Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wm5200 (talk | contribs) at 09:06, 30 November 2010 (→Off-topic screed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Ongoing accusations of conflict of interest

Very reminiscent of User:Twoggle, isn't this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.96.227 (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Repeated accusations of conflict of interest are being leveled by TickleMeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) at Aspartame and Talk:Aspartame. I am one, but not the only target. Several months ago, TickleMeister announced a departure the article with accusations of conflict of interest and received advice to "Avoid casting aspersions regarding the motivations of others..." (). The return to the article was heralded by an implicit accusation in the edit comments ("You don't build an encyclopedia by removing facts that you think may hurt it sales stats"). Talk page comments have gone from implicit ("must cleanse this, it's bad PR", "a deliberate attempt to cover this up. I suppose it's to be expected with a product like asp that has sales of around ONE BILLION DOLLARS a year") to fairly direct ("...I'm not being paid by a corpoaration to do this crap.", "So who wins this one, the[REDACTED] volunteer editors or the PR men?").

This is not the first time. Prior efforts at dispute resolution have not resulted behavior changes: Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts/archive88#TickleMeister. There have been several requests on the talk page for the behavior to end: , , .

As a final step, I invited a redaction of the comments and indicated the COI noticeboard was the place for COI accusations (). Past COI accusations on this noticeboard indicate a familiarity with procedure: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive629#Aspartame articles. At the time I post this, there has been no reply to my message, but a subsequent post indicates that he will continue to accuse on the talk page (). At this point, I believe reasonable measures have been exhausted and this is the appropriate forum.Novangelis (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Anyone reading the talk pages at Talk:Aspartame and Talk:Aspartame controversy can see blatant evidence of COI, where we have determined editors hell-bent on not allowing facts about this chemical onto the pages. The latest incident is with the fact that aspartame is made from constituents produced by genetically modified organisms. This information comes from newspapers and published studies. It is an unequivocal FACT. Yet a small phalanx of editors, of which Novangelis is a prominent member, are utterly determined that this fact should not be mentioned in the aspartame article. This is blatant censorship that threatens to disrupt the very purpose of wikipedia. Misplaced Pages is at the mercy of megacorporations that threaten to sue anyone saying a single negative things about aspartame (for example, the court case against Asda in the UK because they had the temerity to remove it from their store-brand foods and call it a "nasty", the threat they issued to The Independent for publishing the fact that aspartame is made by genetically modified bacteria, the propaganda websites they run to promote the use of aspartame, the scientists they hire to go on speaking tours all over the world to promote aspartame, etc). So here we have a huge corporation that we know is intensely active in defending and promoting this billion dollar chemical. And yet when I make the obvious comment that this corporation clearly has people at work editing the aspartame pages and suppressing information, I'm immediately hauled before an admin tribunal by one of the chief perpetrators in a sickening and farcical abuse of procedure. Novangelis has done this on numerous occasions too, accusing me unsucessfully of sockpuppetry, and forum shopping against me whenever the opportunity presents itself. In summary, the aspartame articles are being held to ransom by a small cadre of editors determined not to allow a full picture to emerge of the chemical. Taking action against me for speaking the truth is like beating the little boy who called out that the Emperor has no clothes. TickleMeister (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I've just read Talk:Aspartame for the first time, and you're right, the situation is very clear - that practically the whole page consists of you and a couple of other editors calling out practically everyone else for somehow being corporate shills for aspartame, whilst they - usually - patiently try to explain to you such concepts as WP:RS, WP:POV, WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH. I would strongly suggest to you that you concentrate on the subject at hand rather than attacking other editors without any justification, because that behaviour is likely to lead to a topic ban. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Per Black Kite, I have also read the talk pages and also the article Aspartame controversy and agree with his comments - the sum of the articles reflects the reliable sources available, and the correct application of WP policy. That is not to say that your general opinions about the product and its manufacturers are untrue (or, importantly, true) but that it is entirely inappropriate regarding deprecating the motivations of those editors who are conforming with WP editorial practices. They are not obviously "shilling" for anyone, they are complying with the rules. Your issues are, rather, with the lack of authority and weight of those references that support the accusations made against the product and its producers and the preponderance of good quality sources for the current majority opinion upon them - and that is beyond the remit of Misplaced Pages or its editorialship to address. Whatever, your comments upon the integrity and competence of other editors for following policy and properly conveying the available references can not be tolerated. I am going to issue a general NPA warning on your talkpage, and insist that you desist from this behaviour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• If one were to use Ticklemeister's thinking against him/her, one could make accusations that TM worked for the sugar industry and the manufacturers of all products related to the treatment of diabetes. Fortunately we're sensible enough not to do that....;-) I'm sure that if anyone did so, TM would be the first one to object. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'd be happy to concede that I am wrong on this issue IF anyone here can explain to me why a large corporation with a very profitable yet controversial product would not employ people to massage the[REDACTED] page about the product, by creating a pro-corporation yet false consensus on talk pages. The[REDACTED] page on aspartame comes up top of a Google search for the product. Use Occam's razor, fellas. I have to be right. If you study the aspartame talk pages from the very beginning, you'll see a clear pattern of information suppression and censorship. I am by no means the only editor who has tried to broing balance to the pages. On the Aspartame controversy page, one side of the controversy is largely removed, which flies in the face of MEDRS's recommendation to air both sides of any controversy. To see just how much information is censored from the articles, compare to another wiki's page on aspartame here. I suggest other wikis will become more prominent as Misplaced Pages's success attracts more and more corporationsTickleMeister (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• So much for AGF. With this attitude of refusal to abide by this fundamental policy, you can't be trusted here. You don't understand our sourcing policies or MEDRS, and show no evidence of a positive learning curve. I suggest you change your attitude or be topic banned / blocked.
  BTW, how much are the sugar industry and diabetes industry paying you to edit and disrupt here? Do you get my point?!! One would think that by now you would understand that AGF cuts both ways, and that when you insist on assuming bad faith, you are making a bed in which you may be forced to sleep. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

BullRangifer, this is the second time you've threatened to block me. The other time was on my Talk page. Is there some policy that allows non-sysops to make these threats, or is this a violation? TickleMeister (talk) 03:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand....again. It's an option / suggestion for any admin, if they so desire. It's also to let you know that you're skating on thin ice when you refuse to follow our policies. If it were only a single instance it wouldn't be a big problem and I wouldn't mention blocking, but you've been warned repeatedly by many very experienced editors. You then refuse to accept their explanations and cautions. That's recalcitrant behavior. There is no positive learning curve. We should be seeing that by now, but we aren't. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You carefully phrase your threats so that inexperienced editors could conclude that you are threatening to block them. I'm astonished that admins tolerate that. And I am still waiting for someone to deny the possibility of the situation I outline above, IOW that it is highly likely that there are hundreds, if not thousands of people paid by large corporations to edit[REDACTED] articles and establish whatever consensus they wish. This is a glaring flaw in the[REDACTED] model. TickleMeister (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You are anything but inexperienced, but you are also not learning. Many editors, within far fewer edits than you have under your belt, have learned the basics of our policies and learned to collaborate. They learn with each edit they make. With each of their edits that are reverted, rebuffed, and modified, they learn to adapt their behavior. You don't do that.

As to your concern about COI editors, sure, we know that they exist, but as long as they edit within our policies they are allowed to edit here. It's not who the editor is that counts, but whether they follow policy. Focus on the content, not the motives or identity of other editors. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so you have come part way to meet me here. Now all I need from you is an admission that it is very possible for any corportation (or any well-funded concern) to manufacture consensus on any Talk page by deploying multiple PR people to that page. Is this or is this not possible? Actually, your agreement is hardly necessary, because it is obviously possible, and obviously occurs. This is where the Encyclopedia Brittanica model, where there are gatekeeper editors for all information, is superior. TickleMeister (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That it's theoretically possible is irrelevant to the point, and even if they did, if they violated policy their edits wouldn't last. They would get changed. No, the point is that you can't go around making such accusations about other editors. That is a policy violation. You MUST AGF unless there is absolutely clear evidence to the contrary. If you have such evidence, then start a case against the individual editor on a noticeboard, not on talk pages. If you try such a thing without clear evidence, then you will be guilty of misusing a noticeboard, so be very careful. If it involves the real life identity of an editor, you must not out them. In such a case, it would probably be best to contact an ArbCom member by email and discuss what to do. Note that the owner(s) of Monsanto could even edit the article, and be allowed to do so, as long as they don't violate policy. It wouldn't necessarily be a good idea, but it's not totally forbidden. It's all about policy and content, not the identity or POV of editors. You really need to study and understand the following about personal attacks:

• "*Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack, speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense." From: What is considered to be a personal attack?

Brangifer (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"if they violated policy their edits wouldn't last. They would get changed" — Not necessarily. What's happening on the aspartame pages is much more subtle than policy violations. People who edit[REDACTED] professionally don't make silly errors like that. But be that as it may, I think the situation here is clear to me and to many others, and no further purpose is served by me accusing people of editing with intent. So I will not do it again. All of this does nothing to assuage my disappointment over this issue though. TickleMeister (talk) 07:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks along political lines

I just noticed these unbelievable tirades on User talk:LAz17 , including deliberate insults ("quite arrogant"), political attacks ("commie"!), and threats ("Direktor's in for a hard time"). This is all after he was informed that I am not a "communist", and warned against trying to badmouth me to other users. Quite frankly I would like to see him blocked for this. I'm still trying to believe that someone openly writes pamphlets against other users on Wiki and gets away with it.

The user only recently got back from a month-long WP:ARBMAC block after ignoring his topic ban on WWII Yugoslavia. Upon his unblock he arrived on Requests for mediation/Draža Mihailović (an ongoing RfM on the WWII Yugoslav resistance), rejoined the discussion he was topic-banned from by immediately ad hominem attacking other users so that Sunray was forced to remove the comment . It is also interesting to note that upon being reminded of his ban (and the fact that he is not a mediation participant), the user simply requested the topic-ban removed . (I have been "solemnly forbidden" to post on his talkpage so I would like to ask someone to notify him of this.) --DIREKTOR 18:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

According to attacks I've seen on you, you are both a Communist and a Nazi, which strikes me as being a pretty good trick. :) Based on the editor's blatant threats, perhaps he should be "solemnly" sent to the phantom zone. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Its all in the phases of the moon, you see. :) When the full moon is out I venture into the woods and morph into a Nazi, while on Tuesdays I turn into a conservative liberal Jamahiriyist... --DIREKTOR 18:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You won't have truly arrived until you're accused of being part of a "pro-circumcision cabal". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Notified LAz17 about this thread on your behalf. Exxolon (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

ty :) --DIREKTOR 18:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I was punished for writing on my own talk page. But any rate, what I said remains true. You support the hardcore communist view that only the communist forces participated in resisting axis forces. That is exactly out of the communist textbooks, that the commies did everything and nobody else did anything. Wrong.

Second, my topic ban was not for yugoslavia. It was related to any ethnic map stuff. That was quite broad - by mistake. I am working on getting that revoked. There was never a topic ban for me that included any world war two related stuff.

You simply dislike me because I do not adhere to the traditional communist rhetoric which you continually support. Now, sometimes that rhetoric has a lot of truth. But at other times it interferes with the correct picture.

And also, that block expired a long time ago. That I did not edit much since that block expired is another matter. Currently I am more involved on the serbian wikipedia, and am struggling against those who who to cyrillicize latin articles. (LAz17 (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)).

Ya know, they're all commies... except me... and thee. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I should have noted here that I blocked LAz17 for 3 months, violating ARBMAC re personal attacks, for the post above and the others noted by DIREKTOR. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it ok if those trolling "pamphlets" are removed? --DIREKTOR 02:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete them if ya want. GoodDay (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I noted with interest that in the most recent Indiana Jones movie he had moved on from fighting Nazis to fighting Commies. Indiana Jones is a series of tongue-in-cheek, light hearted, adventure movies. Misplaced Pages is not. Those who feel that labelling others in such ways adds anything here have a lot to learn. HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record: I'm a Marxist of the Groucho kind. GoodDay (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Been there, done that... suppressed the evidence! LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I see, how goes your struggle with the Harpoist splinter group? :)

I hope they don't stop, its actually a source of light entertainment: which totalitarian ideology will I be labeled with today? Will it be Communism? Fascism? Chicoism? Lets watch --DIREKTOR 03:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should compile a list of Totalitarian ideologies ascribed to Misplaced Pages contributors? We could give a prize for whoever gets the most. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The UnWIKICUP! Physchim62 (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

We have an award for it -- the "Inaugural Uncle Duce Award for Contradictory Political Bias", which I proudly acknowledge to have received in 2009, here, for pretty much exactly this same thing. Antandrus (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, I came across a 'contributor' the other day that seemed to think the Nazis were Communists, so such an award might not be that difficult to acquire in one go. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It's telling that the "Inaugural Uncle Duce Award for Contradictory Political Bias" is about to be awarded for the SECOND time. In a forum on which I was once very busy I made sure that everyone knew in advance that I was a tree sniffing whale hugging pinko lesbian long-haired vegetarian namby pamby do-gooder new age sandal wearing hippie black armband stoned un-American pot smoking limpwristed baby boomer subversionary bearded pacifist leftie bleeding heart out of touch neolithic idealogue. Labels are important HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Without labels, you might have to consider the other guy some sort of person or something. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait... there's an award for this? Goody gumdrops! I'm sorry to have to tell you guys but I win, no competition. Its a daily thing on the articles where I'm at. :) --DIREKTOR 13:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think that having been called both a Marxist and a Nazi sympathiser means you must have done something right regarding NPOV. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The user is restoring the personal attacks on his talkpage. They are quite belligerent and call for users to follow me around and revert my edits (because I'm a "communist", of course xD). --DIREKTOR 21:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Left him a note to only use his talk page to discuss questions about his block and removed the personal attack again. Any further disruption and I would recommend removing talk page access again. Kuru (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"commie" again . He's not getting the picture. --DIREKTOR 22:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Admin attention needed

Based on this latest rant, I think it's time the editor had his talk page privileges removed. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Palin community article probation

Request an uninvolved administrator to take a look at a situation covered by the Sarah Palin community article probation. The particular user involved is Victor Victoria (talk · contribs).

