution administrators not to fall for this report. The strawpuppetry has to stop. This 'vandalism' from this new strawpuppet and the similar is to associate legitimate positions with sockpuppets. See this particular edit by Azad chai, where Karabakh is written by it's Azeri variation 'Qarabaq' by this Armenian wannabe. VartanM (talk) 07:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really get the point of VartanM. Does he think that the admins should not react to vandalism by Azad chay, and his evasion of ban? Grandmaster 08:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't like repeating myself, so I bold faced my point for your viewing pleasure. VartanM (talk) 09:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but it would be good to see real evidence of "strawpuppetry", other than speculations around the spelling of some words. In any case, ban evasion has to be dealt with. Grandmaster 10:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Um... what's strawpuppetry? Stifle (talk) 10:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Sock_puppetry#Straw_puppets "They are created by users with one point of view, but act as though they have an opposing point of view, to make that point of view look bad, or to act as an online agent provocateur. They will often make poor arguments which their "opponents" can then easily refute." VartanM (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating term, I'll have to remember that one. Thanks. Now your above comment makes much more sense, I thought you said 'the sockpuppetry has to stop'. --Golbez (talk) 09:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Apparently it is meant as a reference to socks being used to set up editors from the opposing camp. Grandmaster 11:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This one too: 70.21.172.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). They all appear to be the same person or a group of people. Grandmaster 11:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Dealt with, thanks. Grandmaster 12:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It sounds as if Vartan is implying that these new apparently pro-Armenian contributors are actually Azeris in disguise. No matter. We dispose of trash no matter its perceived nationality. To believe otherwise should cause you to leave the project. --Golbez (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Said the pro-Azeri administrator ;) (That should cancel the pro-Armenian tag) Thats exactly what I was implying and asked you, the administrators, to get down and dirty and find the roots of this stink, and not just mask the smell and say how nice it now smells. VartanM (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. But I would be really thrilled to see some real proof of Vartan's allusions, other than speculations over spellings. I heard this all from User:Fadix, now indef banned, who is the real generator of all conspiracy theories for a certain group of editors. But of course such claims cannot be taken seriously, unless supported by strong evidence. Grandmaster 18:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Evidence was already provided. This was filled by you on Feb 22, Yerkatagear was the last active user, with his last edit on Jan 13 on Jayvdb's talk page, His baseless criticism discredited the concerns. The next sock become active after you added his name. Checking his prior contributions we can see that the user started editing after two months of silence and a day after you filled the checkuser. As reported, when you filled the checkuser no socks were active (at least for over a month) they only become active a day after you filled them. One of the series of sock was possibly AdilBaguirov according to geographic location . You can keep screaming conspiracy theories. This socks magically appear every time you need to vilify the Armenians, just like during the recent elections when all the eyes were turned on us. So under those circumstances, the fact that this pretending Armenian wrote Karabakh under its Azeri variant makes a lot of sense. VartanM (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As I thought, nothing but bad faith assumptions. Btw, Verjakette/Erkusukes/Yerkatagear is still active, as one of the recently registered Armenian editors, you can ask all your questions to him. You know who that person is. Grandmaster 21:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No I don't, please tell me who this new Armenian user is. is indeed interesting. With all the IP addresses that this user has used, as well as his knowledge of Misplaced Pages, he knew that his oppose vote would be rejected and that he was only discrediting the opposing side. VartanM (talk) 05:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

See last CU on Erkusukes, the clue is there. As for the voting, is Divot (talk · contribs) Azeri? He did the same thing as the IP, with the same result. If a certain group of editors did not want to be discredited, they should not have engaged in meatpupetry and vote stacking in the first place. No need to blame others for your own deeds. I think this thread needs to be closed, the issue is resolved, and further discussions about this are pointless. Grandmaster 10:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Why are you so eager to close this? I have a legitimate reason to believe that Azad Chai and other socks associated with him are strawpuppet accounts. The timing and the way they edit articles all point out to their strawpuppetness. Thanks for the info on Capasitor, lets see how long it takes 'till this "Armenian" gets himself banned and a new set of Capasitor socks appear. VartanM (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The only thing the IP accomplished is for you to now point your finger at a certain group of editors and accuse them of meatpuppetry. And thats my proof, confirmed by you, that a certain group of editors engages in strawpuppetry, Thanks. VartanM (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you talk to the guy, ask for his name, maybe meet up to check his real life identity? You are in the same geographic region. Making bad faith assumptions will result in nothing, no one is gonna take them seriously. Remember the story with Ehud and the controversy, that resulted in an arbcom case and proved you wrong? And it is not just me accusing a certain group of editors of meatpuppetry, the entire community does, even Jimbo said that there was an "offsite campaign". If you have another conspiracy theory, there are ways to deal with that. Ask the admins or maybe the arbcom to investigate this, but you'll need something better than speculations. Grandmaster 14:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Trolling by user

• Steelerfan-94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over the past few days while I've been on, I've noticed Steelerfan-94 "troll" several times over several pages.

• Trolling and advertising his own Wiki at WT:GUNS, see - Also see this where Steelerfan-94 has been told not to do it, and has threatened to take it to "one of my MANY administrator friends". Add sarcastic comments as well.
• Stalking other user's edits.
• Further trolling towards a user who had only been online for 1/2 an hour. Also see User_talk:Steelerfan-94#Re:IDK if you know this and User talk:Steelerfan-94#My talk page

I'm not sure what to do here, so I thought I'd bring it to ANI. D.M.N. (talk) 12:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've also been a little worried lately. Some comments here worried me a bit. ayematthew ✡ 12:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Gave a final warning; further abusive commentary and spamming will result in a block. seicer | talk | contribs 13:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Seicer, seems the appropriate action. Also strongly suggest removal of rollback. — neuro 14:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with that suggestion. ayematthew ✡ 14:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with that suggestion. I agree with seicer's warning - but disagree with removal or rollback. I don't see any good-faith additions being rollbacked. He warned Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs) for misuse of rollback here - if anything, it seems Scorpion0422's rollback rights need to be revoked. D.M.N. (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

See , , , , and . Just a few -- and having Rollback is about trust. If we can't trust him, he shouldn't have rollback. ayematthew ✡ 14:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, those examples show the editor using rollback to remove unsourced info, vandalism and generally poor IP edits. Black Kite 14:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

They seem like using rollback to revert good-faith non-vandalism edits to me. ayematthew ✡ 14:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see rollback abuse. This edit is reverting unsourced and really shitty material; this was unsourced; ditto; etc. Typically, that is not covered under rollbacks -- an undo with a description would be preferred, but this is not abuse by any stretch. seicer | talk | contribs 14:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

My problem is the editwarring of the advertisement primarily. Whether it is undo warring or not, edit warring is not acceptable, especially for someone with a tool which could aid them in committing it. It's simply being preventative. — neuro 15:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you've mentioned me (adoptee), I'm not going to accept another user as an adopter. Kalajan 18:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Steelerfan is well-meaning but misguided, generally speaking. And he is not ready, by any stretch of the word, to be adopting new users. That's not a personal dig; he's just not ready, as he doesn't have a firm enough grasp of how things work yet. I don't believe he needs to be either blocked or banned, but I would suggest that he not continue adoption, and that he be adopted/mentored by an experienced user for a couple of months until he finds his feet. // roux   19:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with this as well, but do with that what you will. ayematthew ✡ 20:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

At this stage I should state, even though this occured earlier in the year, Steelerfan-94 used sockpuppet accounts as an attempt to harrass/joe-job banned users. D.M.N. (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

But the past is the past, and by the way, that's why they don't have perpetual any more. And by the way, me and steelers are doing fine, I don't know what's your problem with him but I don't like it one bit. And by the way, Steelers is nay but depressed, for he's had a family incident or somewhat. Kalajan 20:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Steelerfan as a person. I have valid concerns with some of his behaviour, especially in light of his lack of understanding of basic policy and community norms. In light of those concerns, I think he should cease his adoption of you, because he's not teaching you things correctly. Yes, there is a lot of room for interpretation in WP policies and guidelines and community norms. That's fine. But he shows a basic lack of grasp of many of them, which is a bad thing to be passing on. That's all. As for his family issues, I am very sorry that he is experiencing them, but Misplaced Pages is not therapy, and if he is unable to contribute constructively he should take some time off. But I don't think that a recent family tragedy explains the not-infrequently problematic nature of his edits, which are more of an ongoing pattern. As far as I can see, most of the problems--which I stress are not enormous, and mostly seem to be good faith but misguided attempts--are easily addressed by a period of mentoring/adoption by a patient and more experienced editor. But until that sort of mentoring occurs, I really feel he should not be adopting anyone else. // roux   21:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the best option is to give Steelerfan a mentour, and find Kalajan a new adopter. ayematthew ✡ 21:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I provided my evidence at the beginning of the thread. I don't have a "problem" with him or anyone for that matter. D.M.N. (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

For example when my grandad died, I wasn't myself for months, and precisely the year following my Granma died, so that is a major depression, kind of what Steelers told me on email. Kalajan 20:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Steelerfan is a menteur mentoring? *blink* ♪BMWΔ 22:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

First off, I would like to apologize for my actions, And I would never ever think of rollbacking edits on a talk page!! This is no excuse but my grandmother died a couple weeks ago, I'm really upset now, and that might explain why I've been....IDK. I admit, I really haven't done Kalajan justice in the stuff I've though him, since the last month (with my grandmother) I really haven't had the time nor the desire. Again I apologize for my uncivil actions, I humbly ask you don't take my rollback rights away since I've not abused them. I think it would be better for everybody if Kalajan was adopted by somebody else, I would like to pick somebody though because I know his personality more than anybody on here,

(I wany him to go to somebody right). I'm not emotionally fit right now to teach a user to become a good wikipedian. Again please accept my deepest sincere apology. SteelersFan-94 01:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess this is a sort of EUI situation, impaired temperament, perhaps. Hey, I retract any suggestions on the basis that I am in a very, very similar position. — neuro 02:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have a hand full user's in mind that I would like to take over his adoption. I'll get in contact with the one me and him see best fit for the job. I on the other hand, am going to take a few weeks off from here, maybe longer IDK. SteelersFan-94 04:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to be adopted by any one other than steelers. Kalajan 11:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and why would that be? ayematthew ✡ 11:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Kalajan, don't worry about being adopted or not being adopted. Right above this you can see that Steelerfan-94 says he's got some people in mind he thinks can handle it. Just take a step back and relax for a bit.  Hazardous Matt  14:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

New editor User:Johnnysmitthy deleting text in multiple articles saying ' no reference must go wiki rules!'

A new editor removing loads of text from Christian related articles because there is no reference and also stating that he plans to use 'other IDs' for editing . I'm not sure what to do about him. dougweller (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we're being trolled. Indefblocked, but as always open to review ;) EyeSerene 15:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I was also looking at this and am ok with an indef block for now, let's see if an unblock request shows up. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, although the edit history doesn't look very promising I'd be happy to be proved wrong. EyeSerene 16:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It might be a sock, because it seems that he know quite a lot about wiki. Dontcha think? Kalajan 19:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't mean that the person is automatically blocked, even if they do have a sock, it could be legitimate (not saying that it is... well.) — neuro 02:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

SA - once again

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#user:ScienceApologist filed.

This one came to my attention via WP:WQA.

Please see the entire discussion here, with the most grave and concerning being SA's phrase "... have taken our collaboration to other venues explicitly to avoid you" (emphasis mine). ♪BMWΔ 16:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought disengaging from situations was to be encouraged per WP:DRAMA? Am I wrong? I just gathered like-minded users of all stripes and had them help me come up with ideas for how to make a decent science standards page that we could point editors to in hopes that they might be able to have some guidelines for how to edit wikipages related to science. The current wording has some problems, but the collaboration is far from moribund. The issue is that the talkpage had attracted too many distractions. We need some space from the various disruptive influence that continually derail the discussion in order to do our work. However, I'd like to keep the proposal status up at least. We still haven't completed our work yet. M'kay? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The above is not an isolated incident. See this edit summary. He had said he would take a break until after the New Year. I think we should enforce that good idea. SA appears to be engaging in gratuitous incivility that only serves to provoke other editors. Nobody has provoked him recently. To say the least, I am exasperated that SA is thumbing his nose at those who have tried to help him in the past. This situation cannot continue. Jehochman 16:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, There is no such thing as the F-P effect. It is just shitty researchers doing shitty research. That's a quote from a fairly famous physics professor about cold fusion. If you missed the allusion, I'm sorry. However, it's always funny when people who aren't familiar with the environment and ideas around the subject interject their own off-base interpretations for situations. Jehochman has a really poor history in this regard. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I would definitely support a block of indeterminate length, as this incivility is obvious hindering users from working constructively on Wiki. Garden. 16:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, since Gandalf has been unable to change that tag from proposal to historical this encyclopedia has totally been ruined. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I nearly overlooked SA's latest actions, mainly because I have recused myself from most science-related matters, but working behind the scenes (see also: ) to implement broad changes to avoid "nagging" editors is not what I consider constructive. Per the rationales given above, and the community's exhaustion of attempting to work with this editor, I would suggest a block of an indeterminate length to be reviewed in one month, and with a periodic review of actions henceforth. seicer | talk | contribs 17:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. The words "enough is enough" come to mind. // roux   17:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be great if someone could give notification to SA. Oh wait.... Crdamon, if you cannot give an unbiased notification, please let someone else do that. seicer | talk | contribs 18:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Guess it's okay to be rude and uncivil to "Crdamon". Just so that you can sleep with yourself at night, seicer. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I have some ideas:

1. Admonish Gandalf to stop his obsessive disruption in the ongoing project to make content standards for Misplaced Pages. We wouldn't have to collaborate with like-minded users over e-mail if there weren't so many distractions from the peanut gallery of wikistalkers and content-haters.
2. Desysop Jehochman for a wide range of problematic behaviors including his continual fishing expeditions in checkuserdom, his blatant conflict-of-interest promoting of certain kinds of search-engine optimization, and his obsessive drive to "reform" users who are working just fine without his "help", thank you very much.
3. Desysop and block seicer for personally attacking expert editors and scientists like myself and User:R while he adds little to no content to the encyclopedia. You can also block him for wikistalking me. He shows up every time there is a complaint to yell and scream and stamp his feet: "Ban SA! Band SA! Ban SA!" Hasn't he done enough damage to this project already?

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Community ban of user:ScienceApologist

I think that at this point, requesting a community ban of ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), similar in nature to Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), would be appropriate. As such, I am in support of a community ban for an indeterminate period to be reevaluated at an undetermined point in the future.

Per Misplaced Pages:Banning policy#Community ban, ScienceApologist has been proven repeatedly that he is disruptive in a specific area of Misplaced Pages, notably science/pseudoscience-related articles. A topic ban may be effective, but only if it is enforced, but that has thus far shown to be ineffective. He has also exhausted the community's patience to the point that multiple blocks and editing restrictions have not given the results desired.

SA is also under Misplaced Pages:Arbitration enforcement, although this has been proven ineffective. SA also has 14 blocks that I can count, that are not adjustments or refactors.

In reply to the "wikistalking" commentary, I was a mediator for Cold Fusion, and as such, I implemented editing restrictions for the duration of the mediation, and although SA initially agreed to be a participant of the mediation process, he refused to participate in a constructive manner, and was thus removed as a result of the mediation, and the disruptions that ensued post-mediation due to edit warring and general hostility, I have passively monitored SA's contributions, as has other administrators. He has been the subject at ANI/WP:AN/AN, RFC and etc. far too many times, and his general negativity, as expressed here and elsewhere, is not warranted.

Relevant links may include:

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed topic ban: User:Pcarbonn from Cold fusion and related articles
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive490#Please_review_this_case
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive490#diffs_just_from_November
• Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_27#Request for injunction against Cold Fusion investor
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive157#Cold_fusion
• Two rejected ArbCom cases:
• A previously failed Request for Mediation.

I am still reminded of this quote, which I have whored around extensively: "I think we really need to much more strongly insist on a pleasant work environment and ask people quite firmly not to engage in that kind of sniping and confrontational behavior. We also need to be very careful about the general mindset of "Yeah, he's a jerk but he does good work". The problem is when people act like that, they cause a lot of extra headache for a lot of people and drive away good people who don't feel like dealing with it. Those are the unseen consequences that we need to keep in mind." Penned by Jimbo Wales at 22:51 5 February 2008. seicer | talk | contribs 18:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

What a lark! Seicer is an "editor" who appears to me to revel in the punitive model. I think he takes particular pleasure in his ability to cause certain administrative actions (in particular blocking) that give him the ability to remove editorial privileges from others. At this point, Seicer is exclusively involved in "admin actions". He has essentially ceased from doing anything related to content in the encyclopedia. My first encounter with him exposed a side of seicer that to me indicates he was doing mediation as a way to get a power-trip: enjoying that he had "final say" over disputes. What ended up coming out of that mediation was a newly empowered cold fusion promoter who was so excited that he wrote an article in a cold fusion periodical about how he got Misplaced Pages to promote cold fusion "properly". That's what the cold fusion arbitration ended up being about. Since I pointed out problems with seicer both to mediators and on his RfA, he has been relentless (not passive) in showing up every time punitive measures against me are discussed. This is not the first time he has called for a ban, but I think he's emboldened by the last ban with which he was involved. Unfortunately, the problems with administrators like seicer is all they want to do is obsess over discipline and punishment. A year ago, I admonished seicer to stay away from me. He cannot. He is an administrator obsessed, fairly drunk on his own perception of power. He's not here for the good of the encyclopedia. He's here solely to play the community game.

Quite apart from this, seicer's presentation is fairly full of a great deal of pedantic innuendo, harebrained misunderstandings, and false accusations. I am tempted to go through it and point out its various ludicrous features, but I'm willing to spare the general audience this critique. If you would like me to present my response to seicer and perhaps see some examples of his lack of sound judgment and reason, shoot me an e-mail.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No current opinion...I see SA's name here a lot, but have never really looked at his edits...I just think it's funny that you did exactly what he said you would do...also, maybe this would be better on WP:AN? --Smashville 18:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

explitive deleted - I wish it was not coming to this, but SA is by far his own worst enemy. I don't quite know how I feel about a full site ban, maybe a term limited ban on 'science' broadly construed? (to mean anything that uses the word science in it (pseudosciences, medial sciences, etc.)? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

So I'd still be able to nominate parochial documentaries made by self-promoting New Age gurus for deletion? Or are those science-related too? How about articles on mathematical functions? Mapmaking? Banking panics? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

off the top of my head, without thinking it through? I'd say stick to politics, ethnic cleansing, and myspace bands. Even without a restriction, I think you'd be better off personally by spending a few months away from any subject you actually care about. It's why I don't spend much time on politics, I care to much to do a good job. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

That response pretty much indicates that you really haven't thought it through. I think you misunderstand the ways editors like myself operate. We aren't here to improve Misplaced Pages in general, we're here to make sure students don't get misled. I'm not a politics expert, so I have no way to evaluate politics articles, nor would I want me to evaluate politics articles. I would want an expert to evaluate politics articles. Likewise with ethnic cleansing and myspace bands. I appreciate your attempts to offer me advice on how I would be better off "personally", but actually find the suggestion ridiculously rude and condescending. I appreciate your perspective and the way you work on articles. Perhaps you could afford me some respect? After all, what have I done to you? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think your comment does get at some of the differences between your and my views of the project. Since I'm not being compensated in any way by the project, it is a hobby, a way to spend time that is stimulating, but not 'work', therefore any part of it that causes me stress is to be avoided. I understand your desire to encourage this to be a real reference work, my view is that rudeness and editwarring are not the way to achieve that goal. I think you would get much more mileage towards protection of students by working to get flagged revisions implemented in all article space. In addition, my first comment was exactly my reaction to reading the headder (f*, this is not going to help). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't support flagged revisions because I have too dim a view of the vetting of who would be a "flagged revisioner". I think that Misplaced Pages should remain a wild-west frontier of secondary and tertiary source research because the last thing we need are fake and unaccountable systems for determining articles that have passed content tests that are arbitrary simply because the Misplaced Pages community is arbitrary. As long as experts are not accepted as experts at Misplaced Pages, flagged revisions will not work. We need to make sure that Misplaced Pages maintains its reputation as a reference work that needs to be double-checked. That said, even though I don't support flagged revisions, there is no point in keeping poor content in the website that most students check first when doing their homework. While I have docked considerable points off of students who have cited Misplaced Pages as a source for various facts they have included in reports, I am under no illusion that students turn to Misplaced Pages first even if they don't cite it in their papers. An ideal system would allow for a recognition of experts, but barring that, an ideal system would have enough people watching over Misplaced Pages articles making sure that the content is maintained at a level close to "tolerable". ScienceApologist (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any indefinite ban of SA. Banning SA would hand a major victory to the POV-pushers, quackery advocates, and other malcontents who have campaigned and canvassed on and off wiki for his removal. As well as to the administrative vested contributors who have been using this conflict to win social points. SA is often the only editor actively working in a given area of pseudoscience who is interested in upholding NPOV and WP:UNDUE, and if there is a perceived failing of his behavior it is our doing because we have valued civility over building a serious reference encyclopedia. Skinwalker (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Support ban - Looking through the links to past cases, it is painfully obvious that this user has run out of chances. Even cats can reach the end of their 9 lives if they aren't careful enough. Tarc (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. So you're into the Misplaced Pages:Punitive model, are you? Let me ask you, will banning me improve the articles upon which I'm working? What's your evidence? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Evidence. Parapsychology: featured article created in SA's absence, ongoing war zone and poorer article since his arrival. Atropa Belladonna: war zone during SA's presence , significant imporvement within a few days of his page ban. Note also that as soon as SA was booted, peace broke out among the warring editors, here , , , . Consider also all the good work editors like Mr Darwin , and Annalisa Ventola could have done if SA hadn't driven them off Wiki. Consider also the number of Good or Featured articles that SA has in (the last two years - all I've checked) made significant contributions to in the three months prior to them attaining that status: zero and zero. The fact is that this editor contributes nothing to the encyclopaedia except disruption and grief. The door is wide open - has anyone got the courage to apply the boot. 94.229.69.147 (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

"Parapsychology" was a featured article? I hope it was in the section labeled "Fiction". Baseball Bugs 21:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

That really is the heart of the problem here, this notion that your supposed invaluable contributions to the project should give you a Get Out of Jail Free card for incivility. Whether an article gets better or worse without your presence is not something that I take into consideration, nor should anyone else, so let's drop that red herring, eh? Somehow, though, I don't think the project will fall to ruin without your removal from it. Tarc (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't want a get-out-of-jail-free card for incivility. In fact, I have, on my user talk page, a procedure for dealing with perceived incivility. Some people have used it and it has worked very well. I encourage you to use it if you think I've been uncivil to you. Whether an article gets worse or better is ultimately all that matters to me. My goal is and always has been to make sure that Misplaced Pages articles would not be hawking snake oil, saying false things were true, or promoting intellectually bankrupt ideas as on-par or better than the mainstream understanding of the subjects. That's the entire reason I edit. If I could be convinced that banning me would achieve this goal in a timely manner, then I would be clamboring for it. However, I'm pretty convinced from time I've spent away from Misplaced Pages that when I'm gone certain sectors of this encyclopedia tend to degenerate rather quickly. We still have problems on parapsychology related to this. Anyway... the point is that you simply are not interested in encyclopedia content. That is very problematic, in my book. It makes you a very problematic Misplaced Pages user -- one who apparently thinks that the community trumps content. I'm pretty sure the "project" will not fail if I'm indefinitely banned. It runs fine when I'm not around. It will just fill up with fringe/pseudoscience cruft, weasely rewordings, original research, and unduly weighted prose that will drive students to research the deep deep connections between quantum electrodynamics and near-death experiences. Anyway, thanks for your input in this matter. You've taught me a lot about your idealizations with far less arrogant verbosity than I employ. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Er, claiming that I am "not interested in encyclopedia content" because I don't excuse your long-running incivility for the sake of your contributions it quite a fallacious argument. "Yeah, he's a jerk but he does good work", as noted above, is exactly the mindset tat I really do not care for around here. Tarc (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm claiming that you are not interested in encyclopedia content because you wrote: "Whether an article gets better or worse without your presence is not something that I take into consideration, nor should anyone else, so let's drop that red herring, eh?" That attitude is essentially saying that you're not interested in encyclopedia content. And Jimbo Wales is simply wrong with that quote as evidenced in general by Misplaced Pages:Civil POV pushing. Jerks who do good work should be welcomed and channeled appropriately. I actually mentor a couple (yes, there are people who are more uncivil than I, does that surprise you?) to help them get their content contributions into Misplaced Pages. Jerks they may be, but with the appropriate help they are not disruptive to the Misplaced Pages. The nice ones who fuck up the content, they're the real problems. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose any ban of SA. It would be a sad day for WP to loose a contributor like SA, even for finite period of time. On many article pages he is the last line of defense against unscientific, esoteric fringe/pseudo-science. The fact that he is sheer impossible to wear down by the repeated inclusion of unencyclopedic information, that he takes a stand and preserves some of the seriousness and credibility of Misplaced Pages, earns him nothing but my greatest respect here. --Dschwen 19:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Most of the drama appears to have been content disputes related to the reliabiliity of sources and minor incivility, per the findings in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion. Without particular diffs presented here, it is not feasable to search out all of his edits to see their quality and nature. Some of the opposition to this editor seems to be from those with a fringe agenda to push, so a community ban or topic ban might be too convenient. The case for such a ban has not been made in this discussion, so far. All that have been presented have been generalities. Please link to a specific archive in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration enforcement, not to the general topic, leaving each reader to do endless searching. Edison (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose First, I have not been involved in any dispute regarding SA, either in his favor or against him, with the possible exception of an AFD or two he was involved in (none stick out in my mind, but I would not be surprised if I commented on an article he nominated, etc.) That said, I believe SA should not be banned. I think far too many editors (myself included) would rather avoid the drama from challenging fringe views constantly inserted by POV pushers. SA refuses to back down, which has led to his many blocks. I think this is more a reflection on the fact that he is constantly piled on by various editors for removing questionable/doubtful/fringe material, and that he does lash out when pushed beyond a certain point. I don't think there is anyone here who wouldn't have blocks on their records if they chose to stay as involved in such contentious and emotional issues as SA has. I think the fact that he is one of the few editors willing to stand up against the fringe theories and unsubstantiated claims made by some authors should earn him a commendation, not a petition for a ban. Has he crossed the line in the past? Yes. Will he likely continue to if he is not banned? Almost certainly. However, unlike a vandalism-only account or deliberately disruptive editing, SA as a contributor is a net positive. I believe many of the disputes that SA has taken the brunt of the blame in is due to his history, and that if taken alone, many of the editors he has been in disputes with would be determined to be provacative and at fault. Again, I oppose the ban, yet encourage SA not to rise to the bait of POV pushers and to try to maintain as civil of an attitude as possible, even in the face of disruption and attacks. If for no other reason, maintain this civility to prevent a block or ban in the future, even if the editor in question is the first to break WP:civil. Theseeker4 (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - yes, he's fighting the good fight against fringe-pushers. So are other people. While the most vocal, Misplaced Pages will not be over-run if he's gone. Compare this to Betacommand, who we eventually got sick of even though he was doing a large and thankless task, and he got stripped his bot's rights. I would've not commented otherwise, but seeing the below section... I think he's creating more heat than lgiht. Sceptre 20:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
• oppose Per Theseeker and Edison. Having civility issues doesn't change the fact that SA is one of the few editors willing to deal with the absolutely thankless task of handling POV pushers. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - SA creates a battlezone within these articles, driving away all but the fringe advocates, and a few hardy defenders. If SA were removed from the mix, I believe an increased number of reasonable editors would participate in editing, and the quality of the affected articles would improve markedly. SA just doesn't get it, and probably won't get it any time soon. They have been given more than enough chances already, and their behavior is becoming worse rather than better. We must drawn the line and say that disruptive editors, no matter what their editorial outlook, will not be tolerated. Jehochman 20:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: As noted earlier, here are further relevant links and/or cases,

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, where SA was cautioned in 2006 about such acts.
• As such, he has been blocked three times for violations, logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log of blocks and bans.
• Not a serious death threat, but worth noting. seicer | talk | contribs 20:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose ban ScienceApologist's work here is too valuable to cast away. Other solutions are needed. Enigma 20:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Seicer, since you started this thread, would you be so kind as to request arbitration. As is typical, we are not getting a clear result here. This mess needs to be resolved. The death threat issue resulted in a final, final warning from User:FT2. Things are going in the wrong direction. Let's clean up this mess. Jehochman 20:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Support Ban I have been trying to overlook the combative nature that SA brings to Misplaced Pages. When I saw the WQA report, I knew it could not be dealt with quietly, and brought it here. Unfortunately, the completely 110% retaliatory thread below about Seicer was perhaps the final straw ... we could always give him 2 weeks rest, during which time he can determine if he actually wishes to a) play nice b) contribute and allow/assist all to contributing to this project. When he comes back, first negative interaction makes him history, permanently. ♪BMWΔ 20:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

So is every negative interaction to be interpreted after my proposed two-week ban as automatically my fault? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose and file a request for arbitration per Jehochman. PhilKnight (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Log of notifications; and filing a RFAR... just takes some time. seicer | talk | contribs 20:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. We should not be trying to help SA to improve his game, and to manage the endless civil POV-pushing by fringe and pseudoscience advocates, not punishing him for being just about the only person prepared to work for neutrality on these articles. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose ban because SA does do extremely good work, often largely unsupported, preventing fringe theories from getting undue prominence, which is vital for any reference work to maintain respectability. I should, however, register some serious concerns about some of his actions, including this and the thread below. Some sort of measure would be desirable here, such as stronger protection against fringe theorists so SA doesn't have to get so worked up, or some people to support or guide him. Hut 8.5 21:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose as per Hut, Skinwalker, etc. dougweller (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban it is good that someone has the energy to oppose all the quackery on English wikipedia. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support. NPOV is the golden mean between quackery and elitism. SA falls squarely into the latter category -- his user page makes clear that he does not agree with the true defition of NPOV -- his criterion for article inclusion is not "documenting verifiable facts and published POVs without judgment" but "presenting the opinions of his preferred scientists as true." What's really amazing to me is that he's been pulling this nonsense for three years, and nobody's put a stop to it. Quackery and elitism are equally false -- but elitism is much more dangerous, because it wields power. Ungtss (talk) 07:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Community ban of user:seicer

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Close. This does not help the encyclopedia at all. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I am unhiding this so all can see. Jehochman 19:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It has been hidden again, per Smashville. All can see if they click "view". ScienceApologist (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that at this point, requesting a community ban of seicer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), similar in nature to Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), would be appropriate. As such, I am in support of a community ban for an indeterminate period to be reevaluated at an undetermined point in the future.

Per Misplaced Pages:Banning policy#Community ban, secier has been proven repeatedly that he is disruptive in a specific area of Misplaced Pages, notably scaring off editors who are scientists. A topic ban may be effective, but only if it is enforced, but that has thus far shown to be ineffective. He has also exhausted the community's patience to the point that multiple reminders to disengage with users with whom he has a demonstrated vendetta have not given the results desired. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I request that you refactor or remove this unhelpful addition. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

How is this unhelpful? I truly believe that the community would benefit from a removal of seicer. I have pointed this out many times. We could make a deal, you remove your expletive deleted post about and I'll remove this related request here. They seem to be similarly posed. What do you think? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop trying to prove a WP:POINT. D.M.N. (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay... I'd agree with you if I really didn't want to get seicer banned. But I actually do. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, he's an admin, therefore, this isn't the forum. --Smashville 20:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Childish, pointy, and wholly indicative that this user simply doesn't get it. This section should be stricken from the discussion. Tarc (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Ageist, are we? You know that many of the people who are active administrators and editors on Misplaced Pages are children, right? Some of them do very good work. As for the suugestion that the "user simply doesn't get it." I agree with you 100%. I would love it if someone were to help me get it. Unfortunately, I can't find anyone willing to mentor me. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

What a mess. SA, could you please settle down and stop the incivility and pointy comebacks? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is a mess. I don't much care for the term "incivility" as it gets bandied about in such a way these days as to make me question what its definition really is. I decided to engage in this conversation (normally I stay the hell away from them) because I want to see what's going on here. Visions of Gianoplumbs dance in my head, you see. But, Gwen, for you, I will archive this section. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

SA, would you mind removing this section? It's clearly pointy...I get that you're frustrated, but chances are that if this influences anyone, it's going to work against you... --Smashville 20:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No, no. Don't delete anything. Leave it here for everyone to see. If SA wants to refactor their own comments, that is their choice, but they may not delete anybody else's remarks. Jehochman 20:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I did remove the section. Jehochman put it back. However, I think it is my right to put hat and hab on discussions I wish to archive. I do-so now again. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comment Er, so ... ArbComm won't accept cases until January. Until then, SA is free to go about his way with the incivility on a willy-nilly basis, or shall someone be keeping an eye on him? Just checking, as a truly uninvolved yet concerned editor. ♪BMWΔ 21:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Having people "keep an eye on me" is rarely a problem. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right: incivility, lack of belief that rules and policies apply to you, the failure to recognize that everyone has both a right to edit and has something to add to Misplaced Pages are the more common problems... ♪BMWΔ 00:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess your feigned commitment to civility doesn't extend to me. No, feel free to put words into my mouth and personally attack me. It's all in a days work as a self-appointed civility policeman, isn't it? In any case, the "lack of belief that rules and policies apply to you" is not something I have. I'm very aware as to how Misplaced Pages policies and rules apply to me and I'm reminded of this incessantly. I'll also point out that your claim that everyone has a "right" to edit Misplaced Pages is wrong. We are all here as volunteers for WMF, and the foundation can ask us to leave at any time for any reason. As to your final claim, while I too believe that everyone has the ability to add something to Misplaced Pages, there are a fair number of people who, while they may have something to add, tend to add (or subtract) things that make it worthwhile for us to consider showing them the door. Anyway, I suggest you take some of your own medicine and give yourself a level 1 civility warning. I consider "civility" to be wholly in the eye of the beholder. I have a system on my talkpage for dealing with perceived slights of incivility. I encourage you to avail yourself of it. I think that when people do it, it really helps. I have just done it for you. I have explained that your comment strikes me as particularly uncivil. Care to refactor? (I won't hold my breath.) ScienceApologist (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall anything uncivil above...merely a polite distillation of the issues that raised this thread (and the ArbComm) in the first place. "You" is not being used to specifically refer to YOU, it's a general statement. ♪BMWΔ 10:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to have a back and forth here. Let ArbCom deal with it if they are going to, otherwise it's obviously not something ArbCom feels needs to be addressed, in which case nobody here should be taking it upon themselves to try to do any ad hoc enforcement/vigilantism. I highly recommend, however, that anyone who complains about civility at least be civil in the complaint, otherwise it's obvious the problem is not as one sided as they pretend. DreamGuy (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Jwh3

• Jwh3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Contentious AFD, and it has gotten ugly...

User has removed the AFD banner from the article , removed comments from the AFD itself , and engaged in persistent attacks on other editors at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/James_Hunter_(film_director). Warned multiple times. Chasingsol (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Appears to also be editing under User:68.191.139.230.Chasingsol (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like a block maybe neccesary. --YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 17:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a strong suspicion of a COI here, as do other editor's, related to the article's subject and the editor's username.Chasingsol (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

He was already blocked for it yesterday and hasn't edited since...why would we issue another? Nevermind...I see the IP edits. --Smashville 17:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I blocked his IP and his username for 48 hours. --Smashville 17:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, much appreciated.Chasingsol (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually unblocking him now...on second look at his edits, he hasn't done anything since coming off the block...I confused myself on what day it was...in the above diff, he didn't remove anyone's comment...he deleted his own comment and removed an SPA tag. Not really blockable. --Smashville 17:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I appreciate your diligence. I understand he's new to editing (as am I), and having an article put up for deletion can be blood-pressure raising.Chasingsol (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but at least he knows we're keeping an eye on him, I guess. --Smashville 18:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI, the incivility on the AFD continues, it's not productive at all. Ad-hominem attacks against multiple editors giving their opinion.Chasingsol (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

See . Chasingsol (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This one is too far. I blocked him for a week to allow the AfD to run its course. --Smashville 20:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Chasingsol (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

99.49.233.250

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

Editor has returned from being blocked for harassment (wikistalking and reverting), the editor is back and doing the same. (Is there a more appropriate place for such reports?) --Ronz (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for a week. While not strictly WP:AIV material, no-one will complain if you report such obvious cases there. Best, Blood Red Sandman 18:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Possibly compromised account

User:Elnerdo hadn't edited in over a year, and all of a sudden inserted attacks on some IP talk pages for IPs that had never edited. These talk pages are currently up for speedy deletion. As I'm not an admin, and therefore cannot view deleted contribs, I don't know if this is normal behavior for this user, but if the user has had no history of randomly doing this, I'd be willing to bet it's compromised. PCHS-NJROTC 19:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not, but last edit was 17 December, so I'd allow for Editing Under the Influence as a defence Or those being his own IPs (no excuse, but still). Report again should they do it again. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ in a one horse open sleigh 19:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

So wait... those are his own IPs? PCHS-NJROTC 19:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see you're saying IF those are his own IPs. PCHS-NJROTC 19:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What? Note: I just blocked the account as it looks like having been compromised. — Aitias // discussion 19:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Really? It doesn't to me, yet, in so far as this isn't the behaviour of a compromised account. They always do something bigger (WoW, the giant etc) because they're trying to exploit it. In this case, it was one good and three poor (non-article) edits. It just doesn't have the MO. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ in a one horse open sleigh 19:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Elnerdo's other edits all look good. Why should he suddenly start vandalising? — Aitias // discussion 19:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not very vandalism. It's the adding of inappropriate material to three, related, IP address talk pages. Are they his? Is this EUI? Is there a sane reason for this, or at least a reason short of "compromised account"? The answer to the latter could be yes, and that's where WP:AGF steps in, especially since the last edit was 5 days ago. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ in a one horse open sleigh 19:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

And he's replied: they are his own IPs. Will you unblock now? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ in a one horse open sleigh 19:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Already  Done. — Aitias // discussion 19:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Fab. Thank you. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ in a one horse open sleigh 19:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

User:WorldFacts and USS Liberty Incident

SPA acccount (see ) User:WorldFacts, recently received a block for edit warring on USS Liberty Incident see . First thing he did on his return today was to re-introduce the same material yet again. See . He has also left a bad faith message on the blocking admin's talk page see . His edit continues to give undue significance to fringe material and duplicates material already in the article. As noted on his block message here and here WorldFacts refuses to discuss the matter on the talk page. One of the editors, Narson, accused on being a meat puppet of Jayjg actually inserted a paragraph into the article on the subject of Moorer (WorldFacts pet subject) some 6 or more weeks ago.

The block doesn't seem to have worked, WorldFacts has been disruptively editing the article for some time and User:BQZip01 is attempting to mediate on improving the article. I can't see mediation working unless the editors involved a) using the talk page as intended and b) taking part in the dispute resolution process. The article seems to have attracted a couple of SPA who have disrupted the attempt to improve the article by introducing fringe material with undue prominence and making bad faith accusations of censorship and "cover up" against other editors. As a result many good faith editors are reluctant to get involved in improving the article.

I would suggest that the article is placed under a 1RR provision so that any editor that reverts more than once or reverts to re-introduce contentious material is blocked. Justin talk 20:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This maybe stretching it, but wouldn't this fall under WP:ARBPIA? The incident involves Israel and took place during an Israeli-Arab war... Rami R 21:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I had a quick look as I'm still online. The article would certainly fall within that overall umbrella as it has become linked to the Middle-East conflict and US support for Israel. However, it might be perceived as stretching a point, I think I'd prefer to see the current issues discussed and see if my suggestion for a 1RR probation on the article receives community consensus. Thanks for the suggestion though, I certainly wouldn't dismiss it if it had wider community consensus. Justin talk 21:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Assistance with protocol

I have an opportunity which concerns a small group of administrators. Because of the heated exchanges of the past, I am interested in starting a conversation with an unbiased administrator . If you decide to assist, please don't acknowledge here. They follow and watch everything I do. Send me an email to . I would like to have a chance to discuss improvements without incurring disadvantages from the aforementioned. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

That seems unlikely to happen. It's probably best to lay out your concerns, concisely and unemotionally, with diffs to support your assertions. People who are already involved will note themselves as such, and the community at large views possibly-biased statements accordingly. // roux   22:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think a quick look at his Talk page shows the source of this report. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Even odds this is about this debate about whether to include a quote attributed to Einstein on the Insanity article. The complainant appears to feel he is being oppressed by a couple of admins. An outside view suggests that the complainant doesn't quite understand how consensus works here. I don't see any admin abuse evident. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No admin abuse, and probably a little too much niceness based on this: "...Thank you. Genisock2 (talk) ... There you go, JennySuck. Now after I squeeze the last load on your puss, I back hand you towards the door". For crying out loud, this guy wasn't blocked for what really good reason? ♪BMWΔ 22:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow.. I missed that one. Jesus christ, who was asleep at the wheel on that one? // roux   23:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd support any admin who gives a lengthy block, to be removed only with a topic ban or a mentorship, or both. If a problem starts in Insanity, where will it end? ThuranX (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If he starts messing with the baseball pages, he's toast. Baseball Bugs 23:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

My reading of Talk:Insanity#"Well Known Quotes" is that what should have been a simple discussion rapidly became far too emotional for no good reason. It's a simple matter, any experienced wikipedian would see the obvious and appropriate solution of transwikiing to wikiquotes, and that's it. No one is being repressed here, JPH turned up the drama to a grossly excessive degree over a minor content dispute. Admins aren't perfect, but people should listen when they make reasonable suggestions. No listening to reasonable suggestions here. No idea if this is characteristic of elsewhere, but in this case it was too much. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 12:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Undent. Reviewing JPH's talk page, I hadn't remembered for my above comment but it turns out I did have dealings with him during his initial edits to wikipedia. Since that time, apparently he has not learned that hostility is not welcome. As an editor, I don't mind turning up the civility during initial learning when noobs are usually more hostile than necessary. This is nearly a year later and the hostility is still there, apparently being used to win content disputes. JPH is leaving a bad taste in my mouth and I see no reason to ask for an unbiased administrator to review anything. This problem is not "Because of heated exchanges in the past", it's because of current (as of December, 2008) belligerence. He has been warned, next personal attack or incivility gets a block, then start escalating. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 12:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Jeffrey Pierce Henderson received a last warning for personal attacks way back on May 28. Not only that but his trangressions go beyond just calling people hacks, shams, pricks and generally being a dick, he's also engaged in simple vandalism , removed AFD tags and posted copyright vio images. I beleive I'm one of the "admins" (he calls all other users admins by the way) he's referring to. Mostly because I spent quite some time posting about various Misplaced Pages policies, asking him to cool off etc. on his talk page. --Quartet 14:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

User:News4a2

I am requesting admin review of News4a2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recent activities (I'm too involved to act). User has edit warred, and almost certainly violated 3RR, at Physician assistant (which has now been protected), has made numerous personal attacks diff, diff, and asserts these activities will continue diff. Perhaps a block is in order (my AIV submission was bounced here). --ZimZalaBim 22:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with ZimZalaBim and several others. I've stated my reasons for that disagreement. One of the parties siding with ZimZalaBim has just been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. As ZimZalaBim has Wiki-stalked me to the Physician Assistant page from the Industrial Espionage page by following my contributions link and deleting all my edits and contributions, I question his objectivity and motives. For all I know ZimZalaBim might be another sockpuppet of that same individual, Nomad2u001. The position of these parties is to block my sourced contributions, either by wholesale deletions of my contributions without compromise or revert of anything I add. This posting here is just the latest attempt to block my contributions to Wiki articles under the apparent guideline, "If you can't stop the message, kill the messenger." Either Misplaced Pages is open to contributions from all, or it isn't. And if it isn't, it isn't credible.News4a2 (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The political commentary above didn't help your case. Provide good diff's in defence, and lay off the "either Misplaced Pages is xxx or else...", it will help :-) ♪BMWΔ 23:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

What political commentary above? I was serious. I don't care if ZimZalaBim claims he's an administrator. ZimZalaBim wiki-stalked me to the Physician Assistant page from the Industrial Espionage page. He's deleted my contributions on the Industrial Espionage page without reason and again on the Physician Assistant page. He doesn't like my contributions so he deletes them, wholesale, as Nomad2u001 did. Now he's trying to block me from further contributions. I seriously question his motives. What else should I think? For one, he's using IP blocking software to disguise his origination -- -- and why hide if one is on the up and up?News4a2 (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and one other thing ... these "personal" attacks alleged by ZimZalaBim were me accusing Nomad2u001 of being a troll. And, guess what, Nomad2u001 was a troll with a lot of aliases and would have continued being a troll wrecking the integrity of Misplaced Pages had I not brought up the actions.diffNews4a2 (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm "using IP blocking software to disguise origination"? Huh? --ZimZalaBim 05:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I consider this attempt to identify me and post an IP address harassment, and request the edit posting an IP address be removed from the page history, etc.--ZimZalaBim 05:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Requesting block

For WP:OUTING above, as well as the long stream of incivility and personal attacks. // roux   06:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

From WP:Outing -- "legal name, date of birth, identification numbers (defined by Wiki as SSN, NIN, etc.), home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct" -- nothing there lists an IP Number. ZimZalaBim is using software to cover his tracks and for what reason? Kinda makes one think.News4a2 (talk) 10:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Folks, I'm editing while logged in, and have no idea what he's talking about regarding cloaking my IP address. But if he's trying to uncover and post a users IP address, that is wrong. This is getting absurd. --ZimZalaBim 13:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless it's someone with Checkuser abusing their rights, the posting of an IP address is not outing. Perhaps you have indeed at one point or another edited without being logged in. Your IP address would have an edit history. That's not going to go away. It's a pretty childish and perhaps an uncivil thing to do, but I don't believe it's Outing whatsoever. News4a2, you really need to stand down on this, as you're currently escalating this beyond WP:DRAMA. ♪BMWΔ 13:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Personal insults from User:Hikingdom

Hikingdom (talk · contribs), after remaining inactive for quite some time, started to add links to various blogspot hosted and other blogs to several articles (diffs:, , ) . After I reverted his links per WP:EL and WP:NOT, he undid my edits multiple times. He also blanked my warnings from his talk page twice (diff1: DONT POST HERE, diff2: ). After I explained in the article talk page that his blogspot links are not valid external links, he started making personal attacks: (diff: "You get a life too. Wasting thousands of hours on Misplaced Pages for no money. hahaha ", diff: "You have a life? OK. LOL."). Note that, between these two personal attacks, he had been warned by Rgoodermote about his taunting remarks.

I would request an uninvolved admin to take a look into the behavior of this link spammer. He is promoting two links: a blogspot link where a pirated copy of a book has been posted, and also the personal blog site: www.bangladeshihindu.com . --Ragib (talk) 00:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

How is "You have a life? OK LOL" a personal attack?

First of all, the blogspot link is not a pirated copy of a book. That book was available for free online under the domain name "bengalvoice.com. However, the author decided to move it to a blogspot. http://bengalvoice.blogspot.com/ For more information, contact, email redacted About the BangladeshiHindu.com blog. Well, it's obviously not a personal one since there are a series of writers such as Dr. Richard Benkin, William Gomes etc. It's a group blog. Hikingdom (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

First and foremost, the link is to a personal blog hosted at blogspot, with prominent "calls for donation" buttons on the site (may or may not be made by the purported author of the book, no way to determine that). The second link is to a nn blog. Doesn't matter if it is a personal one or maintained by a group. Finally, I have linked to the diffs to Hikingdom's taunts. These should be checked by an uninvolved admin. --Ragib (talk) 05:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Your sense of logic is utterly surprising. You are telling me that the site is not notable because it has a donation box? Misplaced Pages has a donation box. As I said million times to you, the article used to link to this book before when the author used to host it under his website, http://www.bengalvoice.com/ As that site is under construction now, the book is hosted in blogspot by the author. They have an email address to the author in the blog. Also, do you think it makes sense someone to actually sit down and type the whole thing if the author is not involved?

"may or may not be made by the purported author of the book, no way to determine that"

Then why are you saying that this site has a pirated book in your previous post? If you are not sure about something then you shouldn't abruptly conclude. The issue of piracy is a serious accusation and I expected a little bit more logical thinking from you.

About http://www.bangladeshihindu.com/ site, well, I am not trying to create a[REDACTED] entry out of it. This website, definitely takes into account the modern issues of Bangladeshi Hindus. Not to mention this is the only website concerning issue of Bangladeshi Hindus. Therefore, this site should be put as an external link. Just like IndianMuslims.info, which is also a group blogging platform concerning Muslims in India. Hikingdom (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Another thing, Ragib also thinks prominent writer, Salam Azad is not notable. You can find his books in all the major libraries all over the world. He is obviously trying to propagate his extreme nationalistic views and remove sources that show struggles of Bangladeshi Hindus Hikingdom (talk) 13:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

User:John254 harassment, forum shopping, editing others' comments

User:John254 was warned earlier to not continue any attempts at perceived harassment or outing of an admin, User:Cirt, who he is involved in a *VERY* contentious RFAR with.

• He endorsed a motion to undelete talk page contents that were removed for privacy reasons. THREE Arbiters said no.
• He then took the matter to DRV in response, where another Arb said to close the forum shopping request as disruptive, and a final Arb, Bainer, closed it here.
• John254 then took the fight to User:Durova's user space, edit warring with her on her pages.
• Finally, I warned him to desist from trying to find out any personal information about the administrator User:Cirt.
• There was some back and forth, which was fairly civil. I went to leave well enough alone and was done, but then he alters the content, nature, and meaning of my post here, neutralizing that he received an official warning, which any user can give.
• Durova cautioned him that altering another's comments is a blockable offense.
• I restored my full warning here, keeping it in context. I don't care if he blanks or removes it, but changing it to link to my userlinks is downright bizarre, downplaying my warning and altering the meaning.

Can someone please review this repeated hounding of an administrator in good standing, User:Cirt, by this editor User:John254? This kind of harassment and bullying is just odious. rootology (C)(T) 06:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Neither Durova nor Cirt were actually willing to expressly state "the talk pages of Cirt's prior accounts must remain deleted for privacy/security reasons", perhaps because it quite simply isn't true. In that case, please stop making insinuations to the same effect. Since there was (and is) no apparent reason for Cirt's user talk pages to remain deleted, and since the Arbitration Committee had not forbidden their restoration, it was reasonable to request that the community restore them at DRV. If editors are to utilize their own userspace to present evidence to the Arbitration Committee, and permit users to comment on the talk page, it makes little sense for them to be able to arbitrarily censor comments on the basis of a bureaucratic interpretation of the "userspace privilege". For Durova to claim exclusive control over the talk page for her evidence is as untenable as for me to assert authority over the comments on User talk:John254/Homosexuality and medical science, merely because the page happens to currently reside in my userspace. My neutralization of Rootology's section header does not constitute an alteration of his comment, since the header is not reasonably construed as his signed writing. John254 06:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Chiming in with Root's request. John's responses to feedback have been unduly aggressive. He's been warned for WP:POINT twice today. Since then he's continued expanding the scope and pushing new boundaries. Durova 06:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, we need to tell John to, at the very least, stop jumping head first into drama (irony!). Say you what you want about him, but it gets on my nerves to see him flitting around and making noise as much as he does. Sceptre 06:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• +1 for that. Guy (Help!) 10:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I've left a warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. Mr. Darcy talk 13:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio uploads by Deanb

I've transferred the follow from WP:AIV as this is a more appropriate forum. Kcordina 09:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Deanb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - this user has been uploading copyrighted content falsely tagging it under GFDL for a while. His latest one is a re-upload of the image File:TA Skyline.jpg, which was taken from here, and has been deleted in the past. Another one is File:TA Skyline2.jpg from here. This is despite continuous warnings spanning several months. In the past, he also uploaded File:TA.jpg (from here) and other images I can't remember (althouh this version of his talk page says a lot. Also in reply to a previous warning, he indirectly stated that he had no intention of stopping ("Do us both a favor and stop 'being bored', OK?"). I know that the warnings weren't from last month, and one may argue that there aren't sufficient 'warning levels'. However, because he is a long-time registered user who is ignoring basic warnings, I think some kind of administrative action is in order. I have filed an ANI on this user in the past for an entirely different issue, but can't find it right now. -- Ynhockey 08:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems a bit complex, more appropriate for an WP:ANI report, IMO. Cirt (talk) 08:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that he's been given clear notice of blocking, but he's certainly been pointed to policy many times. Copyright is a potential legal land-mine for Misplaced Pages, and if he refuses to respect our copyright policy, his contributions do not belong here. I am giving him the templated copyright warning, with notice of potential block. If another admin feels that he's had warning enough and chooses to block now for the protection of Misplaced Pages, I certainly wouldn't find that inappropriate. --Moonriddengirl 13:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Aparna rajesh

Some assistance with this user would be appreciated. Aparna rajesh has been active on Misplaced Pages for at least 18 months, which is ample time for him to be familiar with some of our basic guidelines and policies; no doubt he is a good faith contributor and clearly his first language is not English, but that's no excuse. Persistant problems include the uploading of copyrighted images without the necessary infomation, copying text from other websites, creating articles with little or no context, and making what appear to be nonsense edits. He has been alterted to these problems innumerable times - see comments currently on his talk page, and also these comments which were blanked a few months ago. In the past few weeks I've told him twice about copying text, and yet recently created articles The Cut (2007 film) and The Fox with Nine Tails contain text copied straight from asiandb.com and hanbooks.com. Clearly these comments are either not being read or not being understood, and without some form of intervention this is likely to remain a problem. PC78 (talk) 09:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I've issued a final warning on the user's talk page. I've also cleaned up/deleted a handful of the edits, but would appreciate more help with that. PC78, since you seem to know a bit about this user, would you be able to sift through and do some tagging on the articles that are copyvios? That'll hopefully get other admins involved, since it seems like this is a large scope issue, either way (talk) 12:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I can do, but I think most of the copyvios have already been dealt with one way or another, often leaving very short stubs stuch as A Resentful Woman. Tagging articles may also be a problem; he removed the speedy tag from Takipsilim earlier this morning. PC78 (talk) 12:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism-only account

Resolved – blocked

Daleep123 (talk · contribs)

A simple review of his contributions will show this to be a vandalism-only account, at least for the last 6 months. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards