Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:04, 3 January 2011

• 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:SqueakBox and paid editing (again)

Edit war

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved – he gone --Jayron32 03:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

{{resolved|Fluoride article semi-protected.--] (]) 19:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)}}

User Yobo violated the Edit War Rule and should be blocked. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Yobol&oldid=404856495 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Yobol&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Water_fluoridation_controversy&action=history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.36.251.228 (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Formal community ban of the fluoride spammer

The above report is by the single-purpose editor currently disrupting articles on the topics of water fluoridation and WikiLeaks, and Yobol appears to have been properly reverting their unwanted additions. I suggest that we consider a formal community ban for the individual(s) behind this mess, since they have gone from spamming and disruption to, now, attempting retaliatory interference against an editor who reverted them. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support for ban. This individual (or group enlisted to help them), collectively linked to User:Freedom5000 / User:Wikidrips, have been a real pain and waste of our time. The list of IP hopping socks is getting longer, the DUCK behavior the same, and they exhibit zero ability to learn. We're dealing with real fanatics here. All the IPs need longer blocks. 14 days doesn't cut it. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• BTW, let's be careful not to publicly describe exactly which of their ducklike behaviors give them away. We don't want them to improve their block evasion techniques. They have several identifying marks, but one is very unique. I've never noticed it before, and they do it often. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Should we start handing out rangeblocks? We've done it for less than this... KrakatoaKatie 03:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• The WP:EDITFILTER may be a better option. His tells are predictable enough for someone knowledgeable (read: NOT ME) to write an edit filter to catch him just about every time. One-note trolls like this are easy enough to filter out. --Jayron32 03:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support ban. Thanks to SarekOfVulcan for the quit protection of the page; this editor has shown he/she has no intention of following Misplaced Pages norms. I'm surprised he hasn't been banned yet, with all the socks he/she's created. This section may not get much attention with the resolved header, though. Yobol (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I've performed some header surgery to hopefully draw community participation here. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yes I'm tired of this flouride crap going around. Revert and block on sight. ThemFromSpace 00:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I notice that the SPI has been closed, probably because of lack of use. Actually there is very much activity by socks. The latest: User:66.36.251.192, User:64.120.47.10, User:66.36.251.228, ad libitum. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - sap and impurify his precious bodily fluids. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support absolutely. KrakatoaKatie 03:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Jocular Decline (read: support) - Dental fluoridosis is a major problem where I live, due to the unhealthy fluoride content in the water. And I promised to do some meatpuppeting for perfect strangers. Grand High Poobah of Western Bastardia (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Incapable of understanding how Misplaced Pages works, or why acting like a total fruitcake is unlikely to get an argument across. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support although noted the above suggestion of adding something-or-other to the editfilter if it's practical. Also, is someone very gently trolling them with today's featured picture, which is apparently formed "from the oxidation of fluorite ore deposits" ? :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Spamming is not tolerated on Wkipedia. This editor has lost all of our patience and has caused enough madness to us users. With that said, enough is enough for this user. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I'm tired of reverting the edits. As soon as one article is semi'd, they move on to another one. ~ Matthewrbowker 06:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose – do you folks realize that in addition to fluoridating water, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk ... ice cream. Ice cream, folks, children's ice cream?!? –MuZemike 08:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• I pretty much fail at quotes... Nakon 08:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Hilarious! You hit the spot. This spammer fails to distinguish between science fiction and medical fact. Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb is pretty funny. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Dang it, leave it to MuZemike to steal my quotes! - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note - The fluoride spammer. Really? Do we actually need a vote for this? No one is going to seriously oppose this, so end the charade, enact the "ban" and it's over. "Next!" Doc talk 08:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not under any illusion that there will be real opposition to this. I mostly just want to dot the i's and cross the t's so that nobody has to worry about technically being liable for edit warring when they revert this guy. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - due mainly to fluoride lowering my IQ - but also because the editor in question has clearly shown that they aren't interested in furthering the aims of the Project. Shot info (talk) 09:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Community ban for User:Freedom5000 and his fringe POV pushing socks. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Community Ban. Tofutwitch11 16:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Alert. Now they are canvassing sysops for reinstatement! See contribs. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Canvassing arbcom is more like it. T. Canens (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Bye Bye! Phearson (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Misplaced Pages needs less cranks, not more. If all you've done is promote a fringe theory that would embarass the hell out of a birther, you're not liable to contribute anything of value to Misplaced Pages. (Sad thing is, thanks to the Net, conspiracy theories are a 50-cent piece a grassy knoll.) —Jeremy 06:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support community ban. I strongly support this -- I've had to deal with several socks of this user in a few incidents, and it's clear that the user has no intentions of productively editing. I like how AndyTheGrump put it: "Incapable of understanding...why acting like a total fruitcake is unlikely to get an argument across". The addition to the edit filter sounds like a good idea to me, though I lack the technical knowledge to actually do it. — GorillaWarfare 06:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• support community ban. Enough is enough when we have to have a formal community ban discussion for someone. It's simple, be a POV pusher and not follow simple rules, you're not going to be allowed to collaborate and help others build a Misplaced Pages. Thanks for your help though. Dusti 16:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Unarchiving discussion for purposes of formal closing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we can call this one. Do I have to slap my hand on the ground three times like they do in professional rasslin'? Consider him formally banned, for whatever its worth. --Jayron32 03:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Continued harassment by User:Pieter Kuiper

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive658#Stalked for a long time
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive657#SergeWoodzing
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive618#Confusing behavor from User:SergeWoodzing - is this truly correct?
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive518#Pieter Kuiper
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive606#User:Pieter Kuiper

As seen here and below that entry, the user continues to stalk and harass me with rancorous retaliatory actions even though I have asked him several times to stay off my talk page and leave me alone. I reported his personal agenda before here but not one administrator tried to help us stay away from each other. Mr Kuiper needs to stop harassing me and somebody neutral needs to tell him to leave me alone. The latest twist is that he uses frivolous deletion requests as an excuse to show me that he does not respect my wishes to stay off my talk page. He is not doing anything particularly valuable or constructive for WP, just trying his damndest to irriate. Being extremely headstrong and tedious, though not very good at English or knowledgeable about older English literature, he is almost always proven wrong eventually about the issues he brings up regarding English exonyms and such, if the editors he attacks and annoys have the time and energy, and patience with his constant sarcasm and ridicule, to research them and reply. I am losing it. It is typical for him to flaunt his disrespect for others. The basic current problem is that he is blocked on Commons, where I supported his blocks this year along with several other editors, so now he has come here to cause trouble instead. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have a general rule that whenever an editor starts with the STAY OFF MY TALK PAGE stuff, he is the source of the problem. I find little here to make me change my mind. If the deletion requests were "frivolous", it's doubtful that the AFDs would result in a consensus to delete.

  That said, User:Pieter Kuiper is indeed banned on Commons for harassment of other editors, which means that we need to look at this more closely than I would normally bother with. SergeWoodzing, can you provide some evidence of actual harassment done on English Misplaced Pages? Not nominating articles for deletion that you wish had been kept, but actual harassment?—Kww(talk) 01:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If it is not harassment to stalk people inter-wiki and then put sarcasm, ridicule, personal insults, belittlement, mud-slinging in almost every edit summary (see them from those and previous dates) and talk page comment (see them), then I am wrong in using that word. I didn't think "a good contributor" ..."usually basically right about the underlying issues" (comment below) was allowed to behave like that. Maybe I am wrong about that too? I have never behaved like that or anywhere near it, but then again I make mistakes sometimes and am perhaps not that valuable. And since I don't want Kuiper on my talk page (because he makes me literally nauseous), that makes me automatically wrong? SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Woodzing does not give diffs to support his allegations, but maybe his complaint is about things like this, where I had the audacity to question his claims of expertise? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

When someone asks you to stay off his page, you should stay off his page. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Also for notifications according to policy? I did not know that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

He claims you're using those notifications as an excuse to pester him. A compromise could be to have a separate sub-page to list those notifications, and he can decide whether to watch-list that page or not. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Woodzing is claiming a lot of things, but I have no problem at all with not notifying him. By the way, he likes posting invective on my talk page at Commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• • The block reason on Commons is a gross exaggeration - I will only admit incivility. All I did was to respond to a person calling me names on my talk page with a similar vulgarity translated to Dutch. Per the usual differences in wiki-clout, I was the only one getting blocked for that exchange. So now I am editing on other wikipedias a bit more than if I could have contributed on Commons. There is no reason for these repeated complaints by Woodzing. The last one was just closed a few days ago. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The previous ANI from last weekMisplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive658#Stalked_for_a_long_time has some diffs. Here and on Commons, the repeating pattern is that PK gets into a dispute with someone who is editing poorly with good intentions, and then takes them to task for it in a rather abusive way. PK is smart and a good contributor, and he is usually basically right about the underlying issues, so it's mostly a civility problem and maybe to some extent a hounding problem. I wonder if some other editors could give SW some gentler guidance than PK has been giving, so that PK can leave SW alone for a while. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please!!!!! Not even gentle is necessary, just civil, without sarcasm, ridicule, mud-slinging, assumpton of bad faith every time. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• • Looking at some of the previous incident reports on this noticeboard, and at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Carl of Vermillandia, it seems that a long-standing situation, resulting from something on the Swedish Misplaced Pages, has deteriorated to the extent that Pieter Kuiper can call article content a hoax and a BLP problem and SergeWoodzing will immediately cry "I'm being personally attacked.". SergeWoodzing is not coming across as entirely the victim in this, at this point. Uncle G (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If I accused someone of "hoaxing" (which is intentional falsification as per definition) and there was no substance to the accusation of any kind, I would certainly feel like I was attacking someone personally. I hope I am not wrong in feeling that way. Falsifying WP intentionally isn't extremely despicable behavior, and wrongly accusing someone of it isn't a personal attack? What could be more detrimental to the reputation of a WP editor?

But then again, perhaps I am of a very old (obsolete?) school that doesn't even think the unnecessary word choice "cry", as used above, is particularly polite and constructive. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Kuiper wrote that the article was a "possible hoax". If there are no written sources where this name form is used (off the Internet), I think "possible hoax" cannot be seen as a personal attack in itself. On the other hand, this situation is rather complicated. An interesting question is what rules should apply if someone asks some other person to stay off his talk page? Ulner (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The answer is "politeness and civility", as admins have told me in the past. If someone asks me not to post on his page, and I continue to do so, that's impolite and uncivil - as is using a notification as a pretext to getting around it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Some posts are mandatory on the talk page, i.e. when filing an ANI Incident, or when proposing an article for deletion. These posts should be allowed in any case I guess? The problem is that usually a content dispute is in the background, which makes it necessary to post messages on the user's talk page. Furthermore, Surtsicna and Andejons have also been told to avoid SergeWoodzing's talk page. I'm afraid I don't see any easy solution of this conflict. Ulner (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I see that Woodzing also "warned"(!) User:Sinneed to stay away from his talk page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Editors need to be civil enough to work together to be here. If there is a long standing history of harassment, then further action needs to be taken to protect the user(s) involved. If User:SergeWoodzing can provide diffs (collectively and only for here on en.wiki as we deal with issues here, not elsewhere (there are admins for elsewhere)) and can prove gross harassment, then sysop action against Pieter Kuiper needs to take place. Pieter Kuiper please be respectful of users wishes to stay off of their talk pages and not Troll users, as that is harassment. If you are indeed stalking a users contributions and following them to WP:AFD or elsewhere, that violates Misplaced Pages policy. We work together (please see WP:ATTACK). My hope is the two of you can resolve differences (regardless of what they are) and work together. Dusti 18:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, several of you, very much for this! I admit to having asked a few editors to stay off my talk page before, and/or asked them to stop being belligerent and rude. Since then I have made up with one or two of them, however, and mutual respect and cooperation has been established.

None of the problems I have had with anyone – ever in my long life! – have come anywhere near the way Kuiper has behaved toward me. I can only naturally perceive it, after a long time of being the butt of it, as rancorous, unrelenting cruelty. The word unrelenting is key. Perhaps this discussion will inspire him to just stay away from me. Based on past experience (note: in his uncivil behavior, not in article content or work ethics), I sincerely feel that that will be the only way the problem can be solved.

Other than that, please also see a reply of mine above which begins “Yes, please!!!!!” Every good wish for the New Year! Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

New accusations such as (POV) "Woodzing just disregards..." here and (POV) "this is a WP:MADEUP name" here don't do much to inspire hope. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Wouldn't someone reasonably trying to avoid confrontation just advise some other neutral editors about any possible serious content problems, rather than continuing to attack me and mention my user name detrimentally at every turn? It is my mainly reputation Kuiper wants to get at, not seroius WP contributions. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing, maybe you're experienced enough by now to be able to look past Peter Kuiper's rudeness and understand the criticisms he's making of your editing. Could you try the obvious approach of simply not editing like that? That is, accept the notion that a lot of the stuff you're trying to add really is below Misplaced Pages's threshold of inclusion (WP:IINFO), and you should stick with stuff that has more substantial sourcing. If you're primarily interested in vocabulary translations rather than encyclopedia articles, maybe you'd be happier at Wiktionary than Misplaced Pages. Wiktionary was a pretty slow project for a long time, but it's recently picked up a lot of steam, and is sort of a neglected sister of Misplaced Pages, that can always use more help. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I have not done any disruptive editing whatsoever that I am aware of. Adding knowledge (of mine from older English literature) without sourcing every detail is not disruptive. I have been helped (even inadvertantly by Kuiper!) in finding sources for several such items when they have been questioned.

Any editor with a personal agenda can go though all of another editor's contributions systematically and add a lot of accusations all over about hoaxing or made-up content to each and every item that isn't sourced, as Kuiper has done and continues to do in my case even today.

Such claims of Kuiper's are his own personal POV claims and lack even an ounce of substance. He is not knowledgeable about older English literature, and in addition to that, his English is quite limited.

I am glad to respond to any and all constructive criticism as long as it is not blatantly uncivil. You, and any other editors than Kuiper, are quite welcome to object to specific details to any of my content which may be controversial and start constructive discussions on those pages to which I will be glad to respond. Sweeping generalizations about any poor work of mine aren't going to help us forward with it. It's kind of hard to respond to that kind of criticism. I am not angry or even upset about having some of my details removed due to insufficient sourcing. When I find the sources, I will reinstate them.

But that is not what this is about on this page. This is about uncivil behavior, regardless of content issues. Please stick to that issue here! And we can deal with any possible mistakes I've made elsewhere, I think (?).

The answer to your first basic question, with respect, obviously has to be a resounding no. Why would I have started this complaint if I were willing to ignore being insulted over and over again? I didn't think one could be asked to look past rudeness while trying to find some time now and again to contribute constructively to this project. And I'm rather astonished anout being asked that. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer unlinking spree

I indef-blocked TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) when zie went of some sport of wild unlinking spree, in which the hammer removed links en masse with a disruptively long edit summary.

Per my comment on TenPoundHammer's talk, the explanation given does not add up.

SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs) unblocked TenPoundHammer specifically to allow a cleanup, and appears to have deleted the edit summaries.

I hope that TenPoundHammer will complete the cleanup as promised, but I think that a better explanation is needed about what was actually going on here. So far as I can see, the edit summaries are least of the problems ... because TenPoundHammer was engaged in some sort of mass-delinking exercise without any sign of scrutiny of what was being done. The edit summaries actually did us a favour, by drawing attention to this spree of disruptive edits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• It seems every single day I find links pointing to disambiguation pages. The first several that I found were all links for people who didn't have articles, so I falsely assumed they were all like that and unlinked. I've done en masse unlinks like this before and never had problems. As promised, though, I have been going back and cleaning them up. As per the other thread on me, it seems I've let Misplaced Pages get to my head and I'm lashing out at everyone over tiny things, and I admit my "CHECK YOUR LINKS CHECK YOUR LINKS etc" edit summary was clearly out of line. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 22:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Same thing with the John Reid links. Looking at that one, it seems that indeed, most of these are referring to a John Reid who doesn't have an article (most in reference to a songwriter). Those that do have already been fixed by other editors. I've finished all the David Porter links accordingly. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 22:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• As I thought, the edit summaries did us a favour ... because if this sort of blind-mass-unlinking has been done before, there will have been un-noticed damage on those occasions.

  Your comment "never had problems" is alarming, because you appear to mean that nobody objected to you, rather than that no damage was done. What steps are you going to take to check that the links you removed in previous mass-unlinking sprees are restored? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'll have to go back through my edit history then and see if I did do any damage. As far as I can tell, every other instance has been justifiable like the John Reid one — i.e., removal of dab-page links that were in reference to someone who didn't have an article. As I said, I restored all the David Foster links. From now on, if I use the unlink tool like this, I'll check the incoming links first to see if they should be fixed instead of removed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 22:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Again, this is the wrong starting-point. They may have been links to someone who should have had an article, and you appear to have made no effort to enquire whether disambiguation might be the appropriate response, rather than unlinking. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• John Reid, the songwriter, doesn't have an article and isn't mentioned in the dab page. Does it really make sense to leave the link to a dab page where he isn't even mentioned? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 22:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Also, I generally had checked before when using unlink. David Foster was a momentary lapse in judgment. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 22:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, I'm slightly confused...what exactly is the damage that has been done, if, as TPH has said, the links he de-linked were links to disambiguation pages where the particular intended link didn't have a specific article to point to? To me that would seem to be a case for de-linking, since people who click the link aren't going to be able to find the subject article they're looking for on the disambiguation page and there is no more specific article to link to than the disambiguation page. Ks0stm 22:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• The issue was that I removed some David Foster links that should have been repaired to point to a musician's article or a Naval officer's article — granted, it wasn't that disruptive since at least half the articles had a valid link and the link to the dab page anyway. As I said, this is the only time that I've ever had a misfire like this with the unlink tool. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 22:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Your "cleanup" is inadequate. I just started checking the David Porter links, which you said you restored .. and the first one I checked of those you had not reverted was Liquid Swords. That was an undisambiguated link to David Porter (musician).

I don't intend to examine every one of these links myself, but you have just demonstrated that as well as doing inadequate checks before using the unlink tools, your cleanup is also sloppy. Please can you just restore all the links you removed, and leave it to more careful editors to assess whether they should be removed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I restored all the David Porter (not Foster!) links at your requests. I don't think I need to restore the John Reid links since, as I said, all of them seemed to be appropriate because they referred to a John Reid not mentioned in the dab page. If you want me to restore those anyway, then I will. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 23:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Just restore them all, please, and leave them to be checked by someone who is willing/able to apply more attention to them than you have been doing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW, you said here that you "restored all the David Porter (not Foster!) links". I hadn't noticed that there was also a David Foster unlinking spree, and assumed it was a typo ... but since you say it wasn't, I have been looking around further. In this post on Sarek's talk, you said that Foster was a one-off slip of concentration, but that's not the case, is it? There was David Porter too.

I don't like what I am seeing here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

And more. Checking back further, I find this a link to John Reid, which shoukd have been dabbed to John Reid, Baron Reid of Cardowan, but was instead unlinked. TenPoundHammer says that he has fixed the John Reid links, and that's clearly not true. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Still more unfixed stuff: , , . All of them were undabbed links to John Reid should be to John Reid, Baron Reid of Cardowan), which TenPundHammer says he had fixed.

As to the songwriter, there were a dozen or more links to that songwriter. What checking did TenPoundHammer do see whether a) the songwriter was one of the musicians of that name who already have an article, or b) someone else who should have an article on them?

Yet TenPoundhammer says the John Reid links have already been cleaned-up by him. Not true. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

What are the rules about red-link article titles, or are there any? I've found many a red-link, and in effect they were an invitation to create an article. Sometimes the same subject may be red-linked in more than one place, and once you've created the article, it fills several gaps at once. By de-linking the way Hammer is doing, you would have to search more extensively to re-link them. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it is policy or not, but I've always thought the general consensus was that redlinks were a healthy part of encouraging growth. S.G. _ping! 23:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

SGGH is quite right. See WP:REDLINK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a specific policy, but I've always used the criteria that if the redlink is likely to have an article created about them, or should have an article, to leave the redlink as a reminder that an article is needed. If the subject seems unlikely to ever have an article, then de-link them. This calls for some judgment, and enough knowledge to make a crude evaluation of notability. Automatic de-linking of redlinks is disruptive, as much, or perhaps more so, than overlinking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like WP:REDLINK says pretty much the same thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC))

My other thought is that I think it's generally more helpful to unlink redlinks within an article, say, when an overzealous editor has Wikilinked all the actors in a film's cast, many of whom are generally not Wiki-notable, then it is to unlink the same Wikilink across different articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line here is that TPH should just not be using this tool! Can anyone make it so? Johnbod (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't really want to get involved in whatever is going on here, but from an outside viewer a couple questions do come to mind. First, why was an indef-block appropriate in the first place? Second, why does it appear that bad faith is being assumed here? Tuxide (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

1. An indef-block is not a permanent block; it is a block until until the issue is resolved. At the time of blocking it was not clear whether the account had been compromised, the editor had lost the plot, or what. As usual, once the editor had promised to claen up, the block was lifted.
2. I'm not sure why it appears to you that bad faith is being assumed; it's up to you to explain why you think it looks that way. For me all I can say, is that after unblocking TPH gave several explicit assurances that he had already cleaned up several parts of the mess, and those assurances were false. I don't know whether that's bad faith on TPH's part or sloppiness, just that it doesn't add up to someone who can be trusted to clean up the mess which can be made very rapidly with automated tools. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

   I am not aware of how big of a mess he made (nor do I care personally), but I am referring to bad faith being assumed against TenPoundHammer considering everything you said in 2. only happened in the past four hours. Tuxide (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

   TPH did not say "oops, this is a big mess, gimme time to sort it out". He chose to say that he had already cleaned it up, which he hadn't. So I don't see how time is relevant here: a false "I've cleaned-up" statement is false whether it;s made after 1 hour or 1 week. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

   I would agree that an irrelevant conclusion was made, but I disagree that the irrelevance is concerning time. Time would be relevant on the condition that it would be improbable for him to do such a thing that he claimed. In that sense, I don't care if he claimed he did whatever after a minute if it was clearly impossible to do so. What's incorrect reasoning is that he made such a claim when there is apparently more cleanup work that needs to be done here and that it would have been apparently impossible for him to do so during the time (logical incoherence), that what people said his claim was does not necessarily represent what he meant (straw man), and that the people here choose to make a big deal about this apparently impossible claim of his anyways instead of directly addressing whatever the real issue is (red herring). Tuxide (talk) 03:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

   Sounds like you have made up your mind, but your explanation makes a hugely convoluted mess out of something simple: that TPH said he cleaned up various things, when he hadn't. For example TPH wrote Same thing with the John Reid links. Looking at that one, it seems that indeed, most of these are referring to a John Reid who doesn't have an article (most in reference to a songwriter). Those that do have already been fixed by other editors, but I quickly found three links which had not been fixed and did not refer to a songwriter: , , . Please do some fact-checking before you accuse me of logical incoherence or making straw men. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

   I wasn't accusing you of doing either of those things and I don't know where the hell you draw that conclusion. Especially not logical incoherence, but either way now you're misrepresenting my position. I was just reading this discussion and the only thing I care about here is all the ad homenim slinging that's been going on in this ANI convo. That was my initial reason for questioning the assumption of bad faith. Content disputes and conduct disputes are two completely different types of disputes. Tuxide (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

   You wrote above "What's incorrect reasoning is that he made such a claim when there is apparently more cleanup work that needs to be done here and that it would have been apparently impossible for him to do so during the time (logical incoherence)" ... and now you claim you're being misrepresented. Try to make up your mind why are repeatedly alleging ABF, and when you change your mind don't accuse others of misprepresenting you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

   I was referring to TenPoundHammer's claim (or your version of it) being logically incoherent; I just chose not to name individuals directly because I don't really care who said what. Tuxide (talk) 06:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

What about an editing restriction against the use of unlink? I could live with that. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 02:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good solution, if it is technically possible. But I don't see what the restriction should be applied to only one automated tool. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Have I abused any other tool? This whole discussion has been entirely over the use of unlink. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 02:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer does not seem to have messed up with any automated tool other than the unlinker, so I do not see any need to restrict his access to anything but that one. I've never used Twinkle myself, so I do not know if it possible to technically disable just that part of it, but even if it's not it doesn't matter. An editing restriction does not need to be any more than simply an undertaking by TPH that he won't use the unlinker on pain of serious consequences. Reyk _YO! 05:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I also don't think there's any need for a technical block (which may well not be possible - I don't know). I'd say a voluntary ban on using it is all that's needed. If TPH agrees not to use it, I'd be happy to take his word for it - and if he did use it again, sanctions could be considered then. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Then I won't use it, simple as that. Consider this resolved. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 15:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I just want to go out on a limb here and say that this looks like it's a large misunderstanding. TPH does seem to have gone to left field with his unlinking spree.... but there isn't an actual rule against it. Some people just don't like red links. I believe, looking through his insane amount of contribs, he's done unlinking before. BrownHairedGirl I do want to say you were trigger happy and an indef block was inappropriate for this situation. An indef block is without expiry. It's what we use for bans, etc. no? A talk page note or warning would have been more appropriate, and if you got no response then a block should have been instated. TPH was inappropriate of doing bot like actions (mass unlinking) and he has agreed to not use them. Assume good faith, let this issue drop as the compromise seems to have been reached. Dusti 17:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add (albeit not as an admin) that I agree with Dusti, in that your application of an indef block to force TenPoundHammer to reply to you (which is in effect what it was doing) was very "trigger happy" as Dusti put it so well. That clearly looked like its use as a punishment, and as I've been taught as an admin elsewhere, blocks are preventative, not punitive. A note on his talk page such as "would you mind explaining what you're doing?" rather than hitting TenPoundHammer with a Ten Pound Hammer would have been a lot more conducive towards assuming a little good faith and resolving in a slightly more peaceful manner. BarkingFish 17:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No, an indef block is not without expiry, and is not the same as a ban - this indef block was used to stop an activity that was ongoing, not as punishment, and was clearly intended to be reviewed once TPH responded (which, in fact, it was). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Indef blocks do not have an expiry (yes, they can be undone via Unblock) however, when left, there is no expiry. This block as used to FORCE a user to respond, when there was nothing to respond to. No attempt was made to discuss the user, nor was he sufficiently warned (not that you have to warn a user before you block them). I just think it's a gross misuse of blocking. Dusti 18:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes there were attempts to use Talk pages, as the editor was on a very high volume spree of doing a number of things that people had asked him to stop (see the earlier thread, above). They weren't working and he was ignoring us and continuing. I think it was a necessary block, which was clearly not intended to be permanent. It lasted less than 20 minutes, and it looks to me as if it had the desired effect - it forced a dialog and we got a good outcome. Sorted. Time to move one. Bye. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the block as used either. TenPoundHammer was using a script to do rapid mass-unlinking, among other things, and the block as applied seemed to help. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• My thoughts: 1) Ten Pound has indicated he could live with an editing restriction against the use of unlink. Whether that can be enforced in automated fashion or not, that would seem to address a substantial portion of the problem noted. 2) One remaining issue is what is our policy (or should it be) on blue links to disambig pages, where the targeted person does not appear on the disambig page. I don't see a clear answer from the above, but think a consensus view should be reached and communicated to Ten Pound (and the rest of the community). And I expect that Ten Pound will be happy to follow the consensus view. 3) I believe that indef blocks are being used more frequently the past two months, and are counter-productive when used against editors in good standing whom one can address on their talk page with a simple request along the lines of: "would you mind not delinking any pages while we sort this out -- or would you prefer an indef block in the interim?" While Ten Pound and I often have philosophical differences, he is a helpful editor in good standing with a keen mind who seeks to better the project--no need to blast him off of[REDACTED] as we are discussing an issue such as this one. 4) I thank Brown for her good work here.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Re 2) I'd have thought just regular linking policy - if it's a subject who would be likely to warrant an article, make it an unambiguous redlink, otherwise unlink. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The question I see on that is ... it will not appear red, and therefore will not "alert" the reader, unless the reader clicks through, and it is redlinked on the disambig page. Query whether that changes what should be done.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Craig Vincent

An IP claiming to be the subject is taking part in an edit war at this article (now up for AfD). I could block the IP as they've been warned, but am not sure that that is the best thing to do. Right now the IP is removing citation needed templates saying that as he's the source of the information they are inappropriate. I've protected for 6 hours to try to get this sorted. Although the IP is getting very hot under the collar, and an editor has put "rv v" in edit summaries, this is just a content dispute with some obvious COI. Is the best thing to do to extend the protection until the end of the AfD (which isn't normal) or just go ahead and block if the IP won't agree to stop? Maybe a couple of other voices will convince him to stop. I've tried. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think SPAs should be blocked. HeyMid (contribs) 10:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added some advice at the article talk page but I don't think the IP is going to like it. I don't think a block is called for yet - but I agree if the behaviour continues it would be appropriate. I have said as much in what I wrote there so he has had fair warning. Kim Dent-Brown 10:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that was a good note. Dougweller (talk) 10:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Chiming in as a non-admin involved in the AfD ... While this is another round of ammo in my staunch belief that we need an official guideline to go along with WP:BITE that newcomers have a positive duty to become familiar with Misplaced Pages policies, guidelines and practices, as well as the responsibility to comply with WP:CIVIL, let's not get too bitey. This is a rookie who plainly has no idea how we do things, and needs education more than a smackdown. Heck, I'm currently participating in a RfC where the subject's incivilities rank in the hundreds, and for some reason he's still allowed to edit.  RGTraynor  11:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

We've no proof of the IP's RL identification, so its claim of being Craig Vincent is a non-starter. Also, if it were Craig Vincent, it would be easily breaching COI. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Still a fair candidate for a WP:SNOW close to minimise drama. Ticket:2010123110008179 is informative. Guy (Help!) 02:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Science&HiTechReviewer experiments creating disruption

• Science&HiTechReviewer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (also editing as 96.247.28.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ronz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Science&HiTechReviewer who claims to be using this account to experiment with Misplaced Pages. Now that he's edited enough to be autoconfirmed, he's become more disruptive: continuing to focus on other editors, and now edit-warring to remove tags added to identify specific problems in the content he's previously reverted , and reverting a merging of information under dispute that includes dubious information .

Past ANI: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive661#Editor_Science.26HiTechReviewer

He began labeling my editing as "vandalism" with his 00:13, 30 December 2010 AN attempt. Despite the response from Trebor , he wasn't swayed , and is now throwing the label of "vandalism" to justify his edit-warring: .

When he first brought up the "vandalism" accusation on the article talk 14:41, 31 December 2010, he was rebutted by PrimeHunter Habap, yet he's continuing there as well:

Maybe we should fully protect the article while we get this settled? --Ronz (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Part of the ideal of[REDACTED] is to allow misinformation and disinformation to be corrected when reliable information can be demonstrated. This process is completley undermined when efforts are continuously made to correct such factual errors, and an individual keeps reverting them back into an incorrect status without proper justification or better source material. Some of us are helping on a volunteer basis to help improve the overall quality and excellence of the material presented. Sometimes, it appears that certain individuals are here to tamper with that process (in both directions), removing the impartial nature of what is trying to be accomplished. This is most unfortunate, and especially when it is happening with regards to a living person, where the utmost care needs to be taken. A number of editors on this page have been trying to help improve the quality, but this editor continually is reverting proper edits, questioning primary sources, and reverting back to inaccuracies, character slurs, and inappropriate references. These types of actions are very disruptive and counteractive to the overall process of improving the excellence of the material presented.

Vandalism occurs when someone deliberately tries to tamper with the facts relating an historical event or profiled person. This can be done by inserting improper facts, removing important contextual information, unfair juxtapositions of unrelated events giving the false impression of cause and effect, and also by revising corrected inaccuracies and errors. The term vandalism can also be applied to the unbalanced questioning of primary sources and secondary sources. There is no problem in questioning sources, but this editor is only questioning the sources of others, but not his own, even if they come from the very own source! iWhen a standard for source material is not equally applied across the board, then it becomes biased, and falls into the vandalism category, especially when such edits appear to have the impact of distributing only negative information or removing positive information (or the reverse).Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact that I write and give talks about misinformation and disinformation in important public forums, and sometimes I find examples of such misuse in these types of interactions, is besides the point. I would like to see the process work properly. It is my trumpet song to bring attention to these sorts of abuses. I have no problem with his making edits as long as they do not interfere with the factual content, do not promote a hidden agenda, are spiteful, and stick to what Misplaced Pages stands for.Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Adding tags in which an editor has found legitimate verifiability concerns, or inconsistencies regarding verification thereof, is not vandalism. –MuZemike 22:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

In spite of Science&HiTechReviewer's claim that he is here to experiment with Misplaced Pages, his contributions suggest that he is just the next in the series of pro-Naveen Jain promotional editors. There have been past complaints about this article at the COI noticeboard. A review of Talk:Naveen Jain will give a flavor of the past problems. The talk page shows that one registered user, by fixing a previous mistake, admitted he was editing from an IP belonging to the Intelius company, of which Naveen Jain is a founder. In the past, IP editors have frequently tried to remove well-sourced negative information about Jain's legal troubles. Science&HiTechReviewer's edits fall under the clause of WP:COI which provides:

Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promotion (e.g., of a person, company, product, service, website, or organization) in apparent violation of this guideline should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked.

As this section provides, a direct proof of COI is not needed if the account is clearly an SPA here on Misplaced Pages with the mission of promotion. If Science&HiTechReviewer continues on his campaign to insert pro-Jain material, without waiting to get support from other editors, I think that a block for edit warring or disruptive editing might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree, per WP:DUCK. Without Jimbo's confirmation, I'd assume he was just another sock/meatpuppet. He's been making very similar edits as employees of Intelius: removing the same well-sourced information, removing and dismissing the same sources, placing the same emphasis on information that is poorly sourced, providing the same arguments. I'd like to attribute this to just stubborness combined with a lack of interest in reading past discussions and doing in-depth research. Regardless, given that this is a long-disputed BLP article, some further precautions look necessary. --Ronz (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

A new SPA, Mists out of Time (talk · contribs) has emailed me information that suggests personal links between P3opl3watch3r (talk · contribs) and Science&HiTechReviewer (talk · contribs). I don't have time at the momement to investigate further, but from the looks of it, it's probably meatpupptery. I doubt if there's a good case to be made. --Ronz (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Science&HiTechReviewer is now up to four reverts at Naveen Jain on 31 December. In each case he claimed to be reverting vandalism. This amounts to a plain WP:3RR violation, irrespective of the promotional editing. Can anyone argue that a block should not be issued? The reverts are , , , . EdJohnston (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I see no vandalism. I see a content dispute. Tiderolls 00:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This is just total crap. I have explained myself fully with regards to all my edits, which are factual only. I am not anyone's puppet. I don't have any connection to Jain or anyone else I am editing, and I don't edit my own wiki entry, which is far longer and has been up for a lot longer than Jain's. This is just the reverse being claimed here. It appears that only negative edits are being done. I think my arguments speak for themselves, and are valid as such. I have over 15 books published under my name, and countless articles, and I do believe that I know something about scholarship, and that applies to the Information Age as I give invited talks about it enough.Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I have my own theory of who S&HTR is (of course I mustn't post it here per OUTING) and if my guess is right, then yes, in my opinion he has a COI. In any case I think the experiment should stop, or be done much differently, as I feel it is illegitimate from a WP policy standpoint in its current form, and I find some aspects of it ethically questionable. I actually do think S&HTR's critique of Misplaced Pages has a lot of validity, but he's pursuing it the wrong way, and it's especially obnoxious of him to pick an area (problematic BLP's) where we know that we suck and we've made it our top priority to improve (with considerable success so far, but a long way to go). It would be much better for him to visit some of the more successful parts of Misplaced Pages; for example, by getting involved in an FA campaign. I have some other things to do right now but I can post more on this later, and (from the viewpoint of a longtime semi-disgruntled editor) I'm willing to get into a 1-to-1 talkpage discussion with S&HTR about Misplaced Pages in general and how to edit successfully, if S&HTR is interested in that. Meanwhile, Jimbo says S&HTR offered to say who he was, and I'd like to take S&HTR up on that offer, if it is still on the table. 64.62.206.2 (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This is actually turning out to be hilarious. I am happy to privately reveal my identity to anyone that wants to know. So yes, that offer is still on the table. I am not connected to the person that is the focus of this bio. That would be evident from the reveal. I am happy to point to long posted videos of me moderating distinguished panels on this subject, echoing the same arguments alongside Arianna Huffington (no, I am not associated with her either), etc. I am not in the high tech industry though I speak and write about some of its dangers. Listen to my arguments. They are not unreasonable. I am not trying to hide behind Wiki rules. This is standard scholarship stuff. There was a reason I picked a "controversial" profile. I got a couple of others I am working on too, because that is where you find things out. It isn't safe. That's how physicists work, you scratch at those areas that have issues. My training. It wasn't to cause offense, and it certainly wasnt' to be anyone's puppet. I went through a lot of trouble going through all the junk in the system to try to improve things, and see what happens. It is frustrating to see it all unravel, and revert back to the same errors. That's not progress, nor improvement. I don't like my time wasted in these ways. If good edits are made, then great. Everyone is a mixture of good and bad information, just want to make sure it is correct. It is true I haven't gone in detail through all the history on this page, and was pretty unfamiliar with the chap, but this afternoon I did, and I can see that some of this stuff has been discussed before, but why wasn't some of the errors corrected back then? The process is not working well here unfortunately. I am hopeful that this will end with a productive dialogue.Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I have an idea. I can set up a free conference line, and anyone who wants to speak to me can get on, and I will happily reveal myself, and then you can google me, as long as my profile is not revealed here. This may dispel any notion that meatpuppery is going on, and the like, and that all this stuff fits squarely into the profile of what I talk and write about. I am happy to take this conversation off line, so I am willing to put up. So, who will go for it?Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile, we've established that the edit-warring was over sourced information removed without reading the source or reading discussions about the source closely enough to notice the details. So much for accuracy and scholarship. --Ronz (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

S&HTR, I think your offer to self-identify privately to random WP editors is honorable, but isn't really the way we do things here. To the extent possible, on transparency grounds, we frown on that type of private, off-wiki coordination between most editors, and instead have just a few editors (specifically Checkusers, Arbcom, and Jimbo) authorized to deal with confidential info on the community's behalf. I was really hoping you'd announce yourself here on-wiki, but the next best thing would be to email the info to arbcom-l@wikimedia.org and then an arbcom member could comment here on your possible issues, without specifically identifying you. 64.62.206.2 (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that S&HTR is indeed experimenting in order to produce a report about our editing, I would strongly advise him against basing the presentation around a single case--especially a case where the cover of doing ordinary editing was not able to be maintained. There are many reasons why certain subjects arouse controversy in Misplaced Pages, and by using any one particular article, especially a living person, one is apt to draw unrepresentative conclusions. In this case it was an article that was the subject of alternately promotional editing, and negative comment upon the validity of the person's work. If the purpose was to find how Misplaced Pages attains balance in such a situation, it was not necessary to probe: an examination of the existing edits would have told the story--but would tell the story only about the particular article--there will be other stories at other articles. There is perhaps a pattern, but it is the comparisons that will disclose it--an n=1 study where the identity of the editor was semi-disclosed partway through has no validity. Misplaced Pages is properly very sensitive about anything that might be considered a breaching experiment for such can be the excuse for any sort of disruption; at the least, it immediately raises the question of whether there were other undisclosed "experiments." And in general such probes with public sources of information, while I think often valuable, are always questioned: see Sokal affair. And S&H will have now found something else out-- people at Misplaced Pages does not like overt or implicit appeals to authority or connections, or people one knows. Of course, he could have found that out also by examining the archives, either on-wiki or the various mailing lists. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I find the appeal to authority especially annoying. I find being used as an "experiment" annoying as well. The "partial reveal" of the experiment is a Schrödinger's cat to me. --Habap (talk) 12:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Friends, you are being trolled. I blocked Science&HiTechReviewer for tendentious and disruptive editing, and probable sockpuppetry. Guy (Help!) 02:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Any proof of sockpuppetry? Or trolling? I'll accept their editing wasn't great, but indef seems bizarrely premature (unless you're privy to something I'm not). Trebor (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Good block, I think. S&HTR's statement

"In fact, I am doing this all as part of an experiment for a talk I am giving next month at the World Economic Forum, Davos, on how we are rapidly transforming from an Age of Information into an Age of Misinformation and Disinformation based on this kind of shotty reporting. I have personally talked to Jimmy W. about this issue. Now, I am trying to actually play with it myself to see the results. Best to start off with controversial figures. That's where I will find out what's interesting. "

in combination with what followed, sounds like he really was on a disruption campaign, i.e. trolling. I'm not sure what to make of the sock theory, but it would fit the picture. In any case, S&HTR's announced plan of editing here incognito to gather ammunition with which to attack Misplaced Pages in an external forum seems block-worthy to me. As the saying goes, "Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited." 67.122.209.190 (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• If anyone wants to know, S&HTR is now getting this matter handled at the "executive level", whatever that is. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 06:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, which one of you yahoos leaked the existence of the secret "every user but you" cabal to him? Whoever it was, you're docked a week's pay. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

This whole story isn't new. It was kind of endorsed by Jimbo whatever that means. - BorisG (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior and harassment from Pmanderson

I've documented on his talk page three instances of uncivil behavior on the part of User:Pmanderson within the last day or so. I'm copying those comments here:

Please do not make derisive and/or maligning comments about me (or any other editor) in article/guideline talk page discussions as you did recently at WT:PLACES . Announcing your opinion about another editor, that he is "prepared to be disruptive for years until he gets his way", is taunting, baiting, maligning and generally contrary to the type of behavior encouraged at WP:CIVIL.

If you have an issue with an editor's behavior, please take it up in an appropriate forum, normally starting with that editor's talk page, for which this post may serve as an example. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You made another derisive comment about me here. You, wrote, about a suggestion I made, "This would worsen Misplaced Pages - although it would help B2C's long term agenda.". Sharing vague conjectures about another editor's "long term agenda" in such a blatantly negative light can have no purpose other than to malign that editor, and is highly inappropriate. WP:CIVIL clearly states, " Stated-simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect.". Statements like this are not examples of how editors "treat each other with consideration and respect." Second request in two days. Please stop. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

And this one too: "We need to ignore Born2Cycle's persistent and solitary efforts to destabilize." Characterizing the efforts of another editor as "persistent and solitary efforts to destabilize" is uncivil. Again, if you have an issue with an editor's behavior, you should take it up in an appropriate forum; a guideline talk page is not that. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Any one of these comments taken in isolation is not really egregious, but taken together it amounts to harassment:

a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons ...The intended outcome may be to make editing Misplaced Pages unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely.

These comments are distressing, they make working on WP unpleasant (others have noted the inappropriateness of these types of comments as well), and they are obviously intended to undermine me. Per WP:CIVIL they are also "taunting or baiting": "deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves".

I've asked PMA repeatedly to raise concerns about the behavior of other editors (namely me) at the appropriate forum, starting with that editor's talk page (as I did with him), but he persists. If he has legitimate concerns, then he should pursue them in an appropriate manner, not by making derisive comments on article and guideline talk pages. PMA has a long history of make these kinds of inappropriate snide remarks about fellow editors with whom he disagrees, and I'm asking for administrator intervention.

At a minimum, I ask that he be restricted from making derisive comments about others, or sharing concerns about the behavior of others on article and guideline talk pages. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It does appear that the focus of your editing in recent years has been on naming conventions, rather than article editing. You have been brow-beating editors who disagrees with you in page move discussions or naming convention RfCs. Perhaps the right course of action for Pmanderson would be to start a user RFC to get community input.   Will Beback  talk  01:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be the second in under a year, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Pmanderson From this past July The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I meant that maybe Pmanderson should start an RfC on Born2cycle.   Will Beback  talk  01:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No argument there, honestly PMA and Born2Cycle need an interaction ban. One always seems to be bringing the other to ANI The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Far too much time is spent on[REDACTED] debating the names of things, which serves the readers not one iota. Normal US usage is "city, state". It ain't rocket science. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

And it's rather disturbing to read, in a citation provided by B2C himself, that B2C intends to devote years to his pointless crusade. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not see that these comments rise to the level that they need the attention of ANI. Born2cycle should learn to be more concise and conciliatory on talk pages. Also, warning templates on Pmanderson's talk page are more likely to escalate rather than reduce tension. TFD (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Pmanderson is consistently slightly derisive and uncivil, constantly accuses people of being vandals and not assuming good faith. But doing anything about it is a long and painful process. It's not worth the effort. Try to ignore it. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel that Born2cycle and Pmanderson have both been guilty of incivility in recent weeks. I also recently placed a complaint on OpenFuture's talk page a few days ago about his comments towards me, a complaint which he promptly deleted. All three users (and possibly a few of the others who have been involved in the debates in question) need to cool it. I respect them all as contributors, but my own patience is wearing thin. Under the circumstances, I feel the best thing to do with the current discussion is to bin it and start again with a bit more mutual understanding for 2011. Deb (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Your unfounded accusations of me are unbecoming of your admin status, and is either harassment or baiting. I'm trying to ignore it, as I feel that it is a waste of time. Please stop, and try to engage in something more constructive. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It's unwise of you to play the injured innocent here. Anyone who is interested in the facts can see the two comments I made on your talk page simply by looking at the page history. Deb (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I neither am nor play injured, that's another baseless accusation. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason I started with discussion on PMA's talk page is that that is the recommended first step in dispute resolution. The reason I escalated immediately to ANI is because of PMA's history and everything else has already been tried with this user.

Some here may not know or fully appreciate that, for better or for worse, my main interest in Misplaced Pages is to bring stability to the area of article naming. What I mean by naming stability is that the number of articles moved per day, and especially brought for discussion to WP:RM, is reduced to a trickle compared to the torrent that it is today. Having this interest means that I am heavily involved in article naming including many naming discussions (both with respect to policy and guidelines as well as individual article naming disputes).

Because I seek ultimate stability in naming, I am a strong proponent of having all article titles in Misplaced Pages each adhere to the naming criteria listed in policy at WP:TITLE as much as possible. This is because the reasons someone may reasonably have to move an article are minimized and usually eliminated once an article is at the title that meets that criteria as much as it reasonably can. Time and time again I have seen years of disputes over titles be resolved once the article in question is moved to the title that best meets that criteria.

This is why I am also an advocate of using specific naming guidelines that provide guidance only when the primary guidance at WP:TITLE falls short, primarily in order to indicate how an article should be disambiguated if disambiguation is required so that similar articles are disambiguated similarly. But when a title is clearly indicated for a given article by the criteria at WP:TITLE alone, then more specific naming guidelines should have no application. I find that most naming disputes are ultimately caused by more specific naming guidelines indicating a title that is different from the one indicated by the criteria at WP:TITLE (most often the specific guideline indicates one title, even though a natural and more concise name is available).

Many do not agree with me, but others do, and only time will show who is correct. But I strongly believe all the evidence supports my position on this, that better adherence to WP:TITLE criteria is the only path to true naming stability at Misplaced Pages. However, because I am very vocal on these issues, that apparently creates animosity towards me. Okay, I can deal with that. But can't I still ask that everyone who disagrees with me never-the-less treat me in accordance with community standards? That's what I do with you, don't I?

I'm not claiming to be the ideal Wikipedian here; but surely perfection is not a requirement for requesting that sanctions be taken against another user. And if Deb is going to accuse me of being guilty of incivility in the last few weeks, I request diffs and correlations with quotes from WP:CIVIL that shows this, as I've provided with respect to PMA's behavior. At any rate, I note that Deb is on record in this ANI for agreeing that PMA's behavior has been uncivil.

I understand that starting an ANI can also bring scrutiny to one's own behavior, and I welcome that, but I suggest that while my focus on naming and naming discussions is probably not an ideal use of time from any perspective, it's not a behavior that violates policy or guidelines or any community standard, as far as I know, and certainly does not justify the violation of WP:CIVIL or WP:HARASSMENT by anyone, which is the focus here. Besides, no matter how inappropraite my behavior, WP:CIVIL clearly states, "This applies equally to all Wikipedians: It is as unacceptable to attack a user who has a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user."

I am simply asking that despite my flaws, that PMA treat editors with whom he disagrees, including me, with same respect and civility that all editors are supposed to treat each other with, and to avoid the kind of comments that are supposed to be unacceptable. Those who have a history of disagreeing with my views, including everyone who commented above so far, may be delighted to see PMA comment about me derisively, but that is not a good reason to look the other way. I suggest we hold respectful behavior towards each other as the higher standard.

As to Deb's advice to back off, that is exactly what I've been trying to do with PMA for months. That is, except for in discussions that are specifically about his behavior, I've avoided commenting about him or his behavior, though I would comment as objectively as I reasonably could about positions he has taken. It is my understanding that that is what we are supposed to do, no? Again, if there are specific problems with my behavior, I would like to see the diffs.

I don't understand why there is reluctance to clearly tell PMA that he must adhere to the behavior standards set forth by the community in terms of treating others respectfully and civilly, or he will face escalating sanctions, and to follow through on this. The incidents I have cited above occured while there is another ANI open about his behavior. Almost everyone admits there is a problem with his behavior, but actually doing this has not been tried. I therefore seek administrator assistance. Enough is enough. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's because it looks like you're a crusader, and crusaders' careers at[REDACTED] tend to end badly for the crusader. Normal US usage is "city, state". Your insistence on screwing around with that for the sake of rigid conformity to some global "consistency" theory is a total waste of your time and everyone else's, as it provides no value whatsoever to the readers of wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that because of my opinions about naming with which you disagree I deserve to be treated disrespectfully and uncivilly, and that disrespectful and uncivil remarks should not be sanctioned when they are about me? If so, that is the epitome of defending the ad hominem attack. If not, what are you saying? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying your renaming crusade is of no value to the readers of wikipedia. I would further say that your gripes about name-calling are a way of distracting from that issue. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that advice. I'm sure it's sincere, and is likely to even be true with respect to me being too active in this area. But unless it is meant as a justification of PMA's disrespectful and uncivil behavior towards me, how is it relevant here? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The user Deb advised you to back off. Take that advice. Find something to edit that the other user is not involved in. That's what I do when something gets too frustrating (for example, it's why I don't edit political articles anymore). And a tip for the future: Never complain about another user's incivility. If you complain about name-calling, then the name-caller wins. The only thing that matters is article quality for the[REDACTED] readers. If a user interferes with that quality, then you've got something to complain about. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I reject the argument that incivil behavior does not affect article quality. If it were true, there would be no reason to have WP:CIVIL (not to mention WP:HARASSMENT). I presume you do not favor getting rid of WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASSMENT, which means you again seem to be arguing that whether incivility should be sanctioned depends on whether the recipient of the incivility "deserves" it or not in your view. That is, if an editor is making edits and comments with which you agree and PMA starts making the same snide remarks about them as he does about me, and that editor raised an ANI against PMA, I get the impression you'd take a different position here. You and Deb disagree with me about naming. I get that. I'm asking you to put that disagreement aside when you look at PMA's behavior. If you can't do that, perhaps you should not be commenting here, instead of taking this opportunity to encourage me from advocating a position with which you disagree. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

In "real life", if someone insults you, do you ignore it, or do you take it to his Mom? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I've had no content interactions with Born2cycle, but wish the user could see why her/his own behavior (characterized above as "crusading" and here as tending toward arrogance) can come across as unproductively self-righteous and controlling, whatever good intentions lay behind it. My interaction with Born2cycle is limited to a single page, where the user was asked by no fewer than four editors ( ) to dial it back. Born2cycle finally stated his intention to withdraw, but in fact continued his quarrel at Pmanderson's talk page less than four hours later, and made the complaint on this page about 24 hours after that. As one of the 400 most active editors, User:Pmanderson travels with a long baggage train. He has friends, enemies, and people who just don't know what to do about him. Born2cycle has laid claim to measurably high cognitive skills and maturity, but there seems to be a growing number of editors who perceive Born2cycle as attempting to control the process and other editors' behavior to an uncivil extent. I've noted elsewhere that of the last 500 contributions by Born2cycle (as of that time), all but 10 were made to talk pages and forums (excluding moves and redirects). Multiple editors have suggested that Born2cycle's social and rhetorical strategies need to be modified, perhaps by a shift of focus to article content ? Cynwolfe (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Cynwolfe, this kind of confrontational post was exactly what you were requested to avoid on WP:WQA. Please could you disengage? The same applies to Born2cycle, who should probably not have started this thread. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Please explain why presenting evidence that Born2cycle's own behavior inflames the situation is unduly confrontational. Born2cycle had just implied that those who have problems with his/her behavior also have content disputes. I've had no content disputes with the user, and have only encountered Born2cycle in the one forum, where I unwisely tried to answer the questions posed persistently to me. Multiple editors involved in multiple pages think he needs to moderate his behavior. I'm not a regular participant in these forums, but didn't know that my opinion isn't allowed here. If something I said was uncivil, I should be told what it is so I can avoid that kind of language in future. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The summaries of edits as "measurably high cognitive skills" and "maturity" were not particularly helpful. I don't quite understand why matters like this are being debated; in any case Pmanderson's age, background and expertise were revealed in a public interview he gave some years back. Mathsci (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

That comes perilously close to outing, since all Wikipedians may not be familiar with that little piece of journalism. My links were to remarks Born2cycle made about himself; you're right that pointing them out may make him look a bit insufferable (hence the reaction some people have to him), and I apologize. My point is that Born2cycle assured us he was backing off the other discussion of PMA's behavior, and then promptly went off to file this. I also gave a legitimate counter-response to his claim that everyone who objects to his behavior has a content dispute with him; this is simply untrue. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This thread should probably be archived fairly soon, since I think it was unwise to start it and there doesn't appear to be anything for an administrator to do here. Mathsci (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think what this thread evidences is various editors who won't back off, because they want to win the fight; like the other day when B2C stated that he intended to continue this fight for years if necessary, and including B2C's acknowledgment that I may well be right that he spends too much time on this topic, but by implication, it doesn't matter, because his crusade is more important than the interests of[REDACTED] readers. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

"like the other day when B2C stated that he intended to continue this fight for years if necessary". If you won't provide the diffs supporting your accusation about allegedly inappropriate behavior or statements, please do not make the claim. For the record, I never made such a statement, though I don't doubt that this is a sincere belief about what I meant. It's ironic that it echos what PMA said about what I said ("an editor who has just declared repeatedly there will be no stability unless he gets his way."), but does not reflect what I actually said, which demonstrates the problem with such statements from PMA (others, like BB, assume it's true). The lack of citation of my specific words which supposedly mean this is telling. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• I regret my behavior with Cynwolfe (repeated questioning), and I understand why Cynwolfe might perceive a relationship here, but my behavior in that discussion has nothing to do with the years of snide and derisive remarks PMA has made about not only me, but many other editors, that has nothing to do with me or my behavior. See his talk page and block log, not to mention the completely unprovoked uncivil and harassing remarks cited at the top of this ANI.

  And I ask again, unless you're arguing that PMA's uncivil harassing is justified by my behavior, what is the relevance of my behavior here in this ANI about PMA's behavior? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Measures to regulate PMA's more wasteful behaviors are already being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Pmanderson and Byzantine names. A proposal to block PMA had no consensus, and Born2cycle's efforts to urge a block failed; other restrictions have been proposed and are in current discussion. This seems like an attempted end-run around the preexisting action. I bear Born2cycle no ill will, and am sorry that any dedicated editor has been made to feel put-upon. I sincerely think (from experience) that taking a break from talk pages and noticeboards and focusing on improving content, perhaps in non-controversial areas, would be a good thing for someone of such persistent temperament — something to which I'm no stranger. Your behavior, Born2cycle, indeed does not justify anything PMA did. But it isn't good for you. Bad karma, and all that. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought that ANI was exclusively about PMA's behavior at another incident. Should I have brought up these incidents there? At any rate, I just noticed that WP:CIVIL dispute resolution recommends, after trying to resolve the situation at the user's talk page (which I've already attempted), to make use of Wikquette alerts. Perhaps this ANI should be closed as "wrong forum" and I will open an alert there. At this point I will and and see what an uninvolved admin will advise.

I sincerely want help with this situation, because PMA's comments are completely unprovoked, and there is nothing I can do to make PMA stop except maybe by avoiding the expression of opinions with which he disagrees. Capitulating to that, by "backing off" from my efforts to find consensus in the area of WP article naming in what is negatively characterized as a "crusade", "fighting", and "until he gets his way", as those who tend to agree with PMA unsurprisingly advise me to do, is unacceptable. Finding consensus through discussion is how we resolve conflicts in WP - bullying others into suppression by ridiculing them or their opinions is not. Is it unreasonable for me to seek help in dealing with the latter? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Back to your previous question... Here, it appears that you are willing to fight this useless battle for years. And you reaffirm that here, where you pledge to go 5, 10, 15 or 20 years if necessary. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You misread those statements. In the first one I'm referring to how long it will take article names to change if wording A is accepted, just as Canadian and Australian city names are taking years to slowly transition after their guidelines were changed to effectively what A is. There is no "fight" or "battle" being referred to here - though it's revealing that you see it that way. In the second quote I'm referring to the debate about city, state -- which started long before I came to Misplaced Pages, and continues often without my participation -- going on for years, not about my participation in it at all. I stand by what I say in those statements as being true even if I'm hit by a bus tomorrow; that is, they have nothing to do with me or my participation in the debate. If you're reading my words through glasses that color it like that (to mean "B2C stated that he intended to continue this fight for years if necessary"), that reveals a very strong bias. Try putting that bias aside and reading those posts again. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I've made a specific proposal at the previous (still open) ANI concern PMA, actually an addendum to another one made there, that would address my concerns (and those of many others). link. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Potential outing

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

User:Deliciousgrapefruit and I have not been getting along. I recently (today) reported the user at the edit warring noticeboard and he reported me a few weeks ago at Wikiquette alerts. I stopped making personal attacks since I was warned. The user continues to comment on the contributor and not the content on an article. This has been discussed over at Wikiquette but the user has now attempted to post my real first name on Misplaced Pages. That is outing. I am concerned he might attempt more since he said he was researching me on Google. He needs to be blocked now. WP:PRIVACY.Cptnono (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Take it to wp:Oversight, don't draw further attention here. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• I agree that the diffs you provided are troubling, and I think Deliciousgrapefruit really needs to disengage and do something else for a while. But I don't agree that a block would help the situation, in fact I think it would further inflame the matter, and possibly be seen as punitive rather than a preventative action. What's done is done, and should you require a revdel that option is available for you upon request. At this point User:Deliciousgrapefruit should be formally warned about wiki-hounding and only if it continues shall it require a block. -- œ 03:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Per OlEnglish here, I gave Deliciousgrapefruit (talk · contribs) a warning about posting personal info (using {{uw-pinfo}}). Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

My first name being possibly mentioned is really not that worrisome. It is a little but what is done is done. But a warning would be appreciated since I don't want him going a step further and mentioning a last name or employer if it can be found. BTW< he was already warned by an admin for personal attacks and keeps it up so a final final warning that really means something would be great.Cptnono (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Grapefruit was created on the 6th and immediately went after the Fort Hood shooting "terrorism" debate. Methinks there is hosiery afoot. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

where else would you wear your hosiery if not afoot? Maybe I shouldn't ask. --Jayron32 04:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

On your head? -- œ 04:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

depends on which head...--Jayron32 04:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The responses to this Grapefruit situation are getting fruitier by the minute. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I just nuked that first diff, FWIW - Alison 04:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Tbanks Ali, good call. -- œ 04:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

In my defense I didn't out anyone. I employed a slang term that means "buddy" or "Pal" that also happens to be a name. Had no intention of outing anyone, nor did I ever threaten to do so. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

And I would just add, that while Cptnono has stayed away from personal attacks since his warning, he has continued to bully edit, and continued to treat me like a subordinate. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Baseball bugs, please don't accuse me of being a sock puppet. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Please feel free to explain your editing history. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. It's always interesting when brand-new users pop up on AN/I and seem to know considerably more than would normally be the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Him being a sock has crossed my mind. He has shown a lack of knowledge regarding process so I doubt it is a long time abuser of socks if that is the case. Not sure though. And I know this is the exact opposite of AGF but I do not believe the user when he says there was not an attempt to use my name. It was one of the only edits to my talk page and the user said he was looking me up on Google. Just seems more likely that it was a veiled jab and not the use of something like "pal" that is hardly ever used and does not show up in their vocabulary in other discussions. But as long as it doesn't happen again I am happy. Does this come across as being a bully? Don;t no and don't care as long as there are no more personal attacks from the editor.Cptnono (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Cptnono, I never said I was looking you up on google. Nor am I sock puppet. I don't see how my editing history indicates that I am one. What I think is going on is there are a small circle of editors who pretty much run things on these pages. Bully editorsDeliciousgrapefruit (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Do not refactor other's comments! I provided a diff and you changed it. Completely out of line.Cptnono (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Disregard. I misread the tabs open. Link is here where you say you have been googling me: Cptnono (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's see... He said he wasn't googling you, and he said he wasn't a sock. The part about not googling you was untrue. Any bets on the other part? :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Enough is probably enough with his recent actions: "Fuck you. FUCK YOU> FUCK YUOU FUUUUUUUUCK YOUOOUOOUUOOUOUOUOUUOOUOU!!!!! STOP PUSHING ME AROUND ASSHOLE> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU ARE A FUCKING BULLLY and you are a biased editor who controls the Beck page. FUCK YOU." and blanking of the entire article. Cptnono (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

And he has crossed 3/rr in his second blank of the page.Cptnono (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

3 blanks of the page now. Epic meltdown. I've been in the same boat before. We do not do cool down blocks but there is certainly a level of disruption that needs to stop.Cptnono (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours for now. Feel free to change the length either way without letting me know. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 23:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

48h sounds good. I didn't examine the person's contribs but based on reading the user talk page, I see an extremely frustrated newbie who stumbled into a crappy region of[REDACTED] and got into standard wiki-conflict without having the skills to engage in it. I left some advice encouraging the person to come back after the block, but find a new area to work in. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year, EST!

And many happy returns. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Same from me :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Same here. Happy New Year from Virginia!--White Shadows 05:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Ditto from Ohio. Happy New Year! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And Happy New Year from North Carolina!!! :-D 05:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

One more year until the world goes to poo! But seriously, Happy New Year everybody! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Bah! What the do the Mayans know? Didn't even predict their own completely mysterious disappearance. Unless... Doc talk 13:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I actually had this Saturday Night Live skit about 2012 in my head there. That's worth it to watch though because it feels quite true. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Assuming EST means Eastern Standard Time, it was a Happy New Year here 15 hours ago. You guys are so slow. (PS: EST is not exclusive to USA) HiLo48 (talk) 05:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

New York *is* the capital of the world. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 05:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Little Rhodie checking in :) Cheers! --Threeafterthree (talk) 05:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess your Eastern Standard Time is different from our Eastern Standard Time. For us, the new year came only about 25 minutes ago. We watched the news and saw the Acorn-drop in Raleigh, N.C., and the celebration in Times Square, New York (as well as seeing several New Yorkers suck each other's spit >:-P). 05:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

And just when I thought I'd managed to repress the memory of the Backstreet Boys, they show up... I thought I hated them in the late 90's, but now I really hate them. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Kicking off the new year with a bit of your own WP:OR on ANI? How could you? :) Gwen Gale (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

seeing several New Yorkers suck each other's spit >:-P Cannot unread. 2011 is now ruined for me, thanks ;) GiftigerWunsch 13:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

L.O.L. That was my fancy way of saying that they were kissing each other on the lips, smooching, and all that grub. One can just imagine them doing what I said above, plus touching tongues, wiping each other's teeth with their tongues, etc. >:-P(I have to quit now, or someone who enjoys such kissing is going to feel like they are nastier and more gross than a Kroger restroom. ;-) It is hard to look at. It makes you want to look away. What is really funny is the fact (and it is fact) that, while the people in New York were smooching, etc., the people in Raleigh were hugging! (Which is a lot cleaner, more sanitary, not gross, and perfectly acceptable to watch!) L.O.L. Regards. -- 01:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Adding my late new year greetings to my fellow wikipedians across the pond. GiftigerWunsch 13:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

And CST

Hiya! Nakon 06:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

PST

Crappy Glue Smear, everyone!

Wait, that's not it... HalfShadow 16:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yay!!! Tacos rule. -FASTILY 19:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

AkankshaG COI and sockpuppetry

Happy New Year everyone! Now on to business as usual...

AkankshaG has been editing/creating articles in a fashion that seems only to be one-sided puffery. I also have evidence through mywikibiz.com (which is down at the moment) and another website, that she works as an executive for Ciplex, an article that she has heavily edited against wp:COI. I also think that she is either contracted through Ciplex or Mywikibiz to create and edit articles for specific corporations without notifying the COI noticeboard. Vector Marketing, Ken Goldstein, CJ Environmental, Tonny Sorensen, and the list goes on, but these are affected.

Another situation has arose that she Sockpuppeted as user:sanfernandocourt , in an attempt to influence a AfD. Possible other socks are currently changing stuff as I type. Hold on... Seems under control for the moment.

The point I'm try to make is that AkankshaG has shown that she is not here to create neutral articles. She has shown by her own behavior that she is only interested in maintaining the ones she has made or completely redone wp:OWN with primary unreliable sources WP:RS and fighting off AfDs through the use of meat puppets and sock puppets. As for evidence, (for the Ciplex COI) look at the photos she uploaded for Vector Marketing, Google the author of the photos along with the term "Ciplex" and you will find what I'm talking about. Phearson (talk) 06:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of AkankshaG, this seems like outing - should it be zapped? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this closely enough yet to see the outing you're referring to, but if something looks like an outing, that's an automatic yes to zapping, and e-mail oversight (and preferrably remove any evidence of the outing from heavily-trafficked boards like ANI). It can always be unrevdelled if found not to be an outing after all. GiftigerWunsch 13:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The author of the photos has been named in conjunction with the license of the photo. To oversight the name would be a violation of that license. Phearson (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Phearson (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

1. This isn't outing as all of this evidence comes directly from Misplaced Pages 2. I say AkankshaG needs an indef block as a promotion-only account. He has been confirmed by checkuser evidence as having used sock puppets in the AfD, and its likely there are meatpuppets there as well. The other recent AfD of one of his articles (also, in my opinion, a puff piece) likewise had a ton of spa's flock to keep the article. I can attest to the fact that Vector Marketing hires individuals to up its "net presence". These guys just basically go around the web and insert friendly comments about the organization everytime somebody high on google's search ranks starts to complain about the company. The promotional intent of AkankashaG's edits is a major cause for concern, but the behaviour during his AfDs is beyond the pale. Anything less than an indef block would be inappropriate. ThemFromSpace 15:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not only Vector Marketing. A quick search of some of these companies shows that they allegedly maybe engaging in unsavory activities, whilst remaining under the radar of authorities. Whenever exposed online, astroturfing trolls attempt to spin, whilst personally attacking the the complainant. I was subjected to such attack on[REDACTED] awhile ago Phearson (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

CU

A formal SPI case has confirmed Alison's findings. Though Chase is requesting a more experienced checker to look at the other socks surrounding the AfD's, as these are more likely Meat-Puppets. I was wondering if the community was fine in looking into these, as they may not be Specific to AkankshaG. I'd recommend it because of WP:DUCK. Phearson (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Indef. Ban Proposal

I personally would like AkankshaG to respond to the accusations here and SPI, but in the meantime, I like to propose that she be blocked indefinably until she is able. Phearson (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It's "indefinitely" not "indefinably". Are you asking for an indefinite block or ban? Doc talk 07:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Would a Ban appropriate in this situation? She did sock. Phearson (talk) 07:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

That wouldn't necessarily justify a ban. My point is this: a block and a ban are two different things. Are you asking for an indefinite block or a formal community ban? There is a huge difference between the two. Doc talk 07:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing again, I go with Formal Ban (sorry for the runaround, this is a first for me). Phearson (talk) 07:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

NP :> I would think an indefinite block would be easier to obtain than a community ban, but I guess it depends on which way the wind is blowing at the time. Doc talk 07:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a banning offense, but I do think a block is in order. ThemFromSpace 14:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that blocks can be imposed by community !vote, or I've never encountered it anyway. It would set a troubling precedent.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Reblocks can (it happened not long ago), but I'm also a bit leery of what's going on here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The community can only impose a block if some admin is willing to implement it, so a "community-imposed" block is no different from any other: an admin has examined the evidence, and used their judgment before blocking. That said, I have no opinion on the current matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have only checked the vector marketing article so far, and I see both the insertion of excess promotional material, and the insertion of way overbalanced derogatory material, along with the removal of what seem to me usable sources. It's important to keep balance. DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

We can discuss that specifically on the article. To sum up, AkankshaG should be banned, articles created/edited should be placed under scrutiny or deleted, and deal with a bunch of obvious issues in the wake. Phearson (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose ban. That's way too harsh. Just block them and move on - Alison 03:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

user:Rodhullandemu

A lizard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.28.11.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
80.189.177.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.30.82.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.28.99.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.30.195.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.30.208.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.27.238.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.30.108.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can someone please look into this editor again. Edit summaries such as this are a clear violation of WP:CIVIL, and this is not the first time either. 92.28.11.13 (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

See for previous reference. 92.28.11.13 (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

What's your connection to the other user IDs? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, since IPs don't have watchlists, it would seem that the OP in this case has some identity he is trying to mask. The OP did not make their first appearance at Misplaced Pages today, since they are obviously familiar with Rodhullandemu's past behavioral issues. I would like to know who the OP is so we can more fully investigate any conflict between him and Rodhullandemu. --Jayron32 16:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The IP's all emanate from England, which figures, as we seem to get a lot of trolling from there. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You truely are a prat. Ceoil 02:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

And you truely/truly are funny. Thanks for giving me some new material. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Just an observation. Ceoil 03:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

note - this is just Bugs personal opinion, there is no evidence or support for it at all. Off2riorob (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, strictly anecdotal observation. Certainly we have trolls from around the universe. I just seem to have run into the British ones more often. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The OP's been trolling AN/I and other editors for the past hour. I've blocked them, the trolling's been unrelenting , , . Acroterion _(talk) 15:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Lizard has a sporadic editing history, although the last few edits prior to today's seem normal, and even today's wasn't horrible. Hard telling if the IP's are actually him, or are simply that British bloke trying to get him in trouble. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The IP's teeth must be acting up. Oh yes, I went there! HalfShadow 16:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

92.30.26.120

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

He's been blocked for a year. I think this is unfair. Someone down it to a week. (No I am not him) --Hinata talk 16:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

He's been blocked for a month, not a year, but you're right - it's not fair that his other socks, listed above, are only blocked for a few hours. A month for all of them would be fair. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no point blocking for more than a few hours since he just moves onto a different ip address. - Kingpin (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention this is the first time that IP has been blocked. --Hinata talk 19:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

A 92.30 prefix block would probably help here, since most of the attacking IPs are under that prefix, but I wouldn't know how much damage that would do. HalfShadow 19:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

also, I didn't know that it 2011, I thought it was 2010. My mistake --Hinata talk 19:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It's actually 2012. You overslept. :)

A 92.30 prefix block would be an interesting experiment. Maybe just for a day or so, to see what happens, if anything. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It'd certainly be interesting for those answering the unblock list, because even the 92.30.0.0/16 is too busy. However, it's actually a much wider range anyway, as you can see from the list above - 92.24.0.0/13 to be precise, which is bigger than we can block. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a British ISP, who generally "own" a block of ip's that they allocate on a "first come, first served" basis - log off and log back in and you have a new addy. (This is not WP:BEANS, since the only UK users who don't know this are unable to understand what is written here.) This is just a troll who bounces around a few ip's trying to get a rise out of Rod - likely a thwarted vandal. Aggressive RBI is all that can be done. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

But, as the IP ranges match each other very closely, wouldn't it be more efficient with a range block? The only major difference I see is the 80.xxx IP, which is not in the same range as the 92.30.xxx ones. HeyMid (contribs) 23:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I think I understand Black Kite's post – the range is actually too wide, wider than what is possible to block on Misplaced Pages. HeyMid (contribs) 23:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

DOES IT BOTHER ANYBODY THAT NO ONE'S NOTIFIED A LIZARD? I have done so: User_talk:A_lizard#ANI_thread. 174.20.220.94 (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

All that trolling and user:A lizard still remains unblocked?!? 85.210.61.162 (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it certain that the named user is also those IP's? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

All listed IPs are located in Great Britain. The 174.xxx IP is unrelated, but the 85.xxx IP is located very closely to the other ones, also in Great Britain. But I believe a CheckUser is needed here. HeyMid (contribs) 11:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Dude why are you checking my IP? I'm as pissed as you guys are! 85.210.61.162 (talk) 12:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

King09roy

• King09roy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Keeps making distruptive edits to Misplaced Pages especially on the article "2024 Summer Olympics". User:Intoronto1125 16:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

He's got a grand total of 2 visible edits to that article, which are at worst original research. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

And speaking of disruption, why did you redirect the 2032 Summer Olympics when there's still and AFD discussion going on? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

So what is stopping him from continuing to do so? Intoronto1125 (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

From doing what? Making articles about future Olympics? Let's see what the consenus is before answering that question. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

He has repeatdly continued to add fake infomation about Manilla bidding for the Olympics without any source. Intoronto1125 (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Once on December 7 and once today is "repeatedly"? Just revert it with the edit summary saying "No source" or something like that. If it develops into a true edit war, take it to the edit-warring page. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You might have discussed it with them first or at least explained what the problem was rather than this. Also I can't see where you notified them about this discussion. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 23:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

but I've done that. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 23:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikidemon jerking people around

Am I screwing up?

I'm in the process of working through old images uploaded to Misplaced Pages with the deprecated licenses {{No rights reserved}} and {{PD-release}}. Whenever there's any kind of halfway-credible sourcing or assertion of user creation I'm moving the images out to the Commons.

The sets I'm working through now were uploaded back in 2004 when image policies were considerably different, and uploaders were not expected to pass permissions on to OTRS when they were not the creator of the work. In some cases the sources have succumbed to linkrot and the status cannot be verified.

I had an admin drop a note on my talk page saying these old images should be left alone because they were uploaded in good faith. An example image of the ones he is talking about would be File:Elliptical leaf.JPG. I understand where he is coming from and sympathize, but this type of photo should be able to be replaced with another that is unambiguously free.

Anyway, I welcome feedback on whether I'm doing the right thing here. Kelly 19:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Policy-wise, your placement of a no permission tag is correct. File:Elliptical leaf.JPG cites a source, but it does not appear to be helpful in determining the copyright status of the file. When it comes to copyright, there is no middle ground; the file either meets the criteria, or it doesn't. Although I must agree that tagging deadlinked-sourced files with no permission tags is not particularly constructive to the project, it is still our responsibility to protect the rights of authors and anyone who wants to reuse files uploaded to Misplaced Pages. -FASTILY 20:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

In the case of the leaf picture, the uploader is active even today, so a direct question about that picture (uploaded in 2004) would seem to be in order. The rules weren't nearly so strict in 2004 as they are now. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This particularly image was a copyright violation. Good catch. But you are also tagging images like File:Gudis Argenteus.jpg, that are quite obviously PD. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that Codex image, I don't know how I screwed that up. I must have mistakenly thought it was a 3D subject. Kelly 20:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to add my voice to the support: No, no you're not screwing up. It's perhaps not work that will make you popular, but it's work that needs to be done. Good luck. J Milburn (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Where was it decided that {{No rights reserved}} and {{PD-release}} are deprecated? They both seem valid and helpful. SlimVirgin 20:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

They redirect to {{PD-author}} now, which is more specific. Kelly 00:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Blatant self promotion

Tota1056 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is obviously an account created purely for the self-promotion of the user's Own blackeyed peas blog. To convenient that the owner of the blog calls themselves malTOTA? Said user has added his/her blog link to almost every See aslo or external links section of every Black Eyed Peas article. What concerns me most about the blog is that it hosts illegal copies of the albums and singles of the group. I think a clear block/ban is required? Indef. ? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 22:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

We can't tolerate linking to copyright violations like that. I'd suggest blacklisting the domain as a first step, and blocking the user as a second. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Fluoride spammer community ban discussion archived

Just a note, the community ban discussion of the fluoride spammer (Wikidrips, Freedom5000, et al.) was archived (here) without a formal closure. I believe there's an obvious, predominant consensus in that discussion, and that it meets other requirements for such a thing, so I'd appreciate if some administrator could enact the magic formalisms. Thanks in advance. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I've unarchived it above -- hopefully someone else will close it within 24 hours. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

So... who's gonna write the entry? Under "The Fluoride Spammer" or "Fluoride Spammer"? Doc talk 06:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added the entry under Freedom5000, the primary alias of the fluoride spammer. --Dylan620 15:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Upset troll resorting to unsourced BLP additions and genitalia edit summaries

Kiki Rebeouf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Okay, so someone nominated an article she wrote for deletion. She nominated a couple of articles for deletion in retaliation. Now she's calling me a "cunt." And adding unsourced information to BLPs. School's back on Monday. In the meantime, she needs monitored at the very least. But probably a quick block is in order. --Kleopatra (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the cunt thing. Anyway, I want to nominate "Torc Waterfall" for deletion as I think not a few editors will find the article fails GNG and lacks reliable third party sources. The article as it is has been unsourced for three years. Kleopatra, however, keep reverting my AFD tags as if she/he were the sole gatekeeper of the process. Kiki Rebeouf (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Kleopatra was in the wrong to delete AfD templates, even if placed out of revenge. There is a process for this and if followed it keeps things nice and cool. However User:Kiki Rebeouf has been abusing AfD and this edit summary is probably worth a short block. Kim Dent-Brown 01:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Y'alls been trolled. Kiki Rebeouf (talk · contribs) = Randi Rosenberg (talk · contribs) = Tomas Gilbfarb (talk · contribs), who's probably Wiki_brah. Anyways - party on - Alison 01:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, fast work Alison! Kim Dent-Brown 01:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure 'nuff. --Kleopatra (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:United States and state terrorism

Jrtayloriv 's continued abuse

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I'm closing this down before it descends into any further madness. At this point the thread is generating more heat than light. Take it to WP:WQA or try WP:MEDCOM. Something. Please. --Jayron32 03:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv has made repeated personal insults, most notably repeatedly and groundlessly called me a "liar" on Talk:United_States_and_state_terrorism#NPOV. Attempts to ignore this have come to naught.Repeated attempts to get him to retract the comments or apologize have just resulted in him doubling down with the abuse, sarcasm and petulance, effectively derailing any attempt made for other whom he disagrees with to improve the article. This user has a history of bulling and disrespect toward other editors and has escalated this to the point where good faith can no longer be assumed. This editor should be blocked from this article if not Misplaced Pages. V7-sport (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I find it a bit amusing that I am being called out for personal attacks by a person who has called me "maniacal" and a "wiki-punk", says that I am making "lame attempts to assert myself" by seeking third-party mediation in our dispute, that I am trying to "censor" the article, that I am "overcompensating" by spell-checking my posts, saying that he was going to "call the waaaaaaambulance" in response to one of my complaints about his refusal to adhere to talk page guidelines, that I "like tossing my own weight around", etc. I think that given his childish and disruptive behavior, I have responded with a remarkable amount of restraint, by not responding in kind. The most he can say is that I've talked in a "condescending" tone to him, and called him a liar.

Initially I was very helpful to V7-sport, who came to me stating that he wanted to have the article deleted, even though he knew about the consensus in the past 9 deletion discussions that it should be kept. I told him that this wouldn't happen, and that it would be a waste of his time, and tried to explain to him how to improve the article instead (i.e by adding information from reliable sources, and making concrete suggestions for changes). He began getting disruptive, by including original research from primary documents that don't even cover the topic of the article, and by blanking the entire article. After myself and other editors repeatedly tried to explain policy to him, and received personal attacks and disruptive edits in return, I started using a less friendly tone with him, and even called him a liar after he had lied and misrepresented my statements several times.

I don't deny that I stated that he was lying, nor do I apologize for it. I said that he was a liar because he has clearly lied, several times, and has repeatedly misattributed views to me without retraction or apology, even after the falsehood of his statements was clearly pointed out to him (with the exception of one case where he said "I amend that"). For instance in this section, V7-sport said the following about me (1) "you are essentially arguing for this definition to be excluded on the grounds of how it may be used rather then on it's own merits for encyclopedic inclusion", (2) you and yours have not allowed one comma to be changed, (3) from the onset you left little doubt that you thought I was "wasting your time" for having an issue with this article.. These are all lies, as I have demonstrated there. He has also repeatedly misattributed views to me, such as that: (1) any disagreement or call for civility is "whining", (2) that I view other peoples editing attempts as "personal attacks", (3) that I thought that Including the Governments definition of terrorism in an article on government terrorism is "synth", amongst others, nowhere did I claim to hold these views -- he just made them up as straw men. When someone lies repeatedly, with documentation right there on the talk page, it is not a personal attack to state that they are lying. It is a statement of fact, just like saying that they included/removed a passage of text into/from the article. Maybe it sounds harsh, but it's true, and given the nature of his repeated personal attacks listed above, I'm a bit amused that he would come here whining about it. But if people here think that I should refrain from saying that he is lying when he lies, then I will do so (I'll just say things like "that's not true").

And also, now that he's brought up our interpersonal conflict (which would probably be more appropriate for a WP:WQA, but that's fine) maybe someone could talk to him about the personal attacks above, and get him back on track, hopefully getting him to start contributing something useful to the discussion like most of the other editors are doing, instead of continually derailing the conversation with personal issues (as well as dealing with his repeated soapboxing, refusal to provide reliable sources, and derailing of an otherwise production talk page discussion).

Anyhow, when not dealing with his shenanigans, myself and other editors have actually started making progress via the RFC process in rewriting one of the problematic sections. While we are having disagreements, we have been able to work together remarkably well considering our differing viewpoints. We've gathered quite a few sources, begun writing suggested revisions, and began discussing possible reorganizations of the article. V7-sport has not contributed to this, and is still obsessing over his personal problems with me, which I have repeatedly told him I'm no longer interested in discussing. I'd like him to join in, but he'll need to start focusing on finding sources that support his claims, stop making personal attacks, stop misrepresenting other users, and try to adhere to Misplaced Pages policy in general. It seems like he won't take that advice from people on the talk page, so hopefully someone else will be able to help him learn how to collaborate with other editors, and properly add content to articles. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not see that this discussion should have been brought here. Writers however should attempt to respond to issues, and assume good faith, even when it seems difficult to do so. TFD (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Best suited for WP:WQA, methinks. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

V7-sport, when you misrepresent things on a talkpage and then get called on it, it's a bit rich to come here and complain about the people pointing it out. Reading the talkpage actually suggests to me that it would be a far more collegial environment if you weren't involved in it, rather than Jtayloriv. "Chances are excellent that you wouldn't call me a liar to my face." - hmm, real nice, but some advice - trying to act the tough guy on the Internet generally doesn't work very well here. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Stating that he was helpful from the start is untrue, as is stating that I was aware all the attempts to delete the article previously. Jrtayloriv employed a sarcastic tone which appears to be calculated to communicate exasperation that one would even question what was a fait acompli and responded to questions as if they were idiotic. "Childish and disruptive" is the term he uses above. Regardless, where he states "I don't deny that I stated that he was lying, nor do I apologize for it. I said that he was a liar because he has clearly lied, several times, and has repeatedly misattributed views to me without retraction or apology, even after the falsehood of his statements was clearly pointed out to him" this is simply untrue and I have repeatedly explained myself in the article. Indeed, I have proven that I was telling the truth. Per guidelines to not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion I will refer interested parties to http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:United_States_and_state_terrorism#NPOV. V7-sport (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Re Black_Kite, What specifically do you believe I misrepresented? Not trying to act the tough guy, I believe it is cowardly to saying things to people on the internet that you wouldn't be saying to their faces. V7-sport (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You said "the article is being set up to exclude US Law but include fringe polemicists like Nick Turse, who praised the columbine shooters as "revolutionaries"", yet, as Jtayloriv pointed out, the Turse article was only being used to source a quote from a military officer in Vietnam, not any opinion of Turse's. Jtayloriv called you on it and said you were being misleading, which you were. Oh, and in your next reply to him you called him "pathetic" as well. If you're going to throw the insults around yourself, I would suggest developing a slightly thicker skin. Furthermore, I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be closed, there clearly isn't any administrative action that needs taking here. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, there is content in that article cited to a story written by Nick Turse. That was the point I was making. Secondly the quote is not the entirety of the citation. I reject the notion that I was lying in the -strongest terms-. Thirdly, he has called me a liar repeatedly throughout this. If you are telling me that this is a free-for-all so be it. I have been trying to avoid answering him in kind but if the remedy is to develop a thicker skin then any attempt at restraint is waisted. V7-sport (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any part of the article cited to an opinion of Turse's. I see unsourced material, which probably should be tagged as such. This is not a free-for-all, and I suggest that treating it as such would be a very poor idea. However, it looks as though progress is being made by editors on that page now, perhaps it would be a good idea for you (and to an extent Jtayloriv) to ignore each other and concentrate on improving the article. Black Kite (t) (c) 03:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you've been remarkably polite, and showed a great amount of restraint ... except when you've been telling me how "lame" and "pathetic" and "maniacal" and "wiki-punk"-ish I am. Anyway, your non-argument regarding the Turse source has already been responded to on the talk page, and there is no reason to waste time on ANI with hypocritical accusations of "personal attacks" -- that's what WP:WQA is for. If you really feel that I've got an etiquette problem with you, and that you haven't made any personal attacks, take it to WP:WQA, and have them tell you the same thing you just got told by everyone here. But what I'd recommend is that instead of obsessing over me, you start contributing to the article, by making suggestions for concrete improvements based on reliable sources, like everyone else is doing. As I've told you several times before, I am no longer going to discuss these personal issues with you on the talk page - I'd rather continue spending my time improving the article rather than bickering with you. I'd recommend, as Black Kite did, that you do the same. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Re.Black Kite "Commanding officers encouraged the use of massive, indiscriminate firepower to wrack up high body counts. Louis Janowski, an adviser during Speedy Express,observed the operations and called them a form of 'non selective terrorism'".... The next citation is to the Salon article. The point being that I thought content from Turse (be it an opinion or quote) being included and and US law on terrorism excluded was wrong. Not a lie. So that's it? Get on back out there and ignore him? V7-sport (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

General problom at Talk:United States and state terrorism

There are on going problems at Talk:United States and state terrorism mostly between two users (and I am not going to seclet one as the main culperate) Jrtayloriv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and V7-sport (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He atmosphere is getting a bit nasty now down there. I did inform the users on the talk page that if they didm nto calm down I would launch an ANI ]. Example ars ] Accusation of trying to exclude content or of blocking edits (not sure what is meant by that) Accusatio of calliing othrs liers ] (which the user has done ]). I would like an Admin to have a look at this situation . There are a few other issues as well but this is the main problom.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC) First user informded ].Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Second user informed ]Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The "article" is problematic, and is intrinsically an "advocacy article" as shown by the nature of the edits therein. Collect (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Whatever probloms the artciel may have does not justify or condone the lack of respect and general agresion shown on the talk page. Moreover these are not the most seriouos allegations, I would liek an Admiin to pop by and have look.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. An uninvolved admin should identify any talk page misuse and politely remind editors, and maybe collapse off-topic bickering. The more serious issue I see is that there has been heavy advocacy editing of the article, producing a poor quality result. I started an RFC which seems to be helping. An admin should keep an eye out for any accounts that might try to stonewall against consensus. Jehochman 13:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

This just got brought up here, and V7-sport was told to take "lack of respect" problems to WP:WQA, which is the place for these sorts of complaints. Nothing new has happened since then, except for yet another personal attack by V7-sport (calling me a "morally preening brat"), and a continued refusal by him to contribute usefully to the article, instead of focusing on personal issues. Again, the place for this should be WP:WQA, where everyone can sort out "etiquette" problems with each other. There is no need for admin intervention at this point, because all of the other users are doing fine, and are currently working collaboratively to improve the article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv has set himself up as guardian and arbiter of what can and cannot be included in this article. The efforts I have made to change this article have been met with scorn, stonewalling and repeated false charges that I am a liar. Probably to derail any progress. He has a history of being disrespectful with other editors here, I do not. A previous request to address this here was met with advice to "develop a thicker skin". The endless arguments, charges and poisonous atmosphere have made it exceedingly difficult to contribute, indeed, after about week of this I have not been able to make a single change to the article.

This article is rife with POV, it is an advocacy article that has existed as a coatrack to collect charges of supposed state terrorism, which as it turns out can be just about anything from acts of war to radio interviews. As it stands this article is an embarrassment to Misplaced Pages and the process to address that has been made as unpleasant as possible. V7-sport (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

As usual, your post is rife with unsubstantiated falsehoods (such as that I've "set myself up as a guardian and arbiter") and personal attacks (such as claiming that I'm trying to "derail any progress"). If you really wish to continue with it, take it to WP:WQA, where it belongs. But as myself and several other people have told you, it would be better if you either started contributing something to the article (based on reliable sources), or go somewhere else. And you need to stop obsessing over your personal issues with me, because I promise you that nobody is going to take seriously your complaints about me (justifiably) calling you a liar, after your repeated name-calling (saying that I'm a punk, a maniac, pathetic, hypocritical, etc. etc. etc.) and disruption. Start contributing something to the productive discussion we're having there, and stop wasting everyone's time with your childish antics. Thanks. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"is rife with unsubstantiated falsehoods (such as that I've "set myself up as a guardian and arbiter" I didn't think that this was the place to substantiate them, however, you have taken the lead in defending this article, including during the previous deletion attempt where you admitted "screaming" at another editor for wasting time. And thank you for inviting me to leave wikipedia. Who the hell do you think you are? This is exactly the tone that you have taken throughout. I have no "personal issues" with you other then you have been breathtakingly arrogant, rude and sarcastic throughout this process. You are not "justified" in calling me a liar, I have shown that on the talk page. You doing so is in itself a lie. Amazing to see what you will resort to to preserve this monstrosity of an article. V7-sport (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, I didn't file this, another editor did. Presumably because the page has become so toxic that others may not feel comfortable contributing. V7-sport (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll let someone else handle you from here. I've already invested enough time trying to remedy your childish behavior, and don't feel like playing games with you here. I'm busy collaboratively working on the article along with all of the other editors. I hope that someone can convince you to do the same instead of derailing things with your personal issues. If anyone else has anything to say to me, I'll be watching. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

"Trying to remedy my childish behavior". Nothing arrogant and un-constructive there. And again. your insults and lies are not "personal issues" , they are a part of a pattern of you being obnoxious to get your own way on various issues here. Amazing how you can just state "I promise you that nobody is going to take seriously your complaints about me (justifiably) calling you a liar". V7-sport (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-constructive edits

Would some admin mind looking at these, at this point in time, unchallenged contributions. They are perhaps a little short of outright vandalism, though they are also a little short of being remotely useful. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like constructive maintenance to me.-- cheers, Michael C. Price 10:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict):0k, they need notifying. A bit of a technical subject, but I see that he created Eleginopidae with the source which says "We parsed the following live from the Web into this page. Such content is managed by its original site and not cached on Discover Life. Please send feedback and corrections directly to the source. See original regarding copyrights and terms of use." Not a good source. What other problems do you see? Dougweller (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, this "constructive maintenance" includes adding the same inappropriate "See also" and Category to over 40 articles. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Query—why was this considered so urgent that the section couldn't be put in the right place? ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 10:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

That question probably belongs on Epipelagic's talk page unless you want us to take Admin action on it. Meanwhile, another new article, Dentatherinidae, only says "This fish holds the IUCN red list status of: "not evaluated"." from , but a Google books search suggests something might actually have been written about it. I'll turn it into a redirect to Mercer's tusked silverside. Dougweller (talk) 10:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, explain on my talk page, TreasuryTag, your gratuitous attempt to stir shit. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Cryptacanthodidae says just "These fish, according to eol.org, are also known as Wrymouths" plus a link to eol.org, but we already have Wrymouth. Dougweller (talk) 11:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

IP 96.245.189.195

This editor has been repeatedly adding a spam link to Dysphoria despite being warned on article talk and repeatedly on user talk. I think we've been pretty patient but now might be the time for a sanction. User has been notified Anthony (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed! A spammer to the bone. Warnings haven't work, so off they go. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

They're still here . Is a block really in place? VinculumMan (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

.... oh and back in Self-medication too - see VinculumMan (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

They were blocked a few minutes ago. David Biddulph (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks David. VinculumMan (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Three things need to be done:

• nativeremedies.com needs to be added to the blacklist
• The two articles Dysphoria and Self-medication need to be semi-protected for a long time. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Slanging match at WP:Linking

In recent days, there has been a slanging match developing at WP:Linking. Instead of attempting to calm the waters, the involved Admin Ckatz (talk · contribs) has been doing his/her fair share of fanning the flames, including the reverting of collapsing off-topic rants and personal insults. Can I ask for an uninvolved admin to come around for a look? --Ohconfucius 09:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason for the revert (which I also supported) is that the rationale for an earlier comment was hidden but not the original comment. Thus the original collapse was not helpful. -- cheers, Michael C. Price 09:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I've just informed two users who appear to be involved; you should have done so yourself. Can you provide diffs of comments which you feel are personal attacks? What action are you looking to get from filing this report? GiftigerWunsch 09:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment As one of a number of editors who are involved in the fiasco that is the linking guideline, I would strongly endorse any and all outside intervention in this matter. I am well aware that this particular post by Ohconfucius - also one of the central parties to WP:LINKING's endless disagreements - is an utterly transparent attempt to discredit my involvement by misleadingly portraying it as that of an admin. OC is well aware that I'm acting as an editor in this respect, just as he is and just as any Misplaced Pages contributor is entitled to do. He knows full well that I have never, ever positioned my contributions as that of an admin with respect to the linking affair, nor have I made any suggestions that the admin bit was a factor in my contributions. However, I would hope that any admins responding to this would take it as an opportunity to review the matter in depth and offer an impartial opinion. I'm confident that the talk page will clearly demonstrate the problems at hand here. --Ckatz_spy 10:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• The edit in question is here. In all honesty, I find very little within the {{collapse}} template helpful and conducive to a civilised debate – in fact, there is incivility and attacks aplenty – thus I collapsed it. I never alleged that Katz abused his/her admin powers, only that as an Admin, there is a certain responsibility to act in a civil manner and to calm waters that might be over-turbulent. Ckatz abjectly failed in that respect. --Ohconfucius 10:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • It was a selective collapse, but I guess you'll never admit (or even see) that. Just like your previous archiving of an active talk page thread. -- cheers, Michael C. Price 12:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
    • No, I admit it was selective, but it seemed to me to be the densest block of unproductive slanging on the page at the time – it may have since grown. Had I collapsed everything unproductive, the {{collapse}} templates would be dotted all over that page, including several comments from MCP and some of my fellow "jihadists" or "crusaders" (amongst others), and a large chunk of biting sarcasm from our mutual friend CKatz, so go figure. --Ohconfucius 13:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
    • It was yet another cheap shot bad faith comment to say "I guess you'll never admit (or even see) that" --Ohconfucius 02:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Either I'm acting as an admin (which I've already stated I'm not) and uninvolved (which, again, I'm not) or I am involved as an editor and as such should be treated the same as you and everyone else involved. You can't have it both ways, singling one person out on the basis of the 'bit when it suits your purposes. --Ckatz_spy 23:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Not acting in your capacity as an admin is no entitlement to bad behaviour. --Ohconfucius 02:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been watching, not participating, but this is falling into the date delinking debacle all over again, with half the involved parties the same as the ones here. I definitely strongly recommended everyone backing away from the table and take a breather and remind ourselves how date delinking fell into an Arbcom case because of such attitudes. --MASEM (t) 15:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• It was a perfectly reasonable request, which thanks to the cool head of the OP has now been resolved. However, for a time, there were roadblocks and ambushers along the way. I feel that one of them, Ckatz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who usually behaves within 'reasonable' parameters, was way out of line on this occasion. --Ohconfucius 17:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It's funny, OC, but you were very quick to report me (and to make it out to be somehow admin-related when it is no such thing at all). Why then, did you stay silent when one of your compatriots was repeatedly (and disruptively) dredging up completely unrelated matters (such as unconnected block records, complaints, and accusations of behind-the-scenes collaboration) to sidetrack the discussions? Would it not have been better to caution him weeks ago, given that you and he are working together with regard to delinking, and thus perhaps prevent tensions from ever reaching the boiling point? --Ckatz_spy

Compatriot???? I live in China. I believe my "compatriots" live on other continents. --Ohconfucius 01:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• How does sarcasm by Ckatz (an admin who should be setting an example) further the debate?  GFHandel.   20:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

How does arbitrarily singling out one comment for a cheap shot - while completely ignoring far more serious abuses of civility by a long-term editor - further the debate? Again, your complaints would have more meaning if you, OC, etc. had acted weeks ago to reign in your compatriot. Instead, you chose to let him carry on with disruptive, distracting comments that had no relation to the discussion. For that matter, why do you continue to espouse a condescending, "we know best" attitude and a dismissive approach to anyone who questions your position? Are you really surprised that tempers are frayed? --Ckatz_spy 23:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Ckatz, your behaviour lately at MOS:Linking (debates here and here) has been ordinary (at best). I posted a proposal to the community to which you immediately attempted to poison-the-well with a reply that did not address any part of the proposal's content. Your reply was classic assume-bad-faith as it attempted to involve the past (as opposed to addressing the issues raised). Comments such as "...you chose to let him carry on with..." indicate a lack of understanding about my role at WP. My "attitude" and "approach" are appropriate based on the realisation (now gaining momentum at MOS:Linking) that the vast majority of editors are in favour of the targeted linking being practised (the editors in article-land who are overwhelmingly happy to accept the many tens-of-thousands of edits). You are a far better Wikipedian than you are currently demonstrating, and I believe you need to back off from MOS for a while and allow people who are willing to debate the substantive issues to have a fair go. Of course I'm happy to get your input (on the topic) at any time because it is essential that the MOS is brought into line with the more mature approach to linking being accepted by the community, and your experience will help to achieve that.  GFHandel.   00:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Funny, but if I were to suggest the same of you (or Tony, or OC, etc.) I doubt it would be well received. Note that, despite your spurious claims of "bad-faith" editing on my part, you have completely ignored my query to you about the truly inappropriate behaviour. --Ckatz_spy 01:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Well, it so happened that that particular discussion centred on certain actions I had taken, so naturally I needed to participate. Already there were accusations about my being on a jihad once again. There would have been a darn site more venom against me had I not responded. There were actually precious few positive or constructive comments from you or Price or NHH in that connection, and you (collectively) decided in your infinite wisdom to pile on the vitriol and rather unbecoming sacrasm. Therein lies my problem. --Ohconfucius 01:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• I would endorse Masem's good advice here. When you start noticing yourself being sarcastic, usually backing off will be a good thing. --John (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

And what about the repeated, dismissive attitude throughout the discussion? Over and over again, people who make the effort to voice their concerns are treated with derision and dishonesty. Responses are ignored, people are accused of being part of "the link-the-crap-out-of-everything crowd" (GregL), of collusion ("It looks very much like tag-teaming here. Are you backchannelling with each other?" (Tony1), and failing to accept the "absolute correctness" of the matter (as evidenced by GFHandel's dismissive "we should all be supporting these attempts (by hard-working and dedicated editors) to improve articles... The death of any sensible opposition to the valuable linking being performed occurred today with: A) the blind criticism of such edits and B) the emotive and irrational call to join the forces that oppose such improvements to WP." Further distractions come from the presentation of completely unrelated events to disrupt discussions, such as Tony1's "I thought you were blocked ...." response to N-HH (dragging in a two-year-old unconnected incident) and his repeated referencing of an old AN/I post against me (from a disgruntled SPA trying to use the site for self-promotion). Why are they not advised to "back off" as well? --Ckatz_spy 23:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• You don't know that I tried to counsel him in private, although the outcome is neither here nor there. The comments I collapsed included your sarcastic outburst that did you no credit whatsoever. Instead of thanking me, you now imply I'm a hippocrite – I'm deeply offended ;-)--Ohconfucius 01:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC).

• It seems to me that Ckatz perceives the pressure of imagining herself (himself?) as the last-line-of-defense minuteman—or the little Dutch boy with all the responsibility of the world on her shoulders as she plugs the leak in the dike against smart-linking. It seems an out-of-proportion, nearly single-minded focus and isn’t healthy nor good for Misplaced Pages. It seems it might be best if she left the issue to the others, who aren’t quite so impassioned, and gave it a rest for a bit. Greg L (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Korea

Hi, please semi-protect this article for IP editors. Thanks. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 12:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

A 3 month block of the IP would seem like a better idea. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 12:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

There's been more vandalism from a different IP, so I semi-protected it for a month. Its protection log is semi a week, off a week, semi a week, off a week - maybe longer-term semi-protection will make them get a new hobby. My admin actions are, as always, open for review and change with consensus, but I think this is the way to go here. KrakatoaKatie 22:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you two both. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 05:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Slight edit war

There is a slight edit war at Jimmy Carter UFO incident‎. One editor who is unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages policies will not accept CNN as a reliable, verifyable source. Bubba73 15:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Slight? You ain't kidding. AN3 is thataway ---->. Though without the proper talkpage/userpage discussion efforts and the fact that the unnamed editor (who I assume is Imagguk (talk · contribs)) didn't actually violate 3RR recently, I don't know how well it would go. At any rate: this is the wrong venue, and shouldn't be the "first stop" in a content dispute. Doc talk 06:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

POV warrior at International Sikh Youth Federation

There's an apparently strongly biased pro-Sikh editor, User:Amritsarramdas, at International Sikh Youth Federation, removing sourced negative information and rewriting it as strongly biased support for the organization. He looks to be heading for a block, but I don't know if he needs more rope yet, and I don't really have time to hang around until he reaches 4 warnings - so can someone please have a look and decide if anything needs to be done yet? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks to be more "anti" than "pro-sikh" The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I have stuck a welcome notice on their talkpage, and left some comments about consensus and neutral point of view. The article historically looks pretty much like an anti subject diatribe, and it may be that it could do with some "pro" content to ensure that it is a balanced piece. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Comments like "The bigger mission of indian government and its RAW or Research and Analysis Wing or I.B (Intelligence Bureau) is to sabotage or hijack the peaceful sikh movement for Khalistan" and "To Defame the sikhs abroad and present them as radicals was the target." seem pretty anti-govt and pro-Sikh to me, but if something balanced could come out of this, that would be great. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the user includes Amritsar in their username does not inspire confidence, but I am familiar enough with the Sikh culture to wish to try and cultivate a beneficial contributor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, the message you left him is excellent -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

IP editor and improper warnings

I've noticed a problem with a user editing from the IP address 68.6.148.3 - this person seems to have problems with ownership issues, and has been issuing vandalism warnings for minor edits (that are not vandalism) to many articles that he's following. I've tried to explain why this is a problem to him, and he tried to deflect the blame with a story about his IP being shared - however, all the edits coming from his IP share the same editing and commenting patterns. I believe we may need more eyes on this editor, and possibly a block to impress upon this editor the severity of the issue. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest semi-protecting List of Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's episodes (season 3) as there appears to be a dispute about some unverified air dates. In short, the air dates haven't been announced yet and the editor(s) adding them are just guessing. Not sure if the other episode lists for that series need any protection. —Farix (t | c) 22:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

MikeWazowski/Back to the Future

The user feels there shouldn't be any mention of why Crispin Glover didn't return for the sequels. True, it is mentioned in detail on Part II, i feel there should be mention on Part I, but he continues to revert my edit, even though there is a source. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:21 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Content disputes should not be brought up here. However, since you're not entirely blameless, and have falsely accused me of vandalism, feel free to discuss it here , where I've filed a WP:3RR report against you, as you have violated that guideline. Good day. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a content dispute, not vandalism. And yes, both sides are edit warring. Might I suggest both sides strike their noticeboard reports and talk it to the article talk page, which as of now neither has done? Dayewalker (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Commercial-free television networks

{{resolved|blocked ip, reverted edits Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)}}

67.142.177.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This editor is going crazy removing info in some cases and adding Category:Commercial-free television networks to every TV page out there pls see here for an example edit. Bringing this here because we will need a mass revert of his/her additions. Moxy (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Informed the IP. GiftigerWunsch 20:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The IP is blocked, and I reverted most edits the IP has made. Some of the channels were actually commercial-free though, so that'll take some time sifting trough. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for unresolving. I might have been too hasty. I saw some good edits, and then I saw some edits, of which I wasn't sure, which means I might have not been assuming good faith on this IP, and was trigger happy (trouts on talk, if you like). This really wasn't an ANI issue, but with this premature block, unfortunately now it is. As of now I'm looking further into it. Sorry for the mishap. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Was asked if "the stations do actually have commercials on them" - yes they do - A&E Network is a great example as not one of their channels do not have commercials (as i am sure we are all aware of).Moxy (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

User contributions of Dogs eating computers

For me, words can't easily explain the contributions of this user.

• Racing to "Autoconfirmed" status for the following:

• Frivolously nominating two articles for CSD and one for PROD using Twinkle
• Moving Chevrolet to Willyrolet in addition to some others to less obscene ones
• Vandalizing the semi-protected page Misplaced Pages:Upload

The user is already blocked, but may need to be on notice. mechamind90 21:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. - Could somebody explain why I had an Edit Conflict even though I clicked "New section"?

What notice is needed? This is a vandalism-only account; it's blocked...goodnight. See WP:RBI.  Frank  |  talk  21:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved? What about the IP address? Not that i want to know which IP address it is, but know what to suspect if you see "Block evasion" as the block reason in any user's log if they have similar edits. mechamind90 21:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:RBI Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Folks, this is a sock puppet of (might as well be banned user) Jacob Hnri 6 (talk · contribs); get used to his name because you all will be hearing from this person a lot. –MuZemike 03:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Administrator GTBacchus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is unproductive. If either of you want to take it further, do so, but baiting each other here is a waste of time. Trebor (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It is quite unacceptable for administrators to abuse other editors in this way: Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Not just administrators but any editors are prohibited from being uncivil to each other. I wish you would both just knock it off. --John (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point, perhaps deliberately. I am not the one being incivil, not by any stretch of the imagination. I didn't call anyone "dishonest" or "emotionally a child". Stop circling the wagons and deal with your out of control fellow admin. Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• How often does incivility go without repercussions? How often are there consequences? My sense is that usually, if not always, there no consequences, and WP:CIVIL is mostly empty words, not a prohibition of anything. Not that I would support action in this case, unless there is a pattern of behavior I don't know about (which would surprise me with respect to GTB - don't know the other person). --Born2cycle (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• In theory there are no punishments here, as blocks aren't supposed to be punitive. In theory. In this case GTB has deliberately and repeatedly abused an editor he's taken a dislike to, which unless he agrees to stop is surely grounds for a block. Malleus Fatuorum 00:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This page is for requesting admin intervention. MF, are you calling for a block on GTB? I wouldn't support that. I've left a note, as you know, at his talk page. Unless this is a pattern of behavior (which I doubt) I don't think further action is called for at this point. If there is evidence of a pattern of uncivil (incivil is not a word btw) behavior, RFC/U would be the next step, much as he said to you in the comment which seems to have started this friction off. --John (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You know as well as I do John that I've been blocked for less than this indiscretion of GTB's. All I want to see is some consistency, some honesty. Malleus Fatuorum 00:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

If I'd been reported here instead of GTB then I'd have been blocked and been forced to either bugger off or plead my case. But because GTB is an admin everything is sweet. Well, think again. Malleus Fatuorum 00:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I know you have, and I'm sorry. Consistency in administering "justice" is not our strong point as a project. I'm being entirely honest when I say that other than express my sorrow that two good people have become annoyed with each other there is little I can do here. --John (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

So if it's OK to give me punitive five-second blocks then why not GTB? Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

History. An occasional reminder is justified as an example and perhaps "pour encourager les autres". In practical terms, it's meaningless, but where you are concerned, it might perhaps feed into an RFC/U. GTB's history is nowhere near as insidious as yours. Rodhullandemu 01:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You really do need to think about waking up pretty soon Rod. Malleus Fatuorum 02:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I am fully awake. However, I am also conscious that if you have a case, you aren't advancing it. I think you should examine your own position here, and if it doesn't fit in here, perhaps you should find some other website to which to contribute. Meanwhile, I'm a grapefruit, and you can't crack me, so kindly stop pushing the envelope. It's a waste of your time. Rodhullandemu 03:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You were cracked last time , though I suppose you've learned. Right, little chap? Wahoh (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Little chap? How does that help? And how does a six-month old link have any relevance to this? Come on, either make it relevant, or forget it. And it helps if you would stop patronising me. Stick to the facts, or leave it; that came to nothing, and it's still nothing. Rodhullandemu 03:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

How about when there is a pattern of such behavior, affecting countless editors and lasting years? There seems to be no action even then. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I recall an unbelievably vulgar, scathing attack from GTB that I got a year or two ago. MF is not exactly the king of civility either. But GTB, as an admin, needs to be above those kinds of comments. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Diffs are always welcome when making such statements. --John (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

April 25, 2009: I did indeed stop communicating with him, and it looks like he's still got anger issues. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You did not stop communicating with me, Bugs. You continued to bait me for at least 2 more months before I finally got you to stop harassing me on my talk page. Very convenient memory of yours; see my talk for details. -GTBacchus 03:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm telling you all I remember of it, which was that vile and obscene rant of yours. If I stood up to you further after that, so be it; I'll assume your memory of it is better than mine. In any case, hopefully this is the end of it for at least another year or two or three. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That diff from 18 months ago doesn't seem very uncivil; strongly worded perhaps. We all have times when our passion for the project overwhelms us. --John (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

My reaction to his vile, obscene words were a mixture of puzzlement and sadness at his extreme overreaction, the likes of which I had never gotten from a good admin. It was at that point I began to suspect that something might be wrong with him, and I've tried to avoid him since then. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you do anything about it at the time, e.g. a report at WP:WQA or WP:ANI? Mathsci (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere here, I almost never use WQA, especially on my own behalf. I don't recall if it was on ANI. It might have been. In any case, I put the wall up on GTB and also stopped editing political articles, in hopes of never encountering him again. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't come off particularly well in that discussion. Just to jog your memory, shortly afterwards or possibly even at the time, there was a death in GTB's family. Mathsci (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Then he should have stayed away from here for awhile. And what's his excuse this time, then? It's still a "look what someone else made me do" game. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

He did and you even comiserated with him on his return, as you can read in the diff. Misplaced Pages is not about bearing grudges. Mathsci (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

All I remember about that episode is that it left a bad taste, and when he banished me from his talk page, I put the wall up. I had never, ever had an admin behave that way towards me, before or since. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that just bearing a grudge, settling old scores? I have in the past asked GTBacchus to leave my user talk page, but that is almost entirely erased from my memory :) Mathsci (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't have brought it up except someone made the mistake of claiming today's incident was an aberration. Maybe he's been a model admin except for those two "aberrations", but I wouldn't know, as I've tried to avoid him for the last year and a half. But MF makes the point that there is a double standard here, and I'm beginning to think he's right. Admins should be above this kind of thing. Instead, they are too often allowed to hide behind it. For that reason, I think he should be immediately unblocked, so that his ongoing admin behavior can start to be documented as soon as possible, and that the RFC/U, if there eventually is one, can start sooner. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

HJ MItchell's block of GTBacchus

• Just today I blocked a non-admin for a personal attack that was arguably less severe than either of GTB's most-recent comments to Malleus so I've blocked for 12 hours, because there is no need or justification for such attacks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support unblock Very poor block and the first he has had in his whole editing history. Mathsci (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• And this is preventative rather than punitive in precisely what way? See WP:BLOCK. I don't see GTBacchus continuing, and I see no civility warnings. Ridiculous. Rodhullandemu 01:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Neither do I see him admitting that he fucked up, and that he won't do the same thing again. Malleus Fatuorum 01:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Its not that bad, only twelve hours, admins should be able to deal with Malleus without personally attacking him. Off2riorob (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*Let's get this clear: Admins are not "super editors" as regards content, and were never intended to be, although arguably in practice, their knowledge of policy and guidelines is what makes them suitable for community support to have a few extra buttons in the first place. But when it comes to behavioural guidelines, they are entitled to the same courtesies as any other editor, whatever ArbCom may say. This may be a regrettable incident, but not a national disaster, and unless MF raises an RFC/U, nothing will come of it. GTBacchus has already indicated an intention not to pursue one himself, and I am reserving my position should one arise from wherever. This is a dead duck, and should be buried unless anyone wishes to make a point of one lapse of four in five years.; personally, I don't recommend doing that. Rodhullandemu 01:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• The grown-ups usually can. Malleus Fatuorum 01:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Please do not try to belittle your fellow editors, MF. In theory, we're all here for the same reason. I'm now in doubt. Rodhullandemu 01:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• (ec) Here and below you are making the same kind of remarks for which you criticized GTBacchus. Even after 15 minutes of posting this report, you had not had the courtesy to inform GTBacchus. Mathsci (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support unblock Respectfully, I don't see any real attack or abuse here. If anything, looks like baiting going on now...
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock I think HJ is a top admin, but this block only serves to silence one side over the other. Block them both, or unblock Bacchus. KrakatoaKatie 01:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - The "look what you made me do" game, also called "baiting", is a lame complaint for any editor to make, especially an admin. No one "makes" anyone respond a particular way - they choose to do so. Even if the block is lifted early, it's good that it occurred, as a reminder for the day, if or when, de-sysop discussions come up. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• That's a very good point BB. The sins of the admins are hidden, but the sins of the pagans are there for all to see in their block logs. Malleus Fatuorum 01:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Even admins have contribution histories, and some, block logs. On a wiki, nothing is hidden unless it is RevDeleted or Oversighted, and the conditions for doing either are stringent. I hesitate to accuse of paranoia, but I'm not sure you understand editorial visibility here. As I sai below, don't push it unless you have the confidence to do so. Rodhullandemu 02:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't waste your time trying to threaten me Rod, it never works. Malleus Fatuorum 03:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Comment: I have been watching this, so I am giving my two cents on this matter. CTBacchis called Malleus "dishonest, and emotionally a child". There are people who would definately be insulted by that, and Malleus may be one of them. In response to Malleus' reply to that, GTBacchis said "Gobble, gobble, gobble, gobble, gobble." Totally ignorant of the fact that he probably insulted Malleus. On a side note, GTBacchus' comment to Baseball Bugs was indeed profanity-lined, strongly-worded, and may have insulted Baseball Bugs as well. What I say about all of this, is that GTBacchus should definately be quite a bit more careful when communicating with other editors. In my opinion, anything which could insult the ditor you are talking to should be classified as a personal attack. Personally, I believe that a warning to GTBacchus is probably in order, but a block might be a bit much right now. This issue could be settled right now if all three of the involved parties would just say that they are sorry to each other, forgive each other, and move on with life. Unforgiveness equals bitterness toward others. Forgiveness equals peace with others. We are all sinners. God wants us to honestly forgive each other, never do the wrong action in question again, and come to Him for His forgiveness. He wants us to go to the one(s) whom we have wronged, make it right with them, and then come to Him and ask for His ready forgiveness. This is just a classic issue where everyone could get along a lot better if they just forgave each other and moved on in life. Trust me, it works. 02:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

God? Please don't patronise us with your personal mythology. The principles might be correct, but the reality is otherwise, and has nothing to do with the precepts which apply here, which are faith-neutral. You believe in what you want, but that doesn't apply here. Rodhullandemu 02:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you want, just cut that out to the side, and see it as "Honestly forgive each other, do not do the thing that wronged the other(s) ever again, and move on with life". That is basically what needs to be done here. 03:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and since I have already said "Personally, I believe that a warning to GTBacchus is probably in order, but a block might be a bit much right now," I guess it is time to say Unblock. 03:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support unblock per Berean Hunter. --John (talk) 03:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Blocks shouldn't be traffic violation tickets. Just because the blocker blocked for something less severe earlier today is not a good reason to block. Just because Malleus has (indeed) experienced a number of silly and unwarranted civility-blocks, doesn't mean that we have to now block GTB for being an admin who insulted Malleus. I support an unblock. The solution is to stop blocking regular contributors as a punishment for making uncivil remarks, not to block more regulars. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock before the 12 hours are up, so documentation for a potential RFC/U can start sooner. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Kluck, kluck, kluck, kluck, kluck. You seem to have laid an egg with this one. If you blocked somebody for something less severe, you ought to unblock them aswell. And you ought to stop giving out blocks for incivility, full stop. Blocking for incivility causes more ruction than it prevents; don't do it. Save the blocks for harassment or severe personal attacks. Gobble, gobble, gobble is childish at worst. Jehochman 03:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Unblocked per consensus here. Spartaz 03:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Thank you. -GTBacchus 03:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Response

Malleus and Bugs are two editors who are difficult enough, and in the right ways, to upset me. That puts them in a tiny, exclusive, and oh-so-honorable club, as I'm sure they'll explain to you. It's because I have high ideals, about which I feel passionately, and someone has to actively defecate on them for upwards of ten or fifteen minutes to really push me to the line. Apparently, that's a fun sport for some people. I'm vulnerable to that kind of attack because, unlike some, I take my criticisms to heart even more dearly than the compliments that I sometimes receive. I'm not sorry.

By "reporting" me for incivility, Malleus has become a fully completed hypocrite, doing precisely what he decries in others. If he did it to make a point, then I'll... reserve judgment. The point is still being played out, and we don't yet know what it will be. I have only done what Malleus advocates, and I did it to make a point: I told him off, for the purpose of "setting his hat straight", just like he stupidly tried to do to me. Was this helpful? If so, then Malleus is right. If not, then I've just made my own point by counterexample. Neat, huh?

Malleus: "dishonest" is a claim about your actions and words. If you stop acting and speaking dishonestly, then nobody will call you dishonest. If you need diffs, ask. -GTBacchus 01:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Put your money where your mouth is kiddo. Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't push it. Whereas I may not decide to block you, others might. "Tread carefully, and carry a big stick". Where's your stick? Rodhullandemu 01:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Go for it if you think you're hard enough, let's see what others think. Unlike you I don't feel the need of a stick. Malleus Fatuorum 01:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't react to threats of violence, even online, because they are meaningless. I've worked in Liverpool and Manchester, and I'm not impressed. But you do need to consider your position here, before someone else does. Rodhullandemu 02:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Then bring it on Rod, let's see what support you have for your witch hunt, and from whom. It'll be interesting. Malleus Fatuorum 03:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Look, coming from a "kiddo" I know that this is not going to end well. Please disengage, all of you. You're both grown adults; this is not a playground where you two call names all day long before the teacher needs to come along and tell you both to say your sorry. Be the bigger person and just stop baiting each other. This whole situation has gone on way to long and way to far.--White Shadows 03:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It might be worth pointing out that I did not report GTB for incivility at that time, because in general I don't do that. In fact, at that point I began to suspect there was something seriously wrong with him, and have kept my distance ever since. I don't recall any admin ever coming anywhere close to that level of vileness in addressing me. So I don't think the problem is all at my end. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Then please feel free to pitch in with an RFC/U, which will go nowhere, and that is nothing to do with GTB as an admin. Rodhullandemu 01:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't usually mess with RFC/U's. If an admin's behavior gets worse over time, eventually the wikipedians as a group will get fed up and banish him. And if an admin learns from his mistakes, he'll stick around. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

And it doesn't matter enough to you to make a point of it now, ages after the incident? If it matters, there are mechanisms here to react pretty quickly. If it doesn't matter, it may be relevant at a later date. If that time has now come to fruition, then RFC/U is a necessary preliminary to an ArbCom. But if you couldn't be arsed complaining at the time, I'd say that weakens your argument somewhat. Carpe diem, as they say. Another way of putting it is "Use it or lose it". Rodhullandemu 02:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I very seldom "run to Mommy" when someone gets obscene with me. I learned long ago that people who act crazy are best ignored. And I wouldn't have commented on this today, either, except for someone putting his foot in his mouth and claiming that today's incident was isolated. GTB probably does not have the right temperament to be an admin. But that will be up to someone else to decide, somewhere down the road. I'm just hoping it's at least another year and a half before I see his name again. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have made a comment in the above section on HJ Mitchell's block that mentions this matter. 02:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, very well stated. Thank you. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Uh oh....this and this don't look so good. There really is no need for Arbitration here guys. Can we all just back away for 10 seconds and calm down?--White Shadows 03:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Uh oh indeed. (!) GTBacchus possibly somewhat jumping on me for a rather neutral comment, when all he has to do is admit his wrong-doing and apologize? Fortunately, I am rather thick-skinned. And Malleus and Bugs are the "very worst and most malicious editors"? I would almost think that he has already flown off the handle with his behavior in that statement. 03:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a feeling that "Tan39 Episode II" is about to begin. Really? Enough with the empty threats guys. GTB needs to be unblocked and both he, Malleus and everyone who posted on any of these threads needs to just simply back away.--White Shadows 03:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. -- 03:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

So Malleus should be allowed to continue with his chronic pattern of abuse indefinitely? I just hope that he follows through on his threat to take me to ArbCom, because it think it's high time that his own behavior receive some scrutiny, but I'm not so naïve as to think he'll do what he said he'll do. -GTBacchus 03:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you in full possession of your faculties? I was on the point of agreeing with White Shadows and then you come out with this shit. What the Hell are you on? Malleus Fatuorum 04:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Quite full. Are you going to make good on your threat to me, or was it a lie? -GTBacchus 04:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Our general rules regarding incivility do in fact apply to all editors. But those who have suggested above that admins have no greater obligations in this regard than non-admins are mistaken, as wp:admin makes clear. Admins have special obligations to exhibit proper behavior, and continued failures to adhere to wp:admin -- including incivility -- can lead to special sanctions being applied to admins.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, and that's as it should be. I welcome a general scrutiny of my actions, and I hope someone can determine whether I have an anger problem, or whether I might be pointing out a very big problem with another editor. It's worth considering. -GTBacchus 04:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for acknowledging, GT, and of course you were not one of those to whom I was referring when I wrote of the misapprehension that admins' obligations are no greater than those of other editors in this regard. I don't at this point have a view of the entire kerfuffle, having not read the back-story, but will suggest that passions appear heated in the above (whether for good reason or not). It is possible that phrases such as "kiddo" do little to advance matters agreeably. And, I note in passing, anyone who has spent time on[REDACTED] knows that there is a measure of untruth in "If you stop acting and speaking dishonestly, then nobody will call you dishonest." I agree with White that the combatants should disengage at this point, and drop the baiting. I disagree with him that we have any reason to know that they are, however, grown adults -- last I checked that was not a criterion for editing here.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Wahoh

I have just blocked Wahoh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) indefinitely; no constructive contributions at all, and poking at participants in this matter. Comments are welcome. --John (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Good Block adding fuel to the fire is anything but helpful. Wahoh had troll like actions within minutes of joining.--White Shadows 03:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This is just another waste of time, and a breach of WP:CLEANSTART, even if you believe him. Meanwhile this thread should be taken to RFC/U by anyone who cares, or die. We have much better things to be doing here than exchange diatribes, and the above discussion has become irrelevant to our purpose of building an encyclopedia. If anyone disagrees, there are venues for such, but this is not one of them. In short, to be blunt, those with an axe to grind should put up or shut up. I have better things to be doing, and I prefer not to engage in trivial disputation here. Rodhullandemu 03:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Rodhull, what does that have to do with Wahoh's indeff block?--White Shadows 03:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

and emu: It's more of a comment on how this thread started off being useless, and has ended up being useless. MF should know better by now. The wiser amongst us know better. Rodhullandemu 03:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah...I thought that comment was directed at Wahoh's indeff block. I'll be heading off to sleep now. Hopefully this has blown over by tomorrow....--White Shadows 03:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu, is it "wiser" to keep giving Malleus a free pass for his chronically uncivil behavior? What does saying, "he should know better" accomplish, when he's vaunting above that he's above any kind of corrective action? Is that something we're proud of? When does it become a good idea to do anything about it? When he's driven away... 50 contributors? 100? How many, before we should care? -GTBacchus 04:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think so. I've been here for over 3.5 years as an editor, and almost 3 years as an admin. Both can be contentious, but in general, I've found most new editors will listen to advice from experienced editors, if prepared to do so. Most of my interactions with new editors are not as an admin, but as an experienced editor, and if I template them, I will add additional explanation when I think it will help. Some will seek additional assistance, particularly as to sourcing, and the archives of my Talk page will show that I have been helpful in that regard. However, we have the problem of the new editor who will just not get it, and if they will not understand our principles and policies, sorry, I am not a junior school teacher. However, experienced editors, particularly those who have taken the trouble to produce not only Good, but also Featured articles, should not seek to rely upon that to seek immunity from other policies, such as WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. To my mind, it's both or nothing, and I'm fully aware that occasionally I have, as you may have done, become frustrated with those who will just not get it. I am not pointing any fingers here, but it should be obvious who I mean. I cannot force those people to comply with an editing model that I, and, FWIW, Jimmy Wales, subscribe to. Would that I could, but I am just another janitor here. Meanwhile, MF's macho bluster (see below) is pathetically uninimpressive. Why isn't he taking another article to FA rather than waste his time here? Hmmmm? Rodhullandemu

Let's see you back up your claim GTBacchus. Name even one editor I've driven away. Malleus Fatuorum 04:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You promised me an ArbCom case. Until you put up, you get nothing from me. There's nothing else to talk about. This thread can end, and you can go file the case that you - honestly? - said you would file. Empty threat? -GTBacchus 04:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Are either of you actually accomplishing something here? I didn't think so. So how about we end this and just get back to work. We have much to do here before our deadline. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

"Are either of you actually accomplishing something here?" Possibly. I'm doing my best to get Malleus to file the case against me that he said he would, because that would be a much better result of this kerfluffle than for it to get pushed under the carpet. An actual result from this would be very good for the project, because it's being actively damaged by Mr. Fatuorum. -GTBacchus 04:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Your reaction is exactly as I anticipated, which is why I joined the chorus supporting unblock. Thank you for living down to my expectations. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2, literally) Yeah, why do we not just go and open up a good RfC/U on this matter, and stop beating each other up with claims that need sources? How about someone just close this thread up now if necessary? 04:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. If MF has a serious problem, he should file an RFC/U or withdraw unconditionally because it's clear his complaint has attracted little traction here, and he is (and perhaps not for the first time) beginning to look foolish. He claims to be the wronged party here and the ball is in his court. However, RFC/U and ArbCom exposes all behaviour to scrutiny, and whereas I am happy to subject to that, perhaps others may not. Meanwhile, closure, although a piss-poor resolution, is perhaps all we have, and leaves MF with a tad of dignity- for now. Rodhullandemu 04:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No. Malleus does raise a fair point. There are productive editors, usually not admins, who would get blocked (and not subsequently unblocked) for this kind of personalized and nasty comment. Malleus has experienced this himself, for less, which is why he brought it up here. There is nothing admirable about what GTB has been posting and the way he has been celebrating his "tactics". I agree it should be dropped, but it's not just a case of Malleus was wrong. And I say this as someone who supported GTB's unblock, as I find most, if not all, civility blocks of regular productive editors to be misguided. It would be a waste of ArbCom's time too. There are POV and BLP issues compromising this project. This one is a small and petty issue. Just stop blocking serious content-contributors (who happen to not be administrators) over nothing, as you yourself have done in the past, Rodhullandemu. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Put a cork in it

Do that. silly squabble between people who really should know better. If you have an ego this fragile (any of you), you shouldn't get involved in editing Misplaced Pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The lively debate continues off-Broadway for GTBacchus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and friends, if anyone cares to watch. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Review of Revision Deletions on Letters Written in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark

This article is currently our featured article and has already attracted some vandalism. I reverted what I thought was normal vandalism and was then somewhat surprised to find that the vandalism edit had been deleted. Personally I do not think it met the criteria of RD3 - in my opinion it certainly didn't reach the level of the examples given. When asked the deleting admin said "I deleted the revisions under WP:DISRUPT and WP:DENY," which I am not aware was a valid reason for revision deletion. Given how little chance non-admins have to review these deletions I would like some more input on this as I think, to retrain the trust of the community, we need conformity on what is and what isn't deletable. I am not implying that the admin acted improperly as we are still working out where the line falls for revision deletion, but I do think this requires more input. Dpmuk (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I looked at all three edits and their edit summaries. Given that this is on the main page today, I agree with the RD3 deletion. It wasn't overly profane but it was indeed designed to disrupt the page. KrakatoaKatie 02:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Fastball Algarvo starting their Misplaced Pages career by nominating articles for deletion?

Fastball Algarvo (talk · contribs)'s first edits have been to start nominating articles for deletion. Seems to be similar to the sock above? Corvus cornix_talk 01:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:DUCK block. It's Wiki brah / Rainbowwarrior1977 / Courtney Akins / whatever; he must have a thousand socks by now. Alison or someone can confirm, but if I'm wrong I'll eat my socks. Antandrus (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

We have a winner!! It's Wiki_brah (talk · contribs) - Alison 02:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Xebulon adding irrelevant info

Dear Admins, as I don't have twinkle - I can't change some of these made up references by Xebulon (talk · contribs) on Shusha and Fatali Khan Khoyski articles. Could you please remove the information which is made up from out of the head and fake references by this user. Or at least please restore my twinkle to tackle with vandalism. Best regards. --NovaSkola (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think you've notified the editor; I left the notification template on their talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Clan of Xymox (the article, not the band) needs your help

Help! Clan of Xymox has almost more conflicts of interest than it had band members--I think three of the four founding members may be involved in editing. At any rate, the edits made by Knowitallfortoday (talk · contribs) are getting to be disruptive, and I'm pretty sure I'm at 3R already. The persistent introduction of unverified information, information that contradicts published sources, personal jabs, fan talk, etc. is getting to be more than I can or am willing to handle, and I could use your advice. I can provide diffs of individual problematic edits if needs be, but a recent edit, this one, is a deliberate change of fact (and a stab at a former band member and possibly former romantic interest, if I may venture boldly--see this also), and this edit pretty much contains everything else, including such gems as this:

January 2006 the EP" Weak In My Knees", included are remixes of Azoic, Destroid ,Grendel and Siva Six plus a video .followed by the release of the album " Breaking Point" which got again all praise and glory , entered high on all charts possible and imaginable , COX embarked on a further tour , this time operating from Germany, where the album Breaking Point got finished.

Now, this wouldn't be such a big deal if the article didn't have a long history of being unverified and fluffy, and if the editor in question didn't reinsert these edits again and again. I have tried opening up discussion on the talk page, left notes here and there, and now I am resorting to warnings, including a 3rd-level warning for a personal attack and a final warning for deliberately adding incorrect information. Again, your help is appreciated--goth fans worldwide will thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hot off the press: this edit, by "you know who". Drmies (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hablador (talk · contribs) seems to be involved in this, as well. Creating blp-violating articles about the members of the band. Corvus cornix_talk 02:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

They're one of the three I suspected. The articles they created, however (Pieter Nooten and Anka Wolbert), are typical newbie articles (they actually copy text from the main article that I think I wrote, haha) without evil intent. BTW, I don't think that Knowitall is of evil intent, but they are very hard of hearing, and I don't want to shout any more or harder. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Block evading sock puppet?

Any chance that Thus Spake Good (talk · contribs) is a block evading sock puppet of ActuallyRationalThinker (talk · contribs)? Corvus cornix_talk 02:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't look like they are the same person to me, from doing a CU. –MuZemike 03:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not likely it's ActuallyRationalThinker, but it is likely it's Historys Docs (talk · contribs) / POV Detective (talk · contribs). Jayjg 06:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Jayg. They seemed to be more than an innocent bystander who never posts to anything but Talk pages, stirring up things. Corvus cornix_talk 06:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

He's pretty much openly admitted to editing using a previous account, though when confronted directly he's so far resorted to bafflegab. Jayjg 07:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Walled garden of hoaxes-in-waiting

Smith20111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Someone has just brought this editor to my attention, or more specifically, the marvellous collection of hoaxes that they are building up in userspace, including a first for me, a hoax image File:Heather Vesey The Writer.jpg (the artiste, the album and the source do not exist). In all cases, the articles contain apparently convincing sources that all go nowhere, and google searches reveal that the article subjects do not exist. As this user has apparently come here only 2 weeks ago, for the sole purpose of creating all these extremely well written hoax articles, I think I'll be a big blue meany and delete them all. Question is, does this look like a sock - I'm sure I recall at least one other editor who had a thing for pop culture hoaxes. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Antandrus thinks it might be Jake Picasso - see Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Jake Picasso--Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

G3 applies to userspace. If they're clear hoaxes (and the one I looked at certainly seems to be) then lets axe them. No opinion on whether the user is a sock, but shouldn't we just indef block a user who only appears to be here to create hoaxes? --Mkativerata (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Just about to do it :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Just hold on I wanna Read some of these LOL The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok go for it, That a dedicated Troll The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait...wait...if these are hoaxes, then who is coming off the potty here? It's on the internet, not on Misplaced Pages, so it must be true. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The hoaxer, of course. Or their g/f. Or some random they snapped coming out of a polyjohn at a festival. It's a Wordpress blog. That's marginally less reliable than something written on the wall in a pub toilet. You try to find any other references to Heather Vesey, or her two bestselling albums, or the Simon Cowell show Break Into Music (watched by 20 million in the US, now in its second series) that she's supposed to be a judge on with Usher and ShontelleElen of the Roads (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Drmies was taking the piss. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

<--Pottymouth! But who is this? The answer when we come back, from the potty of course. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

We've been here before, in case you haven't seen. Trebor (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

! Trebor (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No way. Elen, leave the articles in their garden--we have a reliable source. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Heather Vesey is a fascinating internet hoax. There's just enough there to convince you she's a real person, until you click through for the next level. For example -notice the username of the person uploading the info. The Youtube link has comments disabled - to stop people pointing out its a hoax. The Myspace page exists, but has no followers, Songlyrics has had the 'album' info set up, but there are no actual lyrics, MP3 raid has been primed, but there are no MP3s to download, and so on. Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to add to the gaiety of nations, there is a real Heather Vesey - works for some church organisatin in Norwich (name is at the bottom of the page). One of the Facebook accounts is hers. Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

multi-talented woman it seems. Remarkable amount of effort put into this, I'm almost impressed. Trebor (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

My god, this is fascinatingly sick/brilliant. Good Work Elen, I knew we put you on arbcom for a reason. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It's astonishing, isn't it. This is the 'official website' of the hoax Heather Vesey . Poor girl, neither Atlantic nor Polydor will spring for a proper site, so she had to have her kid brother do this in Wix. You'll note she had a top ten hit with "All I Did" in the UK (only made it to #12 in Eire - must have been the distraction of chasing those tickets about), and she was a judge on Australian Pop Idol in 2010 (shame the show was cancelled and nobody told her). It's a positive internet meme is this. People will write postgrad theses on it in years to come. Elen of the Roads (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

"People will write postgrad theses on it..." Geroffit. I spotted it first! If I can't get a doctorate out of it, I can at least claim to have got one ;-) The sad thing is that The Heather Vesey hoax would make an excellent article, if only we had some reliable sources on all this... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that it might be fruitful to use the edit filter to block additions of "Heather Vesey" in mainspace, and possibly track it elsewhere. We shouldn't be used to spread this hoax. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Might be. Its not an area I work in, so I dont know much about the necessary criteria. Elen of the Roads (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Is Lady Lashes a real band? Everywhere I look online for Heather Vesey, she's connected to them. The so-called fans who are following her on facebook (and who don't seem to post about anything else) also are fans of Lady Lashes. Corvus cornix_talk 06:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This one was added by an IP whose other edits also look like potential subtle vandalism. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Subtle image vandalism

User CNNG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been digitally inserting fake faces into photos from articles, uploading them with incorrect copyright tags, and replacing the photos in the original articles with the digitally manipulated versions. Examples:

• Titanic: Original image, fake image, replacement of original photo with fake image
• Great Depression: Original image, fake image, replacement of original photo with fake image

Account apparently made some real contributions earlier, but recently is only used for subtle vandalism. All contributions should be scrutinized, and the account warned or blocked. --LK (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I've nuked the images. Nakon 06:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

NPA again

I am here to seek some help with a new (1) of personal attack by a User:Yinzland, given a 3-day block sixty days ago by MuZemike (and seconded by Daedalus) for precisely the same sorts of expletive-filled attacks. When I began to notice over the past week the user stalking my edits to two different pages, I avoided commenting on it, so as to avoid a WP:SPADE argument/ However, when the user began again to start calling names and acting in bad faith, I asked the user to dial down the aggressive responses (1, 2, 3), at which point he replied with

"Fuck you you passive-aggressive, inconsistent, hypocritical, infantile boy. Have fun with your hallway monitoring video game and fuck off" in a section named - tellingly - "Fuck it, ban away you little bitch"

I am pretty tired of this user using Misplaced Pages to launch personal attacks against me. Can we do as he asks and ban/indef block the fellow? I'm past thinking the guy has any interest in working with others on the Project - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

User notified. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support indef – If this is not more deserving of an indef block, then I don't know what is. –MuZemike 07:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support indef. His comment on his talk-page "Criticism of the edits of contributor's and their apparent (and transparent) motivations is one of the things that makes Misplaced Pages Misplaced Pages" seems like pretty clear evidence that he doesn't accept WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA as the behavior standard. Even after a previous recent block for same? That's an indef right there in my book, regardless of other "fuck this site--block me" request. DMacks (talk) 07:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• I honestly don't think an indef block is needed here. We can deal with this again without much of a problem, and he may reconsider his position after thinking about it for a bit. Prodego 07:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment - (edit conflict) Prodego blocked him for 48 hours, a full day less than the previous block. Am I the only one who thinks he's going to take that as encouragement to come back in 48 hours, guns-a-blazing? He wants the ban; give it to him.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Prodego did that? Say it isn't so!!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Note that I blocked him at 07:03, and the first comment here was at 07:07. Prodego 07:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You mean you didn't do your homework? Say it isn't so !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid it is so. MuZemike blocked for 72 hours back in November 2010; Prodego blocked just recently for 48 hours. ???:-o 07:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Indef. D'oh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

With respect to Prodego's admirable faith in the user, he came off a 3-day block for precisely this sort of behavior, and began stalking my edits within a month. What is a 2-day block going to accomplish that a 3-day block couldn't? And frankly, you saying 'we can deal with this again without much of a problem' rather overlooks that I (the target of this user's rant) have something more of a problem with this sort of behavior being directed at me. The guy needs to be shown the door and tout de suite. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Indef Kinda surprised this even merits discussion, given that quote. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support indef block Because that comment broke my zero tolerance policy on personal attacks, if he does not wants to work correctly, he has no reasons for work here. Tbhotch and © 07:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - At the risk of being "unpopular" ;> What the heck ever happened to "escalating blocks"? 48 hours after 72 is not enough, so straight to indef? The guy freaked out: what kind of message are we sending to indef someone just for that? Not because of "personal attacks", I hope. 'Cause I've seen some pretty hideous behavior (not backed up with evidence) from those who should know better here just today, and this guy gets whacked for being a "dick" just like that? Give him a couple of weeks if 48 isn't good enough, and if he socks: then indef him. This is overkill... Doc talk 07:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Blocking that user is obviously a no-brainer, but given how often we're seeing these flameouts and the frequent (at least partial) validity of the flamers' underlying complaints, it should begin to occur to us that there's something deeper that the project is not doing right. User:Deliciousgrapefruit last night was another example. I haven't looked at the user's editing so don't have much of opinion of Doc9871's call for a shorter-than-indef block. Doc might be right, but then, there is always the cliche that indefinite is not necessarily infinite. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 07:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Imzadi1979 and Good Article Review

User:Imzadi1979 nominated U.S. Route 223 for a GA review, and I have conducted a review and placed the article on hold. We have several differences of opinion on how to interpret sources and presentation of the facts. Instead of asking for a second opinion, User:Imzadi1979 has failed the review, even though I am still willing to find a mutually acceptable wording with him. He is violating the spirit of the GA process which is to bring a separate viewpoint to the article. I have signed on as the reviewer of his renomination, and he is engaging in a bit of an edit war on the talk page regarding how the first good article review should be listed ("on hold" vs "failed"). His only justification for his actions is WP:IAR. This is a very strange way of avoiding the content issue. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 07:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I would ask that this discussion be removed from this forum. I have already opened a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations#Review issue, which is the appropriate forum to discuss issues related to WP:GAN. He also maually edited the list of GA reviews. Imzadi 1979 → 07:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think there are fundamental behavioral issues and a disrepect of the rules that make this beyond the scope of Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations#Review issue. Racepacket (talk) 07:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not even an ANI issue. No admin action is required. Take to another forum, WQA might be more suggested.Mitch32 07:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Mitchazenia, don't you think you are a bit WP:INVOLVED in all of this GAN road business? Racepacket (talk) 08:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages soft redirected project pages
• Misplaced Pages interwiki soft redirects
• Misplaced Pages protected soft redirects