For full background on the situation, see Talk:Bristol Palin#Willow mentioned and WP:BLPN#Willow Palin. To make a long story short, Victor Victoria wishes to add negative tabloid-type information about Willow Palin, the 16-year-old daughter of Sarah Palin, to the article about her older sister, Bristol Palin. Willow Palin, due to her age, has been treated per past consensus as a non-public figure per WP:BLP.

Consensus at the BLP noticeboard has been, I believe, to exclude this information. Victor Victoria has continued to argue for inclusion, supported by 184.59.23.225 (talk · contribs). I actually suspect the user account and the IP are the same individual based on similar editing patterns at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and Bristol Palin.

Victor Victoria has been notified of the community article probation, but continues to add the mention of the younger Palin sister to the Bristol Palin article.

At the very least, would appreciate someone with BLP knowledge stepping in and making the call one way or the other whether this information is a BLP vio. Kind of between a rock and a hard place - don't want to violate the article probation by edit-warring, but I also think the consensus is that the info is a BLP vio and needs to be removed. Any help greatly appreciated. Kelly 03:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I am not User:Victor Victoria, and I welcome a checkuser to verify that. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Kelly that this edit by User:Victor Victoria reinserted material reinserted virtually identical material to a BLP without any consensus for inclusion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, this edit is not a reinsertion of anything. That quote has never been in the article. Victor Victoria (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Trivial error corrected.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Not a trivial error, and I object to the new wording as well. The quote of the apology never appeared before, and frankly it boggles my mind that a quote of Bristol Palin is being censored from her own Misplaced Pages article. Victor Victoria (talk) 04:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The new wording (in my comment above) is not going to change. If someday there's a full-length multi-volume biography of Bristol Palin, it will not quote every word she's ever said; while it might perhaps include the quote you've inserted, that doesn't mean it belongs in a brief encyclopedia article. What surprises me is that you're ignoring the need for consensus to insert or restore material to a BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong on two counts: 1) the point of Misplaced Pages is to expand. If the Bristol Palin article is "brief" (which it is not, it is much bigger than a stub), then we should grow it. 2) Consensus has to be based on policies. The current objection to including the words "Willow Palin" in the article essentially rests on WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. Victor Victoria (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the 4th example in WP:IDONTLIKEIT is to call something "trivia". Victor Victoria (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue really comes down to whether a teenager acting like a teenager is 'notable'. I'm inclined to think not. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Accusing me of employing sockpuppetry is bad faith on User:Kelly's part. I call on him/her to take it back immediately. Victor Victoria (talk) 04:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Struck - your word is good enough for me. Sincere apologies. Kelly 04:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Now how about addressing the substantive issue. Why isn't this trivia? Would you wish to include this if this wasn't Sarah Palin's daughter? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Notability doesn't exist in a vacuum-- IOW, it's not necessary to establish that this event would be notable had it not involved the Palin children in order to establish it's notability in context. Furthermore, something being "trivia" is not a contraindication to inclusion. The more appropriate question, I think, is "Under what policy has this assertion-- sourced to no less than nine reliable sources-- been deleted?" (I'll also note that past consensus regarding WIllow Palin's status as a WP:NPF has been mooted by her recent press releases regarding the issue.) 184.59.23.225 (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope. If a contributor wants to include something, it is up them to show why it should be. Anyone can delete anything that fails this test. I'm glad to see you accept that this is 'trivia'. Now explain how something can be both 'trivia' and 'notable'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I never conceded that this is trivia; I simply asserted that trivia isn't antonymic to notability, which you can verify by consulting your favorite thesaurus. I also don't see anything on WP:BLP to back your assertion that "Anyone can delete anything that fails this test," although it's difficult to be certain, as you have yet to clearly articulate which test it is that you feel this content fails. Regardless, it strikes me as fantastic that any articles retain content at all were that an accurate restatement of some existent policy. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

184.59.23.225 put trivia in quotes, which you should interpret as air quotes. He/she has not "accept that this is 'trivia'." Victor Victoria (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like to respond to the original post baselessly accusing me of trying to insert material about Willow Palin into the Bristol Palin article. It is Bristol herself, that tied the two of them together, not me. Now, there is a certain group of individuals that are performing absurd edits to ensure at all costs that Willow Palin is not mentioned in the Bristol Palin article. Victor Victoria (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

That's right. Misplaced Pages is a conspiracy run by the Palin sisters. You win. I give up. Welcome to Absurdistan... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Please review WP:SARCASM. That sort of statement is nonproductive. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to produce anything. I was trying (unsuccessfully) to hold back a flood of trivia. I've now decided I can't win, and am resigned to drowning. Please play "Imagine" at my funeral, and then bury me face down at a 45° angle, just to confuse 25th century archaeologists. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

<undent> It wasn't my intention to drag a content dispute here, and I ask all participants to please stop restating arguments they've made elsewhere. They've been restated so many times that this is well into dead horse territory, and I provided links to the discussions. Just looking for an uninvolved admin to please look into the BLP issue and make the call on consensus one way or the other. Thanks! Kelly 05:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Your original post sure doesn't read that way. I read it as a complaint against me and my alleged "sockpuppet" (which you have graciously struck out). Victor Victoria (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Probation

Articles like Bristol Palin are under probation precisely so admins can offer firm guidance when nonsense like the current dispute arises. When I noticed the issue at WP:BLPN#Willow Palin, the Bristol Palin article contained some extreme trivia (see this version and search for "shit") where pointless details of how a 20 year old ranted on a Facebook page, and later issued an apology with a mention of her 16 year old sister and a rant she had made. Do we have to debate this endlessly and start WP:DR, or will someone please handle this. Johnuniq (talk) 06:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This is also at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Gods10rules, User:KeptSouth, User:Kelly, and User:Johnuniq reported by User:184.59.23.225 (Result: ) Dougweller (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

BLP review by uninvolved administrator NicholasTurnbull

The text reinserted by Victor_Victoria (talk · contribs) is a substantial recreation of content that has formerly been excluded from the article under BLP policy. Having undertaken a consensus review for the purposes of considering this AN/I request, the result of the discussion at Misplaced Pages:BLPN#Willow_Palin (excluding the article disputants from the discussion) was as follows:

Willow Palin is, at the present time, considered not generally well known as a BLP subject on Misplaced Pages. She is, consequently, not considered a notable subject for inclusion in Misplaced Pages.

On the basis of this above reasoning, the conclusion of this BLP review is that the information regarding the Willow Palin Facebook homophobia exchange shall be excluded from Misplaced Pages by community consensus. It is my opinion that Subjects notable for only one event (WP:BLP1E) applies in this case:

"Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Misplaced Pages article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article."

Taking the spirit of BLP1E, Willow Palin could be considered mentioned in published sources only in the context of a specific event -- i.e. the Facebook exchange -- for the purposes of the current discussion. As the event is not notable enough for an article of its own, the content should not be included, especially when taken in the light of Willow Palin being a minor at the time of publication, in which the bar for inclusion of events is necessarily higher as a component of editorial discretion. One can take the spirit of the above and reason that, since the event is definitely not notable enough for an article to exist on it, the content is entirely excluded in this case. Therefore, my summation is the following:

The Willow Palin Facebook homophobia exchange shall be considered excluded from Misplaced Pages on the basis of an editorial decision of non-notability by community consensus and its inclusion shall be considered a violation of Misplaced Pages's Biographies of living persons content policy. Victor_Victoria (talk · contribs), 184.59.23.225 (talk · contribs) and any other involved parties are put on notice that, in the event of reinserting content describing this event, they may be banned on sight from editing articles related to the Palin family (Sarah Palin, Bristol Palin, and any other future articles) under the terms of the existing article probation; any uninvolved editor may remove the inserted content.

Corrected. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Then can the full protection be changed back to semi-protection? Tvoz/talk 05:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it can be. I'll semiprotect. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 11:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Could Supreme Deliciousness be given a break, please?

This is the eighth SPI done on him, the last not even a week ago,. Honestly it's starting to border on harassment at this point. Any time a new account or IP pops up that happens to edit the same article he does, the community screeches SOCKPUPPET! and reports him. HalfShadow 05:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, but what can we do about it at AN/I?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Far too much attention is being paid to SD! Do I just not seem to have what it takes to be a sock puppet master?! On a serious note, yeah, it's getting silly. Sol (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Has he been notified? Basket of Puppies 05:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

SD has been around for a year and a half, and Frederico1234 has been around for almost three years. One would think that if they were socks, that would have become evident before now. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The focal point of user Juijitsu's complaint is the article Cave of the Ramban, and he seems to be involved in arguments with at least 3 different users there. It must be obscure, since "I" never heard of it, but as the editors in question show an interest in this region, it's more likely they would have heard of it. That observation doesn't prove anything either way. But the previous SPI's have all been either vindication for SD, or dismissal due to lack of evidence. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Can some admin please delete the outing that has taken place at the SPI? Jiujitsuguy is revealing my location, my ethnicity and nationality, its personal information and I don't want it revealed. He links to an old account (removed) that I in the name reveal both my ethnicity and nationality, its not a sock, Before I registered this account I had that account that I used a few times, keep in mind that I didn't know anything about Misplaced Pages rules at that time, then several months later when I wanted to edit Misplaced Pages again I just registered a new account, I didn't know that I should have used the old account, I didn't think about it at all, at many websites I just register a new account instead of trying to find out the password. I never pretended to be someone else or something like that with this account. I just abandoned the other one. The problem is that I was very inactive with that account and I didn't know any of Misplaced Pages rules, so at one point of time I did some inappropriate canvassing when I wanted to get attention to an article problem: I'm not trying to hide it, I didn't know anything about the rules here and didn't realize that I did something wrong. The problem with that account is that both my ethnicity and nationality is revealed, and I don't want to be outed, I regret revealing that personal information, and I told shuki about it at my talkpage I told him I did not want it revealed. Because of the personal information. Now he must have told Jiujitsuguy what account that was and Jiujitsuguy made a post about it at Shukis talkpage, so Jiujitsuguy must have seen the conversation between me and Shuki and asked for the previous account, but despite this he is revealing the account - revealing my ethnicity and nationality. I now ask you to please delete the comments at shukis talkpage and SPI so that the link to my previous account is removed and my personal information is not revealed, and the personal information connected to my old account, and my location and nationality is removed And please tell shuki and Jiujitsuguy not to continue to out me. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, can you pass it to another admin (SD left a request at my talk). I won't do it because I have been told by User:SandyGeorgia here that our standards for outing are those of Misplaced Pages Review and that if your name is available by doing Internet research, then you're out of luck on outing. Since all of this is ... somwhat different from what I learned after becoming an admin, I will brush up on my knowledge of outing before acting in such a case again. --Wehwalt (talk) 11:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

If you admit in the post just above that you are the same account as (removed), then that would have to be revdelelted, according to your interpretation of "outing", SD. Do you want a revdelete of anything that would ever tie you to the account that you are mentioning as being you? You have confirmed that the accounts are both you yet again. You cannot "out" yourself, and I challenge any editor to show me how one can without giving out truly personal information that has not been subsequently deleted. Real name, address, serial number: that stuff. "Supreme Deliciousness" is most likely not your real name... Doc talk 11:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Accounts? There is one account. I don't want that account shown to be me anywhere as it reveals my ethnicity and nationality.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"He links to an old account (removed) that I in the name reveal both my ethnicity and nationality..." It's not personal information that could actually harm you - stop it, please. You misunderstand what WP:OUTING is meant for, I'm afraid... Doc talk 11:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I've revdel'd the SPI stuff, since Admins can still see it, it seemed safest to do that. SandyGeorgia is wrong, our policy says "Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Misplaced Pages." and says nothing about an exemption if it's available through an Internet search. Dougweller (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia might be wrong if she had said any of that and Wehwalt were representing my views correctly. Alas and alack, not the case. By the way, Wehwalt, if you tell stories about me again, would you mind letting me know? Is it All About Me All The Time with you? Must I follow all of your posts or rely on people to let me know when you're misrepresenting me? Please, lower the focus on me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Just like you didn't notify me of this little turkey of a comment about me? However, I intended my subsequent comment there as an olive branch. Deal?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt, since when do you need to be notified of a conversation you're participating in? You wouldn't be trying to make me chase my tail, would you? Olive branch for what? I've got no problem; you just stop poking me, stirring the pot, misrepresenting me, and being pointy, would be a better deal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Endless rehashing of the past and grievances does no one any good. Let's agree about the future, which alone is capable of change.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no, let's agree that you the next time you go to AN/I and make false claims about me behind my back, we will have a grievance, and YOU need to stop poking and "rehashing". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Come on guys; snipe at each other somewhere else. HalfShadow 04:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. And SD, many people are known to be of a certain nationality, sex, or religious group without being considered to out themselves.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a bit off topic, but the problem is that WP:OUTING goes on to define what it means by "personal information" as follows: "Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not." I'm not sure that nationality or ethnicity fall into that definition. If I had the information on that list, I would be able to find where you live and work, steal your identity, or contact you without Misplaced Pages seeing it, leading to possible harm or harassment off-Wiki. Things like nationality and ethnicity (or sex) don't provide the person who knows that information any such power to harm or harass off-Wiki. I'm not saying I oppose the definition specifically in the case of SD, but just generally I think those types of information should not be considered WP:OUTING. Maybe we need something more like WP:VANISH, whereby editors would have the right to have information posted about them vanish as well. ← George 11:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Bingo - but now you should revdel this whole thread, since "Jiujitsuguy is revealing my location, my ethnicity and nationality, its personal information and I don't want it revealed." "Location" has been taken care of... but "ethnicity" and "nationality", still for all to see, and within this thread. I'm also, shockingly, (removed). Actually, I'm really not. I'm Scotch/Javanese. I mean New Guinean/Luxembourgian. Eh - just revdel all this too, just to be "safe". But this is my real information: you gotta believe me! 555-1234: call me ;> Doc talk 12:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

If someone is concerned about outing, announcing it here is not the best approach. A better approach would be to contact a trusted admin via e-mail. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Repeatedly referring to someone as a "transexual Filipino" or whatever could be harassment, especially if the editor referred to is clearly distressed or has asked the other user to stop. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I think that WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA already cover on-Wiki harassment of that nature. ← George 22:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that self-revealed ethnicity and nationality is covered by the outing policy, since this information is not in any way sufficient to determine identity and was in any case posted by the editor himself, but since SD objects to the name of his old account being referred to because it reveals this information, would an admin please change the name of the account to something neutral of SD's choice, so that this doesn't become an avoidance of scrutiny for the edits made by that account (such as the canvassing of multiple editors complaining that the "Golan" article had been taken over by Israelis)? We are all responsible for our edits, and there's no reason that SD shouldn't be held responsible for those edits simply because of this matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Arnold Reisman and User:Fusion is the future

• Articles for deletion/Arnold Reisman
• Articles for deletion/Arnold Reisman (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Reisman, Arnold

• Arnold Reisman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Ellen Reisman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• BandGwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Fusion is the future (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The article Arnold Reisman, about a retired professor, was created by User:Ellen Reisman, and extensively expanded by User:Arnold Reisman using that account and a number of IP sockpuppets. (I believe that User Reisman confirmed his real-world identity as Arnold Reisman to OTRS, but I don't have a link for that.) After discussion on AN/I, both Reisman accounts were indef blocked for extensive self-promotion of Reisman's self-published books, which were spammed into numerous articles. Neither account has ever asked to be unblocked.

In June, an IP attempted to edit in a similar manner to User:Arnold Reisman, and was warned off, , to be replaced by User:BandGwolf, who was also warned off. , ,

In September, User:Fusion is the future is created, and edits productively to jazz-related articles for almost two months, before starting to edit the Arnold Reisman article – which is totally unrealted to jazz – in a manner similar to the editing by Reisman. Once again, I warned the editor, resulting in extensive discussion in which Fusion adamantly denied being in any way connected to Reisman. Fusion reaches out to admin User:Slim Virgin for assistance, , who examines the article and strips it, as a BLP, of all unsourced statements.

Since then, there have been numerous threads on the article's talk page and on the RSN board concerning the article. Fusion persists in attempting to add material to the article using primary sources, ignoring Slim Virgin's request for secondary sources to show the subject's notability. User:Fladrif has indicated that there are some secondary sources, reviews from reliable sources of the professor's self-published books, but Fusion has, as of yet, declined to integrate these into the article.

Uninvolved admin intervention is needed for these reasons:

• Given Fusion's attitude towards this article, his clear self-involvement in the subject, his personal reactions whenever anyone does not agree with what he wants to do, his setting up as first one editor (me) and then another (Slim Virgin) as the "bad guy" preventing him from doing what he wants to with the article, and given that the article's subject is totally disconnected from the subject area Fusion otherwise edits in (jazz), it is nearly impossible not to come to the conclusion that Fusion is in some way connected to Arnold Reisman, either as a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. Arnold Reisman (the editor) has never requested a lifting of the indef block, yet has persisted in attempting to shape the article about him through socks, and this is appears to be yet now another attempt, albeit a somewhat more Wiki-sophisticated one, to do so. An admin should decide whether the behavioral evidence is strong enough that Fusion should be indef blocked as a sock- or meatpuppet of Reisman.

• Regardless of whether Fusion is a sock- or meatpuppet or not, his behavior has become an egregious case of I didn't hear that and his framing of other editors as adversaries is uncivil, uncollegial and indicates a battleground mentality. An uninvolved admin should warn him not to continue editing in this manner.

• Finally, although the article Arnold Reisman has survived two AfDs ,, the most recent one in May of this year, some determination should be made of whether it is sourced sufficiently as a BLP to be kept. If so, then it should probably be taken to AfD again, since, despite over two weeks having passed since Slim Virgin asked for secondary sources, it is still based almost entirely on primary sources, and does not appear as if it fulfills the notability requirements for subjects of this type. (I'd rather not take it to AfD until these other issues are decided.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

All named parties have been notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the last of your comments on the subject, my thinking is that if the article were taken to AfD and deleted then it would make much of the rest of the concerns noted moot - especially if User:Fusion is the future confined themselves to editing jazz related articles. Again, if the AfD resulted in good secondary sources being located and added then the other concerns, if not moot, would be of considerably less import. What is your rationale for not moving to AfD, precisely? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess primarily that I'm involved, and that bringing it to AfD might be perceived as a tactic rather than a good faith nomination. I've no objection to filing there, if that's what folks thinks is the best thing to do. Aside from that, I had (and have) no particular objection to the existence of the article per se. This report was provoked by Fusion's most recent comment on the article talk page, which convinced me that we were on a merry-go-round that didn't show signs of stopping. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

To me, Arnold Reisman seems borderline notable at best. There are others in his field more notable than he who still do not have WP articles written about them. Even so, I think the solution must continue to be Whack-A-Mole, where each new meat- or sockpuppet is blocked. Binksternet (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• No objection to an AfD, but to disallow primary sources in an article is inappropriate. If I'm understanding correctly then VS is wrong in preventing them if they are otherwise reliable. Hobit (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Primary sources are fine, Hobit, so long as the article is based on secondary sources. I don't know what to make of the Arnold Reisman situation. This is the version of the article Reisman himself seems to want, and has tried to insert using various accounts and IPs. Problem is that much of it is unsourced. He appears to be a former academic at the Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. What might make him more notable is a series of books he wrote on Turkey and the Holocaust, listed here on Amazon. But when you look at the publishers, you find they're all self-published. In addition, Reisman has written a blog post on how to use the Web, including Misplaced Pages, to self-promote books: "My premise is that the Web has made possible a direct relationship between a book’s author, its purchaser and or reader ... What is also significant to the author, is that it’s cost free ..." This was accompanied by someone spamming his book titles into a number of WP articles.

  So at this point it becomes difficult to know what to trust, and for that reason we've been asking Fusion to construct the article out of secondary sources. Fladrif found some book reviews and posted them on the talk page, but all we get from Fusion are long posts complaining about other editors. SlimVirgin 00:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Using a school's website as evidence that a talk was given at that school is perfectly reasonable. It's a perfectly valid reliable source unless you have evidence otherwise. I'd say it even counts (a very little bit) toward WP:N. No reliable source, primary or otherwise, should be kept out of the article if it improves the article. One can certainly argue if it does improve the article and one can very easily argue this belongs at AfD (heck, it's close enough I'll do it) but I don't think we should be keeping sources out because notability hasn't been established. Hobit (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

@Binksternet, before you make any further comment, I kindly suggest you read the discussions, all of them, from the scratch.

First here, than here. and than here.

Otherwise, you are hurting me with these words:

• "I think the solution must continue to be Whack-A-Mole, where each new meat- or sockpuppet is blocked."

This is to me, "Rush to judgment."

@Beyond My Ken, I am truly thankful to you, that you brought it up here, even though you still try to spread doubts about me, still, I am happy, so that uninvolved editors and Administrators alike can sort things out by going to the bottom of it.

As I said all along, my words are my honor and the basis for my credibility. I would also ask the respective admins to run an IP check on me. Thank you. _{Fusion Is the} Future 23:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• You mean you wish me to give the tar baby a good poke? No, thank you. I ran into the Arnold Reisman article a while ago, months before you created your current user profile, and at the time I searched and searched to try and unearth some solid notability reference to help the article stand on its own. I failed, something I am not used to. I do not expect that Reisman has significant new material since this discussion makes no mention of any, so I do not wish to revisit the article's sourcing problems, and I especially do not wish to engage Reisman supporters in debate. I have written more than a hundred Misplaced Pages articles from scratch, and improved hundreds more by adding good cites, and I have never had the kind of trouble finding good sources as I had with Reisman. I made up my mind months ago that Reisman is borderline notable at best, and possibly a candidate for deletion. Binksternet (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, it's now nominated, for the third time. Uncle G (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The behavioural evidence, including amongst other things fairly clear evasion of a simple what's-your-source question, is quite compelling at this point. Uncle G (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Obscure answers are something of a speciality of this user; see Talk:Atilla Engin (not for the faint of heart). pablo 12:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I hadn't read that. Ouch! There's more behavioural evidence there, including another diff that tallies with Arnold Reisman (talk · contribs) and adds another brick to the pile. The continued evasion below is fairly transparent, too. Uncle G (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Perhaps, although Arnold Reisman appears to be better acquainted with the English language. pablo 00:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

@Binksternet, I guess I was not clear enough. Okay. Please allow me to pass you a not-so-well-kept secret. The honorable and surely most defendable thing to do is to ask me directly, whether I am the above-mentioned subject or do I have any connections to him. Fair enough. Then, you get my answer. Either you assume good-faith and take my word for it, or, if you are not satisfied with my answer, you go ahead and file SPI on me. That's the right way to do it.

Otherwise, saying this will only damage the credibility of the one who says it:

• "I think the solution must continue to be Whack-A-Mole, where each new meat- or sockpuppet is blocked."

Again, please read this first, than this. and than this before you make any further comments. The answers are there, including about 15 secondary sources I found on the Internet, after a hard work, which all were rejected by Beyond My Ken. The reason of his rejection was, these references were about self-published books. When he said that, I stopped there, and never added any text nor references to support the subject's book claims. So simple as that.

And, saying "I made up my mind months ago that Reisman is borderline notable at best" is an opinionated statement.

Since I encountered this article I found many sources. Did you check them all?

You still have to assume good faith. It's about improving the articles. We can not be opinionated. Being impartial is a must. Don't you think so?

Yesterday is behind us. Today is a new day and you might be surprised when you check the sources I found. And here, the Board of Administrators, is the right place to examine these sources whether they can be used. Thanks. _{Fusion Is the} Future 12:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

@Uncle G

What "behavioural evidence?"

What are "amongst other things?"

And, "evation of" what? Please explain. Thank you. _{Fusion Is the} Future 12:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Re:"Evasion" - Uncle G is referring to this series of posts in which Slim Virgin asked you how you know certain personal facts about Arnold Reisman's character, and you avoided answering her question and instead issued her a "warning". The post that preceded her question was full of specific details about Reisman's life and character. What is your source for this information? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That post with details of Reisman's inner character and motivations appears enough to put this user up at SPI. If proved to be Reisman, the user will of course be indef blocked as a sockpuppet. Binksternet (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Mclaudt requests lift of ban.

User:Mclaudt is requesting that his community ban be lifted. The reason he gives is, "Please unblock me. I have no time no intention for canvassing or train-wrecking Linux software discussions. I'm getting PhD in quantum chemistry and I want to be really useful for Misplaced Pages in that field. Also I'm happy to be an active Misplaced Pages donator because I sincerely support ideas that Misplaced Pages declares. Thanks." Is there support for lifting this ban? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Not by me. The user's request does not address in any useful detail the many reasons given for his ban in the discussion that led up to it. It is therefore unconvincing.  Sandstein  22:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Weak support- it's been nearly eight months and the user has promised to behave, and I for one don't require a lengthy essay by way of apology or shameless grovelling before supporting an unblock. If the editor resumes disruptive behaviour they can be reverted and blocked again very easily. Reyk _YO! 23:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• weak support I agree with Reyk (which may be a first?) It's been long enough, see how it goes. Hobit (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• I feel I should point out that he also contacted me about it - which I find odd because I've got it written plain as day on my talk page that I lost the tools in July and will not have them back for the forseeable future. In any case, Neutral. I'm leery of the "I'm a *REFORMED* alcoholic" defense, and I'd like to see a bit more than vague speech. —Jeremy 23:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose It's been long enough, but I don't see evidence of understanding why he was banned in the first place and what he will do to avoid those issues. I also woule like to see how he wishes to be "really useful": working on any drafts first, etc. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Question- The guy was blocked/banned for off-site canvassing and has now said that he has no intention of canvassing again. Does this not demonstrate a knowledge of what he was blocked for? If not, what would you consider a satisfactory answer? And, if you were in his shoes, how would you explain how you'd avoid canvassing again that goes beyond saying "I won't do it anymore"? What other possible answer is there? Reyk _YO! 03:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Give him a standard offer and see if he agrees to the terms. OhanaUnited 00:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support lifting ban, his sincere request is good enough for me. He may have a rocky past but it's on record now and I don't believe he's dangerous to the project. -- œ 10:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral comment Reblocks, following a community unblock, are easy. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Weak support I'd prefer to see a full year go by, but I don't feel strongly about it. If he can contribute within our rules, give him a chance. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk page comments by MickMacNee

I'd like to report harassment/stalking by User talk:MickMacNee, per his comments on my talk page. I'm not sure if he's stalking me or User:Mjroots, but in either case the stalking is unwarranted. I was blocked on 31 October 2010 for "baiting Mick" on his talk page while he was blocked (Actually, I was trying to make fun of an admin, and the whole thing backfired. I learned my lesson anyway.) Anyway, I should be able to make comments in passing about someone without having to fear that they will feel the need to comment on it. In the case with Mick, he is known for harassing other users, especially at AFDs, and has been the subject of many ANIs in the past for such harassment, and other related behavioral issues. I'd like an injunction against his posting on my talk page for any reason other than gving notices reguiered by WP such as for ANIs, and ask that he be restricted in his interctions with me on AFDs where I have posted first, allowing other users to respond to me. I'll agree to the same restrictions in return, if needed. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• I have modified the header of this section. Stalking is a real-world activity that involves physically following a person and threatening their well-being. You're not being stalked, and using that term to describe someone posting on your talk page when you've made reference to them is unacceptable. This is not a comment on the remainder of the report, but a correction in terminology that should routinely be enforced on this noticeboard; the term "wikistalking" was deliberately deprecated a considerable time ago because of this issue, and it is remarkably disappointing to see that regular posters on this board have forgotten it. Risker (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  That's a limited definition, and one I don't accept. Whether you call it hounding or stalking, it amounts to the same thing. it's a form of bullying, whatever you chose to call it. - BilCat (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  BilCat, Risker is spot-on here. I've not read any further than this in this thread, but I, too, insist that you adopt more appropriate terminology. Robert Bardo is a stalker. Mick is a chronically disruptive editor who keeps skating by being indef'd. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 06:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, you're right, I was wrong. To be honest, I was so angry when I first came here that I forgot that "stalking" was deprecated - seriously. I still disagree with the reasoning, but you are correct that it is not considered a neutral term. My apologies for it's use, and for my "defense" of it. I'll do my best not to use it again. - BilCat (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  Thank you. It is a poisonous term, and it is part of the whole toxic-wiki environment. Risker has advised that that a prohibition of its use should be enforced on this noticeboard, and I strongly support that. Users who use the term should get one warning, and then a block on any subsequent uses. Calling someone a stalker is little different than calling them a paedophile; they are both accusations of criminality and should be viewed in the same manner as leagal threats. And, no, this is not at all about neutrality. Jack Merridew 21:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Such an interaction ban would seem reasonable to me. You obviously both rub each other up the wrong way or whatever. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Nothing good will come from you posting on each others' talk pages. So I'd support an interaction ban. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• In agreement, an interaction ban would do nicely. GoodDay (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I reserve the 'right' to comment wherever and whenever my name is being mentioned, whether that user feels they have the right not to 'fear' my input or not. If that location is on a talk page of a user who does not want me there, then I reserve the 'right' to expect that they cease bandying my name about in casually incivil conversation, safe in the knowledge that I cannot respond. That is pretty much the definition of baiting right there. Infact, while we're at it, I also reserve the right not to be called a mother fucker and a stalker in edit summaries, period, in all cases the former, and at least without evidence in the latter. This ANI complaint of 'stalking' is based on one post to one talk page, where my name was being mentioned. I was not aware of any ban of myself from that talk page, neither formal or through the expressed wishes of BilCat. Based on these facts, and the fact that this report makes various oblique references to my 'past behavior' in the best tradition of poisoning what he already knows is a very viperous well for me, I think it's pretty fucking clear who is baiting who here. Based on past experience of what he does and doesn't know about EQ, I will happilly accept the most formal and complete interaction ban with this user, who cannot it seems even file an ANI report header in a neutral, non-offensive manner, on the express proviso that I have done nothing wrong wrt the bare facts of this report, and also with the exception of his rather unusual 'me first' Afd suggestion, which can only be seen as an attempt to game me off of an ongoing notability content debate. I would note however that he is in no position to be offering to stay off my talk page save for notices etc as some sort of new bargaining chip at all, that was apparently what he had already agreed to do when he was unblocked for the aformentioned baiting of me the first time round. I had no knowledge of what was arranged in that appeal, and certainly no notifications of any related consequent obligations/restrictions on me, as I already explained here and here, and which has been clarified for him by the blocking admin here, so any and all suggestions from him that I have been baiting him, are quite false. MickMacNee (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I think it should be clear that this interaction ban will be imposed on a "no liability" basis. It should also be clear that, as per usual, the interaction ban means neither party can "make reference to or comment on anywhere on Misplaced Pages, whether directly or indirectly". --Mkativerata (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The ban is two-ways. Also, he might've been calling you a Massey Ferguson. GoodDay (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

From a user who uses profanity in regular converstaion on a regulkar basis, Mick's objection to being called an "m-f" is hilarious! He's called me worse names than 2 letters and a hyphen on several occasions. As to "stalking", that's why we;re here: to address unwanted attention and harassment. Note this is not the first time he has done this,, on my talk page or on others. He even interjects himself into converstations where I'm asking for advice out of frustration at dealing with him on another page - that also appears to be both harrasment and baiting, as he did at this admin's talk page today. This sort of behavior is normal for Mick, and no one else is permitted to do thses same things to him, even inadvertantly, as my block incident shows. If the community wishes to impose a direct and indirect ban on both of us, that's their choice. I won't be watchlisting his page (and I haven't been) to see that he keeps his part of the injuction, and I wouild ask he not be permitted to watchlist mine either. Let an impartial 3rd party do that if required. - BilCat (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Massey Ferguson? That's daft. MMN meant mother-fucker. Jack Merridew 17:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, I will most definitley not be abiding by any restriction if it is enacted in such a way that gives this person's complaints here anything other than complete dismissal as totally and utterly unfounded. I will accept an interaction ban only because it benefits me and stops me from having to be subjected to his ongoing slurs and attacks, both direct and indirect, and nothing else. Anyone is free to go and look at the archive of his block appeals I provided above, it shows pretty clearly that nobody was convinced by his allegation that there is some sort of disparity between his treatment and mine wrt the block button. Infact, considering his baiting occured while I was in the middle of being community banned without the being allowed to defend yourself part, whereas he was just sitting out a week long block for a pretty egregious violation, which would have been quickly reduced to 24 hrs had he not shot himself in the foot with this exact sort of baseless allegation, I think he's got some brass balls even suggesting it. This guy thinks I have admin friends, that's how off base he is. I have had more than my fill of people dragnetting ANI for old Mick threads just like this and then claiming they are evidence I do this, that or the other at arbcom and such like. This stirring ANI is what is real misbehaviour, not placing perfectly relevant replies on an admin's talk page when this user is making requests that he pass messages to me because he says it 'appears' I've done this or that. I will also not accept any form of ban that restricts us commenting on the same content/process pages like Afd/articles, with the exception of direct conversation, this is certainly not what I understand as the standard 'interaction ban'. MickMacNee (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

An interaction ban would not prohibit you from participating in the same discussions, such as AfDs, but it would prohibit you and BilCat from replying to each other's comments. Regarding "I will most definitley not be abiding by any restriction if it is enacted in such a way that gives this person's complaints here anything other than complete dismissal as totally and utterly unfounded.": the ban would not be enacted to give legitimacy to anything. It's no liability, for the purposes of preventing future problems without determining who may have been in the right or in the wrong in the past. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That's as I thought, although it probably needs breaking down for him in clear terms that he can refer back to, his misconceptions over policy, let alone even his basic recollections in this issue here really are that bad from my perspective. As for liability, as long as the resolution says that in crystal clear terms, I am fine with that also. And noting that he was already banned from my talk page anyway, even though I didn't even know, would also not go amiss, to give context to the above allegations and diffs. MickMacNee (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There he goes again, misrepresenting the truth. I think it's quite clear to anyone else why I am so frustrated with Mick. He is a bully, and anytime anyone dares to stand up to him, this is what happens. As to admin friends, HJMitchell is the one who blocked me, and then disapperared promply for 20 hours *he said he had trouble logging in, while I had to endure a 20-hour block after I stated I would not comment on Mick's page again. Blocks are supposedly not punitive, but I haven't got those 20 hours back yet. HJM also unblocked Mick while discussions were underway about lifting Mick's indefinite block. (Stated for the record, as Mick brought it up this time.) I'm a good editor, and while I have a history that shows I have a short temper, I'm generally quick to admit I'm wrong. I know I haven't behaved perfectly in this matter, and have "shot myself inthe foot" on several occasion, however inadvertanly. But Mick's bullying tactics are right here on this page for all to see! This is how he treats everyone who dares to disagree with him. The recent AFD's that he and HJMitchel have prticipated in are compltes jokes. They file an AFD on almost evert aviation accidennet article that's created, and almost all of them are kept. Yet they keep doing it, they repeat the same NOTNEWS nonsense at every AFD they participate in, and nothing changes. Mick instists on cross-examining every comment that disagrees with him to the inth degre, but it's all the same thing! The really odd thing is that Mick almost never participates in the accident AFDs were it's qute ovbious that the subject is non-notable. I can't help but think they're pushing an agenda here. If they won most of the AFDs, it would be a different story, but that's not the case. I actually stopped participating in Aviation accident AFDs completely for several weeks, then stared back while Mick was indefinitely blocked. We've had little interatcion in AFDs until today, but his showing up uninvited on my talk page set me off. I admit I shouldn't let it bother me, but it does. I'm not the only person he bullies, but I am just dumb enough to think eventually it will all catch up with him. I repeat Mick's own profane own words verbatim to HJM, and HJM immediately wanrs me, but Mick hasn't been warned for the original statement yet! I know it;s easy to tell me to just grow up, tht WP is not for the faint-hearted, blah blah blah. But seriously, who else on WP hets to say point blank that WPCIVIL doesn't apply to him if the other person is making a dumb argument! (yes, I actually have the diff on that one, if someone really cares to see it.) He admits he doesn't feel bound by WPCIVIL, and yet he's still here, bullying anyone who disagrees with him. Sorry, but yes, I'm angry and frustrated, I admit that. How long will Mick's uncivil behavior on a daily basis be allowed to continue before someone says enough is enough? Help stop him, please. - BilCat (talk) 05:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful for either party to continue to post here about each other. We've proposed a solution that both parties seem to agree to, that will have consensus support, and that will solve the problem going forward. No-one's going to get blocked here (I hope) so why bother? --Mkativerata (talk) 05:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You have to realize this is the last time either of us will be allowed to say this here on WP, to tell our sides of the story. Give us a little space, please. No one's going to get killed, so why not let it go a bit longer? - BilCat (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Please, even though this is ANI, this is an encyclopaedia not a place to tell your side of the story. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

But this is ANI - there's no where else to go, as we're both giving up the right to take it to any other venue on WP, as I understand the terms. ANd we both hope something else will be done intstead of this solution. - BilCat (talk) 06:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

No probs, keep commenting on each other (or don't - your guy's choice) until the thread is closed. GoodDay (talk) 06:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, as long as it is made crystal clear, and I mean 100% indisputable, that nothing this guy has alleged in here has been proven to be true in any way, then I'm fine diddly-ine with that frankly. Not much of what he said in this latest paranoid-delusional half page rant is even remotely true tbh. I invite anyone to pick just one of the more basic facts in it, to see if it checks out, such as the allegation that me and my best buddy Mitchell are an aircrash Afd team, and hold exclusivity in nominating any and all such articles, even the ones I also supposedly never vote in?!?!?, or even that we are simply wiki-buddies generally, or even that he has unblocked me ever, rather than just restore my talk page access once that was removed as a result of this guy's activites on it. Then you will see if it's likely or not as to whether some of the stuff that would take a bit more time to verify that he alleges, might be remotely true or not. MickMacNee (talk) 06:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It's irrelevant (to me) as to why you're both locking horns. That you're both locking horns is releveant, though. You both should reach a gentlemens agreement - to avoid each other & not speak of each other. GoodDay (talk) 06:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, BilCat voluntarily agreed not to interact with MMN as a condition of his unblocking. AFAIK, he has stuck to that agreement. MMN may well have been unaware of this. It is disappointing that BilCat has felt it necessary to withdraw from Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sun Way Flight 4412 due to MMN's continuance of his usual behaviour at AfDs. I would urge BilCat to reconsider his withdrawal from the AfD. He has as much right to participate as any other editor does. Mjroots (talk) 06:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

In the same veign as my reply to BilCat's accusations, anyone is free to go and look at that Afd, and see if Mjroot's vague insinuations here are remotely proveable (or in this case even appropriate for an admin on the ANI board) as a description of my actual contribution in that Afd. I've tried an Rfc against him to stop exactly this sort of behaviour, but it was a waste of time, and it's not hard to see where the supposedly wiki-inexperienced BilCat is learning his bad EQ habits from. I won't stoop to BilCat's level with regard to alleging who is friends with who around here, and who does what or how at Afd, but seriously, this complaint of his here was sparked by me 'butting in' to a 'conversation' between these two on his talk page about whether "Keep, just to annoy MMN" was a valid Afd vote or not? I mean seriosuly, wtf? Infact, I urge all admins to go look at that convo, you'd be hard pressed to pick out which of them was the admin, and which was the inexperienced editor. MickMacNee (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, MJR. Note that I could not tell him the agreement to stay off of his talk page, and to try to avoid conflict elsewhere, as I could not post on his page. - BilCat (talk) 06:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I will not accept these terms as stated by Mick. What I have said about Mick's actions and behavior are true, and I can show the diffs - but diffs have been shown countless times at ANIs just like this one. I'll file an RFC/U if that's what's needed to be fair to Mick concerning these "accusations", though it won't be today or tomorrow (Monday or Tuesday, NYC time), as I've never doen one before. I will agree to abide by the solution until the RFC/U is filed, and let the RFC decide on the issue from that point on, even if that is to not accept the RFC. - BilCat (talk) 06:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Mick is welcome to file an RFC/U agaisnt me for my accusations if he would rather do that - it matters not to me along as both our behaviors would be reviewed. (I assmume that is how an RFC works, but some things about WP are still a mystery to me!) ARBCOM has recently declined to take up a case agaist Mick (or it's stillpending, so I think RFC/U is the next step here.) - BilCat (talk) 06:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It would save you both alot of hassle, if yas would agree to remain on opposite sides of the Wiki-street. Pluss avoid commenting on each other. GoodDay (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

But that doesn't help the other people he's intimidating on a daily basis, though I'm not here today because of them. I'm not the only one he treats this way, nor are Aviation accident AFDs his only venue f intimidation - the British/Irish dispute pages are familiar with him too. But he does deserve "his day in court", as he beleives (publically at least) that I'm makeing false accusations against him. - BilCat (talk) 06:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom declined to take up the case re MMN. Partly because it was bundled in with a request to deal with the unblocking of MMN against consensus by an admin, despite several editors urging Arbcom to take up the case as it was felt that a RFC would not lead to any change in behaviour. It seems that a RFC on MMN is going to have to be made, something which I am working on atm. Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Do what ya'll think is best. GoodDay (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I will accept the terms of the restrictions, unilaterally, until the RFC/U is filed agaist Mick, as long as I'm allowed to participate in it when it is filed, or to file it myself within a certain time frame, as stipulated here. (I know Mick has seen the RFC as a threat held over his head, adn I don't ant this to be open-ended on my part.) I'll make myself availble to MJR, private communications, to help in any way that I can, if that is acceptable to the admins here. And I will unilaterally cease my comments that I ahve been making here about Mick's behavior elsewhere. Will that be acceptable? - BilCat (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I've no authority in this whole matter. How you, Mick & Mj proceed is entirely in your (your 3) hands. GoodDay (talk) 07:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to propose a ban that is indefinite, where the one and only exception is to make a single appeal every six months be it to the Community or ArbCom. If each is going to refuse to get along and put aside their differences, and each is also refusing to avoid one another altogether, then these sorts of solutions are the only things that preserve everyone else's sanity against this utter rubbish.

Let's make no mistake; Bilcat's original comment, and Mjroots continuation of it, and MickMacNee's response to it...all of it is trolling. None of this reflects well on any of the three of you, and if you aren't willing to accept such a binding restriction voluntarily, then perhaps an involuntary restriction is all that is left. The apparent compulsive need to continue to inflame this dispute as much as possible to try to eliminate content opponents is utterly unhealthy. Am I the only one who is getting sick of it? At the end of the day, the trolling needs to stop...and you should voluntarily drop the sticks and move on to better things and ways of approaching certain situations. If you aren't going to do that but are trying to make assurances which mean diddly squat in the long run, then you're going to force the Community's hand on each of you through a series of sanctions and it won't be pretty. I seriously hope that it doesn't come to that and that the polite requests will get through to each one of you...well-before the new year arrives. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. You cannot brush under the carpet serious allegations like stalking, harassment, bullying and intimidation made at ANI, without a shred of evidence, with a simple wave of the magic 'you're all as bad as each other wand', or by turning the issue into something else, such as the (unsubstantiated) allegation that I am trying to 'eliminate a content opponent'. Infact, filing frivelous 'mud sticks' ANI reports is a pretty good example of what someone who was actually trying to eliminate a content opponent, would try to do. You can actually see in his original report the suggestion that I be barred from any Afd he gets to first, right? I have done nothing at these Afds except give cogent, policy backed arguments, and request that others have the common courtesy to do the same, as per the instructions. If you are really interested in sanctioning people who have made personal comment after personal comment, assumption of bad faith after assumption of bad faith, and repeated, serious, attempts to poison the well in this dispute, just like this ANI complaint, then seriously, you need look no further than BilCat and Mjroots. BilCat's vote in that latest Afd was this gem of a PERTHEM/ABF combo. I take great offence to you even suggesting that I am in any way similar to him in either Afd standards of ettiquette, general behaviour, or motive, overt or otherwise. If your broad brush summary was remotely the case by the way, why is nobody here in the least bit disturbed by the fact that one of this trio is an admin? You or the community can propose whatever sanctions it like's on me, and if the evidence doesn't support it, well, let's just say I am getting used to having to use arbitrators as my first, last, and only court of session, on this site. There is a reason why they threw out the claim that ANI is evidence of proper dispute resolution, and certain posts in this thread are a pretty good example why. I've given the conditions under which I will accept an interaction ban, BilCat is the one with the issue with it, even though he is apparently in fear of me, yet here we are, still waiting for him to substantiate this report, and with him still trying to figure out a way that he can both have me eliminated from Afd and his talk page, while still having the right to generally talk shit about me. MickMacNee (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

And yet, after all this text, I have not seen an actual explanation of why you made that snarky post in the first place. Ncmvocalist is right; from what I have seen you're all as bad as each other - almost in rotation. If no one can impress on all of you how annoying this little three-way spat is then it is not going to end well. The community seems to be roundly saying the same thing; quit slinging punches at each other, edit collegially - and if you cannot do that, stay the hell away from each other before the community just gets shot of you. Resist the temptation to rise to each other, go write something. --Errant 15:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it might have had something to do with the fact that when I raised an Rfc/U about that admin's predeliction for making incivil comments and insinuations about me all over the pedia, in little talk page convos like that, and worse, even after his own multiple frivelous ANI reports against me had all ended in no action, because I had frankly done fuck all wrong, as many people of 'the community' he supposedly is here to serve, told him at the time, it was unsurprisingly turned around on me by editors just like BilCat, coming to the rescue of their good mate, and their shared outlook on content of course had nothing to do with that, oh no. As usual, you have to go all the way up to arbcom before you start seeing actual common sense interpretations of such obvious gamery like that. This is an admin who, having been appointed over a year ago, up to this month still didn't even know basic Afd procedural things like the fact you cannot just simply speedy withdraw a 5 day old Afd with tons of delete votes on it, just because the nominator changes their mind. I have frankly lost count of how many times he has been told that his ideas about what is and is not allowed wrt threaded discussion in afd's, and yet he was still acting only last month in the farce that was my attempted banning by Sandstein as if his views were still remotely supported or within policy, to the point where he even had the brass neck to propose them as unblock conditions! Frankly, out of the three of us, I am the one with the bigger right to feel absolutely fucked off at the utterly biased and underhanded campaign I am being subjected to, with an extremely questionable admin at the heart of it, for doing nothing more outrageous than not agreeing with them as to what is and is not 'clearly notable'. MickMacNee (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clear. My question was why you thought that a snarky reply was a reasonable response; you must have known what would happen. "I'm the victim, so a little snark is allowed" doesn't strike me as a particularly persuasive argument. I've no investment in this dispute; but from the outside it looks more than a little silly. Leave each other alone. period. --Errant 16:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Being assused of stalking, harassment, bullying and intimidation at ANI seems "silly" to you? I'm glad you have such a positive and breezy outlook on life. I on the other hand know from bitter experience what happens when people lazily summarise ANI reports as 'well, they are both as bad as each other', even when that summary is accurate, which it isn't here. It will go into the file to be pulled out at a later date by Mjroots as evidence of "my behaviour", and surprise surprise, when the shit hits the fan and these two come for me again, suddenly people will completely forget that anybody had a bad word to say about BilCat or the admin Mjroots in this thread. I hope you stick around to see it, and I hope you remember exactly what you said here, as you watch the ignorant pile on as it gathers to a frenetic pace. MickMacNee (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, if the community decided to sanction all 3 of you or anything else, there's really nothing you 3 can do about it. Editing on Misplaced Pages is a privillage, not a right. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• I honesntly don't know if this is permitted here or should be handled elsewhere, but I must state it: I do not beleive that HJ Mitchell is neutral in respect to Mick, and would like to ask that he recuse himself from all admin actions regarding Mick, mjroots, or me, in perpetuity, for any and all issues. If he is unwilling to do that, I am willing to file an approriate appel agaisnt him seeking such restrictions. I have reason to believe that his actions have not been that of a neutral admin, but I realize now tht in previously stating that opinion, I may be handling that the wrong way by bringing it up here in my previous comments. I'm totally willing to stop that from this point on, provided I am given guidance on how to officially present my concerns to the community, and have them considered. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Clarification: I will stop bring up HJM's conduct in any posts, except that in pursuing restrictions against his interacting as an admin with me or Mick. - BilCat (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC) - in the proper venue, betiond this question itself. - BilCat (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

• Back to the matter at hand, is there a consensus to impose an interaction ban on BilCat and MickMacNee? I would propose something along the lines of:

BilCat (talk · contribs) and MickMacNee (talk · contribs) are prohibited from interacting with or commenting on one another at any venue on Misplaced Pages and from editing each other's user talk pages for an indefinite period of time.

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support, this is indeed agreeable & beneifical to the 2 editors-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, not that there are not issues; interaction bans do not work. I'm more interested in the RfC/U I saw referred to above. Jack Merridew 16:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Given that Arbcom were split on whether they should review Mick's behaviour and the removal of the block its a much bigger issue than an interaction ban. I understand an RfC is being raised per the Armcom discussion, so its best to move things there when its set up. The responses and the language above are indicative of a much wider issue. --Snowded 16:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support, keep them apart if they are unable to resist their attraction, interaction bans do seem to work. The RFC is a rumor and even if created will only address the issues with one side of the dispute, this is a good start. Off2riorob (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment There has already been a RFC which raised issues with MickMacNee's editing - Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Mjroots. I can confirm that a RFC about MickMacNee is not rumour, it will happen soon; although I'd rather be spending my time editing articles on Misplaced Pages. Mjroots (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Support non-rumour ;) free tickets. Jack Merridew 19:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support If another RFC is to be pursued, pursue it by all means. But this is a sensible solution to stop obvious problems between two editors. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm already under a restricition to not post on Mick's talk page (ANI notices excepted), and to limit direct interaction elsewhere. I've already agreed to not engage in indirect interaction until an RFC/U is filed and processed. What happens after that depends on the result of the RFC/U or similar community or ARBCOM action. I can't see limiting such appeals to once every six months, especially if an appeal is denied with comments that it be restructured and re-submitted. Further, what is the course of appeal if one of us violates these restrictions, sicn those would not be an RFC/U issue, as I understand it? These arer serious questions. - BilCat (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Then you need to understand what several users are telling you: this is not good enough and we don't find this assurance credible after seeing what has happened here.
    • The limitation on appeals is to ensure this supervision isn't moving from one venue to the appeals venues; it's to prevent any of you making excuses to interact with one another. We don't want to have to keep supervising the three of you. Should it come to the point that an appeal needs to be restructured and re-submitted as a matter of priority, the Community will amend the restriction so that you may make an extra appeal, as a one-off, to satisfy this requirement (but frankly, it is unlikely to be an issue). This is an interim measure and if either you, Mjroots or MickMacNee are unable to comply with the restriction, you would be blocked. An administrator could have blocked all of you based on the above incident; instead, we're trying this measure as a last resort before those more serious remedies. This will enable the constructive contributions from the three of you - that is, the contributions where you are not directly or indirectly interacting with MickMacNee, and the contributions where MickMacNee is not directly or indirectly interacting with you. The Community or ArbCom will amend the restriction as necessary (be it temporarily or as a long term measure) based on where the matter is at. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support interaction ban as it deals with the issue at hand without prejudice to possibly examining or RFCing other issues--Cailil 22:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support sounds like a good idea. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Not likely to work and is more likely going to lead to frustrations wish could be taken out on other editors. Best to wait for the RfC. Bjmullan (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The aggressive nature of the interaction is the issue and asking all parties to simply ignore each other's actions even if they are egregious is bound to be unproductive. The ongoing tendentious editing of one editor should trigger an immediate RFC and the community's resolve to follow through on positive measures to end that type of behaviour. FWiW, I realize my comments will now create a chain of voluminous debate/denial/effrontery, so be it... Bzuk (talk) 06:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC).

Skitole7

• Skitole7 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• Banyamubeta (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• BMB LU (AfD discussion)

User:Skitole7 has seen fit to create BMB LU, an article which is going to be speedied (and may be a recreation of deleted BMB Lee, and seems to think this is Uncyclopedia, given the tone of the article written, the wholly fake sources, and the user's flippant attitude towards proper editing protocol. The user is clearly not interested in improving WP, so I ask that the account be CU'ed for socks and indef blocked. MSJapan (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• I should also have added that BMB LU, BMB Lee, and Banya Mu Beta should be salted. MSJapan (talk) 07:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Sometimes students writing silly articles about themselves can be turned around into productive editors. All deleted contributions precede the AFD discussion. Maybe the person now understands from experience that we don't want such silliness here. Any action taken here should really be predicated upon further silliness, I think. Uncle G (talk) 10:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • They can, but I have a difficult time believing that when: a) the SPA activity on this topic goes back to July (as evidenced by User:Banyamubeta above, whom I did not even know about - good catch), b) the user refuses to act maturely or communicate properly regarding the matter, c) when the article is created three times in six months (and twice in two days), despite being deleted all three times with clear rationale, d) when said article is nonsense and has false sources, and e) when the author removes the AfD templates from the articles. I would say that instance 2 was "further silliness", instance 3 was "still further silliness", the wholly fake article is indicative of intent to insert garbage, and the exchanges on AfD and his Talk page (his response to my statement to read policies first was "But President Obama approves!") are further evidence of a lack of wanting to be a productive editor. He had that chance back in July when he created the article (the first time it was deleted). He had another chance to do so when it was deleted a second time, and yet another chance by responding appropriately to the information he was given regarding what is appropriate for WP. I think that by not doing something about this now, we are tacitly allowing a problem to occur in the future when we have been clearly forewarned on two occasions (as I'm going to let the July one go in this instance) that it will happen again. MSJapan (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

88.104.199.57 vandalism of article Glasvegas‎

Can someone please block this account. Repeated vandalism at Glasvegas‎. Bjmullan (talk) 10:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Now blocked by User:Gwen Gale. Thanks. Bjmullan (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It's been issued a short block for vandalism, 3RR violation, and posting its non-notable self-portrait in the article. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 10:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL Bjmullan (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Block evaded with ease. EL EM EH OH, that was LAME, Bugs. ترجمة عربية (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) BLOCKED with ease. See'ya~! --Dave 11:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocke evader blocked with ease. It only took 2 minutes. - BilCat (talk) 11:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

If anyone cares, his fake user ID apparently means "Translate Arabic". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I wonder what the Arabic is for, "He gawn, bye-bye." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The transliteration of something close to that in everyday spoken Arabic would be kalas!. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow. So if Harry Kalas were to have adopted Hawk Harrelson's strikeouts catchphrase, he could have simply invoked his own last name!

Speaking of names, I'm thinking to change my own signature to البيسبول البق, which according to Google translate is my ID in Arabic. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat at User talk:Toomanywordstoolittletime

Toomanywordstoolittletime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user got in trouble a few days ago for adding links to the website 60second Recap, about which he or she has also written the article. After WuhWuzDat (talk · contribs) warned Toomanywordstoolittletime for adding spam links, Toomanywordstoolittletime called these remarks slander. I cautioned the user about the use of legal terms such as this, and in response, Toomanywordstoolittletime has proceeded to make a more explicit claim of slander, and move comfortably into the territory of legal threats by mentioning the possibility of getting his or her lawyer to send a cease and desist letter. Note that this relates not only to the use of the word "spammer", but also to the user's contention that he or she still owns the copyright to the content in 60second Recap.  -- Lear's Fool 11:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Did he use copyrighted material to make the aricle, or did he write new material for the article that he now claims is his? Those are two different things. If the article has verbatim matrial from a copyrighted site, then that should be removed, but the article itslef can remain if it's rewritten to avoid copyvios. - BilCat (talk) 11:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is, they claim to hold ongoing copyright to their own contributions here, the terms of use not withstanding. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Gwen Gale is correct. I'm not sure whether anything more needs to be done, now that they've been blocked, is there any need to alert OTRS?  -- Lear's Fool 11:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I notice the user also created Jenny Sawyer, and then rewuested it's deletion. Should this be reviewed for posible restoration? - BilCat (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The best move might be to ask the admin who restored the 60second Recap article, to see if it qualifies. One issue with the 60second article is that others besides the author had edited it, and that complicates matters. Can't say about the Jenny article, since it's invisible to us serfs now. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Going by the contrib history, they were the only author (all other edits look like sundry cleanups, taggings) and the topic in itself, a BLP, likely doesn't meet WP:N. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I just wanted to make sure it was reviewed after we know more about the situation, especially, as a serf, I can't read it either. :) - BilCat (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There wasn't much to read, it was a BLP stub with a photo. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

User:99.90.197.244 again

The user is once again making bizarre talk page comments and disrupting the main article with pointless maintenance tags. This is the same disruptive behavior that has been ongoing since January 2010 with no sign of improvement. If you recall, in September, a WP:COMPETENCE block was proposed on ANI, and the user was eventually blocked for one month due to disruption. Now, the user has returned to the same pattern of behavior, this time on United States diplomatic cables leak, where this editor has been adding maintenance tags for no reason. When asked to engage on the talk page, this very weird discussion took place, leading me to believe that the user does not know why they decided to add a POV tag to the article four separate times but will continue adding it at their whim because they can. Could someone look into this please? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• This editor has also been conducting a slow-motion edit war on American Airlines Flight 77, insisting for some obscure reason that the article specify that passengers called from the airplane "by phone" as opposed to, presumably carrier pigeon or telepathy. At first I thought it was something Truther-related, but I tend to believe now that there's an issue of general competence. Given their response to my concerns on their talkpage, I don't think they have a clue about consensus. Acroterion _(talk) 12:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't see what's wrong with specifying "phone calls" as opposed to just "calls", which is more colloquial and could be confusing to a non-native English speaker. In fact, were they cellphone calls, or did the airplane have a built-in phone system like some airlines have or used to have? Or was it both? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • As Viritidas notes below, they know how to use scare quotes, but have refused to discuss why they believe this is a necessary measure. In the absence of any other reason, I assume there's an intention to cast aspersions on the veracity of the reported calls. I believe calls were made both by cell and by AirPhone. Acroterion _(talk) 13:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • The user is adding 'phone' in single scare quotes. Look at the page history. It isn't specified nor necessary according to the consensus of editors on the page. The passengers made calls, that's it. The user has been unilaterally inserting 'by phone' into the article against consensus since September! They were blocked for a month for the reasons listed in the report at the top of this incident. When they returned, they started up again. Since you're interested, why don't you try finding out why they are adding maintenance tags to United States diplomatic cables leak. You can even review the talk page discussion. Let me know what you discover. Viriditas (talk) 12:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I agree that a long WP:COMPETENCE block is necessary at this point. The user seems unwilling to follow our editorial guidelines, and is merely stalling discussion and improvement of a number of articles (example). NW (Talk) 12:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I can't speak to the IP's other edits, not having seen them. But if he had said that the passengers had made cell phone calls (no scare quotes), would there have been a problem? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • My goodness! Why are you all making a two month long edit war out of what seems to be a perfectly simple clarification? Just turn 'phone' into telephone and you're done in one edit. You could have been done in one edit back in September. Uncle G (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I think it could use some clarification, but it certainly doesn't need the scare quotes. I might just do that, if I can find the right reference. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Not needed, as it already says phone calls in the body of the article. No hay problema. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Baseball bugs apparent bias against non-admins

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

WP:AIV

I was helping admins at AIV when suddenly along comes these 2 edits both with a summary of "you are not an admin". I left them a note to which they have since replied. Last time I checked this user was not an admin either... Anyone care to offer some insight? Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 12:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's more he's pointing out that admins make the calls on blocking or not blocking (is this true? not sure, experienced users might be okay to remove obvious inappropriate reports from AIV). I don't think "bias" is really evident here. S.G. _ping! 12:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I'm sure the user meant well, but obvious socks and impostors don't need "warnings", and in fact they had already been informed that they had been found out. It's up to the admin to make a judgment decision on whether to block a user based on the situation, not just on some letter of the guidelines. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Another way to look at it is that Bart should have looked a little more closely at the situation himself instead of blindly posting those cautions. But I would like to hear what admins think about this, as I don't think I've run into this before. Normally the one doing the undercutting on AIV is the vandal itself, not another regular editor. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if you stop posting for a little while one can get a word in... Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 12:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I think Bart may have felt a bit... bitten. If I'd seen a need to do anything, I might have left an ES more along the lines of "let an admin do this, pls." GF editors tend to learn new stuff about WP every day they edit. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it appropriate for non-admins to be undercutting AIV reports that way? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't undercutting. I was (and still am) helping the admins deal with the backlog. Correct me if i'm wrong; but AFAIK there is nothing wrong with doing that! Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 12:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Bart was only trying to help by copy-pasting something LvHU had posted above those reports and which he thought also fit the ones below, with some tweaking. Bart, more often than not, it's more helpful to leave those tasks up to admins, given the page is called Administrator intervention against vandalism. Sometimes, that page can look backlogged when it's not. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The admins are perfectly capable of determining whether the user has been adequately warned or not. And it's their judgment to make. By posting that way, you're giving the impression that you yourself are an admin (which I had to go check first, though I thought it unlikely). And FYI, you're technically right about the one IP, which was his only edit in the last 5 days. But it's still up to the admin. There might be a pattern of abuse there that would suggest a block is needed regardless of the warning level. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Personally, I don't see a problem with a sufficiently experienced non-admin assisting with clearing the backlog on tasks that don't specifically require admin rights. That said, I can completely see why Baseball Bugs might feel differently and so, to that extent, it doesn't seem fair (or AGF) to suggest that his actions reflect any bias against non-admins.--Korruski 13:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Bart is interested in becoming an administrator and make a request after seven edits. I think it was under his old username - User:doggie015 - Off2riorob (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Off2riorob for pointing out why I got a username change early on. (The reason I gave was so that my name had less insult potential, it was accepted with no questions asked.) Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 13:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That was almost two years ago, Off2riorob. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoa... has it really been that long... time does fly! Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 13:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with user name Doggie015? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

this might explain it. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 13:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries about a non-admin doing something non-controversial and straightforward there, I guess. I don't think Bugs was showing a bias, but rather, a GF editor felt slighted by the wording in Bugs' edit summary. Bart, before bringing something here, you might try posting to the editor's talk page first and try to learn more about what they had in mind. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

He did post on my page first, but he didn't like my answer. I apologize for my overall bluntness. Nothing personal intended. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that an admin issued a very mild rebuke to Bart's post about the IP, and that's why I say I'm sure Bart means well, but he needs to let the admins do their jobs. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, many of us have seen so many of your edits, we know you're friendly and helpful (and often funny). Keep in mind, not everyone knows that, nor would they from a pithy edit summary. It doesn't hurt, if you go into a bit more depth when someone asks you something on your TP. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Barts account has existed since 2007 but 98% of his contributions are since July 2010. Off2riorob (talk) 13:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Why are you showing this bias against me Off2riorob? I thought you were supposed to be an ArbCom candidate...? Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 13:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see as pointing out facts is any bias. Off2riorob (talk) 13:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to ANI. Unless someone can quickly show some policy breach which needs admin heed, I'd say it's beyond time to close this thread. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to close. (I would do it myself but after looking up I won't be...) Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 13:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

IP 119.155.58.245

This IP (one of many hundred self admitted avatars of a registered user who claims to have "renounced" their ID) has been making several edits without providing sourced (where required) or even edit summaries (where required) and generally doing what they feel like without regard to established procedure. The past self-admission means I know it is the same person making the edits, regardless of the IP used. But the fact that there are so many IPs, means trying to reason or discuss is rather like trying to nail pudding to the wall.

• The latest list of this IP's edits is here and said IP's talk page is here
• The talk page of the registered account is here

There is a bit of a a pattern and a history with this editor, a lot of which can be gleaned from the talk page. I can provide additional input if needed.
Anyone have any input on what, if anything, can be done?
Thanks, jasepl (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Blatant socks, possible canvassing at AFD

I submitted three articles to AfD the other day. They are

• List of American politicians convicted of crimes
• Political scandals of the United States
• List of political sex scandals in the United States

At the AfDs, Leeroy10 (talk · contribs), an account created on the 28th, immediately voted keep on all three. Leeroy10 is a blatant sockpuppet. As all three of the AfDs have now been corrupted by a sock, I suspect other active socks may have added keep votes, or the sockmaster has also voted keep. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I suspect Leeroy10 may be a sock of Richrakh (talk · contribs). They both top posted at all three AfDs , and ... , and ... and finally , and - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Leeroy10 is someone's sock. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Bring in the checkusers, and maybe start a SPI? Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, a number of regular eds have also posted keep. I think the nominator may be either unaware of BLP policy with respect to public figures, or trying to change it. DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to change a thing and I know the BLP policy. Editors can vote keep all they like, it's the sockpuppets/sockmasters I'm concerned with, poisoning the discussion and attempting to stack the vote. This thread is about socking and behavior, not whether we think the AfD is merited... Some regular editors have also voted to delete, which seems to indicate I'm not alone in my concerns. Behavioral evidence seems to point at one of the people who has worked extensively on all three of these articles, per my post supplied above. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome of the AfDs, Burpelson, you came here to bring up worries about a sock and it's a sock. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Gwen. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Leeroy10 and Richrakh are  Unlikely to be related at the moment. The only similarity besides MO are locations, but it's a very busy metropolitan area, so even that doesn't say much. –MuZemike 18:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into that. Mind, I didn't say it was Richrakh's sock. I haven't blocked because neither the AfDs nor the project are hanging over the edge on this and I'm waiting to see what happens next. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oops, I just finished filing the SPI... if it's not needed feel free to close it. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Please be aware though, Leeroy10 is somebody's sock. Only saying. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the SPI will be able to discover the sockmaster if it's not Richrakh. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Time may tell. Let me know if you see any other accounts which are straightforwardly socky. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Will do. In the meantime, I note that Richrakh has also openly canvassed for support in the AfDs here . - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

To "stop you"? How wonderful thrilling, how encyclopedic. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me of this Burplenson ;) (I was the one Richrakh asked for input). Yes, he perhaps should not have messaged me for support; I will explain to him why this is considered inappropriate and that should probably be enough. Given I am the only one he has asked for help I think AGF means it is a legit request for help and there was no obvious attempt to canvas - hopefully a talk page reply from me will end that as a matter --Errant 21:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic screed

I do not understand. The conflict is not about the content, it is about her not reading it to start with. Where should I go when the administrator responsible for the article will not inform herself about the article. Several other persons in the conversation are familiar with the content, shouldn't the administrator know the subject she is administering? Have you read the discussion, and realize how the subject is being manipulated to reflect only Gwen Gale's postition?Wm5200 (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Gwen Gale does not appear to be using admin powers to maintain that position, thus it is not a question of Gwen's admin capability and doesn't belong here. As noted, if it is a question of source reliability, that should be taken to the Reliable Sources noticeboard, if it is a question about Gwen's discussion/participation (as a regular editor) behavior, that should go to Wikiquette alerts. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time. However, I doubt that you could familiarize yourself with the subject in only four minutes. I am trying to be polite. Joach and Kershaw (along with several other noted authors referenced in discussion) cast doubt on the "Russian Autopsy" in general and Lev Bezymenski's book in specific, yet Gwen Gale will not entertain such a thought, on 11 November she still is using an almost universally discredited "Russian Autopsy" as fact. I do not see how she is qualified to administer the discussion. Anyone who will read Kershaw's two footnotes will see the problems with her position. We are not disputing Kershaw, she won't even read him!Wm5200 (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You are confused about how Misplaced Pages works, Wm5200. There is no "administrator responsible for the article". Agreement regarding content disputes is reached by consensus on the talk page of the article. The role of administrators is to enforce Misplaced Pages's agreed policies. David Biddulph (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

David is correct, Wm5200, but he understates your apparent misunderstanding. Not only is there no "administrator responsible for the article", you have not had an administrator "assigned to you" and no such assignments exist. Furthermore, no editor can demand that another editor carry out a reading assignment before editing or engaging in discussion, thus your view on what "should be required reading" is of no particular consequence. Right now you are engaged in a content dispute and a dispute over the reliability of a source, which is not what this noticeboard is for. In addition to the other avenues of dispute resolution, one of the two of you may wish to seek assistance at WP:FTN. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Admin’s volunteer for article? Does this mean that she is not assigned me, also? An admin is responsible for policy only? She appears to be controling not only policy but content as well. The apparent problem is that she is not as informed as others in the discussion. Possible solution other admin’s to look in on article? The article is not terribly attractive, there are editors, not effective admin. I am also part of problem, need way out. Thank you.Wm5200 (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely right; that's what Steven just told you; an admin is not "assigned" to an individual editor. You say "I am also part of problem, need way out"; your way out is to accept the consensus reached by other editors, or otherwise to follow the processes defined in WP:DR. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There was a time lag between Steven and I. I do not dispute the consensus between the editors. I have the utmost respect for Kierzek and Farawayman. Their two days work was masterful, and greatly improved the article. I dispute Gwen Gale as an admin using her power to influence the editing, which is beyond her base of knowledge. She is beyond policy, and into content.

This is a good exit, though. I have stated my concerns, you will do with them as you wish. This is the fairest venue I’m going to find inside Wiki.Wm5200 (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I have read that talk page and it seems to me that excellent and detailed work was done by the editors in analysing what the sources actually say. The page was entirely civil and hard working until the entry of Gwen Gale when she and the other editors seemed to rub each other up the wrong way somehow. But Wm5200 - as has been said above, you have misunderstood how wiki works in this regard. Gwen was not there as an admin - just an editor, giving her view on the talkpage as she is entitled to do as much as any other editor. Admins have no superior position or powers when it comes to writing articles. Their job as admins is to try and keep wiki clean, as it were, for content editors to create the encyclopaedia. Beyond that they are editors like everyone else. I note that all of your edits have been to the talkpage. I applaud the process of trying to work out the best summary of the many sources in a controversial area on the talkpage, but you are as entitled as anyone else is to actually edit the articles. There are no ranks here.Fainites scribs 20:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't seem to be able to find the talk:death of hitler discussion prior to 20 September. Have I misplaced the archives? Thank you.Wm5200 (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Where are the "Talk: Death of Adolf Hitler" posts between 8 August and 20 September?Wm5200 (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

An IP made a vandalism edit that had the effect of hiding those comments. I've reverted and it seems fine now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Does that seem suspicious to anyone else? That discussion directly relating to this thread was vandalized? Or do you think I am being paranoid? Thank you Ken.Wm5200 (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You people are lamer than the League of Nations. You all know what is going on, but none have the guts to oppose her. Not one of your own friends. Better block me instead. Wm5200 (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Who is "her"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait, you mean Gwen Gale is the IP who made that edit? No freakin' way. I may have disagreed with Gwen Gale on some things in the past, but there's no way that I can see her doing something like that. Your paranoia (and lack of Wiki-sense) is showing. Come back when you have a clue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"Wiki-sense"? Are you jolking? Still, I suppose it's more fun to live in your delusional world than my sometimes paranoid one. Who told you about clues, you certainly don't recognize them when you see them. "Not one of your own friends. Better block me instead."Wm5200 (talk) 09:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

User:CBM, a case of WP:WIKIHOUNDING

Ever since I replaced <references /> with {{Reflist}} on Feynman point back in January (which BTW led to this discussion), User:CBM is tracking my edits, and reverts all in which I replace <references /> with {{Reflist}}, or {{Reflist}} with {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} (Recent examples: , , , led to , , , , and there are literally thousands of other articles). I know there is no Wiki guideline on whether {{Reflist}} is recommended or not, and I know WP:WIKIHOUNDING is not a rule violation per se, but this is getting ridiculous. Could someone please tell him to stop that? —bender235 (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

CBM has been notified. Favonian (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Bender235 is aware that our guiding principle is to not change the established style of an article, but he continues to change reference styles at his own whim. His changes are not limited to articles he is actively editing. Instead, he seems to go through random lists of articles he has never edited before, changing styles as he goes.

The most succinct response I ever received from Bender235 about this was, "That is a dumb rule I deliberately chose to ignore." I am not the only person who has pointed out to Bender235 that this type of edit is inappropriate; see and .

In any case, the underlying point here is that as long as he's permitted to make such "bold" edits, others have to be free to undo them – that's the reason that BRD works at all. The changes are not supported by any guideline; they actually go against WP:CITE's recommendation to preserve the established style. Moreover, common sense says that if there was actually consensus that <references/> should be replaced by {{reflist}} everywhere, a bot would already have done it.

I have been contributing recently at Template talk:Reflist to establish a general consensus about the right template usage, which I hope will establish more clearly whether there is a need to change the template invocations. It would be reasonable for Bender235 to stop making these changes until that discussion is settled, but he hasn't done so. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Implementing {{Reflist}} or adding that "colwidth" parameter is not "changing the established style". It is an improvement of the existing article, adding a feature that did not exist when the article was created (i.e., when its "style was established"). So by doing what I did in all those articles was following Misplaced Pages's one basic rule, that says "If you see something that can be improved, improve it!". In my opinion, and seemingly everyone's opinion except for CBM's, {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} is an improvement compared to {{Reflist}} (and <references />, for that matter).

By the way, I've been roaming Misplaced Pages for almost 6 years, fixing minor errors on thousands of articles I had "never edited before". I didn't know I needed CBM's permission to do that. —bender235 (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The point of WP:CITE is that you should not make stylistic changes simply because you feel they are an improvement. People have discussed these templates before, and the reason that {{reflist}} is not mandatory is that there was not agreement that it should be; the same is true for the particular parameters to the template. If the change was clearly an improvement, there would be consensus for it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is reasonable. However, I would suggest that tracking and reverting edits like that is definitely a big no-no. The point of the policy you cite is to avoid pointless style disputes. If you are following Bender235 to articles purely to revert to a style (which you openly preferred) that's not really helping the matter. If he is widely making this change then address it with him (which I see has been done) then bring it to a wider forum for review. If the community says no, I imageing (AGF) that Bender235 will stop. On the issue of that policy; I've always considered the spirit of the policy to be about avoiding dispute amongst the articles contributors. Where such a change is uncontested (and so long as it is not part of a wide scale attempt to change massive numbers of articles) it should simply be taken as acceptable. --Errant 18:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the cited example where Bender235 doesn't actually add {{reflist}} but instead modifies the column width and then you turn to <references /> is an example why tracking edits like this w/o community input doesn't work. Because you accidentally violated the policy you're citing --Errant 19:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

So are we ever allowed to change the reference style? Does the person who adds the reference section first get to dictate how they are presented for all eternity? AniMate 19:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The principle at WP:CITE is that editors should respect the established style. Now if there was a change in the middle of a lot of editing, for example to make the article a GA, I wouldn't complain. But Bender235 is simply going randomly from one article to another changing the reference style. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

So the only objections to his changing of the reference styles are from people who don't think reference styles should ever be changed? From what I can see, there don't seem to be many (any?) objections from people who regularly edit the articles in question, but rather the objections come from self-appointed citation police. Apparently the objections are based on principle rather than any actual objections to the change of style, and in the absence of any objections beyond rules-lawyering, this is dumb and I'd ignore it too. AniMate 20:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, a large number of people have come to Template talk:reflist to complain about changes to the way that columns are displayed. One of the common changes that Bender235 makes is to change from a fixed column count to a flexible one. It seems, based on the discussion on the template talk page, that a consensus is forming against that change. So this is not just a matter of principle, although the principle alone is already enough to make the edits inappropriate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

AniMate, you're right. CBM is the only one objecting the move from <references /> with {{Reflist}}. On most articles I fixed, other people actually reverted CBM's revert (e.g., ). Like I said, this is getting ridiculous. I have idea why CBM is acting like this. —bender235 (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

@Errant: I have taken it up with Bender235, as have others; see the diffs I provided. He simply ignores it when people point out his edits are inappropriate. So I have instead been discussing things at Template talk:reflist to try to find out what the actual consensus on the matter is. But in the meantime as long as Bender235 is making "bold" edits, anyone is free to undo them. I will check the diffs more carefully in the future to avoid the mistake you pointed out. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion but, Carl, this one is for me obvious that reflist is much better. They are 12 references there. I am not sure if there is any policy on the number of references the page much have to use reflist but I usually use when they are many. As I wrote before, I don't have strong opinion on the subject I just made a comment of this certain edit. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no policy about it; if there was, a bot would probably have already made the change, and AWB would also make the change as part of general fixes. The reason that these things are not done already is that, in the past at least, there was never consensus for the change. After this thread was opened, though, I started a thread at WP:VPR about whether to go through and change the remaining <reflerences/> invocations. Maybe that will lead to a new consensus that will let AWB handle it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

CBM; I appreciate that you have tried to address this (I did mention that in my first post). But I think the point is that the next avenue is to bring it here and get community input on whether Bender235 can continue to make these edits (as a separate issue from whether it is a good idea or not) - if the community says no then it becomes appropriate to take the action you did. Basically what I am saying is that finding these edits to revert presents a number of problems - one example being highlighted. In addition it is somewhat against the spirit and word of the policy which indicates that citation format should be kept to avoid changing article level convention and cause unnecessary dispute. The insinuation being; it is a policy that regular page editors can cite if Bender235 comes in and makes these changes. I'm waffling, but you get my point. Perhaps some form of proposal here on AN/I now about stopping these actions in the short term and see how much support that gets? --Errant 21:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to propose that Bender235 and I both stop until a clear consensus is established. That seems like a good-faith resolution. If there is indeed a consensus for changing all instances of <references/> to {{reflist}}, it should become apparent pretty soon on the thread I started on WP:VPR, and I'll be happy to abide by it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Who determines whether there is consensus to use {{Reflist}} instead of <references />? And hasn't this consensus de facto been established already, since {{Reflist}} is implemented in almost 1.7 million articles? —bender235 (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd recommend you participate in the village pump thread. So far, the trend seems to be that people support changing the CSS for <references/> instead of replacing <references> with {{reflist}}. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment: AWB doesn't change references to reflist. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware. I take that as strong evidence that there was not consensus to make the change globally, since AWB devs are usually on top of these things. However, if the style issue is resolved (by making <references/> have the same style as {{reflist}}) then the change could be added to AWB, like a template replacement, if people wanted to. That's all I was saying. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I routinely replace <references /> with {{Reflist}} whenever I am editing the article for some other reason. Does this mean I should not? Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Not IMO. I do the same and consider it appropriate. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering if CBM finally recognizes the consensus here. —bender235 (talk) 02:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't have been changing the font size without consensus, especially on large numbers of articles. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

@Bender: you see what I mean? In any case, I will watch the VPR discussion very closely, since I think it will help clarify the issue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

WikipediaExperts

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

Guys, let's please not bring this up again so soon. ArbCom can't do anything; we'll need to wait for policy dealing with paid editing. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

In user:Alpha_Quadrant's irc channel, he posted a website which allows users to pay $99 to get their atricle into wikipedia. WikipediaExperts.com has to have users here on Misplaced Pages and I am sure there will be sock accounts as well. Can we get a check for them? The ip from Whois says the IP for the site is 173.230.132.153.

Thanks - Sophie 20:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this, if this were to happen and bussinesses start using Misplaced Pages for profit it would essentially undermine Misplaced Pages's founding purpose. --Alpha Quadrant 20:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

All the other issues surrounding this aside, it's really, really unlikely that you're going to be able to turn up any socks using the IP address of the Web site. The company would have to go to unusual, special effort to make their paid editors turn up from the Web site's address block rather than, say, the cable company dynamic IPs of the home Internet connections they probably edit from, or the company's business Internet access IPs (if they have them). The Web site's address block is that of their network service provider (Linode) and wouldn't typically be used for editing. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Should this be forwarded to ARBCOM or the foundation? Or are we just gonna play whack-a-mole as they crop up? I can see this becoming a major issue. Heiro

doing so Sophie 20:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It might also be worth looking into Linode's terms of service and seeing if there's anything there that would justify a complaint to Linode on that basis. The absence of a Misplaced Pages policy on paid editing makes that somewhat unlikely, though. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

On what basis would such a complaint be made? If company A is paying person B to volunteer at site C, where's the violation? Jclemens (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This has already been discussed to death. – iridescent 20:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It is now in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#WikipediaExperts - Sophie 20:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

So do we take it on an article by article basis, and keep track of the editors verified as being their employees? Maybe we ask as a courtesy that they put a disclaimer of some sort on their user page acknowledging their paid status? Heiro 20:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Isnt that what a role account is? Sophie 20:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Never came across that before, do you mean this ? Doesnt seem to be approved.Heiro 20:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:ROLE - Sophie 20:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• This has already been discussed here (and Iridescent beats me to it). The general consensus is that it's not that big of a deal and that we should just treat it as editors editing under a COI, which, in itself, does not mean that they will make bad edits. It just means we have to watch them more carefully, but their FAQ seems to suggest that they will do their best to make articles that comply with our policies. If they indeed do so, then there isn't a problem here. If people are able to get paid to make articles that fit under our policies, then good for them. I would enjoy that being my job. Silverseren 20:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Both Silver seren and Iridescent beat me to it. So I'll point to the Project:Paid editing (guideline)/Noticeboard instead, which was also mentioned on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard. I think that, between the three of us, we've left Rd232 with nothing to say. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Almost :) - I'd add that the issue of whether Misplaced Pages:Paid editing (guideline) is ever going to move beyond a proposal or be marked as {{failed}} should really be resolved. This could be given some momentum by those who have a particular interest in the subject but haven't yet participated there. Rd232 22:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

User Heitor C. Jorge calling others' edits edits "vandalism".

User Heitor C. Jorge likes to misconstrue other people's edits as "vandalism":

etc.

Can an admin please explain him what is and what is not vandalism, why the above reversions haven't to do with vandalism, and please make him stop this kind of behaviour? Thanks in advance. Ninguém (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Subject of discussion notified: Ninguém (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• After looking at half a dozen of the diffs, I'm inclined to agree with Ninguem. Good faith is to be assumed, and the changes reverted by Heitor appear to be good-faith efforts to improve the articles. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I have written a little note on their talk page. --Diannaa 06:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Bad block of User talk:80.189.151.45

This user, User talk:80.189.151.45, only vandalized twice (editing tests) and then was reverted and warned a couple more times for good-faith edits by ClueBot NG and another editor. He was then blocked. I am requesting that he be unblocked because he did not vandalize enough to warrent a block. (Obviously, the blocking admin saw four warnings before User:PamD removed the inappropriate templates. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Support unblock Looks like the bot mucked up. It does happen. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocking admin has been notified of discussion. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment - PamD struck the templates and explained why they were mistaken. Unfortunately, CluBot does not have the ability to see this, so issued escalating warnings and then made a report to AIV. I have raised this problem with the ClueBot operators, and I blanked the incorrect templates, as advised by the bot operators. I did also comment on the IP talk page that I felt the block was wrong, but it is not clear if the blocking admin has the talk page on his watchlist. I'll drop him a line to tell him about this thread (if he's not been told already). DuncanHill (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked and explanation/apology left. I assume Edgar won't mind my doing so without his OK; if I'm wrong, then I'll apologize for that too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Aye, AIV admins should note they shouldn't automatically assume that Cluebot reversions are of vandalism, I've noticed a few false positives recently. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. DuncanHill (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Incivility, threats and outing by DinDraithou ; similar incivility and outing by ReidarM

This two editors have engaged in a growing joint attack on the character and integrity of an article's subject Francis Martin O'Donnell and this editor Max Kaertner. The latest in this was an expletive (some fucking lunatic) used to describe me, after his threats to alert a commission or association about the family of Francis Martin O'Donnell: . Please see also , and the recent traffic they have generated after a highly offensive remark by an unidentified user: 113.190.132.229, at 06.45 on 26 November 2010. This has all the hallmarks of a vicious witch-hunt. My efforts to provide verifiable sources and disprove their prejudicial statements have been ignored. Max Kaertner (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Having just seen something very alarming, true or not I will not be contacting any commissions or nobiliary associations. All of this I am completely letting go. Hopefully Max/Seneschally is a good person who just doesn't have the best command of his sources yet, and this is all a misunderstanding. Also I don't think he should be banned for having two accounts and just needs to pick one. As far as Francis Martin O'Donnell, I gave him the benefit of the doubt once and am happy to again. Whatever problems there may be he seems to have done some fine work and deserves credit for this. DinDraithou (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Max, Please accept my apologies if I have been threatening and incivil, and let me know where I acted in such a way. Reading your post here, I understand you feel hurt - again, please rest assured that was not my intention. Yet, I would have appreciated if you had alerted me to this issue on my talk page, citing what you think I did wrong, and give me a chance to resolve this before you post to the admin noticeboard. ReidarM (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Odd editing at Classical liberalism

I'd appreciate an admin's opinion on an edit war going on at Classical liberalism. Last night I noticed Learn From It (talk · contribs) making a change to the article. I looked, and it seems that the editor is an SPA, and has been adding material to the page for some time without discussion that other editors have removed completely. I reverted the newest addition, which was also reverted twice before, and asked the editor to please begin a discussion on the talk page . He reverted twice more and told me to "discuss or butt out."

The new addition was reverted this morning by another editor, which was then reverted by Bullet Dropper (talk · contribs) . After looking at his contributions (and block log ), Bullet Dropper certainly appears to be a similar SPA, and has been blocked for edit warring on the same article for inserting the same material before. BD was dormant for six weeks until LFI reached the 3RR limit on the article.

I have no stake in the article at all, but it certainly seems like two SPA accounts reaching the same place at the same time are working together to keep from edit warring. If an admin would give this one a quick glance, it would be greatly appreciated. Dayewalker (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well isn't that interesting. What an amazing coincidence! LOL. Bullet Dropper (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That attitude will get you nowhere very quickly...I suggest taking a different tone, and would do so soon if I were you. Ks0stm 02:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Why? It's just ridiculous. Bullet Dropper (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

BulletDropper used a confirmed sock, User:Rapidosity It seems likely that this new account is another sock. TFD (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Rapidosity is my old account. Bullet Dropper (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Rapidosity is a confirmed sock, as well, see it's block log. Ks0stm 03:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...it seems that connection was already made in the diff above...=P It's just been one of those days. Ks0stm 03:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking through the history of Learn From It (talk · contribs) and Bullet Dropper (talk · contribs), they look like socks to me. A move to sock puppet investigation is probably appropriate here. LK (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been through this farce before. It was claimed I was some other user(s) and order to try to keep me from making an edit, then it was found out it was different people. And I never even received an apology for the block. I suggest this time the checking up be done BEFORE blocking me. What this looks like to me is some people who are friends alerting each other to come in to prevent changes from being made to the article by any means possible. Probably some kind of alliance. Why else are people coming in that never edit that article mysteriously appear to delete an edit without giving any reason the deletion other than that someone else didn't want it there? I want to see substantial reasons why they don't want the information there. Another user put a sourced item in there, and the other was just the extension of a quote. Bullet Dropper (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I have now filed a report at SPI. I suggest that this discussion thread be closed and any further comments be posted there. TFD (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

William S. Saturn at Fort Hood shooting

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

Resolved

Ever since the early days of the Fort Hood shooting article, William S. Saturn (talk · contribs) has been attempting to label the incident as 'terrorism'. He has also been consistently trying to insert the article into List of terrorist incidents, 2009 article. Today, I reverted his latest attempts, in the absence of any significant breakthrough as to its classification, and it seems to have set off an edit war. What's more, he angrily accused me firstly of POV-pushing, and then he brazenly removed my comment, inserting a personal attack against me in its place. --Ohconfucius 03:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I have been under the impression that this incident was called domestic terrorism by major media outlets,such as this one. Am I wrong? Whatever concerns you have about his style, if the result is obviously correct, it seems odd to sanction him. One tactic that may help would be to say who called the incident terrorism. Using the source I just gave, "The US government has called the shootings an act of terrorism." Jehochman 03:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Jehochman. The shooting was (domestic) terrorism. Reliable sources referencing terrorism here, here, here, and here. Let's deal with the personal attack issue here, and maybe the reversion, as incidents requiring the attention of administrators. However, the content should be clear. Thank you to the administrators handling these issues. Saebvn (talk) 03:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be a bit each way. Reverting without edit summaries () rarely helps to resolve a dispute (I hope rollback wasn't used); the "personal attack" is inadvisable but mild; and I would AGF that the removal of the comment was accidental (it happens often). --Mkativerata (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• With respect, the edit summary clearly said "revert censorship", which would indicate he had deliberately intended to remove my comments outright. That in itself was objectionable, without even mentioning him deliberately referring to me as "OHConfused". --Ohconfucius 04:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yes you're right, in light of that edit summary it is hard to say the removal was accidental. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Actually, if you look, it seems as if you accidentally removed his comment first in what may have been an edit conflict, and then William must have thought it was on purpose and just reverted you. Dave Dial (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• I can assure you that had maybe 3 ec's whilst making that comment, but did not knowingly overwrite him. Having said that, bearing in mind the most deliberate and offensive comment, I guess yes, he may have assumed that I removed his scurrilous attack. --Ohconfucius 04:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• And as for the apparent lack of edit summary, two things: This has been going on for months, but each time he would back off after others agreed with me, so he would know perfectly well what I was on about, and I would know that he knew; secondly, I did explain in one of the two reverts of his. --Ohconfucius 04:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Is there any "consensus" on this matter? Re edit summaries: not using edit summaries when reverting is very unhelpful - it indicates to the other side (and neutral observers) that you don't have any desire to engage in discussion.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'd be inclined to say that if two reverts were related and directed at the same editor, then one edit summary might suffice. Two would probably have been better in retrospect. --Ohconfucius 04:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• It's no big deal: the point I'm making being that there were reversions on either side that didn't need to happen. If there isn't a clear existing consensus, it's hard to say one party is at fault and the other isn't. If there's no such consensus I'd normally suggest protecting the article while DR and consensus-building mechanisms are pursued, but I don't think protection is viable here because (a) it would be overkill to protect the list article because of a dispute over one entry; and (b) the Fort Hood article is too prominent and frequently edited to warrant lockdown over this dispute. So I'd hope that those DR options can be pursued without the need for administrative action - there have been some very helpful suggestions in this thread alone.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for that interesting report, which I haven't seen. I have been following the evolution of the article, and strange as it may seem, this point has not made it there, nor was the article used at all in Fort Hood shooting, nor in 2009 Terrorism, let alone be used as the basis of arguing that it was indeed a terrorist attack. Instead, sources cited and argued with included the habitual mix of soundbytes and political posturing. Thus the article is arguably out of date, and since January, it would seem. Saturn has been testosterone-charged since well before that, in fact since the shooting occurred. I still believe I have been wronged by that uncivil and most scurrilous attack, but if you say it was a good faith or otherwise correct response to my removal, then I can only disagree with that as faulty judgement. --Ohconfucius 03:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• FYI, we were here a year ago for the same exact issue. Tarc (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought that sounded familiar. Single-minded, innhe? HalfShadow 04:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

People tend to bring up things again when they don't get the result they believe to be correct. WP:CCC is really a license for periodic revisiting. As far as I'm concerned, if it was called domestic terrorism in at least one reliable source, it goes in. If there's a disagreement between RSes over whether it's terrorism or not (one or more calls it terrorism, one or more calls it not terrorism), we cover the debate in an NPOV manner. Jclemens (talk) 04:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything Jclemens said. Except for his spelling of "RSs".--Epeefleche (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but its easier with content and a bit trickier when trying to categorise in an NPOV way. --Ohconfucius 05:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• We've kissed and made up, so I guess you can mark this thread as 'resolved'. Thanks to all. --Ohconfucius 05:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • So it shall be written, so it shall be  Done. --Jayron32 07:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

editor assuming bad fatih

looking for some help with an editor i am working with on an article who has a habit of automatically assuming bad faith and making unfounded accusations; all contributing to a somewhat hostile editing enviroment. for instance, in this edit i am accused of "ineptly" writing the lede of the article. i didn't write the lede, i reverted it to the version that existed prior to me even editing the article. and again, in this edit, the editor removes a wikilink added by another user here and instructs me to "stop this silly linking" in the summary. i've been on the article's talk page trying to engage the user about the article, especially after they requested i do so in an edit summary, but the user didn't reply to any of my comments there. then in this edit, i attempted to show a little good faith towards the user after i had tried to fix up some of their additions by fixing refs, adding wikilinks, etc. to which the user reciprocated by removing most of the wikilinks (in other edits as well) and stating "... whilst I normally do Assume Good Faith it does rather depend on the pattern of editing by the editor concerned." i'm not looking to have Hauskalainen removed from the article or anything, just trying to get them to edit cooperatively instead of adversarially as has been the case thus far. they seem to believe disagreeing about a topic is grounds to assume bad faith with other editors and treat them with hostility. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I have left a warning on their talk page. However I will be watching both of you closely. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 05:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

*shaking in his boots* :P thanks WookieInHeat (talk) 05:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Baiting and insults by User:Binesi

the User:Binesi has been baiting and insulting me, refusing to have a constructive dialogue over disputed content.

he goaded and provoked me, saying to the effect (he didn't say these himself, but his words conveyed the meaning) of- "I don't want to edit war with you but you are an obnoxious dick" "i don't want to be enemies, Дунгане but you are totally wrong and should shut up" "I'm sorry that you see it this way but your view sucks"

His messages to me may seem concilliatory and neutral, but are extremely sarcastic in nature, claiming that he is "sorry" that we are arguing and have different views, but using insulting terms to describe me and my edits. take a look at his edits here, in which he makes thinly veiled insults veiled and disguised as friendly overtures and compliments

Binesi admits to being 208.64.63.176-Binesi admitted to being 208.64.63.176- "As you saw fit to abuse the administrative process to claim my edits where "vandalism" I have registered an account and made myself fully accountable."

208.64.63.176 was given the highest level severe warning by an admin for deliberately misrepresenting sources

i filed an ANI report which led to the warning here

When it appeared that Binesi realized his mistake, i even tried to pull back my complaint about his copyvio to an admin, but i was forced to retract it after Binesi was uncooperative

Among other edits, one of the things he did on the talk page was to falsely claim that i accused him of legal threats, and that I claimed slander was a legal threat. He provided no such diffs or evidence that I ever said such a thing. I invite him to provide evidence that i did so.

Mr. Binesi's sarcastic "concilliatory" messages to me Yes, I know you will also not understand what I just wrote. I'm wasting my time. Take care Дунгане. I'm tired of trying to empathize with you. Please have the Boxer article fixed up yourself over the next few days. I have no interest in edit wars. You will find that I can also play the rules and procedures game with you. Picking apart every paragraph in that article and comparing it to the Misplaced Pages rules and standards would become an article in itself.

By the way Дунгане, I'm not your enemy and you don't need to spend so much effort denouncing me. I am only here to try to help bring this article out of contention and fix the numerous errors that plague it. If, as you hinted you did these edits to fix a distorted anti-Chinese viewpoint that originally existed than I applaud your efforts. However I think you have gone a bit too far and focused too much and we need to bring this back to the middle and reflect each viewpoint as valid. The last editor can be the left, and you can be the right - and I will try to be the middle. Binesi (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You continue to make serious accusations against me which I continue to shoot down and then you come back with minor accusations. I see you are really on a mission. I have an alternate idea - let's try to cooperate - what do you think about this? Maybe you can make constructive criticisms on issues you feel are important and I will continue to edit areas in this article which are poorly presented and overly colored? How's that? Or would you like to make the changes yourself and "we" can all come back and revisit this in a few day? Binesi (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel this way Дунгане. I really am. However, honestly - I've stopped taking your personal attacks seriously and now find this whole thing to be more amusing than concerning. I don't mean this to belittle you, but I am not going to reply to your claims here as I already have on the Boxer Rebellion talk page and I don't want to clutter up your personal space (as I don't want you to clutter mine). But please, do give it a rest with the slander. It reads as transparently as your attempts at slanting Misplaced Pages articles do. It's more juvenile than effective.

It appears that Binesi did not even read references when he deleted content look at his comment, in which he - enters into an off topic monologue about original research, in which he totally ignores the fact that the content he deleted was referenced and not original research These were the edits in which he removed referenced information- These were the references- criticised the behaviour of the relief forces: all except the Japanese indulged in pillage and rape&dq=He criticised the behaviour of the relief forces: all except the Japanese indulged in pillage and rape&hl=en soldiers watched with amazement as western troops ran amok for three days in an orgy of looting, rape, and murder&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Japanese soldiers watched with amazement as western troops ran amok for three days in an orgy of looting, rape, and murder&f=false

In general, the tone in which he talks is sarcastic and mocking, pretending as if he is "friendly" to me and hopes to "work with me", then after insulting me more, he pretends to be "horrified" and "disgusted", with me.

I tried being nice, and explained to him exactly what was wrong with his edits, in these two comments- , but i only receieved an extremely sarcastic, insulting response

i consider this message from him to be an attempt to bait me into insulting him back- "Thanks for encouragement. I am really trying to improve this aspect of my character - remaining cool headed and neutral that is. I was fairly disgusted at first that someone would slant this article so blatantly and cherry pick from the given references fragments which suited a particular viewpoint."

We have both agreed not to touch the article in question, what i want is for a definite warning set up by an admin that anyone who accuses another of being a "Wu Mao Dang" (a term used to describe internet users paid by the Chinese communist party to insert propaganda) as ip 208.64.63.176 claimed that the article was "hijacked" by wu mao dang"

I consider it a personal attack to be accused of being affiliated with the communist party, and I also protest against Biseni's baiting ( Misplaced Pages:Bait)

WP:BAIT states that- "They may manipulate the civility policy as a weapon." "In content disputes, a common baiting strategy involves badgering the opposition—while carefully remaining superficially civil—until someone lashes out. They then complain to an administrator."

regretfully i may have taken the bait here in response to his insulting message, but i apologize for responding to his insult and next time I will report and delete such messages with responding.

It appears that Biseni is attempting to deploy this tactic against me. I request an admin promise to ban everyone, from this moment, who attempts to bait and hurl insults on the talk page of Boxer Rebellion. I know this will apply to me to and I will not use aggresive language from now on. For my part, i will not accuse people of "pro western POV", and others should not be able to bring up the straw man of the chinese communist party, especially since none of the sources in the article are chinese, and i have harshly criticized the use of Chinese government sources.

That would be like me calling for tobacco to be banned, yet another person slams me for spreading pro Tobacco POV, which makes no sense.Дунгане (talk) 08:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards