Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:19, 20 July 2010

• 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

User:Sarah777

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

After a period of calm since the Ireland naming poll concluded, Sarah777 (talk · contribs) has decided to get back into Troubles issues, and resume labeling anyone and everyone who doesn't interpret the goals and methods of WP:NPOV the way she does, as a British nationalist. See this for example, just one of a series of shotgun one line comments to that page with little or no value except to inflame and attack. It's tiresome, and based on experience, she won't quit, and will probably even get worse, without some serious feedback. It needs nipping in the bud, or you will be seeing her name pop up here regularly for the next few months, if this latest venture back into the field is not just a one night thing. MickMacNee (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I see the same sentiments in your posts here and here. Pot. Kettle? --HighKing (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

More like Shakespeare and the Telly Tubbies. I'll freely defend any part of those long and considered posts in detail and with evidence, if you've found any part of them to be as inflammatory and unconstructive as one of Sarah's little buckets of sunshine. MickMacNee (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a fraught area. I suggest both of you moderate your tone. Isn't there still an ArbCom probation on these articles? --John (talk) 02:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

A 1RR restriction on certain tagged articles is all I'm aware of. MickMacNee (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no, it's 1RR on all Troubles-related articles, tagged or not, broadly defined. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I didn't edit any "troubles-related" article. But for "inflammatory and unconstructive" comments please have a leisurely read of the record of MickMac! It was his extreme British Nationalism and agressive negative characterisation of Irish editors that drew me to engage in the "British" Isles debate yesterday. I could not sit back and watch WP:NPOV being trashed by the usual suspects. Nor will I in the future. Sarah777 (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

coming from the person that wanted the British Isles article completely renamed its funny to hear you talk of WP:NPOV BritishWatcher (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I still want the "British Isles" article to be restricted to the British Isles. I'm unclear as to why that makes my comment above humorous. Sarah777 (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sarah777, "I want" doesn't get. Misplaced Pages is not the place to right great wrongs. "British Isles" is a phrase that includes the island of Ireland and nothing you can say here will change that. I know you don't like this, but you're going to have accept that this is a general usage in English. And yes, I am British, and no, I'm not a "British nationalist". Continue your activism against the term "British Isles" off Misplaced Pages, please. Fences&Windows 00:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I want the loaded term "British" Isles removed from the title of the article that includes sovereign Ireland in order to uphold the principles of WP:NPOV. The phrase is not used to include Ireland in the most common collective descriptions of the islands. Wiki should reflect this - not British Nationalist pov. I see, despite your protestations, that you support British Nationalist pov in this instance. Maybe you should take your nationalism elsewhere? Sarah777 (talk) 05:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Lots of Greek editors don't want the term "Republic of Macedonia" is Greece-related articles, either, but it's there. Sometimes standard English terminology isn't what you'd like it to be, but we follow common usage, not what people like or dislike. And really, discussion of the content doesn't really belong on this noticeboard anyway, but on the appropriate talk pages. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I love the hypocrisy a nationalist accusing others of nationalism. FWIW, as a Canadian who could care less about either Ireland or England, the "British Isles" has always meant both the islands of Great Britain and Ireland to me. IMNSHO, arguing otherwise would be about as NPOV as a Canadian complaining that Canada isn't part of North America because they don't like the United States. Resolute 14:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Canada? And your "head of state" is.......? A British Queen I believe. I love the hypocrisy of a British subject claiming non-Britishness. Get back to me when Canada is free of it's colonial subjugation. Btw, I've nothing against nationalism except for the self-denying British and American sorts. It's pushing nationalist POV on Wiki I abhor. I have written an essay on the topic you'd do well to read. You'd find it educational. Sarah777 (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Canada has a British Queen? Are you trying to give Miesianiacal a heart attack? GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

See also (French - Îles Britanniques) and (German - Britische Inseln) - I presume the French and German language Wikipedias are not fanatically imbued with "British nationalist POV". A quick google search shows that the direct translated phrase is used thousands of times in those two Wikipedias alone. The position that the rest of the world uses a term widely, but that it should be deleted from En-Misplaced Pages because it offends a segment of Irish opinion is clearly absurdist. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Folks, this board isn't part of our dispute resolution procedure, at least as it comes to content, and I don't see any sign of any admins being ready to take action for conduct issues. There's nothing more to do here. Can we archive this? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well, one admin warned her , but got the usual reaction, and she's carried on with her nonsense. . Not a single one of these comments is designed to do anything except inflame and attack. She has masses of form for this, and will likely never change her ways, she just departs the arena for a bit to presumably let the sands of time help her cause. But yes, you are right, it appears no admin is willing to do anything about it. MickMacNee (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I've posted before about Mick's rants. Pot. Kettle? Black? Mick, maybe this might "clue you in"? --HighKing (talk) 00:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

And it obviously hasn't clued you in, because you clearly still can't differentiate between apples and oranges. You asked for feedback, you got it. Nobody asked for, or needs, Sarah's 'input' to this arena. MickMacNee (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Besides one intemperate post is there anything we actually need to be concerned with here? If not, I'd suggest that John's response is enough. TFOWR 10:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

There might be a case for an additional sanction to prevent the use of ANI by either sides of this particular argument to attempt to sanction or remove editors. --Snowded 23:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Odd behaviour from OhanaUnited

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

OhanaUnited (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made a couple of troubling edits over the last few days. The first one was a huge bunch of original research he inserted into an article page supported by forums and blog posts. This alone was way out of left-field for an administrator as far as I was concerned at the time. I reverted it and left him a note on his talk page. I didn't get a response right away and kind of forgot about it. I went back to his talk page to see if he'd ever replied and found this a silent removal by a guy who seemingly archives everything. No explanation for the extremely poor edit. While I was there I noticed an odd discussion with Elekhh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I went to their talk page to get the whole story and found some rather disgusting comments from Ohana leveled at Elekhh. User_talk:Elekhh#Portal:Contents.2FPortals. Elekhh sums it up best in their final comment. But calling my edits on the Portals Contents page as "unilateral", "undiscussed", "reckless" and implying incompetence and bad faith, topped up with a "stern warning" of blocking.... what do you think of that? An admin ignoring all the evidence about his missinterpretations and refusing to engage in a WP:CIVIL dialogue?. Another user points out his "warning" was over the top and unwarranted as well. But calling a user incompetent because you disagree with them and not explaining those kinds of edits to articles isn't really appropriate administrator behaviour, and for some users that kind of personal attack would either get a strong warning or possibly even a block. Interestingly enough in this one post to a talk page a month ago he warns a user for all of these things , and should really know better on all fronts. The second is clearly more egregious than the first, but taken together they show some emerging hypocritical un-admin like behaviour that is bordering on disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 23:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

(one-sentence summary provided at the end in case someone wants to read my response quickly without going through a textblock) Well, let's see, has anyone seen a featured process use a silver star? (image provided on the right side) I'm pretty sure most, if not all of you, have never seen a silver star like that. What's more worrying is that according to a userbox on Elekhh's talk page, Elekhh found and nominated 2 pictures to featured status. If he actually take a look at the userbox he uses, then he would realize how all our featured process use gold star yet he still went ahead and add silver stars to these 10 pages (diffs provided) Is this an honest mistake? If it's done on a few pages and not familiar with any featured process then yes. But on a grand scale like this? He probably knows what he's doing (or at least think he knows). Next thing, for many of the diffs shown, Elekhh added comments like this "<!-- for featured portals use ^] --> ". Yet when he told me which venue did such discussion takes place, he shown me to Portal_talk:Contents#Icons. Take a read at the discussion, did you see him mentioning *anything* about switching featured star from gold to silver? No. Others, later on Elekhh's talk page, also agreed that featured content should be in gold and not in silver. If switching featured contents from gold to silver is not considered to be "unilateral" or "reckless", then what is? (For example, if someone tries to change FA star on featured articles from gold to silver, watch how fast the edit will get reverted). And never did Elekhh post notice on any featured portal process. I seriously believe that his notice was posted to the wrong crowd and missed the intended recipients that will otherwise benefit the discussion. In summary, Elekhh changed featured portals' star from gold to silver without any discussion, posted a notice for comments on changes to a page unrelated to any featured portal process that did not reach any intended audience to facilitate meaningful discussion, plus the discussion itself did not tell anyone that the star will change its colour. OhanaUnited 03:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You're just completely ignoring all previous explanations. What you present above is your missinterpretation of my edits, determined by your continued assumption of me being of bad faith. I reiterate: I did not propose to change the colour of featured portal stars. I did change the representation of featured portals on the portals contents pages from bold italic text to a star symbol, as discussed on the relevant talk page in January. What you perceive as "grand scale" is nothing more than the complete set of separate chapter-templates which together compose Portal:Contents/Portals. I used a small star symbol of 11px not 50px as you indicate. Both the image you added to this discussion and its caption are missrepresentations. I explained to you why I used that symbol, and also that I have nothing against the other symbol. Note that Featured content is represented with different symbol in Template:Link FA as well, assumably for the same reason that it appears at a very different size than the one on the top of portal pages. Please be carefull with your conclusions. At this stage, as you again accuse me of bad faith, and noting that you added a new accusation by questioning my honesty, I must agree with Crossmr's listing of this issue on this noticeboard. --Elekhh (talk) 06:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

And yet you still don't address what you're doing running around trying to insert original research in an article supported by citations that don't remotely meet WP:RS and WP:V. Someone of your position should be well aware of those things and as I indicated you seemed aware of all of these things a month ago, and then continue to duck the issue. this isn't adminly behaviour. This is the behaviour of someone in the first few days or weeks on wikipedia. There are more editors that have commented that don't support your over the top warning and accusations of bad faith than do. WP:COMPETENCE is reserved for people who are so bad that they can't effectively communicate and work with the community. Frankly you're now giving me that impression with your utter lack of ability to address your inappropriate addition to that article and your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT response to what you said on Elekhh's talk page. You might disagree with what they did, but the way you said it would be inappropriate for a new user let alone a "trusted" admin.--Crossmr (talk) 09:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

@Crossmr: I didn't add any info back after your revert and considered it as "case closed", so you still consider this as "duck the issue"? It appears that you're the party unwilling to let this matter rest. @Elekhh: I didn't accuse you of dishonest, I was only wondering why you requested for feedbacks on Portal_talk:Contents#Icons rather than on Portal talk:Featured portals or Misplaced Pages talk:Featured portal candidates when it indicating a featured portal is part of the featured portal process. OhanaUnited 11:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider an admin walking into an article and adding original research supported by forums, blogs and other conjecture to be "case closed". As I said, you should know better. The fact that you haven't, or can't, explain why you made that edit is what makes it a problem. You also went far beyond "wondering" at what Elekhh did by bring WP:COMPETENCE into the discussion as you did, along with your "stern" warning. We don't "wonder" with a banhammer, threats and insults. Which is why I brought it here. Both of those things are disruptive. Administrators making bad edits and threatening people doesn't help the community and only causes issues. Even if you considered it case closed, why didn't you archive it like everything else on your talk? you've got plenty of other talk on your page that is "case closed" Like a several months old GA sweeps update, a several months old notification for an event that has already passed, etc. No, you quietly removed that comment, and now 3 proddings in, still have failed to defend or explain what you were thinking adding that kind of content to an article.--Crossmr (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take a look at WP:OWNTALK? It means I read your comments and understand your concern so I stopped further pursue in this matter. The timeline nor the logic fits if I do it the other way around. OhanaUnited 15:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've read it. But you just told me you removed it because you felt the case was closed. Why haven't you removed other things, inconsistency doesn't help you defend your actions. It looks pure and simple like you were ducking the issue and the fact that you still won't explain why you made those edits makes it look even more like that. You demonstrated the month before that you understood WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:RS. Since you're continuing to duck the issue yet again let me blunt: What were you doing, a supposed trusted administrator with so much experience, adding that kind of content to an article? For someone of your position, it is frankly disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding OhanaUnited's messages to Elekhh: As easily verified, and as explained above and many times at Elekhh's talkpage, Elekhh did not change gold stars to silver stars, ever. Elekhh simply picked the wrong icon to use, when replacing the bold italic that the portals had been using up until then (see example prior to Elekhh's edit). Continuing to assert that he did replace gold stars with silver stars, and insulting the user with suggestions of recklessness and incompetence, is blatantly uncivil. I'm concerned about the lack of admittance and/or apology for a proven mistaken interpretation - you cannot just abandon a thread where you've made strong accusations and then had core-assumptions proven wrong. Everyone makes mistakes, it's how you handle the mistake that matters. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and that is the problem. It's the same way he's acting about the original research he added to the article. Trying to pretend it didn't happen, nor admit fault, nor explain why he added it. this is not good behavour for an administrator. It is disruptive and not conducive to a community.--Crossmr (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I have heard the input and comments and will try to take this to heart. I would like to step back from this incident and take some time to think it over and reevaluate my actions. Thanks for all your feedback and I hope I can continue to serve the community. OhanaUnited 03:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

An 11th hour apology isn't exactly sufficient here. Through several messages you've shown no indication that you realize you've done anything wrong and even with this you show no actual understanding of what you did wrong. You've gone out and made entirely inappropriate edits to an article and continued to avoid answering questions about why you made that edit. Even now, when I put the question directly to you, you've ignored it. You've gone out and threatened and insulted a user through several messages, even when told your interpretation of what happened was off by a mile. Now through an AN/I thread, you've showed an utter failure of ability to understand what you did is wrong, and your apology sounds like you're running for office and contains nothing that actually addresses what you did.--Crossmr (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Crossmr give it a rest. OhanaUnited has apologized and said that he is going to reevaluate his actions. What are you suggesting, that he be desysopped for this mistake? Do you think you might perhaps have a chip on your shoulder about this? LK (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No actually he hasn't apologized. that is the problem. An apology would mean that he's shown that he knows what he did was wrong and is sorry for doing it. Can you show me where he's indicated anywhere that he knows what he did was wrong? Neither"I have heard the input...and will try to take this to heart" or "I would like to step back from this incident and take some time to think about reevaluate my actions" says "I know what I did was wrong". It just isn't there. Both of those sentences are business speak for "not really saying anything at all or committing to anything". The fact that I've asked him 4 times to explain his edit and the fact that he flat-out refuses to shows a much larger problem. Someone with utter disregard for those around him. It's one thing to ignore an issue, it is another thing when the question is put directly to you to just pretend it was never asked. As for what I'm suggesting, I haven't made a suggestion at this point. What I did was brought a user who was acting disruptively in two separate incidents in a very close time frame here. Why do you think I have a chip on my shoulder, because I insist on matters actually being full discussed, or that I don't put up with people trying to sweep things under the rug? Are you perhaps assuming a little bad faith?--Crossmr (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Crossmr, I'm not sure that you have provided evidence that OhanaUnited's actions on this one edit "shows a much larger problem". Having read this, it seems a pretty small problem to me. I'm here because I know - I think we all know - that OhanaUnited makes a huge contribution to Misplaced Pages. Yet it's entirely possible that he owes you an apology Crossmr - so my question to you is, under what circumstances would you be prepared to let this drop?Travelplanner (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think it is far more likely that he owes Elekhh an apology. His response to them was clearly inappropriate, uncivil, and disruptive. It is his response here that shows a bigger problem. Were he to come here and say "Yes I know my actions were wrong I'll improve" it would be one thing. Instead he spent several messages denying he did anything wrong, only to follow it up with a nothing apology which says nothing. Nowhere in any message has he acknowledged fault with what he did. He's only used double-talk to make it look like he's given an apology when in reality he's admitted no fault and given no indication that he understands what he did was wrong. If he can't do that, then the matter is far from closed. That gives me zero hope that the disruption wouldn't continue in the future. He's an administrator he is supposed to be held to a higher standard. There are no exemptions in any of the policies which state "if you do a lot of good edits you can break them". Both of these series of edits were clearly wrong and entirely inappropriate for an administrator to be making. The fact that he flat-out refuses to explain them is disruptive and not becoming of an administrator. So if he can neither admit fault, nor explain his actions, we have no guarantee that the disruption won't continue.--Crossmr (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I also believe that an appology is outstanding, and from my part I would expect a withdrawal of the smear words thrown at me. Indeed this could have stayed as a small incident, but he himself agravated it. I was used to and still expect collaboration on Misplaced Pages. His row of standing accusations at my address demotivate me. I've never been treated in such a way, neighter on Misplaced Pages nor in real life. I'm not sure if any editor would like to be called (among others) dishonest, reckless, and incompetent, while trying to make a positive contribution to Misplaced Pages. --Elekhh (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing "smear words." OhanaUnited assumed that you were attempting to change the colour of the stars for FAs. He said that this was "beyond bold and on the verge of reckless." He also asked you to read an essay on competence (suggesting that he did not consider your actions as having the required competence). This seems to have been based on a misunderstanding. Moreover, threatening blocking seems to me to be an overreaction. IMO OhanaU made a mistake. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see it being part of a pattern. BTW, your comment about his "violent attitude" also seems to me to be a breach of civility. OhanaU has responded to Crossmr (and that matter seems, mercifully, closed). Perhaps he would be willing to comment on the interaction with you now. Sunray (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I acted with good will and in self defence. I did my best to clarify the situation. The use of the words "violence" and "smear" were reflecting my perception, but I acknowledge that I might have been overly sensitive when describing the effect of his words on me. If OhanaUnited feels offended by any of these I retract and apologise. For my part I remain deeply saddened. --Elekhh (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The pattern is inappropriate behaviour for an admin. Making amateur edits to an article, making personal attacks and threatening blocking just because they disagreed with someone, and now failure to take responsibility for his actions, and even discuss them appropriately. After spending several messages denying he did anything wrong he finally admitted nothing and walked away. This is not admin behaviour. And since he's continued to edit and based on his last message he doesn't plan to return to this conversation, he's leaving us very few options. He has neither indicated he knows what he did was wrong nor that he intends not to do it anymore. These are the two things we typically look for on Misplaced Pages to ensure that disruption will not continue. At this point I have to say that OhanaUnited has no business being an admin if this is how he conducts himself. These are three clear situations where he should clearly know better if he's going to have the tools and he is clearly demonstrating that he doesn't know how to behave on[REDACTED] and interact with the community. That might seem strong, but as far as I know this is my first interaction with him, and I'm hardly seeing any of this good work people were speaking of. All I've seen is someone who warned others not to do the things he did, and is incapable of carrying on a productive conversation with the community over any disagreement with what he believes. and no Ohana hasn't responded to me, even after a straight request he refused to explain his poor edit to that article. That is all part of the pattern of inappropriate behaviour that is shaping up here.--Crossmr (talk) 01:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I see no pattern. I see two incidents. No amount of wikilawyering will make this into a Federal Court case. Crossmr continually refers to the fact that OhanaUnited is an administrator. He needs to bear in mind that admins are NOT PERFECT. As the policy states: "Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect." These two incidents hardly constitute "sustained or serious disruption." So with respect, I think Crossmr should take the advice already offered and let this go. Sunray (talk) 03:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Sunray (talk · contribs), and Lawrencekhoo (talk · contribs). At this point in time, this is beating a dead horse. Further dragging out of this issue is not constructive. -- Cirt (talk) 03:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't expect him to be perfect. I do expect him to properly address problems if they come up which he has failed to do. Here is the pattern:

1. Very poor edit to an article. Disagreement is met with silence and a very quiet redaction of the comment by a user who seemingly archives everything else and an explanation for its removal that makes zero sense

2. Disagreement with an editor is met with insults, personal attacks and threats, even when other users step in and correct him. He walks away with no apology nor retraction of his over the top statements.

3. Further discussion of both issues is met with outright denial and refusal to discuss or explain his actions.

That is the pattern of a disruptive user. Not an administrator. No user is expected to be perfect, but they are expected to explain their edits if called on them, and administrators are expected to be held to a higher standard, they get tools of trust, he has abused that trust through his edit to that article, his attack on the other user and his non-response here. He has failed to do so. And no one here can demonstrate where he has indicated that he knows what he did was wrong. If anyone can, I'll happily drop it. But I expect an unambiguous statement taking responsibility for his actions, otherwise why does he have access to those tools if he cannot explain nor take responsibility when called to task?--Crossmr (talk) 03:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't engage in that much talk, not compared to other users, but here is another assumption of bad faith over a disagreement over a tag. . He assumes the user hasn't read the article and accuses him of "screaming". I read the article at that time and it isn't remotely clear what he's referring to which is further pointed out . Asking for refs and clarification on unsourced articles isn't untoward, nor something that requires an assumption of bad faith and mischaracterization of someone's edits.--Crossmr (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I was seeking administrative action, so your closing summary is false. It's also very clear that of the 6 people who commented (besides Ohana) 3 think he's done something wrong and 3 don't. Hardly a consensus that no action will be taken. I'd also just added a third incident where he acted inappropriately towards a user. For someone with such a low volume of talk, that's not good. While I haven't found many disputes, what I have found is that of the ones that generated user talk in the last year he's handled inappropriately. That is not encouraging.--Crossmr (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

here he is essentially taunting a user he disagrees with. Even another user at the time thought it was insulting . That's 5 clear incidents of him inappropriately handling interactions with users, seeing the pattern yet?--Crossmr (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion isn't going to lead to a block of OhamaUnited, isn't going to lead to a desysop, and isn't going to lead to any actions by administrators acting as administrators. Even if people think that OU has done something wrong, there's nothing for ANI to do here. ANI isn't for forcing explanations or apologies out of editors, even administrators. You still seem to be confusing ANI with WP:RFC/U or WP:DR or WP:ARBCOM. "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Misplaced Pages that require the intervention of administrators", as it says at the top of the page. I note that two of the people who have commented in this thread have already said that this has been discussed enough here, hence my closure.

Having said that, if any other passing admin thinks that there is life in the horse that would be benefited from further beating at this location, feel free to reopen this thread once more. (And, for goodness's sake, some of your latest diffs are from July 2009 and September 2009 - hardly recent incidents requiring action from administrators, are they?!) Bencherlite 00:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There was a request made to show a pattern. In order to show a pattern, we must go back to friend previous incidents. We have 3 very recent incidents. His terrible edit to the article, his completely inappropriate personal attacks, and unwarranted block threats against a user, and his utter non-response to this thread. This is a guy who within 150 contribs on user talk and talk space you're back well into the middle of next year and in those few amount of contribs (which include the normal things like routine taggings, block notices, and other such non-talk, we've got 5 problems. Per capita that isn't good for a regular user, let alone an administrator. Now, if he'd managed to take responsibility for his actions, it'd be dropped but he's failed to do so. Last I checked out around here, when we have a disruptive user, the requirement was that they acknowledged what they did was wrong and indicate that the behaviour won't continue. he's done neither. Until he's done either of those, what assurance do we have that his disruptive interaction with users won't continue? I believe that is what AN/I is for. to handle disruptive users. He just happens to be an admin this time.--Crossmr (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think WP:Apology applies here. Yes, what OhanaUnited said wasn't much of an acknowledgement, but it was better than nothing, and demanding more is non-helpful at this time. Ohana will hopefully be writing with more self-awareness, and others will be watching him more closely, which is the best outcome that is likely, all things considered. Endorse thread closure. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleting posts from other users' talk pages

Vote (X) for Change (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Meletian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
81.159.32.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jc3s5h has just wiped a message I posted to User talk:Samhastings. He has been warned about this before: . Can someone block him so that he knows not to do it again? 81.159.32.4 (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocks are not punitive, they are preventative. Blocking shouldn't be necessary here IMO. Connormah 20:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

So are you a sock of User:Vote (X) for Change? S.G. _ping! 20:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not a sock of Vote (X) for Change. I have been an IP editor for three years now. I'll add the message back and see how it goes. 81.159.32.4 (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

SPI has been started: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Vote (X) for Change ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Putting it at its highest, a judge might decide (wrongly in my opinion) that I am a sockpuppet of Vote (X) for Change, but that isn't relevant, because other editors are only allowed to remove talk page posts of editors who are banned. 81.159.32.4 (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your response falls into the "non-denial denial" category. Your best option would be to go to the SPI and answer the specifics of the complaint, if you have not already done so. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The message has been removed a second time. That's why I think a block is appropriate because it prevents the action being repeated. 81.159.32.4 (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The user will be alerted to the activity on his talk page, will read your comments, and if he wishes the post to be present, he can restore it himself. This is a non-issue. --erachima talk 20:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not exactly a non-issue. It's true that a user can manage his own talk page the way he wants. But when another user starts messing around with your talk page on the suspicion that the poster is a sock, then he's crossing the boundary into "nannyism". However, if the posting itself is a violation of the rules (e.g. a personal attack or BLP violation) then theoretically its subject to deletion by anyone. Did the OP's posting violate any rules? Has the IP been demonstrated to be a block-evading sock? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The removed post appears to be some form of WP:SOAPBOXing. Removal of such comments is always a gray area, but it's definitely not actionable. --erachima talk 20:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It's the prerogative of the user himself. Jc3s5h needs to prove his case at the SPI. If he does, then 81 will get put on ice for awhile. If not, Jc3s5h should either just leave it alone or else report what violation 81 has committed by posting it here. Meanwhile, I agree that 81's bringing this here is excessive and could boomerang, as there appears to be no real justification for blocking Jc3s5h. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain to me what a "non - denial denial" is? Also the gentleman I wrote to is 91 years old and shouldn't be expected to check his talk page revision history every day. 81.159.32.4 (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Something that kind of sounds like a denial but really isn't. See Watergate. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

What does his age have to do with anything? --erachima talk 20:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It does appear that Sam only edits sporadically, and has only about a dozen edits since February. But unless he's asked Jc3s5h to delete "possible" sock entries from his page, Jc3s5h is getting a bit carried away. (Of course, if 81 does prove to be a block evading sock, that will be another story.) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

But isn't it always up to the prosecutor to prove his case? The defendant doesn't have to say anything. 81.159.32.4 (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

At what point did you get the idea that[REDACTED] is a court of law or is subject to the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to do anything if you don't want to. Misplaced Pages is not a court, nor a democracy, there is not a legal thing. S.G. _ping! 21:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

He soon won't be able to, as SG pointed out that 81 gave the game away in this diff where he identified himself as a sockpuppet (Meletian) of the indef'd user Vote X. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Another term popularized by Watergate was "smoking gun". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, this particular IP on 81's subnet just appeared today, after a 4-year silence. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked as an obvious and self-admitted sock. London based IP prattling on about esoteric calendaring issues and self-identifiying as a previously blocked sock. Am I missing something? Kuru (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Only maybe the question of whether he has other IP's. But if he does, we can probably expect to hear from them. And if not, everything's peachy. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. No disrespect intended. The office manager wanted to call it a day. When I entered the office the IP was 86.174.115.50, when I left it was 81.159.32.4. In that time nobody came in to tinker with the machine, so the responsibility must lie with the operators of 81's and 86's subnets. Baseball Bugs hits it right on the head when (s)he says

Jc3s5h needs to prove his case at the SPI. If he does, then 81 will get put on ice for awhile. If not, Jc3s5h should either just leave it alone or else report what violation 81 has committed by posting it here.188.220.41.240 (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The above IP has also been involved in that same calendar dispute. It seems odd that an office would have such a dynamic IP, but maybe it depends on the office. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm mystified why Baseball Bugs and Kuru are contemplating closing down entire Internet Service Providers in this country. Given that nobody has ever alleged that my edits are disruptive or illegal I am sure this would result in the ISPs affected making formal complaints to the WMF. After all, if a vandal is using a network there is a mechanism for notifying the operator of same.

WMF might then enquire why Chris Bennett has been allowed to vilify me on a daily basis over 2 1/2 years all over WP with no action being taken despite numerous requests - for example "all pretence of reason is cast aside to reveal the pitiful, naked troll beneath" and "thank you for confirming that you are our hydra - headed IP friend the Intercalary Fool". Actually, that's not totally correct - the second comment, after having been removed many times from Talk:Julian calendar has now been locked in. Bennett is "active" on the SPI according to Jc3s5h, who responded to a message with the words "THIS POST DOES NOT EXIST".

Slightly higher up this page (at least till last night) was a discussion of a comparatively anodyne personal attack by HalfShadow, which resulted in an immediate indefinite block. This contributor is regularly in trouble, and became known to me when (s)he reverted a correction I made to the SPI and then attempted to get SlimVirgin to censor my contributions. Nobody has queried the content of edits from Vote (X) for Change, which was used for two weeks back in March to promote a particular option in a ballot and then closed down with the "Former Account" template. On these facts, I fail to see how Kuru can conclude "Painfully obvious and self - admitted sock; blocked as such" (no tilde on this keyboard).

User:Pmanderson

This user has twice removed AFD templates from the article List of wars between democracies The first removal was here with the edit summary two more references which i reverted to restore the template with the edit summary rv please do not remove AFD tags. The second was here with the edit summary revert persistent vandalism which i have now reverted to restore the template. Could someone please tell this user not to remove AFD tags, and not to call people vandels mark nutley (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Given this edit, the AfD template appears to have been an accidental casualty of Pmanderson's reversion of content blanking. --erachima talk 21:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Not content blanking, just editing. Once may be an accident, he did it twice. And there is noway he could have missed my edit summary mark nutley (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

How would it be an accidental casualty of that? The template was not added in that edit, an undo would not remove the template. But fine, if Pmanderson says it was an accident... --OpenFuture (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like he restored it himself, after restoring his edits, so not sure it was done on purpose (though his edit summary calling your revert vandalism does not appear to be extending good faith). -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 21:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Per the definition, blanking referenced content without an explanation or obviously identifiable reason is a form of vandalism. Edits should not be referred to as vandalism in content disputes, however, and calling established editors vandals is a bad idea in general. --erachima talk 21:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Depending on the validity of the sources cited in the content you removed, Mark, you are either vandalizing the page by blanking referenced content or this is an edit war. In the latter case, ANI will not endorse a side in this edit war due to an accidental template removal, and it will certainly not censure a user for reverting vandalism if it is the former. --erachima talk 21:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is a content dispute (when is`nt there) The removal of content was due to OR and Synth issues. But that is an aside, he has removed the tag twice, once may be a mistake, but twice? mark nutley (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, twice. Pmanderson understands the deletion process, claiming he would intentionally remove AfD tags is simply absurd. --erachima talk 21:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

An accident, now fixed, while restoring mark nutley's persistent blanking of sourced material.

Blankings from July 14:

• 21:17 14 July,
• 21:19,
• 21:21,
• 21:36

At this point the page was protected. Mark Nutley then put the article up for AfD; he has a somewhat idiosyncratic understanding of the subject: Greeks had no democracys and that the United States had no elections before 1789. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I had already reverted you to restore the tag, what you actually did was insert disputed text under the guise of restoring the AFD template. Content issues aside as this is not the place, why did you do it twice? mark nutley (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

And you were removing disputed text under the guise of restoring the AfD template. --erachima talk 21:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

And this means what exactly? mark nutley (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It means you need to stop edit warring, and stop making frivolous ANI reports. --erachima talk 21:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• 09:28 17 July
• 12;27
• 12:29
• 12:30
• 21:11

The first and the last use twinkle. Will someone have a word with this user, or shall I go on the Twinkle page? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with comparing versions and restoring a previous one? mark nutley (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There is when you do so in place of discussion. --erachima talk 21:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I have been discussing it, it is difficult to discuss with an editor who does not respond And i refute your allegation that i am edit warring mark nutley (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson appears to have made a full dozen posts in the topic you linked, hardly unresponsive of him. And no you don't. Refutation implies making an argument, you've just made an assertion. --erachima talk 22:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes while the page was protected, as soon as it was lifted he stops talking and reinserts disputed content as i obvious from the fact he has not responded in there, why not just mark this as resolved. I can`t be bothered to argue with you over it anymore mark nutley (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Pmandersons talk about "blanking" is not in accordance with the facts, and neither his statement that his text is "sourced". Just FYI. What is happening here is removal of POV statements that is not supported by the sources given. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Not in accordance with the facts? The diffs are above; all of them show blankings of sourced assertions. While there have been some other edits by these editors, the only other effect they have had is to replace the AFD coupled with a massive blanking reversion (the first of mark nutley's edits on the 17th).

But unsourced claims seem to be their stock in trade. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Again: The sources do not support the assertions, so many, if not most of the assertions that Pmanderson claims have been "blanked" are not in actual fact sourced at all. Pmanderson knows this. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a deliberate lie. But at this point we diverge into OpenFuture's preferences on content, which depend upon his choosing to read the sources in ways he has invented, and which are contrary to the readings of other reliable sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with preference, and Pmanderson knows this. His sources does frequently not support the assertions he adds. Which he also knows. This is exacerbated by his constant personal attacks making constructive discussion impossible, which undoubtedly is the intention. The "ways I have invented" are called following WP:SYN and WP:OR nothing else. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Clayton College of Natural Health discussion page

I started a discussion on external links on Talk:Clayton_College_of_Natural_Health. I have attempted to provide sources to support my argument. However, another user (Ronz) keeps deleting my posts and is threatening me on my personal talk page ]. I am attempting to reference a court case, which is still considered valid law. As an attorney, I know that the definition of libel. Referencing court cases is not libel. Statements of fact are not libel. Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavery94 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ronz (talk · contribs) notified, as is conventional for this page. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is my understanding of the issue: The article in question is Clayton College of Natural Health which starts "The Clayton College of Natural Health is a non-accredited American distance-learning natural health college based in Birmingham, Alabama, offering classes on natural health." An external link points to a criticism of the college by a living person. On the talk page of the article, Mavery94 has claimed that the person was found to lack credibility in a certain legal case. Ronz has removed the claim per WP:BLP and has posted on Mavery94's talk page that the person has been misrepresented on Misplaced Pages for years, and that editors who have done so after being warned have been blocked. I have no knowledge of this, but from past performance, I would be astonished if Ronz's statement were inaccurate. Accordingly, I can see no need for administrative action at this time, unless someone wants to confirm or deny my summary.

@Mavery94: To make a negative statement about a living person, you need a good secondary source (preferably multiple such sources). It is not adequate to cite a primary source as if that is the end of the matter (a reliable secondary source would include an overall analysis of the entire situation which undoubtedly involves more than a single legal case). Johnuniq (talk) 08:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming my lack of faith in Misplaced Pages and why there are so many places that site it as being a poor source. Mavery94 (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, these attacks don't come from simply citing a court ruling as editors assert. They come from deliberate attacks on Barrett, some based upon the misrepresentation of a court ruling. The attacking editors are quoting from off-Wiki attacks pages rather than from the court ruling.

These recent attacks against Barrett mirror the ones that have been going on for at least four years now by such editors as Ilena (talk · contribs) (banned), TimBolen (talk · contribs) (banned), and their sockpuppets. While Clayton College of Natural Health is already protected because of the related vandalism, we may need to protect Quackwatch and Stephen Barrett as well if the attacks continue. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think an adminstrator might be useful over at the Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch articles. An editor is trying to revert war the same kind of edits that are being discussed here. Maybe Ronz is correct and protection for these articles might be considered. Thanks for your time, --CrohnieGal 17:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

uh-oh

Regarding User:Antigrandiose/userbox/sex, this is up for deletion, and has been nominated for speedy a a possible violation of (what used to be) WP:PED, but I wonder if it should be RevDel'd and the author dealt with in some manner. Herostratus (talk) 02:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

How, exactly, is a picture of a shaven vagina a danger to the welfare of children? I would imagine that most children have had up-close, personal experience with at least one in their lives. While the userbox itself is a bit lacking in taste, I would have hoped you, being an obviously righteous man, would have done due diligence by checking the upload details of the aforementioned image before whipping out the stale and tired moralistic "think of the children" stuff. Misplaced Pages is not censored. As far as the user is concerned... yeesh, a lot of Userspace edits and sparing mainspace edits, but what little mainspace edits there are seem to all be good faith contributions. Badger Drink (talk) 02:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

OK fine, whatever. I just thought I'd point it out. I don't know if it's shaven or what. It's up to you guys. I know what I would do if I was an admin, but I'm not, so, as you wish. Herostratus (talk) 02:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait a sec. Badger Drink removed the CSD tag. If user Badger Drink is not an admin -- I'll check in a sec, but how many admins have blank user pages? -- should he be hanging around this page and making decisions on requests here? Is this permitted, or encouraged? I was trying to get the attention of an admin. Herostratus (talk) 02:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If Badger Drink is an admin, it doesn't say so here. Herostratus (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

When the admins are on vacation, lunch break, coffee break, smoke break, union break, joint break (RIP George Carlin), bathroom break, or just out of the office, you are likely to get help from a non-admin. Happens all the time, from ALOT of non-admins and the help (with the exception of blocks and such) is just as a good as something an admin can do. Gives them a break and gives us a chance to help. By the way, I am also not an admin. Oh and JzG (Guy) doesn't have a userpage and he is an admin. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep. The vast majority of what's brought up on ANI does not require an admin, just a guy with a WP:CLUE. --erachima talk 03:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but... the person's response was not helpful. It was just a jejune screed. I can get that anywhere. Why even have ANI if this is going to be the response? Herostratus (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes a diatribe is necessary and needed at times. Hell, you get those from admins. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing unhelpful about it. He gave the right answer, he cited the right standard. Certainly, "stop being puritanical" isn't the reply you wanted, but it is the reply that's appropriate to the situation. --erachima talk 03:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutralhomer (and, post-edit conflict, erachima) said it better than I could ever hope to. I'd just like to add that it seems you're confusing "help" with "do exactly what I want done", which in this case is histrionic and utterly, completely, without-a-doubt over-the-top. (of course, during the edit conflict erachima beat me to that point as well, once again saying it more succinctly (and probably politely) than I ever could - but whatever, I'll rip a page from WP:DGAF. :)) At most, a friendly WP:MYSPACE mention might be made on Antigrandiose's talk page. The fact that you would immediately speedy delete something like this means it's probably for the best that you're no longer a part of the Misplaced Pages admin corps. Badger Drink (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the little dig Badger Drink. I sure needed that when I came here with a good faith headsup. Why don't you or some of you other guys apply to be admins then if you like doing this? We have a shortage of new admin applicants, you know. Now look at this -- erachima closed the discussion, and he's not an admin either (at least, it says here). So as far as I know no admin has even looked at this. So non-admins can resolve discussions here? OK whatever, if that's how the admins want to run it. If the admins are so busy though, maybe we could have a separate board WP:GET_SOME_ABUSE_FROM_SOME_RANDOM_YAHOOS or something and cut out the middleman. Sheesh. Herostratus (talk) 03:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sorely, sorely tempted to make that a redirect right back here. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done N419BH 03:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Herostratus (talk) 04:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Why yes, I am Neutralhomer, Random Yahoo...how may I be of assistance? :D LOL That is awesome right there. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Redirect deleted. Re the ubx, does it assist in our primary task of building an encyclopedia? Does it portray Misplaced Pages in a positive light? No and no. We're not Craigslist. However, the MfD should run its course. EyeSerene 12:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser blocks

For information, the Arbitration Committee has just put out a statement advising administrators how to handle disputes concerning Checkuser blocks. The full text is here.  Roger Davies 02:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

And you can Discuss this Statement here. EdChem (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Where did it go?

I attempted to weigh in on the discussion,

• 13 Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Moses as symbol in American history, closed as delete but in fact merged with Moses

It was obviously there so where did it go? Otr500 (talk) 03:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Try the archive? S.G. _ping! 06:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I missed something. I am fairly new but a section can be archived, especially in the middle of action, with no warning? Maybe I went through a twilight zone or something. I tried to save an edit after clicking on a section link in the index then it would not save and I realized it was not listed in the index anymore. I am not familiar with navigating the archives yet. Otr500 (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is archived after 24 hours with no posts - unless a user deleted/reverted it for some reason. S.G. _ping! 16:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a big search box at the top of this page that searches the ANI archives. Entering 'moses' gives this result. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Harrassment by IPs

In the period December 2007 to March 2008 there was a user who added and reinstated original research to the Games Workshop article after it was duely removed. They then objected to this removal on two occassions and claimed I was involved in "abuse of admin power" (approximately 9 months before I was nominated at RFA), that I was alone in objecting to the materials inclusion and then proceeded to personally attack me. For clarity I made one serious edit to that article in December 2007 and none since (excepting 2 minor and obvious vandal reverts) The user in question was RichSatan . They were blocked as a sockpuppeteer following this RFCU in 2008.

Following this block an IP user claiming NOT to be RichSatan continued the same arguments on Talk:Games Workshop in March 2008. I opened an ANI thread then in March 2008 which resulted in the IPs being blocked. However they returned again in July 2008.

And to reiterate I had not edited that article in any serious way since December 2007. Also a consensus on the talk page rejected the material in the Winter of 2007 and again in March 2008.

This month another 2 IPs User:82.152.164.81 and User:82.152.165.79 popped up claiming not to be RichSatan making the exact same claims.

I tagged these 2 new users as a suspected RichSatan socks and after 2 days User:MuZemike dropped me a message saying: "I just had the person behind the IP right now talk to me on IRC saying that he/she is not RichSatan. I strongly recommend that if you wish to further pursue this that you start an WP:SPI case and allow the accused IP to presume his/her innocence." Now let me preface this by saying MuZemike did the right thing but as I understood it this case is closed - RichSatan is a confirmed sock-puppeteer and these IPs are replicating the same behaviour.

82.152.165.79 dropped a note on my talk page claiming I vandalized the Games Workshop page by removing the material. That they never had contact with Misplaced Pages admins before and that they were not RichSatan ("I am not RichStan Prior to this conversation I had no idea what an "ANi" was, since I've never had any previous contact with Misplaced Pages's administrators.") As I understand it they are claiming not only that they are not RichSatan, but also, not the user who was involved at ANi in March 2008.

Now, if this not RichSatan I'm happy to remove the tags - but these IPs are behaving in the exact same manner and seem to be restricting their onsite involvement to this single purpose. Other than claim I made an improper edit and make attacks on me these IPs have made very few other edits to WP.

It appears this user/these users has/have a vendetta against me but since my judgement here has apparently been questioned I'm submitting this to ANI for outside review. Any help would be appreciated. And as normal I submit my own behaviour and action to the scrutiny of my peers--Cailil 03:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

For ease of viewing I'm presenting previous behaviour by other IPs whom this new user claims not to be:

IPs March 2008

• by 91.84.95.68
• by 82.152.179.208
• by 82.152.177.104
• by 82.153.198.246
• by 82.152.178.70

Current IPs

• by 82.152.164.81
• by 82.152.165.79

Also if you read through the old ANi thread you will see that person using IPs 91.84.95.68 and 82.152.176.98 denies being RichSatan in the same manner that the new user 82.152.165.79 does. Also it's worth noting that on the post to talk page they claim to be "This is (one of) the users" I have accused of being RichSatan (therefore saying 82.152.165.79 and 82.152.164.81 are different people involved in the same discussion, making the same points, and also sharing the same IP range)--Cailil 03:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, look, this is getting silly. Here's the facts: some (possibly all or maybe just a couple, I haven't checked) of the IPs in question are assigned by Eclipse Internet in Exeter. This is a reasonably popular UK ISP and it is, according to them, feasible for large blocks of their users to be assigned any of a fairly wide range of addresses any time they connect. Cailil's assumption that anyone using an IP in their range is the same person is just simply wrong from a network technology standpoint, quite apart from anything else. I have edited dozens of articles on[REDACTED] (most recently SMPTE Timecode and Betacam because it reflects what I do for a living) and the fact that Cailil seems to be blisfully unaware of this puts another hole in his argument.

For the record, despite Cailil's stating that I or other people am claiming various things, all I can tell you is that I have never held the user ID "Richsatan" and that there is at least one other person, presumably an Eclipse client, involved in this discussion.

I should point out that I have had absolutely no involvement with either the Games Workshop article or Cailil (or any[REDACTED] administrator) before my talk page comment beginning "Further to the above...". I was drawn to visit the page upon receiving a message indicating that I was suspected of being a clone of a user called Richsatan. Looking into this led me to the Games Workshop article and Cailil's involvement. For what it's worth I tend to agree with the criticism of Cailil's content position as some of the material he or she is campaigning against was entirely well sourced and properly written, but that no longer seems to be at the core of this matter. This now seems to be more about Cailil running around bashing Eclipse users and I think it is clear he (she?) has broken some rules. I certainly feel unduly attacked.

I think it's obvious that this has created an entirely circular situation whereby Eclipse users receive rude messages from Cailil about being Richsatan "sockpuppets" and are drawn into the argument. Please, someone, think of the children! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.165.79 (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I've checked the immediately preceding IP address with RIPE. It is indeed as claimed part of a DHCP block for an ISP's customers, as indeed are the whole of 82.152.164.0/22 and the whole of 82.152.176.0/22. This should help in the future. Feel free to mark the other IP address talk pages above that are in those ranges in the same way, and check further addresses with RIPE. Uncle G (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Uncle G. I need to address some of the very interesting remarks made by the person using IP 82.152.165.79. They do in fact claim not be the same person as the user who made the same (verbatim) points at Talk:games Workshop and on ANI in March 2008. Interesting that user also claimed to be new to[REDACTED] then but in fact these IP users pre-date RichSatan as illustrated at the RFCU and the previous ANI. Also it's worth remarking this IP and that IP in March 2008 made their first posts criticizing me for the December 2007 deletion and claiming to be a new independent user. I'm going to drop a note to the other users who had experience of this case in 2008 and will present further diffs for examination shortly. I want to address the behavioural issues here (primarily an IP or group of IPs harrassing a user about an edit made over 30 months ago on a page they haven't editted since then)--Cailil 14:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

So hang on, we have an independent third party telling you what's going on technically, and you're still desperately trying to sling mud? Of course everyone is making the same complaints about you, you're doing exactly the same thing to all comers. This "harrassment" line is preposterous to the point of absolute laughability; before this time yesterday I'd never heard of anyone called Cailil, yet now I'm harrassing you? You came to me, if you recall!
I think my response to this has been absolutely impeccable in the face of the most outrageous arrogance and discourtesy (and so, as far as I can tell has that of several other people, if they're to be taken at face value). If I cared this much about the Games Workshop article, really, I would have edited it.
I really have run out of things to say on this topic. As I understand it the same technological issues that created this situation also make it impossible for Cailil to censure me personally, at least with any reliability, so really this is all just hot air in any case. As such all I'll say is this: I don't know what the procedure is for complaining about an administrator, but I get any more unpleasant messages, I will do my best to find out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.12.72.1 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thre is the problem with your remark that "before this time yesterday I'd never heard of anyone called Cailil, yet now I'm harrassing you? You came to me, if you recall!". You see I tagged Ip 82.152.164.81 on the 11th of July 2010, one week after it made this post to Talk:Games Workshop. That July 4th post mentions me by name. Then on the 15 July 2010 at 14:10 (UTC) after the IP 82.152.165.79 replied to a different IP user (who IS a different user the IP is in a totally separate range and location) who responded to the comment by 82.152.164.81. Now MuZemike was contacted by 82.152.165.79 on July 16th. The above posted was made on July 19th by user who was using 82.152.165.79. So it is fair to say you've been involved in this, making comments about me since July 4th not July 18th. Remember we have experience of dealing with anon editors here on WP and we have public records.
Also THIS is the venue to complain about administrators but I caution you I wasn't an admin when I made those edits and I have not used admin privelages in any contact with you but feel free to ask for outside input--Cailil 16:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you've read the post by "Uncle G" above but does explain how random assignment of IPs works. In case you haven't, I'll make it clear: an IP address does not uniquely identify a computer (even if a computer uniquely identified a person, which isn't a factor in my case but could be in others). If you are using, for instance, an ADSL modem, every time you connect that modem to an exchange it will (or may, or probably will) be given a different IP address. Sometimes this happens to me even when I don't explicitly ask it to. This is all entirely normal. I'm not sure I quite follow the chain of events that you describe above because I'm not sufficiently familiar with Misplaced Pages's administrative process, but in light of this I think it's more than adequately explained. The only comment I wrote on the Games Workshop talk page is the one beginning "Further to..."

You don't know what you're talking about, and you're making serious mistakes. I don't know you, I have never heard of you, and yet you are going out of your way to wind me up. Do you not see how this causes a problem? Do you not understand the potential negative impact of accusing effectively random people of things they clearly and obviously didn't do?

But at the end of the day I can't stop you doing what you're doing, and you can't stop me doing what I'm doing. Let's get a disinterested administrator involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.189.168 (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not "trying to wind you up" - I am trying to sort out a serious problem. Misplaced Pages prohibits the kind of personal remarks made by these IPs on talk pages and I am wholly within my rights to pursue this.
Also I do understand the situation with IPs and have dealt with far more complex ones than this. The shifting of IP address is precisely my point. There is only one constant in this situation - users from your IP range harassing me about an edit I made in December 2007, and then claiming to never have used[REDACTED] before and to have never edited Talk:Games Workshop before. What the diffs show is the same behaviour, the same area of interest, the same attacks on me, the same single point of content and the same IP range. Now I've posted this here for outside input but if none comes I'll bring this straight to SSPI--Cailil 18:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Also to clarify something it may not be YOU, the person who has just written here, that is the person replicating RichSatan's behaviour but somebody using the same IPs range is. The best course of practice for YOU to avoid being confused with a sock-puppeteer is register an account with wikipedia. This would stop you from getting messages left on IP accounts meant for other users. Also it would be good for you to acquaint yourself with our policies on civility and talk page usage and also the three core pirnicples of Misplaced Pages, WP:V, WP:N, WP:OR--Cailil 18:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Bband11th

I've been having issues with User:Bband11th over the course of the past few months. Just recently however, the disagreements have spread to other articles over issues that are pretty straightforward. The most recent example is on the article Larry Farmer (basketball). There is a dubious statement on that article and I added a {{fact}} tag to it. He added a reference that did not support the statement, so I reverted and tried to start a discussion on the article talk page (). He continued to revert () so I brought it up on his talk page, () but he merely removed the notice. ()

I believe this stems from another dispute we've had on various college bowl game articles. You can see the discussion here: . The gist of the discussion is there was no consensus on how to treat the odds, so we should just leave the stylistic debate as what the article originally used. The user is having difficulty accepting that. He continues to change the articles to

The last part of my "complaint" is that he has been WP:HOUNDing me on various pages that I've edited that he never has. See: and .

I've tried to contact the user to resolve these disputes, but he is not responding and there have been no discussions. I think he's a good Misplaced Pages user, but I don't know what to do anymore. I'll gladly avoid the articles he edits. In fact, I'll check the history of an article prior to editing it if it has something to do with UCLA (the types of articles he tends to edit). If he's made an edit to it, I will not (he hadn't edited the Larry Farmer article prior to when I did. Farmer crosses our WMU and UCLA paths. If he had edited it, I probably would not have). — X96lee15 (talk) 04:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Larry Farmer (basketball) article, I attempted a rephrase that should hopefully address both of your concerns. See this revision of the page. –Grondemar 04:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm good with that change. It amazing how simple a change can be when you take a step back :) — X96lee15 (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

99.238.167.207

I would like to report that 99.238.167.207 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be a sock puppet of user:Vedant but I'm unsure how to post a sock puppet case. 88.106.103.83 (talk) 08:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Read Misplaced Pages:Signs of sock puppetry and make a judgment about whether there is enough evidence of sock puppetry. Go to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations#Submitting_an_SPI_case to submit a case if you believe that you have enough evidence. Keep in mind that it is perfectly alright to edit without logging in, as long as one does not do so to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus. LK (talk) 08:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment I have notified the users in question of this thread. Mauler90 _talk 09:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Just so that everyone here is clear, the user making this claim is a sockpuppet of the banned user User:Yattum. This SPI case should shed more light on the situation. It's also worth noting that Yattum here has in the past, accused me of sockpuppetry, a claim which has been refuted by a CheckUser. I actually did advocate a range block of 88.106.00.00/16 but it was not implemented as a look at the range contributions reveals that other edits were made that don't fit his MO.

Anyways, I have no intention of replying or responding to these accusations. If the admins here feel a CU and block is necessary, then by all means perform one and actually determine if I've engaged in sockpuppetry. I'm just going to let the moron above babble like a fool and spit more accusations out. Vedant (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

An as some additional food for thought, here are the contributions of another IP from the 88.106 range who has re-instated claims made by Yattum's sockpuppets (claims which I removed). Perhaps it just made him upset and motivated him to launch a frivolous investigation... Ofcourse this time I can't be accused of furthering Indian nationalism... shame. Vedant (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Jakezing requesting unblock

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

I have recently declined Jakezing's request for unblock, but want to offer my decision for review. It is now more than a year since the last block. My own opinion is that a mere request is not enough; we should have more prospect of improvement before lifting the block. For instance, a record of contribution at some other Wikimedia project. Since the block was imposed due to an ANI thread in June 2009, it needs consensus to lift it. If you have an opinion, please comment. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If this user agreed, we could try something along the lines of Diego Grez' former sanction, to make sure he's really reformed. Salvio ( ) 13:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—I would really like to oppose his unblock request, because his behaviour while an editor was so dreadful, but I am really struggling to find any substantive reasons to do so. Therefore, I feel obliged to say give him another chance; if he messes up again he can easily be re-blocked. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 13:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: A lot can change in a year. I'm inclined to say give the guy a chance. If he screws up what's the damage? Another block and maybe 5 minutes of rollback. If he's ready to be a positive contributor the Wiki will be better for it. N419BH 13:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Notified - I've notified Jakezing about this thread so they can follow it. I've suggested to them that they post anything they wish to say on their talkpage and it can be copied here if relevant. Exxolon (talk) 13:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Normally I'd support these, but someone who's been indeffed four times (twice as User:Cody6, twice as this unsername)? WP:AGF and all that, but I'm not convinced. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Question It's unclear from the thread EdJohnston linked to whether this user was blocked indefinitely (which means an Admin could unblock him) or banned by the community (which means he can only be unblocked by consensus -- or an appeal to the ArbCom). IMHO, if Jakezing was only indefinitely banned, then any Admin could unblock him, but then that Admin -- or a designated mentor -- would need to keep an eye on this editor to make sure he plays nice with others. -- llywrch (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

  It was a consensus block; see this. Ironholds (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Nope. A year is a long time to move on from four (yes, four) indefinite blocks, and it's quite possible someone could turn their personality around in that period. I would perhaps be more convinced if the unblock message wasn't platitudes which rely only on our belief that he might have changed. AGF only goes so far; after four indefinite blocks, there needs to be something more convincing than "I promise I won't be rude most of the time". I'd suggest editing on another project and keeping his nose clean; that way we have some actual evidence of a shift. Ironholds (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• His comment "I can't guarantee I will always be civil" is not altogether promising. If he wants to edit that badly, maybe he could propose some edits to articles, within his talk page, and demonstrate the extent of his sincerity. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

User:EmiruTheKnight

This user was created about a couple of minutes ago. He is advertising on his page about his YouTube account. I did request speedy deletion but he took it off, and seeing Misplaced Pages says not to edit war, I am not going to do it. What do I do? I am new here( sort of, was using IPS) so can someone help me? Thank you. AboundingHinata (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

My question is whether links to YouTube videos of games might be copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems like his only edits were to make his user page, and blank yours (which has the same thing, advertising your YouTube account). Why did you feel justified in blanking his user page and trying to have it speedied when you are doing the same thing yourself? Also, can you explain this edit in which you seem to be taunting another editor by indicating you are an IP who reported him for something (though there is no record of his being reported for anything, blocked, nor even warned). -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 16:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

the one user page was advertising, and proposing speedy deletion was reasonable. The other case was blanking for no stated reason, apparently in revenge. The two are very different. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying Emiru is right, I just find it odd that the reporter in essence was doing the same thing, even without a hard link. That to me was odd and would at least make his reaction at least mildly understandable if inappropriate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 18:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't. Not that it matters. I was just patrolling the recent users page. I will delete my user page if it bothers you. I just think him advertising is wrong. And for Tom, I can't really answer that. Sorry. I don't know how to answer, explain please. AboundingHinata (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait, just that Tom was making Seagate Technology disputed... that's it. AboundingHinata (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"I did request speedy deletion but he took it off, and seeing Misplaced Pages says not to edit war, I am not going to do it" Actually, the creator of a page is not supposed to remove speedy tags from it (see WP:CSD) so restoring it would be fine (though if they kept on restoring, I agree finding an admin would be better than pointlessly revert-warring over it). Olaf Davis (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

War

At List of wars 2003–current, I added 2010 Kingston conflict to the article because it was an armed conflict between the Jamaican military and the Shower Posse drug cartel, similar to the Mexican Drug War. A few individuals keep removing it because, according to them, it's not a war. I provided sources at the article's discussion page where media outlets called it a war, ye these folks keep removing it. It's becoming annoying. B-Machine (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Neither should be included - those are more law enforcement actions than wars. GregJackP Boomer! 15:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Without getting into the debate, just because a few reliable sources say something doesn't necessarily mean it's right. Sometimes, they intentionally (or not) use sloppy language; if it's an obvious mischaracterization, don't try to force it into the article and hide behind "verifiability, not truth" (I swear that truþ is a 4 letter word here). Look at the events themselves, and try to determine if the sources are giving a rational definition, or it's just hysteria. If the former, then try to find consensus; if the latter, then find a better term. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I suspect that the media is not the best source to decide is something is a war (but then does perception maketh war?) but if this is just a content dispute try the talk page? S.G. _ping! 16:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem - the media loves phrases like 'drug war', but that doesn't make it a war. But this is a content dispute. Misplaced Pages:Content noticeboard? Dougweller (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of people have gotten killed in the "drug wars". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, and in gang wars also, but are those wars? Dougweller (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Depends on how you define "war", I reckon. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only one who remembers the War on Poverty? PhGustaf (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I remember that war. So who won? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody. Something distracting happened, and everybody forgot about the WoP. PhGustaf (talk)

So, you're involved in a slow-burning edit war, and rather than engaging in dispute resolution, you instead escalate the dispute here? Do mind the WP:BOOMERANGs, they can give one a nasty clout. I'd suggest that you don't come to ANI unless there's a clear need for admin tools to be used. You losing a debate is not a good reason. If you continue to edit war, you might find yourself blocked. Fences&Windows 17:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion

• Sodomite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Onereydick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Looks to be a self-admitted block evading sockpuppet of indef'd User:Sodomite. Nsk92 (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No doubt about it; professes as much here, too (see specifically ). That said, the first block was for username violation. "Trolling" was brought into the block log later. I think the current username is probably okay. He seems to have been spurred by dislike of our username policy, initially, but I've explained how to contest policies and help change them. Maybe we should give him a chance to show he's interested in being a good contributor. --Moonriddengirl 17:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That was definitely trolling and I think that last edit fully explains the block summary. In any event, using a sock account to evade a block is not an acceptable solution. An admin willing to deal with this may restore, at least temporarily, talk page access on the master account, and the user can make his case for unblocking, name change and whatever there. Nsk92 (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is quite the same class as the usual block evasion, even though I pointed out the issue to the contributor myself at the conversation I linked above. He hasn't made any effort to hide his new identity (indeed, has disclosed it in all subsequent conversations) and seems to have had reason to believe, as he indicates here, that registering under a new username was what was expected of him. It's what he was first told to do here, after all. No doubt, this is a rocky follow up to that, but, again, I think a chance is warranted here. If he continues in the same vein, he can easily be blocked again. --Moonriddengirl 17:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It still strikes me as improper, at least procedurally, to allow the sock account to continue editing while the master account remains blocked. I also have more than a sneaking suspicion that the Sodomite/Onereydick account and the Wolfpussy accounts may be related. The very first edit made by User:Sodomite was to Wolfpussy's username RfC - a very unusual place for a new user to start editing. Plus later there was this request to upload a Wolf puppy picture, reiterated from the Onereydick account. Nsk92 (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, there may very well be other issues here. No arguments there. There may be some sock issues; certainly his behavior is a bit unusual for a new contributor. As to his being blocked for block evasion, though, I think it depends ultimately on whether User:Sodomite created a new account in good faith. His block was a softblock, and he was given instructions to choose a new username. He didn't cover himself with glory with his unblock request and the new username was almost certainly chosen in part to wave the flag for freedom, but his behavior as a new account does suggest good faith in respect to block evasion at least. --Moonriddengirl 17:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the second account (as well as being the admin who blocked the initial account). As most of the editor's posts were pointless disruption and all were made in obscure Misplaced Pages-space I don't think that they're at all likely to become a productive contributer. I've adjusted the new block to allow the editor to edit their talk page in case they wish to appeal this. As the editing is juvenile trolling I wouldn't be too fussed if this is the block is removed on appeal (though I'd strongly suggest that they first explain what their editing interests are). Nick-D (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, we'll see if he bothers appealing. As Nsk92 noted above, he's almost certainly somebody else anyway. Just to note, it was actually User:Jmlk17 who blocked the initial account; you changed the settings to block talk page editing, and quite properly given his use of it. But "block evasion" does seem an odd rationale for a contributor who was told "Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below)". You might want to explain why that no longer applies at User talk:Onereydick. --Moonriddengirl 11:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion - I've just added a note to that effect at User talk:Onereydick. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :) May reduce confusion all around. --Moonriddengirl 11:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ari89: Repeated bad faith, personal remarks, etc.

This person is essentially edit warring by reverting a pretty minor edit of mine, while making personal comments in every exchange on the Talk page. It has become impossible for me to assume good faith. There are strong religious overtones here. Ari89 self-identifies as almost exclusively interested in the Bible, and is a member of the Orthodox Church . The basic gist is that I wanted to identify some sources for factual claims about Jesus scholarship as Christian theolgians, since I think it is relevant to our readers to know when religious sources are used for factual claims on religious topics. This has been reverted and met with a incessant stream of accusations of prejudice, POV, etc. My edit in question: Comments from User:Ari89 directed toward me:

"You seem to bring everything back to your personal point of view as you attempted on the main Jesus article. Misplaced Pages is not your personal outlet for what you think scholars should believe. "

"Noloop's attribution is not impartial, and it is part of their personal pov. On a number of Jesus related articles Noloop attempts to bring everything back, without citation, to his own personal hypothesis..... Noloop wishes to bring this back to the fringe theory that Jesus did not exist." (For the record, I have repeatedly said I don't doubt the existence of a historic Jesus, and have made no edits intended to suggest otherwise.)

"unless all of a sudden the mainstream of academia is going to claim that reliable sources by Christian scholars at leading secular universities cannot be trusted because Noloop sees a "conflict of interest" there is no need to force our own prejudices in."

"Noting that you are advocating a personal prejudice against sources is not a personal attack. Appealing to personal attacks to force consensus isn't very useful."

"In light of some POV pushing and attempts to redefine the whole historical Jesus field of scholarship on the basis of personal preferences,"

"On the rest of your comment, I have stopped reading. You can constantly accuse me of personal attacks until the cows come home, but that will not make them materialise out of nothing. Find a new game. "

Ari also left this unexplained warning/threat to block me for vandalism:

I'm not calling for a block or punishment. I think some sort of feedback would be appropriate. The person is obviously unwilling to work collaboratively with me.

Noloop (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Another attack on my motives, on a Noticeboard: Noloop (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You argue that I was not assuming good faith in noting systematic POV pushing, and in this report you open by claiming I am bias because I identify as "a member of the Orthodox Church". Of course, you are yet to show me demonstrating a bias in this regard, but it seems it hasn't stopped attempts at poisoning the well.

Furthermore, accusing me of personal attacks on this noticeboard is not the place for content disputes. I have outlined the numerous reasons for reverting your edit - especially as they entirely modified the meaning of the sentence contrary to the attached citations. Multiple editors have also questioned these edits on the NPOV noticeboard.

Standard WP policies continue - verifiable mainstream dominates, editorial comments and personal opinions have no place. I also don't understand how those comments are meant to be personal attacks.

Finally, you modified my comment on the historical Jesus talk page. Do not modify people's comments. I also do not see how me giving you the heads up on not to modify other people's comments is a personal attack.

In essence, we discuss content disputes - not cry wolf. --Ari (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Having interacted with both editors on the issue, I can say that both have a point. Noloop is taking quite standard comments too personally, and this is not an issue that should have been brought at ANI or even at WP:WQA. On the other hand, it would really help if Ari89 could be more collaborative and less on the defensive, trying to assume good faith. --Cyclopia 17:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment Noloop has some rather clear POV motivations around the fringe theory that questions the historicity of Jesus and has been wasting everyone's time at numerous talk pages and message boards he forum shops at because he doesn't like the answers he gets. Please see Talk:Jesus and Talk:Historical Jesus. See also ...

• Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#If a majority (or all) of the sources for factual claims about Jesus are Christian, is it proper to mention that?
• Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#If a majority (or all) of the sources for factual claims about Jesus are Christian, is it proper to mention that?
• Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources#Are there guidelines for conflict of interest among sources?

Noloop needs to realize that he's being very disruptive and completely refusing to listen to reason. This makes people justifiably upset.Griswaldo (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you clarify where do Noloop "clear POV motivations" come out? On Talk:Jesus he explained very clearly his concerns/viewpoint, but he repeated very clearly that he does not question the historicity of Jesus, so you are doing a pretty bad straw man argument against him. --Cyclopia 18:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know about WP:WQA, or I would have brought it up there. The comment of Griswaldo is pretty typical of this whole thing. I do believe some Christian topics are not sufficiently neutral, but my basis for saying so is straightforward. Conflicts of interest and cultural bias should be brought to the attention of the reader. Misplaced Pages is not for the promotion of Christianity, or the Good News, or anything like that. These concerns are being met with a constant stream of accusations of being anti-Christian. I feel like I am being hated in the name of Christ...bleh. Noloop (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You are being opposed by people (like me) who are not Christian. Please don't play this kind of victim game here. My concern is with your perspective vis-a-vis scholarship in the area of religion and not anyone's religious faith.Griswaldo (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

@Cyclopia. Here you go -- one quote from Noloop and one from the second sentence of Christ myth theory.

Noloop

• That figure is a legend, mythic in the same sense that Odysseus or Rama are mythic. They may very well be based on individuals who really existed, but those real individuals didn't battle cyclops or winged monkeys. We could not say scholars agree that they did. This article doesn't exist to promote Christian doctrine: from a secular perspective, Jesus (as Messiah) is a legendary, mythic figure."

Christ myth theory

• Some proponents of the hypothesis argue that events or sayings associated with the figure of Jesus in the New Testament may have been drawn from one or more individuals who actually existed, but that those individuals were not in any sense the founder of Christianity.

If you don't see the similarity in these perspectives then I cannot help you.Griswaldo (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure Noloop has stated, at some point or another, that two plus two equals four. Does this disqualify him from working on math or related articles? Badger Drink (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Question for impartial folks: Is it legit to remove canvassing and mild personal attacks from a Talk page? Specifically, I removed this comment by Ari89 from the Jesus Talk page. It is 1) about a different (Jesus-related) article, 2) recruiting editors from Jesus to go oppose me on the other page, and 3) makes personal comments about me. I am sick and tired of dealing with this editor. Can I remove those comments from the Talk page or should I leave them in the record? Noloop (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It is acceptable canvassing. It asks for all input in a directly related article (Historical Jesus and Jesus) where the exact same thing is happening. For all those interested, this is what it states:

"For those interested, we are also having very similar problems on the Historical Jesus article with certain editors from above. For example, most recently, the lead was changed to:

"Nobel prize winner Bertrand Russell doubted the existence of Jesus: “Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all" Scholars Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy share the view, and argue that Jesus is just a derivative of pagan gods like Dionysus. The renowned scholar Joseph Campbell also compared the Jesus myth to the myth of Osiris." (emph. mine)

It seems that only sources of certain religious persuasion are being selectively prejudiced with epithets. All input appreciated. --Ari (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Lodging false complains about me doesn't achieve anything and it is quite boring by this stage. I am sick of finding an abusive comment by you every time I visit Misplaced Pages. --Ari (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I reverted Noloop's addition of the word 'legendary' as an epithet of Jesus in one place in the Jesus article, and he started a discussion on the talkpage in which it seemed to me that valid points were raised over (a) the purpose of the Jesus article compared to other articles on Jesus and (b) the importance of separating the historical components, from those parts of the account that are key but essentially belief-based. I am presuming there is back-history or interaction elsewhere with Ari89 and other contributors, as the dialogue turned tetchy quite quickly. For reference, I am religious but not of an Abrahamic faith, and believe there is rather better evidence for a historical Jesus than for a historical King Arthur, although there is no historical evidence that either ever walked on water:) Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Call for applications for Checkuser or Oversight permissions

The Arbitration Committee invites applications for Checkuser or Oversight permissions effective with the posting of this motion. The application period will close at 2359 hours UTC on 1 August 2010. For this round of appointments, only administrators will be considered. Candidates who ran in the May 2010 elections elections are encouraged to apply for consideration in this round of appointments. Administrators who applied for permissions in the round leading to the May 2010 election may email the Committee at arbcom.privilegeswikipedia.org by the close of the application period, expressing continued interest and updating their prior responses or providing additional information. New applicants must email the Committee at arbcom.privilegeswikipedia.org by 30 July 2010 to obtain a questionnaire to complete; this questionnaire must be returned by the close of the application period on 1 August 2010. The Arbitration Committee will review the applications and, on 13 August 2010, the names of all candidates being actively considered for appointment will be posted on-wiki in advance of any selection. The community may comment on these candidates until 2359 on 22 August 2010.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 17:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Image tagging by User:Sfan00 IMG

Sfan00 IMG (talk · contribs)

ShakespeareFan00 (talk · contribs)

Sfan00 IMG, a bot owned by SharkespearFan00, is mass tagging images for speedy deletion under F2 that are Commons images, but which have a category at en. His response to my question about a discussion authorizing this deletion was unsatisfactory .

There are a number of categories of free images on Misplaced Pages (see Category:Images by country, Category:Image galleries, Category:Misplaced Pages images by subject). Unless there has been a decision somewhere to delete these, their members should not be unilaterally deleted without discussion. --B (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly Sfan00_IMG, is not a bot, as has been explained on countless previous occasions.

Secondly, It was my understanding that images that were now on Commons whould be categorised on that site, and the local page removed. I therefore request evidence of the claims the aforementioned user is making. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Clarification - I'd like to see evidence that the response wasn't satisfactory... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, this account was blocked just last week after an issue with images, since resolved. Could you provide a link to the relevant policy page on these mass deletions? I don't want to go searching for it. Assuming there is a policy on this, I don't see a problem. N419BH 18:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• WP:CSD#G8 covers this as well as WP:CSD#F2. WP:CSD is policy, and I fail to see any reason not to delete these image description pages for non-existent images. The images are hosted on Commons. If you want to categorize them, do so there. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• (ec) (1) I assumed it was a bot, I apologize for my assumption. In any event, it's irrelevant - my concern is the edits themselves, not whether it was an approved bot action. (2) I gave you three big image categories with lots of subcategories. The fact that innumerable commons images are categorized means you shouldn't just delete them unilaterally without some rule or discussion affirming the deletion. You're asking me to prove a negative - that no such discussion exists. That's illogical. I'm asking you what your authority is for tagging these images - is there a discussion wherein you proposed tagging them? Is there a rule that you are relying on? F2 is for empty description pages. A page with a categorization is not empty. We don't just mass delete stuff without some kind of discussion. --B (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• There is a rule. G8: "Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page. such as ... image pages without a corresponding image". I don't see how this could be construed as controversial. It's covered by well established policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this only applies to somebody creating File:XYZ w/o uploading an image anywhere -- which would obviously result in an empty page. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 19:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see where it says that. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That's what "image-page without corresponding image" means. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 19:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Bingo - there is a corresponding image. That corresponding image just happens to be on Commons. In any event, this alleged "long standing policy" is clearly out of line with our current practices. --B (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)(I don't have any stance here either way, I'm just showing how the policy/rule referred to here is ambiguous; maybe it should include "...and and pages for images hosted at commons")Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 19:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• That's what you believe it means. That's not what it says. The pages Sfan's been tagging lack a corresponding image. That fits G8 perfectly. If someone wants to categorize the images, they can do so on Commons. In fact, such work is quite welcome on Commons where categorization is often lax. It doesn't need to be replicated here on en.wiki. If a given project wishes to categorize images, they can do so on Commons and place a link from their project to that category. There's plenty of articles on the project that have links to Commons categories. That's why we have {{Commons category}}, which is structured to direct a person to Commons. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

As I suggested, maybe that should be clarified at the policy-page, e.g. this discussion should be continued there. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 19:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know. The policy does say "This excludes any page that is useful to the project, and in particular: ... image pages or talk pages for images that exist on Wikimedia Commons." Seems very counterintuitive to me. What could we include here that shouldn't be included on Commons??? Maybe if there was a deletion discussion here. But, using a local page to categorize something on another project? That doesn't make sense to me. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The current efforts have been halted, until there is a CLEAR and SPECFIC CSD for 'local page for image now at commons'. Do you want me to start reverting F2 tags per B's logic that there needs to be a 'justification' disscussion? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

See here: Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#.22image_pages_without_a_corresponding_image.22. Hope that helps. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 19:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please roll them back until there is text added to the deletion criterion to support their deletion. --B (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree that this situation is covered by CSD G8 and F2. {{Db-imagepage}} (G8) says that it applies when "the image is on the commons and the page has no Misplaced Pages-specific information." F2 says "This also includes empty (i.e., no content) image description pages for Commons images." In the cases at hand, the image pages that have been CSD'd do have Misplaced Pages-specific information (categories, in particular). It may be that G8/F2 are intended to cover this case as well, but it sounds like it needs to be clarified. Tim Pierce (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Ed Wood's Wig

Ed Wood's Wig (talk · contribs) has been having problems over at Rasmussen Reports and he appropriately filed a RS/N and a RfC on 4 July to try to deal with it. Ed showed some good initiative and he was off to a fine start. Shortly thereafter, several users asked Ed to rewrite his initial RfC statement for neutrality per the RfC instructions and he refused. On the RS/N, he was asked to cite specific examples per the instructions posted at the top, and he again refused. On the same day, an interested user contacted him on his talk page, and for two weeks, nothing happened. On 18 July, I saw Rasmussen Reports listed at RS/N and I made two brief comments and then contacted Ed Wood's Wig to see if I could be of some assistance. As you can see from the subsequent discussion, Ed wasn't interested in helping resolve the dispute. After this dead end, I began making a series of non-controversial edits to see if I could at least lay a foundation for taking a stab at the problem. I cleaned up some section headings per MOS, removed a dead link, and tagged a reference as needing verification. I also rewrote a tiny bit for clarity, but I did not make any major changes in tone or content other than moving text into more useful sections. Ed, who had refused to work with other editors on either the RS/N, RFC, and with me on his talk page, then waltzed over to the article and reverted the changes I had made and those of User:Kenosis and restored his personal version from 17 July which was complete with bad links, MOS issues, and poor grammar. He was reverted by another user, and then reverted to his personal version yet again. So, to conclude this report, we have a user who refuses to participate in both a RS/N and an RFC he himself filed, refuses to work towards resolution about these issues on either the article talk page or his user page, and who continues to edit disruptively on the article itself. Other eyes on this issue would be appreciated. Viriditas (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, correctly stated. Seems there's a POV issue here. The article is far from perfect, even though Viriditas did an excellent job of cleaning uo the article. The Wig has been told numerous times that the article could be balanced better, and has been asked to discuss his concerns, but he simply refuses to. I really would like to AGF but I'm sensing an agenda in the edits the wig makes. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;

Well, this is just a lot of false stuff right here. I rewrote the article back on 1 July. After some edit warring back and forth, I took the discussion to the talk page, beginning here, where I noted which blogs where the problems. People then...asked me what blogs were the problem. When I pointed out the policy, they then told me I was wrong about the policy on blogs, which didn't really make a lot of sense, and I was accused of a "mass deletion" (which one can judge for themselves content-wise here - note that Kenosis thinks that this is "well-sourced"). That was going nowhere, so I opened an RfC regarding the blog sources. While one person did ask me to rewrite the RfC, which I did, it still wasn't enough for some people who felt the issue wasn't about the blog sources. Of course, that's exactly what I was requesting comment on - the use of self-published sources on the article. Kenosis and I eventually had a good conversation and made some headway, which he then abandoned. So I made the changes that he requested, restored the rewritten version with his changes since no one else had commented, edited, or made any note at talk for over a week, and here we are back at square one. Kenosis in particular has not edited the talk page of the article in well over a week, even with multiple requests for him to do so. Veriditas claims I'm not interested in helping resolve the dispute, but I'm more not interested in trying to make the RfC into something its not.

The problem here is simple - we have users who want to restore a version with poor, unreliable sources that have significant undue weight. Does this need administrator intervention? Maybe. I don't know if it will help or hurt the situation, but be sure to do your own research on the issue first before you take the word of Viriditas - or myself, for that matter. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You did not listen to the repeated requests of multiple editors asking you to fix both the RS/N and the RfC you filed. And, when other users attempt to engage you in discussion, you refuse to address the topic. Instead, we are left with you continuing to edit war, restoring your own personal pet versions of articles that have significant problems. What do you suggest we do about it? From what I can tell there also appears to be some ownership issues. Viriditas (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we solve the content dispute using reliable, not blog, sources. It's all I'm looking for. If you want me to assume good faith, don't give me evidence to the contrary. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no content dispute, and your bad behavior appears to span multiple articles, as I've just discovered. How do you propose we solve your behavioral problems? Do you agree to use the talk page to resolve matters and to stop edit warring with other users? Viriditas (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Enough dishonesty. The issue is solely this content dispute. When the people who are causing the problem want to play ball, it will be resolved. Will you help or continue to stand in the way? Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please retract your personal attack. There is not now and there never has been a content dispute between you and I. What there is, and there continues to be, is disruptive behavior by you on the talk page and in the article. For just the latest, ongoing examples, see Talk:Rasmussen_Reports#Excessive_tagging. You won't respond to repeated requests for discussion or for explaining your edits, yet you persist. This needs to stop. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Editors and administrators who wish to see who has been disruptive and who is not explaining their edits are free to go to the talk page and see for themselves. Here's a hint - it's not the person who started the section on blog sources, nor is it the person who request the RfC. Otherwise, this is a waste of time and space in this forum at this point, although some people want to make it one. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please suggest a solution. Any solution. You are basically saying "there is no problem". Is that accurate? Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

1) Using reliable, accurate sources 2) getting the people who are reverting blindly without regard for quality or discussion to do so. It's all I've looked for from the start. The issue with you and how you talk to other users is a separate issue. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I share your concern about sources, however, this incident report is about your behavior and more specifically, about your inability to respond to multiple discussions about the topic. There are open threads on multiple talk pages where you are having trouble communicating with other editors about your edits. This includes Talk:Rasmussen Reports, Talk:Jane Akre, and the reliable source noticeboard discussion linked above which has probably been superseded by the RFC discussion. The problem here isn't the sources or other editors. It's about your refusal to discuss your edits. Viriditas (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I never refused to discuss my edits. Be honest - most of the discussion is from me. You can distract from the issue by making it about me if you wish, but my behavior is angry, but not problematic. Your continued condescension toward me, however, must stop. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking at your "discussion" on the talk page right now. It's typical battleground evasion tactics. You are repeatedly asked specific questions about your edits but you avoid them, only to return with attacks upon the editors questioning you. My attention was spurred by your answers in the RS/N discussion. I honestly thought you misunderstood what was being asked of you, so I contacted you on your talk page, only to find that you were engaging in deliberate obstructionism. I admit, I was surprised, as I did not expect to find this. Now, as I look at your contributions, the pattern becomes very clear. This has been going on for some time. Viriditas (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This is frankly ridiculous. Quite the character assassination you're engaging in - if you think my over the top cooperation with people who are uninterested in discussion or collaboration is "deliberate obstructionism," I don't know what else to say. This is a waste of my time. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not "ridiculous". The obstructionism is a continuing problem. User:Jim62sch, User:Kenosis, and User:The Four Deuces have tried to discuss the topic with you on Talk:Rasmussen Reports and attempted to work with you on the RfC, but it hasn't gotten anywhere due to your obstructionism. User:Drono, User:24.41.28.120, and User:67.163.161.27 were concerned about your "viewpoint advocacy" on Talk:Jane Akre. As for the RS/N discussion, the same thing happened when User:Dlabtot, User:ElKevbo, and User:76.22.25.102 tried to get you to address the topic of reliable sources. More recently, you did the same exact thing with me, when I came to your talk page to ask you about the RfC and when I entered into several talk page discussions. When is the obstructionism going to end? Viriditas (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If engaging these people in discussion is obstruction, then yes, I'm the most obstructionist person here. I don't think the word means what you think it does, though. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 00:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you're using a different definition of the word "discussion", particularly how it relates to Misplaced Pages talk pages. We work towards resolution, meaning that our goal is not debate in and of itself, but improving the article. With that said, is there any particular article you are trying to improve at this moment? Viriditas (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The same article I've been working on for a month against the desires of a few people who refuse discussion. You know this. Stop acting. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Everyone is wrong, and you are the only editor who knows the truth. Is this an accurate representation of your view? Viriditas (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

As no one else has presented an argument in favor of their edits, I couldn't say for sure. I know I believe I am speaking the truth. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 01:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody "speaks the truth", as the "truth" is not attainable. From what I can tell on the talk page, you are speaking complete nonsense and you are doing it on purpose. For only one of many examples, I recently asked you to verify that a statement appears in a final published report as opposed to a statement that appears in an unpublished version of the report. Another editor checked and said he couldn't find it in the published version or that the data had changed prior to or after publication. You replied with, "The link is above for your perusal". But, clearly, there is no link to the published version I asked for "above for my persual". There is only a link to the unpublished paper that I clearly did not ask for. So, you either don't understand what is being said, or you are being purposefully obstructive as I have claimed. Which is it? Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Right now, you are lying. That is obstructive. Perhaps purposefully so. I will not engage in this nonsense further if you are not willing to remain honest, period. Make an effort, and then you'll have met me halfway. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you capable of understanding that when two people have different opinions, it does not mean that one of them is lying? From my experience with you, there seems to be either a reading comprehension problem or a deliberate attempt to obstruct multiple discussions. I am not certain which is correct. Viriditas (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Your accusations toward me are not ones of opinion, but accusations of things I factually have done that you claim I have not. Now, I am done with this charade. You'll win whatever points you want to win here, and that'll be that. No sweat off my back. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 01:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That contradicts what you wrote exactly four minutes later, where you write, "this battle will continue". So, at 01:35 you claim you are "done with this charade", and yet at 01:39 you claim "the battle will continue". Is that a lie or a difference of opinion? Viriditas (talk) 01:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at his edits, he appears to be WP:BOLD. AboundingHinata (talk) 01:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(ri) Guys, pick an indent and stick to it...this is very hard to read. OK? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 01:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, I'd not say bold, as "bold" mentions "Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems" (emphasis mine). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 02:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Specialkjamie

I'm sure PapaDrom (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is Specialkjamie due to this edit. I made an SPI at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/PapaDrom. Jamiecocopops (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thats him and so are you? Frostiesjamie (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Et tu? S.G. _ping! 19:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there an old song that goes, "Jamie, Jamie, Cocoa Pops"? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement regarding User:Mk5384

• Mk5384 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is on an indefinite civility restriction, where if after four blocks, starting at a week in length, the user still persists, the block may be upped to indefinite.

If the community would please check his block log, they would find not only has he been blocked for edit warring, this block has been changed to revoke talk page access for incivility/personal attacks, and was then upped to 2 weeks for gross incivility. After all of this, the user still would not stop, and chose to evade his block just to vandalize the original blocking administrator's userpage. If there are any doubts the IP is them, simply check the IP's contributions.

This user just can't seem to abide by our rules, and frankly doesn't seem to get it that their behavior is unacceptable here. Per their most recent 4 changes, today in their block log, starting for edit warring and being upped for personal attacks, I propose this user's block be upped to indefinite.— Dædαlus 19:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC) User notified, not that it matters since they cannot comment here.— Dædαlus 19:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I upped it to 6 months before I saw this, because I suspected that "indefinite" would be "infinite" given past contributions. YMMV.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Just as a point of order, the block was changed to revoke talk page access for gross incivility, but this was done at the same time as someone increased the block to two weeks for the same (see the timestamps). So that should really be read as an enforcement of one action, but with differing opinions on how to enforce. With Mk5384's actions today, I'm throwing my hands up. –xeno 20:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This is just more of the same. Those (Kww, for instance) that weren't happy that the ban proposal didn't carry have returned to finish the job. 6 months, 6 minutes, or 6 years-it makes no difference. Sarek had the opportunity to show some integrity, and tell Kww he had no right to block me. Instead, he chose to join this kangaroo court. If I'm blocked for 6 months, then that will simply mean 6 months of making trouble, instead of makijg productive edits. Well done! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alysheeba (talk • contribs) 20:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The block could have probably been lifted if it was talked out, instead you chose to resort to gross incivility and logging out to vandalize. Please start taking ownership of your own actions. –xeno 20:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed community ban

Since the editor has above threatened merely to vandalise whilst blocked (I have just had to revdelete a pretty vile comment from User:Kww's talkpage), I propose that the block be raised to a community ban. I think this is fairly straightforward and standard here. Note: I have altered the block from 6 months to indefinite. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Edit warring, personal attacks, vandalism, threats of vandalism and socking, and socking.. Not a net plus to the project. It would be a plus, to ban them however.— Dædαlus 20:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Today's actions were unacceptable. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 20:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - He's not doing us or this site any good while he's around. Simon 20:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Move to Support: What good will a full ban do? He's already suggested he will resort to sockpuppetry. Keep him indefinitely blocked and if he wants to reform later we can let him back in. N419BH 20:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • What good a ban would do is to take away the possibility of a sympathetic admin unilaterally unblocking him. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Indefinite is not forever, an indef block has the possibility of being over-turned much sooner than a ban, which requires community consensus to overturn.— Dædαlus 20:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Exactly. Why would we kick someone out forever? Indefinite ban them. If they sock, tag, and more reason not to unblock. I'm inclined to chalk this up as immaturity. Let them figure it out and then we can go from there. I don't think an admin would be dumb enough to unblock unilaterally with THAT log and those tagged socks. N419BH 21:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
    • We wouldn't need to do it, if it hasn't happened before, and it has happened before. A ban is the only way to ensure this user stays blocked.— Dædαlus 21:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
      • As Daedalus969 said above, he does not seem to get it. He continuously cycles between being blocked and being disruptive, all the while wasting hour, after hour, of other peoples time. --GabeMc (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Moving to Support, a more detailed history check shows he's been given more than enough WP:ROPE and proceeded to hang himself with it. N419BH 22:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - again so soon for the exact same stuff. Off2riorob (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - The user has been mostly engaged in battles of one kind or another since he started about 6 months ago - many of them over single sentences or single words in an article - followed up by vulgarity and persecution fantasies. Plainly, he does not understand the basic concepts here. And socking is the final straw. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - looking at his actions today, the attacks on KWW (hate to imagine how made the revdev one might be considering the ones still viewable in the history), the overall history, and his immediate jumping to socking again (including above) it would seem he has made it clear that he is not going to abide by Misplaced Pages's guidelines and policies nor does it reflect any willingness/ability to work in a cooperative system; his reaction to his most recent block just seals the deal. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 21:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

  FWIW, Kww has thick skin and is an admin so can view the attack anyway, I don't see a pressing need to keep it revision deleted. –xeno 21:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Oh, I know, but why give him the satisfaction of seeing his unpleasantness on show for all to see? Black Kite (t) (c) 21:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 5)Support indefinite ban per all above; he definitely isn't here to improve the 'pedia. -- Salvio ( ) 21:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support This place isn't for everybody and I think the evidence is out there that this editor is not compatible with our project. Sad to see as I know he had lots to contribute, but the ability to work with others is fundamental and he just doesn't seem to have it. --John (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support per above (all). Tbhotch 21:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - He's done enough today for a community ban. If he wants to explain himself, he can do so at a higher level, we should be done wasting time with him after today's actions. Dayewalker (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Mk5384 continues to disrupt Wiki articles by refusing to use the discussion page to gain consensus and by deleting or otherwise changing content without regard to sources. Hk5384 is not cut out for editing, as the vast majority of his actions do little more than waste an enormous amount off time for other editors. He has been given numerous chances by several editors and admins who did their very best to include, and mentor him. I can think of no other editor more deserving of an indefinate ban from the Wiki project. --GabeMc (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support unfortunately. I'm sorry to say it, but it seems that Mk has let his anger get the better of him again, and so soon after the interaction ban; until he can exhibit some self-control and maturity he's better off spending his time somewhere else. — e. ripley\ 21:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support per threats to sock if not unblocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Clearly here to disrupt, not help. Mauler90 _talk 21:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support The patience shown by so many admins has been truly impressive. But, look at the total time expended by dozens of editors over one editor that simply will not or cannot abide by the rules, no matter how many chances he gets and how many people try to help. And look at how he treats people that attempt to help him. At some point, the cost expended is simply too high.Objective3000 (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Per nom. We're all working here as adults and nobody should need that much supervision and "one more chances" from admins to edit. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Burpelson. Pilif12p :  Yo  22:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I'm disappointed, but not at all surprised, since I predicted this outcome a while ago. It's really too bad that MK seemingly cannot control himself. The ban has the advantage that, being difficult to rescind, if MK makes the effort some months down the line to convince the community to overturn it, it might be a good indication that he's serious about being a productive contributor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support this behaviour is beyond unacceptable and cannot be tolerated. I agree with Beyond My Ken if MK makes the effort in the future (at least 6 months) to convince the community that they've reformed it would be a positive step--86.42.129.84 (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment One of those IPs that voted, should that be OK? AboundingHinata (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
    • About as OK as an editor whose account was created two days ago, with not a single articlespace edit to their credit, pointing it out. And, BTW, this is trolling. Don't do that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support – We do not need more disruption by this user here. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I placed the banned notice on the user's userpage. Grandmasterka 02:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Reopened

• Temporary support A long time ago, this user was better. See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mary_Todd_Lincoln&diff=prev&oldid=339695702 Would encourage the person to return to Misplaced Pages only when she/he is willing to help out. Given the number of bad edits, I would recommend no less than a few months. RIPGC (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how a single diff, where the user doesn't even use an edit summary, shows how they were 'better'. They were banned for edit warring, gross personal attacks, sockpuppeting, and socking just to vandalize. A diff in the past that has no edit summary does not demonstrate how this user was 'good with others'.— Dædαlus 04:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ban too fast

I object. This is WAY too quick. So make this a community ban enacted after a rush job. The editor is bad but this is way too rushed. Even the Nazis at Nuremburg were not all hung in one day. The guy may be a Nazi but we are Stalinist for rushing to punish him. RIPGC (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad wrote on 17:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC) I agree that 24 hours should be a presumptive minimum for community-ban discussions, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, and that the discussion should go on longer if there is useful dialog still taking place (i.e., input from new commenters and/or people making new points, as opposed to the same small group of people making their points more and more stridently). ...Administrators are told that "blocking is a serious matter," and of course banning is as well, even more so.

I've never seen a ban discussion (including topic bans) that I thought went according to a fair, open, and reasonable process was written by II | (t - c) 07:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC) (ImperfectlyInformed).

As you can see, less than two months ago and on ANI. RIPGC (talk) 04:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have moved this comment to the bottom, where new comments go. As to the content of your comment, I have no comment on it, for the moment.— Dædαlus 04:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted my close and reopened per request. We can afford to wait 18 hours more or so... but I can pretty much guarantee it won't change anything. If consensus somehow magically changes, I'll... I'll... well, be astounded, for starters. Jclemens (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ha, ha, then vote "keep" in the AFD of Presidential election of 2084 (citing "I can pretty much guarantee that the election will take place!"! Others may vote "delete" citing WP:Crystal ball. Good work, Jc. RIPGC (talk) 04:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

My main idea is that if we railroad someone so quickly, even if they are very bad, it makes us bad. In protest, I will quit Misplaced Pages for a minimum of 48 hours. Others might use this as an opportunity to criticize me thinking that I am away from Misplaced Pages but that just makes them look bad. Guys, let's get this right! (paraphrasing Jimbo Wales). RIPGC (talk) 04:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Jclemens. Let the guy respond then ban him tomorrow (but have an open mind and don't just do it for show). RIPGC (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Too fast indeed - Extensive WP:AN discussions regarding community bans established a standard of 24 hrs bare minimum for community ban discussions, with a strong community urging towards 48 or more hours duration. We must allow time for discussion including those who are not logged in at the time. SNOW and SPEEDY are specifically not applicable to community ban discussions - admins may close early to truncate abuse of proposed banees, or due to other cases under normal admin discretion - but not to speed up the process absent other abuse.

I have requested that Grandmasterka revert the closure and ban notification and allow at least the requested time period.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

As a side note...

The user is now abusing their email. I suggest it be revoked. They basically emailed me a threat, warning me 'not to fuck with them, or else'. If you want the exact email, I can easily send it to you, simply email me in kind and I'll forward it to you from there.— Dædαlus 06:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've communicated with Daedalus969 privately, and we've come to a conclusion that, for right now, we should leave email enabled. There needs to be a more severe and persistent pattern of disruption which there hasn't been, and that email is currently the only way for Mk5384 to appeal the imminent ban. Moreover, if we yank email at this point, it's likely that many will forget the email revocation (as most indef-blocks, talk page revocations, etc. are basically "set it and forget it") as a result. –MuZemike 07:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

For those of you who like to assume bad faith.. sorry, but this is indeed the case here. I am in agreement with Mu.— Dædαlus 07:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Dragon Quest VI board

I recently posted news about dragon quest vi with a source, and just because people dont like me or my entry people are taking it down without justification.

I would like them to stop. and or have my entry locked into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealth20k (talk • contribs) 21:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:EDITWAR. While you're at it, read WP:BOOMERANG as well. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 21:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 3RR per a certain football player who shall not be named. --Smashville 21:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Zinedine Zidane? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

*cough cough* I wonder why so many pages link to this redlinked page? And oh my, that's a large and convoluted deletion log. Cough. -- ۩ Mask 22:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I would call it "BLP panic". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, was being rhetorical, I took from your Zidane comment in small type (to make it an aside) that you were actually confused by what it references. -- ۩ Mask 00:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No, in fact I was among the first here to start using it. :) But the issue basically is that the guy's in prison and it's not funny anymore. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Still funny. Still apt. In good taste? Debatable, and I suppose they chose to err on the side of caution. -- ۩ Mask 02:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Only 24 hours for that? That user has had an extensive history of edit warring on multiple video game articles. IMO it should have been a longer block. –MuZemike 22:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Ryan kirkpatrick back again...again?

Per my recent post on this noticeboard, barely a week ago: looks like he's back again, editing as User:Belfast 19. (A quick glance at his only article to date, Thai Airways International Flight 601, suggests that it might be the same person, given the style of the article.) Should this be taken to WP:SPI? Sorry to be so naive, but I'm a babe in the woods when it comes to ANI. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well we just closed his SPI an hour ago so he could be going around the rangeblock. If you do do an SPI, make sure that you request a checkuser check so we can figure this out for good. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Right - it's late here, and I may be busy tomorrow morning, but I'll look into it sometime later in the day. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

There are no rangeblocks for Ryan kirkpatrick, due to many rangeblocks needing to block virtually everyone on British Telecom being needed. O Fenian (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandal IP 123.49.60.50

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

This ip is involved with vandalism in the article Avro Keyboard. Check here----Cool BD (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, in these cases, you should issue a level 1 warning ({{uw-vandalism1}}) and then, if they continue, escalate, until you reach a level 4 warning ({{uw-vandalism4}}); at that point, if they continue notwithstanding, report them to WP:AIV. For the moment, there's nothing for an admin to do here. -- Salvio ( ) 01:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Notified IP. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Administrator BrownHairedGirl's badgering of User:Boleyn

There might be something going on with administrator User:BrownHairedGirl and her relentless attacks on User:Boleyn. It really is time someone looked at how badly this looks and get BrownHairedGirl to back down, go away, redirect her angers.

If User:Boleyn's edits really are a problem, the community can take care of her edits in the proper location. However, at this point, BrownHairedGirl's behaviour is a far bigger problem than Boleyn's edits, and BrownHairedGirl's behaviour appears to be escalating.

Last 250 User talk contribution of BHG

Please stop this. This is an encyclopedia, and User:Boleyn is not BHG's personal punching bag. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 02:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I tried to sift through some of the edits but wasn't sure what I was looking for or at. Do you think you can provide some specific examples? Basket of Puppies 03:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Boleyn could stop creating unsourced stubs? That would be a good first start. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression this was already discussed. Wasn't there some kind of restriction put in place, banning BHG from interacting with Bol?— Dædαlus 04:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I was wrong, they weren't.— Dædαlus 04:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a vendetta. Looking at the edits by BrownHairedGirl to User talk:Boleyn on 18 and 19 July, anyone would be struck by: the repeated hammering by multiple repetitive postings; the assumption of bad faith (repeated); the misuse of reference to an editing guideline by inaccurate reading; a blatant personal attack; misuse of an edit summary to back up the personal attack; disregard of the comments of three concerned outside opinions; lack of anything constructive to say, and interference with a thread that offered some way forward. See Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Wikihounding. I have gone to User talk:BrownHairedGirl and been met with nothing but combative self-justification. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Diff for personal attack? Exxolon (talk) 10:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Here: "experienced but lazy editor", repeating a slur from the past, in fact. The same diff shows misdirection as to "verifiability", considering that much unsourced but verifiabkle material is in WP. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I made the point last time that calling an editor with over 100,000 edits "lazy" was disingenous at best. Exxolon (talk) 10:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

And I stand by it as fair comment on the stub-creation work of an editor who repeatedly creates sub-stubs which require cleanup by others because they are either unreferenced, factually inaccurate, miscategorised, or misleading. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, an attempt to damage a reputation, rather than explain the situation properly, or move ahead on any front. Whatever is said below about Boleyn, and the stubs are not "ideal stubs" if people are wanting to make a point there, BHG has not established that Boleyn's edits violate policy, despite many arguments, and BHG's conduct has simply been outrageous in the past couple of days, violating several conduct policies. At minimum BHG should be told that, frankly, you are not treating Boleyn as a colleague, and therefore you are the wrong person to be addressing the issues here: posting carping messages to her talk page every few hours looks more like an attempt to drive an editor away than to resolve anything. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I really wasn't sure what to do about this, as it's been going on for a while. I was taking information on notable people from different Misplaced Pages articles, e.g. constituency articles, and collating it into a stub. I would then look for a reference and add it if possible. Since BHG started her campaign, I have gone back over most of the 700-odd articles I've created, seeing if I can add more to them, and I'm continuing to do this. I have merged my watchlists as this was the reason given by BHG for giving me an indefinite block, and now use the one log-in. I have also stopped creating stubs if I can't find a reference to go with the information I've found in existing, and usually very accurate, Misplaced Pages articles.

Even with references to the ODNB, some articles I've created have been nominated for speedy deletion by BHG on grounds of brevity, so referencing was presumably not the main problem for BHG. At the moment, she seems to check through all my contributions, looking for mistakes/things that could be improved and then sending me a long and usually rude message each time she spots something. I am trying to stop replying to her as I have answered all her points before, but the messages just keep coming, despite a recent ANI about her behaviour towards me. BHG is on here pretty much literally 24/7 and has made a great contribution to Misplaced Pages. Her time could be better spent returning to that than stalking and insulting other editors. Boleyn (talk) 08:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. The sort of content Boleyn has been creating like James Chaine is being attacked. Brown Haired Girl has persisted on tagging unversally accepted articles from the Oxford National Dictionary of Biography as non notable and even trying to speedy delete her efforts. To me is looks like petty victimization and deplorable behaviour from an admin. Nobody is obligated to add a single thing to[REDACTED] so to yell at somebody who is generating traditional, much needed content in whatever form is a little off. Dr. Blofeld 10:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Dr B, that comment on the DNB is simply untrue, and I wish you would stop repeating the same falsehood.

AFAIK, the only DNB-referenced article which I tagged for notability was Sir Henry Russell, 1st Baronet, and at the time it was not referenced to the DNB.

However, I have tagged several others for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A10, which is not related to notability.

As the James Chaine, it would be more helpful if you linked to the article as Boleyn created it, rather than the article after I and others had expanded and corrected it ... and if instead of hysterically saying that the article was "attacked", you noted that the concern I expressed to Boleyn was about the apparent unreliability of the source, a web-forum. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• There's an easy way to make the issue go away, and that's for Boleyn to stop creating unreferenced sub-stubs that often contain less information than is contained in other articles and/or fail WP:CSD#A10. As soon as she stops doing that, there will be no need for anyone to "badger" her to fix the issues she creates. Especially when given the subject matter that most of her articles are about, there should never be a problem with referencing them. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Copy-and-pasting comments I made earlier on BHG's talk page:

I don't think it's personal for BHG: I think the despair about Boleyn's editing is probably shared by other editors who regularly sort stubs or otherwise interact with Boleyn's work. For example yesterday, I came across this. In the course of one short stub this very experienced editor manages to (a) link Plowden to a dab page; (b) create a red-link for Baron Plowden (a later editor created a redirect which links back to this page, the only sensible place for this link to point - so there was no point making it a link in the first place); (c) create duplicate references to one source. She added this person to the Plowden dab page, with no dates or description. All this would be fine from a new editor, but this massively experienced editor should not be leaving so many loose ends for other people to tidy up. (Yes, I got hooked and spent too much time yesterday creating not only Plowden, Shropshire but also Bridget Plowden). She obviously does a huge amount of work on Misplaced Pages, but I and BHG, and probably other editors too, wish she would improve the quality of her work even if at the expense of some of the quantity. PamD (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

And I've just noticed that she added Category:Barons in the Peerage of England which I think is only for early titles - I'm not an expert in this area, but I think more recent titles are at Category:Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, and a note there says to use Category:Life peers instead for such people. PamD (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

BHG should consider alternative ways of handling this. Regardless of the merits of her stance, it's coming across as a personal crusade/vendetta. Suggestions :-

1. Open a user conduct RFC and get wider community input on Boleyn's editing style and stub creation
2. If BHG feels Boleyn's edits require any admin attention or action, report here for a neutral admin to evaluate and act if required.
3. If there is an appropiate Wikiproject devoted to stubs, let them as a group take a look at Boleyn's edits and come up with evaluations/proposals.
4. If BHG feels that experienced editors should be held to higher standards on stub articles - propose this policy through the correct channels.

Additional suggestions welcomed. Exxolon (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Response from BHG

Boleyn's comment that "I really wasn't sure what to do about this" is at very best disingenuous, because she knows exactly what to do about it. She should stop creating:

1. pointless sub-stubs, which do nothing but duplicate some of the content of an existing article, and are therefore speedy-deletable per WP:CSD#A10
2. shorts stubs which despite their brevity are full of problems and require cleanup even if they are not expanded, because they are one or more of: wholly unreferenced; factually inaccurate; misleading; referenced to an unreliable source; miscategorised.

She's quite right that I have better things to do with my time than pointing out the errors in her contributions (such as completing a draft list of MPs elected in 1832, in which I am experimenting with a new format that probably doesn't quite work). However, as well as creating new content myself, I also routinely monitor a series of categories of other articles in the areas I edit (esp UK MPs), to look for anything that needs correction or cleanup. At this point, by overwhelming majority of newly-created or newly-expanded articles in that area requiring cleanup are the large numbers of sub-standard sub-stubs created by Boleyn. I am not the only editor to have identified this problem (see comments on my talk from Choess and PamD). I raise the issues with Boleyn precisely because I have better things to do with my time than to cleanup articles created at high speed by an editor who prioritises quantity over quality.

This is NOT stalking. WP:HOUND says clearly: "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles." That's what's happening here: related problems are occurring on multiple articles.

The messages have kept on coming because the problems have continued to recur. For example, despite the problems having been raised by me a month ago, and discussed at ANI, Boleyn created over the weekend two new wholly unreferenced stubs: 1& 2.

User:IP69.226.103.13 is quite right to point out that "this is an encyclopedia", because that's the core of the matter here. Misplaced Pages is not a blog or myspace: it's an encyclopedia, whose purpose is to publish verifiable, reliably-sourced information for readers.

That's why articles which waste the reader's time by adding nothing at all to the content of the articles from which they are linked are and speedy-deletable: they are pointless, and waste the reader's time.

That's why articles which are wholly unreferenced are tagged as such, because they do not meet our most basic quality standards, which readers have a right to expect that we editors will strive to uphold.

That's why articles which assert untruths or mislead the reader are problematic, because we create this encyclopedia for the readers.

And that's why I routinely use RelatedChanges to monitor a series of categories of articles in the areas I edit, to look for new articles and for potentially problematic changes. In the course of reviewing those categs a month ago, I found several article created by Boleyn, which led me to review her contribs and find that they were the tip of a large iceberg, so I made this post raising the problem with her. Her lack of response and her continued creation of factually untrue stubs (such as James Christopher Flynn, comment here) led that situation to escalate to an ANI thread in which there was widespread concern about Boleyn's make-work sub-stubs.

After that, I took a break from monitoring her work, but when I checked again I found serious problems continuing. Since then Boleyn has repeatedly defended one-liners-pasted-from-a-dab-page by saying that anyone else is free to expand them ... and when factual and other errors in the stubs she creates are pointed out, she insists that she doesn't want to know about the problems. If she doesn't see the problems herself, and doesn't want to be informed about them, then how is she either going to correct the errors or avoid repeating them?

There has indeed been some progress since I started trying to tackle this, but the fact that even after four weeks of scrutiny, she was still creating wholly unreferenced new stub articles over the weekend (1& 2) shows how far there is to go.

That's why I have ceased to assume good faith wrt Boleyn. Per WP:AGF, "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence".

I think it's also important to correct some of the untruths being stated by a few editors on Boleyn's talk page. For example, my concern about one-sentence articles referenced to the DNB is not (except in one case) notability, but the fact that they are waste of reader's time, but create a pointless blue-link from an existing article yet say less about the topic than that other article does. That's why WP:CSD#A10 exists (and no, AFAIK I had no hand in the creation of A10).

At this point, I'm quite satisfied that my notes to Boleyn about her latest additions document very well how her contributions fall below the standards of quality required for an encyclopedia, so I do not intend to add any more. The problem is clearly documented, and at this point a community decision of some sort is required.

As far as I can see, there are two issues for the community to decide

A) Is it acceptable for Boleyn to churn out large numbers of new articles which either add nothing to existing articles, or have persistent failings of quality (unreferenced, factually inaccurate, referenced to unreliable sources)

B) When an editor creates hundreds of abysmal sub-stubs, apparently prioritising quantity (see her articles-I-created counter) over quality, should other editors:

1. ignore the mess, and leave readers to be misled by untruths or have their time wasted by following link to articles where the two major facts asserted are untruejust a bare factoid lifted from a list; or
2. devote huge amounts of time on each of these rapidly-created sub-stubs: checking the references which the creator didn't bother to check, then correcting the errors and misleading statements, and say nothing to the editor concerned
3. Inform the editor of the problems in the hope that they will try to avoid such errors in future.

This is a serious issue. Boleyn creates so many stubs, so full of problems, that another editor could easily spend many hours every day doing nothing but clean up the newly-created stubs of this one contributor. My understanding has always been that every editor takes responsibility for the quality of what they add to wikipedia, and has a duty of care not to introduce factual errors or mislead readers. If I am mistaken in that, then I'd like to be directed to the relevant policy or guidelines, or to see some policy or guideline created out of this discussion which clearly states that editors are free to churn out large qauntities of sub-standard new articles, and should not be reproached for this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You fail to appreciate, it seems, that your chucking your weight around and insulting another editor is damaging (concretely, in real time) to Misplaced Pages, while substandard stubs have always been with us, and always will. I support the idea that your conduct (including use of admin tools) would properly be examined in a conduct RfC. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Black-magic1234

My old account blackmagic1234 before I had a identity change got hit by my ex friend a few days ago

(cur | prev) 21:51, 15 July 2010 Higgys1987 (talk | contribs) (empty) (Removed template) (undo)

(cur | prev) 09:52, 2 April 2010 Blackmagic1234 (talk | contribs) (11 bytes) (←Created page with '{retired}')

And I figure my ex friend would deny this and say a friend did it and all that other bla bla stuff.

But I figure 142.162.21.46 would be a match to that account that edited my old account.

I'm only saying.. anyways bye

--Moukity (talk) 04:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe nothing but take a look at 81.92.19.146

While on recent changes patrol I came across an edit for this user because it was tagged for removing references. The edit summary was pretty rude; "revert vandalism by crazy aristocratic useless user." The editor he was referring to, User:Bkonrad, seems to be offline at the moment but refers to this IP user as a sock of a banned in his edit summaries. Not knowing what the background is or who the IP might be a sock of, it seemed a good idea to bring it here. The IP is quickly racking up a ton of edits that have been reverted before and I don't know enough about the topics in question to have a clue what is going on. I don't know if this is a content dispute, an actual sock, or some other issue (or all of the above). But it seems obvious to me it's going to boil over into something nasty with a quickness. I'm off to drop the ANI notice now. Millahnna (mouse)talk 04:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing unsourced content introduction in the, 2006 Lebanon War

As I said in a recent ANI post, there is an ongoing issue with editors trying to change the Results section of the 2006 Lebanon War without discussions or any corroborating sources. The UNOSAT sources cited show a situational map that differs sharply with the revision being pushed, and none of the other editors chose to show up to discuss the issue in the ANI despite my notifying all of them. This makes me doubt that they have any interest whatsoever in discussing the content issue, utilizing objective sources like the UN publications or commision reports, or being impartial.

I would strongly request that moderators/administrators examine the information and attempted changes that seriously compromise the article's neutrality and verifiability. The unsourced changes away from the older version are being accomplished at the moment by a group of three editors who seem to be forcing the change through due to the lack of anyone else's regular editing in the article, and due to the politically charged nature of the topic so that attracts partisans who occupy the page as it's defacto owner(s).

All the Relevant information is still in the just archived page right here, and the situation has remained essentially unchanged, with my requests for the other editors to discus the issue being unanswered, so I belive that administrators looking at the issue might be the only viable option. Thank you, and appologies in advance for my formating and or protocol errors - Freepsbane (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this looks like a problem brewing. I've left a message on the talk page in a possibly futile attempt to start discussions. The article is covered by the discretionary sanctions (although that isn't apparent from the header..I'll fix that) so people should know better than to edit war and add policy non-compliant material. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If you don't mind my prattling on sir, I would suggest that since whatever mention of the tactical/operational situation at the close of the conflict is so contentious to place in the infobox, that the consensus version that doesn't mention(The mention of UN forces moving in should still stay) such be used and whatever information constructed around sources(hopefully from reports linked to mostly impartial groups) be placed in the lower sections of the article. Also would discretionary sanctions mean that reverting is restricted? -Freepsbane (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess that's a question for the talk page but since you asked, I agree, these infobox 'result' attributes are prone to pointless edit wars and advocacy in the Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles. It should just say 'Ceasefire, provisioned by UNSC Resolution 1701.' and leave it at that, a fact over which there is no dispute. Everything else can go in the article body where it doesn't have to be crushed down to a soundbite. You can read about what is expected of editors editing articles covered by the sanctions here. I'm not an admin so you'll still need admin assistance if the behavior continues. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

BHG is greatly improving Boleyn's work. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Amalthea's block of User:Grey eclipse

I'll ask this here since I don't know where else to go. User:Amalthea blocked User:Grey eclipse with a block message of ""Block evasion: Please don't" and without a comment on their talk page. Amalthea currently has a notice that they're busy in real life, and hasn't edited in almost a week. Going through his edits (and there's a lot of edits), looking at the exact time of the block, I don't see this editor mentioned here, here or here. Does a checkuser or someone know what the issue was? I don't want to unblock an editor without the blocking admin's support but in my opinion, this is a terrible way to ensure other people know what in the world is going on. I would email and ask but I have issues with how the block was performed as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I notice that the immediately preceding block made by Amalthea on 9 June was made with an identical block summary: India brown (talk · contribs) which suggests the two blocks are related. Doesn't make the situation any clearer though... CIreland (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be prudent to ask Amalthea. As he is a checkuser, I'd presume it was related to an SPI. I know I've seen CUs forget to list all sleepers found in an SPI report or to mark who the parent was on the blocked editors page. I do agree though, that neither edit summary is particularly useful, and should have, at min, included who the blocked editor was who was evading. I can't think of any valid reason not to indicate that. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 05:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You should have emailed and asked. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 05:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a dick move for you to whine here in favor of some sock and you should the bit for being a deletionist jackass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.190.162.233 (talk) 05:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be missing a verb, but good for you nonetheless. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that it may be a {{checkuserblock}}, but perhaps Amalthea should clarify (doesn't have to go into any detail) so that admins know not to consider unblocking themselves as persuant to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Statement on checkuser blocks? –MuZemike 07:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Both accounts are Mk5384 (talk · contribs). They were created during an earlier block, when he threatened to sock. He only created the two accounts but didn't actually evade his block, and I was still hopeful that Mk5384 might try to edit within community norms, be so I didn't feel it was necessary or constructive to publicize the relation at the time. We're past that point now, obviously, so I've tagged them. And I'll be more explicit next time with blocks based on checkuser evidence.
Amalthea 07:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Declined the unblock request. -- Ricky81682 (talk)

User:Дунгане and questionable edits

I reverted User:Дунгане's edits to Second Sino-Japanese War entirely, as I couldn't tell if there were any good ones mixed in with the bad ones. User:Дунгане added a doctored photo which had been removed as it is a phony. User:Дунгане regularly accuses other longterm editors of vandalism. User:Дунгане removes citations; all of which makes User:Дунгане's edits look very suspicious. I notified this user, instead of modifying their behavior, they continue to cry "vandalism" and accuse me of bias on my talkpage. I request an admin to have a look.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Diffs would probable ensure a faster response. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

As to the photo, did you mean File:Japanese soldiers pow.jpg? If so, I think it's prudent to wait on commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Japanese soldiers pow.jpg before making accusations that's forged especially since Дунгане doesn't seem to have anything to do with that image and especially when your explanation is just "clearly doctored" without anything more specific. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Louise Porter

This article was nominated for deletion as its original title Dr Louise Porter and the result was delete (see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dr Louise Porter). However in the process someone changed its name to Louise Porter so it wasn't deleted properly. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Done, but I think you could have just informed User:Cirt, the closing admin. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think of that. Thanks though. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I had half a mind to just post a message on his talk page starting with "You dun goofed". ;) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Rangeblock IP's on William Gallas page

I'd like to request a rangeblock for a few IP's. Many different IP's have added this same vandalism to William Gallas. Now I cannot believe that all the IP's who do that are all different people who have the lucky coincedence in adding the same vandalism as many others. I cannot really mention all the names here because unfortunatly I don't have time but if you look down the history at the IP edits that either me or others have tagged as vandalism and have added Panithinakos without a source being delibertaly disruptive then you'll have the ones who ought to be given a rangeblock. It's quite a problem so much so that despite it having PCP, it's required 2 periods of Semi-protection to stop it. I fear that once this current protection is lifted, they will continue to be disruptive. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Might be worth using pending changes instead. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I already mentioned that it's already under pending changes and that doesn't seem to deter him/them. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Doh, that'll teach me to scan read. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries. So, what's going to happen with the problem then? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's no chance of rangeblocking all those dynamic ranges, unfortunately; they're far too wide. Most are in Greece, but not all. Unfortunately this sort of thing is fairly common given newspaper speculation over transfers in the summer. I would suggest keeping the semi-protection up until Gallas does decide where he's going to play next year, at which point the disruption will stop anyway. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Penalty shootout (football) unilateral move

I would like to draw the attention of the above page to this noticeboard as it has been unilaterally moved by an Adminstartor after being stable for well over two years. If there was an apetitie to change the name again then I believe that there should be a discussion again. While I agree the original user acted unilaterally that was well over two years ago. Can the page please be moved back over the redircts to the original pages and allow for a discussion to take place which can then have a change of title if desired. If this is not reverted it will aloow admins carteblanche to do what they like to stable articles without any oversight. There are also now a large volume of reditects to correct due to this unilateral move of the page, which are unecessary and only due to the selfish actions of one administrator. if the Admin had come along two years ago or someone else had noticed two years ago then fine, but no one said a word so the original user in effect got away with it, but just becasue one user did so two years ago dosent mean another user and specifcally not an admin should be getting away with it.--Somali123 (talk) 10:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

To request a page move, you should go to WP:RM. Salvio ( ) 10:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have bough it here to complain about the nature of the admin who moved the page please can you comment on the substance of what i have written above and not just the move request.--Somali123 (talk) 10:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC).

The complaint would seem to relate to this move . Exxolon (talk) 10:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Notified User:Jan Hofmann about this discussion, assuming this is the issue being brought up. Exxolon (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, I can only assume the user moved the page over preious redirects because they preferred the title

It seems like an uncontroversial move, so it can be done prior to discussion. The page was moved almost a month ago by User:Jan Hofmann, who is not an administrator, so you're both wrong and really late to the party. Characterizing the move as "selfish" is really unnecessary and I see no indication that this was indeed a selfish act besides it being a unilateral one.--Atlan (talk) 10:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I also ask how a non admin moved pages over redirects then as I was under the impression only admins could do that. Also so what if it is nearly a month it is not the two years the preious title was maintained for after it was changed. That two year peropd appears to make that title alot more stable than this one.--Somali123 (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Non-admins being able to move over redirects is now stupid as it allows for a whole can of worms to be created which is messy and resultant in discussions like this.--Somali123 (talk) 11:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Article history relating to this. Created in March 2004 under title Penalty shootout (football). Moved April 2008 to Penalty shootout (association football). Moved back in June 2010 to Penalty shootout (football). Talk:Penalty_shootout_(football)#Requested_move back in 2008 does not seem to support the original 2008 move. So it can be argued Jan Hofmann undid an against consensus move, albeit over 2 years after the event. Exxolon (talk) 11:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This is because for over two years no one says a word about the title and then along comes this user and just moves it. At least the first user attempted some form of discussion, even if they did ignore it. This user was purly selfish and unilateral.--Somali123 (talk) 11:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Please can you stop calling the user "selfish" until they've had a chance to see this discussion and comment. As our No Personal Attacks policy states, "Comment on the content, not the contributor" - we don't know Jan's motives for this move, let's wait and see what he/she says. Calm down - this is not a big deal. Exxolon (talk) 11:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards