Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:40, 27 February 2009

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Mysticshade back again

User:Dundean19 has just been created and is starting to repeat the disruptive insertion of photographs for which Mysticshade was reported and banned yesterday. Changes on Irish People, Dublin and Dundee illustrate this. The pattern is too similar for it to be a coincidence, we may have a serial sock in the making (some aspects of Mysticshade has aspects of serial sock WIkipiere about the language and mixed celtic/Mediterranean claims. If someone could nip this in the bud it would save several us a lot of time!--Snowded (talk) 12:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

My first thought was the huge similarity between User:Dundean19's edits and those of a serial sock called User:Nimbley6 (adding images, changing picture sizes, fascination with Scotland and any area tangentially related to Scotland). Looking back at User:Mysticshade their edit summaries seem very similar to Nimbley6 - this edit summary in particular is "classic Nimbley6". Just an observation, but I wonder if Dundean19 == Mysticshade == Nimbley6? Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 12:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

That might be a better guess, the childish language etc would match that and the Scottish link (although it started with Irish articles). Wikipiere and Nimbley6 waste more time than I care to think about for you, me and others. Whatever I'm pretty sure its one of them! --Snowded (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is obviously Mysticshade as well, I have already asked for an admin familiar with this on Commons to block his new account there. O Fenian (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Don't know if you saw this above , but all the edits of Mysticshade and Dundean19 fit into the pattern, and blatantly if you ask me, of Historian19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is blocked for socking in sock drawer quantities. I could bring it to Sock investigaions, but really, it looks blatant enough to deal with here. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 16:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

(Addition) Of course, Historian could just be an account in the chain of accounts of a previous sock as well. (Sorry, I missed the earlest contributions of one of the accounts above) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 16:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

⬅ and we may have another User:MarshVeld just created, picture edits on Northern Ireland and several POV edits against consensus (Ulster flag etc). --Snowded (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd guess not Nimbley6 - discussions on talk pages aren't Nimbley6's style. Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 18:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Almost identical response on my talk page to that of Mysticshade, language and all. --Snowded (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I've taken this to Sockpuppet investigations FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A cup of coffee and a quick invigorating stroll later and it seems CSI:Misplaced Pages ] thinks MarshVeld == Dundean19 == Mysticshade == Historian19 with a few other old socks added. (Oh, come on, I can't be the first to do the CSI:Misplaced Pages joke :)) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Possible anon IP making Mysticshade-esque edits here. Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 12:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• (...and now making "Im not who you think I am" edits too, just in case anyone was unsure! This flag once was red_deeds 12:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC))

Existentially-speaking, I may not be who I think I am either... (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

And now we have an IP. Ho ho ho. Canterbury Tail talk 12:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• ...and they've admitted they're User:MarshVeld. Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 15:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• ...and they're blocked. Thanks, Canterbury Tail! Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 15:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 1 week (in case it's a rotating IP). Due to the nature of it I had to block all coming off the IP. If some established editors (non-socks) complain I'll review the block, but I thought it best going off the number of socks involved. Canterbury Tail talk 15:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but could User:GreyPoint be another sock? Canterbury Tail talk 18:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Strong yup on GreyPoint. Edited a lot of the same articles that Mystic/Historian were on (Dublin, Irish people, List of Scottish Americans) along with image fiddling in Rotterdam and GDP updating in Finland. There is another editor that has made two edits (as of now) that might fit in the pattern, but I think two edits is not enough to be sure, or at the very least, say it out loud.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please block this obvious sock? If the articles edited and behaviour isn't enough, it's Likely according to a checkuser on Commons, well likely for the account that uploaded an image GreyPoint added here five minutes later.. O Fenian (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked by Nishkid64. Marking thread as resolved; feel free to revert (I'm just a lowly editor!) This flag once was red_deeds 11:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Antisemitic incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

has been deleted by User:William M. Connolley, despite a deletion discussion that ended with a keep, see . He claims that there is to much edit warring going on and that all those voting keep then go away and don't help keep the article in order, see . That is absolutely not true, as several editors, including me improved the article and tried to enforce Misplaced Pages policies on reliable sources and neutrality. And since when is edit warring a reason to delete an article? Does this mean that I can get an article deleted by just edit warring on the article? Afroghost (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. Connolley's account must be compromised. I would suggest blocking the account pending further clarification.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I can assume you that I'm still the same me William M. Connolley (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

In that case, perhaps you'd like to explain where you come off deleting an article out of process, when the AfD resulted in a 'keep'. NoCal100 (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what a POV fork. Process is not really as important as our core goal of neutrality. I did not see neutrality mentioned in the delete reason, but is sure is a good one. There is always WP:DRV. Chillum 22:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

did it not strike you as just a bit ironic to be suggesting to take this to the process of DRV, having just declared that process is not really important? why bother with AfD, if any admin can just delete articles he doesn't like? NoCal100 (talk)

Same happened with the article Pro-Turkism, also triggered by a 3RR report, see . Afroghost (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't delete P-T William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I just rechecked WP:3RR and WP:DP, just to be sure, and no, neither of them say you can delete an article to deal with an edit war. I see no way of escaping the conclusion that an administrator has violated Misplaced Pages policy and abused his administrative powers. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Where has the article gone? Chesdovi (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• It's a dreadful POV fork - amongst other issues - which probably shouldn't have been kept (precis should've been merged into the main article), but even given the ridiculous edit-war magnet that it's become, William shouldn't have deleted it over an AfD. That's what we have DRV for. I have restored it and fully protected it for 3 days to give some breathing space. Can editors please suggest some way of sorting the problems out on the talk page? I am prepared to extend the protection if necessary. Black Kite 23:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You should no more have restored it without DRV than William should have deleted it without AfD. Lets not have any more back and forth with this, I hate it when admins go reverting each other without a decent attempt to come to agreement first. Chillum 23:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Er, no. DRV is for review of in-process deletions and deletion discussions. This wasn't one. Black Kite 23:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:DRV is only for "in process" deletions? Where is that written? What is process anyways? Chillum 23:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not always happy with Connolley's decisions (two to be exact), but then again I think he makes these difficult choices in order to retain neutrality, so I commend him for that. It is true the article is an edit war mess, we have had 2 AfDs. It is also true that the overwhelming majority of people voted keep yet most of them were not involved in the article and related articles before and after the AfDs. I do think Jalopenos and Afroghost have made an effort to fix the article but the article is a POV fork, it would be futile to salvage it. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is a POV fork, it's reasonably sourced but 80% of it is a litany of news stories. I'd suggest that editors urgently look into merging a summary of the article (most of it could be condensed into "Anti-semitic incidents were reported from many countries") into the main article. Black Kite 23:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks BlackKite for the swift action. I completely disagree though with your claim that this is a POV fork. As it has been discussed during the deletion discussion, ending with at best no consensus whether it is one or not, I am not going to start this discussion again. This is not the right place for this discussion. And it is definitely not up to a single admin to make this decision and to delete (and in fact his reason was just edit warring). Doing so was a blatant abuse of admin powers, and the willingness to accept this abuse means that from now I will stop editing here. I tried my best to insist on good sources and neutral wording, and as my edits show I was willing to delete any edits regardless from which side they were if they did not conform to this policies. Good luck with your project, I am done. Bye. Afroghost (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I wish Misplaced Pages had the solidarity to keep obvious violations of neutrality out of here. Even the title makes it clear the article seeks to espouse a particular point of view and the content only supports that idea. Often these things are quickly and correctly deleted, but you get enough people arguing that it is a legitimate point of view and we are stuck with it. I got news, the only legitimate point of view here is the neutral point of view, that that article ain't even close. It is not a neutral presentation of ideas, just one that has enough support to let the vote override policy(which is should not). Chillum 23:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Umm Afroghost is going on a vandalism rampage. He is blanking random article pages. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Black Kite 23:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

At least that one problem in Misplaced Pages has been swiftly dealt with. Afroghost has been blocked. Chillum 23:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, Afroghost should not be permanently blocked. All he needs is a cool down block for say 12-24 hours. I kinda understand why he went a little nuts. An article that he has worked so hard on gets deleted by an admin unilaterally because he feels its a POV fork? If something permanent should be done it should be the removal of admin powers from User:William M. Connolley, who with a horrific display of power abuse deleted an article that survived two afd's because he decided it was a POV fork.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I indeffed, but I'm sure an unblock would be granted if he came back and said "sorry, got a bit pissed off there - won't happen again". I'd rather not limit it to a short block just in case he is so incensed he does it again. Black Kite 00:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Unblock the guy vandalizing and desysop the admin who deleted a POV fork? good luck with that campaign. That being said if the user is apologetic, then indef does not mean infinite. Chillum 00:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bkite: That might be reasonable. But am I missing something here? An admin just displayed the most egregious abuse of admin-power I have yet to see here at Misplaced Pages and noone is saying peep? I must be missing something here. No? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Dudes, VfDs are not real votes or even polls, they are certainly not binding on admins. An admin has to use his ro her good judgmen in deleting an artcle. The importance of the VfD is not any vote, but a mechanism for eliciting reasons for keeping or not keeping it (a good reason that has one vote carries a lot of weight, a bad reason - I mean interms of policy - that gets 50 votes has no weight; it is the reasoning, not the quantity of votes, that matters) an artcle. Why would anyone thing this is a compromised account? Can we calm down and focus on policy here? A POV fork should be deleted practically on spot. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It was not deleted as a result of an AFD, rather a violation of 3RR?!! Chesdovi (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that Admins get to use discretion when closing an AFD. However, the AFD was already closed as keep by another admin. Connolley came in after the AFD was closed, and went and unilaterally deleted it anyway despite the consensus to keep. It is a flagrant abuse of the tools, and although I usually agree with the decisions he makes, this is not something that can go unnoticed. I have seen William confirm that it was him that did it, but I have not seen him provide any sort of justification for going over the head of an AFD. Yes, it may be a terrible POV fork, but we have processes for dealing with that. Unilateral deletion overruling an AFD is not the way to go about fixing it. I agree that some sort of sanctions should take place. Maybe not permanently losing the tools, but something needs to happen to prevent such a flagrant abuse form happening again.Firestorm 02:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately or unfortunately, we can not desysop without arb com involvement. I would suggest asking for it only in the admin involved declines to make a commitment to avoid such deletes in the future. DGG (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that he should be desysop'd. Of course, i'm not saying he shouldn't, either. I can't suggest a course of action until he tells us exactly why he did what he did, which he has not done yet. A very stern warning at the very least is needed, and depending on his justification, pursuing a desysopping might be for the betterment of the wiki. That said, I would really hate to see that happen, because William has, in general, been a positive force on the wiki. Frankly, I was surprised to find out that he did this, because it just doesn't sound like him. So exactly what sort of sanctions I would suggest depends on how he justifies the deletion. Firestorm 04:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sometime things get closed wrong. Sometimes things that should be deleted are restored. Sometimes Misplaced Pages has non-neutral articles as a result. If an admin tries to fix that and then gets reverted for being out of process, it is not a failing, just a good attempt. Chillum 02:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

of course an admin can try to fix non-neutral articles-- just as any other editor-- through editing, the talk page, RfC, and the rest of dispute resolution. But he has no power as an admin to do anything about it, except to enforce what the community decides to do. DGG (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Point of order: the deletion policy technically doesn't disallow unilateral deletion. I actually applaud WMC for taking a more proactive stance in deleting NPOV-violating content such as this. We need to be more proactive. It's all fine and good saying there's no deadline, and that all NPOV problems can be sorted through editing, but I always felt that was too optimistic. Sometimes, you just can't fix something. Sceptre 02:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If unilateral deletion of articles for AfDs that closed as keep is okay, then I hope unilateral restoration of articles even if an AfD closed as delete is also okay. :) Best, --A Nobody 03:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Closing the AfD as keep was a unilateral move. It is not like the closing admin was relying on numbers here, s/he had to use her/his own judgment. Connolley probably disagrees with the closing admin's decision, so it is one admin's opinion against another. On a related note I think there should be at least three admins to determine what the result of an AfD should be.

An admin unilaterally deleting an article that has survived an AFD is violating policy. The Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion policy is clear that "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements." An admin like anyone else can argue in an AFD for deletion or take a decision to deletion review if they disagree that the closure was correct, they cannot just say my view is better than yours and delete regardless of what the community says in an AFD. Davewild (talk) 07:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

deleted by an admin unilaterally because he feels its a POV fork? - errm no. Where did you get that from. I gave my reasoning quite clearly on the 3RR page: Edit warring disaster area. I'm not sure I SD'd it either: I just deleted it. I wasn't claiming any of the SD criteria applied William M. Connolley (talk) 08:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

William: Are we to understand that you will do the same in the future?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Just my 2 cents. Something that has bugged my since I first joined WP is this whole thing/process about "what stays" around here, be it articles, lists, "material" or whatever is that the ownous(sp) is on the parties that want to remove in stead of the other way around. I admitt I am a deltionist/minimalist, but shouldn't consensus be for what belongs here and not for what should be removed? Anyways, just my venting and I have no opinion on the amnins action or article per say. Thanks, --Tom 14:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Rather than farting about here, how about if we work on that article to remove anything which is not explicitly identified as anti-semitic by a source other than Zionist newspapers and commentators? That's the fundamental problem with it, the assertion by Israelis that everything done to them is necessarily antisemtic, as if their actions against the Palestinians whose lands they illegally occupy in defiance of UN resolutions is wholly free of racist motives, while any retaliation by those they are rather brutally oppressing is motivated solely by racism. Or perhaps we should simply rename it to reflect the fact that these are actions against Israel, and reference the (no doubt equally problematic) Anti-Arab incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Oh, wait, that's a redlink. Who'd have thought? Guy (Help!) 19:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • or preferably, just chopping out the entire laundry list of events and merging the rest (not much) into the main article, which is where it should've been in the first place? I'm beginning to wish I'd left it deleted now. Black Kite 21:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Um what? This didn't have any original research issues. There were general articles discussing the anti-semitic nature of much of these attacks. This isn't about "Zionism." Nor if this at at all about whether or not the Israeli government's actions are motivated by racism. That's a completely separate topic. (No matter how racist the Israeli government it would not make any of these attacks any less anti-semitic) If there are sources for Anti-Arab incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict by all means go write that article. In any event, this is besides the point. These are arguments for an AfD or a DRV. Oh wait. We had that. It was closed as keep because the community consensus was that it was possible to write a carefully written, neutral article on this topic and that there were sufficient sources. The issue here is that that article was then deleted out of process. That's not ok. If you disagree wait a month or two and try another AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This entire discussion seems to be getting rather POINTY. I think we should wait until William can justify his actions in a detailed manner. I would like to hear him say exactly why he thinks that deleting what he sees as a battleground for editwarring over the head of two AFDs falls within policy, or at least within his interpretation of policy. William is known throughout the wiki as a good contributor and administrator, and something this radical seems out of character. I'm sure (at least, I hope) that he had a good reason beyond what he originally specified. The case might need a trip up to ArbCom, or it might just need a stern warning. Until William gives us more detail on his rationale, I can't be sure. Firestorm 22:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I move that any arguments about the relation between anti-zionism and anti-semitism, or arguments as to whether such a relation exists, or arguments as to whether or not it is anti-semitic to say such a relation exists, or arguments on what is or is not an occupation, or what is or is not an illegal occupation, or what is or is not proportional response, what is or is not terrorism, . . . be banned from this page. Nableezy (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Calling the article a POV fork is incorrect. The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict is about an armed conflict. This article is about antisemitism. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm frankly not sure what I feel about the article itself, but I think the best analysis was that of Mangojuice in the Deletion Review after the first AfD. , where--among other things--he dismisses the forking question as a side issue. The question is not whether or not the article can remain. The question is whether or not an administrator has the right to remove articles out of policy and against the clear and expressed consensus. the answer is fairly obvious, at least to me: the results of such actions if accepted would be chaos. I would have hoped the admin in question would simply admit the error, either explicitly or tacitly by agreeing that he wouldn't do such again even though he might still feel he was justified. I suggest we give him another day to think about the implications of his explicit refusal. I recall that the article in question is subject to arb com discretionary sanctions , and that on that basis alone, arbitrary action without any basis in policy was particularly unwise. DGG (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Continuing with the previous comment: there is a lot of noise in this discussion coming from people who have issues with the article. The place to voice those issues is/was the article's talk page and the article's AfD page, which was closed as keep. The noise should not distract us from the actual subject of this noticeboard discussion, which is the fact that an administrator deleted this article to deal with an edit war, thus apparently violating WP policy and abusing his administrative powers. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

We just had an AFD a couple of days ago and it concluded with keep. Those who claim POV-fork should go to the latest AFD where most, if not all, of the popular criticisms were dismissed cordially. This is a clear breach in protocol for an administrator to simply delete an article after an extensive review which resulted in keep, overwhelmingly if I recall. I'm not disputing William's claims and perhaps they have merit, but they have all been thoroughly discussed at the afd. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, we should try and keep this discussion limited to the question of whether or not William abused his power. I, and I think several other people, have been waiting for William to provide a detailed rationale for going against policy and consensus in this manner. As of yet, he has not given us one. He has been logged in and contributed to other parts of the project since this discussion began, and is clearly aware of the discussion (having already commented in it). Since he's such a big net positive for the wiki, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and give him one more day to provide a detailed analysis of his rationale. If he doesn't, then i'll take that as a refusal to do so. Unfortunately, in that case, I would have to take the incident up to ARBCOM. I really hope he gives a reasoning, because I don't want to report him to arbcom. As I have said several times, I have a lot of respect for William, and I don't want to slay one of the last WikiDragons left. I'll leave a message on his talk page, in case he is no longer watching this discussion. Firestorm 03:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hang on. It is completely possible to think that this deletion wasn't a hot idea and should be undone without having a lynching. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It should be taken very seriously is he doesn't apologize and promise not to pull this stunt in the future. I did ask him point blank at his talkpage about this. I got back a somewhat cryptic response, but it seemed like he agreed not to do this type of stuff again. See for yourselves: User talk:William M. Connolley#Question.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't so much that he deleted it anymore, it is now that he has not provided an explanation of it. There are quite a few people here that want to know why he did it, and he isn't telling us beyond a non-rationale about edit warring. Firestorm 04:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've already provided my reasonning: Edit warring disaster area. Do you want me to invent some other reasons? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

re: deletion policy WP:DP"If in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators will normally not delete it." and "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to . . ." seems to allow quite a bit of room for admins to use their own judgment when deleting pages. wc did just that. another admin undeleted, and now there should be a discussion at deletion review if someone wishes to nominate it. there should not be a 'call for his head' as this discussion seems to be doing. there seems to be a tremendous lack of good faith here. untwirl (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl is a single purpose account, who has consistently engaged in discussing his/her negative views of opposing editors (ie WP:NPA) rather than discussing article content, while finding nothing but good in those who support this user's editing goals. Considered in that context, this accusation of "lack of good faith" against other users becomes rather amusing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm, what you wrote about Untwirl may be more applicable to some other editors involved in this thread incl. the one who started this discussion, and you probably knew this Zencv 18:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

malcolm, one only needs to review your block log (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMalcolm_Schosha) and this comment in particular to discover who is "engaged in discussing his/her negative views of opposing editors." if you have a problem with the content of my comment, please say so. otherwise, i'll thank you to cease with your repeated attacks against me personally. untwirl (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

When one of my daughters was in college, she had a friend who's grandfather was one of the Chicago Seven. That was far from his only arrest and trial either. Do you think that make him a bad person? And even if his crimes had been nothing better than break-ins, do you think that mean he would never deserve respect, and forever treated with disrespect? (And remember what occurs here is only wiki-crimes, and being sent into wiki-exile means nothing outside of WP.

Personally, I think that was a good friend for my daughter to have, and I have a lot of respect for her grandfather...even though I do not agree with many of his views, nor all of his acts. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

admin noticeboards arent the place for personal stories or blog entries. stick to content. untwirl (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC) replied on your talk page. untwirl (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl, remember when I brought a complaint here about edit warring, and you and another user, filled up a lot of space on this page with accusations about my bad character? That had nothing to do with the complaint, because I had not been edit warring. (If you do not remember I can give the link.) Why do you think it was good for you to do what you did then at length, and think it bad for me to now do something similar in in brief?

here is the discussion you misrepresent. in it, you accused another editor of edit warring on an article in which your first three edits (,,) were to revert info from the lead without discussion. i made no accusations about your character, only listed your actions. take this back to your talk page, please. untwirl (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the diffs you supplied make it clear that I was not edit warring, and that I tried to resolve the dispute by moving the disputed material to the talk page. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Deleting against consensus -IS- wrong, but everyone deserves a bad day. An admin who makes one definitely wrong decision and backs down is a lot less worrisome than one who regularly makes questionable decisions and doesn't. If admins try to be better than human and never do the former, they risk becoming the latter.
(I'm not trying to make coy insinuations; I have absolutely no one in mind wrt the latter hypothetical admin in the comparison.) arimareiji (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that William has not backed down, has not expressed any regret, and has not said that he will refrain from doing the exact same thing in the future. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if an article that is plagued by constant edit warning warrants a deletion, Connolley thinks it is a valid reason and he has provided that as his rationale three times now. *If* it is not a valid reason as determined by Wiki policies, then one admin, preferably BlackKite, can reveal that to him and to ask him to refrain from making such deletions. I think the deletion was made in good faith, and it should be treated as such. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

He's an administrator. Surely he would understand the reaction from deleting an article days after it was declared keep. If he didn't see the AFD then I could perhaps empathize (sinner here), but not responding to valid criticism is a cause for concern. I don't want blood or any form of punishment whatsoever, but it would be settling to in the least promise you won't delete the article without an afd or an extremely justifiable reason. Normally good faith mistakes are followed by an apology, concession, compromise, or understanding...William has done none of the above. However, I think it's safe to say he won't touch the article again but that's my opinion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the permanent block of Afroghost. My understanding is that when editors are being disruptive, such as vandalizing articles, the intent is to end the disruption and is not punishment. I remember, in a discussion I had with El_C about an IP user who had vandalized an article I was editing, El_C gave the IP user a five minute block which solved the problem. It was my understanding that it was El_C's common practice to start with very short blocks, and extend them only if that was demonstrated to be necessary to end the disruptive activity. Perhaps if the block of Afroghost had been one week, or one day, or five minutes that would have been enough to end the disruptive activity. If an administrator starts with a permanent block, it is impossible to know if less would have been enough. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that is weird. From experiences Afroghost has been a very reliable editor, perhaps he was simply reverting vandals? Pblock seems unjustified without prior blocks, unless he was a sock/hacker/nothing edited-related. Did someone post a complaint yet? Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Protection ended

The protection of Antisemitic incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict has ended and already there have been some deletions of sourced material without discussion. I hope that some administrators will put the article on there watch list. It might be better if the article had its protection extended, pending enough discussion on the talk page to assure there will not be edit warring. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits and Mkil at Boxrec.com

Vintagekits

Vintagekits and I seem to be having a problem. I think he's making biased edits and he thinks I'm removing referenced material. That's fine, content disputes are normal. However, his actions during this dispute involve things like calling me an "idiot," a "dick," referring to my edits as "moronic", "fuck ups" , "ill-informed bullshit", etc.

I bring this up because he's had a long history on this site and has been blocked in the past for similar name-calling. He's also been blocked because of his problems dealing with Irish issues. The issue at the heart of our content dispute involves Irish nationalism -- i.e., it's about a boxer who was born in Northern Ireland and whether or not he's Irish or British. In fact, it's not even about that, it's about how a website reports that. He uses unreliable references to push his point-of-view and, when I attempt to clean it up, I get vitriol from him.

I'm tired of dealing with his profanity and his inability to see his biases. He seems to have been unblocked on the condition that he play nice with others. I certainy don't feel he's doing that in this case.MKil (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)MKil

This discussion here will give you some indication as to what kind of brick wall i have been banging my head against. Profanity was entirely justified.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

More background here - my head hurts!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)No, being civil is not optional. Kevin (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Simply calling a spade a spade, I stayed as civil as possible - read the moronic arguments of the editor for evidence as to why he IS moronic. Maybe you should be more worried about an editor that refuses to adhere to[REDACTED] editing rules then focus of some extremely minor as this. Sheesh sometimes I wonder!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you get it, so I'll be clear. The next time you refer to another editor as a moron, dick, idiot etc you will be blocked. Regardless of any perceived provocation, you must remain civil. Kevin (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Have a little perspective my man - look at what I am dealing with - someone who REFUSES to abide by editing rules. What are we hear for? What are you going to do about that?--Vintagekits (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at his block log. He's been blocked a number of times for doing this type of thing. He's even been blocked indefinitely and then reinstated. How many times can he continue to flout the rules?MKil (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)MKil

Vintagekits, you know that kind of language doesn't serve you well; it gets people's backs up without solving the problem. You wouldn't appreciate it at all if someone called you a moron if you made a bad edit. On the other hand, MKil, that is indeed a poor edit. The information was correct as of a specific date and time, and the more correct edit would be to include a phrase such as "in 1996, the site received xxx visitors a day..." Removing the information was not the preferred option here. Risker (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Its not just today its been going on for months with this guy. this is his idea of a good article, this is mine. How can you deal rationally with someone who says ""If you want to find the updated material, go for it. Perhaps I could do so, too, if I were so inclined." - that is more uncivil than any swear word.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

VK, you're absolutely right IMO (those unfortunate enough to remember 2007 will know this isn't something I say very often). I really can't see what the fuss is about here. – iridescent 21:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, I'll admit that it could have been a better edit. When someone mentions that civilly, I can see the point. However, I don't believe I broke a rule here. I do believe that Vintagekit broke a variety a rule in this instance and in the past. Why do administrators continue to enable his bad behavior? I tried to discuss it civilly with him, I presented a compromise option, and he ignores it and continues to push his point of view using his unreliable references.MKil (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)MKil

Is this your idea of a civil and rational discussion - I see one person trying to sort stuff out and once person basically saying "f@ck you".--Vintagekits (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you are the one who resorted to name calling there, I'd say you don't have much of a leg to stand on.

However, let's take the BoxRec edits. In my version, which I wrote after a discussion with you, I accurately and without bias describe the issue: "Some users have also raised issues with how certain boxers' nationality is represented on the site. For instance, there is a dispute over whether John Duddy, who is from Northern Ireland, should be listed as being from Ireland or the United Kingdom." Your version is this, in which you use "references" to support your opinion, not source your facts: "The Boxrec team changed the nationality of Irish boxer John Duddy to British on their boxing record database after it was initially listed as Irish. A number of Boxrec members raised the issue with the owner of the website and Boxrec were contacted by members of "Team Duddy" to inform them that Duddy held an Irish passport. However, the owner of the website, John Sheppard, refused to accept Duddy's nationality as Irish. A petition was then created objecting to Boxrec's refusal to amend Duddy's record." That gives undue weight to a minor controversy and takes sides in the issue. Why not a simple description like mine, which is free from bias?MKil (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)MKil

I give up! its impossible to have a straight discussion with the guy - impossible! One subject to the next without a thing ever getting resolve - he hurts my brain I tells ya!--Vintagekits (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Is my version an accurate description of the issue? Is there any bias in it? Two simple questions. No need for profanity or dramatics.MKil (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)MKil

There is a time and place for that discussion - this is not it. Lord give me strength!--Vintagekits (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I tried to have this discussion with you elsewhere, but your reply, when you weren't swearing, was that your insertions had references so they cannot be touched. You refused to discuss the content of your edits and instead relied on your interpretation of the rules (which I feel are incorrect, btw) to avoid addressing your bias issues. So when and where do you want do discuss the actual issues? I'm happy to take it to mediation.MKil (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)MKil

Hence the reason that I took the issue to the Boxing Project so that I could get other editors opinons on the issue. Seriously man you need to understand the VERY basics of how[REDACTED] works before you start opening your mouth. Read WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS and then you will have the basics. I'm now finished here. Can some moderator please take this guy under their wing and explain to him some of the procedures before I throw my computer out of the window.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Wasn't there a parole when VK rejoined the community? - I am uncertain if it were to do with areas of editing or use of colourful terminology (or both). Has it lapsed or been put aside? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Lapsed long ago. – iridescent 22:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

VK's editing of boxing related articles was also never part of any parole. - Galloglass 22:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The restrictions Vk is currently under is listed here. The ring-fenced civility parole, resulting in an immediate block, has expired. That said, a reversion to aggressive, abusive language of the past should not be tolerated either. We don't want to go back there. Rockpocket 22:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I purposefully tried to avoid the guy with this edit - gimme a frickin break for god sake!--Vintagekits (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

A number of people are supporting your content edits, but no-one is agreeing with the way you addressed the other editor. That should tell you something. If you find yourself getting wound up, you can always turn of the computer and walk away. Rockpocket 22:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Check out the discussion before this report and see if there was any abuse and see who was trying to approach the subject in a rational and policy based manner.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've read it all and don't really see the problem with your version of the article. However, the very fact that this discussion is at ANI should tell you that your method of dealing with the disagreement was ineffective. Believe it or not, admins deal with fucking morons on a daily basis, yet how many of them do you see being called that? Very little, because doing so tends to be counter-productive. How many times is this going to happen before you get it in that skull of yours: using abusive or incivil language is only going to backfire on you! Rockpocket 23:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you will find that I went about it right - I disengaged with the guy, posted on the Boxing Project page but then the editor that has the balls to report me hounds be on my talkpage just because I wont get into an argument with him. If I used some of what you think was incivil language then it was deserved at the time and then I dropped the discussion where it belonged in the trash!--Vintagekits (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You are keen to remind MKil of our policies (on his talk page: Listen I dont make the rules, I am not telling you how to edit - I am telling you to abide by wikipedias rules.), so heed you own advice and abide one of our key rules yourself: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages. Comment on content, not on the contributor." There is no acceptable justification for calling him an idiot just because he has a content disagreement with you. Drop that sort of language, and people will help you deal with content issues, continue to use it and you become the problem. Rockpocket 00:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If have been perfectly civil with the guy for months on end, and constantly trying to inform him of[REDACTED] policy with regards editing articles - I care a lot more about the content of articles then the odd fuck, bollocks or moron on a talk page - great your priorities straight! If you spent even one eight of this effort advising User:MKil of wiki editing policy then we wouldnt have this issue.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Section deleted, unacceptable for undue weight and soapboxing reasons. Find something else to write about and be nice to each other unless you want a time-out. Thatcher 15:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• It's nice to have a rational and neutral admin come out of retirement to give his opinion and then scurry off - I'll be reverting your illogical edit in 10,9,8,7,6,5............--Vintagekits (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Scurry off? Excuse me for not being online 24 hours a day. Thatcher 18:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Now it seems Vintagekits is trying to get me in trouble for bringing his uncivil behavior to light. He has reported me for violating 3RR , which I certainly did not do. The edits I made were not reversions but attempts to clean up the article and make it more accurate. And, violating the procedure for reporting me, he failed to notify me on my talk page of such a report. As his complaints below about me illustrate, it's clear he's trying to shift the focus from his uncivil habits.

His response to Thatcher (calling his/her edits "illogical") and his vendetta against me should illustrate that Vintagekits still has problems playing nice with people here.MKil (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)MKil

I am merely hightlighting your bad behaviour - in a perfectly civil manner to I might add. Have a read of Misplaced Pages:3RR#Exceptions to see what exceptions there are to WP:3RR - an attempt "to clean up the article and make it more accurate" is not one of them!--Vintagekits (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

They weren't reverts, for one. One was a revert and the other three were edits designed to clean up the article and remove your original research and outdated references.

You ask below what opinion you are promoting. You have called the labeling of John Duddy as a Brit a "racist" action on the Boxrec talk page. Your views on Irish nationalism are well known. You've been forbidden to edit certain Irish-related topics because of your trouble keeping a cool head on the issue. Your action pushing your opinion on the minor BoxRec dispute about John Duddy illustrates your trouble keeping your biases free on this issue.

I'd invite anyone to look at the edit history of BoxRec. A variety of editors have tried to remove or modify the section in dispute. Vintagekits always returns to insert it. Only he seems to want it in. Most other users recognize that it is not only non-notable but biased and sourced with unreliable sources.MKil (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)MKil

• Vintagekits has been pushing this soapbox issue since October 2006, according to the talk page. Respectfully suggest he has made this article into a Troubles-related article under the terms of his probation, by his own persistent actions. His probation does not appear to be an Arbcom sanction, who enforces it? Thatcher 18:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Soapboxing is about promoting ones own opinion - what opinion am I trying to promote?--Vintagekits (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps your opinions about Irish nationality. Or perhaps merely your own opinions about the unreliability of this web site. Misplaced Pages is not your soapbox nor your coatrack. You can't tell us that the web site is unreliable, nor are you allowed to prove it by pointing to inconsistent data on the web site itself (as that is original research). You may report what reliable sources have said about the web site. Your sources to date include anonymous people posting to the web site's internal forums and to the editor of a blog for a particular boxer. Neither of those are reliable sources, and you have been told this on the article talk page since 2006. 2-1/2 years is more than enough proof that you are trying to use the article as a soapbox for something. Thatcher 19:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I have explain this before but you are choose to ignore it (Thatcher is an apt handle for you and possibly explains your bias) - it is not my opinion that Duddy is Irish OK!, it is everyones except BoxRec.

You choose to ignore the validity of the sources provided - Thatcher by name and nature!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Duddy's nationality is not at issue. The issue is that the web site is claimed to have problems with reliability of national identification of its boxers. For which proposition you have offered original research and a single blog posting. Drop it. And by the way, making ethnic insinuations based on my user name does not help your cause. Thatcher 20:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No YOU are missing the point. Also "ethnic insinuations based on my user name" - I dont know or even care what ethnicity you are. This is becoming moronic!--Vintagekits (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

VK, you are violating both the letter and the spirit of WP:NPA by commenting on Thatcher's user name, and no amount of "it's not ethnic" wikilawyering can obfuscate that - and that's before we ever get to your use of the word "moronic". Lapsed parole or no, if I see any sign of continued personal attacks from you, I'll be issuing a block. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

To answer some questions, the current ban is a community topic ban due to expire this coming may, enforceable by any administrator. This particular issue does NOT fall into the formulation of the topic ban. That having been said, it isn't particularly exemplary behavior by vintage kits, but I think the behavior problems will be better handled if everyone walks away from it for a day or so. If people don't, then corrective actions will be justified. I'll get into the underlying issue within the next day or so if I can, if y'all can wait until then.--Tznkai (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Why wait upon Tznkai? The underlying issue is incivility - which is policy. Below that is vk's failure to accept responsibility and admins' failure to respond to that. An admin (any admin) should block vk for 24 hours for incivility. Next time it should be 48, etc. Meanwhile a list should be created of "unparliamentary"/incivil terms. Such as moron, dick, idiot, bullshit, bollocks, frickin, fuck, fcuk. Automatic blocks would follow any breach. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

But, erm ... the majority of those terms are not uncivil. We do, after all, have WP:FUCK and WP:DICK. It's all in the usage of the word, and not the word itself. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

But, I digress ... the user shows no concept of desiring to understand WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL .. in fact, they have the nerve to justify their actions. If you were in your church/temple/mosque/religious meetingplace, and the leader said something you disagreed with, would you stand up and say "look you fucking idiot, that's pure BULLSHIT"?? No, you wouldn't because that's not what you do in that community. Wikpedia is no different - it's a community,and incivility is not valid. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Standing on principle is fine and all, but isn't particularly useful for problem solving. I'm looking at this as a problem that needs to be fixed. If you're intent on getting an admin to punish Vintagekits' uncivil behavior, you'll have to wait for someone else. If however, you want someone to at least try to remove the behavior pattern and solve the underlying content dispute, I will attempt to do justthat, later today, if at all possible. Either way, even a proper handling of incivility needs to weigh in the context (it is context that gives meaning to words, if I say "you fucking bastard" to my best friend after he beats me in cribbage, no one should blink twice, if I say "You're utterly incompetent" after someone has spent two weeks lovingly crafting a new article, I'm being far more incivil) and also look at ALL parties - all of which takes time, time I have not been able to spend yet. Its also worth noting that since the latest version of Vintagekits' community ban, we have had few problems, and he's more or less been staying out of trouble, or so it seems to me. That too, has to be weighed in.--Tznkai (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai, you are right, I shouldnt have blown up and the guy no matter what the provocation and circumstances were. Sorry about that - obviously I have calmed down as it was a few days ago but you can just see from the reasons that I got from MKil how difficult it was to deal with him. I dont accept that I have been trying to push a POV into the article - I do accept I was trying to include the issue but I also included comments about many positive aspects of the site. Like I said in this post - have look at the way it was before I got a hold of the site - MKil seems very interested in the article but never has made a positive contribution to it.

To Thatcher, sorry for snapping at you to, heat of the moment and all that, you were just doing your job and gave your own fair assessment of the sitiuation - no hard feelings - I will now back away from the article and find improved sources. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that a lot. I did look at Lexis/Nexis for news sources about Boxrec.com; I found hundreds of times where they were mentioned as a source but no stories about them. This does not mean there aren't any reliable sources about the nationality problem, but they may be hard to find. Thatcher 23:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It appears it is only certain editors who get blocks or even have blocks considered for civility as can be seen below in the post I made about Attacks and harassment. Can't see anyone scrolling down the page to call for sanctions against editor who has made them. Seems like double standards, either every breach gets the same treatment or then it is seen to be cherry picking who to sanction. BigDunc 20:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I have made several attempts to compromise with you yet every time you have reverted me and accused me of being a troll. You resort to high dramatics and appeals to[REDACTED] rules when they suit you. The reason no-body took action on this is because you deserved to be called a lot worse than a gobshite frankly, and your determined to drag this thing through the mud rather than reach the compromise I am CONSTANTLY trying to get with you. Admins can see that my last dealing with you before you reported me was a courteous explanation as to how I'm breaking the rules, which you reverted very childishly. You are judged by your conduct and if you cannot accept that by behaving in a duplicitious way you will get seperate treatment then you really need to examine the way you communicate with editors here. YOU MADE NO ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN YOURSELF other than revert and threaten, its no wonder no admin has taken your complaint seriously. I really this thing to drop but Big Dunc is obsessed with this, he loves the drama and he loves winding me up for some inexplicable reason. I really hope this can be the last the post on the matter and that Big Dunc can stop from dragging his dirty linen through ANI. NewIreland2009 (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow ... all that incivility in such a small edit summary! (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This is more for your amusement than anything, but take a look at what Big Dunc does when I try to resolve this infuriatingly pathetic problem he has with me - http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:BigDunc&diff=273416686&oldid=273415800 NewIreland2009 (talk) 13:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually don't care/need to look: no editor has an excuse to be uncivil, especially in a permanent edit summary. His previous actions may explain incivility, but never excuse it. Honestly, as the situations is finally winding down, you flew in out of nowhere to add additional and unnecessary WP:DRAMA. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• It seems to me that VK has acted here with commendable patience and restraint. I am not so old or so delicate as to be wilted buy a little colourful language and I am always surprised by those who are. Whatever, it is now obvious that VK has decided to turn his back on those here, and I don't blame him. I hope that can be the end of this rather strange business. Giano (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(Undent, replying to Vintagekits) Vintagekits, I appreciate that you're willing to apologize, especially to Thatcher. Wiki gets frustrating, and I'm sure most people around here will be able to forgive and forget. In the future, try not to transfer your invective from the user you are in conflict in to the administrators and other users trying to come in and settle the problem. Administrators, as a breed, tend to try to create peace (whether we are any good at it is another problem.) They are not ignoring the content issue as such, but trying to deal with the problem at hand - and it behooves you not to create a civility problem, so that the content issue IS the problem at hand. I myself will get into the content issue when I can, but on the article's talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'd like to endorse Tznkai's comments and join him in thanking VintageKits for apologizing. We all get worked up sometimes, or make mistakes, and too few of us are willing to say "I was wrong". But those words can smooth out a lot of conflicts. I suggest that a break would be good for all the involved editors, and then content issues will be easier to resolve.   Will Beback  talk  01:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

User:MKil

This editor has been causing distruption for a while and it seems to have gone under the radar without a word being said.

1. With this edit he removes references and replaces it with a fact tag and also removes a sourced full section and replaces it with unsource OR. 2. Removes sourced material. And when asked to provide a source for the edit and to justify it he states that "If I think information is outdated, I can delete it. I don't have to get a reference to prove it". and when informed of the rules of Original Research he went on to say "You're not the boss here. I can edit how I like. Unlike you, I've never been banned. If you want to find the updated material, go for it. Perhaps I could do so, too, if I were so inclined."

This is a blatant breach of WP:OR and WP:CIVIL and is a threat to continue his disruptive editing pattern.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it's a response to a completely uncivil user who has been banned in the past for his abusive behavior. I stand by my edits to remove inaccurate and biased material from Misplaced Pages. If any of my edits were inaccurate or a violation of policies, let's discuss.MKil (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)MKil

1. What had my previous blocks (no block for my actions in over a year) got to do with your refusal to provide references?

2. You were told your edits where we original research, you said you didnt need to prove anything you said was right - that is a breach of WP:OR - have you ever read this policy?

3. You threatened to continue this distruptive pattern which is blockable in itself and was also a breach of WP:CIVIL.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Pointy Tit-for-Tat isn't going to help you here, VintageKits. ThuranX (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Pointy!!!! You are having a laugh right!! Its nothing of the sort. What do you want me to do just ignore the behaviour and blatant disruptive editing that has caused this BS? Address the issue or dont post!--Vintagekits (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I am a coarse person, and prone to describing low-quality content how I see it. I still manage to make myself understood without calling anyone a moron. I'm guessing you're at least as articulate as I am. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to comment on my actions then there is a discussion above - if you want to comment on MKil's actions do it here. --Vintagekits (talk) 09:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

See my comment above.--Tznkai (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Mkil, your behavior was just as uncivil as Vintagekits' was. Your tone was patronizing at best. At worst, it is exactly the same tone someone who was taunting Vintagekits' would take. I don't know you, so I havn't a clue whether that was deliberate, but that doesn't stop it from being a problem. Do not make it personal. Ever. Users under restrictions are NOT punching bags, and you need to take care not to even appear as if you are using them as such. I'll get into the content issue when I can, but on the article's talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I endorse this view as well. Don't poke a bear and then complain about getting a reaction.   Will Beback  talk  01:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll admit my tone veered into the uncivil. For that I apologize to Vintagekits. However, I initially brought up his past behavior and block because I felt it offered an explanation of his behavior. Vintagekits is a very fine contributor to boxing articles. His work in beefing them up should be commended. But on the BoxRec article his edits were, in my view and the view of many other users, biased. His bias is clear, having accused the BoxRec editors of racism on the talk page. He is blocked from editing certain Irish pages because of his bias. His Irish nationalism is evident. This dispute involved an issue of Irish nationalism. When an otherwise fine editor spends three years trying to insert language that violates Wiki policy on original research and uses unreliable sources to reference his work, it seems to me that there is something else at play here. I didn't accuse him of bias or pushing his opinion lightly.

So I do apologize for using his block log to taunt him. Thing got heated and I stepped over the line.MKil (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)MKil

A comment on civility

I want to make something clear, in relation to my comments to Vintagekits and MKil above. Accusing other editors of biased editing is inflammatory, and in most contexts, uncivil. Excessive snarkiness is uncivil. Rudeness is uncivil. Being patronizing is uncivil. Being a jerk, dressed however well in gentility, is being uncivil. For whatever reason, many Wikipedians take their on wiki reputations as model Wikipedian writers very, very seriously. Telling these people that they are POV pushers, bringing up their block logs is uncivil. These acts are no less uncivil (or at least not in any way that matters) than the obvious swearing and name calling that happens. It is all unacceptable behavior, not because we're running a kindergarten, but because of how quickly uncivil behavior derails actual conversation.

In case it needs to be said, we administrators, as a breed, need to be able to deal with civility issues. Our job however, is to defuse the problems, not to sanction the users involved. In addition, when we can, we should help out with the content issues underlying, and if we can't do it ourselves, we should try to find someone who can, otherwise, what use are we really?--Tznkai (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Ohconfucius and User:Tony1

Note: I've removed the archive templates on this. I request that people please stop that nonsensical practice of "archiving" threads that are still active. None of us gets to tell everybody else to stop talking. Bishonen | talk 17:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC). Well, not resolved as such, more that there is nothing to resolve. Silly spat, go out for a beer and come back tomorrow, it will all seem trivial. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC) - (unstriking) Maybe I did happen to see a breezy kerfuffle fluttering by on my talk page, I guess it's been shooed off to another meadow now. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)}}And I'm striking this through because it isn't resolved, this thread was created to have other eyes look in upon the disruptive editing, and incivility, by the two aforementioned users. Just because the thread on Gwen's page is closed does not make the issue resolved.— Dædαlus 23:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

All involved parties have been notified, please give them the chance to comment on this issue.— Dædαlus 23:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tony1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Although I would just love to try and summerize events.. Well, I don't exactly trust my fingers with such at thing at this very moment, so instead, I'm going to ask for the extreme patience of several admins and users to just look over this thread at the admin Gwen Gale's talk page.

Besides that page, I would also like to point out these last two diffs, which first show Ohconfucius changing his name to Osomething, clearly making fun of me when I couldn't remember his name during a thread creation, as seen here. Secondly, please look at the following diff, which shows Ohconfucius responding to another user in a mocking manner: Oh, quelle surprise to find you here. In need of friends perhaps?.

This is all I have to say for the moment, I'm going to go take a break from anything in regards to this thread, so I can force myself to calm down.— Dædαlus 23:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you upset that Ohconfucius posted the Wikiquette alert? You need to brush that off. People were clearly in your camp; you should have read it and laughed it off. Posting this to yet another forum is simply giving Ohconfucius and Tony - trolls, as far as I'm concerned - more loudspeaker time. Tan | 39 23:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

And you want us to do... what? seicer | talk | contribs 23:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Although I am sliglight miffed at that, that is not the reason for this thread, but, as stated, their behavior at Gwen Gale's talk page. Apparently they seem to have the idea that on wikipedia, a user is guilty until proven innocent, and they don't have to provide any evidence at all to back up their claims.— Dædαlus 00:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

To Seicer, I would at least like to see some comments on the matter, at most, a short block for the obvious disruptions on Gwen's talk page. Either way, I want some outside opinions on what transpired, and if anything should be done about it. In my opinion, this behavior is outright disruptive, and shouldn't be allowed to take place again.— Dædαlus 00:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I personally went to Gwen Gale's page this morning to ask a question, and saw the exchange - it reminded me of 2 coyotes and a deer I saw yesterday. Gwen's patience is incredible. The actions/interactions on Gwen's page and their continued actions on the WQA are truly not the type of actions we want to see on Misplaced Pages. Oh, and someone should teach them what "Plaxico" means - they seemed to think that was a serious warning of some type. Gwen Gale's comments on this are vital. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• No comment. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

BMW is it your position that user disagreements and complaints are disruptive? If so, WP might need to find a way to replace human editors with computers. ("2 coyotes and a deer"? Could spell out your meaning? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a waaaayyy big stretch there. There is a significant difference in "could you please explain what happened here" and "you fucked up (even though you have proven you didn't) and I expect you to resign NOW!!", followed by a pile on by others with the same misunderstanding (or possibly an axe to grind). One is a disagreement/complaint. The other is a pure, unadulterated multi-prong attack. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

BMW, I understand that you have worded your position strongly because you are sure that you and Gwen Gale are completely in the right. In fact, I admit that I do not actually understand the issues involved in this particular dispute. I am not taking sides on that. What worries me is the attitude the anyone who disagrees with BMW, or with Gwen Gale, or with just about any administrator, can go shit in his hat. More over, even if you actually are completely right and Ohconfucius and Tony1 are completely wrong (which I doubt), I still do not see why the very occurrence of talk page argument over an administrator's actions was brought to AN/I. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually Malcolm, I really don't care who's right in the entire situation because my point was to let others decide right/wrong. I accidentally stumbled upon an absolute mugging - it was pretty vicious and vindictive. It was not a discussion, it was pure attack. I rather loudly stated that based on the type of "discussion", the place for it was NOT on a talkpage as it had progressed well past bloodshed, and if they had actual concerns, they belonged in a place like here. In fact, I challenged them to have the same discussion in view of admins, make their point, and let admins deal with it by consensus, rather than the coyote-deer event that was going on. I had no dog of my own in the fight. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

"absolute mugging"? Give me a break. Gwen Gale is an experienced administrator and knows how to take care of herself in an argument. Moreover, she had at least two other users defending her, and throwing plenty of their own accusations. I think that her defenders were actually rather personally abusive, while her accusers seemed to stay focused on the issues. What I see in this thread is administrators putting down a revolt by a few the wiki-peons, who should have been out in the wiki-fields editing instead of complaining about the whippings handed out by the overseers. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at your own posts here, Malcolm. Instead of doing something constructive, you thought it necessary to add yet another "give me a break" opinion to the mix. The argument was/is dying down, people are going about their business now. Try not to re-flame the forest fire, okay? Tan | 39 15:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Tanthalas. Did you really write your edit just to let me know that you have nothing to say? (I see above that you called some other users "trolls"....and that now you are worried about me igniting a fire.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Admins closing ranks?

Please note that the convo on Gwen Gale's page which is referred to above is now in her talkpage history: here it is. So what's going on there—administrators closing ranks? Tony1 is admittedly a little long-winded, which is caused by his quoting WP:ADMIN (apparently an offense in itself) but he's a very hard-working and respectable editor, and it's completely weird for GG to blow him off with statements unsupported by a single diff and without mentioning a single name, and altogether making it nightmarishly difficult to check up on anything that she says. Instead we get from her "another admin"; "a member of arbcom" (let's all hold our breaths in veneration); "three admins"; a blank refusal to reveal where and when she warned the user; and a claim, hanging out there without evidence of any kind, that "All your points have already been thoroughly addressed, whatever you might assert otherwise."

Admins are supposed to set an example. The most important principle to come out of RFAR/InShaneee, which reminds me to a quite spooky extent of this argument, and this self-righteousness on the part of an admin, is that

"Administrators must be willing and prepared to discuss the reasons for their administrative actions in a timely manner."

Please discuss in a timely manner, Gwen. Don't blow off users. Not even if you think they should have requested info in a meeker and humbler fashion, as you complain here:

"Had the editor begun this thread in a civil, polite, AGF way, asking for diffs of warnings and blockable behaviour (along with why the behaviour was taken to be blockable by at least three admins), I would've been happy to give them and talk about it but this kind of wanton incivility and lack of any assumption as to good faith throws off strong hints of wikilawyering, with the whole thing spinning off into a disruptive waste of time."

The accusation of "wikilawyering" presumably refers to Tony's quotes from WP:ADMIN; I honestly don't see what else it could be.) Compare another RFAR/InShaneee principle:

"All Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Administrators are expected to lead by example in this area rather than criticizing inappropriate behavior. Further, administrators are expected to keep their cool even when dealing with editors who disregard policy and community norms. While personal attacks are prohibited by policy, administrators are expected to endure them without retaliating. Any response to a personal attack should come from a member of the community who was not a target of the attack.".

Not that I see any PA in Tony's posts. GG is being excessively touchy in speaking of wikilawyering and disruption.
Epithets such as "troll" (from Tan), flung at Tony in the course of the dialogue, are shameful IMO. Bishonen | talk 17:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC).

Your opinion here does not change my thoughts, just for the record. As far as I am concerned, both these editors in question were trolling. Ergo, trolls. It's a pretty good thing I couldn't care less if you think this is "shameful". Tan | 39 17:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be interested in helping to drive the drama that surrounds these two editors. seicer | talk | contribs 17:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

He began that thread with the section title Breach of admin policy without a shred of AGF. The blocked editor had already been warned twice, had rm'd the warnings from his talk page (acknowledged), was blocked for edit warring with the arbcom clerk and coming out of that block, uploaded a cropped joke image of the clerk with a caption meant as a personal attack. I blocked the editor three days for a long pattern of incivility. The editor knew he had been warned twice and was fresh out of a block for edit warring in the same arbcom project space. Nevertheless, the editor went on the attack as he had before (I could care less about that) and was then blocked for a week by a member of arbcom who also shut down his email and talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, it is possible that I misunderstood, but it seems to me that what Bishonen requested was diffs and names. What you have given above is just a repetition of what is already on your talk page. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Malcom. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, you are very welcome. Does your reply mean that you do not intend to supply the names and diffs to support you statement above? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, along with my best wishes. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Malcom, since you seem to have the idea, that the diffs and names do not exist. Why don't you try a bit of hunting. It shouldn't take long. I found the diffs already. The reason, in case you may not have gleamed it, that Gwen is not responding to you, it is because you are asking for the diffs in a rude manner, a manner that assumes bad faith, and to respond to an incivil question like that would be to feed the trolls. You don't give a user what he or she wants because he or she is being rude to you. You deny the request until he or she can learn to keep the incivility to his or her self.

• Here is the first diff, and here is Greg removing it with an insult in his edit summery

• Here is the second diff, and here is Greg removing it, acknowledging that he read it

As I have stated so many times before, if you're going to accuse someone of doing someing, back it up with diffs. The burden of evidence to the contrary is on the accuser. If you're going to accuse someone of abusing their admin status/powers, then you need to make sure that you are right, and search for a lack of warning, if you are arguing about warnings. You need to make sure that you are not wrong in your accusation, and assuming you don't, and someone else does, you need to admit that you were wrong and/or drop the discussion.

Besides the two warnings presented above, there is simply the incivility in the edit summery of the first warning, obviously showing the user didn't really care to stop the incivility he was warned against, or should I note the picture? It was a cropped image of an arbcom clerk drunk, with the caption of Notwithstanding the caption on his userpage, this Misplaced Pages Administrator was clearly not at work when this picture was taken. There is no way you can argue that that was civil.— Dædαlus 23:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Daedalus969 you misunderstand my question. I know nothing about the incident that started this argument, and I am not particularly interested that incident either. What does interest me is administrators who, when asked to explain their actions, do not; who say there were other administrators involved (including a member of the arbitration committee), but decline to name the other administrators who were involved; and who likewise decline the requests to supply diffs. The fact that you have give some of the requested information (not requested by me, but by others), and that Gwen Gale has not, still leaves me with the impression of an imperial administration that, despite all claims to the contrary, is very separate from WP editors and not very accountable. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem comes from trying to prove a negative. It is simply much easier for the offended to present, clearly, what they are offended by. This allows the offender a solid accusation to reply to rather than having to "swing in the dark" and hope they are defending the appropriate action. Also, the approach taken was apparently hostile from the get go. It has been offered by Gwen that if the editor had simply asked for clarification on what Gwen was doing she would have had little to no problem responding. It's the "coming out of left-field with accusations" part that make others shut down and stop communicating. Padillah (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible misuse of administrative power

There has been a related discussion on Wikiquette alerts , in which Tanthalas39, a highly involved party in the dispute from its very beginning, closed the discussion over protests. Since he is an involved administrator, closing such a discussion gives the appearance of misuse of administrative power. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I'm aware this thread exists; no need to notify me. Anyone who actually looks over the issue - starting on Gwen's talk page, hopping over to Witiquette, and ending here - can see that I am not "highly involved", nor did I even use any "administrator power" at any time in the proceedings. Both contentions, shot to hell. As far as I'm concerned, this entire issue is one big farce. Tan | 39 19:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree completely. This entire thread, including anywhere else this discussion may pop up, is nothing more than a huge waste of time. Seal the vault, and everyone go about their regularly scheduled business. Dayewalker (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Tanthalas39 was involved from the beginning, as can be seen in the discussion on Gwen Gale's talk pagehere
2. When an administrator closes a discussion it is not likely to be thought of as anything but an administrative action, and that reverting it could lead to a block. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I WAS THE EDITOR THAT CLOSED THE DISCUSSION. Apparently telling you this in the discussion page wasn't enough. I closed the thread, not once, but twice. I asked the editor point blank why they wanted to keep the thread open and there response was an unacceptable because some users might want to talk about it. Well, that is unacceptable so I closed the thread and asked the user to please stop posting, the issue has been dealt with. In my opinion this is a simple ploy to keep the drama flowing. After having ignored the numerous pleadings I have issued, both on the WQA page and my talk page, they continue to stir the pot. I don't imagine they will stop short of blocking. Padillah (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No. I removed the template you added and Tanthalas39 restored it. I gave a diff, above.Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop with the juvenile caps, m'kay? Both of you, it's not helping. — neuro 19:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The capital "O" in my "NO" was a typing error, when I did not take my finger off the cap key in time. Sorry about that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a surprise, nothing seems to help when communicating with Malleus. Padillah (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to make such unhelpful personal remarks? Particularly when you don't even take the trouble to address them to the right editor? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, that was uncalled for. My apologies. Padillah (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Better not to have said it in the first place than be shamed into reluctantly apologising for it later. Think before you post again. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Who are "they" that you'd like to see blocked Padillah, and why? Because they don't agree with your assessment of the situation? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I use "they" in an effort to remain gender neutral. I mean you. You have been asked as plainly as possible what you want and still did not answer (but did manage to attack "the system"). You have shown no signs of stopping this tirade and have not expressed what you expect to get out of it other than a continuation of being allowed to be on a tirade. Padillah (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I see. So you want to see me blocked because I don't agree with you, and because you believe that I have attacked a system that you apparently believe to be perfect? I'd suggest thinking very carefully before you persist with that line of reasoning, and make more of a fool of yourself than is absolutely necessary. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I want to see you blocked for the express reasons I gave above. You show no signs of stopping this tirade and have given no reasons for wanting to continue this other than being allowed to have a tirade. As I said below, the evidence of your horse beating is perfectly valid. I have no issue with people that disagree with me I take issue with someone arguing for the sake of arguing. Padillah (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I owe Malcolm a huge apology. I am very sorry. I got you confused with the editor User:Malleus Fatuorum. I have not had dealings with you to the degree that I have with the other. Editing an admins contributions should not be taken as blockable but I do believe we are beating a dead horse at WQA. The evidence I presented should still stand, it's simply the direction that had me confused. Again, my humblest apologies for any slight I may have made. Padillah (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be still confused. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

And with statements like this I will continue to be. What do you think I am confused about? Specify something. Padillah (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This series of edits has me more confused the the whole rest of the long story combined. For instance, I am not sure what Padillah has apologized to me for; but, whatever it is, the apology itself is remarkable. I have been called things on AN/I that might make anyone, who does not actually know me, assume that I am a total weirdo, and wiki-criminal too boot. And, previous to now, with never an apology. So, Padillah, I want you to know that I have respect you as one of those rare individuals actually willing to say, "sorry". Bravo. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The apology was for calling for "your blocking" under the misconception that you were a different user. I had a recent exchange with User:Malleus Fatuorum and conflated the two names thus confusing you with them. Padillah (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me just restate my original point, so that it will not get lost. There was, parallel to this thread, a discussion on Wikiquette concerning some very uncivil remarks made by Daedalus969 against Ohconfucius and Tony. Tanthalas39, who is an administrator, who was also highly involved in the dispute, closed the discussion over protests. It appears to me that, under those circumstances, it was a possible misuse of his administrative authority for Tanthalas39 to close the thread. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable if a different editor closed the thread? SHEFFIELDSTEEL 22:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I would not have been happy about it in any case. The users who brought the complaint consider the issue unresolved, and I think rationally so. But, if it was done by an uninvolved administrator, I would not now be complaining about it here on AN/I. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that WQA has done all that in can do in this case: the issue has been raised and discussed. That's why I have re-archived that WQA thread. Remember that WQA is a non-binding / informal discussion venue. Any outstanding requests for sanctions should be made here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 22:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Tell me

What is wrong with being frustrated with two users who act like the whole of[REDACTED] answers to them; so they take a particular a comment as a threat, a particular comment, mind you, that told a user to stop refactoring my comments. Did I miss a meeting where such was allowed? Are we to stop warning users who are obviously violating policy? Last I checked, that is what we are supposed to do. Tony1 acted as if I were to answer to him, for warning Ohconfucious against refactoring my comments. Given that he had previously refactored my comments, twice, I was a bit frustrated. Now, given the manner in which he spoke to me, I was close to losing the restraints I had on my anger.

As far as I can tell, Tony1 and Ohconfucious started the WQE, and the thread on Admin Gwen Gale's talk page with a single goal in mind: To get her to step down from being an admin, or somehow get her, and myself, blocked. Tony already made a call for Ryan, the Arbcom Clerk, to step down. Please, bug him for the diff, I'm pretty sure he has it locked away somewhere. Well, if I were him, I would. I hope he does, because searching for it, simply, would be a pain in the ass. But as I was saying, Tony and Oh and out of line. They are doing nothing here, and the WQE but disrupt to try and achieve their own ends.

They have been warned against such behavior -constantly-, and due to their obvious goals, I do not see it stopping any time soon.

Would any of you uninvolved admins mind giving them a cool-down block perhaps? Tell you what: Assuming that you do, I can bet you that their unblock requests will not address the issues why they were blocked, but instead attack the admins that blocked them, like they have been doing to every user that joins in on this conflict.

Yes, I realize I lost my temper, and I also realize there is no exuse for losing it. Now, that aside, I have to ask the goal in mind of the WQE. I'm obviously, if you look over my contributions, usually cool headed. I don't have long patterns of incivility. So what, I blew my top once. In my opinion, the WQE was nothing but disruptive and a waste of everyone's time.

Now, I'm going to hit return after I push r in the edit summery, and sit back, and watch. There is nothing more I could really say in regards to this matter.— Dædαlus 04:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Wow! Our intention was explicit, whereas you implied a hidden agenda which I can debunk straight off. You certainly credit me with too much power, because I am a mere minnow - I am not even an admin, nor do I have any friends. Secondly, the "refactoring" was innocent (one correction of grammar and of one of a factual nature), and I swiftly apologised when I realised your objection. FYI, your warnings did not show up until I had posted the second amendment to your post. I would have let it ride had you simply apologised for losing your temper when you wrote those remarks, but now you launch this ANI case against me, which renders me less inclined to be forgiving. Before anyone misquotes me, it doesn't mean I won't forgive, but that you just have to grovel that little bit harder. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Tony1 and Ohconfucius are clearly trying to exact revenge on Gwen Gale for having blocked Greg L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), a central part of their tag team in the date delinking issue. I would suggest that any admins looking at this issue take some time to investigate the depth and volume of behavioral complaints made against all three of these editors before taking any action. -- Earle Martin 04:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Reply - I am hardly going to apologize to a user who is obviously pushing for a reaction that will get me blocked.— Dædαlus 05:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I am forced to raise the matter here, as per Sheffield's invitation. I would state for the record that I do not feel the issue of Daedalus969's incivility has been resolved. OK, sure, one or two people friendly to him may have left him gentle messages, or otherwise paid lip-service, saying that he may have overstepped the mark, making it not even a slap on the wrist. Perhaps it is "resolved" from the viewpoint that WQA is only a talking shop, so I was perhaps wrong to follow the above instructions to post it there. For your recollection, possibly three (1, 2 and 3) of the most direct and uncivil comments I have ever read on WP all within centimetres of one another on the monitor are the central subject of this dispute. "It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. (quoted from WP:NPA)". Notwithstanding, the discussion which was taking page in Gwen Gale's userspace, was propelled a series of blatant attacks when they ran out of substantive arguments. Moving the discussion/censure into this ANI is frankly a bit arse about face, and merely sidelines the incivility of Daedalus, whose words put a certain cantankerous old man into the shade with his abuse. Sure, Tony and I ("Greg L's fanboys" -courtesy of my dear fiend User:Earle Martin) were angry at Gwen's block, we made certain accusations which I feel did not cross the boundary of incivility, but were treated to this torrent of abuse from Daedalus and this comment from BMWilkins. Let;s not forget how he referred to me as "the other user who's username starts with an O", and then appears affronted when I replied using that same name he used on me, and starts bringing this vexatious case against me. Please... Ohconfucius (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Get over yourself.— Dædαlus 05:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply - I don't believe you. The three comments I left, which you have problem with, are hardly uncivil, neither are they the most uncivil. I have seen far worse, and I doubt you haven't.— Dædαlus 05:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Secondly, I am offended because you were obviously mocking me there, and I referred to you as such because I could not remember the spelling of your name.

The only thing you are doing is looking to find fault in anything I do. This is disruptive behavior, and I honestly think[REDACTED] would be better off without you, Tony, or Greg.— Dædαlus 05:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Even if those three remarks were not uncivil (and that is a pretty big 'if'), the above comment certainly is. In your place, I would certainly engage in some stress-reduction before posting more of same. Has it ever occurred to you that I would find it offensive to be referred to as "Osomething"? Honestly... Ohconfucius (talk) 05:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It's called assuming good faith, a policy you should try familiarizing yourself with.— Dædαlus 05:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Somebody you're having an argument with comes along an refers to you as "the user who's (sic) name begins with a 'D'" or "Dsomething", would you be able to, hand on heart, drop your hostility and assume good faith? BTW, nice abusive edit summary for for this entry. You've received plenty of helpful advice to bring the temperature down, I suggest it would be a good idea to heed it. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing more to discuss. I suggest you give up on whatever goal you have, because you aren't getting it. I refuse to discuss this any further with you because, as said, there is nothing to discuss. Any further comments below this post, in regards to me, or even above it, are disruptive. You aren't getting your way, and in fact, due to your behavior in this thread and others, the only thing that you might get isn't going to be something you want. Or haven't you noticed that you don't have any support outside your little circle? Either way, everyone disagrees with you but you and yours, so unless you want to dig your hole deeper, mayhap reach the other side of the globe, I suggest you keep talking, but I am no longer going to reply to trolls. I've been warned against feeding the trolls before, I'm going to take that advice now, because this discussion is going nowhere fast.

Your first argument was that Gwen abused her admin rights. I proved you wrong. Your second was that I was grossly uncivil. You were proved wrong by multiple users. Drop it.— Dædαlus 06:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Again, that torrent above ("the other side of the globe") was not called for. I already told you above that I don't have any friends, so on that point we are agreed. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Daedalus969, it is time for you to leave this discussion behind. Your comments have been uncivil and unhelpful, and if you intended for this thread to accomplish anything you are distracting from it by your increasingly intemperate participation. Avruch 15:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Daedalus969, I agree with Avruch. I and many others know you want only to help, but you've been uncivil in going about it and this has done much more harm than help. There is no way anyone can helpfully talk about anything on a wiki unless these kinds of stirred up feelings have settled down altogether. Please try to learn from this.

Now, seeing the words reach the other side of the globe made me think of Gravity_trains, I don't know why I've always found this such a fun notion to daydream about :) Dig a hole through the earth at any angle (good luck), take away any friction (good luck), drop something into it and about 42 minutes later it'll show up on the other side at a very brief standstill, ready to be plucked away. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Call for Daedalus969 to be blocked for a week, and for Gale to undertake not to breach the admin rules

Clearly the agressive abuse meted out to me on Gale's talk page requires a block—of up to a week, I'd say:

Incivility by the above on the talk page of Gwen_Gale. Diffs of aggressive and hostile comments follow:

1. Accusations against Tony1 (talk · contribs) and Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) of baiting.
2. "back the hell off, try reading WP:DICK yourself, as you really are being one"
3. "Please just shut up now, I'm sick of this disruptive trolling of yours on this talk page"

It is in the high end of incivility, and the perpetrator apparently shows no remorse. It is appropriate for the community to teach him that this is unacceptable behaviour.

Gwen Gale has clearly breached the admin rules and I believe she needs to provide a written undertaking to adhere to WP:ADMIN in all future such incidents. If she refuses to do this, I believe moves should be made to have here desysopped. Several policies are at issue in her behaviour. Tony (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Accusations = not blockable
• Dick comment = uncivil, warning already applied, not blockable
• Shut up/troll comment = uncivil, nothing to block over

This needs to stop now. Do not try to pull any wool over anyone's eyes in order to avoid your own block. No further action needs to occur, unless Tony1 or Ohconfucious decide to continue this disruptive train of action. Let's all stop playing blame games, and ensure we're acting according the adult status I am sure we all have. The drahma has truly gone on long enough - there are articles to be written. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Attacks and harassment

Could an admin have a look here please. This editor has been blocked for personal attacks or harassment before here and was told that the next block would be indefinite by admin Barneca. As you can see they have not heeded the warning with the latest attack on me. I asked Black Kite to have a word on his talk page which resulted in this breach of WP:CIVIL and maybe if you didn't act like a little schoolchild gobshite you wouldn't be called one. Honestly, reverting, ignoring, accusations etc. Thats not the traits of someone who isn't a gobshite. I'd say your a fifteen year old billy no mates still in school, the fat spotty kid in the corner with no real prospects. Thats certainly the way you act. Is that personal enough for you, you irritating, infuriating little man? Black Kite then warned this editor here but editor still puts the attack back on the Dunmanway Massacre talk page. BigDunc 09:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Something tells me that it might not take a genius to work out that this is a newly created sock of a certain estabishled user.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman was being very reasonable with them here, and asked that they just stop the provocations. I am concerned that they do edit without logging in if this is the type of conduct they engage in. Troubles articles can be rough enough without IP's which are a consistant problem. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I kindly asked Big Dunc to explain how I'm breaching regulations with my post on the Dunmanway talk page. I want this thing to end but there is no justification for removing the original post. Big Dunc is refusing to discuss it, preferring to arbitarirly remove my post, despite the fact two admins have already looked at the post.

And no, I am not a 'sock' of an established user.

I have not personally attacked Big Dunc since receiving my warning, the last post I made to him was a request for him to explain how I'm breaking the rules. This reporting of me has been a waste of everyone's time. Can we not just let the matter drop, and allow the post to remain? No other admin see's a problem with it and Big Dunc is making a mountain out of a molehill. (Bear in mind he was extremely uncivil with me before I personally attacked him, for which I regret. He simply reverted my post without offering an explanation. When I ask him for one he reverts that post. I'm doing my best but it takes two to reach a compromise.) NewIreland2009 (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

For example, take a look at my most recent edit to Big Dunc's talk page, which has inexplicably been removed. I cannot fathom his reason for reverting a very simple and what I thought to be a courteous question aimed at putting this thing to rest. I'm sure the admins we each have dragged in are tired of this so can we please just agree to disagree, this is such a waste of everyones time. NewIreland2009 (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It has to be said that Dunc 'n' Domer are very difficult editors to deal with. They often act in concert, appear to "guard" certain articles, and are often quick to revert other editors, but slow to engage in discussion. They are quick to revert to WP guidelines and run to admins at the slightest thing, when genuine engagement in discussion is more likely to produce consensus. One user of whom I am aware (User:The Thunderer) has already been driven off WP by his frustration at this pair.

This post will probably provoke the usual keejerk NPA response by one or both of the two, but it is not intended as a personal attack: merely an explanation of the context in which editors on Irish topic are operating, and the resulting frustration which can provoke those with a short temper into making attacks such as that under investigation. The pair are very adept at using the WP guidelines (or, more particularly, their colossal knowledge of them) to their advantage.Mooretwin (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Mooretwin, so you agree they were attacks on editors, and should stop. You might also consider removing this attack on me here and your accusations here the very one you were warned about here and given final warnings. I have ignored being called a liar twice in recent days by you. The first time I tried to be reasonable and the second time I just ignored it and moved on. So stop now. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Straight on cue! What I think is that you should develop a thicker skin. Chill out. If you don't want to be called a liar, don't tell lies! Mooretwin (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Lets see what Admin's think? --Domer48_'fenian' 14:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

When I see an editor call another editor a liar on an admin noticeboard, I want to see a diff, strikeout, or block. Posting on Mooretwin's talk accordingly. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 16:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Domer provided the diffs himself, but - anything for an easy life - I'll strike it out! Regards. Mooretwin (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Mooretwin could you strike through your comments hereand here also thanks. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Good lord, such drama. Can people just grow a pair and let things go? This is getting silly. NewIreland2009 (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, you don't watch this page very often I take it? --GedUK  22:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Dynamic IP spamming Self-injury

Hi, the following is taken from WP:AIV, after an IP persistently added their link to the Self-injury page. The page has been semi-protected by Agathoclea, however they expressed a desire to have this discussed. Specifically because the home page of the link they keep adding has a sentence that calls for volunteers to help them with their article. Any ideas what if anything should be done, I expect once the semi-protection has expired 77.222.x will just start spamming again but I might be wrong.

• 77.222.21.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Dynamic IP persistently adding non reliable source to external links of Self Injury article. 77.222.x IP has been warned through edit summaries but as a dynamic IP I don't know how to warn via talk space. There is also a comment at the start of the external links section taht warns against adding such links which the IP is also ignoring. Jdrewitt (talk) 09:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A more complex issue. The website in question actually refers to their efforts in getting linked on[REDACTED] and is calling for volunteers to help with "their article". This might need wider input so I think AN/I might be a venue and URL blacklisting might help. Agathoclea (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The link in question is Cutting From the Teenager's Perspective. There is a discussion on the Self-injury talk page about which links are and are not appropriate, this certainly falls into the latter category. Jdrewitt (talk)

:I can't find the section on the external site that talks about linking to Misplaced Pages. --Ged UK (talk) 10:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC) I found it, it's on the main page, talking more about emotional intelligence rather than cutting specifically. . --Ged UK (talk) 10:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

A link to http://www.eqi.org/ is also persistently being added to the Emotional Intelligence article by 72.222.x and is being removed each time. Jdrewitt (talk) 10:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It is also being added by Irafromhungary, no doubt a sockpuppet of 77.22.x ? Jdrewitt (talk) 10:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I did spend a little time on the site in question yesterday and found that there was an agenda to a)control a particular article on[REDACTED] and b) to get links to their site onto a range a[REDACTED] articles. A link search also suggested that they are quite successful. My semiprotecting the article was only a shortterm measure until a better solution can be found. The intention of the website are definetly public service but are they WP:RS and is spamming the way to promote? Agathoclea (talk) 12:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they're a relaible source. They certainly appear laudable, but they are just using WP as a promotional tool. I totally understand why, from their point of view, but this is clearly spamming. We should be making it clear to User:Irafromhungary and others about the relevant policies, and remove any such links. If it continues, I would have thought some continued reminders/warnings within the {{uw-spam}} sequence would be the best way forward, then if necessary, blocks. Perhaps an email to the site from an admin might be a good idea clarifying what we're all about? --Ged UK (talk) 12:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• eqi.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
  • I see this added indeed by quite some in the 72.222.xx.yy range, and some other IPs which seem close, and more IPs (but also regulars use this site?)
• 79.143.100.254 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
  • uses more domains.
• 79.143.100.253 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
  • uses more (2) domains.
• 85.96.85.167 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• focus on eqi.org
• 77.85.67.71 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• focus on eqi.org
• 85.94.107.178 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• focus on eqi.org
• 85.94.122.113 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• focus on eqi.org
• 77.222.21.229 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• focus on eqi.org
• 77.222.20.126 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• focus on eqi.org
• 77.222.21.8 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• focus on eqi.org
• 85.55.3.167 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• focus on eqi.org
• Irafromhungary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• focus on eqi.org

Would XLinkBot be a solution to keep the site a bit clean, or should it be blacklisted? --Dirk Beetstra 13:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, this maybe a cross-wiki case, I'll report it to m:User:COIBot/XWiki/eqi.org for the IPs, all will be in a linkreport in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/eqi.org. --Dirk Beetstra 14:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Need protected redirect created

<redacted alternate title - check history> is locked, presumably to prevent the creation of a one-event biography. I have created an article on the incident itself, which is well-referenced. I need an administrator to redirect <redacted alternate title - check history> to YouTube cat abuse incident. It can remain protected as there should be no reason to have a full bio on this person. *** Crotalus *** 16:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this might fall under BLP - certainly when a minor is the focus of an article we should be very careful about including their name on Misplaced Pages due to the high visibility of articles here on the web. I'd oppose creation of this redirect and I've temporarily redacted mention of his real name here (and will do so on the article) until their is consensus that this isn't a BLP problem and it's appropiate to include his real name and/or redirect it. Exxolon (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, BLP nightmare, I wouldn't touch this with a 10 ft pole. –xeno (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see this as a BLP nightmare. Names were reported in reliable news sources, so, if the event is appropriate to document, so are the names, minor or no. The question to me is whether this article falls under WP:NOT#NEWS, which I think it does.—Kww(talk) 20:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

We already have Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/YouTube cat abuse incident‎, fyi. Given that the alleged perpetrator has not yet been convicted, if I understand correctly, then we are way into BLP-vio territory. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd keep an eye on Cruelty to animals, there was some recent activity there that looking back may be related. Verbal chat 20:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not always appropiate to include names Kww, it's been established by consensus, for example, that it's not appropiate to include the Star Wars Kid's real name in the article, even though we can easily find reliable sources for it. Exxolon (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't fight very hard to change that, even though I disagree at heart. I see a significant difference between "acting like a doofus, and not realizing how hard people would laugh", and being arrested for torturing small animals. I can at least understand a desire to protect the former, but not the latter.—Kww(talk) 02:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Should it become clear that the article about the incident will be kept, we will do well to discuss the inclusion of the name at the article's talk page (with a direction thereto at RFC/B); if a consensus is borne out for inclusion, as probably it will be, we might then create a redirect. Joe 21:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

User:MichaelCPrice and User:Orangemarlin at orthomolecular medicine

MichaelCPrice (talk · contribs) Can someone please deal with this? I'm tired of his continued personal attacks against me and other editors. In WP:AGF, I have made several attempts to help him understand WP:MEDRS, one of the basic principles for NPOV of medical articles, but instead he decides that attacking me personally is the best route to take. OrangeMarlin 17:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• It does rather seem that MichaelCPrice is very insistent on adding synthetic material to that article, and is being excessively aggressive in shouting down those who insist on reliable independent sources to support the inferences he chooses to draw. Guy (Help!) 21:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, he's taken to implying I'm lying again. He's using all of his tendentious editing skills to try to get his way, and he's not even close to getting anyone to support his POV. Can someone deal with him? OrangeMarlin 01:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not one of adding synthetic material to the article. I have mostly given up on trying to modify the article since it immediately gets reverted. Instead I've confined myself to the talk page, as we are meant to, to resolve these issues. The problem is that we have an editor, Orangemarlin, who has unlimited self confidence and will not accept any criticism of any form without seeing it as a personal attack. He claims that he is "completely NPOV", which is is absurd since everyone has biases, conscious or unconscious, and that he never dismisses anything (refuted by the false statements in the edit comments which indicate that studies are rejected through ignorance or arrogance). Instead of debating ths substantive issues he claims that ths issue is one of science versus anti-science, that I'm a creationist etc etc.

The claim that I'm alone in my view of Orangemarlin's POV pushing is not true. See this talk page thread. Please note that Orangemarlin claimed the neutral thread title "Recent edits by Orangemarlin" was uncivil and changed it to "Recent NPOV edits by Orangemarlin". --Michael C. Price 09:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• User:Orangemarlin's claim that "he's not even close to getting anyone to support his POV" is false as I support User:MichaelCPrice's contention that a respectable journal such as Scientific American is a reasonable source for our articles, subject to usual considerations of common sense. User:Orangemarlin's own position on sources seems weak since, as I understand it, this matter started with his attempt to give undue weight to a report of a single study. Bringing the matter here seems to be forum shopping and/or gaming the system. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• The beauty of Misplaced Pages is that simply clicking on that link you made to the Scientific American article makes it clear that 'Scientific American' is not a 'respectable journal' but a 'popular science' publication. Nevard (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yet, according to WP:MEDRS 'Scientific American' is still a reliable source if used with commonsense and good judgement. --Michael C. Price 07:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Look at the top of this page. It says Civility issues → Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts (watch · +section). What's really ironic about this thread is that soon after starting it, Orangemarlin called me a "CAM potion pusher" at the OMM talk page , even though all I'd just added was a 2005 Wiley book and I'd came down on his side in the synthesis issue. Orangemarlin uses vicious personal attacks far more than most people. When he last brought civility/tendentious editing issues to ANI a couple weeks ago (thread), I pointed out that he wasn't being civil with Michael either and that this isn't the place for civility issues. I also pointed out to his history of extremely tendentious editing and misusing ANI. The synthesis issue is best discussed at the talk page, at the WP:SYN noticeboard, or through a RfC.

Also, on the issue of synthesis: there are currently several references in the article which do not discuss OMM but are rather on general vitamin supplementation. If we're going to discuss vitamins in general like this, then it's fair to give a balanced overview. Currently the article is pretty fair: we have the sentence "research on nutrient supplementation in general suggests that some nutritional supplements might be beneficial, and that others might be harmful" citing a good article on the topic. The current debate is over whether we should mention the current vitamin D controversy. It wouldn't be that big of a deal to say "some researchers believe vitamin D requires supplementation, while others don't. Misplaced Pages works through compromise. II | (t - c) 17:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Compromise as in "some scientists state that the moon is made of green cheese, others don't". See WP:WEIGHT. . . dave souza, talk 09:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

More Shalom socking

Shalom Yechiel (talk · contribs) is at it again. As any action on my part will be taken as evidence of my part in the Evil Cabal Conspiracy Against Him and any inaction will be taken as Proof That I Finally Realise He's Been Right All Along, can someone uninvolved (there must be someone) look over the latest sock's history and revert/block/ignore as they see fit? N.B. – AFAIK he's not technically violating WP:SOCK here as his main account's edits don't overlap with this one. – iridescent 19:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Not familiar with the circumstances of Shalom but the last edit was rather superfluous. -- Samir 20:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Either Shalom or an impersonator. User:Kivel/draft needs deleting. Thanks, Majorly talk 20:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it's I. I endorse the block and expected it. I'm not sorry for hijacking Iridescent's editnotice. She's not sorry for falsely accusing that I harassed people in real life. The world moves on.

See User talk:Kivel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.165.121 (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

someone start an RFc on User: Kuebie

Lengthy text redacted, here is the diff. I have informed this user how to start RfC's if they so desire -- Samir 21:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Self-revert warning

Ben1985 (talk · contribs) - An account doing nothing but reverting itself. Anyone else smell an impending attack?  Doulos Christos ♥ talk  21:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Quite probably, yes. I've often thought though that the self-revert warning should run to more than one level. Might be easier in cases like this to get a block. --GedUK  21:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

could just be a new user messing about. I'd keep an eye on it, but it doesn't seem like too big of a deal, IMO. Protonk (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Irregular move of the article Països Catalans by User:Martorell

• Martorell (talk · contribs)

In the last 48 hours this user has personally decided to move the article Països Catalans to Catalan Countries up to 3 times witout following the steps explained in the Misplaced Pages:Requested moves page.

• 1st move:
• 2nd move:
• 3rd move:

This article is about a political/linguistical catalan concept with quite some similarities to the german anschluss which is not translated in the English wikipedia.

May I inform that this matter has been subject of thousands of kb for the last years in the talk page (here, here, here, here and here , making it a much controversial subject

Most of the users participating agreed to call it Països Catalans as proven by their messages here in the article's talk-page in order to achieve some kind of consensus so as to remove a NPOV tag (if I recall correctly).

User:Martorell as been warned today in the article's talk-page and in his own user-page about having to follow the steps in order to request potentially controversial moves in order to keep some civilized manners towards the rest of the[REDACTED] users. His answer... another move! He has even modified my very own words in the message (), which is strictly forbidden by[REDACTED] rules.

For this reason, I'm asking for help so as to prevent this user from continuing moving the article's name. Cheers. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 00:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a restoration of the name used until this user and User:Mountolive turned it into controversial. But both they moved the page, altough a consensus was not reached about the title page. I think they should first make a request on talk page about moving the title, according to Misplaced Pages:Requested moves. I think that the actually irregular move is being made by them. Also they have not offered any external sources supporting their opinion about usage of "Països Catalans" in English and, in the other hand, there's a lot of sources using "Catalan Countries" in English. Have a nice day. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 08:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC) PD: There's a zillion of Kb. because they used to push intransigent POVishes in all the subjects related to Catalan and Valencian matters, but never gained consensus.

There is a HUGE talk page debate on this, which was solved with apparent consensus for the article be named Països Catalans. II am not an expert in wikijargon, but I dont think "consensus" means "unanimity". Some users advocated for using Països Catalans such as user:owdki, user:boynamedsue and user:physchim62 (so it is not only Maurice and myself, as you keep saying again and again, for some reason you and God only know). There were other users (user:SMP) disagreeing. User:Dúnadan was opposed to call it Països Catalans, even though it didnt seem a staunch refusal at times (see talk page for details).

The most telling of this story is that, if I am not mistaken, it was eventually moved to Països Catalans by a user which is normally closer to Joanot's line than, say, my own's. I am talking of user:Xtv (who is also a member of the "wikiproject catalan-speaking countries", like all those opposing this move). So, please, at least refrain from lying and saying that it is only a thing of Maurice or myself.

The reality check (talk page) is there for you to peruse it, learn something from other people's point of view and even use it in a constructive way, if you will. MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 23:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it a democratic votation about wich POV should show in the article? According to WP:V you should give some kind of external source supporting somewhat "Països Catalans has no exonym in English". I understand that "non-existent" things can't be verified, but since I've given several sources that shows in English the name of "Catalan Countries", this democratic sort of POV is not acceptable. But as it dislikes so you say it is not "reliable" for you, but, again, you are not giving any external reference or sources supporting this lack of trust claimed by you. Instead of it, you ban edits of mine at the very first chance. Your attitude (together with User:Maurice27), again, and again, mainly from Valencian Community article is banning all editings from Catalan-speaker users, since a lot, many lot of times. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 23:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Harout72

I accidentely ran into an edit war on Luis Miguel between Harout72 and an anonymous user.

At the moment I made my first edit to that article I was aware that some edit war was going on, but didn't pay attention to include the source preferred by Harout72. After he reverted my edit, I wrote him on his talk page that he shouldn't be deleting sourced material. We have continued the discussion a little. Today I proposed a compromise on the talk page of the article. Not between me and him, because I do not see myself as an involved party and have not changed the article after that first time, but between Harout72 and the anonymous user. Harout72's reaction to my proposal warrants an official warning, I feel.

1. He is not responsive to my appeals for compromise. In stead he continues the edit war.
2. He is implicating me personally of having ulterior motives.
3. He is completely convinced that he is 100% right in all his arguments, and does not give any merit whatsoever to counter-arguments.
4. He is using belittling language to me (in my perception at least), by stressing his experience on Misplaced Pages as opposed to mine.

In short: he is being confrontational in that conflict and uncivil to me.

After placing {{adminhelp}} on my talk page with precisely this same information I was referred to this page by Ten Pound Hammer.

First, User:Debresser, please remember to sign your comments. This took an unbelievably long time to figure out. Second, looking at Talk:Luis_Miguel#Sales_figures, I see that Harout72 wants to keep the current 50 million sales figure based on Warner Music's Germany division while an anonymous user has been edit-warring for 90 million based on a single press release at the University of Texas at Austin's performing arts department. Is the issue that he here questioned why you are questioning him removing those sources and not the anonymous users? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, as to your trespassing comments, Debresser, could you point out diffs of exactly what you are talking about? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I am really sorry about forgetting to sign. That doesn't happen to me usually, and if it happens I almost always remember it right away. I raised 4 points above. Let me try and find the relevant diffs.

1. Here I put up a notice right in the middle of the contested information reading "Please wait a minute before editing here, and read my proposal for a compromise on the talk page (section Sales figures). Try to solve the issue between you on the talk page, and not in live editing." In spite of that Harout72 28 minutes later continues the edit war.
2. Here Harout72 is questioning my motives at the end of his edit. I can't even understand what motives he might be referring to. They for sure can't be of a personal nature, because I don't even remember having crossed one of his edits before (our interests are in different subjects).
3. This answer to me on his talk page just completely ignores any of my arguments. Here he addresses the subject of reliable sources, but does not pay attention that his doubts as to the accuracy of the source do not diminish its reliability, at least not any more than it diminishes the reliability of the other source, or at least not per definition. (Although I agree that in this case I would tend to believe Warner Music more than the University of Texas myself, I still think we have to consider the University of Texas a reliable source.)
4. In this edit Harout72 says "You seem quite new to wikipedia". On what basis? Apart from disagreeing with him, all I have done is call upon him to not delete sourced information and to seek compromise. And all of that I have done in the most respectful of words (see e.g. this edit). And again here he calls my comment about deleting sourced information "a ludicrous rebuke of this kind" and stresses that "I am not new to wikipedia, so please invest your time in giving lessons to people who may need it". Debresser (talk) 12:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

What I find interesting is the fact, that a third party reliable source (published in German) was removed twice by anonymous IPs and replaced by less reliable sources while you only left messages for me. First removal by anonymous IP , and here is you noticing and fixing the citations but at no time deciding to leave a message for the anon. (like the one you later left for me. Here another or maybe the same anon. IP removes the same German-language source which I had placed back (to make it as it was originally) and again you chose to leave no explanatory messages of any kind for the anonymous IP, but, instead, you chose to bring the issue here after I changed it back the second time. You claim above "I accidentely ran into an edit war on Luis Miguel between Harout72 and an anonymous user", such; however, wasn't the case as you were there fixing citations almost 15 hours after the anon. IP had replaced the German Language source with the artist's official site . Judging from your movements, your involvement suggests that your intentions were other than to prevent editors from removing sourced statements. --Harout72 (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, (1) I'm having a hard time calling it an edit war when one side consists of a number of random IP addresses constantly removing legitimate sources without an attempt at explanation. That looks more like vandalism to me. I don't think of it as a simple edit war between two people compromising and discussion their views. (3) Your responses are the same: somehow we should be keeping a source that claims a sales figure almost twice the other ones and removing it somehow is equally as concerning to you (or greater I guess since you don't seem the others) as the attempts to remove the other sources. I don't see what the point of that either. As for (2) and (4), Harout, how about assume good faith and move on? Discuss it at the talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Even now Harout72 doubts my words, saying "You claim above 'I accidentely ran into an edit war on Luis Miguel between Harout72 and an anonymous user', such; however, wasn't the case". Have a look at my contributions! I was fixing broken citations from Category:Articles with broken citations which I do all the time when I ran into this case.

This kind of behaviour from his side is why I want Harout72 to receive an official warning about being confrontational and uncivil. He should know he can't go on like that in a civil place like Misplaced Pages. Debresser (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been on the talk page and have no problem with your last changes to the article. Don't forget, I'm here to discuss the behaviour of Harout72, and do not consider myself a party in the discussion about the article at all. Debresser (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

As to the question why I didn't post a warning on the page of that anonymous user as well. Apart from the fact that he after all was the one to revert my one and only edit in this article. Frankly speaking, I'd seen a lot of vandalism andother dubious edits from anonymous user that day and posted warnings on most of them. But to see a registered and experienced user (if I remember correctly 4 years on Misplaced Pages) who maintains an edit war made me decide to write him in this case. He should have known better. In stead he till this moment maintains his position stubbornly, that he is right in everything he did in this case. Debresser (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

User:RMHED

RMHED (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be on a trolling spree. Making sickening jokes at Deaths in 2009, single-handedly changing speedy deletion criteria without consensus. There's probably more in the edit history. Aecis·(away) 01:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope the end isn't near :( seicer | talk | contribs 01:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) He's already violated 3RR at Template:Db-g11. Considering RMHED has two prior blocks -- including one very recent one -- for 3RR violations, I have issued a 72 hour block. An editor this experienced should know better. caknuck _° is a silly pudding 01:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC) (Addendum, the fourth edit fell just outside of the 24-hour period. I still think this violates the spirit of the rule, as well as the "Not an entitlement" clause. caknuck _° is a silly pudding 02:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC))

Actually, the edits on Deaths in 2009 clearly constituted Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing. Has this been taken into account while blocking? — Aitias // discussion 02:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That was taken into account, as well as the editor's past history (both productive and counter-productive.) caknuck _° is a silly pudding 02:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd be thick skinned. Will it really benefit the project to indef him?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Calling me an arsehole

RMHED just called me an arsehole. Could someone please extend the block accordingly? Thanks. — Aitias // discussion 02:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

eh, I thought we kinda agreed sometime a while back not to extend blocks for blocked users venting on their talk page? –xeno (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Oh calm down. Editors routinely vent on their talk pages after a block, maybe take it off your watchlist. DuncanHill (talk) 02:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Xeno, but if it goes back I'll happily reblock to prevent talk page edits. As someone else said, a proper break would be useful. Kevin (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Though, violating WP:NPA is entirely inacceptable. — Aitias // discussion 02:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, its unacceptable but no need to exacerbate the situation. Thick skin and such. –xeno (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) And again. Could someone please intervene? — Aitias // discussion 02:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Kevin locked the talk page... Hopefully he come to his senses when the block expires... (From the looks of it, he's trying to commit wikicide). –xeno (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I've removed his rollback privledges because of related conduct, endorse the original block, abstain on any block abstention, I abstain on the appropriateness of the protection, but note that RFPP should be updated with the latest.--Tznkai (talk)

I think Aitais needs to get a thicker skin if he's going to carry on kicking a man when he's down. DuncanHill (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Kicking a man when he's down? That makes it sound as if somehow Aitais is the culprit. RMHED can only blame himself for his block, and his behaviour before and after the block was uncalled for. Aitais has got nothing to do with it. Aecis·(away) 02:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Aitias is deliberately goading RMHED both here (which is what led RMHED to call him an arsehole) and on his talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 02:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Tend to agree.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it qualifies as goading, but I do think that Aitias should disengage, if only out of caution. (I will do so as well if asked)--Tznkai (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. The only person responsible for RMHED's behaviour is RMHED himself. Noone else can be held accountable for it. Aecis·(away) 03:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Disengagement sounds like a good idea. Is your presence helping WP salvage a good but flawed editor, or is it making things worse?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

RHMED is now IP socking on his page, following the block. Dayewalker (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Sounds quite nice, but unfortunately I'm even harassed by him at my talk page. — Aitias // discussion 03:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Heck, at this point I wouldn't oppose an indef. Looks like he wants to go down in flames. Wizardman 03:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm in perfect agreement with Wizardman here. — Aitias // discussion 03:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't benefit the project. I think we need to let him cool down.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Would obviously prevent further harm. — Aitias // discussion 03:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. So would locking down the whole project. And Aitias, you are not what I would call ... unbiased here.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"Wants to go down in flames" apparently means, "dares to defy the hivemind groupthink." Every time I think I've seen the lowest nadir of Misplaced Pages, I am proven wrong. As Lily Tomlin said, "No matter how cynical I get, I can't keep up." -- SmashTheState (talk) 03:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Considering he's now randomly carpetbombing articles just to be a dick, one wonders why you bothered posting that. One really does. HalfShadow 03:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) (edit conflict) Now he is even vandalising articles: , , , . — Aitias // discussion 03:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

RTV request

RHMED is now (seemingly) cycling IPs to request an RTV. –xeno (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That's every user's right. But I really think we should defer consideration of this one for, say, oh, I don't know,, 72 hours?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That has stopped already. Now he vandalises articles. — Aitias // discussion 03:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

And of course you had absolutely nothing to do with winding him up to that point? DuncanHill (talk) 03:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Aitias, it was suggested that you disengage from this discussion. I think it was a pretty good suggestion. Admins are perfectly capable of monitoring RHMED's actions. Thank you for your concerns and bringing this to our attentions.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Block extended

Block extended to a month. Venting on a talk page is to be expected, but block evasion off that talk page to make edits which are tantamount to vandalsim or personal attacks is completely unacceptable. If this continues I'll block the account indefinitely. I would also appreciate it if we would refrain from granting his request to vanish until he asks to do so in without vandalizing. Protonk (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

We might need someone in here to sort out a brief rangeblock, at least until RHMED has a chance to sleep on it. –xeno (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I unprotected this fellow's page in case he wanted to discuss the block extension. I hope you are ok with that Xeno. I don't think rangeblocks are a good idea -- Samir 04:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, but his block still disallows talk page editing. At this point I'm not sure he's interested in civil discussion. –xeno (talk) 04:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry didn't realize the block included inability to edit the talk page. IMO, RMHED should be allowed to edit his page in light of the rather long block extension. -- Samir 04:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd certainly support allowing him to edit his talk page as long as he engages in civil discussion and not the unhelpful personal attacks that led to the protection in the first place. Really though, I think he needs to walk away for a while. –xeno (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've adjusted the block, because I think that matches Samir's intent. If he abuses that privilege, we have a surfeit of interested admins who will modify the block. Protonk (talk) 04:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I just followed up on this and it appears he's vandalizing the featured article of the day to make a personal attack on another editor? Am I seeing this correctly?--Tznkai (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed... –xeno (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, looking at the combination of timings of posts here, to his talk page telling him of this thread, and his edits, I think the initial block was poor. DuncanHill (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Concur with DuncanHill.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A poor block? This block was perfectly fine. In fact, it was a quite lenient one. RMHED was disrupting Misplaced Pages (, , ) and edit warring both on Deaths in 2009 and Template:Db-g11. — Aitias // discussion 04:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• That's as maybe, but could someone stuff a cork in the little bugger, please? HalfShadow 04:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"Stuff a cork in the little bugger"? Could you be more homophobic, please? Maybe if you called him a knob-gobbling fudgepacker you could be a bit more offensive. -- SmashTheState (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Possibly. But since you're only here to tell us how badly we're screwing up, your opinion doesn't hold much water, so... HalfShadow

Please refrain from posting things which do nothing but to stir up drama. If you feel that halfshadow's affectation was homophobic, take it up with him on his talk page. And half, don't egg him on. Protonk (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Aec is away (talk · contribs) attempted to engage him in dialog on his talk page, and RMHED just summarily deleted his message, and the ANI courtesy note that followed. And what about the stuff on 2009 deaths? It seems pretty clear to me that he was fixing to have a spectacular meltdown, and I suppose in a sense, we played into his hand. But saying the block was poor? To prevent further edit warring and disruptive editing? I think not. –xeno (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It is his talk page. The deletion means he read it, end of story. As for the rest, well, RHMED's vandalim is not excusable. But I believe the initial block was wrong, or at least wrongly applied. I can't approve of the way RHMED is showing his anger, but we could have done better by him by explaining clearly why he was being blocked (if the block was justified) and when the proferred reason was proved wrong, as it was not 3RR, evaluated in a different way than one which amounted to "oh, it is edit warring anyway".--Wehwalt (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Ignore the name here and no one would blink twice as blocking it as a "vandalism only account" RHMED screwed up, and screwed up big here, lets not pretend otherwise, no amount of aggravation in the world, (which I see none of at this point) justifies this kind of behavior.--Tznkai (talk) 04:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"vandalism only account"? That implies that only vandalistic edits have been made by it. Understand? DuncanHill (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Should the right template have been applied? Sure. Does it remotely excuse the originating behavior? No. This is something that is simple and clear cut - don't fuck with article space.--Tznkai (talk) 04:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he read it, but he did not heed the words, as he immediately continued to edit war. And technicalities like the fact that he didn't break the letter of the 3RR law don't change the fact that he broke the spirit. His actions were clearly disruptive and trying to characterize them any other way is ludicrous. –xeno (talk) 04:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Hang on, he was informed of this thread at 01:34 I think - I don't see any edit warring after that. DuncanHill (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we owe correct explanations to those who are blocked under WP policies. RHMED knew he had not committed 3RR. The response probably should not have been "Well, you're guilty of something else then".--Wehwalt (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The initial block was perfectly fine. RMHED was clearly disrupting Misplaced Pages (, , ) and edit warring (Misplaced Pages:Three-revert_rule#Not_an_entitlement!) both on Deaths in 2009 and Template:Db-g11. — Aitias // discussion 04:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This thread alerted us to a reichstag climibing in progress. That the blocking admin pressed the wrong template doesn't change the fact that RMHED was plainly, obviously, clear as day, edit warring (multiple undo's in a row without edit summaries - that's edit warring) nor absolve him of liability. And then there's the extremely distasteful vandalism on the deaths article. Had RMHED discussed his block civilly on his talk page, he may have already been unblocked by now, but instead he attempted to wikilawyer out of it, followed by lashing out at another editor and then went supernova. This is perhaps what he wanted all along. We all retire in different ways, I suppose. I'm off for the evening. –xeno (talk) 05:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of openness, and for the protection of the project, a checkuser was run on User:RMHED to determine if there were any socks that could be used to continue the vandalism, and User:RasterFaAye was  Confirmed as being related to User:RMHED. This information is being released here after informing ArbCom, and on the suggestion of members of ArbCom. User:RasterFaAye has been blocked to prevent any more damage to the project, but the block should not be viewed as a ban; rather, it is a protective measure implemented until such time as things calm down. I am stating a priori that I will not contest an unblock by any admin who feels that the danger has passed. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 05:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion

Right now, I feel we should be able to agree on three things.

• RMHED screwed up and needs to not edit for a while. We can argue the merits of blocks, unblocks, policy violations and templates, but we seem to all agree there is problematic behavior that is leading to an inability to edit productively.
• We, that is to say the community, value RMHED's contributions to the Wiki and would like him back so long as he is back to help out. (That whole anyone can edit thing)
• Nothing productive can be done by us now. Lets all walk away, and wait to see IF RHMED wants to come back before further discussion.

So says me anyway.--Tznkai (talk) 05:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that is wise. However, if things stay quiet, we might want to consider an unblock after a few days. If he is gone, no harm done. If he is back and willing to help the project, great. If he is still in need of a rubber room, one can be supplied at short notice.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) One last comment from me before I go to bed:

One can

• disrupt Misplaced Pages (, , )
• and edit war on two pages (Deaths in 2009, Template:Db-g11),
• can violate WP:NPA and edit war at his talk page (, , ),
• can continue doing this by evading his block (, , , , ,
• can then start vandalising Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (again, evading his block; )
• can start vandalising WP:AN ()
• and the today's featured article (, , , , )
• and can create inappropriate attack pages () and his block is extended due to that and now you are seriously considering unblocking him? It's simply incredible. — Aitias // discussion 05:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• This isn't about law and order, man. We should be able to turn the other cheek. Protonk (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

seems fine. I have no problem with an admin unblocking after a few days if they feel that some understanding has been reached. Protonk (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and the persistent egging and venting needs to stop. Yes, he screwed up, but so have others involved in this process. Blocking for "3RR" (as stated) is incorrect as it was edit warring. A vandalism-only account? Surely one cannot be so naive. seicer | talk | contribs 05:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently I need to explain the vandalism only account comment better. My point was, that RHMED's edit was on face unacceptable vandalism, and if it wasn't for the fact he's a user with a history, any admin would have blocked him without blinking twice. That should show that the behavior was unacceptable past any need for warning, or such was my argument.--Tznkai (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed there, and to be honest I'm surprised with the attitude of the "community" (read: those elements of the community who hang around ANI). As Tznkai says, if it was anyone else it would have been considered vandalism and they would have been indef blocked. Putting up with behaviour like that just because they are a regular only helps perpetuate the notion of cabalism; that it is one rule for those "in the know" who have been around for a certain period of time and one rule for everyone else. RHMED was provoked to a certain extent, yes. Does this explain his behaviour? Some of it. Does it excuse it? No. He was provoked and this (along with his previous interactions with the user in question) goes some way to explain why he did what he did, but not all the way. We're talking about a user who has tried the patience of "the community" (since those people who hang around ANI apparently constitute that now) time and time again, and who it now turns out has been socking. If we let him off then we're giving the impression that it is fine to sock, vandalise and make personal attacks on the basis that the user who initially blocked you didn't obey clause five of paragraph seven, subsection three of the relevant policy. Right to Vanish is for users in good standing; regardless of their contributions to the encyclopaedia that does not include users who sock and vandalise various articles as part of a vendetta against another user. Ironholds (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

We're here to build an encyclopedia. We take into account previous positive behavior because we hope to have RHMED's help in the project once again. Blocks are not punishment; they are to prevent harm to the project. If RHMED returns and indicates he will be constructive, we will welcome him back with open arms and with a spotlight under which every one of his edits will be scrutinized for quite some time.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

We should make reasonable attempts to rehabilitate editors who are net benefits to the project. I also think it's fair to cut long-term, otherwise-collegial editors a bit of slack if they overreact to a one-off block.

However, there is a history of less-than-stellar editing habits and poor interactions with other editors here. About a month ago I cautioned RMHED – very gently – that he was drifting towards unacceptable (sarcastic, confrontational, rude) conduct in his interactions and commentary. (Conversation on his talk page here.) His responses were not promising, and I let the matter drop at the time — I figured that he would either cool down on his own or blow up on his own, and that further prodding wouldn't be helpful. It seems to me that he's chosen the 'blow up' option, with a large helping of suicide by admin thrown in the mix. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The proverbial ball is in RMHED's court, and I'd like a clear and civil answer as to what he wants before we discuss: because this won't cut it.--Tznkai (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If he has been socking for the past 37 days via RasterFaAye (talk · contribs · block log), why are we bothering? AGF cannot be stretched sufficiently to believe that someone can deliberately violate the official WP:SOCK policy for more than fives week for any reason less than malicious intent. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Was the socking disruptive? 'Cos there are plenty of users and admins with undeclared socks, and as long as they do not use them disruptively, no-one seems to care. DuncanHill (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• For the record, the socking appears legitimate, was not disruptive, and the user followed the policy on WP:SOCK#Alternative account notification, but that information was not shared with other CUs on the list before the outbreak, thus the check and block. The alternative account has since been unblocked. -- Avi (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks Avi. I hope that editors who have made negative assertions about the sock will consider striking them in the light of that. DuncanHill (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I don't follow. Blocks are against people, not accounts. That it came up in a CU means nothing--it is one of his accounts, he's blocked, why was that account unblocked? That's process-wonkery to an extreme degree. //roux   05:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
    • My pleasure, Duncan. While on the topic, may I take the opportunity to remind everyone that for legitimate alternative accounts for which the editor does not wish have a public notice, a CU (including members of ArbCom) needs to be notified, and all EnWiki CUs should be made aware of the relationship as per WP:SOCK#Alternative account notification. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
      • No, it's "suggested" and "encouraged". It's most definitely not compulsory; there are many perfectly good reasons one wouldn't trust Arbcom with potentially sensitive information. – iridescent 23:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
        • True. Point noted, and most of the time, there would be no way to find out. But, if during a legitimate checkuser run such an account is uncovered, it is harder to "assume good faith", no? -- Avi (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Nonetheless, it is a CheckUser's responsibility to make that assumption, as well as to bear in mind the requirements placed upon CheckUsers not to disclose non-public personally identifying information, per the CheckUser policy and the Privacy policy. If disclosing the names of alternative accounts would reveal personal information that the person has decided not to reveal to anyone, then CheckUsers are required to respect that, no matter how much bad faith they are assuming. Iridescent is quite right. Uncle G (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we unblocked the sock. I don't think anything untoward was occurring with it, but it seems odd to unblock an account that will be reblocked for block evasion if it makes a single edit. Not sure what purpose that is going to serve. Protonk (talk) 07:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Also, if I understand Avi correctly, RMHED deliberately kept his links with RasterFaAye (talk · contribs) secret, for whatever reason. As has been outlined above, every user has the right to use a secret alternative account, provided it is not used to disrupt Misplaced Pages. It's obvious that RasterFaAye is no longer a secret alternative account, since the links between the two account have been made public, so I don't see what purpose it could possibly serve to RMHED. Aecis·(away) 14:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me see, a legitimate alternative account was mistakenly identified publicly. Various editors then made unfounded and incorrect allegations of abusive sockpuppetry. The legitimacy of the account was confirmed, and none of those editors have so far got around to retracting or striking their allegations. The alternative account in question has not been used to evade any block. Have I got it about right so far? DuncanHill (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Off-wiki harassment by User:EricBarbour

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

I just saw this edit from User:EricBarbour at RMHED's talk page inviting RMHED to participate in a off-wiki discussion here. In this discussion User:EricBarbour wrote: “(Starting to get the feeling that Aitias IS, in fact, an arsehole....)”. I won't take action here myself, but nevertheless I'd like to ask whether this kind of off-wiki harassment is deemed acceptable. — Aitias // discussion 04:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

People get called far worse than that routinely. I'd say ignore it. J.delanoy_adds 04:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Off wiki grousing is not within our purview except in Big Deal circumstances. Not listing those because of WP:BEANS concerns.--Tznkai (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I think people need to have some place to vent. No action required there.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ignore it. WR is dramarama, as always. It's not "offsite harassment". You should take wehwalt's advice and step clear from this. Protonk (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

From someone who understands 'off-wiki harassment', I can assure you that Eric's comments are far from that. It's hardly of concern to us here - Alison 05:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Disclosure, Alison happens to be a prominent member of the site in which the off site harassment invitation is to. Bias? Probably. We all know Misplaced Pages Review is a great place for hate against Wikipedians to be found. Why would Alison suddenly deny that? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Where in Alison's statement above is she denying that? -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if she doesn't deny that Misplaced Pages Review is a blatant center of hatred against Wikipedeans, then her acceptance of the linking of it to blocked members is rather disturbing. So, either way, there is a major problem here. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Not within our purview. Let's move on. People are always going to talk off Wiki, by email or IRC or on message boards. Unless they extend to having neg effects on Wiki, I see nothing wrong with that. --Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is no major problem. Stop stirring up drama. I can't imagine what your motivation would be for turning this into a referendum on Alison, but it has nothing to do with Aitias, RMHED or EricBarbour. Someone linked to a WR thread. On that WR thread there were malcontents bitching about wikistocracy, group-think and Jimbo. There were also people making cowardly (Yes Eric, cowardly) insults and broad generalizations. That's average for WR. It is the one place in the world I've found that is less productive than AN/I. WP:BADSITES does not have consensus. We need not worry about people linking to WR. Please don't inflame this thread any further. Protonk (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please, Ottava! 'Acceptance of the linking of it to blocked members' indeed! That's quite the mouthful, and quite the tenuous connection - Alison 22:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ottava - stop stirring trouble. I'm not a 'prominent member' of Misplaced Pages Review - I'm a regular poster there. Unlike you, who got banned from there. Ooops - disclosure! :) And again, what Eric said on there cannot be construed as 'harassment', at best, it's a direct observation, at worst, an offensive epithet. Time to move on and let it go - Alison 22:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we not escalate this entire mess any further, before we start seeing meltdowns? rootology (C)(T) 05:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Is Eric Barbour's statement verifiable? Misplaced Pages has strict conditions for verifiability. Richard Hock (talk) 11:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not even original, that's just borrowed from what they were saying at WR. At least write your own material, dude!--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

What's WR? Richard Hock (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrathful Rantings; a website chock a block with generators and purveyors of hot air and the rare quite funny joke (some of whom are not WP admins, or even editors). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm just going to boldly archive the above and hope we can keep our complaints about WR and each other to ourselves. Seriously people, lets keep our eye on the ball here.--Tznkai (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary vandalism

Looks like an IP vandal has discovered the wonderful world of edit summary vandalism. Does anyone want to delete these two versions] of Presidency of Barack Obama. Thanks! --Bobblehead 04:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see the need that's pretty tame as far as vandalism goes... –xeno (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Not an attack on the subject of the BLP itself, at least as far as I can tell, so it seems reasonably tame. Selective deletion seems unnecessary. — neuro 05:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a pretend-dialogue between Obama and someone else. Yes, it is an attack on Obama. Baseball Bugs 06:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Oop, yep, blame 5am editing. — neuro 06:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked by User:Antandrus, a block which IMHO was well done. Marking this resolved. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Random stalking / vandalism / sockpupetry

User:129.21.55.83, User:SisDivComp, User:1211Beckett, have been stalking my edits and randomly reverting them. User:129.21.55.83 also stopped to correct a very obscure typo by User:JHUastrodif. User:JHUastro, User:IrishFilmBuff, User:JBHarshaw and User:UMinnAstro (last three accounts have very close creation dates) all took a sudden interest in Dobsonian telescope and started making a series of similar edits after I reverted an unreferenced addition to Dobsonian telescope(dif) by an anonymous IP. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional: User:129.21.240.7 made a following series of edits right after User:IrishFilmBuff at Altazimuth mount(dif). Along with User:129.21.240.7, User:129.21.55.82 and User:129.21.240.56 are also contributers to the "Dobsonians are crummy" additions... I see an IP range.Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems like there are a few too many socks in the drawer. I would suggest you take it to WP:SPI. Firestorm 06:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Feature article vandalism

The various IPs that were vandalizing this page are now vandalizing the featured article with the same edits that required their edits to this page to be deleted from the history. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is gone now. In the future, when someone's personal identity has been posted and we need it removed, please do not post here, since this is a high-traffic page that will only serve to publicize the details. Most people watching here, even admins, do not have the ability to hide revisions. Use the instructions laid out at Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight. Thanks. Dominic·t 07:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for oversight, just admin deletion from the history, as was done for this page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

open proxy

hi! i would like to get this open http proxy blocked: cyberghostvpn.com. they say, that they don't even give the identity (i. e. IP) of their users to the authorities, if the authorities r not accusing one of their users of being terrorists... access can be free of charge... one of their users did this (a threat in german, that translates to "when i catch u, u dirty ") and the same or another of their users this (sounds like he wants to date someone in real life...)... another edit from that open proxy is disruptive, too: ... this proxy is just good for vandalism, because a supressive government could monitor the traffic to and from that open proxy, so that just leaving the area of authority of such countries can help... :-) --Homer Landskirty (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Google cache of Rihanna

I don't know if anyone knows how to get google to recrawl, but we may be about to get in the news again. The google cache, and google summary of our Rihanna article says "WWW.MEATSPIN.COM BITCH GOT OWNED." over and over again. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Their cache has already been updated as of 26 Feb 2009 07:56:55 GMT to a good version. I'm sure this problem occurs, say, 5,000 times a day. It is not news that at any instant a[REDACTED] page may be bollocks, though that'll not stop that particular story being rehashed on a weekly basis. But there's nothing to be done here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Their cache has been updated, but the blurb text has not. Score a coup for meatspin.com. Any interest in adding them to the spam blacklist, if they aren't already there? --Dynaflow babble 08:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Help needed please

I recently worked on a 3RR case (located here) where the reported user had been editing warring over the 23rd/24th. At that point I was within policy to block the user but I just wasn't up for any of that "Why'd you block me? I wasn't edit warring." hassle so I suggested a voluntary topic ban here, he replied with this, he then also e-mailed me explaining his grievance on that article (which was fair enough). So I replied with this lengthy behemoth (You don't have to read it all, it basically just mentions the various things that would help him out etc.). A little while afterwards he came to me with this which upset me because I'd spent so long helping this guy, which led me to reply here. As of now his userpage has changed to mispresent what happened and make me feel like a bad person. I know I'm not because I offered the break from the article voluntarily (check the diffs!). He's also gone on to complain about me at another user's talk. Can anyone please just tell this guy to chill out? He obviously won't listen to me. I was so nice to this guy and now he's just being a completely obnoxious about something that was supposed to help him. Thanks in advance. Scarian 09:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean about his user page. Yes, he's not telling the truth about what happened. I do worry about religious (and other pages) where a group of editors stoutly defends their version of the page and the often lone editors that come along to bring it more into line with our policies and guidelines get shouted off. But that shouldn't excuse his behaviour. dougweller (talk) 11:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You made him an offer to evade blocking. If he decides to ignore it and continues nevertheless, noone will blame you if you block him for violating 3RR. I'm all for assuming good faith but if people make it clear that they won't stop disruptive behavior, AGF cannot replace a block. You did more than an admin would be expected to do when dealing with such a case, if he continues disrupting, take those steps necessary to stop him. Regards SoWhy 11:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, if an editor, no matter how well meaning (as you clearly are/were in this instance) called me buddy, i'd automatically be on edge because I can't stand the word. I know you were trying to be friendly, but to me that message felt a little patronising. Maybe that's just me though. I think that you went the extra mile to resolve the situation, but that perhaps the language used wasn't the best. But like I said, maybe that's me. --GedUK  12:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

What actually upset me, apart from the article being a total miscarriage of justice, was that Scarian's second reply (to my lengthy email explaining the issues) seemed to imply that he would somehow take me or my situation seriously or look into it. But now it seems to me his replies were just attempts to get me to shut up and leave him alone. He didn't take me seriously, or look into the article. Which he's under no obligation to, but his first reply seemed to imply that he would. I mean instead of saying "give me time and we'll progress further", he could have just said "stop edit warring and that's all there is to it. Go find something else to do." As I've said repeatedly, at this point I have been blocked from editing the article by edit warring from my opponents, so I have nothing to lose. And I am happy with any publicity that the problem article, Ramakrishna, gets. — goethean ॐ 14:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"Publicity"? Makes things sound a little WP:POINTy then ... (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed, it is WP:POINT. Goethean's WP:POINT has been "point"ed out and discussing on the talk pages for ages! Its not surprising if a Scarian or any other completely new editor can point this out! Any editor who does not agree with Goethean's WP:POINT is "religious" and will be personal attacked! Here is another example: User_talk:Ludwigs2#question. --Nvineeth (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy break

Please excuse me admins, I support Scarian and like Goethean says, other editors are not "religious" and "censoring". There are other editors equally good at the scholarly materials related to the article in question--Ramakrishna. It is goethean who repeatedly adds material with WP:UNDUE weightage and from unreliable sources and when we discuss and address them in a polite manner, he attacks the other editors are "religious". The article Ramakrishna is plagued by his tagging, personal attacks, hate feast. Just see the talk page. Few examples,

From the archives

This is what Goethean writes about Ramakrishna Mission,

• At the highest levels, they are dishonest, corrupt, and morally reprehensible. Now there are so many lies and deceptions in these Misplaced Pages articles, they will probably never be accurate. Behold the legacy of the Ramakrishna Mission: mendacious dishonesty. — goethean ॐ 15:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)(Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive_5)
• See section, Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive_5#Viability_of_too_few_opinions.2C_personal_attacks_and_incivility
• See section, Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive_6#Stop_the_personal_attacks.2C_incivility

From Talk:Ramakrishna

• Uncivil titles like, " Claim that discussing sex in lede is undue "

Sample personal attacks, (the talk pages are full of these)

• "Nvineeth's modus operandi is to spam the article with gobs of material from non-notable swamis which is published in non-academic books which are bankrolled by right-wing NRIs. It is shocking what you, Nvineeth, Priyanath, and Devadaru have gotten away with. — goethean ॐ 17:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)"
• And it is very clear why editors here prefer to use old sources here like Muller, Rolland, etc. It's because the recent sources contradict the points of faith of the swamis, like that Ramakrishna was a sexless ephebe. — goethean ॐ 17:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• You are being deliberately obtuse. ( Talk:Ramakrishna )
• Edits like, this calling the editors "totalitarian".

As he says above we are not adding "gobs of material", I can prove my scholarly knowledge... Goethean knows this very well, I was the one to detect the original research, failed reference checks in the version he endorses.

Repeated addition of disputed materials against concensus and edit warring

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ramakrishna&diff=prev&oldid=272101273
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ramakrishna&diff=prev&oldid=271966392

previous noticeboard incidents

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive182#User:Goethean_:_personal_attacks.2C_incivility.2C_totally_disputed_tags
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive475#Disruptive_edits_from_User:Goethean

If you dont turst me, you can contact User:RegentsPark, a fine editor and an admin who has given the Talk:Ramakrishna#Outside_opinion on the article. This is what has happened,

1. The version of the article that Goethean endorses on his talk page was full of original research, failed reference checks, personal comments (yes, very true) in the article, and when other editors rectified the problem, he attacks them as "religious". Its as if we have to support him! See this discussion Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive_3#Revisiting_revision_on_25_June_2008 for the problem.
2. He also tried to revert the article to an version older by a month or so! The article had undergone extensive imporovements and he wants to discard the efforts of at least 3 other editors because it does not match his POV.
3. The quotes on his talk page are all cherry picked, from unreliable sources and naturally this is not allowed on the article. You can find the discussion related to this on the Talk pages.
4. He has added disputed, npov tags at least 20 to 30 times when it was not so!

I am no "religious" editor and even Goethean must have realized this by this time, since I have identified original research, failed reference checks in what he had added to provide a completely wrong picture of Ramakrishna... and when other editors try to rectify this, they are personally attacked and called religious .

Latest discussion : Talk:Ramakrishna#tags_by_Goethean

I SUPPORT Scarian and request the admins to look into the personal attacks and incivility Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 12:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The editor in question left me a message: "response to your disingenuous message" on my talk page when a 3RR warning was given to the editor. (Note the reverts to Goethean's edits were done by 3 diff users: me, Nvineeth, Blutpr). When the second warning for 3RR by User:Ism schism, the resonsive on User talk:Ism schism was "Neat trick: I love it how you edit war with me, and then place a warning tag on my talk page. I got to remember that one. — goethean ॐ 21:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)". Then (s)he accused me: "You are being deliberately' obtuse.", violating WP:Assume good faith. Remarks like "Nvineeth's modus operandi is to spam the article with gobs of material from non-notable swamis which is published in non-academic books which are bankrolled by right-wing NRIs. It is shocking what you, Nvineeth, Priyanath, and Devadaru have gotten away with." are similar accusations.--Redtigerxyz 14:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

As a relatively uninvolved editor who happens to know a good bit about the topic, let me just add that the material Gothean wants to add - while certainly worthy of notice - does not represent a broadly accepted scholarly view of RamaKrishna's life. it's basically one or two scholars who have endeavored to make a Freudian psychohistory of RK. If I were to critique their work professionally (which after seeing all this I may very well do) I'd say that they've made serious analytic errors in their use of Freudian techniques, and indulged in a lot more scandal-theorizing than any academic ought to (or perhaps that's just the way Gothean is presenting the material; I need to dig more deeply). at any rate, the stepwise elevation of RK's rejection of 'women and gold' (a fairly common monastic theme in all religions, mind you), to claims that RK was a victim of child abuse, to assertions about RK's innate misogyny and homoerotic tendencies is inflamatory at best. it's completely inane to insist on presenting them as valid facts about RK's life the way Gothean keeps insisting on. add that I've warned him about civility myself several times, to no effect, and you'll understand why I personally think giving him a short block might be best. --Ludwigs2 23:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If Ludwig2's comments portrayed the issues in a remotely reasonable way, I would be on his and Nvineeth's side of the debate. The material which I want to add, which is on my user page, represents the 12 scholars who have written notably on Ramakrishna, not "basically one or two scholars." Ramakrishna's phrase "women and gold" has nothing to do with their argument. Their argument is about his dressing as a woman for months at a time, his self-described "worship of his own penis" as a form of religious devotion, his self-described "worshiping the penis of boys" as a form of religious devotion, his falling into swoons whenever attractive young male boys appear, and a host of other behaviors documented by eyewitnesses. It is the academic consensus that Ramakrishna was sexually eccentric. But the article is not allowed to say that. In the opinion of scholars, the Mission has suppressed these facts. But the article is not allowed to say that. It is only because the topic is obscure that the article is so divergent from scholarly opinion and so subservient to the discredited claims of a religious organization. Ludwigs2 must have somehow missed when all of this was repeatedly discussed on the talk page. — goethean ॐ 00:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

deep sigh... of the references you've given (if I remember correctly) only two of them refer to actual academic works. the remainder are people writing reviews, forwards, or other references to those two academic positions. as I've said previously, please don't pad your references with material like that. if you really want to dig into content here, let me point out the following:

1. worshiping the penis (or lingam) is a large part of many Hindu traditions (usually deeply symbolic in Bhakti practices, but often explicit in tantric forms). this is a lot more common than you might think, though it violates western sensibilities (whale oil, for instance, was used in ritual anointments throughout Europe because of its resemblance to semen - from whence we get the name 'sperm whale').
2. Ramakrishna practiced a form of advaita which rejects all forms of duality - he was known to walk naked in the streets, much less cross-dress. eccentric? sure. sexually eccentric? even if I were sure what that term meant, the best I could say would be 'maybe'. the problem with 'sexually eccentric' is that it's a term designed to give impressions of perversion to the western mind, something for which there is absolutely no evidence.

if you want to discuss this more, let's go back to the talk page - not that I think I'll ever convince you, but I don't want to import that debate here any more than we already have. --Ludwigs2 01:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I know what Advaita is. I know what Tantra is. Please do not condescend to me. You are arguing against the academic consensus of writers on Ramakrishna, not my personal beliefs. As you said above, maybe you need to dig deeper. — goethean ॐ 02:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

the problem with 'sexually eccentric' is that it's a term designed to give impressions of perversion to the western mind, something for which there is absolutely no evidence.

Do you care to back that up with...anything? Anything at all? Like a source comparable to one of the nineteen quotations I've posted? — goethean ॐ 03:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Gothean, you're not the only person reading this; please allow me to clarify things for others. that being said, which part of the phrase "let's go back to the talk page" was unclear? if you want to talk article content, talk to me there. --Ludwigs2 04:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Goethean, the "19 quotations" are cherry picked which are not WP:RS. Here the discussion is about your personal attacks and incivility and edit warring.... not about the content. If you want to discuss about the article, then "let's go back to the talk page". This discussion is about WP:PA and WP:CIVIL. Hope things are clear now. --Nvineeth (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Site wrongfully considered spam: romlit

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but for some reason I can't link to www.romlit.ro - when I try to save a version, it goes to preview mode and tells me that the address had been designated as "spam". The domain is owned by the Writers' Union of Romania, and is the website of its main publication, România Literară. It's about as unspam as it gets. I was perfectly able to link to it not more than a day ago. Can somebody look into this please? Dahn (talk) 11:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I just checked and it now seems to work. does anybody know what the exact problem was? Dahn (talk) 11:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Technically, there could be dozens of reasons - a faulty http request...network traffic...the spamlist was in the middle of an update at the exact millisecond of your request...I could go on. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If I read this correctly, the meta spam blacklist briefly had a typo that would block every address that had a "t" in it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay - a purely technical problem. Thank you both. Dahn (talk) 11:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

User:121.54.32.39 removing links to other Wikis

- - 121.54.32.39 (talk · contribs)'s edits are removing links to other Wikis, text, etc. - am I missing something or is this just vandalism? dougweller (talk) 11:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC) An example, now reverted dougweller (talk) 11:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like removal-vandalism to me. Warn and report to WP:AIV if needed. SoWhy 11:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Renegadeviking

I was simply going to revert and ignore, but this makes the third time that Renegadeviking (talk · contribs) has attempted to troll the Anime article. Looking at Renegadeviking's edit history, it's fairly evidence that Renegadeviking has been trolling other articles, such as Republican Party (United States), Democratic Party (United States), and 2008 in Iraq among others. --Farix (Talk) 12:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I note he doesn't yet seem to have been warned. Give him a warning (along the lines of "cut it out or we'll block you") and if he doesn't cut it out then well... I support blocking him. Meanwhile I'll hang around his contribs page reverting his random soapboxing and trolling. Ironholds (talk) 12:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

2009 WRC event writeups

Keke Ruehle (talk · contribs)'s writeups for 2009 Rally Ireland, 2009 Rally Norway and 2009 Cyprus Rally read like articles from a motoring magazine, full of subjective opinion and unreferenced claims. I've tagged the articles, mentioned my concerns on the article talk pages and left messages on his user talk page, to no avail. I don't know how to get his attention, short of deleting everything he's written. DES (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If that's what it takes. He must need a hint that people are serious about it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hala Sultan Tekke

Moved to the reliable sources noticeboard. Protonk (talk) 07:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"Michael Montalbano"

There appears to be persistent low-level vandalism over the past two weeks or so from a number of anonymous IPs, attempting to attribute to one "Michael Montalbano" many of the accomplishements of Joan Baez, Carole King, Jim Croce, and the Commodores. Since much of the vandalism went unreverted, I thought I'd leave a note here... AnonMoos (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs? --GedUK  16:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Most of my edits in the past hour have been cleaning up after Michael Montalbano vandalism; don't really feel like spending significantly more time on the matter right at moment... AnonMoos (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Actually searching for the name would be more useful, as they are still available. Anonmoos seems to have caught a lot of them. (Good job :) I'll swing through those hits as I have a few minutes.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 16:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, i did a quick search, and so far found user:63.3.11.129, user:172.130.153.143 and user:172.162.12.202 --GedUK  17:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

63.3.11.129 was blocked as an open proxy once upon a time. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 17:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

They all seem to have been reverted. Any I found were already reverted (except one where Deor was there just as I found the right edit :)); maybe the best thing to do is let the database get around to updating the search results and then I'll keep an eye on it (if nobody minds). (Ummm, dunno if Robbie Robertson gets outraged, but I'll be happy to get outraged on his behalf.) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 17:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

One last thing: If you do a search on michaelmontalbano as all one word, there are mentions of much the same kind osf graffiti/vandalism going back to 2007. Sigh. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 18:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the contributions list of User:63.3.11.129, for example. It looks like a kid using multiple computers at home/school. Deor (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

And it seems to have been going on for awhile, alas. The Through the Night edit was in December.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 17:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Please restore my MFD comments.

An editor is repeatedly removing my comments on Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipuffery. Can someone please revert and warn, so that I can avoid edit-warring? Thanks. THF (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(Thanks to Toddst for notifying the other party, since he has barred me from his talk page. I had previously notified him on my talk page.) THF (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

For reference, this is concerning actions of Ikip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Toddst1 (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I created the first deletion tag (incorrectly) at 16:13, 26 February 2009. 7 minutes later, at 16:19, 26 February 2009, THF forked the article. Editors are not supposed to fork articles which are in MfD/Afd. User:THF knows better. He then attempted to create a second MfD within the first. I moved these comments to the talk page. Ikip (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This is now MULTI, but Ikip misrepresents the facts. Misplaced Pages:WikiAntipuffery was created at 16:19, before Ikip finalized his MfD at 16:20 and after Ikip deleted his template at 16:16: it was a simple edit conflict, as I did not realize that Ikip would renew his frivolous nomination. I created it because User:Ikip tried to add material diametrically opposed to Misplaced Pages:Wikipuffery to that essay. If he doesn't want it to exist, he's welcome to ask me to blank and CSD it, as long as he promises not to readd it to Misplaced Pages:Wikipuffery. After creating an MfD and after people had started voting, he changed the MfD to include a second essay that noone had considered, which is why I tried to break it out so people could understand what was being responded to. THF (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(And, once again, Ikip substantively changes his talk comment after other people respond to it without making a note that it has been updated. Not cool.) THF (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The key word it "finalized". User:THF knew that the article was up for deletion, at 16:13, 26 February 2009, when I incorrect applied the tag, so he forked of the article into a new article at 16:19, 26 February 2009.

This is a complete fabrication:

"Create essay to maintain content inappropriately added to WP:PUFF"

So is this:

I created it because User:Ikip tried to add material diametrically opposed to Misplaced Pages:Wikipuffery to that essay.

I never added anything to the essay except the MfD tag, please strike it immediately.

Ikip (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This seemed like an addition to me. I now see that DGG was the first to add it. THF (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

that was a reversion, because in-between me adding the MfD tag, you removed this section and made your own article. I thought I was responsible, so I reverted before the MfD tag was incorrectly added. But I wasn't responsible for removing that content, you were.

So you were wrong, DGG originally added this. I appreciate you striking out the accusation. Ikip (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, don't add biased resolved comments to a section you started and are deeply involved with. Todd removed this Ikip (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• This all seems like a pretty silly thing to get yourselves into a fuss over. Can't you both go your separate ways? –xeno (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I tried to drop this by adding a resolved tag. I brought the complaint, I was satisfied with the resolution of the issue by the fact that Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipuffery will shortly close under WP:SNOW. I am informed that that is not sufficient grounds to add a {{resolved}} tag. My apologies if I added the tag inappropriately, and apologies for any admins who have to read through Ikip's WP:STICK. THF (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Article creator marking AfD as keep (even if he put it in the wrong place)

When I nominated this article at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Septennial cycle either Twinkle didn't work properly or this was when Twinkle didn't work at all and somehow I missed adding the template to the page. Which I rectified. The article's creator has now added a sentence at the bottom of the AfD marking the article as keep. As I'm involved and about to go on holiday, I'd appreciate someone uninvolved taking a look and maybe making sure there isn't any other mischief before the AfD finishes. Thanks. The relevant diff is . 17:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)dougweller (talk)

I've removed the misleading comment. Will notify editor. Toddst1 (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In fairness to Systemizer, one could be forgiven for mistaking the meaning of the line of commented out text which is added when AfDing. One is permitted to grasp at straws; all he did was transfer that line into the AfD debate thinking that it had meaning, when it was just a template for the eventual closure. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That's the way I saw it too. Toddst1 (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That does make sense, I'm pretty sure that is what happened. I don't think he knows his way around Misplaced Pages enough yet to have done it deliberately to mislead. dougweller (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Dunc's block bad?

This recent block of User:BigDunc here needs some explanation. This is the second time that User:Deacon of Pndapetzim has blocked this editor. The first one here a block extension for a week which had to be overturned. Only after a lengthy discussion.

In my opinion this was a case of jumping in with both feet before even looking. I say this because of the order of blocks, Dunc gets blocked first, it is then commented upon before the other editor is blocked.

Now what did Dunc get blocked for? Was it for this edit on his own talk. Or maybe this one here again on his own talk page. I know it could not have been for this one here, but it was after this one that they got blocked.

What prompted Dunc’s edits in the first place? Well a quick look at the page history would give some indication. This was User:NewIreland2009 first edit on Dunc’s talk page in January. Since then they have made 127 edits, of them only nine on articles. The rest were talk pages. The majority of them on Dunc’s. They used their User page to launch attacks at Dunc, and eventually had to be blocked with a very clear warning. They again used their User page for attacks two days ago but nothing was done. Dunc reported his conduct to an Admin, and I tried to calm things down and also went to an Admin to help cool things. Jehochman told NewIreland2009 to stop and Black Kite warned them and suggested they probably should have been blocked already. Despite all the warnings, they were allowed to go on attacking in comments and edit summaries.

So we have an editor with thousands of edits, who is productive, constructive and an asset to the project, getting blocked by User:Deacon of Pndapetzim because of an editor who has trolled his talk page and done nothing productive at all. There is something rotten in the kitchen, and its starting to stink. This block was bang out of order, and if Admin’s had of intervened this would never of happened. Therefore it should be overturned in my opinion.--Domer48_'fenian' 19:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you consider raising your concerns directly with the blocking admin? (Note left for DP) –xeno (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Given the amount of trolling that has occurred on BigDunc's talkpage, a block for a couple of intemperate edit summaries would appear to be overkill IMHO. I would support an unblock here with a mild warning similar to the one I gave NewIreland2009 (which he ignored and has now been blocked by Deacon as well). Black Kite 20:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Well, that's one way of putting it. Another way would be: this editor was blocked for incivility, and two diffs were provided in the block notice. I'm not sure I understand your reasoning for why it should be overturned. The subtext seems to be that BugDunc isn't responsible for his own conduct, and requires admins to step in to prevent anyone provoking him, otherwise he's just going to be uncivil. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone else having déjà vu here ... ? --Kralizec! (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the energy and mental fortitude to get into this any more than I already have, but I do want to say this. Dunc is an editor worth keeping around, who gets into a lot of trouble because of a bad temper - this seems to quickly be becoming the norm of editor conduct in this area. Looking at the bigger picture, blocking Dunc does not address the larger problem, and may in fact be exacerbating it - admins are becoming the unwitting tools in partisan warfare. The horrible truth is of course, that this is all being done with good faith - just total incompetence at all levels. "By the book" blocking here will not cut it, because of the loss of trust between the admin corps as a whole and the Irish conflict editors. Do it smarter, not harder.--Tznkai (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I know the initial block was hasty. He was blocked one minute after that edit, with no effort made to investigate what was going on. It was only after I pointed out the other editor had said far worse was any action taken against him. The other editor has done little except troll for days, even having the audacity to say an article has too many references when no sentence I can see is over-cited. O Fenian (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

As one of the few admins that actually bothers to keep an eye on this dispute, would you like to expand on this "incompetence", Tznkai? Black Kite 20:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I made various comments at the AE RFC about entrenched disputes, and the Troubles and related fora was model. The short of it is you have a small group of editors who actually write about these articles. They are in general very stubborn and opinionated, and tend to come into conflict. Those who aren't usually find a new hobby quickly. Of those who are left, they tend to gravitate towards two "sides" of any conflict, generally roughly corresponding to Protestant Catholic, pro-treaty anti-treaty, nationalist or republican, or whatever the issue happens to be. Trust between these two groups is low - and generally speaking, the editors do not see themselves as biased, but as neutrally representing obvious facts. Admin intervention is generally limited to trying to break up conflicts that have already descended into serious bickering, and thats that. In addition, admins are usually unwilling, or more often, unable to establish trust between themselves and the sanctioned users. Admins become quickly exacerbated, frustrated and short tempered (this area has an incredibly high burnout rate) and then deal with only the worst problems when they have the energy, or leave the dispute area entirely. Those who remain may end up gravitating to one of the sides above, or appear to do so. At no point is consensus between warring sides ever achieved with no ill intentions from any party - but overall the there was failure.--Tznkai (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: Additionally, admin intervention tends to lag behind, especially when users who have been in trouble need our collective help. The impression is given we're omniscient when they screw up, but too inattentive or unwilling when they actually need our assistance.--Tznkai (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In reply to User:SheffieldSteel could the diff’s I provided on Dunc’s comments not be considered accetable since they were both used here on ANI above in addition to being used here and here and were not deemed to have breeched civility? Can were use these terms on ANI but not on User pages. What I’m saying here, is this should have been dealt with before now, there was plenty of opportunities. What I’m saying here is yes Admin’s should have stepped in.

Kralizec! in what was your comment ment to be helpful?--Domer48_'fenian' 20:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to unblock if there's consensus among admins here to do so, but really I don't think it'd do anything but undermine wikipedia's discipline policies. The matter here between Ireland and BigDunc had been going for a while, and should have been sorted before I had to deal with it. The block of BigDunc was a fair electric fence block for foul-mouthed abuse that can't reasonably be regarded as controversial. There is a line you can't cross, and that BidDunc certainly can't given his recent record. BlackKite, both sides were clearly at it, though do note BigDunc's outburst came in response to an apparent attempt to reconcile. BigDunc is not a child and is responsible for his own conduct on wikipedia, and is aware of what is across the line. The only message an unblock would send is "look, BigDunc, whenever you feel someone is annoying you can do and say what you like". It's a message many admins in this area -- in contrast to other AE areas -- have often favoured sending, and it has never done anything but what one'd expect it to do, encourage. That's why I don't favour it. Bottom line, the comments made merit at least a 24 hour block; by the book I should have given him 72, but I considered the context, and I also btw blocked the other party for 48.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If he's not a child, he was certainly acting like one. This was a reasonable block- I don't see any reason to unblock. Friday (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with block. 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. --Kbdank71 21:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Just a comment question, sorry to barge in. I am I understanding that blocks are suppose to be preventive(whatever that means) as oppossed to punishment? I am not saying that is the case here, but watching this board, it seems that alot of blocking is done to punish folks, not that it doesn't prevent them from further harm, so it serves the purpose, but I am always wonder how you tell or what the real difference is between the two. Anyways, I am sure this belongs elsewhere, so carry on :). --Tom 21:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess in response to that I'd say that there's little more preventative than knowing rules will be enforced. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"Undermine wikipedia's discipline policies," what discipline policies? What about this attack on me here and the accusations here the very one they were warned about here and given final warnings. I have ignored being called a liar twice in recent days. The first time I tried to be reasonable and the second time I just ignored it and moved on. Has the snipping stopped? The hell it has.

"The matter here between Ireland and BigDunc had been going for a while, and should have been sorted before I had to deal with it." Why the hell wasn’t it? As to Dunc's record, well that's one that could come strigh from your essay. Remember also your block was over turned. Don't try use their record here, because as far as productive editing goes, they are way ahead of you, me and the rest of us.

"The only message an unblock would send is "'look, BigDunc, whenever you feel someone is annoying you can do and say what you like'". Would that be like all the final warnings that are given and never acted upon. Tznkai is right, there is a loss of trust between the admin corps as a whole and the Irish conflict editors and this is a good example. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

General Comment — People need to keep reminding themselves that editing on Misplaced Pages is a volunteer activity for all of us, and that it is conducted within a community of peers. If you volunteered your time at a church or community center on the weekend, you would probably be asked to leave if you frequently called co-workers "gobshite" or similar. Why should Misplaced Pages be more lenient than that? Each and every editor here is a real person, not some faceless entity hidden behind a keyboard. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thats a kind of ridiculous comment. Obviously this aint a church - and a lot of people around here act like "gobshites". I wouldnt even consider that a swear word.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not ridiculous. If people behave in a such a way as to make working here unpleasant for others, that's generally a problem. Misplaced Pages requires that editors are able to behave like reasonable adults. If you can't do that, this isn't the place for you- it's quite simple. Friday (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In the end, NewIreland2009 has been blocked for incivility, and so has BigDunc. It is a shame that admins didn't act in time to prevent NewIreland2009 from provoking BigDunc into incivility, but every editor is responsible for their own conduct. Now, if editors make a case that NewIreland2009 was acting in bad faith and gaming the system to get an opponent blocked, then we should be willing to consider further measures (e.g. a conduct RfC), but what I've seeing here looks more like blaming the police for gang violence, at the same time as accusing them of brutality. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 22:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

BigDunc is a long time editor of good standing who has made an immense contribution to the project - NewIreland on the other hand hasnt.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The value of an editor's contribution history would certainly become a factor if and when any long-term blocks or bans were to be suggested, which happily is not the case here and now. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 22:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

User:SheffieldSteel your comment here was the most reasonable and clear cut advice I’ve seen in a long time. Did it have an effect, a minor one but an effect all the same. Did it address the problem, well no, because these edits were not addressed here and here. Now I was blocked and page banned for calling an editor the same thing, despite the fact that I had provided multiple diff’s to support it, the block was all done of wiki. Now my point above has not been addressed, Dunc responded using the same terms as Ireland had used. Ireland used these same terms on ANI after they had been warned, and nothing was said. It was only after they were used on ANI with no action taken did Dunc respond in kind. It seems to me like a double standard is being applied. Long term bans and blocks were suggested if Irelands conduct did not improve, likewise with the editor I’m having problems with, after been told directly to drop the tag-team BS. Now I’ve asked for editors I’m in dispute with not to be blocked and have asked for admin’s to step in and just have a word. I’ve had enough BS blocks to know what it feels like, with a record to go along with it. The last was out and out wrong for both Dunc and myself and now Deacon has raised Dunc’s block log in this discussion, and as far as I’m concerned that is gaming plain and simple. You judge each incident on it’s merits, and at the very least check the background. It took an editor to point this out to Deacon before Ireland got blocked and that says something.--Domer48_'fenian' 23:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Each and every editor here is a real person, not some faceless entity hidden behind a keyboard.". Oddly, I tend to extend a lot more leash to long-standing editors here (BigDunc etc. are quite aware of the issues that I and other admins have with their editing patterns), and I probably should've fixed the problem here more quickly - I tried to assume AGF and only warned User:NewIreland2009 (an editor whose very first edit - which I didn't notice at the time - was this) for his incivility, when I should've blocked. Yeah, AGF and all that, but it's clearly not working in this case. I still think a couple of incivil editsums wasn't enough for a block, but meh. Black Kite 00:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've run into this guy a couple of times before and found his behaviour to be a bit aggressive (most notably on an SSP case that will take me forever to find) and looking at the edit summaries the block was a good one. "Big" Dunc: Just because you're Irish doesn't mean you're allowed to use colloquial Irish profanities. Domer: For future reference, when you come to ANI reporting something; try to report the whole issue, and not just your side. It just seems incredibly biased. And you're quite entitled to your opinion, Friday, but somehow whenever behaviour is being questioned, you always seem to blame young people, or a variation thereof, and from now on, I'm going to blame poor behaviour on being old, grumpy, and too socially conservative. We'll have a nice contrast in discussions then :-) - And maybe it'll stop them from getting too boring, whenever you bring up the same topic. Scarian 11:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty of retitling this section, since the claim that it's a bad block is by no means established. The block of the user in question will be over in a couple of hours from now. Not such a big slice out of one's life. The user's built-in confrontational attitude, with the "extreme prejudice" banner, doesn't help - it only encourages baiting. The user needs to learn to take a more practical and less blood-stirring approach. First, by deleting unwanted comments from his own talk page, with no accompanying edit summary at all, which is perfectly within the rules. Second, by following appropriate channels in dealing with true trolls, such as turning them in here, or at WP:AIV. In short, "don't get mad, get even". When you then see an admin slap an indef-block on one of these mosquitoes, it may not feel as good as swatting them yourself, but it's close - and a lot easier on the ol' blood pressure. Baseball Bugs 11:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

A couple of points I would like to raise regarding this block. IMO it was a bad block due to the way it was handled and by who blocked. This admin had a week long block of me overturned recently and as soon as he seen my edit summary he blocked without looking at the bigger picture. The block I suppose is valid as I did breach civility guidelines, and if the truth be known I made the comments to see would any admin act against me. And I wasn't wrong. @Baseball Buggs I did go threw the proper channels I reported the trolling to Black Kite who gave a warning but they continued and I then posted here but nothing was forth comming. This post was then made by NewIreland2009 here on ANI in a section that had nothing to do with my complaint you deserved to be called a lot worse than a gobshite again no action by admins. So I use the exact same phrase that NewIreland2009 posted on an admin Blak Kite's page and here on ANI with NO block and a minute later I am blocked. Deacon only blocked NewIreland2009 when it was brought to his attention. @ Scarian you say that my behaviour to be a bit aggressive (most notably on an SSP case that will take me forever to find) well could you please find it as this sort of unfounded accusations are what causes backs to be raised. BigDunc 15:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:POINT rampage

• SamJohnston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - having come under focus for a major COI at Save the Netbooks, this user appears to be on a WP:POINT rampage, having written a soapbox essay Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest is a cause not a crime and linking it to multiple posts disputing COI tags on articles (see ). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried asking him to stop? Or to talk to him? SoWhy 21:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather somebody external looked at the situation. I've had quite enough of dealings with this editor in preceding discussions. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine if he wants to write an essay, but this spamming should to be stopped and reverted. Hopefully just this and a warning would calm the situation. Verbal chat 21:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"Spamming" implies bad-faith indiscriminate placement of the essay. I haven't looked at every single edit he's made, so it's possible that this is an accurate characterization, but do you have a particular diff where he's not taking a good-faith position? THF (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd consider this to be spamming. This article is completely unrelated to anything SamJohnston seems to work on. In the case of this article, I feel it was intrusive and unwelcome. I've been attempting to work with another editor to rewrite and check the sources used in this article. I simply chose to keep it listed as COI until everything has been verified as that was one item listed on a previous {{prod}}. I'm concerned that this COI thing that was left on the talk page may be a distraction for the editor who has taken on the task of fixing this article. I also found some of the edits to Subnotebook to be a bit disturbing but I'm waiting to see what happens before I begin restoring content that was removed. Tothwolf (talk) 12:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm also not quite sure what to think about the Desktop replacement computer AfD that SamJohnston has initiated... Mutual assured destruction? Tothwolf (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait, what? The AbleNET article is clean of any obvious e.g. WP:NPOV violations and the other two (removal of linkspam and a good faith effort to clean up the {{computer sizes}} articles) are irrelevant - if we're going to criticise every edit I've ever made we'll be here for a long while. WP:COI allegations are very serious (especially for those of us who edit with our real names) as they disparage both author and article subject. They're also very difficult to defend against (which is probably why they are so often used), as evidenced by your admission to unsupported punitive use of the tag. -- samj _in 14:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering where this edit came from about a podcast where one of the podcasters had previously edit waring over the removal of some of the article's content, specifically some nominations for awards. Now I see he was just whoring out his essay. --Farix (Talk) 23:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's another admission of punitive use of the {{COI}} tag to punish an editor (and article subject) for behaviour that by Farix's own admission is historical. No current violations have been identified in the Anime Pulse article and yet there seems to be no intention to remove the tag or even move it to the talk page. -- samj _in 14:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

SamJ is a bit too confrontational for his own good when faced with COI allegations (and I have suggested WP:COOL to him with respect to the pending AfD), and his edits on his own article have strayed a bit far into WP:LARDing, but some of the attacks he has faced have been quite uncivil, and he's stopped edit-warring on his article. I don't see anything wrong with the essay or with noting that there are articles marked with the COI tag as punishment when there is no NPOV problem with the article. I don't see a WP:POINT violation here; WP:POINT comes about when someone accused of violating X then takes Rule X to the extreme on one or more articles. THF (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the WP:POINT aspect is that it does look like a tit-for-tat reaction. He was rightly warned for COI, and is now off pursuing an agenda to diss the use of COI tags. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I spot-checked a couple of his edits, and they happened to be on pages where the COI tag was grievously misused to punish editors who had made sound edits, and SamJ would've been well within his rights to simply remove the tag instead of merely questioning it on the talk page. It's certainly within the realm of possibility that that was happenstance and SamJ is being abusive with his edits, but I'm still waiting to see a single diff that shows he is making any of these talk-page comments in bad faith. THF (talk) 05:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ok so editor Gordonofcartoon votes to delete an article that I've put a good deal of time and effort into on the basis that there are "no third-party reliable sources can see", which is no surprise given that nominator (User:DreamGuy) deleted them before listing said article for deletion. I point out some reliable sources only to have them revise their complaint to assume bad faith in stating "And overt promotional use of Misplaced Pages" (as the nominator did in asserting that "right now it's just someone abusing Misplaced Pages as a press release for his cause"). Editor then declares that they will "view it as notable when it gets into newspapers" (?!?) and cites WP:COI for good measure; if anyone has a point to make here I'd say it's not me you should be talking to. There's over 2,500 articles currently tagged with {{COI}} and of the 50 or so that I checked almost all of them were tagged punitively and permanently without identifying any policies or guidelines that had been breached. Thanks to User:THF and User:SoWhy for being reasonalbe when others aren't. -- samj _in 06:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"Using Misplaced Pages as a press release for a cause" certainly looks like a reasonable characterization of that article. Baseball Bugs 12:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that Save the Netbooks was overly promotionally written, but the means by which that was done--excessive quotations from non-RS blogs and the primary source and similar WP:LARD--is the same good-faith mistake made on almost every WP:WEB article (someone want to scrub Ctrl+Alt+Del sometime?), and SamJ was really bashed with personal attacks that had nothing to do with the quality of his edits. THF (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Incivility and personal attacks by Calton

Calton is attempting to evade the prohibition on BLP violations on his user page. He is packing the text he wants to keep with identifying information, but leaving names off that page (putting some more information in his insulting edit summaries). Despite criticisms from many editors, including Jimbo Wales , he is very nastily editors who have commented unfavorably on his actions. Examples: describes user who agrees with Jimbo about use of real names as "spamming crybaby" ; personal attack on talk page of editor whose comments resulted in Jimbo's intervention ; personal attack on another editor who expressed similar sentiments . From recent past, personal attack on administrator who wouldn't do what he demanded. Calton has an extensive block log for incivility and personal attacks and his behavior has been the subject of numerous discussions here and here among many examples. As someone who got dragged into this mess over what I thought was a simple BLP issue, and may be targeted in the future, I think that action as suggested in the most recent AN and AN:I discussions and in some of Jimbo Wales's comments is sorely sorely needed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Notified User:Calton about this thread. Exxolon (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• So you think it's a BLP violation to note that WR users are often banned trolls and spammers? I offer for your consideration JB196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Jon Awbrey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Perhaps if WR did a little housecleaning there would be less temptation to describe it as a cesspit. I'm all for renaming those accounts of banned users which are easily traceable to a real-world identity, but not to the point that we then forget who they are and pretend that their input is somehow welcome here. Guy (Help!) 07:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

  Often, but not always; there are administrators, bureaucrats, and even a checkuser and an arbitrator who regularly contribute to that board... but yes, there are a few crackpots over at WR too. I think the key thing that needs to be emphasised is that WR itself isn't bad; just some of the users are. And Calton really needs to make that distinction. Sceptre 11:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

  • • You will not count me as a fan of Calton's interpersonal communication skills, and I have certainly had my run-ins with him in the past. However, nearly all of the information brought up by the OP is stuff that has been dealt with in the past. I can see nothing particularly objectionable at his userpage, and no violations of WP:BLP. If this thread contains nothing substantive than past incivility by Calton, I don't see what we are supposed to do here? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Guy, would it not be a BLP violation to describe Misplaced Pages Review as being largely composed of banned trolls and spammers, when frequent contributors there are Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Lar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Alison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Cool Hand Luke (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Thatcher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), SirFozzie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), all of whom may take exception to being smeared as trolls/spammers? Obviously, it does rather spoil your unremitting campaign to denigrate any utterance emanating from that website - but then you never had any problem with any editor referring to a favourite hobby horse... Did I mention that dtobias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is also a member of that particlar BADSITE, too? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC) (WR editor LessHorrid vanU)

• • Two Three points: 1) I don't understand why Hullabaloo Wolfowitz links to Calton's block log, and refers to it as "extensive". I suppose you did notice the "unblock to change length+reblock" types of block in it, HW? Are you aware that those are not actual blocks? Discounting them, Calton was blocked once in 2008 and twice in 2007. Extensive? 2) I'd estimate that there are probably more personal attacks and incivility, by admins yet, on this one page of ANI, than Calton has achieved in his entire wiki-career. To take an example pretty much at random, Jimbo Wales, since you repeatedly mention his input, might want to get a whiff of the real wikiworld by taking a look at the thread Disruptive editing by User:Ohconfucius and User:Tony1 above. Coincidentally, notice the input there from Tanthalas39 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Calton's 2008 blocker. Is incivility all about who has the power of the buttons? 3) Preemptively to all, not specifically Hullabaloo Wolfowitz: Please use space below for rubberstamping "Two wrongs don't make a right." Bishonen | talk 14:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC).
• If I remember the rules properly, whenever we see "Guy", "dtobias" and "BADSITES" in the same ANI thread, everyone has to finish their drink  :/ SHEFFIELDSTEEL 14:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Guy, Dtobias and BADSITES? Isn't that redundant? Guettarda (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Off a week long block and still not getting it.

User:Ada Kataki has come off a week long block for edit warring on musical genres and patently hasn't learned anything. Unilateral edits, ignoring attempts by myself to guide him into more collegial editing practices and a sequence of four pretty horrible edits (,,,), the second a pretty vicious personal attack makes me believe he's not going to get it and it's time to show him the door. Exxolon (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

User indefinitely blocked. Tan | 39 22:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - obviously not willing to play well with others. Marking resolved. Exxolon (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism by IP addresses allocated to Hughes Network Systems

Several IP addresses from within the pools allocated to Hughes Network Systems have been adding and restoring the same incorrect information, despite warnings, to 2009 Kids' Choice Awards. Most of these appear to be persistent vandals and have been warned numerous times. I suspect that the same user(s), using dynamic IP addresses, is/are responsible. Since 29 January 2009 there had been 43 edits by users all with IP addresses originating from Hughes Network Systems pools so I requested semi-protection for the page, since this seemed the easiest way to resolve the matter, but this was denied, with a recommendation to list the matter here. A range block would require blocks of both 68.19.14.xx and 66.82.9.xx.

During compilation of my RPP I discovered an open abuse report regarding the 69.19.14.xx pool. However, there has been no action since 9 September 2008. Despite this I added a report, for what it's worth, but this doesn't resolve the issue relating to 2009 Kids' Choice Awards and there has been another attack since submitting the RPP, requiring yet another reversion. I suppose it's easy to decline an RPP and pass the buck onto somebody else but that's where we're at.

Vandalism by addresses from the 68.19.14.xx pool:

Vandalism by addresses from the 66.82.9.xx pool: : --AussieLegend (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the page in question. I suggest a rangeblock if these users from these IP ranges start causing similar problems elsewhere. -- The Anome (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

More block evasion by User:Nipponese Dog Calvero

User:阮明珠 ... the same old deleting a citation in the Peter Nguyen and Vietnamese people in Taiwan articles because he doesn't like the newspaper in question (the United Daily News; he accuses them of lacking "Taiwan spirit"). Articles are currently semi-protected, but it seems he's now figured out how to work around that (make a few minor edits, wait a few days). cab (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

And now that he has been blocked through a WP:AIV report, he has immediately created another sock 阮公政 (talk · contribs) with the exact same user page, and started the same strategy of making minor edits (e.g. creating useless redirects from foreign language titles like オーストラリア to Australia) so that five days later he can vandalise again. cab (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

And another one, 阮明惠 (talk · contribs). cab (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

And even more, 阮正義 (talk · contribs). cab (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I-210 abuse

This user:

1) Persists in reverting expired notices on my discussion page after I have deleted them, despite my request to stop, which was left on user's page.

2) This user failed to assume good faith, then falsely accuses me of vandalism. Despite my warning that vandalism is clearly defined here, and my actions do NOT meet that criteria. In fact, per WP:VAND#NOT, my actions are expressly NOT vandalism.

3) This user then, in an obvious attempt to intimidate me, threatened me with permanent blocking, in clear violation of that policy, and also in violation of policy regarding permanently blocking IPs, and in equally clear abuse of the tool this user has been given with WP:TW.

4) This user has already repeatedly been warned in the recent past that their actions do not conform with policy, and has demonstrated no interest in conforming to either policy or guidelines.

This user deserves to be sanctioned for each of these 3 violations of policy, and the right of this user to use the WP:TW tool should be removed, as it is clearly being abused. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• We don't generally remove block and warning notices from IP pages. Oh, and , ... hardly constructive. Black Kite 01:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Understood. However the edits you referenced were in response to both and . Neither of which received a constructive or even communicative response, if any response at all. And that per CAT:RECALL, any admin is subject to recall, if he/she fails to display the proper temperament for the responsibilities, or acts in a capricious or unnecessarily draconian manner. As for removing expired notices, especially from IP pages, it's my understanding from reading guidelines and policy, that it is reasonable. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Recall only applies to those Admins who have opted in to it. What you need is first a Request for Comment. --Rodhullandemu 02:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• FWIW the complaining IP left this warning to me after I removed this from his talk page as not being a forum. Tom 04:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

SassoBot

User:SassoBot is cleaning up interwikilinks. In doing so it is breaking several between surnames: ten examples . User:Djsasso seems to be offline. --Rumping (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I can stop it from removing them, however this rule is in the standard pywikipedia bot code. So its nothing I have decided to do on my own. I have interpreted it to mean that its a standard rule that disambig pages don't link to non-disambig pages. Perhaps the actual issue is that those pages should be marked disambig? -Djsasso (talk) 02:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion, but I did not find any answer. Improper removal of links where a disambiguation was involved was reported on meta on 23 July, 2008. There seems to have been no response or follow-up in that thread from anyone who knows about interwiki.py. I recommend that Djsasso not continue *removing* any links until he can get an answer from someone who knows about interwiki.py and can explain why this is considered to be correct. If it is a bug, then removals should wait until it is fixed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I already plan to stop removing them until its fixed or whatever. -Djsasso (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

SPI request

Hi there, could an admin please indef all accounts at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sleepydre. CheckUser shows they're all the same user...again. Thank you, §hep 02:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• On my way. Only be a moment.--PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Seems everything has been taken care of. Thanks, §hep 03:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion re. chronic vandal

It isn't a new suggestion, but maybe it's time to make a policy re. the Pee-Wee Herman vandal.

I've had a few comments for Pee-Wee since he seems to have it in for me to which I say, great. I'm getting under his skin. Since he clearly is craving attention based on the fact that he wants to be noticed based on his naming variations of the same tired Pee-Wee theme, say we simply block him on sight, protect the talk page and leave it at that? Just like we're doing with the little Grawpies. Just revert, block on sight, lock out the talk page and boom. Done. Perhaps we can go so far as to delete the user and talk pages of the blocked socks as well. Why enshrine this punk kid? It's attention he's craving. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be the default? Any other approach is probably wrong. Tan | 39 03:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what I'm hoping. No "blockedsockpuppet" template on the userpage and therefore no list of blocked socks for the little dingaling to point out with pride to his friends. BTW, he just hit my talk page again with a painfully obvious username. It might be the Grawpies with a copycat attack. Just a thought. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Just happened again. The edit summary tears it for me; we're dealing with different people a la Grawp. I need to log off, so I'll lock down my talk page for the time being so that the RC patrollers don't have to tear their hair out. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Might want to remove the recognition from your talk page header now, too. Tan | 39 03:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I just thought of that...will do. Thanks for pointing that out. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've busted a few imps and have requested their renames at WP:CHU so as to remove the attackiness of them or to annihilate any chance of confusion. -Jeremy 06:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Request permanent block and talkpage protection

Please block me permanently and protect my talkpage. I no longer see any merit in the project. Thanks, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way, but we don't block to enforce wiki-breaks, permanent or otherwise. You may want to look at right to vanish--Tznkai (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You might also want to try WikiBreak Enforcer and set it to let you log-in in 2050 or similar. §hep 05:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Silly rabbit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This looks like a case of storming off in a huff because of not getting one's way. (If that's too soon, try a minute and a huff.) I went through something like that a couple of years ago. Getting priorities in order is important. You're not always going to win, even when you're right. There are a brazillion articles here, so there are plenty of areas where contributions are possible. Baseball Bugs 11:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Probable not here, but where? – technical(?)

When I pushed the ‘History’ tab here, I got something unfamiliar. Specifically, I got ‘Database error’, which stated: A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

(SQL query hidden)

from within function "IndexPager::reallyDoQuery (PageHistoryPager)". MySQL returned error "1054: Unknown column 'ts_tags' in 'field list' (10.0.6.32)".

Where should this go? It takes too long to find the correct pigeon hole. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Technically I think these go to the developers through bugzilla, although they happen with some frequency. Usually hitting "back" and trying again will take care of it. Hersfold 06:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

database errors may mean nothing more than a server hiccup. unless it's happening repeatably and/or regularly, I wouldn't worry about it. remember Misplaced Pages servers get hit with god knows how many millions of queries a day. even if the odds of totally random fubars are miniscule, they're still going to happen fairly frequently. --Ludwigs2 06:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Another Hollaback Sock

The latest sock of The Hollabck Girl is Hollaback Editor is Back (talk · contribs) returning for regular disruption and taunting. Thanks in advance for the attention. Dayewalker (talk) 07:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• An admin already blocked this user, and marked it sock. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It's nice when socks have names similar enough to the originals that they're easily identifiable. Such courtesy should be rewarded. Perhaps by reducing the length of the puppetmaster's indefinite block by a day or two. Baseball Bugs 11:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Build the web

Maybe this doesn't require intervention at the moment, but I'll leave it here for now in case it needs to be re-activated.

Background: there was until recently a guideline page called WP:Build the web. In January, following extensive discussions, it was merged with two other guideline pages to make the page WP:MOSLINK. This merger was well received and (once a few niggles over wording were sorted out) unanimously supported. Then a week or two ago someone decided unilaterally to resurrect the old text of BTW and mark it as a separate guideline again. There was edit warring over this; the page was protected for a week, and the text was restored, but marked as "status under discussion". The discussion took place at WT:MOSLINK#Resurrect this guideline?, and a clear majority of contributors (and, I would suggest, the clear weight of the arguments) supported the status quo, i.e. that the guidelines should remain merged, with the old text of BTW being kept but marked as historical or an essay. Discussion continued at WT:Build the web as to exactly how to label it, although some of those who wanted it still marked as a guideline decided to keep arguing for that, denying the previous consensus. Now, I see that one other editor (possibly not fully aware of the full history) has again unilaterally marked the page as a guideline (and I have reverted it; knowing those involved, a new edit war will almost certainly break out now).

Requested action: I am NOT asking for this page to be protected again at some random version, as this clearly doesn't work. I would like a neutral uninvolved admin to settle this dispute, in accordance with the procedure (still perhaps largely untested) described at WP:Policies and guidelines, whereby the existence of consensus to change the status of guidelines is to be judged by an outside individual. Then perhaps the arguing will stop. If someone would agree to do this, then we can show them where the discussions are on which the claims of consensus are based. If no-one will do this, then please protect the page, but at the version that was supposed to be stable during the discussion, i.e. the one which says that the status of the page is under discussion at the talk page. Random protection is not appropriate in these cases (I'm sure it says in some policy that you should, or at least can, go back to the last stable version). --Kotniski (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Andrzej Gołota

Please calm User:Vintagekits. He still moves Andrzej Gołota to Andrew Golota. A.Gołota is Pole and has to have Polish name, beacuase he didn't change his citizenship. It has no meaning that he lives in US. Of course, in he is also known as Andrew Golota that redirect is necessary, but only redirect, not main article, like f.e. Lech Wałęsa, not Lech Walesa (redirect) and Aleksander Kwaśniewski not Aleksander Kwasniewski (redirect). Regards, pjahr (talk) 10:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I am extremely calm so I do not understand that statement. In May 2008, I posted a notice of intent to move the article title per WP:COMMONNAME in this discussion on the articles talk page. After FIVE MONTHS without objection I replied saying I was going to move it and the following month I moved it.

Five days later User:Pjahr moved it back without any discussion with the edit summary "Polish!".

I then politely asked the user why he had done this and he replied because he is Pole. He then refused to reply to my further comments after I pointed out the reasons why it should be Andrew Golota and he then (on 11 November) deleted my comments saying "tnx" and added nothing further. So on the 13 of November I changed it back.

Then today he moved it back - again without any discussion and when challenged as to why he said he didnt have time to discuss it.

Now I dont think I could have been more patient or polite in the way I handled it and if we look at the facts there are alomost zero non-Polish language google hits for Andrzej Gołota and thousands for Andrew Golota. I rest my case.

(e/c) Have you made any attempt to discuss this with Vintagekits beyond the cryptic "because he is Pole" on his talkpage? How about on the article talkpage? I notice that MOS:PN hasn't been mentioned anywhere - it says that diacritics should be used unless there is a well-established English standard otherwise (personally, I have never seen Golota's name written with the diacritics in English media). Maybe this new info will help - try a fresh discussion on the talkpage and ask for a third opinion or file an RFC if an impasse is reached. — east718 | talk | 10:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. There's a section at Talk:Andrzej_Gołota#Article_name_II. Start Article name III and go discuss it. The move was in October so why should we be concerned about a move made months ago that you weren't involved in? I have reverted it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There does not appear to be any role for admins here. I have marked the thread as resolved. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

BLP trouble at Anthony Bennett (English politician)

Anthony Bennett (English politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has seen a concerted effort in the last few days to add a block of rather defamatory-sounding, uncited text to the article by "two" users:

• DrDanDare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DerekDawes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The similarity of edits and the fact that DerekDawes took over for DrDanDare upon the latter's accumulating all four levels of warning template show evidence of sock puppeting to game the system. Both accounts should be blocked. The content of the edits and the tenacity with which they are being added seems to call for at least temporary semi-protection for the page. --Dynaflow babble 13:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be done now. --GedUK  13:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Would semi-protection be appropriate here? I noticed in the page logs that this article has been the subject of an OTRS ticket for WP:BLP issues in the past. Can someone with access to OTRS look to see whether this new incident is similar to the one that last caused the article to be protected? --Dynaflow babble 14:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

20 July plot

Reporting: Baseball Bugs (the main player in all of this). A team of two editors have been removing cited information on this page. They complain (on the talk page) that "execution by means of murder" is POV pushing, despite it being sourced.They also say that the positions of historias and ths the cited data is "irrelevant". One editor said Hitler was legally elected, and the people that tried to murder him were executed. That some historians don't like it is irrelevant. "Executed" is the proper way to say it - which is a complete falsehood. Any and every prominent historian I know of rejects this. The bottom line is: 1) It was sourced 2) Hitler was not elected, thus.. 3) The Nazi State was not legal, thus.. 4) Its laws were not legal either.

Yet these individuals reject ithe position of A. J. P. Taylor as propaganda. Am I dealing with Neo-Nazis here? Dapi89 (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards