Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:40, 22 July 2012

• 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 Fastballjohnd

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

Note- This account also has two socks, Drjohndacquisto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Johnd34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), plus an IP 98.167.164.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which has been used for the same purpose as the main account. A sock puppet investigation, resulted in the indefinite blocking of Johnd34 and Drjohndacquisto and a two day block on Fastballjohnd.

Fastballjohnd has exclusively done edits involving former Major Leauge Baseball player John D'Acquisto. The editor has on more one occasion, here most recently, claimed to be the retired athlete.

In the 1990's(after his playing career was over) John D'Acquisto had several run ins with the law. They are chronicled in the article with supporting references. Here, here, and here. Beginning in August 2008 Fastballjohnd began editing the John Acquisto article. Part of his edit was the following

He was sentenced to prison in 1996 for trying to pass off a forged certificate of deposit and was also indicted on charges of defrauding investors of about $7 million and on 39 counts of wire fraud and money laundering. In that case it was found that D'Acquisto was not responsible for any of the charges in the 39-count indictment and out of the 39 counts 37 were dropped and two were taken with no additional time, for misrepresentation. It was later found that the people who perpetrated the civil lawsuit and criminal investigations as well as the convictions against John D'Acquisto were arrested and are still serving jail sentances in Europe. The consensus is that John D'Acquisto was set up and used to cover up a larger scheme by others; according to the court documents in his sentencing memorandum , he never stole any money or committed fraud.

That edit was reverted. In January 2009, Fastballjohnd again edited the article giving a version of events that noone has been able to verify. I, and I only became aware of these edits about a month ago, have tried verifying the claims of Fastballjohnd using Google News archive, High Beam Research(which thanks to WP I have a subscription), and Newspaper Archive. My searches have found nothing verifying fastballjohnd's edits.

From Jan 2009 to May 2012 other edits were done to the John D'Acquisto article. I won't run them all down, just the highlights.

• Feb 2009 claim that news article was incorrect
• edit by Drjohndaquisto account putting in liks to court documents.(link is dead)
• Johnd34 putting in link to google documents.(link is dead)
• Additional commentary added by IP account. This was reverted here.
• IP blanks the part of the article referring to John D'Acquisto's legal problems. Then the IP edited in a new version. Again this was reverted.

It was shortly after that I got involved. Note I did make edits to the article before June 2012 but they were not involved in any way with Fastballjohnd's or his sock's edits concerning John D'Acquisto's legal problems. If you want to see them, click here and here.

Then on June 16 2012 I became aware of information edited in by fastballjohnd and did edits here and here. I made one last edit here.

After becoming aware of Mr. D'Acquisto's edits, I brought the matter to the attention of the Baseball Project here and asked for WP administrator The Bushranger to advise us. Which he did and he wrote As for his editing his own article, both the conflict of interest noticeboard and, given he's used three accounts, WP:SPI might be applicable.

So I took it to the COI board and got no response. As I stated earlier, I instituted a sockpuppet investigation. When I did each of these, I left messages on Fastballjohnd's talk page to notify him.

On June 29th, Mr. D'Acquisto aka Fastballjohnd responded on his talk page, I wrote back one day later.

Fastballjohnd edited the John D'Acquisto article again making claims again which I reverted because they can't be verified. I asked The Bushranger for advice again asking if I should come to ANI, The Bushranger replied that he thought it had risen to that level. So I brought it here today....William 14:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

As this user has not yet been notified, I have done so. - Jorgath (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Now that I've done that, I want to weigh in. On the one hand, you have a whole bunch of COI edits. On the other hand, he is sourcing them; by the same principle that allows us to take sources under a paywall, we should be taking these. I guess the problem is that the COI makes it harder to just WP:AGF and take his word for it. - Jorgath (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. I did mean to notify him but forgot. In his last edit he claims a 1999 San Diego Union Tribune article would back up what he's say. The SDTU archives are behind a pay wall and I'd be willing to put up the small amount of cash to peek at the articles but the words I used for the search don't give me much confidence that I'll find anything verifying what D'Acquisto is saying. Plus If he was exonerated, this would have made news outside the SD area. His pleading guilty made the news wires....William 15:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

His sources are always broken links or like here inaccessible. Their inaccessibility I pointed out to him but got no reply. He instead changed his tune to it being reported in the newspaper. It's very hard to AGF considering the COI plus broken links and shifting edits....William 16:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed remedy

I propose that all other accounts being used by Fastballjohnd be indef blocked if they haven't already, that Fastballjohnd be formally restricted to a single account (no legit alternates), and that they be banned (not just discouraged) from making edits to articles in which they have a conflict of interest. Fastballjohnd is still permitted, of course, to make edits to talk pages of articles in which they have a COI, as long as those edits do not violate WP:BLP or any other relevant policy or guideline (such as WP:TPO or WP:CIVIL). - Jorgath (talk) 04:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Restored from archive with post-dated datestamp. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is this here, and not at WP:COIN? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It was brought to COIN and I mentioned that up above. Nothing happened....William 10:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note also that the POV-pushing socking puts it a bit beyond the usual COIN case. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Just found another of his socks but it is stale. Compare this edit by Jddsc3434 with this edit by 98.167.164.178 which has been Fastballjohnd's persistent IP since last September.

Isn't this thread a bit premature though? He has only made three edits since the SPI case ended...two as his account and one as the IP over several days. Shouldn't he be allowed a bit of rope? A CU advised to refile an SPI if the IP continued to edit. If it were me, I'd overlook the one IP edit and be patient.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Fastballjohn is in denial. He says that is his only account. That was after the sockpuppet investigation. He has a clear COI and he thinks the rules don't apply to him. Not doing anything now is just postponing the matter IMHO....William 17:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Chembox edits by User:Plasmic Physics

User:Plasmic Physics has been editing {{chembox}}es and {{drugbox}}es for some time, at least some months, replacing and removing valid information, and introducing fact tags to chemical names that could be easily checked via the sources or via various free chemical software. For example, this diff introduced a broken param (ImageFile_Ref), removed part of the IUPAC name (6S,9S,12S,15S,18S,21S) and added a fact tag asking whether this was the preferred name, although he changed the param from "IUPACName" (any IUPAC name) to "PIN" (preferred IUPAC name) himself. He also added a fact tag to the name "Argireline" asking whether this was a non-proprietary name although the chembox documentation says the "OtherNames" param can take any name, and "Argireline" occurs in both sources of the article. He also changed several chemical identifiers (InChI, SMILES); I didn't check in this specific article but at least in some cases his changes introduced wrong information -- see User talk:Plasmic Physics#Please do not upload bad information and expect others to correct it (and also the previous section of his talk page). This is just one edit of dozens, maybe hundreds.

Recent related discussions are at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemicals#What is going on in the chemboxes? and Misplaced Pages talk:No original research#IUPAC names for chemicals, especially for drugs. The issue has been discussed on WikiProject Chem, and with Plasmic Physics, on and off; but nothing ever seems to change. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

We have been trying to counsel this problem editor for many years. Here is a representative exchange of the recent episode:

user:Beetstra "you have removed a lot of information which should be restored. ... Do you expect other users to do it ] for you?"

user:Plasmic Physics "Well, yes. I made those edits in good faith." Vandalism is one thing, and can often be readily detected and corrected, but technical misinformation requires time-consuming detective work. So the effects of Plasmic's work are perverse. And this editor actively defends "this turf," pushing away those that try to edit these tables as illustrated here. In my several years of editing here, I have not witnessed a more damaging editor.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This user has a history over several years of making hundreds of contentious edits without consensus (particularly WRT chemical nomenclature issues), often doing more harm than good. See, for example, User_talk:Plasmic_Physics/Archive_1#Trilithium.281.2B.29_Ion_Azanetriide for an example of exactly the same thing from over four years ago. All attempts to dissuade him / engage him in discussion are fruitless, and he really does more harm than good. Check out his archived talk pages for many many messages from annoyed editors. Chris (talk) 08:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a note: I never misinform, I only over inform, and if that is the case, I'm happy trim the over-informed infobox upon request. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

And yet the presumption among WP:CHEMISTRY regulars appears to be that your edits all need second eyes to screen out lots of mistakes (which are often buried among complex article-diffs due to their also including stylistic and other personal-preference changes). You readily admit to making them and make no effort to avoid making the same type of mistake even after you are alerted to the problem (this pattern applies to many content disputes in which you have been involved). These sorts of disputes have been happening fairly regularly over your entire several-years' work in this content area, and often take many iterations of discussion during which you continue to make the same edits (WP:BRD behavior problem, often compounded by WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and maybe WP:OWN), which is why this is disruptive (and now landing here on ANI due to our exasperation) and a high cost and not just a mistake here and there that everyone makes.

My latest example (as Smokefoot says, "technical misinformation requires time-consuming detective work") is User talk:Plasmic Physics#Please do not upload bad information and expect others to correct it centering on addition of "SMILES" values that contain lower-case letters (which by definition of SMILES represents an aromatic ring). There you yesterday recognized that your value was not correct ("a simple copy error") and then today performed this edit in which your SMILES string has the same type of mistake. In an edit with a summary "Isolating stereomer data." that does not make any changes or additions of stereoisomeric information (which is all difficult to see by eye because of so many field-reordering and capitalization changes that mostly have zero visible effect). DMacks (talk) 07:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

What same mistake re you talking about? I wish you'd be less vague. As I've said, you don't yet understand how SMILES work, so stop critising how I use it. The mistake I admitted to, was missing the C button when I copied the SMILES using the Crt+C shortcut. This resulted in a previously copied SMILES being pasted. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I articulated this on Plasmic Physics' talkpage as well, but I am going to reiterate it here. Regarding diff:

• Preferred IUPAC names are not yet supported by the IUPAC, they are still debating it, it is still under development (I am following the discussion there). But, the IUPACName is changed to PIN, while removing all the stereo-chemistry information from the compoundname. For as far as I can see, this is a piece of peptide, which hence is the optically pure material (i.e., with specific stereo-chemistry information) that is mentioned there (and that is the one actually shown in the image). Plasmic Physics changes the name, and immediately requests a citation for that name, which is, with PIN by definition, original research based on rules which are incomplete. In the request for the reference, is asked "Is this the prefered IUPAC name? If not, move to OtherNames"
• The caption for the image is changed to include the stereo-chemistry information, which was removed from the preferred naming of the compound.
• As stated, the compound is a specific form of the compound, which is reflected in on of the identifiers for it, the ChemSpiderID. Plasmic Physics there adds a name with stereo information, while that was removed from the IUPAC name, and not included in the preferred IUPAC name. The ChemSpiderID is for the specific compound, but it is now pulled out of line with the names of the compound.
• There is an other-name mentioned "Argireline" - which is also mentioned in the article and at least in two references. Still, not doing the research, a {{citation needed}} is slapped on it: "Is this a genuine, non-proprietary name?"
• 2 other identifiers are added - the pubchem ids. The first one (which is typically used for the compound discussed in the page) corroborates with the new preferred IUPAC name, without stereo information. The other one (which are the additional pubchem ids) corroborates with the stereospecific one. So the main PubChemID corroborates with the Preferred IUPAC name, the main ChemSpiderID corroborates with the image, and the second pubchemID mentioned.
• If I see it correctly (I don't have the software to check), the InChI and SMILES (which are representations of the molecular structure of the compound, and they include the stereo-chemistry information) are both changed - likely to the one that is corroborating with the Preferred IUPAC name, and which does not include the stereo-chemistry information.
• and a lot of other data - which by now is completely unclear whether it is for the compound displayed in the image, or one of the other stereoisomers.

I know that the data in the chemboxes and drugboxes is confusing somewhere, and some people have put a lot of effort in it to get the data together, but this is bringing the confusion back. --Dirk Beetstra 07:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The IUPAC name was moved to the PIN because it is not the systematic name. Moreover, the stereo segment of the name was removed to generalise the article. Since it is a IUPAC name, but not the systematic name, it could only be the PIN by default. It is common to use an image for a stereoisomer if a racemate image is not available. I have already stopped to add new citation templates, or at least ones that displays.

Stereo data was added to the image name to describe the image.

The chembox fields can be translated into coherent statements. In this case, the OtherNames field can be translated into the statement "Argireline is another name for this compound." I challenged that assertion, and requested a source stating an equivalent statement. The sources in the article is alledged to contain the name, but does not directly say "ABC is another name for DEF." Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I have earlier reverted the changes I discussed here, but Plasmic Physics does insist to have the data changed without discussion - he performed another edit moving data around. --Dirk Beetstra 07:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The "Regarding diff" Beetstra is discussing here, for bullet-point 2, PP actually moved the stereochemical designations to the image alttext (not caption), removing it from the visible content. Moving these data to be specific to the image alone rather than the chemical entity topic of the article and infobox is in keeping with Beetstra's other comments that PP does not recognize that this entity is intrinsically this single stereoisomer (i.e., did not read the refs and/or doesn't understand really basic biochemistry). DMacks (talk) 08:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The page was fixed according to Beetstra's demands, specifying the stereomer, and only the stereomer, which is the usual practise. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• I encountered Plasmic Physics at Barack Obama where the user added the extraordinary text "While it is not confirmed that Obama is indeed a freemason, he has been witnessed to make public use of several documented freemason 'grips' when meeting certain dignitaries." three times with no sources last March: diff, diff, diff. The subsequent pointless and time wasting discussion can be seen here ("I need proof that the fact which I attempted to add is either gossip or original research, or at least the requirement of for it to be not construed as such. Plasmic Physics (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2012") and here (permalink). I have re-read those discussions and the only reasonable conclusion is that Plasmic Physics was enjoying a personal joke by provoking volunteers. That situation (aka trolling) should not be permitted to continue, particularly in articles on technical topics where skilled editors are in short supply. The community needs to defend useful editors and save them from days of pointless "discussion". Johnuniq (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

So what's the expected outcome here? A block? Topic ban? For Plasmic Physics to apologise? C'mon, people. ANI isn't simply for categorising editors' wrongdoings. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Editor has been repeatedly requested to discuss proposed changes with the WP:CHEM community to gain WP:CONSENSUS for his plans prior to editing sprees, but generally does not do so (and even continues disputed edit-patterns after being advised of the discussions others start). I would like to see uninvolved admins clearly instruct him (with block if not) to work with the WP community and not against it, including discuss-first if controversial, pause-and-discuss/BRD, etc. I would like to see the editor work to undo the mistakes he has made before doing any further additions at all. Given the technical damage, this may well mean simply reverting to "pre-PP-edits" state--the nature of the concerns and amount of cross-checking required of the whole edits (given that there is a trend of problematic edits) strongly weighs against the possible loss of some good bits he may have added as part of these edits. For me and I suspect for several other admins here, we would have blocked long ago for disruption, except we're involved in the content. DMacks (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Which plans, I was not told. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Your plans. You must have decided at some point to go through the chemboxes and put a citation needed template next to every uncited name, or to go through and insert your own version of IUPAC names in and all these things you've done in the past. The problem is that you make edits of the same kind to so many articles without seeking consensus from the chemistry community first. Chris (talk) 10:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't plan any of those things. You guys said that I can only insert IUPAC names, if I source them, so I did. So I thought that it's only fair that I am also allowed to question names, so I did. Scientific accuracy is important to me. Question, why are the mojority of the identifiers referenced/verified to death, but the names are to be let alone? I don't know what specifically the community wants to discuss? Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

@Chris Cunningham: I was hoping someone independent would contemplate suitable action. It would be good if someone who understands the situation with the articles Plasmic Physics (talk · contribs) has been editing recently would comment on whether the positives outway the negatives. If not, perhaps an indefinite block should be recommended (that is, the user be blocked until showing an understanding of the problem and how to avoid it in the future). Certainly the situation I outlined with the Obama article is unacceptable, but I don't know if it is that bad in other areas. Johnuniq (talk) 10:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

In that incident, I was accused of gossiping and/ or original research. As far as I know, I'm not schizophrenic, I would know my own motive better than anyone else. So, if anyone tells me that my motive not my motive, then would naturally require a source for that bizzare circumstance. Of course, no one can, thus I asked for what is needed so that my edit edit does not appear as gossiping and/or original research - that they would not do either. This resulted in a stale mate, they just kept parroting the same accusation back at me, without giving any advice. I did eventully get an answer. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with DMacks here. I think that it is time that uninvolved administrators take a look at what is going on and consider options. Most of us are too involved to take action, but I think that a look at WT:CHEM and especially the 2010 and 2011 archives of that talkpage is .. quite telling that something needs to change. Suggestions? --Dirk Beetstra 10:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I would propose a ban on editing pages that fall under the auspices of WP:CHEM. Failing that, a ban on editing chemboxes, drugboxes, and anything to do with chemical nomenclature, including inserting or changing any chemical names. Chris (talk) 10:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

First, I wasn't allowed to add unsoured IUPAC names, now I'm not allowed to challenge names. The names I added wasn't wrong, just not good enough. Why is such a need to monopolise naming? Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You ARE allowed to add unsourced IUPAC names. What is your problem? Boghog (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not, that is how the problem started. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

{{Citation needed}}. Even if your statement is true, a wrongful action is not a morally appropriate way to correct or cancel a previous wrongful action. Boghog (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not trying to cancel or correct a previous action with the template. I'm used the template in good faith, for what it was designed for. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are some of the discussions of this editor's actions, many of these discussions are long. They illustrate the great amount of time invested in trying to steer this editor.

• Jan. 2011: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2011#Plasmic Physics
• Jan 2011: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2011#Systematic Name
• June 2010: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#user:Plasmic Physics
• Nov 2010: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#Plasmic Physics (continued from above)
• Nov 2010: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#Excessive number of chemical identifiers
• Nov 2010: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#Categories: Arsenic
• Nov 2010: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#Plasmic Physics edits
• Dec 2010: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#Chembox
• Dec. 2010: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#Block for Plasmic Physics
• Dec. 2010: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#Controversial use of the term ‘Oxoazinic acid’ in the chembox of Nitric acid
• Dec. 2010: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#OR introduction of systematic names
• Dec. 2010: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#Cleanup of overspecialized silanes categories created by User:Plasmic Physics

--Smokefoot (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Having looked this over, I think either a topic ban or rapidly escalating blocks is appropriate. Plasmic Physics may be well-meaning, but it seems that they have a serious WP:COMPETENCE issue. T. Canens (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

What type of competence? Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Someone asked for an uninvolved admin who understood the subject at issue. I'm here, and I meet the requirements. I think you know enough chemistry to understand what you're doing--this is not a matter of Competence, but of stubbornness in refusal to follow the consensus. PP, unless you will undertake to immediately change back all chemistry infoboxes and associated material you have worked on to the standard way the project does it, I am going to ban you from the field of chemistry and biochemistry at WP, broadly construed, indefinitely. The only reason I do not do it immediately is to give you a chance to fix the damage first. Additionally, the Obama edits and the almost equally odd defense of them, will lead to a rapid indefinite block altogether if there is further disruption. You cannot add an asserted fact about a living person and challenge its removal on the basis of our having to prove it's false. That it's a contentious and unlikely fact about a famous person in an extremely conspicuous WP article, makes it inexcusable as a violation of basic BLP policy. I await your statement of intentions by this time tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

What is this "standard way" that you are talking about?

I did not challenge the comment's removal on the basis of your having to prove it wrong, I challenged it because of poor reasoning and false accusation. In any case, that is an old, resolved issue. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

"Standard way" is a bit vague. Once I know what that is in no uncertain terms, I can get under way. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• The erasure of names from chemboxes has been ongoing for over a year. See in the 1-propanol article. If he is allowed to fix these edits, someone will need to track what he is doing. He seems to end up with his own interpretations of what he is supposed to accomplish.JSR (talk) 12:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

When I sue Misplaced Pages (any time now)...

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

This stuff probably has something to do with that stuff. Arcandam (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The ip was already blocked for it and the block logs notes it is linked to the sockpuppet. Ip addresses aren't usaully indef blocked, see WP:IPB for why. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The sockpuppet investigation has a huge list of socks, but the categories aren't fully populated because someone marked all the accounts "retired" and locked them, and blanked all the IP pages with "OTRS 2012062410000386". Question: assuming this was done because of a request through OTRS, does the fact that this person is still actively socking supercede? Or should the new IP sock not be tagged? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The Grace Saunders thing has been going on for years. Honestly, I think at some point this goes beyond the ability of the community to handle this disruption. I don't know whether arbcom or the foundation should be involved, but given the complexity and annoyance this causes everyone in the general population, and given the tools and access to additional information that the bigwigs have, I think that it is time this problem is dealt with by someone with real powers... --Jayron32 16:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/78.148.97.79 – Grace is back with another IP address. Wrestling-related revisions? Check. Removal of a sockpuppet tag? Check. That's him alright. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked I blocked 78.148.96.0/23.--v/r - TP 13:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for Grace_Saunders

I propose a community ban of Grace_Saunders (talk · contribs). While a "de facto" may seem obvious, there has been a fair amount of back and forth over the years, with admins replacing sock and puppeteer templates with "retired" tags, which gives the appearance that this user can just come back under fresh accounts. This needs to be clarified and solidified, the accounts need to be properly tagged and someone probably ought to start a Long-Term Abuse page. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support as nom. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Adios. Fasttimes68 (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support great idea. Arcandam (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, if this is the user who has been making the legal threats, the user is not permitted to edit until all threats are withdrawn, as described by the policy. That's probably sufficient. Peter E. James (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You'd think so, but clueless people keep trying to cover for him and without a viewable history, there's the appearance that he can just come back under new accounts. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support - this user has outlasted the community's patience. The "de facto ban" stuff just means that all they have to do is say "oh, no, I won't sue" and they get unblocked by anybody - which is not something the community wants, hence the formalised WP:CBAN requiring the community's consent for any return. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support baby, bath water, bath, bath tiles all out Blackmane (talk) 09:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - it's been a long time coming. GiantSnowman 09:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Close

Can a non involved admin please close? Fasttimes68 (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm neither an admin nor am I involved, but I went ahead and added a {{banned}} template to their userpage. As has been said above, she is already under a de facto community ban; if everyone wishes to make it de jure, then so be it. That said, I think this discussion is perhaps best ended. It's never good to use AN/I as a venue to parade people on donkeys; better to just let them go peacefully. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Tendentious editing at Talk:Jesus

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

As can be seen at the page Talk:Jesus#Is this page running into WP:TE, User:Cush has been engaged in some regular editing questioning the use of sources which are considered reliable enough by major independent reference books that they are used regularly in their articles on the subject. He has provided no reliable sources himself to support his contentions, but simply seems to be declaring that his opinion must be adhered to by some form of personal fiat. Also, as has been pointed out on that talk page, Cush has a fairly significant history of such edits, as History2007 found regarding the number of times Cush has been the subject of two RfC/U's regarding this matter already, as can been seen at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive, been brought to ANI before several times as can been seen in the ANI archives here . I believe it is not unreasonable for the question to be raised as to whether this individual should be made subject to some form of sanctions, as I myself have already said on the talk page in question. Under the circumstances, I personally believe a topic ban from matters relating to the historicity of Jesus and the early New Testament be considered. I do however acknowledge that my own previous involvement in the discussion might prejudice my opinion, and believe that the matter in general, and the possibility of some disciplinary sanctions in particular, be reviewed by an independent editor before any such action take place. John Carter (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Some evidence and examples of Cush's behavior:

• "Religious authors are never reliable sources for issues about core components of their respective religion. Objectivity is simply impossible there. And those authors who rely on religious authors without conducting their own scientific research are not reliable as well. Of course because so much time has passed, the chain of authors who rely on what others have written before is very long. But the chain breaks at the first religionist author or the first author who relies on hearsay (e.g. Josephus)." - He dismisses individuals like Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, and other scholars cited in the Jesus article because they do not go out of their way to "prove" that Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist.
• Here he dismisses Géza Vermes and George Albert Wells (both non-Christians) for their affirmation that there was some historical Jesus of Nazareth, despite their earlier denial. No matter how many scholars are provided who affirm the historicity of Jesus, no matter how many sources are provided that state "most scholars" or "the majority of scholars" affirm Jesus's historicity, he denies that most scholars affirm it because a fringe minority exists that he agrees with.
• "But what exactly is a scholar? The word lumps real scientists as historians and archaeologists together with frauds as theologians and any other believers - he then goes on to advocate his own theories, presenting no sources for them.
• "historians who work for Christian institutions or adhere to certain Christian beliefs are in a conflict of interest and are not reliable sources" - with some rather Birther-esque demands for a minor religious teacher in the boonies, in an era without mass-communication or even mass-literacy.
• Here he argues that because there is no consensus on exact details regarding the historicity of the Tanakh, none of the general agreement by most scholars is valid. Again, pushing for his own unsourced POV instead of what the sources say.
• Here he dismisses the Gospels as politically and religiously charged, without acknowledging that the Roman sources (indeed, almost all sources from that period) would be as well, and ignoring that our articles do not cite primary sources but secondary sources by professionals trained to interpret the primary sources.
• Here he argues that editor disagreement with sources (even if they meet WP:RS) trumps WP:V. He also makes some more Birther-esque demands, yet I fail to find him treating Socrates or Siddhartha Gautama in the same way.

As JohnCarter has pointed out, when Cush is called to present any sources for his constant assertion that no real Scot- I mean scholar-- accepts the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth (or for any of his claims, for that matter), he doesn't put forward any (except for one instance where he linked to a youtube video that is essentially a religiously anti-religious blog).

This is only on Talk:Jesus, and doesn't even begin to cover his similar behavior elsewhere.

As JohnCarter has pointed out, two RFC/Us have been filed in the past, as have prior ANI reports, all to no avail. He was previously indefed for anti-Semitic speech, and only unblocked on the condition that he not use such inflammitory language again, which he later violated anyway. In both instances (and others), he revealed a highly problematic bias on any topic relating to Judaism and Christianity.

As History2007 points out, Cush's insistence that "no reliable historians exist" is similar to:

• Someone going on the page for earth and saying: "the earth is flat"
• When asked for WP:RS sources by geologists, they refuse and say: "no reliable geologists exist".
• Given multiple chances to provide sources by scholars, professors, etc., they refuse and continue saying the same thing with no sources.]

Ian.thomson (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I support some type of end to this un-merrygoround. How can the assertion that "no reliable historians exist" be accepted any more than "no reliable scientists exist", unless Phlogiston is real after all. That will be the day. History2007 (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This debate is long and boring. Not too long ago almost every single person with an education was a believer. Cush's latest edit on the article itself is dated 19:13, 10 June 2012. He has edited the talkpage a couple of times after that. If someone has WP:IDHT problems on a talkpage you can simply ignore them. If that person edits the article without consensus, gets reverted and starts an editwar over it they will be blocked. Arcandam (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

An important question: You say this is only his behavior on Talk:Jesus. Can you provide evidence of his behavior elsewhere on the project, recently, that shows similar problems? Someone saying this kind of thing on one talk page can be ignored, per Arcandum, as someone who doesn't realize we're not a message board. Someone saying this kind of thing across multiple areas, or editing in article space to push this POV, should be topic-banned at the very least. - Jorgath (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

We have an article about everything: Historical Jesus. Oh look, a shitload of sources in the section Denial of a historical Jesus. More info can be found here. Arcandam (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

But you are discussing content now when referring to Historical Jesus. Is "just ignore him" a policy? As for your link to Christ myth theory, the first paragraph of that article states "Virtually all scholars involved with historical Jesus research believe his existence can be established". So please read before linking. And please do stop being vulgar here Arcandam. This is a family encyclopedia after all. History2007 (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not a family encyclopedia if you are using the word "family" as a euphemism for censored. And I wouldn't recommend reading Misplaced Pages to people who are offended by the word shit. We even have pictures of it! Please read Misplaced Pages:Method_for_consensus_building#.22Spoilers.22_may_be_excluded. It is not a policy, it is an essay. Arcandam (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

"Just ignore him" when dealing with just being dumb on a talkpage is in line with the spirit of WP:DENY. Arcandum saying "shitload" or any other swearword not actually used to insult a person is WP:NOTCENSORED. - Jorgath (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But WP:Common decency should still prevail. And WP:DENY is an essay and of no relevance to policy. History2007 (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it is a cultural difference, it was obviously not my intention to offend anyone and where I am from this word is not considered vulgar. I live in Amsterdam, the Netherlands BTW, the social norms are different here. Arcandam (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not watch Dutch TV, so I do not know how often the nightly news on Dutch TV uses that word. Most US TV networks avoid it, for all I know. History2007 (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Warning: links may contain offensive content! The newschannels probably won't use it, but we have television programs like Spuiten en Slikken that would be considered extremely offensive by some. A lot has changed since the days of Phil Bloom. You wrote: "As for your link to Christ myth theory, the first paragraph of that article states "Virtually all scholars involved with historical Jesus research believe his existence can be established". So please read before linking". I am not sure why you are mad at me but the reason I posted that link is because that article contained that sentence. Arcandam (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:DENY being an essay rather than policy doesn't mean it's not a good idea, and much of policy and guidelines are promoted essays. Also, on the term Arcandum used, it's really a mild vulgarity. And WP:NOTCENSORED is policy. There are no rules against swearing. Period. That said, if your request on the vulgarity is a polite request not to use that term unnecessarily in conversation with you, Arcandum may or may not agree to your request, but they ought to consider it. In sensitivity to your opinions, I myself will refrain from swearing in this discussion. - Jorgath (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. History2007 (talk)

The true issue here is that History2007 tries to own the Jesus article. On the talk page every second or so post is his. And he seems to keep out all who do not share his view on the article and its encyclopedic subject.

Archaeology and History are based on evidence, not on speculation, and not on the authority of any academics. And it does not matter whether a layman or an academic does the speculating. I am not saying that there are no reliable historians. I am saying that historians who provide no evidence are not reliable sources for an encyclopedia. Conjecture, even if is is done by some respected high-profile academic is still conjecture and must be presented as such in the respective articles. Without primary sources (i.e. writings form the lifetime of Jesus from people in his personal vicinity or from people who report about him as there are report about other persons from the same time frame and area) History2007 can claim some "academic consensus" all he wants, but this has no substance. Historians who only reproduce what ancient writers had put down from hearsay when Christianity already existed as a religious group, are not reliable sources by any meaning of the word. And this is not about Jesus as a religious figure, but about Jesus to be established as a real historic person. There is no definitive establishment, and the article must reflect that.

And as for the tendentious editing. I have been here long enough to know that WP has a strong bias towards a religious POV and that many editors tend to insert religious claims and doctrines as facts into many articles. That goes for nearly all articles about persons, places, and events mentioned in the Bible. My suggestion would be that there should be a policy about reliability of sources in the context of articles that are also in the scope of religious subjects. A policy that is much stricter than the current requirements for the reliability of sources. That would solve a lot of problems. ♆ CUSH ♆ 20:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Cush, the problem is that you seem to see yourself as the arbiter of what is reliable and what is not. Do you have some kind of advanced degree in historical studies that makes you more reliable or authoritative than the historians that are being cited? ReformedArsenal (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter if he has an advanced degree or not, but the statement that ""no reliable historians exist" can just not be supported. What if someone insists that "no reliable physicists exist"? Will that cause a problem on the page for physics? It will for sure. Same here. History2007 (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It won't cause a problem for Misplaced Pages if someone insists that "no reliable physicists exist", because that person will be ignored by the majority of our users, but if that person is stubborn it may cause a problem for that person because it is likely that person will end up being blocked. Arcandam (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your "it is likely that person will end up being blocked" statement. That seems to be what needs to happen here. One can not keep supporting Phlogiston for ever in an encyclopedia while refusing to provide sources. History2007 (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

As a note, there is a relevant cleanup tag to that: {{religious text primary}}. It's for use when an article attempts to use a religious text as a source for anything other than what that religious text says. - Jorgath (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Funnily enough I do no seem to have edited Christ myth theory for as long as I remember, but it says the same thing. So no ownership issues there Cush, but WP:V issues against you all over the place. So your "content based argument" is not valid. And again, and again, and again, you have never provided any sources for your assertions. Sigh.... History2007 (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As the two prior RFC/Us and various ANI threads demonstrate, Cush has a long-term problem when it comes to handling issues pertaining to Judaism and Christianity. I'll grant that he's useful elsewhere, but when religion is involved he's insanely bigoted. In the past he's claimed that mainstream views, if they coincide with religious views, should not be accepted on the site. While he's entitled to hold whatever beliefs he wants, he cannot edit based on those beliefs, just as we do not allow other extremists to push their beliefs on the encyclopedia. There have been calls for topic bans on Cush pertaining to Abrahamic religious topics, and he just waits until the trouble dies down before starting up again elsewhere. For some more examples of problematic behavior over time, see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Cush and Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Cush_(second_RFC). It is not simply a matter of him disagreeing with religion that is the problem (again, he can believe whatever he wants), it is his refusal to respect any possibility of objectivity or intelligence from anyone who is not religiously anti-Abrahamic, and his calls to reshape the site to reflect that view. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

A topic ban to prevent more time-wasting may be a good idea if there is another big war in the mainspace and if Cush is not willing to accept the fact that he is not going to get his way. But it would be kinda cool if we could explain that in a way that is acceptable for Cush. Arcandam (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

On the talk page, we have repeatedly asked him to provide sources. We received none. We tried to avoid ANI, as on the talk page. We did not get far. History2007 (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should point out that he's behaving more like the boogey-man religious extremists he imagines all theists are. After all, he has no problem complaining when someone religious presents a claim without evidence while ignoring evidence to the contrary, it's only hypocrisy to then go on and do that himself. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

(multiple e-c's later) Like I said earlier, some of the New Testament sources are considered reliable enough that they are used to substantiate content in existing academic encyclopedias which have no apparent bias in favor of any individual beliefs, like the Mircea Eliade/Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, probably counted as one of the two best reference sources currently available on religion. What it seems we are talking about is, basically, an assertion, which is apparently unsubstantiated, that because Cush doesn't like these sources, we can't use them, even if the leading academic reference sources in the field do. Also, in response to some comments above, I don't know if Cush's problematic conduct has extended anywhere else recently. However, the record of his conduct regarding such material over time is also available, and it seems consistent on this point. Bluntly, I think that, given his failure to reasonably deal with the two RfCUs, his multiple problems which have been brought to ANI and elsewhere, and so on, the time has come for a topic ban on this subject. That is more or less what I said at the start of this thread. Would anyone care to respond directly with their own opinions? John Carter (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Look, the situation is really simple. If you go on the page earth and keep insisting for ever that it is flat, and refuse to provide sources when asked for again and again, and say "no reliable geologists exist" you will get topic banned from geology. Same here. History2007 (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Topic Ban of User:Cush proposed by User:Jorgath

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

I propose the following solution: User:Cush is topic-banned for six months from the subjects of Jesus of Nazareth, the history of Christianity, and the history of Judaism, broadly construed, in all namespaces (except in appealing this topic ban). Violations of this topic ban can lead to the topic ban being extended to an indefinite topic ban and/or blocks. Cush is also strongly encouraged to read WP:STICK, and to re-read WP:V and WP:RS. They are also cautioned that in the future, they should bring up questions about the reliability of sources at the Reliable sources noticeboard rather than making unsubstatiated claims against sources on article talk pages. - Jorgath (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support... but I am not holding my breath that it will not be back here in 6 months and a day. I would suggest a topic ban altogether. He has been on RFC/U and ANI for far too long and we have repeatedly offered him the avenue for using sources I do not think anything will change in 6 months. History2007 (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Given his other edits, I'm willing to hope he's smart enough to learn from this experience that while we accept editors regardless of their beliefs, extremism for those beliefs (whatever they are) is not accepted here. If he does fail to learn from this, we'll have this to point to and something'd better be done about it then. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not just "belief" but WP:RS sources. The point is that we have used the WP:RS/AC mantra for long, to no avail. History2007 (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you misinterpreted: Ian.thomson was referring to Cush's extreme belief that those sources are not reliable. - Jorgath (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

In that case, I am sorry. But still, sources should rule. History2007 (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I have copyedited the proposal to say "namespaces," which is what I meant to say, instead of "mainspaces," for which I Facepalm. - Jorgath (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support But I think we should extend it to anything under the scope of WP Christianity and WP Judaism. His tirades have not been limited to just Jesus, and the History of Christianity. He has called all theologians frauds as well as called the entire Hebrew Bible prior to the divided kingdom religious folklore. ReformedArsenal (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, the accusations were more than "folklore," which could have a historical basis but is more important for non-historical matters (and thus is the term I would personally use off-site to describe a lot of the Tanakh). He dismissed it more as complete fantasy, and from there dismissed any secondary sources that mention the Tanakh without calling it fantasy. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support but I might propose changing the subheading name to "proposed topic ban of Cush" or something similar to make it a bit easier to find if, for whatever reason, it has to be found and referred to at some point in the future. John Carter (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Extremism doesn't further the building of an NPOV encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Belief or non belief, extremism exists from all sides of any issue. Cush's editing is inappropriate. I support an indefinite topic ban, with the option to appeal, on all religious topics.--v/r - TP 23:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• I would prefer an indefinite ban from articles relating to early Christianity and early CE Judaism with the option to appeal after a year myself. John Carter (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I would support that too: Indef topic ban, with the option to appeal after a year. History2007 (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a good solution too... but I think it needs to be expanded to Christianity and Judaism as a whole. He has shown radical bias against not just early or historical perspectives, but contention against all of those who hold those religious views. ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Should we end up here again after the end of the ban, the next one will probably be indefinite, but I hope Cush changes his attitude towards mainstream academic sources (at least on Misplaced Pages). Huon (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. Normally, topic bans are only imposed on highly disruptive editors who for instance edit war. Going by Cush's editing of Jesus and its talkpage — I haven't looked further afield than that — I really can't agree that they're being disruptive or unreasonable. I have trouble understanding the repeated IDHT accusations, and they certainly haven't edit warred. They has a POV, yes. So do John Carter and History2007. As somebody pointed out above, the last time Cush edited Jesus was 10 June 2012; even if their editing were disruptive, would 19 July be a good time to topic ban them? They have edited the article 8 times altogether, not disruptively as far as I can see, spread out between February and June of this year. See this page for the article's overall editing stats (History2007 is by far the most prolific contributor). Cush has contributed many more times to the talkpage (54 posts in 2012 (and altogether), last time 11 July) than the article; but topic banning or restricting people from talkpages is an extreme measure which should be kept for extreme circumstances. Disagreeing with the majority of the editors of Jesus is not an extreme circumstance.

I agree with Cush (above) that History2007 is a dominant presence at Jesus and its talkpage. It's scarcely too strong to say that s/he owns the talkpage by force of the number, volume, and repetitiousness of their posts. While I wouldn't call him/her "disruptive" either, these stats impel me to propose a polite request to him/her to practice a little voluntary restraint. 350 posts to that talkpage in 2012 means an average of two posts a day, every day, for the past six months. Bishonen | talk 00:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC).

If you read my user page, you will see that I am becoming less active on Misplaced Pages. And that I had stated on talk that it would be best not to end up here. And your inference about "an average of two posts a day" is flawed logic, because there can be several posts on one day in a conversation and no post for a few days by any user (say July 11-18 2012), and a single statement may have 4 edits as typos are corrected, etc. But, given that you astutely observed that I am not disruptive, I will quit Misplaced Pages when I feel like it, at my pace, after I have tied up all loose ends, and added references when they are needed, not before. But rest assured that I have lost faith in the project. WMF just started a travel guide... when most encyclopedic items are far from sourced, with more glaring errors than one can count. Next step: a 3 way merger with Facebook and Tripadvisor.com. Way to go...Yet Cush's behavior is inexcusable. I hold to that one... And I view your defense of "source free behavior" as unacceptable. This type of waste of time debate about fringe views only hinders the lost dream of an error 💕. So do not support source free behavior. Go on physics and say "no reliable physicists exist" and see what happens. Try that one, ok? Just try that one. History2007 (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I would also note that, with Johnbod, History 2007 has gone through an extraordinary amount of effort to get the article up to GA status, recognized or not. In fact, if you check the talk page, you will see I looked at the Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, which is counted by the religion field as one of the two best reference works in the field (there's some argument about whether it or Brill's Religion Past and Present is better), and found only a very few, rather slight, variations regarding Jesus in other faiths. And, yes, the article is, whether we like it or not, probably one of the central points of POV pushing in wikipedia, and regularly subjected to "my side says this" edits. I would not fault History2007 for commenting as often as he has. Other editors would have just reverted or used the user talk pages of editors involved. If anything, I think the frequency of his edits to the talk page may well indicate that he has held himself to a higher standard than most other editors, including admins. John Carter (talk) 01:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, this thread is not about yours truly, but Cush. So let us not get sidetracked. Anyway, I will stop watching here for a while. I have had enough of this repetitive, and obvious issue. History2007 (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

History2007, you must have missed the word "average" in there when you called my statement that "350 posts to that talkpage in 2012 means an average of two posts a day" "flawed logic". It's the simplest of arithmetic, not what I'd call an "inference". As for what this thread is about, are you familiar with WP:PETARD, an essay much cited on this board? A common statement on noticeboards is 'this isn't about me, this is about them'. There is sometimes a belief that, if someone's perceived misbehavior is reported at a noticeboard, the discussion can only focus on the original complaint, and turning the discussion around to discuss the misbehavior of the original reporter is 'changing the subject' and therefore not allowed. However, that just isn't the case. Anyone who participates in the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny. Anyway. I don't mean this in a bad way, John Carter, but you're not exactly an independent voice in your intepretation of History2007's massive posting as a sign of virtue. Do you regard his apparent compulsion to respond to every objection here on ANI in the same light? I'd be interested to see someone without a dog in the fight engaging with the points I made. Bishonen | talk 16:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC).

Except that you've hardly demonstrated misbehavior on History2007's part. If you provided some diffs showing that his messages have WP:OWN problems, or that he was inserting biased sources into the article, or misrepresenting sources, etc, etc... then you might have something. As there's plenty of posts, it shouldn't be hard to build a case if there is one. Until you do so, the explanation that he's simply working hard to make the article a GA is the most reasonable one under WP:AGF. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

While I haven't been very active on Talk:Jesus, in my interactions with History2007 in other places he has always been an exceptionally knowledgeable user with supreme knowledge of the relevant sources and the willingness to bring articles in line with what these sources say. If there's any flaw in his conduct, it's a short temper when Randy in Boise pushes his private pet theory. Regarding the number of talk page edits: As he said, he tends to use several edits to get a talk page comment just right where I would use only one (and typos be damned). I'd expect the number of independent edits is much lower than two per day. Even if he really wrote an average of two posts per day, I'm with Ian.thomson: So what? Huon (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not even see a need to respond to Bishonen further, given that in his opening statement he acknowledged (I said astutely so) that my posts have not been disruptive. So I posted on there and I have not been disruptive. So what? History2007 (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This thread is not about History2007. If you want to make a complaint about History2007, you are more than welcome start an ANI inquiry regarding that, but please stop trying to distract from the discussion at hand by shifting the focus off Cush and his behavior. ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This thread is about the events surrounding Cush's behavior, including the behavior of all of those involved such as History2007. The argument "this isn't about me" is pointless and will generally be ignored.--v/r - TP 14:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. - have any of you posted on History2007's user talk page, and have any of you raised issues about History2007's behavior in an appropriate venue before coming to WP:ANI with the drama? Elizium23 (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page" - None of us have posted a grievance. We are discussing the grievance that John Carter posted which to be investigated and acted on appropriately and with all information weighed and considered requires inquiry into each individual participant. But now you and I are both just wiki-lawyering and again, it's just going to be ignored as an attempt to derail any scrutiny of the OP and other participants. Rule of thumb: do not bring issues to ANI unless you yourself are ready to be put in the spotlight.--v/r - TP 15:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

However, no evidence has been provided for the accusation, no matter how much it is asked for. That is why this needs to be dropped, unless someone has a nice diff to show. Even then, that does not dismiss the case against Cush. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. The user doesn't seem to understand the principles of WP:RS or WP:NPOV. His behaviour is disruptive enough to justify a topic ban, in my book. If he shows willingness to abide by policy in the future, maybe it could be lifted later down the road. Right now, there's no constructive reason for him to remain an active part of that talk page, or any related ones. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support editors get patience while they learn what reliability is. This, however, is a case of disruptive IDHT. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I see a total inability to adhere to NPOV. While I don't think it is intentional, that doesn't change the fact that it exists. While I don't normally like solving conflict through topic ban, I think it is the only real solution in this case. Trusilver 07:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose/Meh These articles will always attract editors with strong beliefs. The content squabbles (for lo! that is what they are) involved here are rehashed arguments that have been going on for some considerable time, and neither Cush nor History2007 have covered themselves in glory by the way they are interacting with other editors. pablo 16:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Arguments given are simply not sufficient, or at least should not be, to apply a topic ban. In this I agree with the post made by Bishonen, there are only a few edits made by Cush on the Jesus article and these do not appear to be highly disruptive or unreasonable. Topic banning someone for activities on a Talk page is an extreme measure which should be reserved for extreme circumstances and this is not it. This ban attempt appears to be little more than a group of editors with their own POV trying to hound out an editor who they believe has an opposing POV. A bit more (religious) tolerance wouldn't hurt.--Wolbo (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for admin closure based on consensus

The last vote here was cast about a day ago and there have been no major discussions about the user in question since then, although peripheral discussions have taken place about the statistics of how often I type on a talk page.

Yet, statistics aside, the existence of consensus for a ban here is clear: the reasoning among the ten users who support it is uniform and no one is even debating the issues about the user in question any more. And the supporters amount to 90% of those voting. That looks like consensus to me.

The only discussion in the past day has been about my talk page statistics, yet all those commenting have considered my edits non-disruptive. As stated by others, if someone has an issue with how often I post on a talk page they can, of course, start a new thread below and say "this fellow types too much" and we can discuss that. No problem at all.

However, the current proposal for a ban seems to have clear consensus and should likely be concluded so we can move on. The length of the ban should, of course, be determined by the closing admin based on the comments above. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

As you know, consensus is not decided on !votes. If there is still discussion happening, then there is reason to keep this open. If you don't like folks discussing your behavior, then I am inclined to review my !vote and investigate your behavior a little more closely. I'd suggest you just quit while your ahead and let this thread develop on it's own without you trying to steer it in a direction you prefer.--v/r - TP 14:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should stop puffing out your own chest and relax a little bit. ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I've nothing here to 'puff out my chest' for. I'm uninvolved. When a directly involved person tries to close a thread after two days of discussion when the attention starts to shift toward them, I get curious. Please don't attribute an emotion to me that doesn't exist.--v/r - TP 15:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI TP, the reason I wanted to get this over with (and had hoped we never started it) is that these things eat my/your/everyone's time (i.e. life) like Pac-Man. ANI is an amazingly time consuming endeavor. History2007 (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I can understand that, but my advice would be that if you've said all you mean to say then just leave it be and let it flow naturally. It's already leaning toward a topic ban, there is no need to hurry it. I won't be surprised if some wandering admin closes it today on their own.--v/r - TP 15:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I will do that. History2007 (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Unwarranted Deletion

Hello,

This is SupremelyYours. I tried to submit a professional and unbiased contribution to the article of Lady Gaga, and this was removed on the grounds of an account named "Tay" finding that adding information on natural gas fracking is irrelevant, grammatically incorrect, and unrelated to the section of "Political activism". Please note that my contribution was about Lady Gaga recently signing up in support of an activism website of celebrities opposing natural gas fracking. "Tay", and another account called "Drmies" (whom remarked that my information was "tangential" to political activism), both commented that I needed to cite reliable sources. I cited three in response, directly inserting those sources into the contribution. I was not making a brand new section, I was making a sub-section for a section already in existence.

"Drmies" felt my addition was irrelevant because we cannot add everything to an article, which would make sense to me if I wasn't adding information that was perfectly related to the section of "Political activism", and natural gas fracking is a hot topic that I was revealing Gaga's position on in a short contribution.

"Tay" and "Drmies" were at least professional, though I didn't see their reasons to remove my addition. "Tay" ended the conversation by saying that I might have my editing abilities "blocked" due to "disruptive editing"; oddly enough, "Tay" had accused me of "vandalism", and later admitted I hadn't vandalized anything, even though falsely accusing someone of "vandalism" is also mentioned as wrongful doing in the disruptive editing article. Even after admitting I hadn't vandalized, Tay accused me of such again.

I would like the consistent deletion of my contribution to stop. I have always been a thoughtful and careful editor, and author of two articles, for this website. I am offended by the idea of having my editing abilities "blocked" when I have only worked to preserve the good in Misplaced Pages and improve the site.

I thank you for reading this appeal. I have disclosed the exchange between myself and the two other editors below.

Yours Truly, SupremelyYours — Preceding unsigned comment added by SupremelyYours (talk • contribs) 04:53, July 19, 2012‎ (UTC)

There was text here copied directly from SupremelyYours' talk page. Elektrik Shoos removed it and put a link here instead for the sake of brevity.

• I've removed the text copied from your talk page, as it doesn't need to be copied, you can just link to it as I did above. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 04:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • (I also notified both Teman13 (talk · contribs) and Drmies (talk · contribs) on this user's behalf. Forgot to mention that before. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 05:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC))
• A couple of problems -- it's an article about a living person, and you're trying to use "beforeitsnews.com" as a source. User-generated sites such as that are not acceptable sources for BLPs (please read the policy link). Also, if all she's done is "signed up in support" is that seriously important enough for an entire section in a biographical article? By the way, as this is a content issue, you should discuss it on the talk page for the article. Oh, and what you did is certainly not vandalism, unless there was another edit I missed. No one should be accusing you of that. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • It was yet another lazy use of Twinkle to make a robotic comment with boilerplate wording, and yet another example of what Twinkle looks like from the receiving end. Uncle G (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• The brevity of my contribution was certainly not more than a hair shorter, at the most, than the immigration sub-section. Also, no it is not seriously important enough for its own section, which is why, as I said in my appeal, I didn't make my own section for it. I was putting in a sub-section on her political activism. If there is a reason why a political topic cannot be covered in "Political activism", I would like to know, but why refer to it as a "section" when it wasn't? --SupremelyYours (talk) 05:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Because you made it a section not a subsection. You'd need three equal signs (===) around the header text to make a subsection. Notice where it appears in the TOC (5 Natural Gas Fracking). If you feel this is important enough to include in the article you need to discuss it on the article talk page, not here, since ultimately it is a content dispute. Is there something you would like an administrator to do? Also please read WP:BRD; if you insert something, and another person removes it, rather than inserting it again and again you need to get consensus for its inclusion on the talk page, or at the very least make your case there before attempting to put it back. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The inputting was done repeatedly, mostly, due to the fact that Misplaced Pages was running very slow in uploading the change, so I assumed something was wrong with the upload each time it didn't appear. It wasn't until later that I saw it was an editor taking it down. I did put the addition back in a few times after talking to the editor, feeling that all disputes were discounted or resolved, and yet it didn't seem to make any difference to this person and it was pulled as the correspondence kept on. I feel this issue, which I honestly didn't anticipate would be problematic, isn't worth any more time from anyone. But, please, if all a contribution needs is the deletion of one bad source, or a couple more = signs, to make it correct, then it would be much more efficient to just make a couple of small edits like that instead of automatically pulling it down. Of course, Antandrus, I know you weren't the one pulling it down at all. Let's try a little simplicity in fixing simple problems from now on, and let's also not worry about this dispute any longer. --SupremelyYours (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Request review of block by arbitrator Risker

ArbCom has taken over the block, so this is no longer a matter for administrator intervention. Comments should be directed to more appropriate venues. --Rschen7754 08:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Risker (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), a member of the Arbitration committee, recently blocked NewtonGeek (talk · contribs · count · logs) for allegedly being an SPA who was not here to participate in building an encyclopedia. NewtonGeek had, it is true, primarily contributed to the Fae ArbCom case, but they were being constructive, not disruptive, even if they had limited edits to article space. In my opinion, this is a massive WP:BITE. In several other opinions, it has been suggested that this was a failure to WP:AGF and possibly a WP:INVOLVED matter. I request input from the larger community on this matter. I will notify parties shortly.- Jorgath (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

For more information, visit the following pages:

• User_talk:NewtonGeek#Not_here_to_build_an_encyclopedia
• User_talk:Risker#Newtongeek
• Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Proposed_decision#Blocked_for_being_a_commentator

--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Notified. - Jorgath (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Being a single purpose account is not in and of itself a blockable offense. There is also no requirement specified anywhere in policy that an editor must edit articles in order to remain in good standing here. I have asked Risker to provide evidence of some apparent wrong doing on NewtonGeek's part, but he has not yet had a chance to reply. It does appear from Risker's notification that Newton was blocked that Risker is open to other administrators undoing the block if they can be convinced the block is in error. So, I don't think there would be any sense of wheel warring if it was undone. A careful administrator should contact Risker before undoing the block, however. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• It is probably a good idea to be a bit patient in this case. Arcandam (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Looking at the history of that account, I have to say I'd be spectacularly surprised if it turned out they're not just here to make a point about either Fae, Wikipediocracy, Arbcom, or some combination of the three. In that sense, I think Risker is right that they're an SPA, and I would add my speculation that they may be a reincarnation of some other user, here to push whatever their Fae/Arbcom/WI POV is - in which case this wouldn't be biting a newbie. Those things said, however, NewtonGeek doesn't appear to have been particularly disruptive on the Fae case pages (in fact, they appear to have been one of the calmer voices there), and I'm struggling to see the reason for why this block, for this reason, at this time, was needed. We have a lot of editors who sort of fail at contributing to mainspace at times. Unless there's underlying disruption, we generally don't block them for it, so I wonder if there's something else going on here that Risker just hasn't managed to explain very well. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 2)Exactly. I would have had absolutely no problem if Risker had decided to ban NewtonGeek from Arbcom pages or something like that. But indef? I have a problem. - Jorgath (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Involved"? Admins who see "remarkable" behaviour by a "newbie" are not automatically "involved" just because the newbie is commenting on pages in which they are "involved" ex officio as members of ArbCom, else no blocks could ever be made by them for behaviour on ArbCom pages. So much for that. "Limited edits to article space"? Did you view the actual edits? I find it incredible that Minerva sparng forth fully-armed from the head of Jupiter, and this is less likely. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• I would like to note that I do not believe Risker was WP:INVOLVED, but the suggestion was made (by Hammersoft) and I thought it necessary to relay it. - Jorgath (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• In the Cirt case there was another such new editor, and he/she was not blocked rather his/her contributions to the ArbCom case were removed. In that case the editor actually took part in the evidence and the workshop phase, posting proposals there. Count Iblis (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• From what I can see, NewtonGeek fails the WP:DUCK test and is a single purpose account. They are welcome to comment in project space anywhere as long as they use their primary account, unless they are already banned from the project (please see WP:ILLEGIT). Endorse block. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• What arbcom does in managing its own case pages is none of ANI's business. T. Canens (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Technically an indef block is well beyond 'managing their own case page'. However I concur with the general thrust of the argument. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'd note that Risker was acting as an administrator, not speaking FOR THE COMMITTEE (and if they were being for the committee, they weren't explicit about that fact). Actions as an administrator are the business of ANI. - Jorgath (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering if NewtonGeek is a high profile editor (e.g. Jimbo) who used an alternate account in order to be able to make some comments without his/her mere presence there becoming Wiki-Breaking News. Count Iblis (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Lulz. No, this is no Prince and the Pauper tale, Newton is a user tied to the Factseducado stuff from a few months back, and is a user also (along with Facts) recently banned at the Wikipediocracy. These are an odd pair of users who first ran into difficulties here, went to the 'ocracy as a general refuge, were generally rebuffed, then kinda glommed onto the whole Fae affair near the end of their stay. Tarc (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – @Fluffernutter and others: NewtonGeek isn't a sockpuppet. He was editing Citizendium before coming to Misplaced Pages. That's why he's familiar with wikis. NewtonGeek learned about Fæ from Wikipediocracy. WP:AGF. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• This strikes me as an outstandingly bad block. If arbcom pages don't support the building of an encyclopedia, then why do we have them in the first place? If they do support the building of an encyclopedia, then contributing to them is building an encyclopedia. One might as well say that working in the court system is unproductive labor because it doesn't produce tangible goods. In fact, a working court system supports the production of tangible goods, so working in it is productive. NewtonGeek is trying, in a clumsy way, it's true, to act as part of this community, and it is harmful to this community to slap him down for it. He has not been disruptive, and his edits to the arbcom pages show no discernible POV pushing as far as I can see (so much for the duck test). Blocking him serves no useful purpose.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Further Comment: WP:BITE says, at one point "13.Avoid using blocks as a first resort. Consider talking to a user before you block them." Risker didn't talk to NewtonGeek before blocking them. - Jorgath (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) You do remember that the WP:Admin page says Administrators "are never required to use their tools"? Yet I see over and over, these bad blocks where someone acted on a questionable basis and instead of asking AN/I preemptively for guidance, AN/I has to review the block instead. The Admin summary of "Not here to build an encyclopedia - 2.41% contribs to article space" is completely and utterly out of line, and I don't know when our Admin corps is actually going to start doing some self-reflection on what it means to do the job well. The fact that this isn't already reversed is simply an example of a system that fails to protect our editors from emotionally-driven, reactionary use of the tools. Take a break, eat a sandwich, and think before pressing that button, especially when it is something that isn't causing immediate harm. I would hope that is a reasonable request. -- Avanu (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• The status of the block at the moment is uncertain. It was discussed and agreed by four members of the Committee before Risker enacted it. I would suggest that the block is not undone until it has been established if it is an ArbCom block or not. SilkTork 16:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This comment makes it even more clear that the person shouldn't be blocked right now. If you're not even sure of its validity or whether it was requested, AGF and remove it until it is certain that it is actually the *right* thing to do. -- Avanu (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, SilkTork said nothing about its validity, just about its status -- namely, whether it was an ArbCom-imposed block, or one by Risker acting alone as an admin. The second could be overturned with an unblock request -- the first would require a strong community consensus. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Heck, if it's decided that this is an ArbCom block, rather than a Risker-as-admin block, I still would disagree, but I'd be inlined to retract any request for an overturn. - Jorgath (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how it can be an Arbcom block unless Arbcom has voted on it? Cardamon (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• This kind of editing is similar to what Chester Markel, Alessandra Napolitano, etc have done. I'm not saying that this is another sockpuppet of John254, but editors who suddenly involve themselves in arbcom cases in this way always arouse suspicions. Just knowing that these processes exist on[REDACTED] makes it highly unlikely that they are new editors. The declared criterion (< 2.41 % content editing, or should that be ≤ ?) is presumably not intended to create a precedent. Mathsci (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • There has been a trend recently of new accounts turning up in arbitration cases and then becoming very prolific posters there. It's happened three or four times now. Up-to-date figures are not currently available, due to the server lag, but NewtonGeek seems to be the most frequent poster to the PD talk page by some margin – which is very odd behaviour for an account that has never edited before. I'd say good block.
  • I'd propose that editors wishing to comment at arbitration cases should at least have 200 mainspace edits and have been here for 3 months (unless they are themselves a party to the case, of course, or have a disclosed relationship to one of the parties, or a clear prior interest in the subject matter). I've opened a discussion at a more suitable location. JN466 16:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• How is this NOT a case of WP:BITE? ArbCom members should really know better than to engage in this kind of abuse. WP:SPA does not appear to have any prohibition against the kind of commenting NewtonGeek is making. And given the number of admins who make their name operating primarily in the user space, I can't see how this sanction is valid at all. Why is the admin caste and ArbCom moving in this direction of shutting down debate with blocks and struck edits lately? T. trichiura Infect me 16:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:SPA is also just an essay, not policy. T. trichiura Infect me 17:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Speaking of single-purpose accounts... Tarc (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Speaking of violating WP:AGF ... T. trichiura Infect me 17:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I have looked at your contribs (as have others, i.e. your spat with Nobody Ent) and see nothing but a user hiding his original editor's account for whatever reason, there is nothing remotely "new user" about you. AGF is set aside when there is clear evidence to the contrary. Tarc (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Good luck with that. You're obviously just trying to discredit my contributions with wrong and irrelevant opinions. I looked at your edits and see an editor who's bent on towing the administration and anti-new user line. T. trichiura Infect me 17:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Ah, I see now that Tarc believes civility is optional. No need to address him any further, per WP:DENY and I'm glad we can ignore his attempts to distract the discussion. T. trichiura Infect me 17:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
          • Where's Cla68 and his ad hominem schtick when you need him? :P That's as classic an ad hominem as anyone could hope for. Assuming Tarc does believe that civility is optional, surely that doesn't invalidate his point that you're an alternate account being used for wikipolitics? MastCell  23:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• (e/c) Alf's comment is well taken, also aren't there usually supposed to be warnings and discussion with the User first (although the User maybe any number of bad things, absent repeat vandalism, it seems like some graduated warnings should occur). If it's a new g/f user they may be really confused right now. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

((ec))::AGF and remove it? Or AGF and wait at least until it's explained, especially as it wasn't just Risker who is a respected editor, acting alone. Dougweller (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Exclaiming "I am a new user - don't BITE me!" is very snide, to say the least. In any case, I would be happy to send Misplaced Pages:Here to build an encyclopedia to MfD in the near future, but I'll wait for more information and/or developments. --MuZemike 17:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• This was a good block. There's a long-standing precedent that alternate and throwaway accounts aren't to be used in ArbCom proceedings (or, ideally, anywhere in project-related discussions). I don't think anyone seriously believes that NewtonGeek was a brand-new user. I'd have made this block myself if I cared enough to follow the ArbCom case in question. More broadly, I don't see any convincing rationale to start allowing random sockpuppets to participate in ArbCom cases, which are messy enough as it is. MastCell  18:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• NewtonGeek was advised by one of the case clerks, Lord Roem (talk · contribs), to take a break from the discussions. He failed to abide by that. Recall that there has been heated arguments on that page, where we are expected to keep everyone civil. Adding fuel to fire does not help here. It is very likely that, should the block to be found to be not-initiated as ArbCom, NG would be banned from the Fae RFAR case pages for the duration of the case, for the exact reason that I pointed out. - Penwhale | 18:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Starting a sentence with "I think" doesn't send a clear message. Lord Roem's comment shouldn't be treated as if it were a clear, stern message or a warning. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Agreed. The full text was, "I think taking a break from the discussions wouldn't be a bad idea. They can get heated really quickly, and it doesn't persuade anyone when it gets to such points." That is anything but a warning to stop. Wnt (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • While the parent statement is technically correct, the fact that advice in the first link on Lord Roem's talk page at 12:24, 19 July 2012 was not followed when this user edited a different page at 12:25, 19 July 2012 is not surprising. The two posts are a rounding error away from having been done at the same time- if they had been on the same page it is likely there would have been an edit conflict. It is unreasonable to expect a user to be following advice one minute after it was given, and I think characterizing the second edit as a failure to abide by the advice offered a minute prior is quite unfair. --Noren (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• I can see an argument for banning NewtonGeek from the case pages, but I think it's a stretch to say that an indefinite block is necessary. Is there really a case for saying that he should be thrown off Misplaced Pages rather than, for instance, simply asking him to refocus his interest on a different area of the project? Why was a gentler approach apparently not considered here? Prioryman (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support block, since I had reached a similar conclusion about NG after reading his contributions to the Fae case and then examining his contribution list. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Reduce to a week, or whenever arbs feel the case will be over. Presumably there will be a Jimbo appeal, but Jimbo knows how to ask people to leave his page.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose block. The stated rationale, regarding edit ratios, is invalid, because the WP:SPA/WP:HERE/WP:NOT#Social prohibitions concern new editors who spend all their time making personal pages - not those who contribute to policy discussions. These are not a blanket ban on opinions. Note that systematic enforcement based on this precedent would alienate Misplaced Pages from the world audience, because the answer we usually would give to readers who complain about anything from Muhammad images to biased articles is that they are free to start an account at any time and get involved. Once you break that, once you say that giving an opinion in a case is a privilege for the good editors (I actually saw someone in that discussion saying anyone with <1000 edits wasn't even a contributor) ... then you're making the editors (and by extension, admins and Arbs) an elite jealous of their special perks. Wnt (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I have been following the arbitration case very closely, and I consider the block to be a very complicated matter. First, let me say that I see zero merit to the argument that Risker has a COI or acted out of policy in any way. This is a controversial block, but it should be evaluated on the merits of the account blocked. I'm leaning a little bit in the direction of wanting to let the block be lifted, but I recognize that this isn't a simple decision, and I'd like to lay out what I know, in the hopes that the Arbitrators can take a look at it, and maybe it will be useful. I've been reading the comments about the case at Wikipediocracy, and based on what I've seen there, I'm pretty sure that Newton Geek and User:Factseducado are connected to some extent. I'm pretty sure also that we are dealing with two people here, who are husband and wife, although I'm totally at a loss as to which is which at any given moment. (I also haven't educated myself about Factseducado's history that led to them getting blocked.) On the one hand, I think that there is a good likelihood of sockpuppetry and block evasion going on. Perhaps, that right there is reason enough to keep the block, case closed. On the other hand, I have to say that I have never seen anything Newton Geek has done during the arbitration as being disruptive or unhelpful, in terms of what they have written. (That stands in vivid contrast to a bunch of users who have repeatedly been derogatory and downright nasty during the case discussions. And some of them, if not literally canvassing, are coming razor-edge close to it at Wikipediocracy, egging one another on and sounding like they are getting red in the face over things that are mostly in their heads and not in the real world. I point that out because no one is blocking them, and there usually has to be a good deal of requesting just to get their comments hatted.) I see no reason to question that Newton Geek wants to contribute positively to the project, just that they don't get it about the right way to have an account. I do think there is some WP:BITE in all of this. I think that a case can be made for a conditional lifting of the block, accompanied by a ban from commenting on the Fae case, and some sort of supervised editing, all conditional on Newton Geek acknowledging any non-clean start and committing not to repeat that infraction. Beyond that, I see absolutely nothing that the block is preventing. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Good block (perhaps reduce or restrict to arbcom space if there are indications of an interest in writing an encyclopedia). It is obvious that someone arrives just to sti the pot in the Fae case is not an encyclopedia writer but here for another purpose altogether, and probably here through off site alerts. Bite does not apply. WP:MEATPUPPET/WP:CANVAS probably does.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Maunus, you had the arguably bad luck of commenting just after I did, so it's going to look like I'm arguing with you, but I really don't mean it as criticism directed at you. Rather, I want to draw some logical distinctions. Newton Geek isn't stirring any pots, although a lot of others on the case pages are. I don't think Newton Geek particularly agrees with or is either parroting or rebutting anything at Wikipediocracy, so they aren't a meatpuppet of others there (and we aren't blocking the editors who are). This block tests us as Wikipedians: do we just tick off boxes on a checklist and say, yes, block, or are we mature enough in our thinking to actually look at how the user conducts themselves, and make a decision based on that? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

In my view anyone who clearly demonstrates that they are here for the politics and not for writing an encyclopedia should be on a very short leash indeed.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly correct. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what I was talking about, when I said that this block tests us. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not exceedingly familiar with the account in question, or the ins and outs of the case. All I'd like to say is that we are not Conservapedia. We don't have a 90/10 rule (i.e we have no requirement that a certain percentage of edits must be to article space), and with good reason. If NewtonGeek is here only to cause trouble, then that should be dealt with via the appropriate channels. If they haven't actually done anything to deserve a block according to actual policy then the current block should not remain in place. OohBunnies! (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - As with a couple of the comments above I don't feel particularly strongly about this and if the account was doing something wrong, which it doesn't appear to me then fine the block is valid. If however it was a constructive account and wasn't violating one of our thousands of rules, policies and guidelines and the block was just based on Risker's gut feeling that this user might be a sock, then I have a problem with that. As it is I think the Arbcom ruling on the Fae case was one of a series of bad decisions that Arbcom has had in recent months so I have a rather tainted view of good faith at the moment. Kumioko (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose block - per comment by OohBunnies. My feeling regarding this matter can also be found here. Tamsier (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Shouldn't the bar be set higher for ArbCom members when it comes to AGF? While NG showed a more than keen interest in the Fae case then one would expect of most new users, it is plausible that he truly is a new editor and not a sock having learned about this case off-wiki. And even if he were a sock (in that case tsk tsk), he might want to be protecting himself from future retaliation from Arbcom or other participants. Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Observation - I would suggest reserving judgement for now. There is more history than the contribs show. I'm the first to speak out on a bad block, but I think everyone should assume good faith in this particular block while waiting for more information. Situations like this are never as simple as they seem at first glance, and I'm confident more info will be coming soon. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• What info are you looking for? It all appears to be right there, the user was blocked for making less than 2.41% articlespace edits. It was a vindictive block, obviously. Arbcom didn't like the way the user was acting in the case, since they were being mostly calm and managing to knock down their arguments, so they had to come up with some reason to block the user. I just wish they had actually come up with a plausible reason. Silverseren 20:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Risker either screwed up the block because she's wrong - or she is right but screwed up by implying it was due to the ratio of edits when there is another reason (SPA, troll, whatever you want). Either way Risker screwed up, handsomely, and should, of course, consider her position. Let's make no mistake here - whatever the other issues an active arbitrator has just blocked someone for not editing in the "right" places. Conservapedia would be proud. Pedro :  Chat  20:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• It does appear that some mistake was made, but as I explain a bit more below, there are more things going on than just this one Arb case. Until then, I thinking keeping an eye out and waiting for an explanation is worthwhile, but jumping to conclusions and drama isn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose block This entire thing is just blowing my mind. Did Risker seriously just block someone for making <2.41% articlespace edits? Seriously? Is that the precedent now? Because there's actually quite a few long-term users I know of who have very low articlespace contributions, so I suppose we should be going after them now. Silverseren 20:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Somewhat amusingly, it appears that Risker themselves has only four mainspace edits in their last 166 edits. Not saying anything, just sayin' Resolute 03:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Just so we're all on the same page here: policy explicitly forbids the use of undisclosed alternate accounts to comment on ArbCom cases. That's not a gray area in any conceivable way; it's written down at WP:ILLEGIT, second bullet point. This is obviously an alternate account of an experienced user, so Risker's block was explicitly supported by policy. It's blowing my mind that people are commenting in apparent ignorance of the underlying policy. I suppose one could argue that NewtonGeek should be unblocked and simply instructed not to comment in project-related discussions, but that argument would have to be made with an awareness of the underlying policy supporting Risker's actions. MastCell  20:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • It's blowing my mind that people are commenting in apparent ignorance of the underlying policy. -- Really? How long have you been editing here again? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, that was tongue-in-cheek. Incidentally, I'm old enough to remember when ArbCom actually ordered someone to "familiarize himself with the particulars of a situation before commenting on it" as a remedy. MastCell  21:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• How do you know it's an experienced user? If you mean experienced as in a prior contributor to Citizendium and Wikipediocracy, then yes, they're "experienced". Doesn't mean they were a prior user on here or, if they were, it was a long time ago and it's an account they've abandoned. Silverseren 20:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) MastCell, I understand your point and think I am on the same page, but there are varying degrees of experience when we talk about "experienced users". I have the sense that this is someone who is experienced enough to have formed opinions about dispute resolution, but not to have educated themselves about policy. I fully agree with you that Risker did things just fine, but I don't see Newton Geek's conduct in such black-and-white terms. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Your starter for 10: In which current arbitration case is a (former) admin about to be sanctioned for failing to respond to criticism of or questions regarding their admin actions? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Reverse block — WP:SPA is an opinion essay, not a manifestation of policy. Whereas Conservapedia will block users for insufficient articles to mainspace, at Misplaced Pages there is no such formal prohibition. Creating a new account for a specific purpose, such as commenting on the Fae case, is no different than an individual signing out to comment or making use of different accounts for different purposes, like, ummmmmm User:Fae, for example. In short, there is no doctrinal grounds for this block, other that the pique of a more or less involved administrator. Carrite (talk) 04:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn - No proper grounds for block presented. --Dirk Beetstra 08:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for alternative solution

Given the comments above and my own view that indeffing Newtongeek is disproportionate to the perceived offence, I'd like to propose the following solution which resolves the issue of their participation in the Fae case while respecting the rights of the arbitrators to manage case pages:
User:NewtonGeek is unblocked with immediate effect but is henceforth banned from the Fae case talk pages until and unless an arbitrator grants permission for them to resume their participation on those pages; and NewtonGeek is counselled to refocus their interest on other more productive areas of the encyclopedia. Prioryman (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• I fail to see and have seen no evidence indicating Newtongeek anything wrong other than have few contributions to mainspace, which is not a blockable offense. If ArbCom wants to forbid someone from editing their wp:own anyone? pages fine, but the block is completely out of line barring presentation of evidence of disruptive behavior. Therefore, the latter half of your wording is inappropriate. It presumes he was being unproductive. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• No, it presumes that arbitration is unproductive, which I think is probably beyond dispute now... Prioryman (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. We're still waiting to hear from Risker and/or Arbcom about the reasoning behind and status of this block. There's nothing to be gained by hastily unblocking before Risker/Arbcom is able to provide some explanation of what's going on here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• I made a somewhat similar suggestion above, but I think that, additionally, there would need to be an acknowledgment by Newton Geek of problems with a not-clean start of their account, and a promise never to repeat it. I also agree that we should wait for ArbCom to evaluate the information. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Is there any evidence that NewtonGeek had a previous account? I believe someone said they were a Citizendium contributor so they would have some established familiarity with editing a wiki, if that's the case. Prioryman (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think there is. You can look, in part, at my comments above. I think there are also privacy issues, per what Dennis Brown is saying, and the bottom line is that I'd like to give ArbCom some time to review things. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• This is premature as we don't have all the facts yet. I only know enough from my previous multiple emails from NewtonGeek (I've never emailed back, answering here instead, his YGM are in my talk page history.) and his SPI investigation months ago, and many other events, that there is more than meets the eye here, which is why I have asked people to reserve judgement. We want the answers, but should be a bit more patient. I don't know if the block was good or bad, but I know this isn't likely to be as simple as it looks based on my experience helping NewtonGeek. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

True, but this is shooting first and asking questions later. The block doesn't appear to be time sensitive, but it is preventing NG from participanting in the case talk page. Since that might be closing soon, this block should be reversed ASAP unless there are reasons otherwise not known. Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• • I agree it's unlikely to be simple - given that Risker should have either taken no action or justified her action by proper policy, ARBCOM or similar mandate. As it is Risker has made it appear to be a block based on her perception that the editor doesn't edit in the "right" areas. As a sitting arbitrator this sort of incompetence is not acceptable. Self evidently we now have a huge and likely pointless debate because or Risker's lack of clarity. Pedro :  Chat  21:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I put off responding here until I thought s/he would have, instead of just on their talk page. SilkTork made a comment above that it was based on 4 Arbs, and no one has come back to clarify that yet, and it is a bit different if it is an Arb decision or an individual Admin decision. The whole situation is less than optimal, to say the least, but reverting the action without discussion from the block admin (Arb committee?) isn't without its own drama as well. I'm not condoning, just trying to be a little patient while waiting for an answer that might be coming from a committee instead of an individual. My patience isn't infinite, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• FYI Pause 1. There is a current halt on review on NewtonGeek's talk page because Arbcom has not made clear whether this is an Arbcom block according to SilkTork, and 2. NewtonGeek is denying all the bad things thought of him. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • You know, it would be nice if there was a presumption of innocence for Newton since nobody has proved anything about him. Deny? How about someone PROVE something for him to deny? (not voicing this at you specifically Alan) --Hammersoft (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for now per my favorite sandwich. Arcandam (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I endorse this block. Unfortunately for purposes of the discussion, I do so based in part on non-public information that I can't share on this noticeboard. I'd ask that speculation about what I'm referring to be avoided, although I have zero hope that some people will honor this request. I also note that Risker, who in my experience has extremely sound judgment on matters of this nature, has been away from the keyboard this afternoon, and that no action should be taken until she has had an opportunity to comment further. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

While there is undoubtedly more to the story than meets the eye, ArbCom has been quick to sanction Fae and parties to previous cases for failing to respond to good faith concerns about edits or admin actions. Arbs should at the very least hold themselves to the same standards as they hold other admins. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Brad, since you are endorsing the block "in part" for privacy reasons, can you clarify if you would endorse it absent the private reasons? To clarify. Do you agree that an account that only comments on arbcom cases without being disruptive should be blocked? 204.101.237.139 (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with 204.101. Let's be clear -- if Risker had said that he had confidential evidence that this was a "sockpuppet" account, then he'd have a better case. However, I believe that the sensible way to interpret the ban on "undisclosed alternate accounts" editing ArbCom pages, etc., is to prohibit the use of more than one account to do so, not to arbitrarily designate one account the "alternate" and prohibit it from activity. Specifically, I think that it would be understandable for an editor in this contentious case to leave his normal account out of it and to use a different account to do all this for privacy, given that the normal account isn't also editing the same or related pages to provide a false sense of extra support. And no matter how confidential the evidence is, can't Risker still take it to one checkuser-admin for a formal WP:SPI so that you have the finding on record and you can block for "confirmed sockpuppetry" rather than "not enough mainspace edits"? Wnt (talk) 10:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Although I understanding the reasoning behind Prioryman's proposal, I am somewhat in agreement with Hammersoft. I see no evidence to prove that NewtonGeek has done anything wrong. All I am seeing is "presumption of guilt" with no tangible evidence to back that up. Where is AGF in this? I also believe it is grossly unfair that NewtonGeek, who is the subject of this discussion, is not even allowed to come here and defend his/her name. This issue has been raised above by Fasttimes68 and I strongly agree with it. Tamsier (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

  As far as that's concerned, NewtonGeek appears to be monitoring this discussion and replying to some points on their talk page. I urge all editors paying attention to look in there too. That was me, sorry. - Jorgath (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose as being beyond the legitimate purview here. If ArbCom decides that the block is improper, I trust it will, sua sponte, remove it. If it is proper, it is not up to us to remove it. In either case, this proposal is thus ill-formed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

  I disagree with you on the propriety. If this is an ArbCom block, you are correct, of course. But that has not been decided or declared. In the absence of a declaration that this is an ArbCom block, I am treating it as if Risker were acting as an administrator. Per WP:ADMINACCT, any admin must be responsible to the community for any decision they make as an administrator. Obviously ArbCom operates by different rules, but if an arbitrator is operating in an "administrator" capacity rather than "for the Committee," then it is proper for us to review their decisions. - Jorgath (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

How can this possibly be an ArbCom block. The original block notice says "..If you can convince another admin that..." here is the whole thing from NG talkpage. I am copying the text instead of a diff because it seems to me that many people are commenting without having read it.

NewtonGeek, having reviewed all of your contributions, I note that you have a grand total of 166 edits, of which exactly four are to article space. It appears that you have a mistaken understanding of what Misplaced Pages is about, and are treating this site as some sort of opinion forum or social website. This is not what Misplaced Pages is for. It is time for you to move on. I am blocking you indefinitely. Unless you can persuade other administrators that you will restrict yourself to building encyclopedic content in the article space, I do not see a reason for you to continue to participate here. Risker (talk) 9:17 am, Today (UTC−4)

I asked Risker on NG talkpage, in less temperate language, how where another editor chooses to contribute can possibly be any of their buisness. Should I be cowering because I have very few edits? Jbhunley (talk) 00:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Update

The block is being discussed with the user on his talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Umm, it appears more that Risker continues to fail to provide evidence of negative behavior by Newton while insisting Newton conform to his demands under pain of not being unblocked. Brad, I respect your previously stated concern about private matters regarding this block. However, Risker is not behaving in a way that confirms this. Risker's behavior is highly objectionable. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  No admin has overturned it thus far: her block. Not a newbie at all, so BITE doesn't apply. No brand-spanking new editor jumps to an Arb page for their second edit. Maybe a "forward observer", but definitely no newbie. Doc talk 05:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  Yep, clearly not a newbie. If this was a new editor, I'd be concerned. Given that it clearly isn't, I'm supporting the block until someone comes up with better reasons to unblock. Dougweller (talk) 06:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  If this is correct, and Factseducado edited the other day ... Doc talk 06:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, while I normally think that Risker displays pretty good judgement, I think this is a poor block. I share the concerns and as far as I'm concerned, NewtonGeek fails the duck test. That said, it's nothing that a ban from the case pages at ArbCom couldn't fix; an indef block is pretty heavy handed. Given that much of NewtonGeek's activity consists of criticising the direction that the Fae arbcom case is taking, and because Risker is obviously an active arb on that case, I think that a better course of action would have been to allow someone uninvolved to review the situation and issue the block if appropriate. Lankiveil 12:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC).

I promised myself I wouldn't get involved with this 3 ring circus, but I think that this is not the first time NewtonGeek has bumped up against specific users who also happen to be arbitrators. This SPI discovered a non-related linkage to the main investigating account, but did discover a linkage to annother account that was in the process of self destructing. I encourage caution when considering taking actions with respect to the account. Hasteur (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

So, what now?

It seems to me that putting this under the name of an "Arbcom block" is inappropriate because the block reason is clearly not one that falls under such a purview and is an extension of Arbcom's power that they were never meant to have. The reasons that have been hinted at as being secondary reasons for blocking are also not ones appropriate for an Arbcom member to do and are also not something that most would block for at all. Furthermore, it appears that calling it as such a block is an attempt to have the community not have a say in it, since if the community voted against it and overturned it, it would embarrass the member of Arbcom (and the rest) who implemented it. Silverseren 00:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This block continues to be discussed by the Arbitration Committee, which has been in contact with NewtonGeek. Nonpublic information is involved in this situation, warranting the Committee's involvement. The block remains in place pending any further action by the Committee.

The speculation contained in Silver seren's last sentence is false, and any suggestion that the arbitrators would cause a user to continue to be indefinitely blocked just to save the feelings of another arbitrator is really unwarranted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Then can you please explain the block reason of <2.41% articlespace edits? Is this meant to set a precedent for such things? Silverseren 02:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

As I posted in my observation on Risker's talk page, I believe that the % comment was more of an aside rather than the main thrust of the block rationale. Not that it really matters what anyone says at this point, as you are obviously hell-bent on ramping up the drama surrounding this in multiple venues. Tarc (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

If you mean the main thrust of "we don't like what you've posted about the case", then I guess that would be what is focused on more. And I don't think you have the right at all to talk to me about ramping up drama. Silverseren 02:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• All this micromanagement of what Arbcom does (obviously the committee will review Risker's action) is unhelpful. Arbcom was elected to protect the community that builds the encyclopedia, and there is no better method that could be used to manage this site. The arb case is highly contentious and the arbs have read private information—it is very plausible to assume they have reasons to support this unusual block. Any alternative explanation (we AGF that NewtonGeek merely feels a need to help the community by focusing on the case) is very implausible. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• Suggest community patience for the moment I would like to urge us as a community to be patient while NewtonGeek and Arbcom discuss the situation privately. Let us wait and see what Arbcom says. My sense is that there is a stronger reason for this block than has been announced in public. Perhaps Arbcom's concerns will be resolved and NewtonGeek will be unblocked, and perhaps Arbcom will conclude that the concerns aren't resolved and NewtonGeek will remain blocked. Either way, I urge us as a community to be patient with the process. After the private discussions conclude between Arbcom and NewtonGeek, the community can decide how we want to proceed. Pine 06:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Propose closing this thread

This block was enacted on July 19 when the e-mail Risker has indicated this block pertains to was sent on June 28. As far as I know that June 28 e-mail appears never to have been responded to despite my having in the intervening time much subsequent correspondence and communication with multiple Arbs on both related and unrelated topics.

That still doesn't address the idea of whether it is legit to block a user for having the "wrong" set of editing statistics, nor does it address whether an admin can directly intervene in the middle of an ArbCom situation without its permission. Risker hasn't suggested that the block was for a legitimate policy purpose, and the vague "Not here to build an encyclopedia" is a piddling excuse if there ever was one. Reverse the block or reimplement it under a legitimate policy basis. But otherwise this is *still* an AN/I matter. -- Avanu (talk) 06:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

As I said, any issues with Risker's rationale can be raised with her on her talk page. An ANI discussion thread is not going to be able to resolve those issues, and certainly isn't going to end up lifting the block given what has been said on NewtonGeek's talk page since this thread started (please read that page and Risker's talk page if you haven't done so). ANI is just the wrong venue here, full stop. If you want to bolster existing admin policy to forbid 'not here to build an encyclopedia' blocks, then you need to raise that on the policy talk pages (and anywhere else that relates to that issue). Carcharoth (talk) 07:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that is incorrect. It has been repeatedly asked whether this is an Arbcom block and no answer has been forthcoming, though it has been implied that it is not. Therefore, if it is not an Arbcom block, then the community is fully within its right to reverse it, regardless of whether certain Arbcom members are in discussion with the user. Silverseren 07:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

AN/I is actually the only proper place for this debate. While Risker or Newton's Talk pages are viewable to anyone, they do not have the same visibility as this page. A block is supposed to be preventative. What exactly is being prevented in this case, and why isn't that specified via the block summary? The existing block summary is incompatible with policy, and civility as well (if it is an accurate summary), and Risker, having taken the action, should either take the fairly easy step of correcting it or it should be dropped, or a suitable ban or warning given. At present, this block is untenable and inappropriate, and that much is obvious to many of the editors that have commented. -- Avanu (talk) 07:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you proposing that we abolish Arbcom and resolve everything by perpetual public argument here? All the concerned users posting need to understand that obviously there is more to the case than appears on the surface—we know the presented rationale is inadequate. The worst interpretation is that Risker has gone rogue and blocked an editor who otherwise would have made helpful contributions. If that is the case, Arbcom will reach a suitable resolution in due course. We who have not followed all the details (particularly not the private details) should not try to micromanage Arbcom. Johnuniq (talk) 08:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You are both wikilawyering the letter of policy without looking at the specifics here. Clarification is needed, but that can be obtained by reading and posting to the two user talk pages I mentioned. Just because you disagree with a block is not a reason to drag the issue to ANI without discussing with the administrator or the blocked user first. Courtesy suggests that you both discuss with the blocking administrator first (and wait for a reply), and also contact the blocked user and ask whether they intend to appeal the block or not, and then guide them as appropriate. ANI is certainly not a place to be used to increase the visibility of an issue or to soapbox on issues you feel strongly about, or to appeal on behalf of someone else. It should be used to resolve ongoing and current incidents that need to be and can be resolved quickly (this block falls into neither category as it is a complex matter and there is no emergency here that can't be dealt with by a standard unblock appeal). Only when those avenues are exhausted, should the matter be raised elsewhere. And I have to ask this, have you both actually read the discussions at NewtonGeek's talk page? If you feel it would be inappropriate to post there (though others have done so, with some helpful suggestions) but are posting here so as to 'have your say', then you are missing the point of what has been said on that talk page. Let the editor sort out his issues with ArbCom and move on from this one way or the other rather than becoming a cause celebre. Carcharoth (talk) 08:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Update: this account and the User:FactsEducado account are now ArbCom blocks. Checkuser evidence apart, in all likelihood the user is trolling and/or has competency issues.  Roger Davies 08:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

That's something, at least. Alright now, next transparency step, what's the evidence for "trolling and/or has competency issues"? Because, as was pointed out in discussions above, the user appears to have been one of the most competent posters in the Fae case thus far. Silverseren 08:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems like it's over. Time to move on? Doc talk 08:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, no, not until there is proper evidence given. Otherwise, this will be yet another "sweep under the rub without explaining" block. Silverseren 08:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Good block initially executed poorly. There was no emergency requiring a block first and post explanations later action -- they should be concurrent. Not because the individual editor is particularly important but because of the signals sent to the rest of the community. Personally, I'd like to know if there's going to be some new must make x% edits mainspace policy; if there is, I'd prefer to fade away gracefully rather than logging in some day to find myself indef'd. Nobody Ent 10:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As I've tried to say in other places on Misplaced Pages, the reason stuff like this ends up attracting so much damn ink on a non-issue is not because most of these editors cared particularly one way or another about NewtonGeek's fate in particular, but that you admins recognize and realize that following policy and doing things right does matter a lot. Arbitrary-looking actions do not sit well with anyone, and while there seem to be a large group of its-good-enough-to-get-by-editors, there are also those of us who care about fair treatment because in the end it is an expression of respect and civility. I'd like to thank Roger Davies for actually having the guts to step up and take the simple act of giving a correct, albeit vague, block rationale. Those who are admins among us know that a lot of trust was placed within you when you were chosen. Please always do your best to live up to that trust and bear that responsibility with honor. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

RM bot inactive

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

This bot, which maintains the list of requested moves, suddenly stopped working after 17:30, 18 July 2012‎. I'm asking this group if anybody knows how to kick start the bot. I recall the bot has been stopped before: Misplaced Pages:Bot owners' noticeboard/Archive 7#RM bot inactive, but it seems to be a different problem this time. The last request to be processed, Talk:2012 Damascus bombing, seems to have been redirected or moved after its move request was submitted, so possibly may be the culprit that crashed the bot (if it crashed) – Wbm1058 (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems to happen every now and then. Bit irritating, but I'm sure things will be resolved in time. The bot op, HardBoiledEggs, has been notified of the problem. Jenks24 (talk) 06:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Best not to rely on the bot op to fix it, as their last edit on Misplaced Pages was 18 February 2012 – we could be waiting a long time. The earlier problem I linked to was resolved without the bot operator's help. Wbm1058 (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

As per Wbm1058, the last edit was to 2012 Damascus bombing which has now moved. However, a request I posted yesterday was processed by the bot, just not posted on the RM page. So the bot seems to be partially working still. If 2012 Damascus bombing crashed it, could temporarily recreating the page fix it? I'm thinking of quick fixes as we now have a broken bot without an op, and an increasing backlog. MatthewHaywood (talk) 12:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

There is perhaps what might be called an edit war between 18 July 2012 Damascus suicide bombing, 18 July 2012 Damascus bombing and July 2012 Damascus bombing. They certainly are not waiting for the RM process to come to consensus before moving and redirecting the article. I don't know for sure if this is the problem, but it is the last request that made it to the Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Current discussions page. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

So if I create a 'new' page at 2012 Damascus bombing, and then make an identical move request on its talk page, could that kickstart the bot? I'm no expert on these things, but it seems to be worth a try as the bot is still working as far as modifying talk page requests goes. As I said before, quick fix... MatthewHaywood (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I very much doubt the Damascus move broke anything. Articles are moved quite often while still listed at RM (probably more often that they should be) and I can't recall it ever breaking anything before. Matthew, the Replica Titanic RM has not been processed at all; it isn't listed at WP:RM and that's all the bot does. Jenks24 (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I posted the standard move request, and it was modified to what you can see on the talk page now. Surely this is a bot at work? MatthewHaywood (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No, my mistake, there isn't a bot edit in the history. The standard request notice must be modified before it is posted, somehow. No activity at all from RM then. MatthewHaywood (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I've seen others say that the RM bot did that as well. But I think it's just template transclusion. This simple edit jump started the bot in the previous incident I linked above. It could be something as simple as that. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Think you're right about the transclusion, didn't know much about that. Can't say I understand how the previous incident managed to crash the bot, how did it know that new1 and new2 were the wrong way round? More to the point, what crashed it this time... are we still looking at 2012 Damascus bombing? It would make more sense to say it was the move request which came immediately after that which did the damage, ie. the first request not to be posted up. How are we going to find and correct it as per the previous incident? MatthewHaywood (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, one-time Misplaced Pages:Substitution, not transclusion. I'm no expert on it either. you could be right about the next request. The previous incident didn't crash the bot, rather it was misbehaving—and not posting new requests. I don't know how to tell it it is running or crashed, but apparently no admin has blocked it, as happened in the prior referenced incident. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh true, as in "{{subst:requested move". Anyway, I've been trying to put together a search to find the request made immediately after 2012 Damascus bombing, searching in the namespace talk with the terms "requested move" "18 July 2012" . 128 results. Is it worth sifting through them, or is there a better way of finding it? MatthewHaywood (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I've tried, but I can't find the request which has affected the bot. Just to clarify after this long string: RM bot has been down since 18 July, and therefore no new Requested Moves are being processed. The user running the bot has been inactive for months. I'm out of my depth, and no-one seems able to sort it out. Without the bot the Requested Move process is inoperative, across the whole of Misplaced Pages. Can anyone assist us here? MatthewHaywood (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure if this is an admin matter. Have you tried posting about it on WP:VPT? Perhaps someone there can jump in and help re-activate or fix the bot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added a notice at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(technical)#RM_bot_inactive. Thanks. MatthewHaywood (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Three users involved in vicious uncivil and disruptive behaviour

User:Bryonmorrigan, User:W.J.M., and the anonymous user User:66.234.60.131 engaged in repeated uncivil comments, repeated personal attacks, and combative behaviour in complete violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:BATTLE. These violations of Misplaced Pages policy can be seen throughout the discussion here: Talk:Nazi Party#Naziism.

Bryonmorrigan and W.J.M. in particular were responsible for driving the discussion into a viscious battleground between them where they both engaged in insulting each other. This unconstructive behaviour was disruptive and renewed combative conversation has started between Bryonmorrigan and the anonymous user 66.234.60.131. Bryonmorrigan has been warned many times in the past to stop his repeated instances of battleground behaviour and use of uncivil comments and personal attacks, he has refused to heed those warnings. W.J.M. was equally irresponsible in responding by fighting fire with fire, replying to Bryonmorrigan with uncivil comments and personal attacks. I recommend that strong disciplinary action be taken, preferably equally to each user - to avoid issues of one user being less disciplined than others - preferably an indefinate block for all the users. If different levels of blocks or warnings are deemed necessary by others, I will accept that.--R-41 (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, upon looking at Bryonmorrigan's talk page where I posted the address for him to arrive here, I noticed another uncivil conversation above on his talk page with a user he was arguing with, in which the user implied to Bryonmorrigan a warning he would get in trouble with his behaviour, to which Bryonmorrigan responded in an acronym "DILLIGAF" and he provided a link for what it means to here , where it says that it is a military shorthand for "Do I Look Like I Give A Fuck?" - again revealing Bryonmorrigan's regular grossly uncivil behaviour.--R-41 (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Since R-41 has provided no edit differences to support his case, I recommend that this discussion thread be closed. No one has actually posted to the Talk:Nazism thread for over a week, and nothing there appears to be incivil, battleground, etc. R-41 has brought numerous baseless complaints against other editors recently and should be aware that baseless accusations may lead to sanctions. TFD (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And since it is your opinion that the reports from R-41 were "numerous" and "baseless" and since I find them neither "numerous" nor "baseless", I suggest your personal battleground with R-41 is showing <g>. Bryopn's styles of saying things like Grow up, and deal with it. You're selling, but nobody's buying (from the talk page cited) is less than helpful. uses a similar style of ad hom argumentation. The defense that Bryon is not a "frequent editor" (only 50 edits/month) does not affect whether or not his behaviour in posts poses a problems of any sort. This does not presuppose what any discussion here will end up at, only that the OP here should be granted the assumption of good faith. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And while we are at it, give him a generous trout-slapping for the use of 'viscious' in a section heading in an encyclopaedia . There is no such word - see and . Or it this a neologism relating to evil, immoral or depraved actions carried out while immersed in treacle? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

perhaps if everyone would just agree to stop using such colorful langauge and focus on the sources, prose of the article. dilligaf about your opinion of an edit? do you really need to classify a good faith edit as childish, absurd, or really anything? simply make your case or why you revert, site a source, or a wp:dontdothat. reading all the extra text is hindering the progress of the article for some editors, or not. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I meant "vicious", AndytheGrump. I don't know why I often misspell it. By vicious I mean extremely hostile. Please focus on what is being addressed.--R-41 (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A warning may be in order but really I have to agree with Darkstar1st, that the focus needs to be on improving the article (staying on topic) and improving the grammar and citing. Kierzek (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I find TFD's claim and threat grossly insulting, when he/she claims I am making "R-41 has brought numerous baseless complaints against other editors recently and should be aware that baseless accusations may lead to sanctions". My recent address here about User:Yiddi resulted in Yiddi being indefinately blocked by User:WilliamH. Considering that I am in the midst of several discussions in which I am in disagreement with TFD, and that TFD is growing frustrated and angry with me over those disagreements, I don't trust his judgement here. TFD can review the conversation here: Talk:Nazi Party#Naziism, Bryonmorrigan, W.J.M., and the anon user mentioned above, are being highly uncivil and combative towards each other. Here is what the anon user said to Bryonmorrigan as a jibe , and this is Bryonmorrigan's response , just as uncivil and pointlessly fanning the flames. There is this uncivil exchange between Bryonmorrigan versus W.J.M., both users are condescending to each other. Bryonmorrigan boasts that he is educated and accuses W.J.M. of being uneducated and responds to W.J.M.'s uncivil jibe that Bryonmorrigan is like a creationist, by accusing W.J.M. of being like a creationist, see here . W.J.M. later responds and swears at Bryonmorrigan, see here Plus look at this recent diff from his talk page , Bryonmorrigan responded to a user, with an acronym "DILLIGAF" and he provided a link for what it means to here , where it says that it is a military shorthand for "Do I Look Like I Give A Fuck?". How is that anything but highly uncivil? Lastly, TFD is incorrect, the discussion is not at Talk:Nazism, but at Talk:Nazi Party, where Bryonmorrigan and an anonymous user have revived their confrontation in the middle of the discussion posts.--R-41 (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Bryonmorrigan is well known for his repeated uncivil behaviour, he has been warned repeatedly to stop and has refused to heed those warnings. Review the conversation for yourself, here: Talk:Nazi Party#Naziism. Bryonmorrigan, the anon user mentioned above, and W.J.M. clearly engaged in uncivil combative behaviour and personal attacks, see these diffs for their behaviour: and this by the anon User:66.234.60.131, by Bryonmorrigan, by Bryonmorrigan, and by W.J.M. And here is a recent diff from Bryonmorrigan's talk page , showing Bryonmorrigan responding to a user, with an acronym "DILLIGAF" and he provided a link for what it means to here , where it says that it is a military shorthand for "Do I Look Like I Give A Fuck?". His behaviour and W.J.M.'s behaviour is grossly uncivil. I want to wait to have an administrator review this before non-administrator users make a decision as to its validity.--R-41 (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Below are 10 of the pointless discussion threads that R-41 brought to WQA and ANI since January. The 8 ANI requests obtained no support for administrative action, or even warnings. R-41 expressed regret at filing one of the WQAs ("I apologize for having brought you into the stupid mess at WQA" 23:30, 31 May 2012).

• "User Writegeist is Wikihounding either me or user Collect" ANI 00:35, 14 July 2012
• "Requesting an interaction ban between Writegeist to me (R-41) and the reverse from me to him" ANI 04:13, 9 June 2012
• "User:Bryonmorrigan being combative and uncivil towards User:Collect" WQA 14:07, 30 May 2012
• "Article on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh" ANI 01:23, 25 May 2012
• "User:DIREKTOR is threatening an edit war at WikiProject Yugoslavia" 15:49, 19 May 2012
• "Article on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is extremely POV and denying that it has participated in violence" ANI 23:51, 14 May 2012
• "Wustenfuchs, disruptive editing at the article "Yugoslavs" ANI 03:09, 1 March 2012
• "Failure to assume good faith by User:AndyTheGrump, repeated uncivil behaviour and personal attacks" ANI 07:37, 5 February 2012
• "Incivility issues with user Trust is All You Need" WQA 17:31, 20 January 2012
• "Etiquette issue with User:AndyTheGrump and acknowledgement by me, User:R-41, that I unacceptably swore back in frustration at him/her" ANI 01:15, 14 January 2012

TFD (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And you TFD, have been in trouble for initiating false accusations against several users. Such as accusing me of choosing sources to push a POV with zero evidence some time ago on an allegation that three sources I presented - that presented completely different arguments, you had no evidence. You then Wikilawyered based on a technicality, saying that because you said that I was putting in sources to advocate a POV on a talk page, that technically you were innocent of falsely accusing me of POV-pushing because it is about articles not talk pages. I regarded your false accusation and Wikilawyering as contrary to the principles of Misplaced Pages, and I asked you what was the "POV" that I was pushing. You could not answer that question because the three sources had completely different topics. Several other users said that if you did not have any evidence to show that I selected those sources for POV, that you should apologize to me, you did not listen to those users' request.

You have got into trouble over such false accusations several times, User:Nug who witnessed your evidence-less accusation against me, told me and showed me the following:

• You were warned here for making a false accusation
• You nearly faced a proposed 1-3 month ban on political articles on Misplaced Pages, for your false accusation of POV and personal attacks until you apologized for your false accusation, see here:

This: and that you noted, resulted in both users advising me that the issue could better be addressed at another noticeboard that could address the specific issues involved, they did not say that what I mentioned was "pointless", as you claim TFD. This that you noted was a constructive attempt to get Bryonmorrigan to be less uncivil through Wikiquette assistance, until the user WQA volunteer Writegeist arrived and insulted the fellow WQA volunteer User:IRWolfie-, in which IRWolfie- reported Writegeist here and I supported IRWolfie-'s report. You have taken a quote by me out of context, not including what I said immediately after, I mentioned having regret about reporting to the WQA because of the incompetence of the WQA volunteer Writegeist who insulted his fellow WQA volunteer IRWolfie- and spent more time saying cynical remarks than helping with the issue, I felt Writegeist's cynical remarks and his insult to IRWolfie- made the WQA address a waste of time. Writegeist got mad at me for me getting frustrated that he insulted a fellow volunteer that he should have cooperated with, and Writegeist has often talked about me and User:Collect on his talk page to other users after discussions with me and Collect ended, and the other users were not involved. AndytheGrump gets uncivil to users he disagrees with when he gets angry, even Writegeist whom IRWolfie- reported and I supported the report, mentioned to me that AndytheGrump gets highly uncivil at times. And this was never closed or resolved but left open. A number of users whom I have reported in the past for violating Misplaced Pages policy, I have sought to resume normal conversation with, you mention Direktor, I have cooperated with Direktor in the past, and I have cooperated with TIAYN since the report as he/she has not been uncivil since then. TFD, I regard your intentions here towards me as strongly influenced by your frustration and anger at me, stop this, this is a conflict of interest - you are in the midst of a strong dispute with me over material on Talk:Fascism - it is affecting your judgement of me. Just look at what Bryonmorrigan and W.J.M. have done, it is completely unacceptable.--R-41 (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• On the afternoon of the 20th inst. I was proceeding in a southerly direction on this page towards an alterkay kerfuffle involving my acquaintance Mr. Can in what is now Blue Square when I noticed a Mr. R. Fortiwun loudly complaining about the behaviour of several other people, accusing them of "viscious", "uncivil" and "disruptive" behaviour in a discussion about the Nazi Party. (In fact, as we now know, they were just doing The Fish-Slapping Dance that's traditional at all discussions about political parties.) Recognizing Mr. Fortywun as someone who had recently alarmed me by threatening to urinate on my new limited-edition Nike LondonOlympiPimp trainers if ever he saw me, I hid behind a nearby Misplaced Pages pillar (the Neutral Point Of View one, as I recall), and kept watch. As I recall, a Mr. Deuces then intervened, reminding Mr. Fortiwun that he had made numerous previous complaints about other people and suggesting that this latest one would be best ended. Now a Mr. Collect, apparently an acquaintance of Mr. Fortiwun's, roundly rebuked Mr Deuces, stating that the numerous complaints were not numerous. A passer-by carrying a trout, name of Mr. Grumpy I think (the passer-by not the trout), made a humorous remark and went on his way, after which someone who gave their name as a 1974 John Carpenter film made a plea for more moderate language. They was followed by another passer-by, maybe a teecher, who called for better grammer. Mr. Fortiwun, apparently rather agitamated, then made two statements. In one he spoke of a "claim" and a "threat" by Mr Deuces that he said he found "grossly insulting" because, he said, he (Mr. Fortiwun) had succeeded in having a Mr. Yiddi suspended from work or perhaps it was from the ears, I don't remember. I do not know what he said in the next statement because at this point, growing weary of all his repetitions, and having sat down behind the NPOV pillar, I fell asleep. I awoke to Mr. Deuces enumerating the numerous complaints by Mr. Fortiwun which Mr. Collect had said were not numerous. Falling asleep again, I awoke to hear Mr. Fortiwun complaining about all the people he had already complained about and now also complaining about Mr. Deuces, and also, at considerable length, imagine my complete surprise, complaining about me. Knowing a little about Mr. Fortiwun, , , , and afraid that he might target me for a gas attack, which he had done once before, I ran away as fast as I could. I think it would be best if this was closed now and everyone ran away too went on their way. Writegeist (talk) 04:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

R-41, you are bringing up comments I made about the editor "who witnessed your evidence-less accusation against me, told me and showed me the following" over a year ago, which he complained about at Arbcom and resulted in no action. He has been sanctioned for "abuse of dispute resolution processes". But the issue here is that you consistently bring requests to this board that have no reasonable prospect of success. TFD (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I hope your happy TFD, a very reasonable report about three users clearly repeatedly violating Misplaced Pages principles, especially Bryonmorrigan, has turned into a witch hunt against me. I said on your talk page to consider if someone else brought this up - there still would be three users grossly violating Misplaced Pages policies. TFD, I hope you enjoy adding this to your list of what you regard as "pointless" reports, remember that you drove it into this. Now Bryonmorrigan will once again escape for the upteenth time for gross violations of Misplaced Pages policy, along with W.J.M. who swore and repeatedly insulted Bryonmorrigan.--R-41 (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I have told Writegeist to leave me alone and stop interjecting in conversations with me, after a confrontation that Writegeist started as a WQA volunteer in insulting a fellow WQA volunteer, User:IRWolfie- and saying nothing other than cynical remarks resulting in that user, not me, reporting Writegeist, I supported IRWolfie-'s report. Writegeist has regularly talked about me and User:Collect behind our backs in condescending ways, I hold Writegeist in complete contempt and despise him, that's why I told him to engage in no further contact with me. But again TFD, I hope your happy you have ruined a reasonable report by turning it into a witch hunt against me, I used to cooperate often with you TFD and held you in high-esteem, but you have become cynical and condescending to me in the past year and a half. I feel like I am not wanted on Misplaced Pages, and as a person who deals with major depression perhaps it would be best if I leave, and I am sure that Writegeist in his vicious hatred of me, desires me to quit Misplaced Pages.--R-41 (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss your state of mind or to make personal attacks that speculate about other users' emotions of desires. Suffice it to say I have absolutely no "vicious hatred" towards anybody whatsoever, and no desire for anyone to "quit Misplaced Pages". This thread should be closed. Writegeist (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It should be closed even though I have provided all these diffs , , , , , , and Bryonmorrigan using an acronym "DILLIGAF" and he provided a link for what it means to here , where it says that it is a military shorthand for "Do I Look Like I Give A Fuck?" - that is what he said. Is this supposed to be acceptable?--R-41 (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment 1st point: The wall of text from the involved parties is not helpful. Neither are dozens of dffs. Why dont you discuss your compliants in short and concise sentances with only the most relevant diffs? 2nd point: Some people swear in diffs. That in of itself is not necesarilly a personal attack. "Do I look like I give a fuck" is not even close to an attack here. If it offends you, its best to ignore it or else you will just see more of the same. Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

What about these 2 diffs: the anon user 66.234.60.131 calling Bryonmorrigan a "liberal/communist" as an insult, followed a few posts later by Bryonmorrigan accusing the anon user of being like a Nazi and the Taliban. --R-41 (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

−

More so on the anon, but techincally they were only speculating. What is it that you wish to achieve from ANI? Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

To demonstrate to the users that they need to discuss the topics in discussions; not accusing each other of stupidity, and stop stereotyping each other with political labels. Bryonmorrigan has been repeatedly warned to not engage in uncivil behaviour, he has refused to heed those warnings, something needs to be done - at least for him.--R-41 (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Other than DIILIGAF or the latest diff, is there anything else? Only show the diffs that best make your point. Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This diff by W.J.M. condescendingly responding to Bryonmorrigan by saying "No shit Sherlock" and accusing Bryonmorrigan of being delusional, and insinuating that there is "something wrong" with Bryonmorrigan, the accusations that Bryonmorrigan is having "delusions" and insinuating that there is "something wrong" with him are personal attacks, see here: . And the following diff by Bryonmorrigan to W.J.M. in which he is patronizes and belittles W.J.M. by telling him to "grow up" and referring to him as "sport", see here: . "Sport" as a slang reference to someone, is something that adults in English-speaking countries often say as an affectionate term to refer to a male child, see here for its usage: , but Bryonmorrigan used the word "sport" to patronize and belittle W.J.M. as being immature, W.J.M. does not appear to be a child but at least an older person judging by his more complex language use.--R-41 (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Continuing disruptive behavior by User:Earl King Jr.

User:Earl King Jr. is continuing to attack me and continuing to accuse me of acting in bad faith. I filed an ANI regarding his disruptive behavior only a few hours ago, and I also filed yet another AN/I on his personal attacks several weeks ago (the first AN/I was also due to the fact he deleted one of my comments on the Talk page of The Zeitgeist Movement.

His behavior continues to constitute WP:HARASSMENT. He is intentionally targeting me, and his purpose is to make me feel intimidated, to make editing Misplaced Pages unpleasant for me, to undermine me, to frighten me, and to discourage me from editing.

He has been increasingly emboldened by the fact that almost no action was taken against him on the two previous ANI's. The closing of the ANI a few hours ago was especially hasty and erroneous. Earl's comments constitute uncivil and disruptive behavior and create a nasty, ugly atmosphere and environment on both the Talk page of The Zeitgeist Movement and on the on-going DRN. On the talk page of The Zeitgeist Movement, Earl openly discussed the material in my user page, which is irrelevant, because WP policies clearly limit the discussion on article Talk pages to focus exclusively on the topic of the article. As if discussing my user page is not bad enough, Earl took the extremely unusual, irrelevant and highly offensive step of copy-pasting a box from my user page directly onto the TZM article talk page. He then called me "a member advocate of Zeitgeist", "Your user box states explicitly that you advocate for Zeitgeist," "Your changes which as you being an advocate, seem biased and opinionated instead of neutral and accurate." Thus Earl has repeatedly attacked me and accused me of acting in bad fate. And he repeated his attacks five more times on the current, on-going DRN for the Zeitgeist movement. His most-recent attack is particularly nasty, ugly and offensive.

(My edits on The Zeitgeist Movement were based on an editorial (content) disagreement with him and were not sufficient reason for him to attack me personally, and his repeated attacks are definitely not "an entirely reasonable thing to do, under the circumstances" as the administrator who closed the previous AN/I erroneously said. As can be seen from the talk page of The Zeitgeist Movement, the specific content dispute between Earl and me was resolved practically instantly when editor Bbb23, who has firmly established his credentials as a fair, impartial, and reasonable arbiter on several preceding content disputes between Earl (and several other editors) and me, intervened again. I fully accepted all of Bbb23's recommendations and reverted all my edits.)

I'm requesting that an administrator take action against Earl to put a stop to his harassing me.

Thanks and regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 03:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where any action is necessary. I think Earl acted in good faith with this comment and focused on Ijon's contributions and not Ijon as a person. There is no obligation for Misplaced Pages editors to sugar-coat constructive criticism they give. —C.Fred (talk) 04:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no constructive criticism. There is an on-going series of comments intended to harass me, pure and simple. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 04:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Simple question. Are you a member of, or do you advocate for, the Zeitgeist Movement? And if not, why do you state that you do on your user page? You have apparently voluntarily chosen to make this information known, so why do you object to people commenting on it? In the recent ANI discussion, I suggested that a topic ban on you might not be the best course of action, but am beginning to wonder whether I was mistaken. Can you point to anything in Misplaced Pages policy that makes pointing out that someone has a userbox indicating an affiliation with the subject of an article constitutes 'harassment'? As for you being 'frightened', I have to ask how someone who apparently advocates the abolition of capitalism, a fundamental reshaping of the economic system, and a complete shift in the locus of political power expects to bring this about without suffering from at minimum the occasional personal insult? You are familiar with the writings of Marx (or at least, you claim to be), and you are no doubt familiar with past history in regard to previous attempts (no matter how flawed) to bring about such changes. Do you really expect such change to come about without any signs of personal antagonism? Is TZM really that clueless, or is it just you? Either way, I suggest you either accept that political advocacy of necessity requires a thick skin, or find another cause to promote... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Ijon, did you not notice that the last ANI basically you barely escaped a topic ban or some other administrative action, with another frivolous ANI hours later if WP:BOOMARANG doesn't apply now, I'd be highly surprised. A topic ban might now be in order, to give you a little time to contemplate your behavior and learn how to get along with people of different views. — raekyt 04:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem getting along with other people. And I'm not the one doing the personal attacks. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You're just practicing WP:TE and WP:IDONTHEARYOU and other disruptive editing behaviors right? WP:HARRASMENT is very clearly defined, and noone except you thinks he's violating it. Just because someone disagrees with you and starts to get frustrated at your relentless repetitive behavior is not harassment. — raekyt 04:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you like to reread this and reconsider your claim of not doing personal attacks? —C.Fred (talk) 04:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The comment you are referring to has not been posted on an article talk page or a DRN, like Earl's comments. It is an attempt to provide constructive feedback to an administrator whom I feel has made a mistake, and was posted on the administrator's talk page. Yes, AndyTheGrump has posted ugly, mean-spirited, disgusting, invective-filled, offensive, childish and juvenile comments on the current DRN regarding The Zeitgeist Movement. (His first few comments on the DRN were great, but got progressively worse. And by the way his comment above regarding 'thick skin' is very good, insightful and helpful.) And did Earl ever finalize his "feedback" to me with civility and positive words of encouragement and good wishes, like I've done in the comment you are referring to? IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That would be "civility and positive words of encouragement and good wishes" such as " You still have a long way to go before you become a good administrator"? Are you out of your mind? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"My best wishes for you, I hope you continue to grow and learn and develop as an administrator, and especially learn from your mistakes. Take good care and regards" IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 05:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The "ugly, mean-spirited" string is what I wanted to point out: starting this ANI thread over personal attacks really looks like the pot calling the kettle black. —C.Fred (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

How would you characterize comments such as "bollocks", "By implying that there was a link between L. Susan Brown and TZM, other than the one in your head? Or can I add a link to David Icke to to the article too, because former goalkeepers who think the world is run by shape-shifting lizards are under-represented both in Misplaced Pages and in TZM (or at least, I hope they are...)?" "We aren't the slightest bit interested in your bullshit," "you clearly have some intelligence, try to be a little more creative at least". Andy's comments were disruptive to the DRN discussion (e.g. my exchange with Judith, with whom I got along just fine and had a productive exchange with). And again keep in mind I did not post my comment on the TZM article's talk page or the DRN but only to point out to an admin. that he may have missed the 'bigger picture' in making, I believe, a hasty decision. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 05:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you C.Fred, Andy, and Raeky for providing feedback and for your insights. All your comments and recommendations will help me become a better WP editor (and more), and especially Andy's first comment above, which is full of truth and wisdom. Truth, knowledge and understanding are not easy to come by, and wisdom is especially rare. Thank you all (especially Andy). Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 07:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

I think that this has now gone on far too long - IjonTichyIjonTichy clearly either doesn't understand why he is getting to be a pain in the nether regions, or doesn't care. As an involved party, I should probably leave this to someone else, but it seems to me that the result is a foregone conclusion, and therefore propose that IjonTichyIjonTichy be topic-banned from any articles relating to The Zeitgeist Movement, to Peter Joseph, to The Venus Project, and to any other matters concerning politics or economics which might, loosely construed, be seen as related to the policies of TZM, until IjonTichyIjonTichy demonstrates through his contributions to Misplaced Pages on unrelated issues that he is competent to contribute constructively to the project as a neutral and constructive editor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Conditional Support Since I don't think he's malicious in his intent but just unaware. This should be a temporary topic ban maybe only one month, then he goes on a strict zero revert, and any more of this kind of behavior would make the ban permanent, maybe also forced mentoring. — raekyt 04:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - yes 'unawareness' (or a reluctance to admit to being aware) may well be the fundamental problem - which is why a time-limited topic-ban would make little sense in my opinion. What is needed is for IjonTichyIjonTichy to demonstrate such awareness in the context of articles with less personal involvement. He clearly is a person of some intelligence, and as I've argued before, is preferable to some of the other TZM advocates/spin merchants that Misplaced Pages has had to deal with - but by all evidence is incapable of changing his behaviour as long as an alternative course is available. A time-limited topic ban will merely postpone the inevitable, as far as I can see. If he is a net liability to the project now (as I'd argue is self-evident), I can see no obvious reason why the mere elapse of time would change this - we need him to change his behaviour, so why not make this need explicit? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support One month as well, though I suspect he will be blocked by then. Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. An editor who describes this is a personal attack on themselves is unlikely to be able to contribute in a WP:NPOV way to these topics. Kim Dent-Brown 12:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support one month per above reasoning. - Jorgath (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I respect the views of the editors above, and I'm only saying the following because most of them may not be as familiar as, say, Andy, Earl and I are with the history of the TZM article. I believe most of the wording in the current version of the TZM article has been contributed by me, including the largest portion of the 'Criticism' section of the TZM article (the first paragraph), and including almost all of the TZM responses to the remaining criticisms. And including the lead, philosophy section, 'See also' links and the remainder of the article ('External links' etc). And please note that even Earl has said "... the article is now pretty good, as far as being explained neutrally ...." Also, Andy's first comment above provides wisdom on how to deal with future disagreements with other editors, such as Earl (and Andy). And please note that I've worked very effectively on editing the TZM article when collaborating closely with neutral, unbiased, impartial editors/admin such as Bbb23. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Response. You don't get to decide who are "neutral, unbiased, impartial editors/admin". That you assume (or claim) that you can, while simultaneously advocating for a controversial 'Movement' is yet another illustration of the problem with your behaviour. And yes, it may well be true that much of what is currently in the article is due to your efforts - but much of what isn't in the article is due to the efforts of others to prevent you inserting spin, WP:OR, your own personal opinions, and who knows what else, contrary to Misplaced Pages policy, while having to deal with your tendentious Wikilawyering, refusal to actually address the comments of others, and endless, repetitious posting of reams of blather on talk pages, noticeboards etc. When this is combined with repeated calls for sanctions against others (here at ANI), even when it is made perfectly clear that it is your own behaviour that is most likely to be sanctioned, you exhaust the patience of others. Misplaced Pages contributors are volunteers, we only have limited time, and eventually have to say to those who are unable to work in a way that is actually of net benefit to Misplaced Pages (judging not just by article content, but by the amount of effort involved in arriving at such content, and in preventing other unacceptable content being added), that they must either conform to policies and guidelines, or find another outlet for their efforts. I think that you've been treated rather generously so far, but time is running out. Are you prepared to work within Misplaced Pages guidelines? Are you prepared to stop using WP:OR, your own opinions, and off-topic waffle on article talk pages in an attempt to add pro-TZM material to articles? Are you prepared to keep your talk page contributions concise, to the point, and actually addressing the concerns of others, rather than merely paraphrasing your previous comments without any new content? Are you prepared to accept that people who respond to endless repetitive blather are entitled to describe it as 'bollocks', or at least accept that in politics, those who engage in advocacy can expect the occasional negative comment, deserved or not? And are you prepared to accept that repeatedly running to ANI over supposed 'harassment' that nobody else can see is unacceptable, or at least counter productive?. If you aren't prepared to work with us in ways that the rest of us expect, you may well find that you can't work with us at all. The choice is yours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• The answer to all your questions is yes. (And thank you again for taking the time and effort to provide yet more excellent feedback.) Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Regardless of what your saying now in light of a pending ban, I still think a one month break might do you good. Allow you time to read and understand policies, contribute constructively in other areas of[REDACTED] totally unrelated to these topics, and learn. I really don't think anyone here believes you when you say you've suddenly reformed and are going to change your behavior right now. Not after two frivolous ANI's to try to silence your opposition and the DRN to try to push your POV through. — raekyt 18:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• I respect your view but may I explain. When I filed the two recent ANIs I did not have an intention to silence anyone; I (mistakenly) believed an editor was trying to silence me and intimidate me, but I realize now that (as Andy and several other editors explained in detail above) filing these two ANIs was the wrong course of action, and I apologize for wasting everybody's time with these ANIs.

I filed the DRN not because of any POV pushing but because I was convinced the addition of the link would benefit our readers, for the specific reasons I listed on the DRN, and more generally because my philosophy on 'See also' is very inclusive - my philosophy is identical to that of Isaac, who contributed to the DRN. (And please note that on the DRN Andy, Earl did not seem to disagree with me that Brown's ideas are very similar to those of TZM; we disagreed on whether it was proper to include her in 'See also'.) IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I have stayed out of this debate, but will comment. Ijon I wish you would stop using a phrase that you use in most of your posts, our readers, example I filed the DRN not because of any POV pushing but because I was convinced the addition of the link would benefit our readers end quote. It may just be a rhetorical device to say that phrase but, we do not shepard Misplaced Pages readers or mollycoddle them toward certain viewpoints. Not so sure that you accept that line of thinking. Its just not neutral point of view for an individual here to lead people in their own personal direction of interest unless there is a direct, notable and verifiable connection. Also in your statement above you say (And please note that on the DRN Andy, Earl did not seem to disagree with me that Brown's ideas are very similar to those of TZM; we disagreed on whether it was proper to include her in 'See also'.), end quote, that is a disconnect from what happened and the tone and direction of what happened but you are unwilling to let go of your opinion still that you were right. There is no connection to Zeitgeist material and Brown regarding the two viewpoints beyond remote tangents that are not really connected, so it is beyond 'rhetorical largess' to imply that others agreed with you on that in much of any way. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup. This is exactly the sort of spinning that I find troublesome - the misrepresentation of what other contributors say or do in order to imply some sort of agreement. IjonTichyIjonTichy wrote "please note that on the DRN Andy, Earl did not seem to disagree with me that Brown's ideas are very similar to those of TZM". True, I expressed no opinion one way or another on whether the closeness (or otherwise) of Brown's ideas to TZM were sufficient to merit inclusion in 'see also' - because my opinions on whether Brown's ideas match TZM's are irrelevant. We do not base articles on our own opinions. I asked for evidence that external sources had made the connection, on the grounds that this was how we should make the decision.. That even now IjonTichyIjonTichy fails to get the point seems yet further evidence that he is unfit to be editing articles in which he has such an emotional involvement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support, regretfully. Tom Harrison 12:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This comment is long because it is a combined response to both Earl and Andy's comments. Apologies for the long comment. Sorry Earl and Andy, it seems my last comment above is unlclear and confusing. I should have made it clear that I accept your explanations on why Brown should not be included, especially after reading Judith's comments, which were important for me, because I opened the DRN to seek fresh views from the larger editorial community, not only those currently involved with editing the TZM article. (The views of involved editors are important, but fresh voices are sometimes needed. Judith's and Isaac's feedback on the DRN were insightful and productive to the discussion, and they helped me learn several new things.) I should have made it clear I have no intention of pursuing the DRN further. (I should have posted this on the DRN to allow an admin to close it, I have not checked the DRN status recently.) I was not trying to spin anything or misrepresent editors' positions e.g. to imply Andy and Earl support parts of my argument. However, I do admit that I have to be much more careful in the future with wording my comments because, among other reasons, often my wording looks, feels, smells and tastes like I'm trying to spin, misrepresent or imply things. Additionally and generally, I have to be more aware of the impact my words have and use a more neutral tone not only in my edits but also in my comments.

Because I promised to keep my comments short, I did not go into details in my response to Raeky, and I tried to limit the scope of my comment to only show to Raeky that I was not acting in bad faith and I was not trying to push a POV. I tried to show to Raeky that I was not trying to imply that e.g. Brown supports TZM or that TZM are anarchists etc. (I'm not saying nor implying that Raeky accuses me of pushing these specific POVs, but I wanted to make clear I did not push a POV, e.g. POVs such as these.) Because I wanted to keep my response to Raeky short I did not discuss the details of Earl's and Andy's positions on the DRN. I assumed Raeky, as well as all editors here, have read the DRN and were fully aware of everything that happened on the DRN and the tone and direction of the DRN and thus I did not repeat (or explain, or summarize) Earl's or Andy's DRN contributions in my response to Raeky. Also, Raeky's comment made me realize I was probably guilty of pushing my general philosophy on 'See also' (without intending to do so, but the effect was probably one of still pushing). (My 'See Also' philosophy applies equally to all articles, not only to TZM articles; this philosophy is basically the same as that of Isaac, based on Isaac's comments on the DRN. Based on the DRN I am having doubts about my philosophy and I intend, in the near future, to post my 'See also' philosophy on one of the WP discussion forums and solicit insights from the larger editorial community on whether I should discard this philosophy. ) And I'm only using the phrase 'our readers' as a rhetorical device and have no intention to shepherd WP readers or mollycoddle them toward any viewpoints. I've seen other editors use this phrase or similar phrases on other talk pages so I naturally assumed it was OK to use it (e.g. Isaac used the term 'readers' on the DRN ), but Earl's comments on this issue are constructive and helpful. I admit that using this term, as well as my other actions and my comments and edits, can seem like I'm trying to direct readers towards a certain POV. (I'll post on a WP discussion forum and solicit further advice on whether it is a good idea to stop using the phrase 'our readers'. )

Again my apologies to Earl and Andy for seeming to spin or misrepresent their views, positions and contributions. I thank them, as well as all editors, for their feedback and consideration. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Ijon has some very specific problems that frustrate other editors and impede progress on improving the article. One, he is way too verbose. Volumes of material with links, diffs, whatever, go on for paragraphs. Second, he compounds that problem by repeating himself, even after his comments have been addressed. Third, if he doesn't succeed at the article or the Talk page, he runs to other forums like WP:DRN and here, forcing everyone to respond repeatedly to what amounts to the same mantra but with perhaps a few immaterial twists. And frequently he resorts to other forums over fairly minor disagreements (the Susan Brown thing is really a big nothing - do we have to expend all this energy on whether to include a See also article?). Finally, he's invariably dignified and civil, which I think, combined with everything else, drives some editors bananas. I don't see any changes in his behavior over time. Whether he's banned or not, I just wish he'd go contribute somewhere else on Misplaced Pages, for his own and the project's good.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Response to Bbb23. (a) All my comments here have been short, with the exception of the last one which responds to multiple editors and addresses multiple issues. And I believe all my comments on the DRN have been short, with the exception of perhaps a single comment. (b) I've contributed several edits on the TZM article from July 17 to date, and I believe none of these edits have been reverted, with the exception of Andy who reverted me twice, I reverted his reversions and no other editors (Earl, Tom, OpenFuture, Andy etc.) have subsequently reverted or significantly modified my edits. (c) Almost all of the other issues discussed in Bbb23's comment have been discussed by Andy in his second-to-last comment, and my answer to all of Andy's questions is still an unqualified 'yes'. (d) I explained in detail why my opening the two recent ANI's was a mistake and apologized for this mistake. (e) No, nobody has to expend all this great energy e.g. on the recent DRN. I opened it because I sought outside counsel and a fresh voice. A short time after I received specific input from Judy I stopped pursuing the DRN. The DRN (and this discussion) have been very productive - for example in the sense that we'll be able to clarify via RFC when and where my, and Isaac's, philosophy on 'See also' may be valid to other WP article - even if it is not valid for the TZM article. (f) Thank you Bbb23 for your kind words regarding dignity and civility. The same applies to you. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. In addition to my promises to Andy in my 'yes' answer above, I intend to voluntarily greatly limit my work on the TZM article, because, as Earl said, "... the article is now pretty good, as far as being explained neutrally ...", and because of personal issues I'm not going to have almost any time for WP editing anyway. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• The see-also link is up for discussion in yet another forum. Tom Harrison 22:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear - we now have IjonTichyIjonTichy making proposals which would of necessity require revision of WP:OR policy. Yet further evidence that he just doesn't get it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It is an RfC and not a proposal. It is an attempt to learn, gain insights and develop an understanding regarding the interpretation of a WP policy. (The RfC does not mention Zeitgeist or L. Susan Brown or any specific WP articles, and is not an attempt to revive the debate regarding L. Susan Brown or to find some sort of back-door way to insert the link into the 'see also' section or the body of any TZM-related articles.) This AN/I is probably not the right forum to discuss our views on this issue - the RfC itself is the right place, and all editors are welcome to comment there, or, alternatively, to follow WP:DGAF and take the time to enjoy your weekend. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

User:TheTimesAreAChanging and User:Merbabu

talk and talk have been censoring (in my opinion) just about all of my contributions to the http://en.wikipedia.org/Indonesian_killings_of_1965%E2%80%931966 in the "Foreign involvement and reaction" section as the history shows. All gone. When reasoning is given it is often for more than questionable reasons. They will come up with any excuse no matter how ridiculous or shaky to remove content they dont like. Any information that can be considered embarrassing to the United States government is removed and when they finnally leave my contributions alone they flag it with "undue weight" and "neutrality" tags. I tried to compromise with them after I realized that my reactions to their behavior were out of line. They complained that I was using too many quotes so I paraphrased it but they would not accept anything less than removal of relevant information directly based declassified US government documents. They like to try to find loopholes and exploit the system in order to be able to engage in censorship. In other words, they arbitrarily try to use the rules to intimidate people away from contributing to the page. They look for any opportunity to do so. It is difficult not to question their motives because it's so obvious. They are relentless. Their records speak for themselves. They are clearly on a mission to sanitize pages involving the US government. Furthermore, talk erased ALL my contributions to the http://en.wikipedia.org/Foreign_policy_of_the_Ronald_Reagan_administration and I worked on it for over a month.

Anyways, I am confidant that their censorship is so obvious that I can spare you the details here. Thank you for your time.--Horhey420 (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Horhey420, I added your report to a new section and made a direct link to the users in questions talk' pages. You also need to notify the two users of your report. Lovely day now. --Τασουλα (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they've been notified. Thank you.--Horhey420 (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Horhey on one thing, the record does speak for itself, but just not quite the Horhey believes. The above complaint is so ludicrous that I choose not to respond further unless another editor has something to say about it. As I said, the record speaks for itself. --Merbabu (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You can follow the discussion Merbabu, I, and SatuSuro had with Horhey here, here, here and here. I believe you will find that we tried very hard to deal with his personal attacks, disruptive editing, and POV. I would also suggest that you look here for an example of Horhey responding in a paranoid and vituperative manner to innocuous requests, and here for general concerns editors have had with him.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I would recommend a close reading of the article and the diffs SatuSuro 12:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging Your record is pretty dismal. Id rather be a hot head than a censor. But as you know, my attitude has changed since I read the rules.--Horhey420 (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Horhey, remember your audience has just got a look bigger now that you've posted here. --Merbabu (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Another user recognized the censorship before I did. That's how it came to my attention.--Horhey420 (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I noticed you just erased much of your talk page Merbabu (talk). Why would you want to hide the content there?--Horhey420 (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

See WP:TPG. Users are free to remove most stuff from their own talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but he only removed it shortly after I brought his record (3 years worth) to his attention today.--Horhey420 (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Which is irrelevent. Perhaps they realised their talk page was getting too long forfrom your comments. Nil Einne (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

So, it just so happens after 3 years of it being there that he erases it after I tell him about his record today as I file the complaint. Ok..--Horhey420 (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If you are referring to this removal, then please note that it was 6 days ago, about 5 days before you appeared on that talk page page, and it was approximately 18 months worth of content. If you are referring to your two templates of red links to no-where, then yes, that was today. Also note that you didn't inform me of this discussion, others did. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually they did try even if they made a mistake with the template Nil Einne (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The first template went up 40mins before the ANI posting. And perhaps it was 40mins before that that Horhey said I was about to be blocked for censorship. --Merbabu (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, if I'm piling it on now. --Merbabu (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well the revert to the failed notification was after albeit coming with unneeded warnings (and without correcting the problems) and evidentally too late although I'd note you hadn't actually replied here yet. Don't get me wrong, I understand how a notification not linking to anywhere is not that useful particularly when it says there is an ongoing discussion but the discussion only comes 40 minutes later, but I think the fact they did try makes it somewhat different from someone who didn't (although both may come from competence issues). Nil Einne (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

...and I have to admit, that a failure to notify would be the least of the problems here. --Merbabu (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No I never said 'it just happens'. I said that if you're commenting on their 3 year record then perhaps they realised it's time to archive or clean up their talk page. Evidentally this wasn't what happened, but the point is still a valid one. Please remember to WP:AGF. Nil Einne (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And BTW Horhey420, I take it you read the guideline I linked. If not, do note what I said above. People are entitled to remove most stuff from their talk page. There are a few exceptions but notices of ANI discussions are not one of them. As the guideline says, if it's removed, take it as it being read. Adding stuff back to someone's talk page when they removed it as they are entitled to do is not allowed. People can check the history if there's ever any confusion about whether you informed someone. And once someone is aware of the ANI discussion, there's no point informing them, at most if you failed to inform them when you should have, you may want to apologise. In particular, please don't tell someone not to remove something from their talk page which they are fully entitled to revert. Nil Einne (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion actually began here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Indonesian_killings_of_1965%E2%80%931966#Removal_of_referenced_content--Horhey420 (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, Im not exactly assuming good faith with this complaint since Im accusing them of censorship. There comes a time when the duck test can no longer be put off. There's something that looks like a duck in front of you. It's acting like a duck. It's walking like a duck. It sounds like a duck. It's kinda hard to keep convincing yourself that it probably isnt a duck. It's right there but ya know..--Horhey420 (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Come to think of it. That's probably how they've been able to get away with it for so long. They exploit the system which doesnt allow people to point out the obvious. It's like a journalist for the NYT or WP. If someone says the Earth is round and another says it's flat, they'll have to report it as "some say the Earth is round, others differ."--Horhey420 (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well looking in to the discussion I can see some of your behaviour there is problematic. The article is the killings in 1965-1966. Stuff happening in during Clinton's presidency are generally irrelevent, unless they directly related to the killings (e.g. an apology, a denial of involvement, destroying documents), and shouldn't be discussed in the talk page intended to discuss improvements to that article. Discussions can get sidetracked at times but if you are the only one getting sidetracked and people are telling you to stop then you do have to stop. Nil Einne (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The East Timor stuff was to point out the fact that US support for Suharto continued untill 1999, when the Soviet Union no longer exists. It was a response to the assertion that US involvement in Indonesia was all about combatting the communist conspiracy. The fact that you are not criticizing them for anything at all such as excessive censorship is telling.--Horhey420 (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Um that sounds like WP:OR. Also I never said I looked in to details of the case, what I did look in to was the link you provided where one of the big problems appeared to be your offtopics rants. Nil Einne (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And so it continues. --Merbabu (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you serious? It doesnt make any sense. There's no other way to put it. It's not rational.--Horhey420 (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Brought to my attention by SatuSuro (really not a good day for me to be involved in an ANI thread, been out all day). Based on my perusing of the talk page, it appears that Horhey420 has been promoting an anti-American POV through overquotation, dedicating too much of the article to it, and misrepresenting sources by omitting key details. When this has been brought to their attention, the editor has essentially played IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Right now this seems to be mainly a content dispute, but I do strongly suggest that Horhey pay attention to what Merbabu and TheTimesAreAChanging say. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

So what's your solution? Removal of "anti american" US government documents? I only included the key points and you say it's too much. Resisting the duck test now.--Horhey420 (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You know what? The only possible solution left is removal. There's barely anything left besides the key points and some newspaper articles so removal is the goal here.--Horhey420 (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I just cant undertand how any objective observer would want that kind of information removed. It stinks..--Horhey420 (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps you should read about Wikiquette and TPO. This editing of another editor's comment is certainly not permitted by the latter, and the personal attacks and claims of sockpuppeting violate AGF and the former. You've been told this by several editors already.

Regarding the content, discuss it. I have not seen any poor conduct by Merbabu or TheTimesAreChanging. You, on the other hand... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure but I don't think Horhey420 is actually accusing anyone of sockpuppetry. Rather they're saying people are censoring info they don't like and ganging up on the new user and trying to hide their wrong doings. The 'duck' thing is just a confusing way of them saying they don't need to AGF in any way. Nil Einne (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• I hope not. I've already dropped a warning about the first issue. I would pretty much never bold something outside of article space. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be overly hostile towards me. Something about me editing and I have no idea what you're talking about. And you're underlying solution seems to be removal of my content, thus ommiting US support for the events in Indonesia 1965. Or am I wrong? If Im wrong then we can discuss another solution you may have in mind. This term "anti-American". When Russian citizens would challange their government's policies we called them patriots and heros. Not anti-Russian. The term itself is just ludicrous. Noone ever heard of anti-French or anti-British. This terminolgy is only found in totalitarian states.--Horhey420 (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• (Butting in) To my memory, I have had no interaction with any of the above editors, but these edits today (, ) on Salvadoran Civil War seem to verify a battleground mentality on the part of User:Horhey420. I'm concerned for many of the reasons described above. Long blockquotes, walls of text, failure to use edit summaries, blanking large sections of talk pages and revert warring. I encourage User:Horhey420 to look at their own part in this. BusterD (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. Notice I asked for suggestions to improve it in the talk page? That page does need work. Removing much of that information feels like book burning though.--Horhey420 (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• You agree that you have used " Long blockquotes, walls of text, failure to use edit summaries, blanking large sections of talk pages and revert warring."?  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• You neglected "battleground mentality." BusterD (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The Salvador issue is basically since there arent really any significant government documents released on it like there are with other places like Guatemala, all the critical information is spread out in the public record instead being condensed in documents. Like Chile or Brazil. So I have all this information and just layed it all out for everyone. Most of it is unknown to most people, indeed to most people who even pay attention to these things. Take a look at the page. Who here can be honest and say they already knew all that before? Or would they rather just stick to Washington's version of events- the "official" narrative. But I want get rid most of the long quotes and maybe paraphrase BUT whenever I do that there are people who accuse me of missreprenting it so then I have to lay it all out again in huge quotes and then they shut up. As you can see that happenned there.--Horhey420 (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• After quickly looking at this, I think that contributions by Horney420, which are mostly about only one subject , are a matter of serious concern. Inflaming passions on this noticeboard is also a matter of serious concern. Something should be done about him. My very best wishes (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah Ive been putting a lot of work into that page. So what? What is your point? I knew Id be a target by much of the right wing for showing some of this stuff but this is outrageous. Maybe something should be done about you.--Horhey420 (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Just looking at the diff provided by ButlerD, your text reads as a typical WP:SOAP. This is very far from neutrality. That's the problem. My very best wishes (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it shows what lead up to the war and it's causes. It shows the system that Washington created in the Western Hemisphere which lead to the "inevitable revolution" in El Salvador. Wether you like it or not, that is what happenned. It's not promoting anything but the historical record.. That is the background. Those are the facts.--Horhey420 (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This really should be uncontroversial. Anyone who looks into Globalization should have some level of understanding of this system.--Horhey420 (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe something should be done about you. - Mind the Personal attacks, that's a sure course to being hit by a WP:BOOMERANG. Also your comments above indictate a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. I'd strongly suggest that you drop the stick. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I repeated exactly what that person said to me and you come at me with this.--Horhey420 (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

ZERO critisisms have been directed at TheTimesAreAChanging for his removal of the ENTIRE section in the http://en.wikipedia.org/Foreign_policy_of_the_Ronald_Reagan_administration which in particular makes it clear that I am dealing with partisan editors who agree with his behavior. I can no longer assume good faith. Zero critisism. None. This session has been discredited. I will see what other options there are. You're not going to "purge" me out as who knows how many others have.--Horhey420 (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Be very very cautious if your "other options" mean off-Wiki ones. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Horhey has now said that he intends to continue to add to this section. The section's long standing excessive/undue length is the crux of the problem, and something that I've been clear about from the start. Horhey's comments suggest he is either completely oblivious about this concern (unlikely given that I've mentioned it 20 times), or more likely he's giving us the metaphorical finger. His comments like "it's is not going to happen" suggest to me it is the latter. --Merbabu (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• I agree. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've refactored the inclusions (certainly worth a mention) and removed more than 6,000 bytes from the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. It's good to get a broader group of eyes. As I've said many times, I have no problem with the inclusions of foreign involvement including the US/west. I'm not trying to "censor" anything. Indeed, as the original creator of the article and contributor of most of the content I was the first to document the broader events in the article, but also mention "US involvement" see this early version. And, it should be noted that apart from a little trimming of 1/2 sentences, I have not removed any large sections of text even when I was arguing for it on the talk page.

I could go on, but ANI is the place for content discussion, and I've said it all on the article talk page. thanks again --Merbabu (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

In addition to his edit warring, lack of edit summaries, walls of text, and mass deletions, I list several huge problems with Horhey's edits on Salvadoran civil war here. Horhey's behavior is simply unacceptable. While we have reached a shaky compromise on Foreign policy of Ronald Reagan, he still continues to go off topic and make veiled threats.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. Horhey is edit warring on the Reagan article again, adding large amounts of previously removed text without discussion or edit summary. I don't know how to deal with him anymore. I don't think he will stop until he is banned.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

AND he just personally attacked me again saying "You dont care about the rules. That's just a tool you abuse. You try to make this place like the dungeon under the USSR" and shouting "CENSORSHIP! HARRASSMENT!" He keeps digging himself a deeper and deeper hole.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Problem of resolution. The issue of the claims by Horhey against TheTimesAreAChanging and Merbabu seems to have created another space for Horhey to flaunt a range of basic[REDACTED] policies. When challenged on his talk page - it is almost immediately responded to words equivalent of huh? as if he is unaware of basic[REDACTED] policies - and editors (if they have the inclination) are required to explain simple instructions in relation to policy. To any admin reading all this, I would suggest that TheTimesAreAChanging and Merbabu are not the problem. The title of this section is mis-titled. SatuSuro 11:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd strongly suggest that Horhey420 be blocked per WP:NOTHERE (and likely WP:IDHT and WP:CIR). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I also think WP: COMPETENCE is an issue with Horhey420 that should be considered as well. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 23:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb keeps restoring articles that got redirected per AfD consensus

These articles have all been redirected via AfDs:

• Thessalmonster (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Thessalmonster)
• Kopru ‎(Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kopru)
• Ki-rin (Dungeons & Dragons) (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ki-rin (Dungeons & Dragons))
• Jermlaine (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jermlaine)
• Energon (Dungeons & Dragons) (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Energon (Dungeons & Dragons))
• Astral dreadnought (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Astral dreadnought)‎
• Athach ‎(Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Athach)

Yet User:Joefromrandb apparently decided to unilaterally restore all these articles (examples: , , , , , , ) apparently labelling all attempts to enforce AfD consensus as "disruptive", and not making any attempt at discussing, or contacting the users who took part to the AfDs, that I can think of (article talk pages remain empty). Joefromrandb is now revert-warring to push his POV, and is responding neither to mentions of the AfD results () nor to links to the AfD archived discussions (). I can't see how the user could be reasoned with, since the slightest mention to previous AfDs earns me a "rvt disruption" edit summary from him, and so I ask a temporary block for Joefromrandb.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

He's not just asking for a block. He has guaranteed me I will be blocked if I "ever again touch any of the articles he mentioned". It takes two to tango; Folken is at 3 reverts himself on most of these pages. As I too am at 3 reverts on some, I have stopped reverting, and have sought outside assistance. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I am glad you have stopped reverting - that saves the need for anyone to ask you to do so. The other user is correct that when an article has been through an AFD process, and the outcome was "delete" or "redirect", it is not permissible to simply recreate the article as if the AFD did not occur. For example, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Athach. Please respect the AFD consensus, or start a discussion in an appropriate forum if you feel that the situation with respect to a particular article has changed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't recreate anything. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have restored those that had not been restored, and full-protected all the redirects listed above. Yes, a block is guaranteed if Joe continues down this path (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Then go ahead and indulge yourself, by all means. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see that there is anything intrinsically improper in recreating pages when the AfDs were four years ago, after all consensus can change. And if someone can force an undeletion discussion just by pointing out there was an AfD in the past this sets an unfortunate precedent. Were there only one page, I would say the appropriate action by Joe should have been BRD re-creation. With this many articles, I think creating a few pages then running some test afds is the way to go. Egg Centric 12:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Intrinsically, I agree. but "recreating a page" is more than simply restoring a previous version that had been deleted via AFD :-) It's one of the reasons I actually prefer the "delete and redirect" method in many cases. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense, doesn't it? But alas, judge-jury-and-executioner BWilkins doesn't seem to think so. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• You really know how to make friends. Note that Misplaced Pages is "collaboratively edited", which suggests you take the knife off the table while this conversation is going on. Drmies (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I do think that the precedent is important; we should not need to re-discuss AFDs over and over, just because they were not recent. So if there are objections to the recreation then an undeletion discussion is worthwhile. In this case I think there appears to be a general pattern that these articles were originally restored by IP users, and unfortunately it was not noticed at the time that the IP users were going against consensus. However, the point of the AFD is that they can be referred to after they are closed. I do not know whether the D&D wikiproject is very active, but they would be a natural group to discuss how to apply notability standards to these articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

So how do I do that? How can I recreate those pages and request AfDs, now that BWilkins has locked the articles permanently and unilaterally decided that the 4-year-old AfD results will stand forever? Joefromrandb (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

As the history is available to you (that's the benefit of the redirect), you can userify the content and work on improving it to address the concerns of the AFD. Once you've done this, you can then approach the closing admin and ask to have your changes reflected back into it. If you can't address the concerns of the AFD, however, that likely means the redirect will stay that way. --MASEM (t) 13:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

BWilkins and I have not decided anything about the content of the articles; we are just responding to the immediate situation. His response to edit warring (by two editors) was to lock the articles. They will not be locked forever, just until things are worked out. My suggestion is to pick one article that you think has the strongest chance, and find a suitable place to discuss the recreation of that one article. You might get Folken to agree to let the article be recreated and nominated again for deletion, to see whether it would withstand a new deletion discussion. The point of locking the articles is just to stop the edit warring so that a solution can be worked out. We are not trying to force that solution in any particular direction. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, this is a public forum, so BWilkins is not the only person looking at this. Any admin can undo their decision if they think it is no longer necessary to protect them: there is no need to get personal. Second, you could write up a new article in a sandbox, making sure that it's better than the ones that got deleted, and then ask BWilkins or someone else. Or you could go through the Articles for Creation process (WP:AFC), at the end of which in this case an admin would come along and override the protection if there is a consensus that the new article is worth keeping. Drmies (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

He may not be the only one looking at it but he's the only one who waved his big admin-phallus around and threatened to block me. Why didn't you chastise him for personalizing things? We both know why. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll just point out that several AfDs on similar topics with similar sourcing recently happened (, , ) and gave no indication that results could be any different than 4 years ago. Users thinking about undeletion discussions should first consider whether the old consensus still holds or not, as far as I can see, it still does. In this context, Joe should be proceeding very carefully because any undeletion discussion might be (and with reason) seen as an attempt to game the system, a trump card to disregard a recent consensus he doesn't like. If Joe really has concerns that hasn't already been dealt with in recent AfDs, that he honestly thinks might cause an overturning of the consensus (I personally don't believe so, but...), then he can try to discuss it. But I think it would be better to drop it entirely, in the current context, it'll be a very bad move. But in any case Joe should discuss rather than try to push his POV through edit-warring.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And citing a 4-year-old discussion as "consensus" to delete isn't gaming the system. Are you listening to yourself? In any case, you can't fight city hall. They could all be recreated as FAs; no admin would ever override the ex cathedra edict that has already been given. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No it isn't, because said consensus has been reached fairly and under administrative supervision. If you want to override it, you'll have to do something else than edit-warring and recruiting soldiers to continue warring when you've reached 3RR.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that our requirements for stand-alone articles have only grown tougher in four years, a four-year old consensus from AFD is likely still going to hold true. You need to show that you have been able to address the concerns of the AFD before they can be recreated in mainspace, though. --MASEM (t) 14:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

These childish, idiotic accusations make me think that this editor is unlikely to turn anything into an FA. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The user also recently went 4RR at pound for pound although there was no pre-existing AFD against that, he's clearly edit warring on multiple articles. In my opinion he is being generally disruptive.Teapeat (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't previously notify admins about him being over the 3RR limit, it didn't look like he had been tagged before, but it's now clear that this is a general pattern of his behavior, and I support a block to cool him off.Teapeat (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If admins believe it necessary, I'll add more elements. A few hours before starting to mass-revert my redirects, Joe wrote several agressive comments in a related AfD, directed at me and the AfD nominator:, , . I didn't report him at that time or answer to him, because I thought it was a minor incident that wasn't worth the trouble, but seeing how things have escalated now, I'm afraid this might not be over just with article protections. I also noticed that around the same time, he posted similar aggressive comments, not directed at me, in an unrelated AfD :, .Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

My apologies but I failed to check that this thread was continuing - I have had other issues on my plate today. I did, indeed, whip out my gigantic "admin phallus" (it's huge) and somewhat successfully temporarily resolve the current situation: the edit-warring. I made the protection indefinite, which of course is not infinite. Knowing that recent AFD's on D&D monsters have continued to lead to redirects, I saw the changes back to articles as problematic, and the edit-warring across a host of titles even moreso. If someone can, indeed, turn them into useful/valid articles that will actually pass an AFD today then they are welcome to fill their boots (or their shoes). Obviously there was no personalization of anything: edit-warring and disruption by anyone will lead to a block, not just the specific users involved this time (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That other issue was probably socking with your VOA account, here. BTW, File:Erection Development V2.jpg was stuck in that same article by the same editor--can we get that on the list of Not to be Gratuitously Placed Penises? Drmies (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Joefromrandb - It doesn't matter how old an AfD result is, if an article is recreated in a form that is essentially similar to the way it was when it was deleted, then it's going to get G4'd, end of line. These D&D monsters are not sufficently notable to be included as stand-alone articles, as AfD repeatedly proves, and especially not as FAs - they belong in lists. This is Misplaced Pages, not D&D Wiki (and, given the state of that site, thank heavens for that!). Most of those monsters will have nothing but primary sources, and while primary sources are allowed for noncontroversial facts, they can not be used to establish notability. Taking a look at two of the articles in question: Thessalmonster had five sources - all primary. Ki-rin (Dungeons & Dragons) had 7 sources, six primary and one that only mentions it in passing (blink and you'll miss it). For some critters - Beholders, Mind Flayers, and Drow (which I am a particlar fan of) you can almost certainly make very good articles, but for the vast majority of the Monster Manuals they are textbook examples of WP:NOT and belong only in the Lists of D&D Monsters. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to add one thing before I depart from this nonsense. My statement "they could be recreated as FAs" seems to have been greatly misunderstood. I did not mean any of these articles had the potential to be an FA. I meant even if they were recreated and improved to the level of FA material, no one is ever going to override an admin's decision here. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That wouldn't be the case - if they were improved to FA, GA, or even B-class level, they would no longer be "largely the same content", and, therefore, the previous AfD decisions would no longer apply. The fact is though there are no secondary, reliable sources to ever improve these articles beyond the same state they were in when they were deleted. Sourcebooks and Dragon magazine are primary sources and, thus, ineligible for establishing notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

• Joe keeps referring to Folken and others as "troll" on their talk page. I've given them a level-3 NPA warning, knowing full well that that's on the mild side. I encourage your attention and oversight; this is getting silly. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: please see the rather heated "discussion" (read: shouting match) at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Death watch beetle (Dungeons & Dragons), which in my opinion is related to the above. Both requesting and nominated users have been involved.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Joe and I are chatting on his talk page regarding Drmies concerns. Staying out of the mix here, just trying to reduce the heat a bit there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I just saw this. Didn't realize that's why my friend Dennis had come to my talk page. The above comments and warnings by Drmies have nothing to do with this thread; it's revenge for my discussing BWilkins' administrative misconduct elsewhere. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards