Misplaced Pages

Notified Depeip. Isn't that a component of the rockets used in the conflict? ThuranX (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems more like a joke than a threat to me, but what do I know.--] (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Atlan, you're right, and you know enough. GHcool phantasises a tshread, and his friend ThuranX raises the dust. Both waive the Israel flag. Jew-1 helps jew-2 to make a row, and/or vice versa. Interestingly, at this same time GHcool is losing the dabate on renaming the article Israeli-Palestinian conflict (into Israel-..., the state. The state that drops WP). Changing his arguments and subject every line. I pointed this out to him. Of course he feels threatened. He is. In fact, he is already been hit. Doesn't want to know. Bad for Misplaced Pages. -User:DePiep 20:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Untruthful behaviour by User:GHcool and his friend User:ThuranX. Smearing my name. User:DePiep 20:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Refactor and redact that. I only know of either of you two by YOUR actions as reported here by HIM. You can add another layer of tinfoil, but there's no conspiracy here. If you want to continue the personal attacks and antisemitism, there are other places for it. ThuranX (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Still awaiting refactoring. ThuranX (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

After looking at the thread at Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this is part of a heated dispute over a fairly minor point -- whether to call the article "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" or "Israel-Palestinian conflict". (Somewhere in Misplaced Pages someone must have observed that as the matter of a dispute in Misplaced Pages approaches lameness, so the disputants are inversely passionate over the matter.) Both sides need to calm down & work harder to find a consensus than to give the article the "right" name: this is why we have redirects. And if wishing people "white phosfor" is your idea of humor, DePiep, I suggest you save your humor for other discussions. -- llywrch (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

RE ThuranX: Both you and GHCool have the Israel flag in your User-page. Why disallow me calling you jews?

RE Llywrch: I did not call it humour. Atlan did.

RE Llywrch: why a fairly minor point? I truly think and write it is to be named different. Why not discuss it (be it minor or major)?

RE Llywrch: Why cool down? Why not read that GHcool is changing topic, every line he/she writes?

RE: ThuranX: What do you mean by refacor and redact?

RE: ThuranX: I am ON topic. Why make it personal? What is personal? Why follow GHCool?

RE: ThuranX: fuck off introducing antismuumitsm.

RE: GHCool: where are you? Israel is throwing white fosfor.

--DePiep (talk)

Your antisemitism is excessively problematic, and you made it personal by bringing MY Judaism into this. I saw this because it was posted here. I didn't look at GHCool's page to see if he's Jewish, that's not how I decide who's right or wrong. Refactor your antisemitic nonsense NOW. ThuranX (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not antisnmuttreiscx. -DePiep (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't even type out the word, thus allowing you to appear to be protesting, while neither admitting your behavior nor denying it. Such mockery is just perpetuating your attitude and behavior. By the ways 'you Jews' is far more likely to be used in an insulting manner than 'jewish editors' is. I note that you had no ability to actually address any of the actual problems raised ,though, nor have you removed your Personal Attacks. ThuranX (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked/stated five questions above (see RE ThuranX's). Not one reply. Your reply is saying excessively problematic. Sure. For someone.

I note that you had no ability to actually address any of the actual problems , you write. Actually, I am still adressing & discussing GHCool's on/offtopic-remarks in the talek. I suggest you help GHCool in reacting in-topic. GHCool needs help. The title should be Israel-Palestinian conflict.

By introducing antisesrlketyrip here you are degrading Misplaced Pages's quality. -DePiep (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What the fuck is "antisesrlketyrip"? As for the questions you asked ,let's see. You use Jew as an insult, and tie to to me acting as part of a Jew Conspiracy, which is a paranoid personal attack, and antisemitism. I did not say anything about a 'minor point', that's another editor, go insult them for an answer. i answered the 'personal' issues: Your bigoted attacks makes it personal. What the fuck is "antismuumitsm"? As for white "fosfor<sic>", you talked about other editors beign attacked by it, whether or not Israel uses it is irrelevant. The title of the article is irrelevant, because your actions on that talk page are the subject of examination here, not the title, which should be worked out on the page (But since you asked, your proposal reflects a viewpoint that an entire nation is making war on individuals, when it's individuals attacking individuals, and the title should reflect such.). Now try to say "antisemitism", instead of mocking it with your smacking of the keyboard. ThuranX (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

@llywrch, I personally don't care if its "Israel-Palestinian conflict" or "Israeli-Palestinian conflict." It makes no difference to me whatsoever and I am not passionate about this extremely minor, virtually meaningless point. I simply object to editors "wishing" violence against me (particularly editors who appear to have an irrational hatred of Jews). --GHcool (talk) 06:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• 24-hour block. I've reviewed User:DePiep's conduct; it's clear that the comment was meant as a threat in User:DePiep's own words: "Of course he feels threatened. He is." Afterward, Depiep vandalized User:GHcool's user page, apparently retaliation or following through on the threat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Carlos. ThuranX (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, Carlos. --GHcool (talk) 06:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• 72-hour block. I have also reviewed User:DePiep's conduct in response to an WP:RFU request he filed. He was obnoxious, unapologetic and had written what had to be among the top three or four inflammatory and disruptive unblock requests I have ever read. I liked it so much that I upped his block duration to 72 hour. Maybe a few days to reflect on Misplaced Pages policy might make him a little more willing to cooperate. Trusilver 07:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Even better. ThuranX (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Real life stalking by Ecoleetage

This is a matter of grave importance. Ecoleetage (after I opposed his failed RfA) has contacted the principal of my school, warning him that I am not a fit teacher, and that I've been "playing computer games" on school computers. Eco also claimed that I was stalking him. My principal was very confused, but also very supportive and said he was worried about me. As I make no secret of my identity, it concerns me that Eco is not very stable it seems, and is attempting to hurt me in real life. I am a big boy, and can take care of myself, but I teach many minor children, and their safety is uppermost in my mind. I will no longer be editing the project regularly at all, and I need to request assistance in seeing that some kind of restraining order is placed on Felipe (Eco's real name, from what I gather) in real life. He needs to be nowhere near myself, my family, or my students. This is a very disconcerting situation, and something needs done straightaway. I think a permaban on Ecoleetage and any account shown to be a sockpuppet of such is a good first step from the project's perspective. This is an absolute first for me. SDJ 20:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Errr, wow. No comment on the real-life stuff, but as far as Misplaced Pages goes.. if/when you feel the urge to edit again, you could always retire this account, start up a new one, and tell nobody who you are. Friday (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As someone who supported Eco through his RfA I am incredibly disappointed. Eco's userpage revealed that that is indeed his real name, so I'll affirm that part. I'm only sorry it took this kind of behavior to show me what lies underneath the mask. Agree with permaban and sockpuppet ban; right to vanish/return can sod off. Ironholds (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

and I need to request assistance in seeing that some kind of restraining order is placed on Felipe. That is not within Misplaced Pages's discretion. If you feel you need such a thing you should be taking legal advice. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Eco's already retired, so there's no real reason to block his account, though I suppose if we get consensus here, we can consider him de facto banned. Unfortunately, there's no real way to confirm SDJ's statement here. GlassCobra 20:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, GC?!? I just got out of a meeting with my principal, where he spoke with me about this issue. While he was supportive, my own concern, for my minor students especially, led me to post here. Why would I make this up? At what point during the RfA did I do anything to deserve this? SDJ 20:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No offense was intended, SDJ, but the need for caution and deliberation is especially great in a situation like this. Hasty actions just exascerbate the situation. GlassCobra 20:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm restoring the talk page Ecoleetage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for reference. seicer | talk | contribs 20:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• How did you connect the online user with the real life name? This seems to be missing from the above. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Okay, this is seriously a problem and for the defenders of Eco, if this is true, will cause us to be very, very ashamed of our dogged support. --David Shankbone 20:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've informed Ecoleetage about this on his now restored talkpage. I note that he has e-mail activated, so someone should probably send him an e-mail informing him of this discussion as well. D.M.N. (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

SDJ, can you explain this? I quote: "I have to request that a crat come in immediately, as per the unacceptable level of drama in this discussion involving SDJ's repeated demands to post off-Wiki material and this posting, with SDJ entertaining a request from Arcayne to send off-Wiki communication" On a side note, this RFA is also being discussed above. D.M.N. (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a lie. I asked for permission to post the chats that proved how he acted about WP stuff in chat. He denied that permission. It's as simple as that. Arcayne asked for the logs, and I told him I'd email him explaining the context, but wasn't comfortable posting them. SDJ 21:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

SDJ - is there a way we can get independent confirmation of this incident? Perhaps have Principle Storie e-mail OTRS with explicit permission to share and/or confirm the caller's identity on this thread? I believe you, but its best to have our ducks in a row.--Tznkai (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I recommend wiping and requesting oversight on any personal details you have on-wiki for the time being. Better safe than sorry - the safety of family and students first.--Tznkai (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As others have said this is not the appropriate place to discuss off-wiki sanctions. Please have your lawyer or your school's representative contact Wikimedia's office. This kind of thing is best handled privately and with the advice of legal counsel. As for on-wiki sanctions, they are fair game for discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Upon some sort of confirmation, I am more than willing to ban and request a CU of Ecoleetage - this kind of crap doesn't fly and pre-empting any sort of transition to on-wiki harassment is more than fair in a significant incident. That is however, all we can from this end.--Tznkai (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If there's a need to verify comments from people (like the principal) or email correspondence, don't overlook OTRS, which may be a useful tool. -Pete (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As of right now, the last edits by Ecoleetage (talk · contribs) were related to his retiring from Misplaced Pages, so, unless he comes back, there's nothing to do here on Misplaced Pages. Letting this cool off for a few days seems indicated. --John Nagle (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Why shouldn't Eco be indef blocked, "retired" or not? Grsz 21:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Because blocks are preventative, not punative? Pedro :  Chat  21:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

ecx4 Because while as damning as this appears, we only have hearsay... do I believe the allegations? Yes. Can we prove them? Not without the actual email/communications, which past precident says we don't have access to unless both sides agree.---Balloonman CSD Survey Results 21:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Please e-mail OTRS to verify the comments, as others have indicated. We can move forward once we receive more in-depth information. SJ, do you want your userpage to be deleted for the time being? Thanks. seicer | talk | contribs 21:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Upon the statemement by Rgoodermote, I believe that blocking Ecoloeetage, and checkusering his account to identify any potential socks is justified. Be aware Rgoodermote, that if you've share any personal info with him, he will find you. I spent the last half hour talking to an assistant administrator here, but Mr. Storie had already left for the day, as has his secretary who took the initial call, and was concerned about it as well. We have a long weekend, so email confirmation would take until Tuesday at least. Perhaps Rgoodermote's note above can serve as enough confirmation, at least for now? I'm very concerned now, both for my privacy, but also for my safety. SDJ 21:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

So, since someone complained about you in real life, that justifies criticizing them on Misplaced Pages, running them through CU, etc, even though your initial entry violates NLT? NLT was created so that off line problems stay off wikipedia. It should not be dragged back onto it. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, Ottava? He didn't like that I opposed his RfA, so he tries to get me fired, and you're okay with that? As for NLT, I was basically asking for advice on how to procede to make certain myself, my family, and my minor students were safe. You have no idea how much this has escalated. SDJ 21:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If I was a judge at your hearing for whatever you would want to press against him, sure, I would probably grant you it. However, Misplaced Pages is not a legal recourse. If there is an issue about legal matters, OTRS is the only thing that is acceptable. NLT was designed for just this kind of thing, and you are lucky that there is enough sympathy about (or, just no really really gutsy admin about) that you aren't indeffed until it is settled as per the letter of NLT. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't be daft. No way would any admin that wanted to keep their bit block under NLT in these circumstances. tsk. Spartaz 01:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No shit. Ottava, when you wonder why people don't like you and have supported bans against you, this is the shit that causes it. Ecoleetage has admitted what he did, so what further proof is needed? Get a clue about things. When your Wikirage leads to real world harrassment, and calling to complain to a person's boss and put their career in jeopardy with who knows what sort of allegations, you have given up all rights to ever edit[REDACTED] with community acceptance ever again. ThuranX (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous, Ottava. We've had an editor rightfully stunned by a real-world attack on him (that's been admitted by the other party), and your response is to threaten him on legal grounds? Is that how[REDACTED] protects its editors? Dayewalker (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not "threaten him on legal grounds". Clearly, NLT stands for "no legal threats". Your comments appear as absurd as ThuranX's above, and it seems to suggest that you did not actually read what I stated.Ottava Rima (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If you read what I stated, Spartaz, you would see that I made it clear that no admin -would- block, but that the actions were completely wrong and ANI is not the place for such thing. We have OTRS specifically for dealing with such things if anything. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ottava: I think you really have to stretch to turn SDJ's report into an NLT violation. I don't read it that way. NLT does not require you to sit on your hands while someone engages in illegal or improper conduct, off-wiki. It does not require you to disregard your personal safety, or forebear any legal rights ortheir respective remedies. NLT is not a gag order that forbids any discussion of off-wiki legal action. It requires you not to use the threat of off-wiki legal action to gain advantage in an on-wiki discussion, or embroil[REDACTED] as a mode of communication in an off-wiki dispute that should be handled through off-wiki legal channels. There's no quid-pro-quo here, not even an attempt, so I don't see a threat. I see an honest concern for personal safety, and the seeking of advice. Is my understanding of the policy, or its application, wrong? Non Curat Lex (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I also supported Eco and his RfA bid. Of course, all I was able to judge him on were his efforts and contributions to the project, and am saddened by the controversy and scandle. In the hopes for a peace to come out of this, I wish the best to all involved... the supporters, the opposers, the neutrals... and everyone who reads this discussion in future archives. What a shame. Schmidt, 22:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Eco - more evidence of the broken RfA process

I apologized to Husond on his talk page earnestly, but to me, this is more evidence of the broken RfA system, where accusations are made that nobody else can verify, but that surely would have had a baring on my dogged support of Eco (who confirmed to me privately he did what he is accused of). But seriously - when the hell are we going to fix this system so that people don't over-oppose, and when they have valid strong opposes, the rest of us can judge them? Nobody has come out of this episode smelling great, and I personally feel hurt and betrayed. Stupid RfA process - how can we have a website of super smart people who are so dumb in how they elect the people to run it? --David Shankbone 21:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Please sorry to see Ecoleetage great contributor one of the few from Mozambique and actually his RFA had not failed it was clearly in the discretion area at worst when he withdraw due to the drama rather than it failing as the tally was in his side 119/28/3 sad to good contributor leave due to conflicts and it would extremely harsh to block Ecoleetage a noted contributor without any prior block without getting his version of the events .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Eco already confirmed to me in an e-mail he called the employer. How would you like your employer contacted because you opposed someone's RfA? --David Shankbone 21:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you somehow verify these allegations? From personal experience, I can totally understand if you are unwilling to share real world stalking issues on-wiki, but are you willing to off-wiki present evidence to any trusted admins who can vouche for you on wiki? Sincerely, --A Nobody 21:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Eco here as an intentional sock, because David got the message wrong. I contacted SDJ's principal, only to complain of harassment that I was receiving from him via Wiki. I am NOT stalking him, nor do I have any desire to be in touch with him again. Please delete/protect/block/ban whatever -- I am not returning. Eco2 (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't block editors at their own request. Sorry. The X button at the top of your broswer is they way forward, at least for the moment. Bad times. Pedro :  Chat  21:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

But we do block editors who harass other users off-Misplaced Pages, and then sock to come back and argue about it. Blocked this sock, and will block the main account as soon as I stop edit conflicting. SirFozzie (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks SirFozzie. What's most upsetting is his sock's rationale - if he was being stalked on-wiki, he should have come here. This was just disgusting revenge. --David Shankbone 21:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Endorse block I recommend SDJ escalates this issue to the appropriate authorities.--Tznkai (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

:::: until we have some form of confirmation - I'll take a confession from a sock who could be anyone as holding very little value. If those sorts of statements come from the main account (which he still have access to?).. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Cameron. Can a checkuser confirm that the sock account is actually Eco and not someone impersonating him, which has of course happened in the past? Sincerely, --A Nobody 21:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

RFA-specific discussion more properly belongs at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship. Friday (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• To David (Shankbone). I'm confused by your post: are you saying that it's no wonder that Ecoleetage's frustration about his RfA led him to this and that a smoother RfA process would have prevented it?!? I for one am relieved that RfA filters out madmen. If there's any lesson about RfA, it's that people aren't participating responsibly. There was a lot of evidence that Ecoleetage was prone to destructive outbursts but he was very good at making friends (in particular off-wiki) and that was enough for him to quickly garner over a hundred supports despite past incidents that should have disqualified him. What just happened to SDJ is tragic and unacceptable but I hope that those who supported Ecoleetage's RfA will reflect on the fact that they almost made that guy an admin by ignoring all the red flags. (And just for safety I'll sign that comment with an alternate account. Can't be too careful...) Pichpich (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• @Pichpich: No, my point was that this spiraled out of control because people wanted evidence for allegations that were not obvious to on-wiki, and had that evidence been presented (I eventually asked for just one diff), it could have helped all of us make a better decision. Against this backdrop is an RfA community that finds one momentary lapse in judgment a reason to pile on the opposes. Some of us see that, so we start to react in the other direction, defending editors against unsupported and strong allegations with no supporting evidence (such as here). Many of us feel the RfA system is broken for one reason or another. A strange confluence of events created this horrible situation, but most to blame is the system itself, and that we appear to be unwilling to fix (go figure). If you'd like another user's eloquent statement of the problem, here's a diff. --David Shankbone 00:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I see. Sorry I misunderstood what you meant. Nevertheless, I think it's important to realize that not all lapses in judgement are created equal. Forget allegations, the documented past incidents should have been enough for everybody to take pause. We're not talking about a botched CSD nomination or a crappy rationale for a non-free image. The encounters with AniMate and SDJ should have been a deal-breaker for everyone and yet those diffs were met by "out of his thousands of edits, he had 13 bad ones". The biggest problem with RfA is not its structure, it's its participants: people make friends, give each other barnstars (see e.g. this, kid around on irc and then decide that, hey, why should threatening to derail an RfA be a problem? I don't want to single you out David, actually, you seem genuinely interested in understanding how we can avoid such fuck-ups. But I wish people would stop whining about how disappointed they are by Eco and start thinking about why the disturbing incidents didn't stop them from giving him enthusiastic support. Pichpich (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Permanent community ban on Ecoleetage. He's acquiesced to this already, but in order to prevent a 'wait wait i was mad' apology and some puddingheaded admin letting him in again, we need to ban him. This sort of episode cannot be allowed a chance for repetition. this sort of behavior constitutes a clear and present danger to the core community structure of the project, and there can be zero tolerance for attempts to escalate such behaviors to the real world, ever. No slipper slopes of 'it was only call' to ' it was only shouting at him in person' to 'it was only thrown at his feet'. No harassment, of any sort, ever. ThuranX (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Thuran. Eco's contributions to the project have indeed been quite stellar, and I had great respect for him (and his "wrong queue" jokes) up until now, but we've blocked people indefinitely for much less than real-life stalking. We just banned Betacommand (talk · contribs · block log) for less. Endorse community ban, and if appropriate, I will make a formal ban proposal at AN if further support emerges. According to the template at the #top of this page, we're supposed to make ban proposals there. --Dylan620 (Contribs) 02:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with Thuran about Ottava, and agree with him and Dylan that the ban needs to be formal. This was possibly the worst thing one of us could do to the other, especially in this economy. Absolute worst (next to murder). --David Shankbone 02:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Really? I knew it was an awful thing to do, but that comment just enticed me to propose a community ban much earlier than I originally expected to. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposing a community ban on Ecoleetage. --Dylan620 (Contribs) 03:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• BTW, the "awful thing" is what Eco did to Dean. --Dylan620 (Contribs) 03:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree; the train wreck that was Eco needs to never darken our doorstep again. I get chills thinking about how superlatively he had pulled the wool over a hundred folks' eyes. Another reason why RfA needs some serious fixing. - Arcayne () 05:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support community ban. I don't swear very often here, but holy shit, I can't believe I actually gave him the benefit of the doubt on numerous occasions before. Support his permanent expulsion from the community; we just can't have people running around doing this sort of thing. Lankiveil 05:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC).
• Support community ban You do not call someone's employer to try and cause trouble because of legitimate on-Wiki activities. And this person might have gained admin rights. Edison (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of real-world harassment

Please forward evidence and details concerning any acts of grave real world-harassment, such as communications with employers, to the Arbitration Committee mailing list. In general, it is not helpful to have extensive discussion of such matters take place on-wiki. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• How do I do this, Brad? I can forward you logs from the previous time I opposed his RfA, as well as those from what led up to me opposing from last night. I'm just not sure what steps to take. And as I said above, Mr. Storie had already left for the day when I went up to the front office, so I can't get official email confirmation of the meeting he and I had regarding Eco's accusations until Tuesday at the earliest. SDJ 21:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Forward to the committee such material as you deem probative and appropriate. You can do it c/o me or any active arbitrator, or use the mailing list e-mail address on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• As a side note, can we get a CU against Eco2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? seicer | talk | contribs 21:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've already asked a member of the Arbitration Committee to have a CheckUser done to confirm this. SirFozzie (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed User:Eco2 is who he says he is. Cool Hand Luke 22:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering Eco/Eco2 has been indeffed, we can wait until Tuesday or later for evidence to come forward. It's not like we're disarming a nuclear weapon at the planet's core here- with apologies to SDJ, is there any point to further discussion right now? Even if that evidence is never submitted, it seems pretty likely that Eco is now and will remain de facto banned- i.e., no admin would be willing to unblock. I further recommend that everyone involved here take a moment to resume their calm. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 03:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion and potential oversight of my userpage

I'm considering disappearing this account, but in the meantime I think the least that should happen is that I should have my userpage deleted and oversighted, and my username changed to the less identifiable "SDJ", which I've been signing as lately anyway. The reason I have not dealt with this is in the last several hours is twofold: 1) I was really freaked out, and took some time away fromt he keyboard to chill with some friends and watch a movie; and 2) my connection at the house is completely shot now. I'm at a friend's house, and will be leaving shortly, which is why I'm leaving the request for deletion/oversight here instead of going through the formal channels. I authorize any admin to request oversight of my userpage for me. Someone please just get it done very quickly. I will make a decision within twenty four hours if I wish to disappear this account, and start with a new one, which I would identify to the appropriate channels. Thanks to all who have helped me at various points through this debacle. I have never been through something this disconcerting to my real life based upon totally non-real life activities. Regards, SDJ 03:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Just my .02 (shared with a couple people as well, and they said it sounded reasonable). I don't see any problem with deleting talk and user pages for privacy reasons, but oversighting the whole page is probably a non starter for technical and proceedural reasons. Misplaced Pages cannot be responsible for stuffing the genie of freely revealed information back into the lamp, and the sheer # of revs needed for oversight is probably a bad idea as well. I am cognizant of the privacy issues, however and encourage SDJ to start a new account away from the existing one. It's probably best to let one or more of the Arbitration Commitee members know the new account. SirFozzie (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I just want to say I'm sorry to SDJ. This is a terrible situation, and one I potentially could have and in hindsight probably should have prevented. Eco's explanation about the threat he left on my talk page in regards to my then upcoming RfA was clearly false. I knew it and chose to accept it for political reasons. Since Eco had been so supportive of my RfA, I also chose to remain silent on his, though I haven't been very active because of work and an upcoming move. Seeing an unfit candidate passing RfA, SDJ posted something I not only considered posting, but had actually typed up and decided to think about some more. I dropped the ball on this, and hope you don't have any more harassment from this clearly unstable user. I'm taking this situation as a lesson in speaking my mind, especially when what I say won't be popular. Sorry.AniMate 04:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

SDJ-you'll probably have to task a trusted admin to dig through your history and e-mail oversight exactly which revs you need oversighted, or have an OS you trust do it directly. Sorry we can't do more, I'll bug I 'crat about the name change if I see one.--Tznkai (talk) 04:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

After private discussion with SDJ, all of the relevant issues here have been addressed. For the record, the pages involved were not oversighted, as they do not meet the criteria for oversight and, once the reasons were explained, SDJ understood that. He has asked me to express his appreciation for the support from so many members of the community. I have extended to him best wishes for the future and assured him that, should he wish, the door will be open to him to return to the project under a username of his choosing. He has agreed to let a member of the Arbitration Committee know of any new username he selects to smooth the path for a return. Risker (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

←In my previous, more hostile confrontations with Felipe, as noted in his RfA support, he placed effort into finding out details about me, and trying to talk over the phone which I did not feel comfortable with. In recent times I truly believed he had left this behaviour behind, as we were on good terms, but sadly it seems this is not the case. The case detailed above is extremely serious, and it's clear that SDJ isn't making it up. I don't know if the OTRS has been done yet, but if not, I fully endorse a community-wide ban of Felipe. I'm saddened, however, that it's come to this. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 12:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

May I ask (general question I guess) if Ecoleetage was "trying to find out details about others" off-Wiki before this incident, why wasn't he blocked indefinitely earlier? D.M.N. (talk) 12:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Because simply requesting details is not an offence, on or off wiki. As a one-off, I did not view his behavior as worrying, merely confusing; and, like so many others, when he apologised after realising what it would do to his RfA, I took that apology and tried to make a fresh start. It is only when you bring all of these cases together that the worrying nature of Felipe's behavior truly becomes noticable. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 12:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I totally concur. In my case I may have been lucky enough to be a Scorpio, whom they say do not forget neither the good nor the evil actions of others. I too accepted his apologies and started fresh once, but from the moment he backstabbed me he could be rest assured I would never believe him again. His attempts to bring me back to his pool of supporters were futile, but at least I got some of my stubs expanded. Húsönd 12:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Mass move of films with Spanish titles

Resolved – (I think - see comment below.) Black Kite 00:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

See blocking section below-- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

NWill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be mass-moving articles on films with Spanish titles to their English title. This came to my attention when he or she moved Michael Powell's Luna de Miel – a film made in Spain, with Spanish funding, and released there first – to its UK-release name Honeymoon (ignoring its American-release name The Lovers of Turuel). Whether the other films he or she has moved are being moved to translations of the Spanish name or to actual release names, I don't know, but all these moves are being done without discussion, and as far as I can tell without consensus.

In the case of Luna de Miel, it's been requested that the article be moved back, but it's been pointed out to me that the editor has been here since 2005, has made 25,000+ edits, and yet has never posted to a user talk page, including his or her own – so I'm not optimistic about getting a response. Also, the editor's talk page is full of notices about orphaned images and AfDs, which gives me pause.

Can someone look into this and determine if this editor's actions and unwillingness to communicate are beneficial to the project, and if their moves need to be reverted? I've notified WikiProject Films and its Spanish Cinema task force, but I think this is going to need adminstrator action. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

What a mess. I hate it when people do stuff like this with no explanation before, and none to come after. These need moved back, and I'll probably start a few now. Grsz 03:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

My lack of knowledge of romance languages is showing: at least some of the films have Italian titles, not Spanish. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It worse than that - a quick glance reveals that many of the films he is moving, (as far as I can tell)were never released overseas, so he'd translating the title and moving the article to that title - but that's original research and misleading because the film was never released under that name. If he persists and will not communicate, he should be blocked - his actions are actively damaging the reliability of articles. --Cameron Scott (talk) 05:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've warned the user that they need to discuss before acting further. A lack of communication is not helpful at all and creating a ton of work for others is really not appreciated. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It's times like these when we need a tool less strong than a block, like limiting edits to 1 every minute or two or moves to a few an hour or a few a day. Throttling people who are making unintentionally-disruptive edits will get their attention yet still allow them to contribute. Should I throw this idea out at WP:PUMP or is it unnecessary? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking through the move log of User:NWill, it seems as if they've made a fair number of questionable moves in the past. The editor seems rather obsessed with awards, and has moved the titles of a number of awards, changing "TV" in a title, for instance into "Television", or changing an award name from "...Television Series (hyphen) Drama" to "... (hyphen) Television Series Drama". I don't see any particular system behind the changes, nor do I know if the editor was moving things into compliance with policy or out of it. I do know that they've moved these awards away from their actual real-world title into something different. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't look extensively, although now I suspect I should have, as I've recently come across some awards links that suddenly go to a redirect. He moved Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Supporting Role - Motion Picture to "Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Supporting Female Actor - Motion Picture" with no explanation. The problem was, the first title is the correct name of the award, not the one to which he moved it. I fixed this one, but I haven't ventured in any further because it gives me a headache just thinking about doing it. This is an issue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) He did the same with a German film and a series of French films. Gwen has reverted most of these. Dr.K. logos 17:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've left a warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's hope this unilateral campaign stops. Thanks Gwen. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 18:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC))

I'm new to this issue, but it's an area that interests me so I'll be following this user's edits. They seem to have stopped the foreign language moves (at least temporarily). -AKeen (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• There are lots more in the history. I've fixed everything back to 15 April 2008 (Sobreviviré) so far, but I'm going out for a while now. Anyone feels like fixing anything before that, be my guest. Note that you probably won't have to fix fair-use rationales in infoboxes, because NWill didn't change them. However, I have removed spurious non-free images where I found them (i.e. two different DVD covers, screencaps from the film that are there for decoration, etc). Black Kite 18:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh and if you do have a go at this, remember to fix the leads! NWill changed them from "Foreignlanguagefilmtitle (English: Englishtitle)" to the opposite. The article's lead in should always match its title. Black Kite 19:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he seems to have changed all the leads. I fixed a few but not all. How odd, I dare say how very careless, he moved these articles to his own, straight (or "literal") title translations (this almost always being the wrong thing to do, since title translations are more often than not heavily tweaked, or given other names altogether, following what is thought to be most fit for a given market), while the true UK/US/English release title was already in the lead. This is where the paths of utter heedlessness and vandalism/disruption meet. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of the English "translations" were clearly wrong as well. I'm going to try and clear any remaining ones up now. Black Kite 23:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If there were some that he redirected to an English title, despite the film never being released in English, then the redirects from the made-up English title to the article need deleted. Grsz 23:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• OK. I think I've reverted everything that needed to be, and I've deleted all the spurious redirects. I've left them in place where there were multiple incoming links, though. I think we can mark this resolved? (I will also keep an eye on the editor from now on). Black Kite 00:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It is resolved. Good work Black Kite finalising this. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 01:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

On the issue of fixing the leads, wouldn't it be simpler to just restore the pages to the states they were in before they were moved? You would need to check that there had been no subsequent good-faith edits to the pages, but as far as I can tell that was the case.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 02:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Grsz11, Gwen Gale and Black Kite for their work on getting this mess cleaned up -- what an odd editor! Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

quick question -- its has been pointed out tha this editor has never posted on another page / or on his talk page own before, but have his other edits been constructiv e? and also dhad anyone ever posted to his own page before (apart from notifacitons that is) Smith Jones (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Judging his/her latest edits s/he does more harm than good. The editor keeps switching "original titles" so far.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

And as I just saw is moving pages again without discussion.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

And still not a peep from the editor. Is there a person behind the moniker? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 23:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I've only glanced at this editor's contributions, but I noticed quite a few page moves relating to TV miniseries which appear to be in line with naming conventions (WP:NC-TV). PC78 (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

And the edits I looked at inside awards articles seemed fine (although I did not look at a great number of them). The editor's unwillingness to discuss is disturbing, though, and probably the major issue at this point. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the major issue (at this time) is his/her unwillingness to respond and discuss but I also find his/her changes of original movie titles quite destructive.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a week

I've blocked the user for a week. They continued to move pages (and now creating loads of articles) after both Gwen and I both issued warnings days ago. Frankly, I can't tell if the edits to List of Black Golden Globe Award winners and nominees were good or bad (this is a lot of work and looks contrary to what is standard) but a complete refusal to even respond to basic requests is enough. While harsh, the user has been here over 3 years and in fact I'd consider an indefinite block if the user just continues afterwards. If they refuse to even bother to post a comment to their talk page asking to be unblocked, should we really care? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts

Elonka (talk · contribs) has made an arbitrary and antagonistic decision to place an attack list here. It was done by Elonka, a wholly involved editor in various pseudoscientific topics, to poison the well of editing. She is singlehandedly interpreting Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist as her basis for doing this, and I do not see where she has the right to do so. I have tagged the thread and asked a really uninvolved admin to delete it. I'd ask that it be oversighted too, but I don't want to case another kerfuffle. OrangeMarlin 19:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

While it might be removed - why would it be oversighted? That's a step too far for me - it doesn't reveal any Personal history, fail foul of WP:BLP etc. Removed - yes, erase - no. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm reaching on that one, of course. It's just that the attack list remains in the history of the discussion. Deletion by an admin is sufficient, just not perfect. OrangeMarlin 19:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and if you note my verbiage, I said "I'd ask" not that I was actually requesting it. OrangeMarlin 19:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You've been warned that your behaviour is on course for being sanctionable and you... keep on with the exact same behaviour? Well done. Sometimes I think the ArbCom vacated the OM case too rashly. Sceptre 19:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre: focus on the issue not on the person, and beware WP:NPA. Now then, can we all discuss the issue of the list with animosity toward none? The list has proven to be disruptive, divise and has had a chilling effect on a conversation that was proceeding apace toward a resolution. I have my doubts that that was Elonka's intent (although measuring intent is at best difficult) but it has been the effect. Let's focus on that, shall we? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, vacated what case? I didn't know they vacated a case about Elonka? Or Pseudoscience? I'm confused. OrangeMarlin 19:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

RFAR/Orangemarlin was vacated after you promised to stop being disruptive (and that's not a personal attack; the ArbCom did find you had engaged in personal attacks and the like). To be honest, I don't see what can be done here. The exacta of it being another Elonka thread and another of your ANI threads makes it kind of hard to take this seriously. In any case, I really don't want this to be dragged into evidence of my super-duper-ID-cabal-stalkathon™, so I'll just post this and be on my way. Sceptre 19:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Whatever its intention, that thread has had no apparent effect other than to spew an additional 23 kB onto an already noisy page. I am not certain that administrator attention is required, but I suspect that the original poster desires that removal be performed by an outside party. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

To repeat: let us focus on the issue. Sceptre, that you and OM do not play well together in the schoolyard is well known, but let's assume that recess is over and class is back in session. Focus on the issue.

Another Elonka thread? What are you saying: that she's here so much in some capacity that wee should just ignore the issue? Or is it that as OM raised the issue it should be ignored? In either case, you would be wrong: this issue needs to be looked at seriously and without prejudice. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Elonka is one of our more controversial admins, I'll admit. People complained about her a lot about her capacity overseeing the Israel-Palestine articles (which were, more often than not, instigated by POV-pushers who didn't like her attempting to keep the peace). Such threads tend to get boring after a while. That, and OM appears to have really thin skin. Quite a few things he complains about, most people take in their stride. Sceptre 20:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Again with the personal comments. STOP! Basta! Ist genug! Alto! Capisce? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

My actions at List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts are as an uninvolved administrator, trying to stabilize an article that has been in such severe disputes that it is currently under indefinite full protection (not by me). Several editors have been using the page as a battleground in the pseudoscience wars. I have been attempting to help stabilize the article, by invoking the discretionary sanctions at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. That some of the battling editors don't like this, is par for the course in arbitration enforcement matters. A few of the editors (such as Orangemarlin, Verbal, and Jim62sch) are accusing me of being "involved" and therefore forbidden from using admin tools, but their claims are incorrect. I am neutral in the dispute, and have no preference on the article content, as long as it abides by policies. I've never been involved in editing this or any other articles in the topic area, and I have been doing my best to issue warnings evenly to both "sides" in the dispute. Additional administrator attention on the article would be appreciated, though be warned that the flame wars are intense, so put on your asbestos booties before entering.  :) --Elonka 20:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• As a completely uninvolved administrator, my inclination would be to remove it. It doesn't serve any majorly useful purpose, and, as can be seen from the discussion page and this thread, serves only to increase the amount of drama, of which there's enough already. Black Kite 20:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • As I suggested at Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts#Discussion, we can probably just move it to a subpage, as was done at Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log. This kind of list technique has been very helpful in managing a variety of complex and chaotic disputes. It helps administrators identify which editors are on the page, who's under sanctions, for how long, when they were notified, which editors are SPAs, etc. It's also very useful for the "after the fact" discussions, to track exactly what administrator actions were taken, and on whom. For example, months later, an administrator might be routinely accused of "blocking people left and right", but when there's a recorded admin log of exactly what took place at a given article, it's easy to see exactly what actions were taken, rather than relying on biased exaggerations. --Elonka 20:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Elonka's intervention on this article does not seem to have been particularly helpful. A number of administrators and one arbitrator have advised her against some of her pointed talk page warnings. Her idiosyncratic strategy for managing fringe science/pseudoscience articles could possibly be profitably discussed in the current fringe science ArbCom case, which until now has not examined the actions of specific administrators. I don't think most editors will agree that there is a parallel between opposing groups in nationalist-related articles and those editing articles on fringe science or pseudoscience, as Elonka has suggested. It would certainly be going out out on a limb to suggest that those representing the academic community of scientists form an "opposition group". After all articles on science on[REDACTED] must concentrate on mainstream science, just as the Encyclopedia Britannica does. The article chiropractic is much better managed now by editors like User:Eubulides who have some experience editing this kind of article and are medical experts. Mathsci (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Elonka's intervention has been and continues to be disruptive, and has increased the tension on the article. It has caused multiple problems and solved none. It should not be moved to a subpage, it should simply be removed. Although Elonka may be uninvolved in any content editing on the page (I haven't checked), she is deeply involved with many of the editors concerned (having repeatedly asked for several to be banned, for which she has been sanctioned by outside editors, while defending editors which were later banned). Her input to the debates is welcome, but her self-appointed role as a small-minded county sheriff is unwelcome and unwise. She is very involved and not at all neutral. She hasn't helped solve the problems (that was happening anyway), instead she has added new problems. Removing her from her role here would be removing a problem. I see above she is trying to scare off other admins by saying the flame wars are intense - this is not true, not that I've seen. The only person to have been "flamed" is Elonka herself (justly) for her disruptive actions. At the very least the list should be removed. Verbal chat 21:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have contributed to this talk page discussion and I am an admin. I do not think I have edited the list itself, so I am uninvolved. I do however have a POV. I believe this list would be best deleted, but two AfDs have said otherwise. I am far too busy at present to keep up with this vast discussion. Trying to read and keep up with that discussion over the last few week, does lead me to the view that Elonka's intervention has not been particularly helpful. It has just increased the volume and the noise, when it was possible that issues would get resolved. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Bduke, I think you are confusing the list article with the list of editors on the talk page of the list article. It is the list of editors which is causing the issues, not the article List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts which has indeed been to Afd. KillerChihuahua 22:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not confusing that. I was just giving some background before both explaining to anyone who knew I was an admin why I was not being an admin on the list as Elonka is trying to do, and why I think her intervention on the talk page of the list is unhelpful. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you for the clarification, much appreciated. KillerChihuahua 10:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What a colossally bad idea. Elonka's NOT neutral in re: Pseudosci, and this essentially becomes a 'naughty list' with the undertone of 'all you, I'm watching you, waiting to pounce and punish.' This is a chilling effect for BOTH sides of this already contentious issue. No one is served well by this, and given that Elonka's published a list of who she's thinking about with regards to this title, I say that it represents a permanent conflict of interest for her to use her admin status in resolving anything with regard to any editor listed, ESPECIALLY as connects to Science and PsuedoScience related articles. ThuranX (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ThuranX, I agree with you. I cannot understand why Elonka thinks she is neutral. Elonka, please listen to those that do not see you as neutral -- if you were neutral, why all these comments?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 22:06, 18 January 2009

I've already tried, several times, to explain the concept of perception to Elonka. Either I'm explaining the concept poorly, or she's just not getting it (unwillingly or otherwise). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

As a member of the list in question, I must say that I take no issue with the presence of said list nor with the involvement of an uninvolved administrator such as Elonka. I truly feel that any disruption that has come to the page following Elonka's arrival is not a fault of Elonka but rather the enormous amount of venom that follows her in the form of "anti-Elonka" editors. Several of the complaining parties have previous grievances with Elonka yet had little to no recent meaningful activity at the List of Pseudosciences and Pseuodoscientific Concepts article and talk page. Since her arrival, these editors have popped up out of the woodwork mainly to complain about Elonka's presence (most of them in an uncivil manner). Elonka has the best intentions to bring peace to an article which was in the middle of edit war turmoil just before she arrived; and though I am not thrilled to be on the list of "Editors notified of restrictions", I do recognize that I that I was fairly warned and that my presence on said list does not imply that I have been disruptive. Could the discussions move forward amicably without Elonka's or another uninvolved admin's presense? Quite possibly. Other than those complaining about Elonka, the majority of the editors have been quite civil and open to listen to each other's thoughts and suggestions. However, with Elonka (and SoWhy) present to monitor the discussions, I for one feel much more comfortable. Perhaps if those who have a personal grievance with Elonka would just chill-out and focus on the content discussion at hand on the page, there wouldn't be a need for all of these pointless histrionics. -- Levine2112 23:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed you take no exception. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The administrative list on the list talk page is fine. It sticks to factual assessments of editors involvement in the page. If you have a problem with an item on the list, focus on that. If you dont like Elonka administrating this page, find another uninvolved admin and ask them to add their name to Talk:List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts#Administrators_monitoring_this_page. If other admins are doing the work, Elonka will be left with nothing to do. John Vandenberg 23:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You do realise that your last sentence, assuming it was not sarcastic in a way that paints Elonka in a bad light, is simply silly, yes?

The list is not fine only, and this is tenuous, in theory. In reality (as our presence here shows, it has been unhelpful at best. It's effect has been to disrupt, divide and derail helpfull conversation. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The list is fine? By what standard? Its not helping the encyclopedia. It is harming it. That is the only standard. KillerChihuahua 10:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Or use admin recall, since Elonka promised to be open to that. Oh, wait, no, she reneged last time there was a COI problem, didn't she? I would not try to administer that page and Elonka should not either due to many past disputes. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, no one wants to be impeached, do they? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thirty-seven good faith editors recalled her. She didn't like the result. OrangeMarlin 23:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think that's more indication of a flaw in the recall process (and really, any other straight voting process) than any fault of her own; that recall proposal was seen as a disruptive ethnic-fuelled vendetta. And you know how powerful voting blocks get; Jimbo almost had to step in during the last Arbcom elections because of vote rigging. (and OM: 50 editors opposed that same recall. Nice try.) Sceptre 23:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

  Ooops. You missed her pledge. OrangeMarlin 00:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

  Ooops. You missed yours. Sceptre 00:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Which part of "this is not about OM, it is about Elonka's actions" is causing comprehension difficulty? Is there some way we could better explain this so that the comprehension difficulties can be attenuated? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please exemplify by way of diff how Elonka is not uninvolved at this article? -- Levine2112 23:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Elonka continues to add names to her attack list here. This is out of hand. OrangeMarlin 23:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I note that, in demonstration of evidence that Elonka has a conflict of interest, and further, the appearance of Vendetta behaviors, at least two of those who supported her Recall are now on that list, Verbal and MathSci. As such, she's making them into bullseye'd targets. Since she has no interest in removing such an attack, nor seems interested in stopping until this is settled, I'm heading over there to remove that attacking hitlist immediately, per BOLD. ThuranX (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Elonka's intervention at the Muhammad al-Durrah article succeeded in remarkably calming down a very troubled article. Jayjg 00:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • So? OrangeMarlin 00:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    • The point I think Jay is trying to make is that Elonka is *gasp* trying to work for the good of the encyclopedia! Sceptre 00:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

But so what? We aren't talking about "intent" we are talking about outcome - Methods that might work at one article might be completely useless at another. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

We need to see this as a good-faith attempt by Elonka to resolve part of this thorny dispute, instead of an attempt of undermining NPOV; don't let history repeat itself. At the moment, this is becoming a cesspool of bad faith (which, admittedly, wasn't really helped by some of my comments). Can we all try to steer towards being like Richard Dawkins, not Madalyn Murray O'Hair? Sceptre 00:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is (and this isn't directed only at Sceptre, but also to Levine2112 and anyone else with similar sentiments) Elonka has been playing "uninvolved admin" for four months. There comes a point where you aren't "uninvolved" any more and you are heavily involved. She isn't a neutral party trying to resolve a dispute, but, rather, a heavily involved party and a party to the dispute. --B (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Removed by ThuranX, re-instated by Jayvdb. I have to say, I don't see what the list is achieving (well, I do - a large amount of pointless drama) by existing here. I don't know of any precedent for this, and without taking sides whatsoever, the fact that Elonka is adding people to the list who she has previously been in dispute with is unhelpful even if the list makes it clear that no aspersions are cast on those in the third section. Black Kite 00:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, out of this thread, please. You commenting in a thread started by OM is going to do nothing but stir the pot. No comment on other matters. Moreschi (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• To review a previous such "list of editors" in a different topic area (Israel/Palestine), and see what it looks like after the dispute is finally resolved, see Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah/Archive 9#Conditions for editing. Before my arrival on that particular page, the article had been in a state of more or less constant edit-warring and disruption for a long time. However, once the list was provided to give more structure to the dispute management, administrators were more effective at reducing the chaos, and the article has been stable for months now. This technique is not called for on every article in dispute, but for very complex situations, it really can be quite effective. For an example that's more directly related to this particular ANI thread, anyone reading here can simply scan the list of editors on the pseudosciences article, to get a quick-reference on which voices here at ANI are participating as "involved" or "uninvolved" voices in the dispute. It's a definite time-saver. --Elonka 00:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

  Re "involved"/"uninvolved": Thanks for the explanation, Elonka! That makes sense! Now I see why the last part of the list can be useful. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• I can't see how this list is a good idea. It should have seemed obvious from the beginning that it would probably spark an edit war. I also have a difficult time seeing Elonka as a neutral problem-solver in this particular dispute. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the list non-neutral in the sense that Elonka is only adding certain names to it? No, she is clearly adding the name of anyone who is active on the article. Has any evidence been presented which shows or suggests that the list is an "attack" list or a "hit" list? No, none, although this has been asserted/assumed many times. Is the level of outrage about the list of names demonstrated both here and on the list talk page justified? No, not even close.

A most illuminating spectacle. Landed little marsdon (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Elonka has spent the last four months as an "involved" person and was using this list to attempt to establish by fiat that she is uninvolved. In other words, she alone is a "neutral" admin and will use the admin tools as she pleases. Heck, she even keeps a list of her involvement at User:Elonka/ArbCom log. Even if her initial involvement was as an "uninvolved admin", that ship has sailed long ago. --B (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to react in the strongest possible way to the actions of Elonka in this diff . She added my name to her "list", after I posted twice on the talk page, criticizing her policing of pseudoscience/fringe science articles. This is a terrible abuse of her administrative position. It shows that she does not listen to criticism and bears grudges. Might she possibly be ill at present? That is the only explanation I can find for her actions, which seem to be uncalled for and highly irrational. I wonder whether she might stop this disruptive behaviour? Mathsci (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not you agree or disagree with the appropriateness of Elonka's actions, this kind of personal speculation about her health or mental state is completely inappropriate. I suggest you redact your comment to reflect that. Jayjg 02:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have scored through my speculation. If I post two short messages to a talk page (now in a removed section), I do not expect my name to appear on a list of frequent editors of that page. Adding my name was a completely misjudged action on the part of Elonka. Mathsci (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that, let's try to keep the discussion here cool and impersonal. Regarding your statement that the addition of your name was "irrational", a more appropriate term to describe your view would probably have been "erroneous". "Erroneous" is a comment about the action, "irrational" is a comment about the mental state of the person taking the action. Jayjg 03:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It did not refer to Elonka's mental state, just the nature of her action; "completely misjudged" seems an appropriate alternative. Has anybody thought of having a quiet word with Elonka - even by email or a text message - to sort these things out? There is a newly created article Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory, formerly a redirect to a BLP that I successfully nominated for deletion, that should be restored to the main article. Mathsci (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

See my talk page at ]. I'm not certain that "a quiet word" is possible. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In the spirit of Sceptre's request, I have considered how I would act if this were a Good Faith effort by Elonka. I would act exactly the same, because the outcome of her actions is still the same, and I would say 'we recognize that you tried, but it is failing, and needs to be removed, and I would remove it, as I did. (Only to have it immediately restored, then re-removed by another, then re-restored by yet another editor, then re-re-removed by a third (fifth?) editor.) And I'd still support the removal of the list. ThuranX (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have called it an attack list. Such an assertion in itself implies bad faith. I think it could've easily been solved with a {{discussion top}} tag and a note on Elonka's talk that said "the list really isn't helping", in a more civil way than what was done. Then again, there is a trend in the psuedoscience area to have really awkward wording when pen is put to paper (for example, if the ID article went to FAC now, instead of two years ago, I'd reckon most if not all of the objections to promoting it would be the quality of prose). It's a trait often seen in controversial areas, but the most obvious problem (to an outsider) would be the language, not any sort of bias. Excuse me for rambling on here, but I think a major part of the problem in this instance is the way of communication is all wrong. Sceptre 03:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware you wouldn't call it bad faith. I'm not you. Consider MathSci's case. He posts twice ABOUT the list, and thus makes the list. that's Gotcha Behavior, and screams vendetta. it's unprofessional, unethical, and questionable judgment. ThuranX (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. The only good faith reason I can think of is Elonka thinking "oh, I forgot about Mathsci when I put the list together". I would expect him to be on a (impeccable) list of psuedoscience-area editors. Sceptre 03:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No this is not an explanation, because the list was compiled long before I made any contributions. I was aware of the main page because I knew it linked to Einstein-Cartan-Evans theory, a deleted redirect to a deleted BLP. I don't know what you mean by your last comment - perhaps you should remove it. Mathsci (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that Elonka (per her revised recall conditions, written post her first set of conditions by which she was actually recalled under) uses these "lists" to then paint the picture that people on these lists are being monitored by her and hence are ineligible to even participate in her recalling. It also needs to be noted that the Community has given admins considerable "powers" (aka the "tools") to do the job that Elonka discusses below. Why on earth does she need more powers - especially those not granted by the Community - is largely beyond me and many other editors. Of course Elonka fails to answer the actual issues but continues to point the finger at all those other people out there. Shot info (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts about the above thread thus far: A few things are visible. First, many of the objections here are coming from editors who are already using the "List of pseudosciences" article as a battleground. A few are tossing around inflammatory terms such as "attack list", or claiming that administrative experience in this topic area equates to "involvement". But let's be clear here: The reason we're even looking at the article to begin with, is because the editors on that article have not managed to solve their own disputes. They (collectively) have been incapable of seeking consensus; they have engaged in incivility and personal attacks, rather than collegial dialog; some have been edit warring and editing tendentiously; some have been gaming the system; and things have gotten so bad at the article that it is currently in a state of indefinite full protection, such that no one can edit it.

We are here to write an encyclopedia. In order to do this, ArbCom has ruled that discretionary sanctions are available to the admin community, provided that a warning is given first. This topic area currently needs those sanctions, and the "list of editors" that is being used on the article's page, is an effective starting point to help the article re-achieve stability.

Administrators who are acting in ArbCom enforcement matters, are understood to be working in highly unsettled areas. (see the SV case). Discretionary sanctions are a major step, yes, but no better means has been suggested to deal with this dispute. If enough other uninvolved administrators were actively managing the page and helping the editors reach a collegial resolution, I (Elonka) would have no objection to standing aside. But as it is, few have volunteered more than momentary assistance. I tried ignoring the dispute at this page for a long time too, but things just kept getting steadily worse. So, I'm willing to roll up my sleeves and try to help this article. I am completely neutral in this dispute, and uninvolved as an editor in this topic area. The goals here are a stable editing environment, and stable and high quality articles. Given this article's history, arbitration sanctions appear to be the most effective tool towards stability. --Elonka 03:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that this post focuses on the big picture: the goal of administrative intervention is to improve and stabilize the editing environment. The "list" is demonstrably worsening the editing environment, and so it seems a no-brainer to remove it. All the more so since its upside is theoretical at best - any admin newly entering this dispute will of course need to reach their own conclusions about who is "involved", and to what extent, rather than simply relying on a list compiled by Elonka. I don't understand the insistence on keeping the list in the face of evidence that it's actively worsening the editing environment on the article. MastCell  04:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm in total agreement with MastCell. BTW I do not regard this as a very important article on[REDACTED] - it's just a kind of curiosity. Mathsci (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason she is insisting on it is obvious - she is not an uninvolved admin, but, rather, a heavily involved user. But the list would codify her status as "uninvolved". On my talk page and on Killer Chihuahua's talk page, she has attempted to use this arbcom finding to say that she should be considered unrevertable. It's a ludicrous proposition, but adopting that list would legitimize it. --B (talk) 04:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

On January 16th Elonka started a second private list on User:Elonka/ArbCom log. It seems to imply special powers as an ArbCom enforcer even when asking questions on talk pages. The last entry in the second list is concerned solely with somebody removing their name from her first list. Elonka seems to have stopped adding entries to the second list after her first list was shut down. Mathsci (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok here is my feelings about this, I do not like having lists like this. As I said on the talk page, the list in design makes it look like the editors are disruptive. I mean putting in the list that certain editors have been warned already sounds to someone just looking in that these editors have had discipline of some sort or under arb restrictions. Then the comments that editors are SPA accounts and/or listing their account sign up date. To me this is at least close to don't bite the newbies. Lists like this have caused heated debates all over the place. Comments to User:Elonka have been extensive and by many. , , Some of the comments lead to questions of whether accusations of WP:Cabal was being charged. During the start up to the RFC for the Guido case, Jimbo himself said that lists like this that marks editors in such a way should not be left up for long, just long enough to get the case together. The set up for the talk page was considered an attack page by some but Jimbo said it wasn't but that it had to be moved to an RFC ASAP. My point is, this list looks like an attack list considering the comments made to some of the users and the comments made directly to Elonka. The difs are conviently located on User:Elonka/ArbCom log. I'm sorry but I feel list like this discourage editors to participate that maybe more neutral than the regular editors at the article. I would also love to know this, when is an administrator considered involved when that administrator has been active in many articles involving a lot of the same editors that she has cautioned, warned, banned etc.? I think Elonka has been involved via her comments to editors and sanctions she has given to be considered no longer uninvolved. Some of these editors that is listed as warned she commented on also at arb page, RFC and of course her recall. I see the list is now deleted with a comment to check the history with a link to it. For consideration of my comments I disclose the following, I did vote at the recall, I have commented on this talk page about this list and voted a couple times on suggestions for a new name for the article. I have not been censored in anyway by Elonka, or anyone else. I just feel very strongly about these kinds of lists anywhere other then lists made by the arbs on their pages, and I still have a little problem with lists being there as I think they mark an editor with a big scarlet red A as a trouble maker, which may not be the case or the reason for these types of lists. Thank you for listening to me, --CrohnieGal 12:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't mind having my name listed on such a list. Jayjg's observation that the measures applied led to calming of disputes at an article is consistent with my experience at several articles. Signed, an editor such that one could list at least two such lists on which this editor appears, including the list pertaining to the List page about which the present list of comments is listed. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 13:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour by Elonka

Elonka has given me a fake last warning. This is disruptive. Her behaviour needs to change. QuackGuru (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, no matter what you think of Elonka, YOU are the one who used VERY WP:POINTY edits to bait and provoke her. They were totally unnecessary and showed an absolute lack of Wikipedian spirit. You should be banned for your actions of late. These last two (as well as deleting or striking out other editor's comments!) are ban worthy. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Starting this section was unhelpful. Mathsci (talk) 04:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Diffs: unnecessary provocation, also unnecessary. Her warnings were not only perfectly proper, I simply don't understand why she didn't block you. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

A similar list of editors was deleted from a talk page. It is appropriate to remove lists of editors from other talk pages too. See Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 16#Other frequent editors on this page and here. QuackGuru (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• I would not call it disruptive per se, but it is clear to me that Elonka is not accepted as an honest broker by a lot of the involved parties, so should not be taking administrative actions here and should not be trying to police the articles in the way she is. Incidentally, Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Elonka/ArbCom log. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Not being accepted as an "honest broker" by a lot of the involved parties probably has less to do with any negative trait's on Elonka's behalf, and more to do with the well-documented faction-based POV wars in this particular corner of Misplaced Pages. But, yes, I want to reiterate what Mathsci said: This section was ridiculous. ⇒SWATJester 12:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Probation

Looking at the various editors arguing here on AN/I and the conflict on List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, I would like to suggest something better. While the list Elonka created did not work as intended, might an Article Probation along the lines as this: Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. The probation did help in reducing some of the conflicts, it gave admin's the tool to stop most problems before they got too aggressive, and it served the community at large as a way to keep track of those who were there mainly to disrupt. Brothejr (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It might, if Elonka were to recuse herself from acting as an "uninvolved admin". KillerChihuahua 11:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't the Arbcom ruling on discretionary sanctions for articles related to pseudoscience serve essentially the same purpose? In any case, I have added a notice of this ruling at the top of the article's talk page.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

When is an administrator considered involved in a disputed area? If the administrator hasn't edited the actual article that is controversial but has been involved in many notices to many editors about multiple articles in multiple areas? In other words, would an administrator be considered involved if they have been sanctioning and responding to editors for a long period of time, three or four months. This seems to be a question others are also asking. --CrohnieGal 15:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This question needs to be answered! WP:UNINVOLVED says nothing of the sort and using just that as a reference, Elonka IS uninvolved at "List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts". Unless there is some other standard which people are looking at, right now it is incorrect per Misplaced Pages policy to say that Elonka is involved at this article. -- Levine2112 17:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNINVOLVED states: "An administrator is considered 'uninvolved' if it is clear that they are able to exercise their tools from a position of neutrality." MastCell  21:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Definition of "uninvolved administrators" from Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience: "For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions." I think "on the topic" means actual article content disputes, which Elonka doesn't seem to be engaged in on these articles. On some of those lists, ☺Coppertwig(talk) 03:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Not the first time Elonka has done this sort of thing

Apologies if someone else mentioned this and I missed it, but a similar list a few months back here . Elonka included me listed as a frequent editor even though I hadn't edited the article in months but had made some comments critical of her on the article talk page. When I tried to get my name removed from the list, she threatened to ban/block me. I also note that she made a few minor edits to the article that were comparable in scope to mine (formatting and tags) yet she had a clear double standard by insisting that I should be on a Warned/Involved Editors List but that she shouldn't.

I hate to say it, but it sure looks like Elonka has a tendency to use her admin powers to try and crack down on people who disagree with her instead of trying to actually get difficult situations settled down. Since Elonka seems to have changed her mind on admin recall, maybe it's necessary for Elonka to back off from topics and users that she can't seem to handle in an impartial way and find other topics on which she truly can be neutral. --Minderbinder (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Some comments

Since my name's being invoked here and there, a word of explanation. While I've been rather busy lately and haven't been involved much, my watchlist which is far too large attracted my attention to this edits by Elonka. While it makes a reasonable point about participating more on the talk page, it comments on using twinkle to revert and then adding a request to the talk page for protection, and says "what you did could be considered disruptive." Since the request for protection explicitly pointed that out,, the suggestion that it was disruptive appeared a stretch. On the article talk page replies to Elonka's suggestion of sanctions proposed that retitling be sorted first and that an "uninvolved administrator took interest, rather than one who has personal disputes with several involved editors and refers to them as a 'tag team'", so I made suggestions for possible retitling to discuss while the page was protected. When Orangemarlin added a comment, Elonka responded that she was not involved and had no personal conflict with any of the editors. When Orangemarlin responded to what looks rather like baiting from Levine2112, Elonka posted a message to Levine2112: "Hi, I appreciate the support at the talkpage, but don't worry, I can handle Orangemarlin on my own. :) What would be more helpful, would be if you would keep comments focused strictly on the article, and what type of discretionary sanctions (if any) might be helpful towards stabilizing things. Any creative suggestions?", and two minutes later cautioned Orangemarlin that his comment "was uncivil and unhelpful". In the past I've noticed a tendency for Elonka to emphasise civility over article content policies, doubtless with the highest motives but inadvertently favouring Misplaced Pages:Civil POV pushing.

I commented later "At present there seems to be room to find a constructive way forward, and I've not noticed any warnings being handed out. If warnings are posted to any editors, it would be helpful if the admin doing so pointed that out on this page. Both Elonka and, given my comments below, myself are rather too involved in the area to be making any blocks, if conditions do deteriorate to the point of warnings being issued and ignored, a report to ANI for an outside admin to take action would be appropriate." One hour after that, Elonka added the list which has been the subject of so much discussion, and replied to my comment "Ah, your name is currently on the list of uninvolved admins below, but if you would like to remove it, that's fine. For myself, I still have uninvolved status....". My reply was that "as stated above I've no intention of using the tools, and given past disputes it's my opinion that you'd be well advised to ask an admin without your degree of personal involvement to carry out any actions if it reaches that stage. This procedure that you've initiated seems like overkill at this point and if anything is distracting attention from finding agreement on a way forward...". That remains my view. While a mention on the talk page of any formal warnings would help to identify the alleged misconduct and facilitate any necessary discussion of the warning, I share the view that the whole list is more nuisance than help. . dave souza, talk 14:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ebay

Somebody is advertising a Misplaced Pages administrator account on Ebay. Is this allowed? JohnBeelam23 (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)— JohnBeelam23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Can you post a link please. Theresa Knott | token threats 19:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is on the Japanese Ebay - http://www.sekaimon.com/ItemDetailView.do?sekaimon=true&item_id=13028843567&category_id=1&page_mode=srch JohnBeelam23 (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Aye, because I can't find anything (unless it's on a non-English Ebay). Black Kite 19:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What wonderful reviews that guy is going to get. 'item turned up damaged, with long history of use and was soon blocked. Would not buy again.' Ironholds (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Lawl (Assuming this is real). I'm happy to let the sale go through then indef the account. :P Protonk (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, ADMIN....guess I'll have to wheel war. :) Protonk (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Searching Ebay for "Misplaced Pages" does bring up "Misplaced Pages cosplay costume", however. The mind boggles. – iridescent 20:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

While I suspect that it's probably just a case of adding keywords to try to improve search results, we do have File:Wikipe-tan (Cosplay).jpg. Incidentally, JohnBeelam23's link now gives a "not found"-style page, so it looks like it's no longer there. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious how the japanese ebay is at a website entitled sekaimon.com Wouldn't it be ebay.co.jp? ⇒SWATJester 12:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It was probably a local business that eBay bought and kept it for its localized name recognition. Realize that Half.com is owned by eBay. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

copyright violations

Historian19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is copying bulk content from Encyclopedia Britannica Online into Misplaced Pages. Examples can be found in the last few days of edit history of Greece, Netherlands, and Morocco. This is easy to detect: take sentences from the bulk insertions and do a google search on them. They show up exactly in Britannica. Hmains (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you are the one who brought this in, you should provide the admin the evidence of violation of copyrighted material — Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

He did, and the evidence is pretty compelling. If you're using material from a revision that's out of copyright (like eb1911) please cite your sources. Any further submissions of copyrighted, or unsourced public domain material and your account will be blocked. --fvw* 01:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have checked his contribs and I do not find anything that violate the copyright rules but he was in a some ruff discussion with another user and may engage in 3rr. A warning should hold — Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you did not check thoroughly. and . -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wiikkiiwriter...If you have read Historian's replies to fellow editors requests, it must be obvious to you that he does not have the basic grasp of the English Language that would allow him to self-create the edits in question. That alone should be a verification of Hmains claim. His involvement in Netherlands is causing havoc to a quality article. Misplaced Pages has a nettle in its "shoe" and a valid request has been made to remove it. --Buster7 (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This thread requires the attention of an administrator. Both User and Talk for Wiikkiiwriter are blank. The nettle has become a pebble!--Buster7 (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

There were some bad image uploads too, which I've deleted. This is a well-meaning but rather naive person. They really want to help. They will need a mentor. Any takers? --John (talk) 02:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

He seems to be very weak with english, to the point where it's not unlikely that he doesn't understand what we're trying to tell him. I do think it's been made clear enough that a short block wouldn't be completely uncalled for if he does it again. Anyone else think as much? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

His English is weak enough that he shouldn't be making substantive edits to English Misplaced Pages. Even edits that don't require strong English have been screwed up -- for instance, changing per capita GNP figures from 2007 numbers to 2008 numbers while leaving other at 2007, and not indicating that a change has been made, or moving the US dollar sign from the left side of a figure to the right side.

Also, note that Wiikkiiwriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who defended Historian19 above, and told him on the talk page that he was "covering his ass", is a brand new account, first edit yesterday to this page Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c}

I don't think there's an issue there, probably just a new user trying to help another user out (though not in the best of ways). They're arguing about the word 'ass' in a post on Historian19's talk page right now. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that almost qualifies as being lame, although it's not an edit war :( seicer | talk | contribs 02:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

CC: Good faith edits by an incompetent editor, if that is the case here, can be indistinguishable from vandalism, and are many times harder to see and stay in articles longer, doing damage.

Don't know that I agree about WW. Smells kinda socky to me.Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Something smells in Denmark...and it ain't da fish! Too rare and almost an impossible occurrance for these two to find each other. Confrontational attitudes are not needed. Ive seen competent, good faith editors banned indefinitely for much less!--Buster7 (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wiikkiiwriter has made 24 edits, 9 of them to this page, only 1 to an article, where the lede of the article Arab was changed from this:

An Arab (Template:Lang-ar, ʿarabi) is a person who identifies as such on linguistic or cultural grounds.

to this:

Arab is a hetrogoumous ethnic group widespread thougput middle east and northern africa. allthoug many now has founded thier realt ethnic race. Arab is a term to be used as a generic term of inhibantants of Arab states, thouigh gor people there, they belive they are a part of a large ethnicity

If I AGF, then this is incompetent editing, if I don't, it's vandalistic - and surprisingly similar to the style of Historian19's writing, but unlike WW's writing here and on Historian's talk page.

Just sayin' Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• While I removed copyright material from Morocco and Greece, Netherlands needs more expert help than I can provide. The copyright material has become mixed in with later edits, but still makes makes up several large sections. Help please. Hmains (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

As a regular on the Netherlands, and one of the editors adding some of the "good" edits later on, I have taken the pain and blame here and reverted it to the last version prior to Historian19's addition of material. Arnoutf (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I decided to give this user a one-week timeout--in addition to his cut-and-paste from Britannica, he's also uploaded images that he claims to have created himself when they are actually copyrighted. I nearly made it indef, but he has some constructive contributions--but I warned him that next time, it will very likely be indef. Feel free to review. Blueboy96 16:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks all admins. It is really a larger problem that just the copyright violations that kept occurring up to the time he was blocked. It was also content changing/ adding info with no reference basis. Various editors have had to revert most of the changes that Historian19 made--this is difficult/time consuming when there are many other subsequent edits. This is the same thing he was doing prior to his original blocks and which various others had to repair. Hmains (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wiikkiiwriter again

Wiikkiiwriter (talk · contribs) is bulk-copying text from here into Arab. Whether he's Historian19 (talk · contribs) as posited up the page, I'm not yet prepared to say, but, it's copyright violation nonetheless. Reverted and warned. Acroterion _(talk) 01:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama-related articles probation

I'm a little unclear about the probation and have a few questions if someone would oblige me...

1) Other than the general "Obama related-pages (broadly construed)", is there an actual list of which specific articles are covered under this probation?

2) Is there a specific length of time for the probation?

3) What specifically must happen (or not happen) to get the probation lifted?

4) What additional specific remedies are available to an article when it's put on probation, and how are they different from remedies available to an article not on probation?

Thanks. JBarta (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In order:

1. No. In order to prevent gaming of the system, a list of articles is intentionally not created. If a user is edit warring on any topic about Obama, in any article or talk page, it is taken as part of the probation.
2. No.
3. Nothing. Article probation is mostly designed as a heigtened state of alert for administrators to issue swifter warnings and blocks to stop repeated edit wars. There does not seem to be any compelling reason to allow more edit warring at Obama related topics. Ideally, the concepts of article probation (i.e. Don't Edit War And This Time We Really Mean It!) should apply across all articles. The probation exists more for admins to know to keep a special watch and a short leash on problematic edits; it is not a punishment for anyone. Positive editing and constructive discussions are not stifled or harmed by the probation, only edit warring and tendentious editing (see WP:EW and WP:TE for more info).
4. See Number 3.

This is my interpretation of the situation, I assume other admins will weigh in with their opinions on the matter. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

So just to be clear, article probation is nothing more than a notice that the article is being monitored more closely. There are no special remedies and other than heightened awareness and less toleration of undesirable editing practices. There is no difference between the way an article on probation is administered vs. an article not on probation. Is that correct?

I mention this because I'm concerned that minority or unpopular viewpoints may be eagerly shut out in the name of keeping things running smoothly. I'm also a little disappointed that this probation is of unlimited time length with no "exit strategy" if you will. I'm getting the idea that such a probation is a foggy thing determined more by the whims of a majority of editors rather than some actual definable policy. Is that correct? JBarta (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Jayron is correct. Article probation means "We are watching this article more closely than usual, if you're disruptive you may be yelled at or banhammered a little quicker than usual and possibly without warning." The application of administrative actions is left up to the judgement of administrators; there is relatively little difference except in the fact we may take less time to explain why edit warring is bad. Editors who are not being disruptive have nothing to worry about. Hersfold 04:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's becoming more clear to me, thank-you. I'm still unclear as to the length of time such probation is in effect. Maybe I'm confused because of the term "probation". A usual characteristic of probation is that it's imposed for a certain period of time or until certain conditions are met. Let me approach it this way... I would imagine that topics in the past have been put on, and subsequently taken off probation. If that's true, what were the circumstances that led to the probation being lifted? Or, should I assume that in Misplaced Pages "probation" is a permanent state? (I'm really not trying to be troublesome... just trying to understand and pin some of this stuff down a little.) JBarta (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

With the possible exception of the Obama probation, in my memory at Misplaced Pages, ALL of the other topics put on Article Probation have either been ethnic conflicts OR pseudoscience topics. Since none of these topics seems to have become less, um, conflicted in the real world there is probably little hope of them becoming less in need of probation at Misplaced Pages. When the Palestinian/Israeli conflict gets solved, it will probably become less necessary to watch the topic as closely. I don't see that happening in our lifetimes.

Now, I am conflicted by the purpose of your question... Is there some action being prevented by article probation that you think needs to occur, but cannot because of article probation? I am at a loss as to what reason an article probation should be lifted... Again, as I stated before, ideally ALL articles should be treated by the standards of article probation; but for practical reasons we can't watch them ALL that well. What would be the compelling reason to allow people to edit war or misrepresent sources or push outrageous points of view ever?!? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The Obama article has quieted down significantly since the edit wars and POV campaigns of the election. It turns out that a large part of the disruption was caused by a single group of related sockpuppet accounts, and article probation arguably helped uncover and deal with them faster than had administrators not been minding the article. It is possible that article probation has reached the end of its usefulness. On the other hand, it may be too soon. It is a (twice) featured article about a person who arguably holds one of the few most important and public jobs in the world, so a heightened state of attention may be in order. Certain bad edits like vandalism, race and racism, soapboxing, etc., are bound to continue, and will have to be dealt with summarily if the article is to remain stable. At a minimum I would wait until after the inauguration to consider lifting probation. Yet I share the concern that keeping an article on probation sends a message that moves us away from normal editing process. I would take a wait and see approach. Wikidemon (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the "probation" may augment the already evident "group bias" in the Obama articles by eagerly dismissing persistant unpopular views or positions as disruptive. The "probation" may transmit the message "this is Obama country... go along to get along". I'm sure that's not the intent, but in a way, I fear that's one of the effects. I understand that extreme circumstances require more stringent policy, but when the trouble subsides, I hope we are as eager to roll back the stringent policy as we were to implement it. JBarta (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI, Sarah Palin-related articles are on essentially the same conditions of article probation as Obama-related articles. Kelly 18:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez is also on article probation. Horologium (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jayron32's take on this, and I would also like to say that I'm not sure what precisely this thread is about. Jbarta's posts imply that article probation is a Bad Thing, something to be removed as soon as possible - like, say, page protection. But page protection, while offering protection against vandalism and edit-warring, also prevents good contributions. Article probation does not have such negative effects. It simply tells editors that they are not going to get away with disruptive conduct so easily, or for so long, as they might at other articles. From my experience at Talk:Barack Obama and Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, I do not think it is time to remove this probation. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It IS a bad thing in that it is a label that says "this article is special, beware". (See my post above regarding the negative consequences of this.) Given that there has not been a sanction in over two months and except for one, hasn't even been a post to the probation talk page in nearly a month, I would say the probation is not needed anymore. (If it was, there would still be a trickle of sanctions at the very least.) There may have been a good reason in the past leading up up to the election to take more extreme measures, but things have quieted down and there is no reason to single the Obama articles out for special treatment any longer. There are plenty of editors involved in the articles and normal remedies and procedures should be the rule as in any other article. JBarta (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the probation affecting the way you would normally edit? As you said, no one has been sanctioned in awhile and the probation page is basically dead, so why not edit in a manner that you normally would, and act like the probation is no longer there. I'm not sure what more you would want. Especially with the inauguration tomorrow, there are still going to be admins watching this article. In fact, I bet a number of admins have watchlisted this article. We can't tell all admins to unwatch the article, and we shouldn't encourage admins to turn a blind eye to a high profile topic or disruptive editing, period. I'm not sure what you think ending the probation would entail. Perhaps you could explain what you would expect? And perhaps explain how the probation is affecting the way you would like to edit those articles? If you are on good behavior, the probation shouldn't affect you, so I hope you understand my confusion on why you have brought up this issue as problematic.-Andrew c  04:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many ways I can say the same thing. I was as clear as I could be. After a while I'm just repeating myself. Bottom line, if administrators see merit or value in my thoughts above, that's great... I hope they'll take the appropriate action. If not... I'm not sure what else I can say to be clearer.

I guess the closest parallel I can think of are reduced speed limit signs that come down after road construction is over. Does anyone make the argument that the reduced speed limit should be in place indefinitely until a nameless group of people get together at some unknown time in the future and if they feel like it, they might maybe consider raising the speed limit back up to normal as long as it doesn't cause them too much inconvienence?

You also ask how does it limit one from editing. I've addressed this above in that it reinforces the bias of editors already involved in the pages... even if it's just a notice of probation or the threat of blocking. Possibly in the past there wasn't much choice due to massive disruptions, but now there IS a choice. In the absence of serious problems, I believe nothing good comes from this probation... only bad. And there are (and will be) plenty of eyes on the articles in case vandals should happen by and the article can be administered like any other article without the additional implied threat of being more quickly "banhammered" for "misbehavior".

Well, I've done it... I've repeated myself again. And if I recall, at least two people suggested it might be good to lift the probation after inauguration... well today is inauguration day. I hope those folks will speak up and suggest the probation should be lifted.

One last thing... my argument is not about my editing and how it may be limited, but a broader argument on how Misplaced Pages is administered and how these decisions (and the foggy nature of this probation specifically) can limit vigorous discussion and reinforce systemic bias in the name of peace or making things easier. I think it better if restrictions (or implied threats) were more eagerly lifted than imposed and minority or unpopular viewpoints were welcomed into the mix without undue fear of repercussions. Is this an encyclopedia of knowledge or a country club? JBarta (talk) 05:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well scanning this weird debate, I can say that the probation has helped and that there is no reason to remove it. Like others have said, if you are editing without disruption, then you have nothing to worry about the probation. I think the core issue is that the editor who started this thread is equating the probation to suppression of his/her POV that they would like to add to the Obama articles against consensus without anyone challenging them. Sadly, that is not the function of the probation and even if it was lifted would not change. As long as an editor follows the editing policies of Misplaced Pages, then they would have never noticed the probation. Simple as that. Brothejr (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Problematic incivility

Reqluce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Observe the first edit after coming off a one-month block for persistent incivility. It seems this editor is incapable of editing without using profanity of some sort. I have blocked this editor in the past so I would welcome input (or action) from uninvolved admins. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL 02:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, did some check. He is really using some bad words while editing — Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

He's allowed to blank his talk page; although I agree the edit summary means we should probably keep a very close eye on him. Looking at the block log, I'd say the next block should be indefinite. Hersfold 04:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's often a harbinger of words/worse to come, if experience serves. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Eyes needed...

I guess it's because I edit kids' educational TV articles that I keep finding this type of editor...the probably-too-young-to-be-here, well-meaning-but-in-over-their-head user. First it was my goodbuddy Sim12, and now we have Mayme08. I have just de-watchlisted Betsy's Kindergarten Adventures rather than have my head asplode as I try to explain what's wrong with edits such as this (hint--take a peek at the airdate) and then, when I attempt to explain what the problems are, receive this as a response. I have enough to do in real life--among several other Sisyphean tasks, I'm currently teaching my 79-year-old mother how to use a computer for the first time--so I'm going to have to ask that others deal with this user. Please and thank you...GJC 05:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I've done some format-changing and posted some info on her talk page, but this article should be heavily watchlisted for the next few weeks. I left the episode summaries and the season 2 info she added in. I started a discussion about the episode summaries on the article talk page and tagged the "season 2" with a {{crystal}} tag. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 06:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's safe to still watch it, GJC> I just stopped in and removed more cruft. ThuranX (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone considered the idea that Mayme08 might be a sockpuppet of Simulation12? The edits are about the same. I filed for a sockpuppet investigation but it hasn't even been noticed yet. Elbutler (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you asked for a CheckUser yet? that would help with that. ThuranX (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Over zealous admin on Wiktionary

Note: I would post on the admin's talkpage on Misplaced Pages but he banned me for just asking a simple question on his talkpage on Wikitionary (more on this later) so I am afraid if I ask him a question on WP then he will ban me from here to.

I made my first ever edit on wiktionary tonight on the normalcy article, which you can see here: Pretty harmless right? Well it is reverted within three minutes by User:EncycloPetey . He later says that my edit was "erroneous". I even had a source to support it, which was old granted but I haven't seen anything to dispute it. He says that my source doesn't count and apparently you can't change anything unless you have admin-approved sources, which was the first I've heard of such a strict policy. If that policy is true, and User:EncycloPetey never gave me a link to the policies of Wikitionary or a link to a help guide even though it was my first edit, then it should be scrapped because it basically means that whoever edits first gets their version set in stone. So I ask User:EncycloPetey how my edit was factually incorrect and why it warranted such a swift reversion? He refuses to answer and keeps putting OR back onto the article. We got into a minor edit war and sure enough after his third reversion he immediately locks the article so only admins can edit. Ahh... the benefits of being in power, but that's not really my main gripe with this admin. He tells me to not post on his talkpage again (I had only posted on his talkpage two times before ) because I guess he doesn't like answering for his actions. I ask him again without insulting him or anything and he bans me for a day (I had to look up on my own how long I was suspended for because he didn't tell me). He posts on my talkpage that once the ban expires to still avoid posting on his talkpage and to take it to the Tea Room (I guess I am not worthy of being able to ask simple questions). His rationale for my ban is: "Disruptive edits: Harassment after being asked to stay away". Look at all of my edits and you tell me if they are disruptive (I wasn't logged in at first because I didn't anticipate any problems with my simple edit). So basically this admin made no attempt to compromise, restored OR without explaining why, got into an edit war, blocked the article so he could get the last laugh, was heavy-handed and acted too swiftly by banning me for a day for asking a simple question that he kept avoiding, failed to welcome a new user, and failed to post links to the policies that he said I should follow (I still haven't seen them). Sorry if this is in the wrong place. --Tocino 08:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that you've been treated unfairly. Even if others felt your edits didn't contribute to the encyclopedia, they should have told you why and what policies you were breaking. If you never got a warning for breaking the 3RR, then being a new user I think you should have been fairly warned about it before being blocked. Themfromspace (talk) 08:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's rules don't apply to Wiktionary, Themfromspace. Tocino, you'll need to contact Wiktionary's unblock/complaints mechanism. Administrators on EN Misplaced Pages have no power over other projects. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 08:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh true, I didn't see that the diffs linked off-wiki. My bad. Themfromspace (talk) 08:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

As others have said, this isn't a matter for here really, but for what it's worth, EncycloPetey being rather less than welcoming on Wikitionary has come up before here for some reason I can't remember and the general consensus was that yes, he was a bit over the top. They are a lot stricter than here. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 09:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking from personal experience, few admins on wiktionary actually give a damn about new or anonymous users. They're a closely-bound anal-retentive bunch and I'm afraid your best recourse is to let them fester over their pet project. I've looked over your changes, they were correct. Harding's "normalcy" debacle is often discussed in US history courses and a number of prescriptivists still disavow the undeniably common occurrence of the word in modern American English. ˉˉ╦╩ 06:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Italian editor with poor English skills corrupting articles

Jobe 87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This is a new editor who, going by his/her user page, is Italian. Unfortunately this editor's English language skills are very poor and almost all of his/her edits have had to be reverted. Those that haven't been reverted have still had to be edited to correct the English. I've left warnings on the editor's talk page but he/she has either ignored them or, more likely, doesn't understand that his/her grasp of English is not as good as he/she probably thinks it is. Unfortunately I don't speak Italian so I can't effectively make this person understand how bad his/her English is and as a result, it has been necessary to follow this editor around to correct the mistakes that are being made. I've been trying to compose a warning/notice but I'm concerned it will be misinterpreted and I really don't want to offend an editor who I don't think is deliberately screwing up articles. Nevertheless, this editor needs to be stopped. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend that you ask one of these users to help explain things to him. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

in the meantime if he is continuing to edit, he should be blocked until someone becomes available to have a conversation with him in italian. Good intentions or not, its disruptive. You know when people go to hospitals and can't speak the language they have a little card you can point at to say what language you speak and get a translator. We should create some kind of a page that has some basic messages in it, in a variety of languages. For example something like, "please stop, your action are disruptive, please write the name of your language on your user page and the users will try to find someone who speaks your language to translate" in 150 languages with each language name in the TOC. People could click whatever language they speak and instantly get a heads up.--Crossmr (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and good idea. One does see these editors occasionally. What about a block message template that says something like: "Because your edits are disruptive or in very poor English, and because you have not reacted to requests to stop, your account has been blocked from editing. You might be more comfortable contributing to the <language> Misplaced Pages instead." The language in which this message is displayed could be selected through a template parameter.  Sandstein  19:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The nature of Jobe 87's contributions and the message on his user page lead me to suspect that we're not dealing with a genuine Italian at all, but a vandal trying to pass himself off as one. I'm not sufficiently confident of my own italian to be certain, but the message on the user page appears to me to contain grammatical errors and word choices typically indicative of a non-native speaker. It would be worth getting a speaker of native proficiency to check it out.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 19:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have asked Angelo.romano, a native speaker, to check the message and let us know if he thinks it could have been written by a native speaker.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 20:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the userpage content is definitely not by a native Italian, but instead comes from an automatic translation from English, with all of the possible false friends around. --Angelo (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Blocked indef as a vandalism/troll account using the little-known "fake Italian" approach :-) Review welcome.  Sandstein  22:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

nice cach but are we still going forwar dwith the whole "template in multiple lanbguages" thing necasue i think that this mightr be a good ide ain case of any genuine cases of editors who speak diff languages but are really do acting in good faith we should have htat available for thos einstances Smith Jones (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The irony is inescapable, but I think we would need so many different templates for different languages, or switches within each template, as to make it unmanageable from a maintenance point of view. Occam's Razor should apply here as it is the English language Misplaced Pages. --Rodhullandemu 23:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

thats a good point. still, it seems like someting we could have, for at least the languages that[REDACTED] is currently produced in case Smith Jones (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen how many languages Misplaced Pages is produced in? m:List of Wikipedias — The Hand That Feeds You: 00:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

lol iof you dont want to do my idea then thats okay dont knock something toegheter just to prove me wrong. anywa, this is the wrong venue for suggesting someone else new arm if anyone is interested in hashing out a similar proposal with regards to communicating with foreigno editores then they should take it ot the Village Pump where it belangs. Smith Jones (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

With the best will in the world, Smith Jones, we are still the English language Misplaced Pages and (perhaps optimistically) assume a basic command of the language, even from Americans. Now when push comes to shove I have managed to converse in basic German, Swedish and Dutch to some editors, but to go any further should not be necessary. I am not suggesting some inflexibility, just that English is the lingua franca here and widely accepted as the norm, and your argument seems to be a slippery slope towards an unmanageable Tower of Babel. --Rodhullandemu 01:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

My suggestions is more or less a single page that would have a short message in as many languages as possible simply saying "please stop until someone can talk to you". We don't need to put editors in a position of guessing which language the person speaks, just direct them to a single page (with a link, perhaps with an obvious icon that would indicate they should click there) once on the page it should be a short message saying "One or more editors has a problem with your edits and is having trouble communicating with you. Please copy and paste this english name "insert english name" for your language on to your talk page and the editors will try to find someone who can talk with you". That is it. We could create a giant table at the top of all the languages we've collected and encourage people to add the warning in a language they understand.--Crossmr (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I pray that when I begin editing the Italian Misplaced Pages -- that I can be hand fed, toilet trained, and cuddled in a language that I have no vague clue about. seicer | talk | contribs 01:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

i have no idea what you are brabbling about. i have not mentioned feeding, shit, or coddling anyone. all i suggested was that there be a templated warning for users who ave clearly editing the wrong wikiepida (a language for which they are not able to speak at all) and they failed to realize this. its not to facilitate ther editing, but merely to give them a wanring that they are doing something wrong. Smith Jones (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't see the water because of the rain. seicer | talk | contribs 03:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

i know your right. sorry for attempting to get any sort of fedback on a suggestion that it hought might make this place easy to grovern. Smith Jones (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Requesting permanent deletion of a revision that violates my IP rights

I recently sent User:TheJazzFan an unpublished essay that I wrote a while ago, because I thought he might be interested. After a somewhat wearisome debate, Jazz proceeded to post the essay on his talk page. I'm assuming he just wanted to provide people context, and I don't believe there was malicious intent. However, that essay is my intellectual property, and while I deleted it from his talk page and posted a notice explaining why, I should like to see it removed from the revision history so that it is no longer accessible. This is not a case for oversight, as it does not include any personal information. I simply wish to maintain my intellectual property rights, as I did not at any point give Jazz or anyone else permission to disseminate it publicly. TallNapoleon (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Diffs:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:TheJazzFan&diff=265054980&oldid=265054353

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:TheJazzFan&diff=265055214&oldid=265054980

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:TheJazzFan&diff=265055646&oldid=265055214

I suggest you read the notice under the edit box when you edit a page: "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the terms of the GFDL*. " D.M.N. (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the original poster placed the text on Misplaced Pages... --NE2 17:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

He didn't, as is clear both from his post here and the diffs supplied. DuncanHill (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think TN's point is that he himself never posted it on Wiki; TJF did. It was probably sent via email or other off-wiki means. (edit conflict; agree with NE2) Tan | 39 17:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was sent via private email. I never posted it on Wiki, and since it's my intellectual property TJF didn't have the right to release it under the GFDL. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not covered in the oversight policy. --Deskana (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a copyvio, what is usually done with them? DuncanHill (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What does it matter what the oversight policy says - if it's still present in the history, we are still hosting copyright vios - just delete the revision. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree, I don't think we need to find a verbatim policy on this one. Perhaps the oversighter would need to have agreement from TheJazzFan, I suppose. Tan | 39 17:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Would deleting the revisions be sufficient? Xenocidic (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

  He did say " I should like to see it removed from the revision history so that it is no longer accessible. This is not a case for oversight..." so yes, deleting the revisions seems like the way to go. The diff in which TheJazzFan added it does make clear that it is an essay by TallNapoleon. DuncanHill (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Yes, simple deletion would be sufficient. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I'd do it but my admin buttons aren't showing up , I think due to my rename being all funky. Xenocidic (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Any other admin can feel free to revert this action without consulting me if it is deemed inappropriate. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 17:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) TallNapoleon (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, he (?) says it's his, I certainly have no proof. Anonymous poster sending an uncredited paper. I don't even know for sure what their gender is. All I can say for sure is whoever signs in under that username purports to agree with the contents. At any rate they've already publicly repeated the essence of it numerous times, it made sense to provide some context and show what I was referencing and let people make up their own minds about it in context, rather than just the parts I cherry-picked. If they don't want it up, whatever - I'm not that invested in it. I certainly won't be claiming it as my own.TheJazzFan (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that even if it isn't his, you can't publish anyone else's essay under GFDL without permission. So it doesn't really matter. Ale_Jrb 20:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, this brings up an issue - strictly as an academic point, whether I'm entitled to make the demand in the first place without demonstrating it's actually my work? Is there no further proof required than simply saying it's mine when I've taken none of the typical steps to link my name to the work? TheJazzFan (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a side-issue. Technically? No, we can't just take his word for it. This time? We might as well, because the content belonged to someone beside you, and you did not have the rights to release it under GDFL. — The Hand That Feeds You: 00:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

WP policy is that all copyvio is to be removed immediately and on sight. The copyright holder does not need to ask for this to be done, but if he does removal certainly needs to happen immediately, because otherwise WP could face legitimate legal threats. Had you posted, for instance, one of Ayn Rand's essays my reaction would be identical despite the fact that it is not my IP. Incidentally, to suggest that the paper is not mine is fairly ridiculous--it exists nowhere on the Internet (at least according to my Google searches), it was sent to you via a private email as a Word document, and per WP:AGF my word that it is mine should be sufficient barring evidence to the contrary. I certainly could not prove this, however, without identifying myself beyond doubt--which I don't particularly care to do--and getting an affidavit from the professor for whom I wrote the essay affirming my authorship (and even then, he could be lying!). The only time such a case could be necessary would be if one editor posted an article for which he claimed authorship, and another editor also claimed authorship and demanded its removal. If the article was not published there would be no way of establishing ownership without affidavits, and even then the non-owner could lie, although it would be perjury. Such a case would be extremely tricky, would probably end up in Arbcom, and might well wind up in the courts. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The question here is, "Did TheJazzFan have the right to post it?" Not who originated the work. When I acquire a book, either by purchase, or loan, or as a gift, I have a right to read it. The book clearly states that I do not have the right to publish it and lists the copy right holder. Does the paper say it cannot be published? TallNapoleon states above that it had never been published - it does not appear to me to be a copyrighted work at the time of this incident. Nor did he claim that he recieved any assurances that it would not be posted before he sent it. And he deleted a copy from the TheJazzMan's talk page when that copy was a post made by TheJazzMan. He should not be allowed to delete the posts of others from their talk page without their permission (unless it is established that he held a copyright and that it was violated). I don't know what he finds so embarressing about the paper, but there are times when we open pandora's box and wishing and whining won't close it again. I say that TallNapoleon has the burden of proof firmly upon his/her shoulders to prove that it's copyrighted material and that it was clear to TheJazzMan that his perusal did not include a right to post it on his talk page. --Steve (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Please read Copyright#Obtaining_and_enforcing_copyright -- since the US is a signatory to the Berne Convention, all material is copyrighted by default. From a technical standpoint, TheJazzMan didn't have the right to release it under the GFDL by posting it into a talk page without attribution unless it was his or he is claiming fair use -- if it isn't his, he doesn't have any right to release it under the GFDL. Since it's been deleted, though, there's not really a need to carry this on. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• The relevant quote from the article is In all countries where the Berne Convention standards apply, copyright is automatic, and need not be obtained through official registration with any government office, so I fail to see whatever point SteveWolfer above is making. TheJazzFan makes no claim to having written the text--near as I can tell from his rather obfuscatory reply--so he has no entitlement to publish it. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• You needed to read further. There are several issues. TheJazzMan gave attribution. There is the issue of copyrights not attaching to unpublished material volunarily given away. No understanding that it couldn't be shown as part of the lengthy discussion on TheJazzMan's talk page when this word document was voluntarily sent to TheJazzMan. And, the real kicker: Fair Use. Take a look at this (emphasis mine):

Title 17 Section 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

the nature of the copyrighted work;

the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

• All of the conditions of fair use are more than met. It was posted for nonprofit educational purposes (to illustrate the context of the discussion about it), It is a word document of a school paper that was discussed extensively on that talk page, the amount in use was appropriate to the discussions range, there is no viable commercial interest at risk. It is the voluntary relinquishment of a word document that conveyed rights, it is the lack of substance on the issue of it even holding a copyright (first publication was on that talk page where it aquired a copyleft via WP), and being unpublished before that is no bar to fair use. I think it should be restored. --Steve (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Except the governing policy is WP:NFC, not US Fair Use law. NFC is deliberately more strict than fair use law for a number of reasons. Consequently, restrictions on non-free content (that essay) prohibit its use here prior to publication elsewhere and prohibit it outside of the article space. Protonk (talk) 06:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• I do not believe for a number of reasons that even a free use case exists for total reproduction of the paper. There is a potential commercial impact. At some point I may hope to have it published, or alternatively I may publish it on a personal blog that receives income from ads, and in either case it would require editing. For another person to post this without my permission could severely damage the marketable value of the work. The amount used is also a consideration under free use. Just because one is reviewing a book does not mean that one is allowed to post the entire work online. Furthermore free use does not include relicensing, and posting to WP implicitly license content under the GFDL. Finally there is the matter of common courtesy. As the author of the work I do not believe that a fair use case exists for it to be reproduced, and would therefore ask that any users who retain a copy of the essay refrain from reproducing it, as I have not given anyone the right to do so. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Steve, you're making even less sense: what part of more term 'entitlement'--especially when the person objects--is giving you difficulty? More to the point, what possible rationale do you have for over-riding an author's expressed wishes? What peculiar point are you hoping to prove? What battle are you fighting? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Have a look on talk:Ayn Rand and you will see the battle(s) being fought and maybe get a better context to what is going on here. --Snowded TALK 13:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve, while the legal issue may or may not be murky – I make no claim to be an expert in intellectual property law – the ethical issue is not. Don't go publishing someone else's work without explicit permission. Period. Where such work is posted, it will be removed from Misplaced Pages on request, or as soon as an administrator notices. If you do it again, Steve, then you will be subject to extended blocks, which I expect will stand up regardless of whatever lawyering you try to do.

While I think that the obvious ethical problem more than justifies our position here, I will also observe that there is a long-standing tradition on Misplaced Pages that personal, private emails between users are generally considered privileged; see Misplaced Pages:E-mailing users#Abuse handling. Wikilawyers in the crowd should take note of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Durova#Private correspondence and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Durova#Removal of private correspondence. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

IP hopping vandal

What is the appropriate course of action to track/stop IP hopping vandals? For instance, 72.251.44.191 made a vandalism edit and got a level 1 warning. Then a few hours later 72.251.44.154 made an almost identical edit. I left a level 2 warning, but I'm afraid that this user could hop to other IPs and start over at level 1 again and not get blocked. Should I file a sock puppet report to link the accounts? AIV right away? Or just let it go? swaq 20:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Short-term rangeblock maybe? Dunno how "collateral" that would be... D.M.N. (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I softblocked 72.251.44.0-256 for 24 hours. Tan | 39 20:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tanthalas. I come across IP hopping vandals every now and then. Should I bring it up on ANI every time like this or is there a better way to go about it? swaq 22:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is probably fine. Just make sure there are several edits; this one went back even further than you listed. Two edits probably isn't enough to warrant a rangeblock; just keep an eye on them until you're pretty sure we can take action. Tan | 39 22:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If all else fails, semi-protecting the page will bring 'em to a screeching halt. HalfShadow 22:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This is true. And an argument could be made that semi-protecting the page is a much better solution than a rangeblock; thanks HalfShadow. I think I might have used the opportunity to learn about and implement rangeblocks :-) Tan | 39 22:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting sometimes you don't have to do rangeblocks, too (sometimes they just don't take 'no' for an answer), but SP tends to be less 'messy'. HalfShadow 22:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In this case, given how small the range is (256 IPs) the rangeblock is likely to be pretty specific. I'd probably have picked the range-block in this case, but obviously there'd be a big difference if we were talking about a larger range. ~ mazca 00:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the rangeblock the better solution because the likelihood of collateral damage is much smaller than to the remainder of anon-space being unable to edit the article in question. Just my $0.02. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hence why I prefer them to a semi on my talk page - honestly, do you know how often an anon makes a good-faith edit on there in the midst of a wether stampede, and do you know how much of the wether vandalism JA/G orders would be prevented if there were rangeblocks implemented even for at least 12 hours? -Jéské Couriano 02:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Rangeblock expired and the vandal went right back to work: 1, 2. swaq 22:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Schools of Philosophy (an Ayn Rand issue)

Advice/action would be appreciated to avoid an edit war. There has been prior discussion on Objectivism (Ayn Rand) about renaming the article Objectivism. Objections were raised that while Ayn Rand's philosophy is called objectivism, it does not define that word; there are for example objectivist approaches to ethics which are the antithesis of Rand's approach. There was no consensus for the move. Shortly afterwards the same group of editors attempted to change Criticisms of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) to Criticisms of Objectivism. The same argument took place and the consensus was to leave it unchanged.

We then get a third attempt. At Schools of Philosophy Objectivism was created as a school with a pipelink to Objectivism (Ayn Rand). Attempts to get this to conform with the page name, ie Objectivism (Ayn Rand) or to simply use Objectivism which takes you to the disambiguation page have resulted in more or less instant reversal by two editors User:SteveWolfer and User:Kjaer. The latter has already received a ban for edit warring on Ayn Rand which is currently frozen and both the named editors are refusing mediation (this may well come here as an issue too). The have a history of working together as seen .

In December I left a reasoned note and today made the change back to Objectivism (Ayn Rand), it was reverted with some fairly intemperate language by ] a short while ago.

Now this is a minor article, with some really esoteric "schools" and in the overall scheme of things I am tempted to just let it go. However the pattern of persistent pursuit over different pages (I suspect attempting to create a precedent) is disturbing. Both editors seem to be taking a line that anyone who disagrees with Rand who edits is taking a POV position. In the case of User:Kjaer he at one point reverted an actual quotation from a cited source to his more accurate summary. Trying to introduce any type of balance results in abuse, edit wars and the whole thing is exhausting.

Any advice or action would be appreciated. --Snowded TALK 23:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please link to a page about an alternate form of Objectivism. I tried to find one, and the disambig links to only pages about her ideas, except for hte case of one synonym. ThuranX (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well (Moral) Objectivism is a widely understood concept outside (well depending on your education) outside of the US and I guess that most people would be looking for that than the wackjob version that Rand pushes - a series of em.. ideas that have never got much traction outside of the US. I had a quick scan of the various academic databases I have access to and it pops up all over the place but none are references to the wackjob version. We don't have an article on Objectivism? really? (runs away to look). --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

These squabbles are so distasteful... I really hate seeing my name pushed into this or that strange little disagreement. My suggestion would be to ignore Mr. Scott's comment (I suspect that "wackjob" is an indication of bias and that kind of approach has never gone far in bringing reason or agreement to the forefront :-) - and in any case it doesn't address the issue. Snowded has misrepresented my part in this as well as the issue. He appears to be painting some kind of ominous picture of a conspiracy that just isn't there. Look at the history. Read to see if what he says is really what is happening. So far as Misplaced Pages goes, I'm an open book. Look at my edits, look at my comments. What you see is what you get. I'm just going to suggest that anyone interested in this issue should read the arguments made on the talk page of that article - My comments there are quite adequate in representing my view of what makes the best choice for this encyclopedia. If anyone has any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. As to why I did not participate in the mediation, I answered that on the talk page of that request. --Steve (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Steve that we need someone to look at the history. ThuranX, if you want the merge discussion it is here and the key thing is do look at the google scholar search. Very simply the citation evidence shows that Objectivism is not encompassed by Rand's position. Objectivism is a common concept in the philosophy of science as well as ethics and elsewhere. The google scholar search supports the comment made by Cameron Scott. To be honest the real issue is a policy one. Consensus to rename was not achieved on the main articles, so the schools insertion is a back door attempt to avoid accepting a prior consensus. On a related issue mediation on the Ayn Rand page will now be rejected as Steve has just refused to accept it, so a referral here is more or less inevitable. This is an issue which affects several articles. --Snowded TALK 03:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Pay careful attention to the fact that Snowded is directing everyone to a history that is about a totally different page. He is talking about the article for Objectivism and NOT the article that is a List of schools of philosophy. They are similar squabbles, but with an important differences. When one is at the List of schools of philosophy article less disambiguation is needed, for one thing. If there were a school of philosophy named "Moral Objectivism," which there isn't, and if it had an article (it doesn't), one could just add that school name and link to that article. Take a look at the arguments that are actually about the article in question: List of schools philosophy talk page. There is no attempt to backdoor anything, and it is a deflection to make that or process or mediation on another article or me the issue. --Steve (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, There was talk that we had articles on other forms of Objectivism. I asked for links. None have been provided yet. Moral Objectivity is different, and I, an American with that above-impled inferior education, wouldn't confuse the two as 'moral' is an intergral part of the terminology. If there is no other philosophy of government and self-determination and so on, then I don't see why we need to distinguish Objectivism as you seek to do.ThuranX (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX, the question you raised was previously discussed on the talk page of Objectivism (Ayn Rand and I have given you those links. The most telling is a search of `google scholar on "Objectivism" in which Rand hardly features. However what I brought here was a question of process. Edit warring has broken out with two editors determined on one solution. It's that issue of process I brought here, content discussions on this issue have (as I said) already taken place. I have not idea why you should think that any inferiority of education is implied by the way. --Snowded TALK 10:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Snowded talks about edit warring and darkly alludes to "two editors determined on one solution." This is the process issue that he holds to be the prime issue. Take a look at the recent history links. This issue came to life in December 29th when the link was set to Objectivism by Kjaer rather than the disambiguation page. Since then, NO one has done more reversions than Snowded - he leads the pack, he is his own process issue. --Steve (talk) 11:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX, you misunderstand my point when I say Well (Moral) Objectivism is a widely understood concept outside (well depending on your education) the US - I'm not commenting in the slightest about the american education system - I'm saying it's a widely understood concepts by those who have studied higher degrees in other nations in the right subjects - especially the UK where I was a prof. So I wouldn't automatically expect someone from London who didn't go to university to have come across any of the concepts. It's not really an either/or for us because Rand's stuff isn't widely taught at universities, well it's not taught at all really except as a footnote to say "not to be confused with..." --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I understand 'insult' quite well. I'm an American. We're stupid, but good at hearing insults. That said, Objectivism, in this country of stupid people, refers to Rand's extremist libertarian/anarchy theory. Moral objectivism is different, and not referred to as objectivism, but 'moral objectivism', both terms being needed. But hey, I'm just another stupid American, right? Cause we never have any people here in Dumbfuckistan who've studied, and hold any sort of higher degrees, and certainly not in the right subjects. And our universities which do talk about Objectivism certainly aren't worth bringing up, cause hey, this is just Retardania. ThuranX (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your gracious understanding, it's much appreciated. Looking further into this, I can't find any evidence that it's taught in American universities either or at least not any where the staff publish in international journals. (but that's just a quick skim so I could be wrong). --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Objectivism is taught in some US Universities and academics have attended seminars. From the evidence today the bulk of this is funded by Rand Institutions of various types. The issue is not anti-americanism (although the comments of ThuranX are indicative of the problems with this subject) but that Rand has little notability outside of America. In a European context (and in the majority of Academic philosophers not matter where they come from including America) "Objectivism" does not mean the doctrines of Ayn Rand. This is a simple fact, and the process issue I raised in respect of the article. Some editors believe that Objectivism should be uniquely associated with the ideas of Ayn Rand, in the main that seems to be from declared supporters. Other editors (including all the non US participants) are arguing for a wider more objective (sic) interpretation. The Misplaced Pages is meant to be a resource for the World (or at least the English speaking world) and it is therefore inappropriate to define things by their use in popular culture in the USA. This is especially true in a page which purports to show schools of philosophy. --Snowded TALK 15:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It was discussed in one of my classes, as an examination of how my field would change under different governmental philosophies. But I'm just an ignorant dumbfuck american, so what the fuck do we know, right? ThuranX (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No one has said anything that would remotely support the self-abusive language you are using. Please calm down. --Snowded TALK 16:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well (Moral) Objectivism is a widely understood concept outside (well depending on your education) the US. So in the US, we don't teach Moral Objectivism, and if we did, it would depend our your education. Speaking of Education: it's a widely understood concepts by those who have studied higher degrees in other nations in the right subjects - especially the UK where I was a prof.. So people in OTHER nations get it, Americans don't, and people with Higher Degrees, who xist only in nations NOT America, get it, but Americans don't. Such ridiculous arrogance. Excuse me, us imbecilic Americans are busy installing one of those... Presidents, today. I'm going to go watch other stupid americans, instead of wasting the time of such laudatory fellows as yourselves. ThuranX (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX, you're reading more into the statement than actually existed. There was no "Americanz iz stoopid" comment anywhere (although, George W has which degrees again??) Nobody was using "holier than thou" here ... it was a "X appears more recognized elsewhere". (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. It was a 'the whole educated world thinks it's something other than what uneducated Americans think' statement. ThuranX (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute so I don't see how any Admin action is needed. Does anyone else want to weigh in with their personal opinions on Rand before it's closed? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Child advertising dancing

Passing this along under protocol - . I think it's innocent but wanted to get some opinions. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved. Prodego 00:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Creating article in talk page

I don't know if I've come to the right place, but couldn't think where else to raise this. I've be trying to flag some recent talk page only creations for speedy deletions and came across this anon's contributions - 189.148.8.91 (talk · contribs). Seems this anon has been creating his article in a couple of talk pages, without there being any actual article pages. I was about to flag it with {{db-nonsense}} but was very surprised to find this place really exists. Perhaps the talk page contents should be shifted to the main article space, but then again perhaps it should be speedied anyway. What is the right thingto do in this case? Astronaut (talk) 07:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hehehe - build a fence and people will go around it --NE2 07:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the article (Dzidzantún) to the mainspace from the talk page, left a welcome message for the IP, created redirects (including from the duplicated version of the article name that the IP had created under another page name) and will now pop along to WP:MEXICO to ask them to take a look at the article. Bencherlite 10:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles for Creation is a way for anonymous editors to create articles without having to register an account. I'm glad you stumbled across it. We're always looking for more volunteers! Also, you may be interested in our article improvement drive, which can be found at here. Improve an article and get points. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 12:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

user:Amake

This user has been engaging in some pretty egregious violations of wiki policies concerning civility. For example, in one particular thread he/she stated "I have never before had the displeasure of dealing with an asshole as repugnant as you on Misplaced Pages". This user seems to have a distinct problem maintaining a polite attitude towards others, to say the least. 75.165.115.149 (talk) 09:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You're both as bad as each other, judging by the edit summary you left here under your account. There's nothing admins can do if people are going to get into such childish name-calling, other than to advise the pair of you to disengage from each other and seek other help if you can't. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 09:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I beleive you are mistaken. I am not the individual who has been responded to- in fact I am in no way in the least involved at all in whatever argument is taking place. Feel free to do a checkuser if you wish- from my understanding, both of the involved parties reside in Japan, whereas I am demonstratably in Seattle. This has *not* been resolved, so I have taken the liberty of removing said tag from the page. 75.165.115.149 (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised if you're not Vernon; nevertheless, admins are not your mommy and can't come running to help because you boys are calling each other childish names. You - or Vernon - can seek dispute resolution about the content issue at hand, or you can leave each other alone. Admins slapping the backs of legs won't be happening, so there's nothing for us to do here. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 09:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, I am not "Vernon", I am a user on a rotating IP that changes frequently. Go do a checkuser if you are so convinced I am "Vernon". I posted this noticed because Amake seems to be a user who frequently engages in this sort of behavior; if you feel they have both been in violation then by all means, they both should be blocked. I posted to this page because, at least from what I read, this seemed to be, I don't know... the place designated by Misplaced Pages to report incidents of users violating Misplaced Pages policy. I was unawares that it was instead Misplaced Pages's "Place of Sarcastic Dismissive People". Apologies. 75.165.115.149 (talk) 09:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

A game everyone can play. If you're going to accuse a user of "frequently engag" in poor behaviour, we need diffs to substantiate the allegation. If you're randomly finding completely unrelated users and making accusations with your first edit from a dynamic IP, you can expect us to suspect socking at the very least. And if you think that we'll block to punish a user for any reason, you've misread not only the purpose of this page but also Misplaced Pages's policies in this regard. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 09:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Federica Sicignano

This user is making translations from a book. Is this within policy or a copyvio? --DFS454 (talk) 11:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Contribs --DFS454 (talk) 11:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirected all of them to Sport as they were dicdefs and not of much use. I've also welcomed and tapped the author with the a gentle cluestick: the translations are derivative works and are not something we can accept, although s/he wasn't to know that per se. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 12:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Problem with new editor

Pomeroy historian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems intent on using Pomeroy, County Tyrone‎ as a soapbox. Examples of his grossly point of view additions include "Liam was justly rearrested that same year", "As part of this demonstration these republicans attempted to have a protest parade down Pomeroy street where they were met by members of the Crown forces including the Ulster Special Constabulary and local loyalists who gallantly beat them back up Pomeroy Street. As there was only approximately 60 loyalists this caused humiliation within the republican community forcing some those involved to hide away in shame, and the battle scar’s were said to be so severe that many local republicans took the wounds to the grave", "Yet again they were foiled by one local loyalist and our British Crown Forces who battened them back up Pomeroy Street once more", "local republican criminal Seamus Woods who got his comeuppance from the lord when he attempted to blow up Pomeroy Police station and all personnel in it in 1988 (The lord works in mysterious ways)" and so on. Help and more eyes needed please. O Fenian (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Local victim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Fgau1912 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seem to be the same editor too. O Fenian (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have temporarily fully-protected (24h) the article to call a halt to the edit war whilst this is discussed here. (Recusing myself from discussion as to what should be done.) Bencherlite 13:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Should have said - any admin is free to lift or downgrade the protection without asking me first. Bencherlite 13:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Also anon IP 86.131.120.50 andy (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't take more than a cursory examination of the edits to see how dire they are "who got his comeuppance from the lord", The lord works in mysterious ways, "this clearly shows that those who objected to the Republican parade cannot be bought by the thirty pieces of silver." should be reverted on sight and blocked if he doesn't quickly and firmly grasp NPOV (which I doubt from those edits). --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I found this also reported on AIV but referred here.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing the edits, he is well beyond the three revert rule not even counting the single-edit users who are likely socks. That justifies blocking him for edit warring; while blocked, someone can explain why his edits are POV and have no place here, and if he refuses to contribute productively after the block expires, he should face an indefinite block until he agrees to edit productively. At the same time, a checkuser should be run on those two single-edit accounts to see if they are really socks like they seem to be. Theseeker4 (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well right now it is quite and I don't think we need a checkuser to disable the additional accounts as they have been used together to disrupt/edit war. On the other hand an autoblock and IP block and some clear message might be as effective as a short block for Pomeroy historian.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on the editing histories,

• Pomeroy historian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) began editing at 13:39, 19 January 2009.
• 86.131.120.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) began editing at 18:03, 19 January 2009.
• Fgau1912 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) began editing at 10:29, 20 January 2009.
• Local victim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) began editing at 10:32, 20 January 2009.

As such, I've given Pomeroy historian a block for edit warring and for abusing multiple accounts. The other accounts have been indef'ed, and the IP address has been blocked. seicer | talk | contribs 14:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page, then.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Protection is still in order, see this diff. He is still at it with a new account. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Indef'ed Pomeroy historian and the new account, and protected the page. seicer | talk | contribs 16:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

User:LAz17

Violation of wikietiquette, stated "Zenarh, go fuck yourself" "Nazi pig!" PRODUCER 16:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Given notice, and final warning. This account has a documented history of gross verbal abuse that will land this editor with a block for future occurrences. Let me know if it occurs again. seicer | talk | contribs 16:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

A lucky escape for him - I was filling in the block reason form (having taken a few minutes to find and read the previous ANI episode) when I checked back here to see that Seicer, to whom I am more than happy to defer, had already dealt with it. Bencherlite 16:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What am I supposed to do when the guy insults me in such awful ways? (LAz17 (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

Rise above it? Walk away? Raise a Wikiquette query? Certainly not the above. --Rodhullandemu 17:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You certainly should not respond with the same types of insults that are directed towards you. That action will result in you being blocked, which does nothing to help your situation. The best thing to do if you are insulted is to first remian calm, next try discussing it with the editor in question on their talk page, asking for clarification/refactoring the offensive statement without attacking or insulting them. If that does not produce any results (it IS worth a try though, even if you think it won't work it shows good faith on your part) then you can bring it to a noticeboard such as WP:WQA, WP:RFC, WP:ANI etc. The point is even if the other editor was offensive and baited you, if you rise to the bait you are more likely to be the one blocked, which I assume you don't want considering you are still on Misplaced Pages and editing the encyclopedia. Whenever you have a conflict the best thing is to walk away and cool down, as editing when you are angry will just land you in trouble, and will make others focus on your behavior, rather than seeing the editor you have a conflict with as the problem. Good luck. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Are there any rules against baiting, so that the baiter can be punished? (LAz17 (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

Not specifically, but if you really can't ignore such behaviour then you raise a Wikiquette alert or start a User request for comment, where the community will decide whether the actions were indeed baiting and hopefully work out a solution to the situation. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Shannon_Rose

Shannon Rose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is using offensive edit summaries. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Shannon_Rose -- Eastmain (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Left warning on talk page, admin may see fit to take further action. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Judging from the response to Theseeker4's warning, I think this editor needs some "thinking time", so I have blocked Shannon Rose for 48 hours. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 23:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editors

Again, i bring to your attention highly disruptive editor PASD08 (http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Pasd08)

He has been warned, in every language and way, but still continues do remove links, references and other info (loan signs in infobox, pcupdates, etc).

I bring to you two examples of such behaviour: Elias Alves da Silva (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Elias_Alves_da_Silva&diff=prev&oldid=265310035), and Pawel Kieszek (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Pawe%C5%82_Kieszek&diff=prev&oldid=265304604)

He is active as of NOW, so you can witness more of this examples in "contributing".

Attentively, VASCO AMARAL, PORTUGAL, - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You should ask him to propose changes at the discussion page — Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The editor has already received dozens of messages (and countless warnings) and never replied to any. His original account has been blocked, so this is a case of sock-puppeting. He's causing a lot of damage and has shown unwilling to engage in any dialog. I urge you to take action. --Waldir 20:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Pasd08, in his entire career, has never left an edit summary or posted to a Talk page. I've left him a notice of this discussion. If he doesn't respond, I suggest that he be blocked indef for abuse of multiple accounts. If he responds here, or if he posts an understandable unblock request, then we might consider his case in more detail. Though there is no formal WP:Sockpuppet investigations report, the evidence is pretty good. (See the four ANI threads that link to User:Pararubbas for more). EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Defaming statements on living person article

User:Hubert Lup keeps adding defaming comments to the article Gesine Schwan. This woman is running for the federal presidency of Germany as the candidate of the labor part (SPD) this year. I warned the user not do so and informed them about the sensitivity of articles related to living persons. Without comment the contentious claims were re-added with a source (that does not back the statements).

The original post claimed that Schwan (the German presidential candidate) was a Polish nationalist. (Admittedly, Schwan enjoys good relations with the Republic of Poland.) Furthermore, the claim is made that Schwan justifies ethnic cleansing. These two statements are, in my opinion, extreme negative POV, and should not be tolerated at a biography. At last, the user claims the Schwan's family was Polish. This is simply wrong and, I can just guess, this claim is made to give more support to the defamation made before.

Here are the two relevant diffs: 1st set of edits and 2nd set of edits.

I would appreciate if an administrator ensured that the article remains free of insults. Tomeasy _{T C} 17:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Blatant personal attack and racism

I have just been the subject of a rather obvious and unsubtle personal attack in an edit summary.

The edit summary was as follows

Sennen goroshi FUCK OFF you stinking JAPANESE, u have broken the 3-revert rule TWICE already and VANDALIZING Korean related articles for NO REASON. You are the BIGGEST VANDALIST I HAVE EVER SEEN.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=South_Korea&diff=prev&oldid=265317312

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Wondergirls

The above account is a likely sock puppet

The puppet master account is http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Ziggymaster

another sock is http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Lakshmix

and an IP they have been using to edit is http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/92.233.108.66

I don't know what course of action to request, as the above account has been pretty dormant since I have voiced my suspicions about sock puppets, perhaps someone who is more experienced than I could take a look at all accounts, the articles edited and the time/dates of edits, and see if they could all be dealt with.

Either way the account that was responsible for that little outburst surely deserves some form of sanction.

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I dropped the banhammer on the wonder girls. Horologium (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: I just noticed that CIreland had given out a 72 hour block for the same incident. I really think that it's indef-worthy, but I won't squawk too loudly if someone reduces it back to the original block length. Horologium (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Users violating WP:MYSPACE

Contributions from Geezer1022 (talk · contribs) and Sexy red 20 (talk · contribs) consist only of posting chat messages in each others userspace. Both editors were informed (, ) that their behavior is unacceptable, but this has not deterred them to the least. Sleaves 18:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As Geezer1022 (talk · contribs) blanked the warnings and it was clear was going to ignore them, I've blanked him/her indefinitely (anyone who wants to modify that may). Sexy red 20 then blanked the blocking notice, so I've blocked Sexy red 20 as well. dougweller (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate userbox

I came across this a few days ago but have waited for the user to respond. Unfortunately they seem to have been away for a while (no edits since 31st December) or alternatively have chosen to ignore me. Either way, I feel this is important enough to bring up somewhere and here seemed best. While I know we don't really have a policy on userboxes and we generally allow people wide latitude to express their opinions in them even if we discourage it, I feel that one of the boxes of User:EmpMac crosses the line. In particular (although I would hope most people noticed it themselves) "This user doesn't enjoy dealing with black people". Whether serious or not, it isn't in any way conducive to building an encylopaedia or user to user interaction and is likely to offend many. (Some of the other boxes aren't perhaps much better but perhaps still borderline acceptable.) I could remove it myself, but making sure I'm doing the right thing first. Nil Einne (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. The impression I get from the set of userboxes on display isn't good. WP:NPA implies I shouldn't say more. As to that specific box, I suggest you nominate it for WP:MfD. You may get a good deal of support. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 18:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Also the homophobic ones. Yuck. //roux   18:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The "Black people" box and the Albanian unfair box are both user created, hardcoded to that specific page, and not templated so there is nothing to take to MfD. I'm going to be bold and delete both of them. The "black people" one for obvious personal attack, and the Albania unfair one for the sole purpose of advancing a geopolitical ethnic and/or religious conflict. The homophobia ones are actual userboxes that have been MfD before and kept. I do not intend to do anything with those and ask other users to read the past discussion and consider whether another MfD is appropriate or not. -Andrew c  18:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to the old mfd Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tezkag72/Userboxes/Homophobe. I was going to do exactly what Andrew C is going to do. Be bold and delete them. Chrislk02 18:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Kept with two votes? Should have been relisted for greater consensus. Discrimination has no place on Misplaced Pages, and I am accordingly putting up the three homophobic boxes for MfD again, here. //roux   18:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. How dare he have an opinion that you don't like. HalfShadow 21:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of userboxes with opinions I don't agree with. However, most of those don't tell people that their marriages are invalid or that they themselves are immoral. This is supposed to be a collegial environment. Get rid of them. Black Kite 21:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Then get rid of the pro-gay ones too, otherwise you're being unfair. HalfShadow 21:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, the pro-gay ones aren't actually discriminating against anything. Unless, of course, I've missed some out there that say "heterosexual relationships are immoral" or something? --.:Alex:. 21:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but you're essentially only allowing one opinion: The opinion you like/won't get us in trouble. That's unfair. HalfShadow 21:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

So we should ban anti-racism userboxes, too? — Jake Wartenberg 22:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• If I remember the great userbox wars, the litmus test was being divisive and inflammatory, or some such wording. Thus: this user is an atheist would be perfectly acceptable, but "keep your imaginary friends to yourself" is gratuitously offensive to those of faith. I also fail to see why he needs quite so many boxes telling us that he is a bigot. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

  Arguably, one would do. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 21:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

  (Ahem) {{User:Hexagon1/Imagfriend}} Black Kite 22:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• I would argue that this user is going after shock tactics to get their views across. --.:Alex:. 22:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Editor improperly changing my comments

I made an edit to my own comment under the Ayn Rand talk page under the section Ayn Rand and the Native Americans.] deleting a sentence in the final paragraph that begins "So, you come across territory that's being disputed by warring tribes..." User Snowded TALK has taken it upon himself to change the nature of my edit changing to a strikethrough, using the pretext - if I understand his regional jargon - that he feels one shouldn't delete sentences from a comment that's been responded to. As of the time of my original edit 17:32, 20 January 2009 there had been no direct response to that particular comment directly below it or in the vicinity (the comment directly below it is from the previous day) nor even by the time of Snowded's change to my edit at 17:43 or at the time of his subsequent revert he made after I changed it back. Or even as of approx 16:00 EST.

And who is he to say? Snowded is clearly in disagreement with me, his motive appears to be clearly harassing. I left a comment on his talk page to knock it off, his response to which has been to continue it.TheJazzFan (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Can you provide some diffs, please? Protonk (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Here is where JazzFan edited his/her own comment, and here is wehere Snowded restored the removed portion as a stricken portion. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 21:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Is there any special reason why you would prefer not to have it left in strikethrough? It is confusing when someone is arguing a point which no longer exists in the text; strikethrough is a simple and common way of dealing with that. Incidentally, you don't WP:OWN anything, not even your own comments. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, there was *no one* arguing the point from that particular comment at the time of my edit or even now last I looked. Snowded's "rationale" that he left in the edit comment was patent b.s. There was no quotation of it, it *hadn't* been responded to. I decided it would need more development and wasn't necessary for the paragraph and got rid of it. Is there a special reason Snowded would continue to revert a comment when his alleged rationale is shown to be false other than as some kind of antagonistic nose-thumbing? TheJazzFan (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to give a fair bit of latitude to users editing their own comments, unless they do so in a fashion meant to deceive or confound. This appears to be a case where the user refactoring another's comments (User:Snowded) should not do so. Protonk (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Snowded refactored a section on the Ayn Rand talk page a while back. It was upsetting at the time because it was a heated debate that was rearranged in mid-stream. There was NO intent to decieve or confound - he was tiding up. But it wasn't a good move at that time and given the nature of the debate, it warranted a short prior notification ("If you guys don't mind, I'll..."). As an editor Snowded tends to be civil, yet infuriating. His comments make him look like a model editor, but his actions tend to result in a lot of conflict. There are a number of Admin requests that have him featured prominently, and from my experience, I'd say he tends to be the instigator. (It has just begun, and will take a while to flesh out, but look at the Admin request on the Ayn Rand article)

My Life Would Suck Without You

I'm backing away before I get whacked for edit-warring. My Life Would Suck Without You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted due to WP:Articles for deletion/My Life Would Suck Without You. The reason given was that it hadn't charted, received an award, or been covered by multiple artists. It has been reposted today, and editors keep removing the {{db-repost}} tag, despite the fact that it still hasn't charted, received an award, or been covered by multiple artists. I've requested that they go to WP:DRV if they wish to overturn a previous AFD result, but they don't seem to be inclined to actually follow processes or guidelines.

I don't mind people arguing that the original AFD was flawed, and perhaps should be overturned. I do object to people not following the AFD/DRV process that you cannot repost essentially the same article without addressing the original AFD concerns without going through DRV.—Kww(talk) 21:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree. They can go to DRV if they like. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Since even the quickest google reveals that multiple reliable sources cover the single, can someone recreate it so I can add the sources? DRV covers the judgement of the administrator not the merits of the article doesn't it? We could do DVR or I could write an article from scratch - but really what's the point? (NOTE: Never involved with the original article or the afd). --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I can userify it for you and you can add sources there if you like, moving the resulting article into mainspace when you are done (assuming you eliminate the reason for deletion). Protonk (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

if you don't mind, that would be great. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Cameron Scott/My Life Would Suck Without You. Done. Protonk (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

And I've let the people know (as if it wasn't blindingly obvious) that if they don't like the closure of the AFD, then DRV is their friend - but simply ignoring the result and carrying on anyway is unlikely to win them friends. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad-faith user at White Brazilian

I'm again having problems with user Donadio at article White Brazilian. The user was already blocked because of his behavior in that article, but it seems he won't stop until he gets blocked again. He keeps creating an edit-war, removes sourced information and is now including his personal opinions about the subject.

For example: The Italian Embassy in Brazil claims there are 25 million people of Italian descent in Brazil. Other reliable sources also claim 25 million . The user Donadio is now claiming the Embassy and the other sources are lying and "exaggerating", and he is citing the imaginary number of "15 million", a number that he created in his mind. Moreover, he seems obsessed with Portugal and tries to diminish importance of the German and Italian communitis of the country. He's not assuming good-faith. Opinoso (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sanity check

Am I getting too big for my britches, unilaterally banning people from talk pages for a day, at User talk:Andrew Parodi#Please knock it off and User talk:Pigsonthewing#Please knock it off? Seemed like a rational thing to do, but also felt I was pushing the envelope a little, so bringing it here for review and modification if necessary. --barneca (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

← (e/c)

Barneca writes on my talk page:

posted to User talk:Pigsonthewing and User talk:Andrew Parodi

I don’t suppose there’s any way to get you two to stop disrupting Talk:Eva Perón with whining, baiting, snide comments, overreactions, and the like? Having watched this mutual sniping for several days now, all I can think of is this, so consider this "official", whatever that means:

Andy Mabbett and Andrew Parodi are both banned from editing Talk:Eva Perón, Eva Perón, and each other’s talk pages, for a period of 24 hours. That should be enough to regain perspective. If this ban is violated, I’ll block for 24 hours. If disruption resumes after 24 hours, I’ll also block with no further warnings. When the ban expires, both of you need to make a very careful effort to avoid attributing motives to the other user, or calling anyone names, or indeed any immature behavior. Believe it or not, the best course forward will be to assume that you’re both trying to improve the article, and that some kind of compromise is going to be necessary.

Further, when the ban expires, Andy Mabbett will stop indenting Andrew's comments (it's hurting more than it's helping, and appears designed to cause offense), and will respect Andrew's request to keep all further comments on the article talk page, rather than Andrew's user talk. If Andy truly believes "warnings" to Andrew are necessary, he will do so thru an admin or WP:ANI.

Both of you are being disruptive, both are unacceptably abusing the other, both are acting like .

If you disagree with this ban, I suggest you take it up at WP:ANI before making another edit to the above pages; it will be easier to lobby for overruling me at WP:ANI, than from inside an unblock template.

I can't "stop disrupting Talk:Eva Perón with whining, baiting, snide comments, overreactions, and the like" because I've not started so doing. You will find only one editor attributing motives to the other user, or calling anyone names; also repeatedly making false accusations of nationalist bias, exhibiting clear-cut ownership, making personal attacks and falsely claiming to have been the target of personal attacks; and already reprimanded at ANI for improper behaviour in this matter; "reverting without discussion", or "edit warring with a variable IP address to avoid scrutiny" (Barneca's description). That editor is not me. (I can supply diffs as evidence for each the aforesaid, but it will be tiresome to have to do so). Andrew Parodi's improper indentation makes others replies to earlier comments appear to be replies to him. The last time I corrected this, I did so at the explicit invitation of Andrew Parodi. How else does Barneca propose that be remedied? I note that despite having "watched this … for several days now" Barneca has not posted there, nor to either talk page, before the above.

Talk:Evita is also pertinent. Somebody should put a link to this discussion on Talk:Eva Perón, since I'll apparenlty be blocked if I do so, or refute the latest false allegations made against me there (example: "the fact that your nationality influences your view of Eva Peron's greatest significance as derived from the fact that two English men wrote a musical about her"). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it was a WP:BOLD and fundamentally correct action by Barneca, there was no progress being made by the adversarial editing of the article talkpage and quite possibly the tone that had developed was impinging on the likelihood of other parties attempting to resolve the matter by reasoned discussion - the few that joined in had appeared to simply aligned themselves with one or the other faction. To respond to Andy Mabbett, this is no longer a matter of who is right and who is wrong but a case of allowing the article to be improved by editors without such an investment of emotional baggage. I think the two parties should honourably withdraw and allow others to discuss what is best. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) "this is no longer a matter of who is right and who is wrong" In the oft-surreal world of Misplaced Pages administration, you may be right. After all, I've been scrupulous in using edit sumamries and talk pages, involving WP:THIRD and even, when appropriate WP:ANI, in the face of increasingly hysterical accusations such as those listed above; so why shouldn't I be tarred with the same brush as the person making them? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• This is not the first time that Andy Mabbet has been brought here for modifying the style of other people's comments. The simple solution is to stop doing it, which would then make threads like this unnecessary. We are, however, completely wasting our time if we try to get Andy to admit fault. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support (EC) Barneca's actions, and Guy's assessment of the reactions (as evidenced above). ThuranX (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c with 3 or 4 people) Andrew Parodi's latest rant is, indeed, worse than Andy Mabbett's behavior, and I'll go take a closer look at it now. possibly deleting any attacks. Over the top behavior is not excused by less eggregious behavior from one's "opponent", but neither should it be viewed in a vacuum.

The reason I included Pigsonthewing in the ban is twofold:

1. My take is that Andy, while often right about something, often makes a concerted effort to condescend and belittle those who disagree. This is not good in a collaborative editing environment. I really want other editors to look thru the talk page, and see if you agree. If I’m imagining things, I’d be happy to retract this, but it’s definitely my feeling.
2. I recall (will have to sort thru history if this is disputed) Andy’s fascination with adding a user page link to User:Docu’s signatures, claiming it was for other editors’ benefit. Same thing here with the indents; while there might possibly be a benefit to readability, it is outweighed by its annoyance to the person being “corrected”. I have a feeling this is intentional, although I could probably be chided for a lack of good faith in this regard.

Thanks in advance for any outside views. --barneca (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

All I can say is thank you very much for intervening. I will not edit the article or the talk page for the next 24 hours. Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You appear to have overlooked my comment above: "The last time I corrected , I did so at the explicit invitation of Andrew Parodi" and "How else does Barneca propose that be remedied?" . Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: that was not a serious invitation. I was dramatizing the fact that I found your indentations of my comments to be offensive and patronizing. At any rate, this isssue is immaterial because you had already indented my comments without any invitation to do so. You need to learn to keep your hands off of the comments of other people. Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2009_January_19#Phone_Call_to_Putin

The article has been relisted by the closer, but we need a warm-blooded uninvolved admin to close the DRV debate. I'm both cold blooded and involved. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• I create energy through photosynthesis, so I cannot. Protonk (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have closed the deletion review. Davewild (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Browncom

This user page is clearly problematic, but I'm not sure of the right way to handle it. Note that Browncom (talk · contribs) is currently operating as Jraugustine (talk · contribs), but this isn't sock-puppetry because he hasn't edited with the Browncom account since starting to work with the new one. Even so, the sole purpose of the account, in whatever guise, seems to be promotional; see Ageless Fantasy (which I have just AfD'ed) and NetSpend Corporation. I will notify Jraugustine of this discussion. (For the record, I am not an admin.) Looie496 (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards