Misplaced Pages

• For the record the blocking admin has agreed that they were in error and thanked me for correcting it.

Also for the record WHOIS reports are very public, easily accessible information and as an oversighter I can guarantee you right now that it will not be suppressed. if you don't want to reveal your IP use an account, as in, an account not named for the IP it is using, which makes the whole idea of now crying foul that privacy was violated laughable. I suggest all parties just walk away from this situation, there is nothing more to do here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Bad unblock, the user was socking.

• Socking is the use of alternate account to avoid a sanction.
• The user name "IP 12.153.112.21" is disruptive because it is easily confused with an ip editor 12.153.112.21; accordingly the account was blocked.
• By posting on the page User talk:IP 12.153.112.21 the user used an alternate (ip) account to avoid a sanction -- use of the user name "IP 12.153.112.21." (The fact that the OP of this thread, an experienced Wikipedian, thought it was an IP talk page is prima facie evidence of that it's confusing.)
• Since both elements of one sockpuppetry definition a) alternate account and b) disruptive use of misleading account name are present, the user was, in fact, socking.

As an analogy consider if I was topic banned from AN for being annoyingly right all the time. If I edited as an ip to correct a spelling error on Print butter, that would not be socking, but if corrected the same spelling error on AN it would be socking. Likewise, the fact the editor edited as ip does not make it socking, but the continued use of a misleading account name, albeit through editing its talk page rather then editing with it, is socking. Nobody Ent 21:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Was it intentionally disruptive? Ryan Vesey 21:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Did the user know about the existing IP block, or would a reasonable person have known about it? If so, then they intended to dodge it using the account. There is clear intent to avoid an existing block here. --Jayron32 21:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they had placed 2 unblock name change requests that were denied and were posting to the page with those block notices as of this morning including specific page mark up to collapse those block notices. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Back up a minute. There seems to be some confusion as to the sequence of events. The named account with IP-like name was issued a username only soft block over a week ago. That explicitly leaves open the option of continuing to edit under a non-infringing identity, either a new username or as an IP. That they did so when their terrible suggestions for new usernames was were rightfully declined does not constitute socking as the blocking admin did not elect to autoblock the underlying IP when issuing the initial block. It's just not socking. It also seems that other behaviors have led this to now be under discussion at ANI, so this thread can be closed and discussion should move over there if it needs to continue. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Not confused. Meaning depends on context. Why were they blocked, and did the ip editing continue the same disruption (yes)? Under the circumstances, if the ip account had edited pretty another other page, it would've have been socking, but they continued the essential part of the behavior that was disruptive. You're asserting not socking from a bureaucratic letter of the law perspective. Nobody Ent 23:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Why were they blocked? How many times need this be explained? The named account was soft blocked for a username violation. By editing as an actual IP they were manifestly not repeating the behavior that led to the block. It really is as simple as that despite your attempts to make it complicated. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Subpages

Actually, that's not the case. I just now logged out and created two pages: User talk:98.223.196.72 and User talk:98.223.196.72/test. Therefore, it's inappropriate to host this article on the main talk page, simply because the IP can create it as a subpage. Of course, this isn't by itself reason for sanction, since we can't expect the IP to know about subpages. Best solution in my mind is to say "hey, this isn't the best place for this content; please move it to a subpage" and to give directions on how to do that. Nyttend (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Erm, is it really considered acceptable for Neutralhomer to phone 12.153.112.21's place of work, as he admits to doing when he didn't get his desired result at AIV? I was under the impression that that sort of behavior was deeply frowned upon. --92.2.82.159 (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It is the sort of thing that is usually only done in response to long term abuse, it was way over the top to take such an action in this case as far as I can see. For some reason there seem to be few users who are downright desperate to find any way they can to get this person into some kind of trouble. I don't really know why that is but it is getting pretty ridiculous. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems Neutralhomer has also said at the List of AT&T U-verse channels talk page "I spoke with a supervisor there and they are looking into the matter, so I would get off the internet and get back to work while you still have a job." That sounds a threat to 12.153.112.21 employment and therefore a personal attack. Powergate92Talk 02:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, one, I was given permission at the AfD for the "List of AT&T U-verse channels" page for the page to be moved to my userspace after deletion. It wasn't, it was moved to 12.153.112.21's page, I copy/pasted it and moved it (as is) to my userspace per the approval. Since the AfD opened the door for other AfDs for other "List of <company> channels" pages, I copy/pasted others in response of the forthcoming AfDs. None of the pages were under CC-By-SA-3.0 and are in Misplaced Pages userspace per admin approval.

As for calling 12.153.112.21 place of employment, if he is still employed, then it didn't have the desired effect...which was to have him stop vandalizing Misplaced Pages. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Everything on Misplaced Pages is released under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License. See the bottom of the page where it says "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of use for details." Also see Misplaced Pages's copyright policy.With that, User:Neutralhomer/List of AT&T U-verse Channels needs to have attribution. Powergate92Talk 04:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Since I was given permission by two seperate admins to have the pages in my userspace, it's a moot point. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• We have indeffed editors in the past for phoning people's place of business for this exact same purpose. Such action is 100% inexcusable from an editor. NH - I'm usually on your side, but you know far better than do have done such a thing. I'm utterly shocked dangerouspanda 11:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked User:Neutralhomer for the above reported off-wiki harassment. Explanation is at User talk:Neutralhomer#Indefinite block for severe off-wiki harassment. As usual, feel free to change, reduce or overturn the block if there is consensus to do so or if the user gives reason to do so. Fram (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

To prevent meatball:ForestFires, please centralize any discussion to Neutralhomer's talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 12:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Is the issue of contacting the organisation behind the IP clarified anywhere? I've contacted a couple of schools in the past where I thought they'd like to know what was going on, and I'm sure I've seen somewhere that that sort of contact is ok. Of course, it depends upon the context and I am not making any comments on Neutralhomer's contact as I've not looked into the details. Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is a difference between getting some schoolkid reprimanded for vandalizing Misplaced Pages and trying to get somebody sacked from their job. There is, even more crucially, a difference between defending the project against vandalism and trying to get the upper hand in a content dispute (no matter how misguided or otherwise disruptive the other party is.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. This behaviour is disgusting - I call for a community ban for Neutralhomer. This isn't his first serious offence, and the fact that he still continues doing seriously wrong stuff after two indef blocks is a demonstration of consistently poor judgement. Max Semenik (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I've declined a second one. --Jayron32 13:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Belated thanks particularly to Beeblebrox and Fram even if you only considered this your duty. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Neutralhomer community ban proposal

MaxSem called, above, for a community ban. I've seen a lot of troublesome users at Misplaced Pages receive blocks and bans down the years, but I'm struggling to think of many incidents of harrassment that go as far as phoning someone's employer. NH's words at the time (onwiki) strongly suggest he was looking for the IP to lose their job, but even if I accept his statement that he merely wanted the user's internet privileges suspended, this is egregious harrassment from a user with a long blocklog. I rarely agree to community ban proposals - this time, I support it. --Dweller (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Quite frankly, this crosses a line. The last time I saw someone doing something this reprehensible was Eecoleetage, and we know what happened to him. I'm not hearing "I know what I did was wrong, give me another shot" - I'm hearing "okay, okay, I won't call this user again, are you happy now?" with tinges of "you can't block me because other than this I do good work". Ironholds (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Currently undecided. I don't plan to wade deeply into this or engage in a drawn out debate. I respect Homer, think he probably regrets his actions and think a community ban is probably a little much. There is a single thing though that he has said more than once that does bother me though. NH has said "people shouldn't be editing from work" in one form or another a couple of times. To be blunt, that's just none of his business. That is solely between the editor, their employer and their IT dept, not the time management police. I would like to see NH either clarify or retract that premise. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I am a fairly tolerant person on Misplaced Pages, and I believe in giving many second chances for a wide range of behaviors, especially when a person is genuinely contrite. However, this crosses the line for me. The fact that someone would take a dispute like this, and especially such an inconsequential dispute as whether or not a list of TV channels should be included on Misplaced Pages, and would pursue it to the point of calling a person's workplace with the intent of having them sanctioned by their employers is so beyond the pale that it boggles the mind. That anyone would even consider such an action as appropriate in the first place is a clear indication that they have no business at Misplaced Pages in any form. If someone would choose to do that, I stop trusting any assurances they make going forward. This whole thing stops being a game when someone's livelihood is threatened in this way, and Misplaced Pages needs to take a hard stance on something like this. Discussions can get heated on-wiki, and I can forgive a lot, but someone who is willing to go to this length over something so inconsequential is clearly not to be trusted. Of course, now that he realizes he's going to be banned, he's backpedalling like crazy and trying to assure us it won't happen again. Sorry, no, this is not like cussing someone out, or calling them a bad name, or anything like that. This raises it to another level, and it cannot be allowed to pass with a "sorry, my bad, I won't do it again!" Just no. --Jayron32 14:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Support Oppose - the action itself was abhorrent, the unblock requests were weak, and the long block log shows that, despite the good work this editor can do, they cannot function as part of the community when things don't go their way. However, as others below have said, a community ban may be a slight over-reaction. I would insread prefer to see an indefinite block, until as such time NH can provide his worth again. GiantSnowman 14:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) (edit conflict) Support. Harassment of this sort is utterly unacceptable and, given NH's history of problematic behaviour, inexcusable. His unblock requests, as Ironholds notes, don't inspire any confidence. A user willing to take things this far is a hazard to the community. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support An enormous block log, many of which are for similar battleground behaviour, suggests an unwillingness or inability to edit as part of the community. Neutralhomer's constructive edits (of which there are many) don't balance out the problems caused by this sort of attitude. The two unblock requests, based as they were on promises not to interact with one specific editor, fail to address the underlying issue. Although it will be a shame to lose him, Neutralhomer has had more than enough rope by this point; this chilling off-wiki harassment would be solid grounds for a ban on its own, but combined with his history... a ban is the only sensible solution here. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support Snitching to a user's employer because of an apparent content dispute is a bright-line offense. I would support a community ban for ANY editor who did this. Skinwalker (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: This is way overblown. If we're going to ban folks because they contact owners of IPs who are "misbehaving" on Misplaced Pages, then we have no business having templates like {{Shared IP corp}}. The template says "In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation." So we want to ban the guy for doing exactly what the template says we may do? There are plenty of other issues with this editor, but this is the wrong reason to ban the guy. Toddst1 (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 1000) Without commenting on the community ban proposal, the {{Shared IP corp}} and related templates are there so editors can contact the owner of the IP to complain about vandalism. They aren't there to call an employer because you are in a content dispute with the user. The chilling effects created by "I can phone your employer if you disagree with me" are the same as or worse than "I will sue you unless you agree with me." Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• "Here! here!"Spartaz 14:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Strongest possible oppose Frankly, what Neutralhomer did was stupid to the umpteenth degree and he deserves an indefinite block for it, at least until we feel like he's ready to come pack without the problem, but a community ban is entirely different. A community ban says "We don't want you anymore and you shouldn't can't be part of this community". While his action was terrible, I believe a community ban is a great overreaction. Ryan Vesey 14:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Neutralhomer's behaviour was untenable, and if you read his appeal against the block and his subsequent talk page comments, he is still trying to justify his actions by claiming that he "was trying to stop vandalism". That he cannot grasp the elementary tenets of WP:VANDAL after all this time suggests to me that he simply isn't competent to edit Misplaced Pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Calm down. everyone. He made a mistake; he needs to clear that up by clearly stating that it simply will not happen again. Mebbe a mentor. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support Trying to get someone sacked because you a) think you have the moral right to decide where and when that editor can contribute and b) are in a content dispute with said editor is so far beyond acceptable behaviour that I'm struggling to articulate how unacceptable that is. I'm just shaking my head at some of the oppose comments trying to make this sound somehow understandable. Spartaz 14:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Absurd I was actually in the middle of emailing Homer when this came across my talk page. What Homer did was stupid. Banning him because of it is not only over the top, but WP:POINTed and arguably more extreme. He overreacted and basically screwed up royally. How is what we are proposing any different? How is banning going to prevent damage? How is this anything more than patting ourselves on our backs at how clever and just we are? No, banning isn't needed. The block certainly was, and some education and a clear path forward is needed, but I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon by overreacting here. Everyone should just drop this and let the people on the talk page deal with it in a calm, collected and respectable manner. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as moral support, at least. I'm shocked, I have to say. Homer and me go way back, and to say we didn't start off as friends is an understatement. I have come to appreciate him and like him, though I think it's fair to say I've criticized him often enough for his occasional outbursts (which I think have certainly lessened in recent years). I don't know what came over him: of course calling someone's boss is unacceptable. Well, I do know, I think, what came over him--rage. Which I thought he was managing pretty well. What comes after is partly shame, IMO, hence the claim of stopping vandalism. To err is human, and a ban (I'm happy to see someone, above, agrees with me) is too much. Oh, Andy, I find it difficult to accept statements about basic Misplaced Pages tenets from you sitting atop a moral stallion--but that's in passing. Give Homer a break, even if an indefinite one with the standard offer attached. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I too am uncomfortable with his behavior, however it certainly does not rise to the level of deserving a community ban. Let the process play out through normal unblock requests. Community bans are the ultimate sanction Misplaced Pages can apply and we are far to quick to call for them. Monty₈₄₅ 15:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The guy made a mistake, has fessed up and apologized and promised not to do it again. Whatever happened to the quality of mercy not being strained? Keep the block if you will (though, at this point does it really harm Misplaced Pages to unblock him?) but a community ban? Way overreaction, imo. --regentspark (comment) 15:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose This is too extreme. Yes, we've had problems with this editor, but it's not as though he hasn't made some good contributions or even that he doesn't recognise what he did was wrong. I don't think he's going to do this again - and if he does then I'd probably support a ban. But not now, I don't see any harm in an unblock. Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nothing productive to be gained at this point. But I will say I'm very shaken by this and would not intercede if similar behavior recurs. Going outside the playground to settle scores is not on.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - overkill. Jauerback/_dude. 15:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support community ban, indefinite block, whatever you want to call it. Neutralhomer has a long history of getting into disputes with other users and then becoming obsessive about that person, leading to personal attacks and harassment. This particular incident crossed a very serious line. The comments that "oh well, he did an oopsie but promises not to do it again" understate both the nature of the incident and the chronic problems with this editor over the years. – Steel 15:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The lack of comments advocating an immediate unblock tells you we take this seriously. But that we want it to be in the area of a negotiated return, if possible, rather than having discretion taken out of the hands of admins.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Wehwalt, you were proposed somewhere above as a mentor. How do you feel about that? Drmies (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Reluctant. I'd have to see what was involved, and what NH was willing to undertake. I'm not ruling it out, but I'm not going to commit myself blindly.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this discussion has been framed in a rather unhelpful way, with community ban on one side and all other responses on the other side, where some are downplaying the significance of these events and suggest unblocking now. A substantial number want to keep the indefinite block in place without a formal ban and my comment does not apply to this category of opposers. – Steel 17:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I think most of us agree that block was well deserved and shouldn't be lifted without a clear path forward, at least from what I see. What he did was a perfect reason for an indef block, until he can demonstrate sufficient clue. He is part way there. But that is different than a ban, which means "you are no longer worth the effort, you are a burden on the community with virtually no redeeming qualities". I've voted for bans before when that was the case, but this isn't that case here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

To make it clear: I strongly support the block. I just think there is the chance of a path back, but the ball is squarely in Neutralhomer's court to propose the path. That being said, I think the lesson will be lost unless there's some time blocked.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

And possibly some editing restrictions installed, maybe the TV area and 1RR, or both. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The behaviour was wrong, but the editor does not appear to be irredeemably bad. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - seems counterproductive and overkill at this point. – Connormah (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose So far as I can see, what he did was wrong, but I feel he did it for the good of Misplaced Pages as he saw it at that moment. If he does it again (which I very much doubt), then he'd be showing that he didn't understand what was wrong with it (but I think he does now). I would probably support a timed but not indefinite ban then. Peridon (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Maybe next time he will succeed in getting the editor sacked but that's OK as long we give a user who clearly doesn't understand the line another chance. Spartaz 16:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Appalling behaviour from Neutralhomer? Yes. Community ban needed? No. Neutralhomer overreacted badly, but we'll only compound that if we respond with a similarly emotional overreaction. The current block is the appropriate response, and we should not rule out a negotiated return. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I know that Homer certainly wouldn't count me among his circle of friends, but I do feel the need to state that a community ban is far too excessive here. I am mindful of his block log, but it's been quite a while since the last time Homer got himself blocked and it is apparent he has become mellower over time. I've read the exchanges on his talk page, and I do see that he's trying hard to satisfy the demands for apologies and promises that have been presented to him. It's not easy to do that, particularly when you are stressed, so I hope folks will cut him some slack. His heart is in the right place; he's had a very severe shock from this discussion; I have no doubt he'll stay "on the rails" for a long time now. We don't need a community ban to remove a problem that has now ceased to exist. --RexxS (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• support block/oppose ban For some reason Homer and one or two other users seems to be desperate to find anything they could to get leverage on the user at the other end of this. In his zeal for finding some way to "win" this content dispute by any means necessary, he went way over the line and did something unbelievably crass and stupid. For a minute there he tried to tap dance around that fact and make it out as if it was not a big deal. He appears now to understand the reality of the situation and to honestly regret this monumental lapse in judgement. I think he needs a break from WP and WP needs a break from him, but just a break, not a ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• support block/oppose ban per Beeblebrox. If NH makes firm commitment to never, ever to do that again, support reducing block to a period not less than week. (Although WP as a community may have occasion to contact an IP owner, NH's lack of judgement should prohibit them from ever unilaterally making that decision again.) Nobody Ent 17:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• I think that would be a decent requirement. Ryan Vesey 17:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I've been trying to assume good faith and keep things civility with Neutralhomer even with are recent disagreements. However it's getting a bit hard to assume good faith in him when he is not assuming good faith in others as he did in this case. Finding that he called someone's employer over a content dispute is where I see him crosses the line with civility. Per AndyTheGrump comment above he does not seem to understand the different between WP:Vandalism and a content dispute. With that, I think the block should be continued until he gets a better understanding of WP:Assume good faith, WP:Civility, and WP:Vandalism. However, I don't think a ban is needed right now, if he were to do it again than I support a ban. Powergate92Talk 17:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose ban, support block Several years ago I and a few other editors were sort of informal mentors for NH. I stuck my neck out for him then, and he rewarded my trust. I wish he'd remembered the advice offered then: turn off the computer and walk away. There are still plenty of people he could have consulted if he needed a reality check. I'm very disappointed, and I believe NH needs some space between him and WP for a while, but I don't see a ban as useful or necessary. Acroterion (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't think that community ban is needed in this stage.He had his nose clean for more then an year also he was a good editor--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Anyone is free to make use of abuse@hostingprovider.com or other means of ISP contact regarding a problematic IP user as they see fit. If someone does not want this information available, make an account. Tarc (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral ban/support strong sanction: I don't know if a community ban is the solution, but this has to be addressed in the strongest possible terms to make it clear that this simply should not be done, it's only one step down from a physical threat of harm! Things going off-wiki like this open up legal worries for both the perpetrator and for[REDACTED] Had someone done this to me (though luckily I am self-employed), unless they were someone I already "knew" off-wiki and could manage myself on my own, I would probably call law enforcement and possibly try to get them criminally charged for something like stalking or harassment, or perhaps some charge related to abuse of a telephone per FCC regs. If it were a fellow US Citizen, they could wind up with the feds at their door, frankly. My view is that the dramah that happens on-wiki stays on-wiki. You don't go off-wiki except if there is some concern with something like safety, danger of actual harm, or perhaps identity theft (someone claiming to be a famous person, but isn't that person, for example, might want to alert the real individual in some fashion). Otherwise, communication should not be made with third parties without the consent of all involved and you most certainly do not use a[REDACTED] disagreement to harass someone in real life. This concerns me deeply. Montanabw 18:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Apology - yes - stern warning - yes - never again - yes; hopefully he'll learn from his mistakes...Modernist (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Adding WP US to a talkpage

moved from Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators' noticeboard

Hello. I have been adding the tag of WikiProject United States to all pages related to the US, including American citizens. User:Elizium23 thinks this is "overzealous tagging", but the same applies to WikiProject Biography for example--all human beings are tagged under this project. Similarly, all French citizens are tagged under WikiProject France, etc. We have discussed this on your project's talkpage but have come to no conclusion: . Another Wikipedian, User:Kumioko agreed with me about tagging American citizens under WP US. I also don't always have time to assess the article, but as Misplaced Pages is a work in progress and a collaborative effort, I assume someone else will do the rest of the work whenever they can. However, it's a complete waste of everyone's time, and will lead to Misplaced Pages's undoing if work gets deleted, for example here: . Notice that I suggested tagging David Ayer, who just produced End of Watch on the WP US talkpage, and then another user, User:Ottawahitech, did it: . I seem to be vindicated in what I'm doing, but again, I won't do it if my work is undone/reverted. I also can't ask for permission every time I see an American citizen's page, so we need to come to an agreement. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProjects each have their own criteria for determining what falls within the scope of the project, so it's not really likely that you will receive an admin response here that will enforce a decision that benefits anyone in this matter. See Misplaced Pages:WikiProject coordination#WikiProjects do not own articles, with regards to tagging articles. However, the context of that relates more to removing banners of a project you're not a member of. But if you are simply flying around Wiki tagging a whole load of articles without assessing them, and this is resulting in backlogs which other members are begrudgingly having to work through, then it is probably better not to engage in this, unless you are assessing them yourself as you tag. There's nothing to be gained by a wikiproject tagging articles without assessing grade, importance and task forces – grading helps editors determine what the current quality is at, incase they want to improve it. Also, tagging each and every person just because they're a "U.S. citizen" may be overdoing it somewhat. From what I gather, that project is more about the U.S. as a country, so unless a citizen has had a notable impact on U.S. culture, such as presidents, civil rights leaders, moguls, celebrities, military figures, notorious criminals/gangsters, etc, then it's probably best left for WikiProject Biography. Just because a man is U.S. born and notable for something to warrant a page, let's say a celebrity chef, for example, doesn't necessarily mean they've had a huge impact on American society and that project members need to monitor and develop that page.. biographers are best suited to such tasks. Tagging based solely on national identity is bound to pose problems with some members, which is why common sense seems better and it is probably best only to tag those of significant cultural importance. We're getting to the stage where a lot of Public Relations groups are creating articles for barely-known individuals, businesses, etc, as a means of advertising. Do you really want to tag every average Joe, just because they're American, and are only notable because of a few questionable mentions in a newspaper? How about popular American YouTubers.. are they worth tagging as "U.S." given that it's hardly likely they affect U.S. culture at all, they're just entertaining? You should consider a lot more than "citizenship" alone before tagging anyone, or WikiProjects become bogged down, members become confused, and they start to drift away out of frustration because the scope is losing it's focus. Ma®©usBritish 23:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't find the specific policy/guideline/whatever reference for this, but IIRC the policy/guideline/whatever is "Don't remove Wikiproject tags. Period". Or pretty close to that. The reason is that Wikiproject tags are placed by the projects to indicate articles that people who have an interest in that project may also want to edit. Tagging the talk page is not an issue of identifying the subject as being anything OTHER than something that people who use the Wikiproject may be interested it. As a classic example, Talk:Nazism is tagged as being part of "WikiProject Jewish history", not because the Nazis were particularly nice to Jewish people, but because people working on Jewish history have an interest in Naziism, broadly speaking. Likewise with any project: It's up to people interested in the project to decide what is, and is not, under their interest, which broadly means don't take down other people's tags. --Jayron32 23:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It's the last sentence of the first paragraph of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject coordination#WikiProjects do not own articles – however, whilst you shouldn't remove other project's banners, you can remove your own, especially if the banner seems superfluous. e.g. there must be thousands of animals indigenous to the U.S. but they don't all need the "U.S." banner when there are animal and wildlife wikiprojects better suited to developing them. A culturally important animal like the Buffalo (American Bison) might warrant tagging, but not each and every frog, ant, fish and beast that ever walked. I think that's the point some of the members are missing, whilst others are completely aware of it. Ma®©usBritish 23:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand though, I've seen WPUS tags added to the talk pages of Misplaced Pages-space pages belonging to other WikiProjects, which is a bit much. I've also seen WPUS tag every possible article in sight, and such obnoxious tagging should be reverted. --Rschen7754 23:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, you wouldn't tag "The Bible" as "U.S." just because America has religion would you? Wouldn't tag a chemical as "U.S." just because it was discovered by an American scientist? There has to be limits to prevent projects being flooded with nonsense. Ma®©usBritish 23:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

WPUS should tag whichever articles they're prepared to support, just like any other WikiProject. Last I checked, they had tagged only 10% the number of articles that WPBIO supports. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I'm a member of WikiProject United States, and I don't tag much for it. I think WPUS should focus on American biography, geography, and history. Now that's already thousands and thousands of articles pbp 00:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You may have a major point there. The larger the project, the more fragmented the interests of the participants. Let me ask a question, if you have a project that covers 10% of the encyclopedia, what are the chances that 50% of the participants have enough of a common interest to focus on improving a significant number of articles? I also accept that at some point a project can also be too small. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing? Since when was Wiki a competitive arena to see who could tag more articles? Last I knew there were more than 6 billion people in the world. Are there more than 6 billion items that represent U.S. culture? That kind of attitude is what leads to project mis-management and why so many are over-strained. No sensibe Wikiproject just tags "what they're prepared to support" willy-nilly, they define a scope in order to prevent the wrong types of articles being tagged because they're too loosely related. As is clearly happening at project U.S. where members are evidently complaining about it. If bog-paper had been invented in the U.S. would you tag that? The LGBT flag was designed in San Francisco, why not tag that too if you think U.S. could do better than the LGBT project, simply because it's "American"? Ma®©usBritish 00:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

That kind of sums up why I was not in favor of them using their project tag to include some projects I work on. While WPUS may have more eyes, that does not mean it is better. I think time has shown that tagging appears to be more important then working on the articles already tagged. Using WPBIO as a comparison, bodes poorly for any project since most of those articles need work and assessment. Maybe those two make the point that projects need to be smaller to be effective. I did make a suggestion for some kind of cooperative tagging to say that smaller projects were by default willing to work with WPUS, but that went no where. Also, can editors be aware of the indent with replies? It's getting hard to figure out where some of the comments belong. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not suggesting taking all these things. We have a problem however regarding tagging (or not) pages of American citizens...actually, mostly American actors and American movies. I don't see why those two things shouldn't get tagged. American actors for example are 1) American citizens 2)represent the US on the Big Screen (see soft power). Similarly American businessmen completely fall into the purview of the wikiproject I think. I however don't want to add tags if they get removed as it happened a few days ago.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Because, you're not tagging it because "he's an American guy" or "this is an American film", you're tagging it because "we can develop and maintain this article, as it represents the U.S. entire". John Wayne, big pro-American guy, very notable - tag him. His film Stagecoach, made in America, set in America, but it hardly represents the U.S., so it's best tagged by Project Films and Project Westerns whose members have more interest in such things. WikiProject's are a bit like categories, you've got to know what represents the parent "U.S." and what is secondary, and can be managed by other projects whose scope is more focused. Otherwise we just end up with a ton of over-tagged articles, which is detrimental to the purpose of having projects to focus on key articles. Your argument is basically "tag it because it's American", without even considering how it represents America. Which will simply result in the project becoming a nationalistic hat-collector project, rather than one that aims to develop and maintain articles, that focus on U.S. values. Not every "made in America" film, kids programme, B movie actor, porn star, stunt man, and such is going to matter an iota to the majority of the U.S., so they get tagged and... nothing ever becomes of it. Same with actors.. are you going to tag every U.S. child actor who had a few cameo appearances? e.g. Peter Ostrum? Every tacky second-rate B-movie, American album, and soundtrack? Given that the purpose of Wiki is to create and maintain an encyclopedia, how does is benefit from project U.S. tagging every hint of America in sight? It seems impractical.. worse when an article is tagged with U.S. / their home U.S. State / Bio / Film and so on.. at this rate we'll be tagging every known gay person with LGBT, every religious person with Christian, Jewism or Islamic, until we can't move for tags. That's why it's over-zealous to turn project U.S. into a stereotype project that "land grabs" every article it can lay its eyes on. Ma®©usBritish 01:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you've forgotten one quintessential thing: priority. Generally speaking, projects focus on improving their top (~1%) or high (~10%) articles. I'm fine with those priorities being distributed across a wide variety of fields (particularly the trio I mentioned above). In practice, an article being tagged as low-importance by a WikiProject doesn't really mean anything, on the U.S. project or any other project. But, as I said, I don't tag much for WikiProject U.S.; when I do, I tag something that would likely be mid-priority or higher. I do reassess existing tags, however pbp 18:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a very good point. For all but the smallest of projects, tagging an article with the lowest priority level (or which would be the lowest priority level if the tagger bothered to assess it) is a waste of time - especially if the article's already been tagged by another project. The only exception is WPBIO, because it gives maintenance categories and template notices relating to WP:BLP. Rd232 19:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Also WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN. It is 100% up to the participants in the WikiProject. There is no rule that they be big enough to work on everything. WikiProject Medicine isn't going to work on every single article within its scope this year, but I doubt that any of you believe that several thousand rare genetic disorders and rare cancers should be excluded from the project's scope just because there aren't enough people to get to everything right away. WPMED is, however, prepared to answer questions if someone needs help at those articles, and to assess them for the WP:1.0 team, and that's a valid level of support.

There's nothing wrong with having half a dozen projects tag a page. If WPUS wants to tag something, that doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights to tag it, too.

Tagging low-priority subjects isn't a waste of time: WikiProjects are not treated equally by the WP:1.0 team (=the only reason anyone assesses articles in the first place). The formula treats narrow-scope projects differently from wide-scope ones. A B/Low rating from WPUS is more valuable than a B/Low rating from a group like "WikiProject Western film actors from the 1960s". It's also valuable to tag pages if the group can provide specialized assistance. For example, Tom Cruise is tagged by WikiProject LGBT, which is better positioned than any other group to deal with disputes about a single paragraph in it. This is not one of their "core topics" (they don't participate in "importance" ratings), but if you've got a dispute about that one paragraph, then you're better off asking for their assistance than asking for WikiProject New York's or WikiProject Religion's. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is tagging with a low priority a waste of time? It still allows the project to follow the progress of the article via article alerts. In WP:GERMANY the majority of recent article promotions where articles of low importance to the understanding of the subject matter "Germany". The wider input from the project had not been gained if those articles had not been tagged. The same is true about PRODs, AFDs and RMs. The all are notified to the group and action can be taken. WP:US is a slightly interesting beast as it is hated with a passion by some and therefore they do not want articles tagged as WP:US and they will fight tooth and claw to get the tags removed of their articles, and some of the stateprojects do not act as taskforces, but the majority do, so I do not understand the previous posters comment that there are no taskforces. In fact if you check the banner it allows for different importance assessments for each of these sub-projects. A WP:US importance of Low can at the same time be rated Mid for Ohio and High for Cape Cod. Those subprojects can still function with their own article alerts ect but have the collective support of the larger group. Another thing that a lot of people do not understand is that the WikiProject tagging is part of the overall WP:1.0 assessment which looks at the overall size of projects and does a statistical analysis accross the various projects to establish the number of articles which are to be included for every core subject. There being part of different subject projects is truly helpful for the article to make the final cut. Agathoclea (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Once again, from the top: A WikiProject is a group of people who want to work together. It is not a method of categorizing articles. So "WikiProject WhatamIdoing's friends" is a perfectly fine WikiProject, and you could start "WikiProject People who think WhatamIdoing is nuts" and support exactly the same articles. The point is that we would work with each other, and you would work with each other, and if we and y'all can't work together in one big, happy group, then it is 100% fine for us to form two separate, smaller groups.

That is exactly what's happened here. Most of people at the state projects are not interested in working together with the people at the US project. They are separate groups of people. Therefore they are separate WikiProjects.

At this point, I'd ike to know why you even care. Are they out goring your favorite ox? do you feel denigrated because somebody else expressed an interest in helping with "your" article? Don't you have something better to do than to tell some other volunteer how to use his time? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I got the strange feeling we agree on this. Agathoclea (talk) 06:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to stay out of this conversation largely because I am tired of talking about what should be a fundamental rule...that WikiProject should be able to freely tag the articles in their scope. Unfortunately, from day one, WikiProject US has been under attack for tagging, which was part of the reason it failed and was shuttered before I started it back up a couple years ago. The bottom line is, if a project doesn't tag an article then they have no responsibility to develop or maintain it, period. So these arguments that it never helped do this and that are really supid and pointless because of course the project didn't help do anything if its not allowed to tag it. Secondly, we are and have been wasting huge amounts of time, energy and hardrive space bickering about simple concepts. Cooperation, team work and collaboration. These are fundamental principles that Misplaced Pages goes by and yet they seem to be lost on this we own the article stay away bullshit that's been going on. I am finding it very petty, tiresome and quite frankly childish. At this point I think myself and the other members of WPUS have done a lot of good work to a lot of articles so if one or 2 editors don't like the WPUS tag on their pet article then quite frankly I don't give a shit. Deal with it and grow up. Were all here to build an encyclopedia and to expand articles each in our own way and if that rubs a few editors raw that others are encrouching on their pet space then thats just tough. Kumioko (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Sarcasam Oh hey, look! It's a backdoor debate about Wikiproject US, again... No individual project holds ownership of a article. Use common sense when tagging (Do you really need a WP:Organism project tag for a specific species of ant?). Disagree with the tagging of an article to a specific project? DISCUSS IT, don't hostiley remove the project tag. I'm saying this at both WP:US members and other projects who think they have a lock on the rights to what projects a article can be shared with. Hasteur (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Gun Powder Ma

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

This user Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to view Misplaced Pages primarily as a tool for advancing his anti-Muslim agenda, generally through the addition of laughably inappropriate sources (anti-Muslim blogger Fjordman as a reliable source?) (often restoring them after being reverted, claiming falsely that the removing user did not provide a reason). He has also been completely unresponsive to multiple users advising him to go through normal WP processes like RSN and not to edit war. I recommend a block or topic ban if possible, and close scrutiny of his edits (both past and ongoing) if not. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on the subject of Islam and Muslims, broadly construed. KillerChihuahua 18:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• You need to provide problematic diffs in order to have someone sanctioned. The "inappropriate" link is something that's clearly appropriate from a sourcing angle — WP:SELFPUB says that we may use organisations' websites as sources about their own statements, and the precedent from the discussions on the Southern Poverty Law Center's recent designation of several organisations as hate groups shows that consensus favors including this kind of comment from organisations that are fiercely biassed against article subjects. The Fjordman link simply shifts the blog citation from one place to another, again using the source as a reference for its creator's position. The Investigative Project on Terrorism section of the Steven Emerson article appears to indicate that parts of the US government have depended on it (unless I misunderstand something), so it's at least not laughably inappropriate. What else is there to which you object? Nyttend (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • In the edit war link given above by Roscelese three editors reverted GPM, two of them admins. I've notified them of this discussion. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Nyttend, you're arguing sources. This is not about sources. This is about combative editing combined with ignoring DR. Had GPM utilized DR and RSN, we wouldn't be here. KillerChihuahua 19:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • That's plainly not true; among other issues with your comment, the Fjordman cite was inserted by GPM himself, and there clearly is not consensus to make articles into soapboxes for the self-published views of patently unreliable sources. Seriously, you may disagree but it really is the least you can do not to post things that are obviously false in order to get your buddy off. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on the subject of Islam and Muslims, broadly construed. --John (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• oppose topic ban very strongly - GPM has done much good work in this area William M. Connolley (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Like what? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

  That may be, but if he edit wars, uses false edit summaries, and refuses to participate in DR or on RSN then he is a problem more than an asset. Can you persuade him to mend his ways? KillerChihuahua 19:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

How about you see what he has to say before you make your mind up? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know what he did elsewhere, but he does have problems with recognising reliable sources (or maybe unreliable ones). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

See the Jagged85 cleanup stuff William M. Connolley (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. The way he inserted Fjodman puts Gun Powder Ma in the Noleander boat, or rather in its mirror image of some kind. If there is no consensus here for a ban, this definitely should go to ArbCom. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• Aren't ban discussions supposed to be at WP:AN instead of here?
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Yep. Moved it.

• Oppose RFCU should be done first. Nobody Ent 20:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nobody Ent also I don't any proof that some discussion of the editor problems were discussed with him.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 21:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Other than the links I provided of editors discussing the problem with him and him blowing them off? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The links provided do not show edit warring, but they do show a great deal of incivility on the part of the person bringing the complaint, and very little discussion of content. The bit of text that seems to be causing the most trouble is "In 2009, the FBI broke off its contacts with CAIR, following rising concerns about the organization's ties with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas." Surely this is something that can be fact-checked and possibly even other sources found for it (doesn't Department of State maintain such lists?) instead of haranguing another editor, and telling them "stay out of this topic area", essentially defending CAIR. Roscelese has done the same thing at Secular Islam Summit, reinserting the CAIR-approved viewpoints, and removing anything critical of CAIR, as well as inserting untrue and unsourced biographical material about living persons, into the text over and over. There was also the same pattern of incivility. Some kind of dispute resolution was tried in April, but those editors were all driven away, and a new batch of editors was driven away as well. Most recently, Roscelese has removed the NPOV tag and continues the slow edit war over inserting unsourced biographical material , and rejecting reliable sources, and promoting an invented synthesis that basically accuses living persons of apostasy, which in CAIR's world, is punishable by death. Neotarf (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Or, to put it in a sentence, "I'm still sulking that no one agreed with my complete disregard of Misplaced Pages's sourcing policies on an unrelated article, so I'm going to try to sabotage Misplaced Pages process." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
    • That is incivil and unsupportable. Neotarf (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Editors shouldn't be writing statements like "the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas" using Misplaced Pages's unattributed neutral narrative voice, particularly an editor who has been around since 2006 and made over 15,000 edits. There is no excuse for it. It shows that they don't understand or care about the very basic mandatory rules of the project. Each time an editor makes an edit like this where a POV, no matter whether it is the FBI's or Hamas', is presented as an unattributed fact, someone has to fix it. If an editor makes a lot of edits like this that need fixing, it eventually becomes disruptive and something has to happen to stop it. I don't know the extent of Gun Powder Ma's problematic editing but this is a crystal clear example of an editor not complying with mandatory policy. Misplaced Pages seems to be incapable of dealing with editors who edit in a consistently biased way. Their presence makes writing an encyclopedia, which is supposed to be fun, into a sisyphean task. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Sean, the sentence could be worded better, true, but why not just make the attribution more clear instead of edit-warring to remove it completely? Look at the first sentence, taken straight from the organization's PR material: "The Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR) is America's largest Muslim civil liberties advocacy organization that deals with civil advocacy and promotes human rights." Human rights? REALLY? This is an organization that believes any Moslem that does not accept its Salafist doctrines is guilty of apostasy and should be killed. The piece made it look like 1) CAIR is even more wonderful than bunnies and kittens 2) CAIR represents all Moslems. It's a puff piece. The wording was restored with the edit summary "unexplained removal of contents". Surely this is the time for Roscelese to take it to the talk page, instead of just calling it "ridiculous" in the edit summary and reverting again. This is plain and simple BRD, Bold-Revert-Discuss, except that Roscelese skipped the discuss part and went straight for another revert.
        • I don't see bias as a special problem. Everyone has bias; no way to escape it. That's what RS is for. Otherwise you're just back to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is basically the argument Roscelese keeps making here for why everyone else should stop editing.
        • Yes, it's discouraging try to edit with someone who writes insults and unfounded accusations into every line and edit summary, who reinserts WP:BLP material that has been carefully sifted out in dispute resolution, and who always seems to be surrounded by editors who are getting blocked and banned, whether they were involved or just innocent bystanders.
        • Neotarf (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
          • • I strongly recommend that you cut out the lies and personal attacks right now. You are not helping your case nor Gun Powder Ma's. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
              • Well, I don't think Gun Powder Ma's case needs much help right now. The consensus is clearly opposed to the topic ban. AutomaticStrikeout 23:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
          • Nothing is even more wonderful than bunnies and kittens other than perhaps more bunnies and kittens, and puppies I guess. Well, I didn't look at the context. Ignoring context and focusing intently on something that is shiny and catches my eye simplifies things enormously, but since you insist, GPM made a bold (B) but bad edit to the lead that violates a core policy NPOV and despite what WP:LEAD says about the lead being a summary. Roscelese reverted it (R). What should have happened then is the GPM should have done the D part of BRD and opened a talk page discussion. They didn't, GPM just put the content back, it was reverted again (it is a policy violation after all and Roscelese isn't under any obligation to clear up other people's mess) and that is how edit wars start, people not following BRD. Who doesn't follow BRD ? POV pushers and people who are tired of dealing with POV pushers. I haven't read through the CAIR article. My only interest in it is as an asset that attracts and can help spot a number of long term, repeat offender, topic banned, compulsively dishonest sockpuppeteers, who disrupt the WP:ARBPIA topic area. "Everyone has bias; no way to escape it."..sure there is, don't edit topics where you have a bias you can't control and topic ban editors who can't control their bias. For example, I think religions are ludicrous, I don't even believe in freedom of religion, so I stay away from those topics. The few edits I do make to religion related articles are usually to defend BLPs from intolerant assholes like me. It's not that difficult but some people seem to have a lot of trouble editing against their POV and those editors should be given some time and encouragement to improve and mercilessly crushed if they can't. A handful edits usually isn't enough evidence to topic ban someone and there are two sides to every story but it's very tedious to build a case to demonstrate long term POV pushing. It's easier to walk away, which I think is what a lot of people do. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Each of the edits is less than a week old; most are from the last day or so. None of the edits look bad; on first glance they should all stand (notable bloggers covering a topic can be cited). Admittedly, disputes can be tense and hard to deal with, but jumping straight to a topic ban is in poor taste. Clearly, a religious area is a difficult place with strongly-held opinions, but Misplaced Pages is not a 'politically-correct' zone. To have NPOV, we have to have both sides. II | (t - c) 02:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The fact that I could support this report with examples from the past couple of days - that I didn't have to do any digging into this user's behavior to find ample evidence of complete disregard for WP:RS and behavioral policies in service of an agenda - should not be spun as a positive. How silly! (And no, NPOV is not about having "both sides" but about using reliable sources. We don't say "in one corner, the round-earth people with their scientific evidence, and in the other corner, the flat-earth people with their blog posts.") –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
    • If someone has a Misplaced Pages page solely because of their work in the area, it's fair to suspect that they will fall under WP:SELFPUB. As far as comparing a comment on the word Islamophobia to a flat-earther, well, I think that speaks for itself as a self-damaging rhetorical strategy. It suggests you're really not being reasonable. II | (t - c) 15:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
      • No, that's not "fair to suspect" at all. Generally, when someone does "work" in an area, they are able to have their work published in reliable sources. If Fjordman were able to have his opinion published in a reliable source, rather than his personal blog, FrontPage Magazine, or other fringe venues, things might be different. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• I've had some previous experience with Gun Powder Ma. He was very aggressive in trying to erase reliably-sourced claims for ancient China's economic strength and innovations. This included routine source misrepresentation (eg ), always in the direction of emphasizing the superiority of European culture over that of Asians. Therefore, I think it's plausible that his involvement in the "Islamophobia" topic area is not productive, but you'll need better diffs to support such a conclusion. Shrigley (talk) 05:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - The only 'edit war' evidence above is thin at best, and one-time edit warring typically results in a ban of 24hrs to a week, not a topic ban. Adding what some users consider poor sources is not in itself a cause for banning as long as the user is open to constructive criticism and challenges to their sources. As suggested above, an RFCU should be done before a topic ban, particularly since GPM is an established editor with a fairly long history of constructive edits. Dialectric (talk) 06:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

  If GPM is "open to constructive criticism", he is not displaying that at Talk:Muslim_Mafia_(book)#Restoration_of_clearly_unreliable_sources. Indeed, he is inserting primary sources (letters tom congresspeople) hosted at an unreliable source (the so-called "Investigative Project") to synthesise a "Political reception" of a book. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

  This. If GPM had responded to constructive criticism with "Okay, help me figure out why these sources aren't good, and I'll see if I can find better sources that support the material I want to add," we wouldn't be here. Instead, he restored the material with blatantly false edit-summaries, edit warred, made personal attacks, and refused to pursue normal WP processes like RSN. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I had similar concerns about editing to an agenda after coming across GPM's edits and approach to article-writing on pages such as La Convivencia - where they were trying to make the page 90% about debunking the concept, in a huge "Criticism" section, based mostly on one essay in the "flagship journal" published by this lot - and University of al-Karaouine, where they were pushing hard with sources that denied non-European medieval institutions could ever be described as universities at all. The sources they've relied on that I've seen are often decent enough (f sometimes skewed - although no sign of Fjordman at least, fortunately) - the problems lay more with weight, partisanship and cherry-picking, and posting one view as if it were uncontested fact, usually a "Eurocentric" one. That said I won't support any kind of ban based on that, or on the discussion here. I disagree with their perspective, but I haven't seen anything too egregious and I dislike the lynch-mob feel of this kind of thing. An RFCU might be the better option. N-HH talk/edits 10:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't have deep experience of the topic area where these edits happened, so I'm not comfortable pronouncing that one side or another is right or wrong (or possibly both). However, I do have experience working with GPM on a different topic which was rather prone to fringe pov-pushing based on dubious sources, and I was impressed by GPM spending a lot of time addressing that problem with a combination of better sources & hard work. So, if the community agreed that there was problematic editing in a particular area, maybe a topic ban would be appropriate, but I would oppose a block. An RfC/U could be a good way to go, here. bobrayner (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Very little evidence provided, just a single incident of edit-warring from a few days ago. This is nowhere near enough for something as drastic as a topic ban. I also see a lot of incivility by Roscelese, which, accompanied by his replies to everyone who votes "oppose", makes think we have something of a WP:HOUND situation here. Athenean (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Like I said - the fact that I didn't have to dig through GPM's edit history to find plenty of examples of problematic editing is not a point in his favor. If, as looks like may happen, this goes to RFC/U, many more examples will be presented. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment/question. In this edit, dating from 3 October 2012, GPM inserted Fjordman's opinion that Islamophobia is a meaningless term. Presumably, we could easily find some other extreme-right dude saying the same about anti-Semitism. Would it be okay to insert in the latter article simply that "X said anti-Semitism is a meaningless term"? I surely hope not. This is what GPM inserted yesterday in the article on Islamophobia :

-- Tijfo098 (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Tijfo, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. Your earlier "Noleander boat" comment seems to be about antisemitism. And the lede of the link you provided to Fjordman says "And the Peder Are Nøstvold Jensen (born 11 June 1975) is a Norwegian far-right Islamophobic blogger who writes under the pseudonym Fjordman." The source needing translation is "Fjordman foreslo nazi-løsning". So it looks like you are saying Gun Powder Ma is either antisemitic, islamophobic, or Nazi, rather than editing in good faith, or trying to add multiple points of view to an article for balance. Neotarf (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Let me quote from the manual: "you want to be sure that all your political opponents are labelled, while you want to avoid labels for your friends. This way, your enemies appear to part of an extreme fringe, while your friends appear to be mainstream." It's easier to remember as "Label your enemy but never your friends". The point is "Because the critics are not identified, readers assume they are mainstream, or representing some objective opinion. This is the key to the subtle smear. Use it." Tijfo098 (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban regarding Islam and Muslims, broadly construed. GPM is clearly incapable of any pretence at neutrality regarding this issue, and is instead using Misplaced Pages as a platform to promote an openly arguably Islamophobic agenda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Are we seriously discussing a topic ban of an editor with 15K edits, on the basis of four questionable sources? Seriously? Even if the editor's edits are problematic, we owe the editor an RFCU at least. I don't doubt that the items listed are examples, rather than the full list of concerns, but if you don't make a case, and can't even bother to let the editor weigh in before reaching a verdict, we have something wrong.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • While it does look like it's going to go to RFC/U, I'm not sure why his large number of edits speaks in his favor; if the diffs provided are a sampling of his large edit history, which they seem to be, this large edit history will just make things more difficult for everyone when we all have to clean it up. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose' GPM is misrepresented as an "Islamophobe"; his concern has always been the maintenence of the traditional view of Western primacy in scientific, engineeering and general intellectual developments in the medieval, Renaissance and Early Modern periods. For years his main concern was battling against assertions of Chinese originality in these areas (as exemplified by the books of Joseph Needham, about whose work many academics have concerns). A while back he was very active in rolling-back the work of Jagged85 (was it) boosterizing medieval Islamic work in science - a necessary thing to do though I think he sometimes went too far, and generally just removed anything suspect rather than attempting to add a balanced view. He is extremely combative and often unscrupulous in argument and use of sources, and his editing has often raised concerns, but to topic ban him as "anti-Islamic" as AndyTheGrump suggests would be wrong. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Ah yes. Citing far-right Islamophobe Fjordman to claim that Islamophobia doesn't exist is just about maintaining the traditional view of Western superiority, which, by the way, is not POV at all. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose He makes valuable contributions when he isn't busting someone's chops...Modernist (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Such as? We've got users here complaining about the fact that I provided only four separate articles (in the past two days) where he added inappropriate sources, edit-warred, used false edit summaries, and blew off constructive criticism from other editors; if you're going to argue that these are meaningless because he does good things, it behooves you to provide, like, maybe one or two examples. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I have taken the liberty of striking Neotarf's comments in this discussion; they are unrelated to the subject at hand, and based on the content of the comments and Neotarf's canvassing ( ) of users who have disagreed with me in the past on unrelated articles to join this discussion, are clearly intended to hijack the discussion in the service of a personal vendetta. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've undone your striking for obvious reasons. Ryan Vesey 18:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Is there another way you would recommend preventing this user from abusing WP process to further a separate vendetta? Perhaps hatting. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Make your comment and allow other editors to discount his comments as they feel fit. Ryan Vesey 19:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Sigh...And this is why behavioral discussions never get anywhere. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

No, Roscelese, it is YOU who keeps on nagging to people who disagree with you. I remember your behaviour at a RfD-procedure where I got that sick of you, that I changed my opinion AGAINST your's. But striking out other user's comments is really crossing the line. I'm starting to believe this discussion should be about a person other than GPM.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I perhaps should have begun with hatting, as is standard practice for off-topic tangents. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose strongly, as someone stated earlier, Roscelese is a wiki hound who follows people around and edits anything not serving her ideological interests. YvelinesFrance (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Examining the edit history of the reporting party as well as the reported party is one thing; sabotaging a discussion because you dislike the user who began it is another. Like Neotarf's, your comments are a waste of the community's time and ought to be ignored. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• I need to investigate this matter thoroughly before I can give a proper opinion. But first I'd like to know why Open Doors (an organisation that monitors persecutions of christians) is "anti-islam." That would help me by making my decision.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • My language may have been exaggerated, but the idea that a site dedicated to converting Muslims to Christianity is an admissible source is nonetheless rather silly. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The diffs provided by Roscelese are entirely inadequate to support her case. Having looked through this thread, I think her hectoring and hounding of the editors who oppose what she wants is unacceptable and is of greater concern than the behaviour she complains of. DeCausa (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • How could I forget that these sorts of things are meant to be votes and not discussions? How silly of me. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and the discussion is showing that the majority disagrees with you and is tired of being hounded for it. AutomaticStrikeout 23:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose If you like, take it to RFC/U as long as you don't badger the opposes there too. AutomaticStrikeout 21:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

eyes needed

Noting to horrible yet, but I have feeling that we may need uninvolved admins at some point at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It's like rain on your wedding day.... --Jayron32 19:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

On our wedding day a car got broken into and all the wallets and gifts were stolen. I suspect the Romney team, of course--and I still lack a set of steak knives. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

LOL! Montanabw 21:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd bet they left the fondue pot behind. First, the Romney crew don't believe in the cultural melting pot; second, all those forks in one place surely does not meet the family-first definition of a proper relationship. Third, where does big corporate health care make any money when everyone shares nicely? dangerouspanda 14:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The preceding four comments remind me of the type of stuff User:Baseball Bugs used to do that led to a ban discussion last February. Is this what ya'll what AN to be? Logically per WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV it would be appropriate for me et. al. to start dumping anti Obama comments in here -- will that improve WP at all? Nobody Ent 20:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

So... you're equating lighthearted banter with disruptive POV editing? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Stale-ish Unblock Request

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

I found an old unblock request from User:Noodleki. It would appear that they were blocked indef on 23 September for repeated copyvios, following which they posted two fairly contentious unblock requests, both denied. A third unblock request went up on 24 September, and has yet to be answered. Had the third request been as angry and incivil as the first two, I'd have closed it on sight - but it seemed that the user may have calmed down enough to discuss the matter. Or maybe not, I dunno. But I'd rather someone take a look and put it to bed for good - either way - before just dismissing it. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 20:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, the unblock request is at User_talk:Noodleki#2_problems_with_your_work. Thanks in advance for taking a quick look. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 12:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I will look at this now (posting here to prevent edit conflicts!) Kim Dent-Brown 12:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for the catch UltraExactZZ, I agree the latest request is much calmer and have unblocked. I will keep an eye on their talk page. Kim Dent-Brown 12:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

No worries - thank you for the quick and well-reasoned response. I'll watchlist their talk as well. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 15:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for full site ban for StillStanding-247

Macabre ideation at User talk:StillStanding-247#Blindfold about five forms of death includes shooting squad, natural causes, run-over by a truck, paid gang-style execution, and a "dastardly plan to murder" .  This episode has been preceded by a long string of admin warnings .  Unscintillating (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see the need at this time. I don't think anyone needs to rush to unblock him, but the mocking threat was actually less of a reason for the block than the continuous and ongoing personal attacks against TParis. The mock threats were an escalation of the attacks, but I don't think anyone takes them as serious, just terribly uncouth and the straw that broke the camel's back after all the other attacks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Since you are interested in Editor Retention, maybe you should be opposed to plans to murder Misplaced Pages editors.  Had you helped get a four-month block, we would not be discussing a site ban now.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Please provide a diff of Dennis Brown's statement he is not opposed to murder plans. Nobody Ent 03:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) That makes no sense that Dennis Brown has said that he is not opposed to murder plans.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
    • You are way over the line here. The only person responsible for SS's actions is him. —Kerfuffler  horsemeat
      forcemeat  03:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
  • None of the other comments TParis cited were anywhere near the kind of incivility I would suggest is worthy of a block, unless we are according admins special treatment when it comes to biting personal comments directed at them. The joking comments were twisted into something far more serious than what any reasonable reading would support in order to justify the indefinite block. Given that he has exactly one other block and only that ridiculous article ban against him otherwise as far I know, I fail to see how the indef was appropriate, never mind this bizarre talk of a site-ban.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
    • So only evidence given by TParis should be considered?  That makes no sense.  There were reported to be more than a dozen admins who have issued warnings.  StillStanding-247 has been an editor at Misplaced Pages since 22 July, or about ten weeks.  As per the diffs I provided above, his first admin warning came 39 hours after he became an editor.  He has made frequent appearances at noticeboards all over the project.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• Meh. This reads more like a pissed off editor blowing off steam. If we all ignore him, he goes away. No need to gravedance at this point. --Jayron32 03:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Appeal to the majority is a logical fallacy.  The use of vulgar language to label an editor is both WP:UNCIVIL and an ad hominem.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Huh? --Jayron32 03:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Once is an unfunny joke that shows a personal attack has escalated to the point of stupidity...twice ( with clarity of use of the actual term "murder" is threatening while perhaps not an outright threat) and surely meant to scare the shit out of those reading it, make them uncomfortable enough to stop editing and disrupt the general community. The latter was certainly accomplished. Block justified, ban not at this time--Amadscientist (talk) 04:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
        • If he's abusing his talk page, shut it down and send him to WP:BASC for any unblock requests. There's no need to deal with him any further. A ban discussion is either feeding his trollish behavior, or unneccessary grave dancing. Just block his talk page access, remove everything except the block notice, and send him on his way. --Jayron32 04:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Ban No explanation for why the indef block is not sufficient. Monty₈₄₅ 04:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Ban I would note that the comment by the filing editor against Dennis Brown shows that this AN/I is a huge over reaction at this time. Call to close as "Too soon for site ban - unlikely to gain a consensus at this time."--Amadscientist (talk) 04:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Plese don't try to derail this discussion.  Whether you like it or not, the idea of the murder of an admin was posted—it is not a joke, and it is not to be taken lightly.  A number of editors agree that the WMF should contact the police.  I agree that the police should be contacted.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
    • You have fun with that. Let us all know how it turns out when you do call. --Jayron32 04:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
      • The previous post seems to be mocking the point that a number of editors agree that the WMF should contact the police.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
        • I'm not mocking anything. It's a free world: if you want to call the police, pick up the phone and do it. Out of sheer curiosity, I would like to hear what the response from the police is. But if this is a concern of yours, don't let anyone here stand in your way. --Jayron32 05:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
          • I completely and utterly agree with Jayron32; getting the police involved is a gross overreaction. There's no reason to get this worked up over a completely stupid comment by StillStanding-247. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
    • TParis being an admin is an irrelevant factoid and no one suggested murdering anyone, even in jest. Still jokingly suggested that another editor was suggesting "bumping off" TParis. If someone responded to a query with "I'd tell you but then I'd have to kill you" would you also call the cops on that person?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
      • The next diff is one in which a specific admin is named as the target of a "plan to murder".  Where is the humor?  Unscintillating (talk) 06:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Not within your capacity to detect, apparently. --Jayron32 06:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

What's the point? Just close this and end this chapter.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Ban As the above said, indef block is sufficient, too soon for a site ban. Ryan Vesey 04:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• Right. And Unscintillating, that remark to Dennis was stupid and insulting. Note that I wrote about "the post", and said nothing about the contributor. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The previous comment leaves no explanation of how the "remark to Dennis" is "stupid and insulting".  Unscintillating (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Because you implied that because Dennis didn't agree that the user should be sitebanned, it somehow could only mean that Dennis was endorsing murder threats. You've failed to account for alternative viewpoints that don't necessarily fit into the "oppose murder threat - must ban" vs. "if not voting for ban - must endorse murder threat". There's a plethora of grey area here, and by pigeonholing Dennis into an unreasonable place, and not granting his position dignity, you are being rude and insulting. It is far better to grant those who hold differing outlooks on a situation a modicum of dignity, and not misinterpret their difference of opinion as somehow an untenable stance. --Jayron32 05:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• • • • Tag teaming?  Claiming that "I could only mean" is incorrect, so the subsequent refutation is knocking down a straw man.  I've neither accounted for nor failed to account for alternative viewpoints.  The argument wanders on and drifts into being a fallacious argument from authority.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Look, I've tried several times to carry on a conversation with you as though you were a person. Your responses test that assumption severely. Please try to actually talk about this as actual colleagues will discuss a point of difference, not as some formal exercise in logic, okay? Your repeated attempts to deflect any criticism of your stances by reference to arcane rhetorical devices leaves much to be desired. I would much rather you directly confronted the substance of what I, and others, are saying to you, but you've repeatedly avoided the issue by simply referencing various "fallacies" and then patently refused to engage. This method of interaction is not helpful in resolving issues. Please stop avoiding the straightforward discussion. We disagree, that is OK. But give me (and others) the respect of confronting that disagreement in a straightforward manner and not by dodging the need to respond to criticisms and hiding behind technical logic language. It isn't conducive to a productive discussion.--Jayron32 06:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose – I mean, if the person is going to sockpuppet his way through, anyways, assuming he is persistent enough. What difference does it make to anybody? --MuZemike 05:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - While I may not agree with his behaviour recently I feel that at this stage even THINKING about a ban is even more of a knee-jerk reaction than the block! We should give them some rope and if they hang themselves with it then so what! It's easier on the community than stuff like this discussion! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 06:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Rope?  What about the 18 admin warnings in ten weeks, and the frequent visits to noticeboards in that time?  How can we tell when the rope is used up?  Unscintillating (talk) 07:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not seeing any reason to institute a ban for these comments. To be frank (and, notably, without wading through the reams of stuff on StillStanding-247's talk page so I may well be missing some important context here), I don't think that these comments were meant to be taken seriously, though they're not in good taste and do suggest an entirely unhelpful attitude. This justifies an indef block (which is pretty unlikely to ever be lifted), but not a formal ban. Nick-D (talk) 06:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I have a hard time taking anything serious if it uses the word "dastardly". EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
    • So we should ignore the comments because one editor thinks that they should be ignored?  Unscintillating (talk) 07:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• Not yet. Just keep observing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'd oppose an unblock, as he shows no sign of understanding the other reasons for the block. However, if he were to understand what he's been doing wrong, it shouldn't require appealing to the Foundation or to the general community. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - When and if StillStanding does something more to destroy his credibility or standing at Misplaced Pages, I have full faith in the Admin corps ability to handle it. Unscintillating, I think it would be best if you leave the additional drama at home. It is fairly obvious that StillStanding didn't really make any credible or serious threats of violence. Stirring the pot to cause more drama doesn't help. -- Avanu (talk) 06:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

These comments are not those of a neutral editor. ; Unscintillating (talk) 07:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Look Unscinillating; just drop it! You've said your piece on this matter and you need to stop pushing it in our faces as though it was the only way to look at things! If you keep at it you may well end up being blocked for the same reasons as stillstanding sans the threats! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 07:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)