Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:52, 5 November 2008

• 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
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation

Review of A Man In Black's block of Jtrainor

A Man in Black has been in a content dispute with multiple parties over his claim of a copyvio for general information in a infobox on Gundam (mobile suit). He has threatened and followed through on blocking Jtrainor in blatant violation of our blocking policy in the following manner: You do not block those who you are involved in a content dispute with. I would suggest that Jtrainor is unblocked immediately and AMIB be reminded that you do not use the tools to gain an advantage in a content dispute and that blocking is not to be used in a purely punitive manner. There was no other dispute resolution tried other than AMIB threatening this user. Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "this is a copyvio" constitutes a content dispute. Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy, and citing "policies" will get you nowhere. Admittedly, it might have been a better idea to ask somebody else to block, but I'm not sure that an immediate unblock is warranted.

Also, it's a long-standing practice to block people who insert copyvios – it's not necessarily punitive, but deterrent (which is, of course, a legitimate preventative purpose for a block). — Werdna • talk 09:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand that he claims it is a copyvio, however, claiming that a character has blonde hair or a spaceship has laser beams does not seem to be copyvio, but simply a ploy to hide the fact that he's attempting to camouflage his violation (which is threatening to use the mop to quell dissent and gain advantage in a simple content dispute). Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a look at this. The relevant diff seems to be here. The website in question is here. The next few edits to Gundam (mobile suit) were reverts of this information about the character. One of the reverts was by Kyaa (who started this thread and should have mentioned that she was involved in this). Kyaa was carrying out the same edit as User:Jtrainor, but Jtrainor was the only one to re-add the information more than once. Presumably that is why User:A Man In Black blocked, but I need to check the user and article talk pages and the block logs, and check they've been notified. I'll do that now, as well as consider the copyvio claim. Carcharoth (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Initial follow-up: there is another article involved: MSN-03 Jagd Doga. See this diff and this website and then step through the page history from there. Kyaa mentioned this thread on Jtrainor's talk page, but didn't link to the thread, so I've left a link there, and at AMIB's talk page. Looking at the block log and contributions now to find out if this is being discussed elsewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 11:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've found another article where this dispute has erupted. See RGM-89 Jegan, where with this edit AMIB says " All of this is copyvio from mahq.net" (). The root of the dispute seems to be at Template:Infobox Mobile Suit. It seems to go back as far as November 2007. See here (compare with Infobox MS Gundam, now a redirect). There was an edit war over that infobox back in November 2007. Then things started up again a few days later with this edit and this edit ("Why do we have two infoboxes for the same thing?" - from User:TheFarix), which led to this edit by AMIB ("Because I never finished converting them to dump all the in-universe nonsense"). The diffs for that infobox from here to here seem to sum up what is happening:

• AMIB - "Dumping a bunch of unencyclopedic in-universe detail; a lot of this still needs to be retooled to better emphasize RL, but hey"
• TheFarix - "rvt; given past opposition. The fields previously removed where those suggested by proponents as unnecessary"
• AMIB - "It's still highly in-universe, unencyclopedic, and wholly unsourced"
• L-Zwei - "oh, then exclude heigh as well. I think weapons are actually more important in represent mech's characteristic"
• TheFarix - "I agree, the height and weight doesn't really tell you anything about the mecha while aremaments and special equipmenet does"
• AMIB - "It's not the most important facts about the subject as an object in the real world. If a weapon or special system is important, it's in the body of the article. If it isn't, it doesn't bear mention"
• TheFarix - "rvt; You are not going to dictate what can and cannot be included in the infobox without discussion and consensus. You don't WP:OWN this template"
• AMIB - "Offer a single non-licensed source discussing the armaments in the detail that these infoboxes go into and I'll relent"
• Jtrainor - "rv vandalism by someone who has no interest or knowledge about the subject matter and insists on inserting his version anyways against consensus"
• AMIB - "Reverted edits by Jtrainor (talk) to last version by A Man In Black"

OK. That's enough for now. I think I've uncovered enough of the history for something sensible to be decided. Hopefully AMIB and Jtrainor will add more if I missed anything. Carcharoth (talk) 11:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Missed a few. See Template talk:Infobox Mobile Suit and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Gundam. Particularly the sections Ahem (from the November 2007 dispute), and Redesign (the October 2008 dispute). At the WikiProject, we have numerous threads showing clashes between AMIB and the WikiProject. Starting from around here (June 2007). More clashes are here, here, here, here, here, here (what is the "I believe the differing parties are engaged in a resolution process occupying their attention right now" referring to - from November 2007?), and here (the latest dispute in October 2008). So what we seem to have is a long-running dispute over in-universe and possible copyvio stuff, running from at least June 2007 through July 2007, November 2007, and now October 2008. Anyone have any ideas how to handle this? What was the resolution process back in November 2007? The first "Characters and Episodes" arbitration case? Carcharoth (talk) 12:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And more to point, was the block justified? I'm not entirely convinced that the copyvio case is not debatable, but I do see a long running attempt by AMIB to clean up an in-universe area (the Gundam anime articles), along with dealing with copyright issues (non-free images and possibly character information - if that turns out to be copyrightable - see for example the note AMIB left for Kyaa ), and a long history of resistance at the WikiProject and poor interaction between AMIB and Jtrainor, culminating in the confrontational exchange here: Copyright warning by AMIB, "Why yes, please do block someone you are involved in a content dispute with. I am utterly underwhelmed by your threats." (Jtrainor), followed by "Well, okay. You're blocked for 24 hours. Please don't do that again." (AMIB). The block is due to expire 08:47 UTC, 2 November 2008, which is around 20 hours from now. No response yet from either side. I would hope AMIB manages to answer here before the block expires - someone should also keep an eye on Jtrainor's talk page for any response there. Carcharoth (talk) 12:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've seen blocks overturned, due to the block being done by "involved admins" - overturned on far flimsier grounds than this. It looks to me like AMIB simply doesn't like that info being in the article, and is using whatever reasons he can come up with, to keep it out. It looks like blatant abuse of admin power. Baseball Bugs 12:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The simple fact is that AMIB is POV pushing in template and article space. His claim that listing the armaments and other statistics of fictional elements amounts to a copyright violation is simply the latest argument he has used in order to remove these statistics. Originally, it was that the statistics overwhelm the page giving WP:UNDUE weigh to in-universe details, that they violate WP:WAF, or that no reliable third-party sources list such information. At no point has he ever sought a third opinion or any other dispute resolution procedure, instead preferring to use his administrative tools to enforce his preferred version.

If you also look at WT:GUNDAM who will see a long history of AMIB and the Gundam WikiProject bumping heads over various issues. At times, I do think that AMIB is deliberately antagonizing them. As a result, the WikiProject has lost its focus in cleaning up and improving Gundam-related articles. This is one of the reason why I've suggested that WP:ANIME absorbs WP:GUNDAM as a work group. --Farix (Talk) 12:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw that. AMIB does make some good points though. There is a point at which sourcing/copying character information from a website probably can become a copyright violation. The essential points are whether the basic elements of the information is copyrightable (probably not), and whether the information as a whole for a character, or set of characters, is copyrightable (a bit like a database copyright, but not quite the same as here we have artistic content). If Misplaced Pages is presenting the information here in the same way as it is being presented on the official websites, then we are, in effect, directly competing with them for web traffic, even if some of our readers follow the links to the sources and to the official website. It is also easier to justify including such information when it is discussed and placed in a real-world context in the main text of an article (using third-party sources) rather than just repeated verbatim as in-universe information in an infobox. One final point - it is possible for different editors, working over months and years, to separately add stuff from a source, and for the final article to end up being a copy of all the information from that source - this is a problem of unintentional "piece-by-piece" copyright violation that is peculiar to the wiki-model, and that Misplaced Pages will have to address at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 12:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

You're generously making AMIB's argument for him, whereas it would be much better if he himself would comment - if he decides it's worth bothering with, since there is currently no hint of any sanction against him. While his claim of "copyright violation" is pretty lame, it would have more credibility if he hadn't been all over the map with his previous arguments against it, which simply add up to "I don't like it". Baseball Bugs 12:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Those are actually my arguments, not AMIB's arguments (though he may agree with me). I will say that I'm not impressed with AMIB's flippant "well, OK" response to Jtrainor's "this is a content dispute". As I've laid out above, AMIB does have a long history of disputing what should go in that infobox, and in the past, AMIB has started from trying to clean up in-universe stuff, to switching to copyright stuff. He may be right in both cases, but it does feel like another stage in the same long-running dispute. AMIB is clearly heavily involved here, and should have requested a second opinion, instead of allowing Jtrainor's 'block me if you dare' comment to bait him into blocking. Carcharoth (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether AMIB has a point does not justify him enforcing that point by edit waring, blocking one editor, and threatening to block a second editor involved in the dispute. --Farix (Talk) 12:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. You've said that. I'm waiting to see what others say. I think there are two issues that need resolving here. The immediate issue of the block, and the wider issue of the long-running festering issues at the Gundam WikiProject. Carcharoth (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Update - it seems that the previous dispute resolution wasn't an arbitration case. It was a mediation. See Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/Gundam. See Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/Gundam/Archive 1. Not sure how far that got things to improve (seems to have been withdrawn when things started to improve), but it is clear that things have taken a turn for the worse again. I've also noticed that the dates of Jtrainor's other two blocks (July 2007 and November 2007) coincide with the dates of Gundam-related disputes. Unfortunately, the blocking admins did not specify the articles that were involved in the blocks. I could dig through Jtrainor's talk page history, but will drop a note off for the blocking admins as well and see what they can remember. Carcharoth (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Final update for now - there is quite a history of this on Jtrainor's talk page. See here, here, here, here, here, and here. This is a mess. Jtrainor has filed an unblock request under the latest section. See here. I have to go out now for the rest of the day, but I hope there is enough here for others to review and sort out what needs doing. As I said, it is a mess and a long-running dispute. I'll check back in the evening and see what has happened then. Carcharoth (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
    • • FYI the November 2007 blocks probably revolved primarily around Gundam Mk-II, Psyco Gundam and MSN-03 Jagd Doga (disputes over "in universe" content and sourcing) and Jean Carry Talia Gladys (along with all the other characters in the ZAFT / OMNI / PLANT alliances) re: copyright material. GundamsЯus (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
        • For what it's worth, I was also blocked my A Man In Black (my first block on Misplaced Pages) over almost the same thing, though things were more civil back then. I had hoped that that big mediation process we went through with AGK had resolved some disputes, but obviously that is not the case. This is an old issue. MalikCarr (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Addendum, interested parties ought to review Jtrainor's unblock appeal, in which interesting and relevant points are made on the topic of copyright violation. See here. This issue has also been addressed before, wherein some consensus was gained and to which A Man In Black was opposed to, in the infobox template's talk page which has been previously addressed above. MalikCarr (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The request for mediation on Gundam was exclusively for edit warring on in-universe-like items in one of the Gundam infoboxes. At its worst, they were repeatedly reverting each other without discussion. Then they seemed to be getting better at talking more than reverting, and so I didn't think mediation needed to be pursued. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This is very similar, except what AMIB is saying is not just that they are in-universe, but that they are copyright violations as well. I haven't looked closely enough into this 18-month-long dispute to work out when the copyright concerns first surfaced (a few days ago, six months ago, a year ago?). Hopefully AMIB will turn up and clarify that. There have been more developments on Jtrainor's talk page, by the way. Carcharoth (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I do have a question. If Jtrainor is going to remained block for edit waring, should AMIB also be blocked for the same violation? --Farix (Talk) 20:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be punitive and unhelpful. A warning would be justified if consensus finds that AMIB did anything wrong. I personally would warn him not to block in cases like this where he has a long history of clashing with Jtrainor. If someone wants me to explicitly put that on his talk page, I will do so. But a block would not prevent anything here. Carcharoth (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked based on the discussion here and on the user talk page. If Jtrainor resumes the edit war, he can always be reblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And if AMIB also resumes edit warring, I assume he will be blocked as well? After all, it wouldn't be appropriate to give such a stipulation to one party but let the more aggressive party in the dispute off the hook. --Farix (Talk) 21:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly hope so. Policies should apply to everyone, sysop or no. MalikCarr (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

-undent-

The locus of this dispute is based around whether it is acceptable to include some of the fictional statistics of the items in question. AMIB's latest position on this issue is that it is not, because they are a copyvio. This is clearly false, as the information falls under fair use, and is not as detailed as in, say, model kit manuals and so forth, as well as the official guides on the matter. The current material in virtually all cases serves to better describe the items in question, similar to the stat blocks on, say, Star Destroyer, or USS Enterprise (NCC-1701), or Battlestar Galactica (ship), or Andromeda Ascendant, or . It provides additional information in a concise form that is of interest both to fans of the subject and to people who are seeking information about an item. Certain items in these lists of equipment are even linked elsewhere, to better provide understanding about the subject to those who may be unfamiliar with it. For example, in the previously mentioned MSN-03 Jagd Doga article, there are links on the words Newtype, psycommu, mobile suit, and funnel, to points in the appropriate article which explain what these things are. Likewise, the name of the designer, the series it appears in, and the fictional pilot of the unit in question are highlighted as well in case one wishes to find out further information about them.

It is unclear what AMIB's actual position on this material is, other than he doesn't like it and wants it to go. It is very clear that his dislike is not truely based on policy and a desire to better Misplaced Pages, as he has changed this reasoning several times over the years concerning the same material, and has displayed erratic behaviour when he hasn't gotten his way, including blocking those who disagree with him, such as myself and User:MalikCarr. Jtrainor (talk) 04:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Previously, I was pretty sure much of the content in question was copyvio from somewhere. Now I know specifically where it's copied from. I removed it as such, was reverted, warned the users, and blocked the one who reverted copyvio into an article the second time. Jtrainor didn't attempt to defend himself, he just removed my comment from his talk (which is the typical acknowledgement of a warning) and replaced the copyvio content.

This is not the first time MalikCarr and Jtrainor have engaged in brinksmanship over copyright to affect an aggrieved posture. I am not interested in playing political games over copyright.

The dispute over in-universe content is being discussed at Template talk:Infobox Mobile Suit. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

So, if they properly attributed those bits of trivia as being from would that fix everything? Baseball Bugs 11:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It would not satisfy WP:FUC #2 (Bandai and its licensors publish their own guides, either for sale or to guide people to their promotional websites), #3b (we can discuss the weapons with encyclopedic prose, so there's no need for blocks of stats), or #8 (the blocks range from somewhat to entirely trivial detail). Copyrighted material requires not only a source, but a valid fair-use rationale.

It is important to note that these are not uncopyrightable statistics, like the weight of an aircraft or the caliber of a firearm, but instead copyrighted fiction that affects the style of a technical readout.- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

So if the editors re-stated that info in prose style, and properly attributed it, then it would be OK? Baseball Bugs 11:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This is getting into the actual content issue. Personally, I don't think it would be okay using a stat dossier as a source, because parroting fiction of lesser importance only serves to obscure the important facts, like the object's role in the story, artistic development, impact on licensed goods, etc. Disagreeing about this is a content dispute.

That said, I'm not blocking anyone because they disagreed with me on that; I'd have blocked dozens of users by now if I blocked people because they disagreed with me about how to present fiction in an out-of-universe way. I blocked Jtrainor because he replaced a block of text copied verbatim from a copyrighted source after being warned. That's not a content dispute. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

A Man In Black continues to edit war

AMIB has once again reverted an edit that restored the disputed text. Since he has reengaged in the edit war, I expect another admin to take appropriate actions. --Farix (Talk) 11:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The "disputed text" was copied, verbatim, from here. That's not a content dispute, that's copyvio.

I also removed a section immediately below it, apparently since my first edit; this was in error, and has since been corrected. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

He also added a "primary source" template to try to pre-empt bringing the information into the article directly from its source. This is nothing more than a content dispute hiding behind a claim of copyright violation. The claim of the info being "trivial" was AMIB's original complaint, and that's what this is really about. Baseball Bugs 11:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The material I removed was copyvio. I don't like a lot of things about that article, but I excised only the portion copied directly from a copyrighted source, despite the fact that the history is riddled with copyvio at this point.

If someone were to rewrite the block as prose, I would be unhappy and would disagree for the reasons above, but I wouldn't treat it as a copyright violation because it wouldn't be. I would rather the article be written based on sources that aren't fiction, yes, but, like I said, not blocking people over it.

I don't really appreciate these accusations of bad faith, especially immediately explaining directly to you that I understood the difference between what I would like and what the rules are. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

And I don't appreciate being accused of bad faith, especially since you yourself originally brought up triviality as the complaint, and have since gone looking for "legitimate" reasons to delete it. And you yourself blocked someone with whom you were having a content dispute, which is a gross violation of your authority. I don't know anything about you except what you write. And you're all over the map on this one item. Maybe you should leave it alone for awhile. There are plenty of other articles that need improvement. Baseball Bugs 12:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like trivial information to be marginalized or removed. Copyvio needs to be removed on sight. The complaint I have always had is that the blocks made the articles too much like a fansite, and being copied exactly from an official fansite is a pretty excessive example of that.

On top of all of this, I had moved on. Someone reopened the issue, I limited my edits to the template, and for the last several days limited my edits to the talk page of the template. Someone suggested that the stats were copied verbatim from somewhere, and after checking two articles I'd edited a year before, I found them to indeed be copied verbatim from there. So I removed the copyvio, tagged one of them for style, and moved on, until my removal of copyvio was reverted with undo or edit summaries of "rvv". I warned, saw the warning ignored in one case, and blocked in that case.

I have more or less abandoned what I would like, save in the limited case of not cramming things into infoboxes, where I've been discussing it on a talk page. This vague suggestion that I'm trying to muscle my way through a content dispute makes no sense considering that Jtrainor, Kyaa, and until today MalikCarr hadn't even commented on Template talk:Infobox Mobile Suit, the only place I was pursuing what I would like. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

So if they rewrite it as prose, with proper attribution, that removes the copyright issue, and takes it back to your original complaint, as stated in your first sentence: That you don't like it. Hence, it still comes down to a content dispute, and you were out of line blocking someone in that circumstance. Baseball Bugs 13:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Jtrainor didn't rewrite it as prose with proper attribution. He reverted copyvio into an article. He was warned, and then blocked.

Farix rewrote as attributed prose, and got no warning and no revert.

So if people are rewriting as prose, I'm not much happy, but, for the third time, I'm not warning or blocking people for making me unhappy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

And yet again, you revert changes to Template:Infobox Mobile Suit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) because you don't like them. Even though the reason part of the template was collapsible no longer exists because the articles that had problems with overly long infoboxes were merged a few days ago. --Farix (Talk) 15:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You were bold, I reverted, you reverted, discussion ensued. I didn't even revert to a version I liked; I just reverted a change that didn't seem to make any sense until you explained it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You are still edit warring on the infobox. LEAVE IT ALONE. You are not the arbitrator if which fields are legitimate and what fields are not. If you want to ask about changes in the infobox, ask them on the discussion page instead of undoing them. I am aghast that another admin has not blocked you yet for continuing to edit war. --Farix (Talk) 00:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Reverting an unrelated edit once, to a version I don't like, is not a revert war. If you're aghast that someone might revert an edit you made because they disagreed with it, you might be interested in reading this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

And yet you revert again. What I am aghast about that you haven't been blocked for continuing to edit war over Gundam articles. But if that's not edit warring, then there is no such thing as edit warring. But since you are not discussing your reverts on the template's talk page, then you are simply vandalizing the template. --Farix (Talk) 01:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You reverted some style changes to the infobox as vandalism, so it wasn't clear what you had done. Perhaps if you didn't revert good-faith edits as vandalism, but instead asked about them on the talk page instead of undoing them, you might get a better response. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I you've been the one removing good faith changes to the template without explanation because WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT. I think we call see that you are edit warring/vandalizing the template. --Farix (Talk) 01:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at the history.

1. AMIB - "rm forced italics; not every work is longform (for example, a suit that appears in only one episode, in a short story, or in a single volume"
2. AMIB - "When did a last appearance field get added? That's not a very good idea; most designs continue to appear in licensed works, in guides, in spinoffs, etc."
3. Farix - "rv vandalism" - This was apparently reverting edits #1 and #2.
4. Two edits - I change some template code, Farix changes it back. Stylistic difference, essentially no practical difference.
5. - Two edits by AMIB - I wasn't clear what had happened to the ital change and the removal of the last appearance field from #1 and #2, figuring that they were lost in the fiddling with the title. Farix reverted them as vandalism in edit #3, for reasons he hasn't felt the need to share with me.
6. Farix - "rvt vandalism"
7. Two edits by AMIB - I revert with a snarky comment, then self-revert, thinking better of it.

Vandalism? Ownership? IDONTLIKEIT? I'm not seeing it anywhere in the history. I'm seeing you edit war to revert my good-faith edits as vandalism, ignoring my edit summaries and making wild accusations.

So. Where are your good faith changes again? Where is my vandalism? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You conveniently left out this edit where I originally added the italic and the last field. That was the edit you kept reverting because you didn't like them. The documentation of the template states that the series was for the name of the series the Gundam came from, not the name of a episode. That is what the first field is for. And the last field, it is standard on pretty much every infobox for fictional elements. Yet you kept removing them for no reason what so ever other then not liking them. Which is funny because you were the one originally complaining about the lack of out-of-universe field in the template. --Farix (Talk) 01:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

When your edit summaries don't explain what your edits are, how can I hope to know what you're doing in an edit? What part of "rvt; I perfectly know well why this was made collasable as I was the one who did it. It is no longer an issue" implies that you're adding a new field or changing the formatting of one? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

See what we have had to deal with, ladies and gentlemen? Changing reasons and a complete refusal to negotiate in any way, shape, or form. He's now taking advantage of the fact that I am not allowed to revert him without being blocked. I should hope you now block him for edit warring, as he is clearly interested in continuing it. Jtrainor (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

What you need to do is start a wider discussion on whether or not the text in question is a copyright violation. You say AMIB is enforcing his view of things. Equally, you are merely stating that you think you are right and he is wrong. Get a wider discussion started on this. That's the only way it is going to be resolved. Carcharoth (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

And now A Man In Black has protected the Jagd Doga page on his revision. Why bother editing articles in the first place when having a fundamental disagreement with a sysop simply results in being blocked and the pages protected from editing? MalikCarr (talk) 08:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As long as copyvio is being accused relevant to the Jagd Doga article, (e.g. "lifted verbatim" from websites/books) I'm going to plaster the Google test into the relevant discussions. If, as AMIB claims, these figures are "lifted verbatim" from a given source, wouldn't they show up when pasted verbatim (and cleared of Misplaced Pages formatting, obviously) into Google? MalikCarr (talk) 08:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Review of A Man In Black's block of MalikCarr

I've had to block MalikCarr (talk · contribs) under essentially identical circumstances, in MSN-03 Jagd Doga. This brinksmanship over copyright is not appropriate.- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? You absolutely had to do this? I'm not impressed with either side here. The Gundam editors should be discussing this, not reverting, but equally you should be getting a second opinion on whether this is a copyright violation and whether you are too involved here. I laid out above the long history here. You should have made a report here that MalikCarr (talk · contribs) was violating copyright and asked for someone else to block him. That is one way to find out if anyone else agrees with you. For the record, I agree that there is an issue here, but I think what needs to happen is for there to be a wider discussion about this. You talk about fair-use rationales for text. That's confusing things terribly. We have non-free-use rationales for images and other media, but the issue of how Misplaced Pages:Non-free content (and the associated policy) applies to test is covered at Misplaced Pages:FU#Text -

"Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text must be attributed and used verbatim. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited."

There is no mention of use rationales there, and quite rightly so, since Misplaced Pages articles are primarily text-based. We must attribute the use of texts as information sources and quote them when using short extracts of text. Use rationales don't apply here, unless you want people to supply a rationale everytime they quote something - please tell me you didn't mean that. Don't get me wrong here - I think you have a very valid point about the copyright issue, but I don't think it is black-and-white enough for you to be handing out blocks over this, especially not give the history here. I'm not going to dispute the specifics of the block you made here, but I will note that you have twice blocked MalikCarr before over copyvios (back in July 2007), so you need to get this resolved one way or the other. If MalikCarr's previous copyvio blocks were also valid and over the same issue, then you are not resolving the situation merely by issuing blocks. Carcharoth (talk) 01:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The previous blocks over copyvio were over misuse of a non-free image after having been warned by multiple people, followed by repeated uploading of the same image after it was deleted. Again, MalikCarr ignored warnings that what he was replacing violated copyright policy and he continued to do so.

There may be a possibility of rewriting the copyvio text or quoting it properly or some other alternative, but no such effort was made. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the previous issue. It is a pity that block logs are not more descriptive - there is usually room available in the block log to provide a diff to an explanation, but the explanation usually gets written after the block is applied (so you have to go look at the user talk page history instead). You haven't responded to my point that you have a long history here with the Gundam WikiProject and copyright and in-universe issues and that you might need to ask for opinions from others to see whether you are judging things correctly here. Do you think that your long history here means outside opinions would be helpful? I'm finishing off a post about this in more detail on your talk page. I've also added a link above to the bit where you talked about fair-use rationales for quoting text. Would you like to respond to that point as well? Carcharoth (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

We could get into a lengthy discussion of how to properly deal with copyrighted text here. However, it'd be in the wrong place and not germane to the issue at hand.

Copyvio needs to be dealt with swiftly. I had no reasonable way to be assured that copyvio would not be reverted into these articles after a warning; in fact, after a warning, copyvio was twice reverted into articles with no explanation at all.

There exists the possibility that I'm wrong, that none of this is copyvio, that I'm completely off my rocker. But there was no "This isn't copyvio," no "This could be reformatted," not even "I think you're wrong," just "rvv" and "revert to last good version." Faced with that, at some point I was trusted enough to use my discretion to block people who act in a way that can harm Misplaced Pages, so I exercised that discretion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm satisified with that. I'll continue the discussion on your talk page about where to get a second opinion. Carcharoth (talk) 02:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This block is patently ridiculous. AMIB has still provided no proof whatsoever that there actually is copyvio, he is most definitely an involved admin, and now he's adding a citation needed tag to the Gundam (mobile suit) article over whether the Gundam... is the Gundam. I've displayed extensively that the practice of using a summary of a unit's fictional equipment in an infobox is widespread and accepted, so he has not a leg to stand on. This is nothing more than an admin abusing his tools in order to push his POV. Jtrainor (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

So where's the bit where I'm blocking people over that, or in any way using any administrative tool? My talk page, the article talk, the project talk, WP:RFC, and any other appropriate place for dispute resolution remains unfilled with your comments on that article. This is not the "Burn AMIB in effigy" discussion; I have a talk page for that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me there's a page where copyright violations are to be discussed. In fact I think it's mentioned somewhere below this section. Here: Why isn't MIB bringing these issues there instead of setting himself up as judge and jury of copyright matters? And why is he allowed to continue to get away with blocking users with whom he has disputes? Baseball Bugs 17:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That is a very good question and one I'd like to see answered. I started this thread due to AMIB blatantly pissing on the blocking policy and now he's moved on to the protection policy. When will he stop rampaging over wikipedia policy and being a one man army to enforce his preferred version? There is no consensus that the material that is being added is a copyvio other than AMIB's repeated "because I said so" rants. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This is inappropriate admin conduct. Instead of performing blocks when he is involved in the dispute, he should raise the issue for consideration by other admins, and blocks should be performed if other administrators agree that copyright-violating edit warring is taking place. Everyking (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that there is no room for discussion on this matter, as A Man In Black has established that he is the arbiter of what content should and should not be allowed within the articles in question. Circumstances such as this are why I have been taking an increasingly inactive role in editing articles as of late - there is no compromise, and as a great statesman once wrote, compromise is the essence of diplomacy. I believe the bitter and caustic history of these content disputes and edit wars (I cannot count how many 3RR violations I have filed - are not policies enforced equally on all Wikipedians?), which anyone can review with a bit of digging, will speak for themselves as to the level of diplomacy that has existed here.

Or, if that's "tl;dr" as was once ascribed to my position, I am not trying to damage Misplaced Pages, and I would be very pleased if you would stop insisting that I am. Thank you kindly. MalikCarr (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Jtrainor comes back from block and resumes replacing copyvio into articles

Jtrainor has returned from block and immediately resumed replacing copyvio into articles. The most egregious case is in RGM-89 Jegan. It's 6K of text copied directly from a fan site (which in turn copied it from licensed guides, but their notation, such as the weapon mount locations, is particular.)

Compare this edit and this, this, this, etc. It's blatantly obviously copy-pasted. This was part of reverting every single edit I made to Gundam articles, so I'm inclined to say he doesn't really care.

If it is inappropriate for me to be handling this, I would appreciate if someone else could. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Jtrainor's attitude here is absolutely unacceptable. After the recent set of blocks, I asked AMIB to not get involved and to start a wider discussion (see his talk page). I don't think AMIB has done that, but he has been discussing things more. I also told Jtrainor above, to start a wider discussion to settle the question of what is and isn't a copyright violation (in fairness, I should have explicitly stated that on his talk page - he may not have seen my comment above). Still, in my view the edits by Jtrainor above are clear copyright violations, and Jtrainor is, as AMIB said before, engaging in brinkmanship and has resumed edit warring. More to the point, Jehochman and Phil Knight clearly warned Jtrainor on his talk page that he would be blocked if he resumed edit warring. In my view, as Jtrainor has gone back to the disputed articles and reverted the disputed content back in, a block for 48 hours is warranted here. I will double-check what has happened here and then block. Any admin should feel free to unblock or increase the block length following discussion here, as I won't be around in the day tomorrow. Carcharoth (talk) 03:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's on WP:CP, and the Jagd Doga article (which has a much smaller amount of copyvio content) is currently in discussion here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. I didn't actually block, as that might send things off the deep end. Jtrainor's last edit was 12 hours ago and he did seem to stop after Jehochman warned him at 17:00 (this was a warning in response to the edits you pointed out above, I think), and none of Jtrainor's copyvio edits have survived, as far as I can see. I am going to leave him a stern warning instead, and insist that he stop reverting and discuss these edits before making them. If he starts edit warring again tomorrow, someone should block him. If things get out of hand, the articles might need protecting as well. Carcharoth (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I cannot vouch for Jtrainor (unlike GundamsRus (talk · contribs) once alleged, he is not my sockpuppet) as far as the Jegan goes, but equating him to be a villain in this regard (which he may well be, all things considered) while A Man In Black's continued insistence on his position in the Jagd Doga is overlooked strikes me as being rather one-sided. We've tried mediation before, we've tried civil discussion, and zero ground has been made between the relevant parties. MalikCarr (talk) 07:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And MalikCarr reverts copyvio into an article a third time, immediately after coming off a block for doing so. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I see you still use your admin tools in conflicts in which you are a party.... Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I took the least disruptive route to prevent replacement of copyvio, and even reverted my own incidental edits. You'd rather I block MalikCarr? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I'd rather you walk away from the articles. You don't seem to get that your stubborness over this has passed beyond annoying and is bordering on disruptive. Your complete disregard of Misplaced Pages's blocking policy, by blocking two users that you were involved in a content dispute with, should cause anyone to question whether you should continue to carry the mop. You don't use the tools on a page where you are involved on. Don't they teach that first in the newbie admin school? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What a suprise, more edit warring on AMIB's part, and now protecting the article. There have been people hauled before Arbcom for less. Also, now there are two admins on my talk page yelling at me. It's nice to see that the rules only apply to us peons, while admins are allowed to do whatever they want as long as they're only screwing with nobodies. Jtrainor (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said on your talk page: What we are trying to do is get the two of you to talk and stop edit warring. Part of that was me telling AMIB to stop blocking people where he was involved in a long-running dispute, and to post at ANI instead. That is what he did. I realise he also protected a page, but at least other options are being explored. At the end of the day, if me, Jehochman and Phil Knight had not got involved, AMIB would have blocked you again. You may feel we are preventing you from editing the way you want to, but what we are saying is stop, take a deep breath, and go and discuss the issues involved here. If you and AMIB can't get anywhere with discussion, then try and get others involved in the discussion, or take the discussion to a noticeboard or request for comments. What is not acceptable is to either carry on reverting and edit warring, or to just let thing lie for a bit and then carry on reverting and adding in the disputed text and stats. Carcharoth (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what other venues are open to us. We've gone through official mediation before and that produced absolutely nothing. If we just wanted to stop the edit war, then we should stop questioning AMIB's edits and give him discretion over the articles. I do not believe there's a virtue in peace that is obtained by compromising on the greater values at hand, that being to make the best encyclopedia articles possible, which I do not believe AMIB is producing. Let it not be said that I think he's a bad person on Misplaced Pages - I simply find it frustrating that this content dispute has resulted in Jtrainor, myself, and other members of WP:Gundam branded with the worst accusations of being destructive to the project because there are contrary opinions to a sysop. MalikCarr (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) The absurd part of all of this is that the edit war, and claimed copyvio issue, could have been solved by simply rewriting or reformatting the armaments stats. The fact that AMIB's reaction was to simply delete them outright gives evidence that he was purposely antagonizing the Gundam Wikiproject. But Jtrainor and the others were also partly responsible for not reformatting the stats as well. --Farix (Talk) 22:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And, for what it's worth, I have been rewriting the stats so they're as generic as possible, and more importantly, aren't directly lifted from any one source. MAHQ and MS Illustrated 2003 like to have these ridiculously long strings of model numbers and power outputs and crap and making it abundantly clear which weapons are default and which are optional, while GundamOfficial.com and Gundam: The Official Guide use very minimalistic blocks that don't even mention where the fixed armaments are on the MS' body. I felt that some middleground between the two, while reducing space as much as possible to fit nicely in an infobox, would be the best course of action for the generalist Misplaced Pages. But what do I know, I'm a copyright-violating, POV-pushing, Misplaced Pages-hating vandal. MalikCarr (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

AMIB has now messed with an article in my sandbox. This is a clear attempt to escalate matters and provoke me. Jtrainor (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK hoax article?

I reviewed the article John R. Smith, and I believe that it may be a hoax. This article is well crafted and looks authentic prima facie. However none of the online external references make any mention of the subject whatsoever - (United States Colored Troops Resident in Baltimore at the time of the 1890 Census - nothing to do with the Civil war?? ), (Article alleges he was on station at Fort Sumter - also in the hook - once again no mention in the source ) (Book preview contains no mention etc. . ). Most disturbing however, is the allegation that John R. Smith was the "first soldier to receive the Silver Star" (apparently during the Civil War). However, the Silver Star was first awarded in 1932 (more than 31 years after the subject's death) as per these sources . It turns out that the user deliberately inserted factual errors so that it corroborates with his own article. I've left a note on the article + user's talk page. Could someone more experienced with the US Civil war confirm/dispute these claims. If I'm wrong, then I apologize in advance, however I'd rather be whacked with a trout for false accusations than see a hoax appear on the main page. Peace --Flewis 09:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: Article was nominated in DYK on October 27 - Currently under the "expiring noms" section. --Flewis 11:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ive removed it from DYK nominations. MaxSem 11:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Google search for 'John R Smith silver star' brings up nothing related to him but the wiki page in mention. Skinny87 (talk) 11:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say that I cannnot, using the sources or google, corroborate a single fact in that article. I would say that this definately looks like a hoax. If you want to get wider opinion on it, start an WP:AFD discussion. Given that it looks, on its face, like a hoax, it should probably be deleted... It would also not be the first time someone went through this much trouble to create hoaxes. Anyone around 1-2 years ago should remember the "Estland" hoaxes... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No mention in OR or in other online sources I've checked. Pretty dubious assertion that an African-American was able to enlist in the U.S. Regular Army in 1860. Would that it were true, but this seems very unlikely, and certainly not proved by online sources listed. BusterD (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Now at AfD; Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John R. Smith. Iain99 12:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Not a single fact... well, there was a Civil War ;-)---Balloonman 20:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Article was created by a brand new user, who appears to be fully aware of rules like WP:CENSOR and signing on talk pages. I wonder if it's a troublemaker, or simply someone who didn't realise we write about facts here, not imaginary characters. – How do you turn this on (talk) 12:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Can any users knowledgeable in the American Civil War or Pennsylvanian African-American lawyers prior to 1870 give this a look?
    Also, after further inspection, it appears that sections from the article are copied directly from here. --Flewis 12:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Never mind - Already speedied --Flewis 12:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Has the creator been blocked? – How do you turn this on (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Although we tend to presume that the user is a troublemaker, it's quite possible that they're acting in good faith with a purpose. For instance, I remember the Orange bellied pike hoax incident from several months ago and how the author ended up explaining why they created the article. At this point, I don't think we know about this user's intentions. JamieS93 12:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Also, thanks to Flewis's alertness there are now many eyes on that account and nothing he does would go unnoticed. Everyme 12:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It is unwise to delete an article on a purported topic in U.S. history after a mere 21 minutes' AFD discussion in what, in most U.S. timezones, is the middle of the night. We don't speedily delete hoaxes, and it is unwise to "snowball" delete articles after just 21 minutes of discussion. We don't want all of the holes in the Swiss Cheese slices to line up just because only editors who live in a single timezone have been involved in the discussion.

Having said that, I was researching the article whilst it was listed for deletion, and at least one of the book citations was fake. Hardie Grant Books published no books in 1977 according to its own (somewhat poor and hard to search) catalogue and the other book catalogues that I checked. Uncle G (talk) 12:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• When it is clear, as in this case, that the article is a hoax, I can't think of any possible purpose in keeping such an article any longer. This is what IAR is for - we don't want hoax articles here. I don't see the point in having a long discussion about it either. Also, there are people, other than those who live in America, who are familiar and are experts on U.S. history. That this was deleted at an unfavorable time for them is unfortunate, but not an issue. – How do you turn this on (talk) 12:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, it is very much an issue. I suggest that you look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Principle of Swiss Cheese Management for a particularly apposite example of how it takes several pairs of eyes, and more than 21 minutes of discussion, to determine whether something is a hoax or not. What may be "clearly a hoax" to you may well prove to be a viable subject. (The canonical example of this is Jamie Kane (AfD discussion), but there are many others.) I suggest that you read about the Swiss Cheese model, too. We don't want the collective holes in the knowledge and abilities of a 21-minute sample of editors in a single timezone lining up so that we end up making the wrong decision at AFD. Uncle G (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• In general, I would agree. Closing debates that early is usually improper. But in such a clear case, there's no need to keep the article around. Hoaxes is one of those areas that can be very damaging to WP, so I applied a bit of IAR. But if you feel strongly about it, feel free to undo my closure and let the debate run longer. henrik•talk 12:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I was actually coming to point where I was about to add an opinion to delete myself, based upon finding no sources when I looked, and the citation that turned out to be fake. But the point to remember is that we don't speedily delete hoaxes, and we let AFD discussions proceed for a reasonable length of time. We aren't in such a hurry to delete hoaxes that cite sources that we cannot afford at least 24 hours so that editors around the world, with different areas of expertise and different access to sources, can check things out. We want AFD to make the correct decision. Bad decisions at AFD usually happen when editors sheep vote without doing any research themselves or when not enough editors participate. We want to avoid that. If something is a hoax, we want multiple editors to check it out independently, so that we can be confident that the AFD process has come to the right decision.

    This is all explained in the Misplaced Pages:Guide to deletion#Discussion. Uncle G (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, since it was tagged with a {{hoax}} template, I don't think keeping it for longer would have been a problem. That said, it would be really dumb for someone to undelete it now --NE2 14:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I was just about to say the same thing. As long as it's clear to the casual reader that the article is bogus, it's not really an issue; in fact to the casual reader it speaks well of wikipedia, by letting them know that wikipedia editors don't just sit around. Baseball Bugs 14:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    • In watching my non-editing friends using wikipedia, I've seen that nearly all of them invariably scroll past any and all maintainance templates without really reading them. I'm not sure {{hoax}} is 'scary' enough to deter a user from not relying on the information. Ideally, I'd like to see the hoax template look more like the text of {{Copyviocore}}. henrik•talk 15:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
      • That's a good point. I find myself asking my wife what templates are on the articles she sees and she says (usually) some variation on "dunno" Protonk (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
        • That is exactly my experience as well. The last time I asked my wife about the banners at the top of articles, she said they were "just for wiki-wonks and other people who care about the site's arcane rules and wiki-process." She might have read the first few banners on her initial visit to Misplaced Pages years ago, but I doubt she has even glanced at a single one since then. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
          • That's because the banner is an essay. It should be a single, bold-faced, large-print sentence saying THIS ARTICLE IS MOST LIKELY A HOAX. Then you could have another sentence in normal font that points to where the discussion is. Baseball Bugs 16:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• Uncle G is usually right on the money, and his citing of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Principle of Swiss Cheese Management is a good reason to not speedy delete hoaxes. However, for this particular case there is a critical difference. For the John R. Smith case, the evidence proves that there is a hoax, the anachronism surrounding the Silver Star award makes the statements in the article impossible. In the Swiss Cheese case, the nomination was "seems to be OR essay", and the problems were of the "I cannot find sources" variety. Although these are verifiability issues as well, it is not active proof that the content is a hoax. There is a difference between things which seem to be a hoax because its hard to find sources, and things which are proved to be a hoax because the sources were found and actively contradict the article. In the latter case, just getting rid of it and being done with it is not something I will lose so much sleep over. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • While personally I think it was, at the very least, likely to be a hoax, I didn't see any sources that contradicted the article being raised - if you're refering to the Silver Star being created in 1932, the award was handed out retroactivly. So without further sources, I see it as still possible. Personally, I think the account of the battle of Fort Sumter may have been enough to show it was a hoax, but that's a different issue. - Bilby (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    • The whole point is, we had to hash these things out in open discourse to show that the article was a hoax. While it showed itself to be patently a hoax, it was certainly helpful for people to enumerate exactly why they thought it a hoax. That discussion needs to happen before articles such as this are deleted. For the record, the discussion happened (albeit, mostly here rather than AFD where it belonged), and the right decision was made; however for more subtle hoaxes (and this one WAS quite subtle, but I have seen many worse, cf. the Estland debacle), the important thing is that the opportunity is given to investigate. This wasn't what speedy deletion was created for; it was created in situations where people create articles about their cat, so that we can just delete those without comment. However, there is no impending destruction that befalls the earth if we discuss these issues before the deletion. In some cases, it turns out that it wasn't a hoax after all; and its worthwhile to have the talk. Misplaced Pages is in no rush, and doing the right thing is much more important than doing something NOW... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, there is that difference. But that difference also applies to the case of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Thomas Winter, 2nd Baronet, which we are happy to calmly discuss for the full AFD discussion period, and not rush to close. After all, I might be wrong. Someone could come along with sources that very well do contradict the Burkes, and with authority. Even here in this case, as you can see, Bilby has raised an argument against the initial "it's obviously wrong" diagnosis.

    We've had plenty of occasions where what have thought to be hoaxes have proven to be viable subjects once other editors, with different abilities, from around the world have been given a chance to contribute to the discussion. Al (folklore) (AfD discussion) springs immediately to mind. Although it looked like a pile of random rubbish accrued in a dusty corner of Misplaced Pages, as editors added random pieces of information over a period of three years, and was suspected of being a hoax, it turned out that everything in the article as it stood at the time of AFD nomination was verifiable. The article was bang on in terms of its informational content. The AFD process involves several days of discussion precisely so that editors have a chance to come to the discussion with the sources that no-one else found. Uncle G (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

    • Exactly. As well as what I said below, there is another reason to avoid speedy deletion. I had the idea of asking the US Civil War taskforce at WP:MILHIST about this, and I found that someone had already asked them. See here. I know no-one said anything about that query left there, here or at the AfD, but the (rather rambling) response didn't really provide an answer, and a clue as to why can be found in the first few words of the answer: "It appears that the article is gone." <groan> We've ended up with someone asking a WikiProject for some expert help, and a group of people on an ANI thread short-circuited that process by doing a 20-minute snowball delete at AfD. Excuse me while I silently scream at the inefficiency of on-wiki communication. :-( Carcharoth (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• One more thing. I was about to ask at the reference desk to see if anyone there could help with this (it can take time to gather opinions from far-flung corners of Misplaced Pages, longer than 20 minutes, say...), but I would prefer to have an actual article to point them at to ask them what they think is going on here (and for the MILHIST people as well). Would it be acceptable to undelete, reopen the AfD, and let it run the full five days, to allow people to see the full article? I thought of posting the full article from the deletion logs, but that doesn't really show people the references properly. Carcharoth (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Restart Proposal

Seeing as this is causing such a big deal, I propose undeleting the article, and restarting the Afd, so that the article can be scrutinized by the wider community. It's no longer in DYK, and we're all keeping an eye on the article creator - so it cant go anywhere. As I mentioned originally that I have doubts as to its authenticity, so my assertions are not, as yet confirmed. As I'm not an administrator, I'm unable to view the article, and provide any refutations/proofs to it being a hoax. That being said, keeping the article open to the general public for 24 hours, while clearly stating/linking that there's a strong possibility that it's a hoax will only further confirm our sentiments --Flewis 21:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

meh... I still think the article was a hoax, and I think there is a general consensus that it was for all of the reasons enumerated above. In the future, I think people need to understand exactly why we don't, as a matter of practice, speedily delete hoax articles, especially well written hoax articles, without discussion. Not one person in the above discussion, even those arguing against speedy deleting, seems to think the article WASN'T a hoax, so I don't see the need to jump through additional hoops, WP:SNOW and all that. However, in the future, lets at least give it a chance for WP:SNOW by opening an AFD on a hoax article. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It is quite possible that the article was a hoax, but it is also possible to pick holes in the logic of those arguing for deletion:

• "United States Colored Troops Resident in Baltimore at the time of the 1890 Census - nothing to do with the Civil war??" - the article actually referred to an 1860 Census, but linked to an 1890 Census. Strike one.
• the Silver Star was first awarded in 1932 (and websites were cited to 'prove' this). Unfortunately the very same websites carefully explained (if you read the whole page) that the award started in a different form in 1918, and was retrospective to the US Civil War. Strike two.
• "deliberately inserted factual errors so that it corroborates with his own article" - that is only the case if these are errors - it could be a genuine misunderstanding of what the sources are saying. Strike three.
• "Pretty dubious assertion that an African-American was able to enlist in the U.S. Regular Army in 1860" - agreed, with the caveat that enlistment took place from 1862 (see Military history of African Americans in the American Civil War), so again this could be a misunderstanding or unintentional misrepresentation of the sources, rather than a hoax. Strike four.
• "Article was created by a brand new user, who appears to be fully aware of rules like WP:CENSOR and signing on talk pages" - good point - not yet rebutted. The talk page signing I think anyone can pick up first time. The WP:CENSOR link is a bit strange.
• "after further inspection, it appears that sections from the article are copied directly from List of American Civil War Medal of Honor recipients" - many of the citations for gallantry in the US Civil War describe similar actions and use similar language. Strike five.
• "When it is clear, as in this case, that the article is a hoax, I can't think of any possible purpose in keeping such an article any longer." - it wasn't actually clear it was a hoax, as might have become clear if you had allowed further discussion. Strike six.
• "in such a clear case, there's no need to keep the article around" - it wasn't a clear case. Strike seven.
• "for this particular case there is a critical difference. For the John R. Smith case, the evidence proves that there is a hoax, the anachronism surrounding the Silver Star award makes the statements in the article impossible" - there is no anachronism surrounding the award - just confusion over what award is meant when, but no clear smoking gun. Strike eight.
• "obviously, this man coudn't be the first person to receive Silver Star because it was established in 1932 - years after his death" - obviously, because there are no such things as retrospective awards. Oh, no, hang on, there are such things! Strike nine and out. :-)

Sorry for the overtone of cynicism there. As I said above, it may well be a hoax, but it would be nice to actually have the "obvious" stuff checked out properly by each person (rather than accepting what the nominator said), and for people to leave the AfD discussion open until those who know something about military history come along and correct people's misunderstandings about retrospective awards of medals and citation stars. Carcharoth (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I have no problems or objections if anyone should decide to undelete and restart the process, if they feel it would be useful. henrik•talk 07:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This is less about restarting the process (this thread alone has ensured the article has had enough eyes on it, and if someone does find out something new, the article can always be undeleted - and if I want to ask subject matter experts about this later, I can dig stuff out of the deleted revisions), but more about making sure that everyone who has read or commented in this thread, or who participated in the deletion discussion, understands why we don't speedily (or snowball) delete suspected hoaxes. If you (henrik) and Flewis (who commented "snowball delete") and a few others, state here, for the record, that you've read what Uncle G wrote (and what I wrote) and recognise that speedy (or in Flewis's case, snowball) deletions for suspected hoaxes are not a good idea, and that you won't speedily delete or suggest snowball delete for suspected hoaxes in future (even if you are convinced you've proved it is a hoax), then we are probably pretty much done here. The only reason this is still on ANI is because it involves an administrator action (namely your speedy delete). From what others have said, I might not have been clear enough in what I said last night, so I do have one more long post to make to demonstrate that "Silver Star" and "1932" and "Civil War" doesn't a hoax prove. And that is the final point I want to get sorted out before moving on - that those who said delete because they thought the date for the medal was 'obviously' wrong, acknowledge that they were supporting deletion on a false premise (I've explained that above and will do so again in the other post I'll make at some point this evening). I think it is important that people realise why the medal stuff was more complicated than it looked - so they can remember that for future discussions. That doesn't necessarily have to happen here - I'll point that out as diplomatically as I can on people's talk pages (some people says thanks, others bluster and object to having this sort of thing pointed out). Ordinarily, I could have pointed out the medal misunderstanding at the deletion debate, but, well, that got closed early! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Several points

I'd like to make a couple of points here, both about the article in question, John R. Smith, and about the process by which it was reviewed, discussed and deleted, as well as the quality of the discussion.

• (1) I noticed this discussion early this morning (UK time), but was unable to comment until now (some 16 hours later). There was quite a lot I wanted to say when I got home, but unfortunately things snowballed as I watched. If a deletion discussion is started, I think (as others have said) it would be best to keep the discussion open at least long enough for people in different time zones to comment. Also, the speedy deletion means only admins can see the article, unless you look in Google's cache or somewhere similar (I used a cache during the day, taking a spare moment here and there to look into this). I understand that people thought there was a WP:SNOW delete consensus, but all it takes it for one person to point out something that others have missed, and opinions can change.
• (2) I was rather surprised that no-one at the ANI thread or the AfD debate spotted the distinction between the Silver Star (the medal started in 1932 to replace the Silver Citation Star) and the Silver Citation Star (the citation star awarded from 1918 to 1932, and also retrospectively back to the US Civil War and before). All it takes is for the editor of the article to link to the wrong Silver Star article and confusion will be rampant. See also Award star and Service star - both have silver versions and both can be called "silver star". A misunderstanding like that can incorrectly skew a debate towards deletion. See my next point about how initial misunderstandings were blindly accepted by those arriving at the ANI and AfD discussions (what Uncle G called 'sheep votes').
• (3) There were several initial misunderstandings that affected the way the deletion debate progressed, the most egregious being the claim that the article must be a hoax because the Silver Star medal didn't start until 1932. Eventually, very late in the day, someone (Bilby) piped up and pointed out what everyone should have realised from carefully reading Silver Star: "The Silver Star is the successor decoration to the Citation Star which was established by an act of the U.S. Congress on July 9, 1918. On July 19, 1932, the Secretary of War approved the Silver Star Medal to replace the Citation Star" Now, I presume everyone did what Bilby and I did, right, and went and read Citation Star. If you didn't, you should have done, because that article says: "The Citation Star was a silver star device pinned to the World War I Victory Medal to denote those who had been cited for extreme heroism or valor. The decoration was made retroactive as an attachment to all service medals back to the American Civil War." - now do people begin to understand why it might not be so silly for an article claiming to be about a Civil War soldier to talk about this award? Dig a bit more and you find Civil War Campaign Medal which says: "The medal was first authorized in 1905 for the fortieth anniversary of the Civil War's conclusion." (more retroactive awards stuff - a military historian would pick up on this no problem, but no-one here did except Bilby). And: "several senior military officers, still on active duty in 1905, were veterans of the Civil War. In 1918, for those who had been cited for gallantry in action, the Silver Citation Star was authorized as a device to the medal. Only six Citation Stars were awarded." For more about the Silver Star and it's history, see this website. It only became a medal in 1932. Before that, from 1918 onwards, it was a 'citation star' designed to be affixed to the service ribbon of a campaign medal. "Known in the Army as the "citation star," the award was made retroactive, so that all those cited for gallantry in action in previous campaigns, even as far back as the Spanish-American War, were eligible to wear it" And "It is estimated that more than 20,000 members of the Army received such citations before 1918." (though these were only citations until the star was authorised in 1918. For more on the Civil War Campaign Medal and the 'Silver Citation Star' for that medal, see here and here. This is not really relevant to the presumed John R. Smith, as the article said he died in 1901, but the potential confusion over "silver stars" is there again, and it was possible for the relatives of deceased soldiers to claim such awards on their behalf. The 'silver star' stuff still doesn't quite add up at the moment for John R. Smith, but my point here is that there is enough potential for confusion and misunderstanding, that a more thorough review is needed to make sure nothing else has been missed. Certainly not a speedy deletion. One of the main reasons the article was speedy deleted was because people took the "1932 date for the Silver Star means the article must be wrong" claim at face-value, and didn't check for themselves.
• (4) More of a minor point, but another of the comments on the sources said that the census link was to an 1890 census. If you go back and look at the article that was deleted, you will see that the link says "1860 census". So that could have been the editor linking to the wrong census (the 1860 census for Baltimore doesn't seem to be online). On the other hand, I'm not quite sure why Baltimore is the location here, as the article doesn't mention John R. Smith living in Baltimore.
• (5) The "bits have been copied from List of American Civil War Medal of Honor recipients" argument is more than a bit hollow. Search those pages for "bearer" and you will see many similar descriptions (similar to that in the article that was deleted) of awards for people who did stuff under fire while retrieving or carrying the "colours" (the flags). This means that the similarity has no bearing at all on whether the article is a hoax or not. If anything, using that type of language suggests that it may be genuine, or at least a good imitation.
• (6) If you want editors who know US Civil War history, instead of asking at WP:ANI, why not ask at the Military History WikiProject. That is one of the first things I would have done (or asked at the reference desk). With all due respect to the people that read ANI, you are unlikely to find a Civil War expert or someone who knows Pennsylvanian African-American history, hanging out here. Another thing is that people from the Military History WikiProject might even have some of the books used as references in this article, and they might be able to check them.
• (7) Ultimately, because of the ease with which different John Smiths can be conflated, even by professional historians, what is needed is to track down the claim attributed to the most authoritative source. In this case, I think it is the claim cited to: "McPherson, James M (2003). The Negro's Civil War. Random House Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4000-3390-4." As our article on him says, James McPherson is a prominent Civil War historian, and has written on African-Americans in the Civil War. The possible hoax article said: "Smith's exact date of birth is debated by historians. Prominent historian John Nelson claims that Smith was born as early as 1830. Others such as James M. McPherson hold the mainstream view that Smith was in fact born toward the end of the 1830s." It should be simple for someone to get hold of a copy of McPherson's book and check this. If this is a false claim, then deletion is probably OK, though the other offline sources could be checked as well.
• (8) I did try searching for stuff on the civil rights and lawyer stuff, but drew blanks.

As far as content goes, the medal stuff is complicated and could be a misunderstanding (e.g. accounts that he was given a citation for gallantry got conflated with statements that this could, theoretically, have been retrospectively turned into a 'citation star' and then a 'silver star'). Other parts of the article do not seem to be backed up by the sources. It is entirely possible this article is a hoax, but it is also possible that an amateur historian has mixed up and conflated online sources about different John R. Smiths (there will be a lot of these around). I think for this one, someone should try and get hold of a paper copy of one of these sources and check what it says (some of the online sources are not fully searchable).

Overall, the process wasn't great here. Sure, the article can be undeleted if needed, but equally the article could have been blanked, or the suspect material removed, until the discussion concluded. It is annoying to spot a discussion like this, see that an initial misunderstanding might be skewing the debate, and then find that 20 minutes later the discussion has concluded in a rather sheep-like fashion, not allowing others to add their thoughts when they get home/wake up/log on, or whatever. So can we please leave discussions on "hoax" articles to run the full course in future? Carcharoth (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree the discussion was somewhat rushed, however the fact is that none of the sources backed up the claims made in the article, and it really stretches credulity to imagine the user in question got every single one of his references mixed up.

It's also clear the user is very familiar with wiki processes even though he has apparently only made a couple of dozen edits. Wouldn't a checkuser be appropriate in such a case?

Finally, there doesn't seem to have been much discussion of sanctions for the user involved. Creating hoax articles is deliberate sabotage and it seems to me such actions should not be tolerated. Gatoclass (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Given that it was never confirmed that this was a hoax, sanctions would be somewhat uncalled for. If the process had run its full course, then yes, we could make the call, but as it didn't there are too many questions left in the air. Keeping a close eye on the user should be sufficient, though. - Bilby (talk) 06:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No sanction for inserting deliberate factual errors into Silver Star? And I agree, the hoax template needs to be blatant. dougweller (talk) 09:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a different issue. And yes, that counts as blatant factual errors. I'd add that I'm now happy to call the John R. Smith article a hoax, on two grounds - the McPherson reference doesn't seem to mention Smith, and, as I mentioned previously, the account of the battle at Fort Sumter is extremely questionable, at best. There was, however, a John R. Smith in the 108th out of Pennsyvania, but I'm happy to write that off as a coincidence. - Bilby (talk) 09:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't CSD G7 apply? Pure vandalism. This includes blatant and obvious misinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.245.4.252 (talk • contribs)

No, this wasn't blatant and obvious misinformation. It needed a debate to ascertain whether the statements in the article were true or not (and whether the person in question existed), and whether the sources could be used to verify the statements in the article. For the reasons Uncle G gave above, and the reasons I am about to explain again, this needs a wide range of views spread out over an adequate period of time. Not a small subset of editors over 20 minutes. The danger is, if you don't have these sorts of checks and balances in place, that we end up deleting a genuine article because someone incorrectly thinks it is a hoax, and everyone agrees with that person without verifying the conclusions for themselves. Not this time (it looks like it was a hoax, though I have one thing to check on that), but at some other point in the future. Again, this is from past experience, from years of deletion debates, and this past experience is why we (Misplaced Pages) don't speedily delete apparent 'hoaxes'. It's not some process-wonking. There are clear and cogent reasons why we have the debate instead of deleting, and a full debate rather than a speedy or snowball one. Carcharoth (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Examples of pre-1932 Silver Star awards

I did say I was going to post one more thing on this. Don't have time to make a full case now, but the following points were what I wanted to point out to emphasis the point that the "1932" so-called 'start' point for the Silver Star (used as "proof" that the article was a hoax) misses the point.

Look at Charles G. Conn and William T. Harris, and compare to the list at Civil War Campaign Medal#Devices. Conn is one of those listed there as retrospectively receiving a silver Citation Star, though it doesn't say when. Our article on William T. Harris might be about the person who retrospectively received a (silver) Citation Star, but it is more likely, in my opinion, that these are two different people with the same name (more sources needed).

The point is that it is very easy to get things like this wrong. It is possible to write different descriptions of varying levels of understanding and veracity about silver Citation Stars for a particular person. This can also be done for the other awards called "Silver Stars" (at least four that I am aware of). It is thus very easy it is to link to the wrong article. My point here is that a single link from a suspected hoax article to another article (in this case the link from John R. Smith to Silver Star) should be treated with caution. What happened here is that people assumed that the link was correct, and that the reference was to this medal that started in 1932, and given the dates of the supposed John R. Smith, that this "proved" that the article was a hoax. There was another possibility - namely that the link was to the wrong article.

Here is another example: "In 1925, Kress was awarded a Citation, with a Silver Star for gallantry in action at the battle " (which took place in December 13, 1862). See here. Kress is one of the people listed at Civil War Campaign Medal#Devices.

My point here though (and apologies for belabouring it) is: what price now the arguments people were making that the "Silver Star" was started in 1932 and couldn't *possibly* apply to the US Civil War, and therefore (because this argument is so *absolutely* and *clearly* indisputable) that the John R. Smith article *must* be a hoax because the medal stuff is so *obviously* wrong?

.

But I made most of these points yesterday. Why am I having to repeat them today? The argument I'm making here holds whether the John R. Smith article is a hoax or not - namely that those declaring it a hoax on the basis of the medal date being anachronistic were working from a faulty premise. So far, I see no sign that anyone has acknowledged that. What we have is some people weakly saying "but it was a hoax". That misses the entire point of needing checks and balances to avoid deleting articles that turn out not to be a hoax.

The false premise about the medal dates is reason enough to be wary of the speedy deletion and to undelete and restart the deletion discussion (though as I elsewhere above, I'm not actually going to do this - the more important point is that people recognise the need to not speedy or snowball delete, and to check what people say at AfD and not assume others are correct). The secondary reason is to allow the article to be visible to the non-admins who may respond to the current and intended requests at the Military History US Civil War taskforce and the Misplaced Pages Reference Desk.

In other words, it might well be a hoax, but there are good reasons to let the process run for the full time - to get other views, to allow faulty reasoning to be pointed out, and to avoid getting it wrong. Imagine if a troll had written a hoax-like article on a real but obscure historical person using hard-to-find offline sources, and the article had been speedily deleted as a hoax, and then it had been pointed out that the deletion was wrong. Egg on face time. Even if this one is a hoax, the next one might not be, so they should all get the requisite amount of time for discussion. I would move on from this, but there are people above who have failed to acknowledge this. Unless people acknowledge this, it will happen again. So, will the people above who seem to think the above speedy deletion was OK acknowledge this, or shall I follow up on their talk pages? Carcharoth (talk) 09:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Hoponpop69

This user has been blocked 9 times in the past for vandalism, sock puppetry, personal attacks, edit warring, etc. He has been warned by countless admins and editors like myself to stop making personal attacks. I have warned him recently about personal attacks for this edit summary, then days later he calls an admin incompetent simply because he doesn't get his way. He doesn't listen to me so I'm hoping if another admin warns him about personal attacks he will stop. Blocking doesn't affect him in the least, or the previous 9 didn't anyways. If he doesn't stop a topic ban may be in order. Virtually all he does is edit war on music related articles regarding genres in the infobox. He refuses to use the talk page, almost never does. On August Burns Red here recently he ignored consensuse of a dozen or so users and a lengthy talk page discussion and just continued to revert away. Landon1980 (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe I issued a final personal attack warning after his last contribution, and before your post here... Tan | 39 15:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I didn't see that until just now when I was informing him of this thread. Landon1980 (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd hardly call asking for people to provide sources "edit waring".Hoponpop69 (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The nine different admins who have blocked you seem to disagree. 136.245.4.252 (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Tired of cleaning up after Mac

Mac (talk · contribs) has been editing since 2003. In that time he has cultivated an intense interest in electric vehicles, alternative fuels, and solar power. The result of this has been that although he does make some good edits, his editing does not follow policy or guideline much of the time, and instead produces hundreds of bad redirects (often circling to the top of the very page a reader is on), spam links and articles, very messy categories, and copyright violations. A non-exhaustive list of the warnings he has been given in the past, as well as difs of 33 poor edits he did in one day are here, and more notices follow. Mac does not respond to these notices, and continues with the bad redirects, copy/paste violations, spam links, etc...

Is there someone here who has more experience dealing with editors who, while not being "bad people", are harming the project because they are so blinded by the "righteousness" of their cause? The many people who have warned Mac in the past have not yet had an effect as far as I can tell, and he definitely does not pay any attention to me. NJGW (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If what you say is true, then it's time for a short-term block of that user for disruption. Baseball Bugs 17:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

From briefly going over today's edits, this is copied from here (not copyright, but no attribution, which he has also been warned about several times), this redirect was made only so this edit could be made, this redirect to a company was made instead of to Upgraded metallurgical-grade silicon (which may or may not be a neologism, as Mac created that as a redirect this June), category:Ford was added to the Mazda page (the do business together, but aren't the same company as far as I know), inserted a bad redirect into the lead of an article (this redirect was created by Nukeless (talk · contribs), which other editors have questioned might be a sock of Mac's)... I don't have time to go through all of them... here are a couple of other strange redirects created today: NJGW (talk) 18:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have also cleaned up after Mac. I came across this spam link on a disambiguation page that he inserted and promptly warned him.

I am now suspicous that the user listed below may be a sock of Macs.

Solarfuture2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This is a minor issue and is based on this edit. E_dog95' 19:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Only a tiny proportion of Mac's edits result in a positive change to the article, usually people just revert back to the previous state, rather than attempting to sort his edits out. His general refusal to discuss edits, or to change his behaviour in response to several months of this, is most frustrating. Greg Locock (talk) 11:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question: SandyGeorgia was very helpful with AnnieTigerChucky, who is now a great editor. I'll ask SG's comment. --Iamunknown 01:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a tough situation. I probably invested more hours into cleaning up after AnnieTigerChucky than I care to remember, but a good editor did result. On the other hand, her edits are confined largely to one area, and they didn't number in the hundreds. It did make me want to tear my hair out some days, because it took so much of my time, but it worked: we got a productive editor instead of someone turned vandal. What was the most helpful in the process of bringing ATC up to speed was me working with an admin, who was firm but patient and did block ATC several times. That got the message through. A perusal of AnnieTigerChucky (talk · contribs)'s talk page (in particular the warnings and blockings from admin Sarah) might be instructive. I mentored and delivered help and praise and instruction, while Sarah delivered the stern discipline and a few needed blocks. HTH, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Here are some of the poor edits Mac has done today while ignoring the notice EdJohnston put on his talk page yesterday about this thread:

• turning Misplaced Pages into a commercial directory:
  • redirecting a process/product to a company or visa-versa:
  • advertising for a company:
• creating redirects so that he can use the new terms in articles:
• miscategorization:

These 20-30 bad edits a day (maybe more, as I don't have time to go through all 100-200 he does every day to fact check and look for more subtle problems) will eventually add up to huge head aches for those that decide it's time to straighten out the relevant topics. I've fixed a lot of the places where Mac and I have overlapped in the past, but there are hundreds of pages he edits that I don't have watch-listed. SandyGeorgia, can you please try to talk to him, and maybe Ed or Bugs? NJGW (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I will work on something later today, but I think you really need an admin willing to deliver the stern but kind warnings such as Sarah left for ATC: otherwise, you might not get his attn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

GNU FDL 1.3 released!

• http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3-faq.html
• http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-November/date.html

• ""Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site" (or "MMC Site") means any World Wide Web server that publishes copyrightable works and also provides prominent facilities for anybody to edit those works. A public wiki that anybody can edit is an example of such a server. A "Massive Multiauthor Collaboration" (or "MMC") contained in the site means any set of copyrightable works thus published on the MMC site."

• "Section 11 imposes two deadlines on licensees. First, you can only use works under CC-BY-SA 3.0 if they were added to a wiki before November 1, 2008. We do not want to grant people this permission for any and all works released under the FDL. We also do not want people gaming the system by adding FDLed materials to a wiki, and then using them under CC-BY-SA afterwards. Choosing a deadline that has already passed unambiguously prevents this."

• "Second, this permission is no longer available after August 1, 2009. We don't want this to become a general permission to switch between licenses: the community will be much better off if each wiki makes its own decision about which license it would rather use, and sticks with that. This deadline ensures that outcome, while still offering all wiki maintainers ample time to make their decision."

There appears to be a problem. From November 1, 2008 on we can not accept any contributions by someone other than the copyright holder that were first published under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License at other than a "Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site" such as Wikimedia projects.

I suggest we say so on the edit page and tell people at various forums and remove any such material that was placed in Misplaced Pages over the last two days. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Can't we choose to stick with 1.2? This one seems a bit oppressive to me. Dendodge Talk 18:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The plan is to go to GNU FDL 1.3 and then switch to CC-BY-SA 3.0. Of course we will have a community wide discussion first to get consensus. That is why it gives us a year to decide. I think the community will support this, but if it does not then we stay with GNU FDL 1.3. The not being able to use stuff made on non-wikis after Nov. 1 is only about avoiding stuff that we can't migrate to CC-BY-SA 3.0. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no such plan. WMF requested the option of a switch, and we now have 9 months (not a year) to decide. I'm not really sure why there's a thread here, as it has absolutely nothing to do with admin responsibilities. I suggest Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals) would be more appropriate. Superm401 - Talk 00:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure we can mention it, though I think there is very little material that enters Misplaced Pages after being copied from a GFDL licensed non-wiki by someone other than the copyright holder. In other words I think the impact is pretty limited. Dragons flight (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

While it is true that the impact is limited, these measures will make the impact even less. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The material restricted from addition if we plan to convert is pretty limited - I don't think there is that much work going on that involves moving previously published FDL material to Misplaced Pages. I'm also not sure that adding the bit to the notice would help - although if you include on the edit box "You assert by adding this material that it has not previously been released under an FDL license" that could be useful as cover later on. Avruch 18:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well as I understand it will be ok if it has been previously released under another FDL license but they were the sole author. So it should say something like "You assert by adding this material that it has not previously been released under an FDL license or that it if has that you are the only author." JoshuaZ (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

what exactly is now being done that is affected by the first deadline? And what will have to be done by the second deadline? And, to get to the real basics, what is the difference between gfdl and- CC-BY-3.0 ? DGG (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a thread on that here. --Moonriddengirl 21:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

← Q about the dates from the FAQ:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by VasileGaburici (talk • contribs) 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• I've brought up the question of how this will affect the current language at WP:C at WT:C. Please weigh in there, anyone who has a thought on the matter. :) --Moonriddengirl 21:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If understand this correctly, the plan is to migrate Misplaced Pages to CC-BY-SA, and the 1.3 version of GFDL is a necessary intermediary step for legal reasons (the viral provision of GFDL). BTW, Citizendum already moved to CC-BY-SA for new articles. So, this essay should explain the issues in excruciating detail. For those looking for a summary, see GNU_Free_Documentation_License#Criticism_of_the_GFDL. VG ☎ 22:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• To keep further discussion in one place, please take further talk to Misplaced Pages:Transition to CC-BY-SA. Thank you! ViperSnake151 21:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Block review

Perhaps someone can review my block of Cbreseman (talk · contribs). It seems he wasn't too happy with WereSpielChequers (talk · contribs) for getting his userpage deleted as an attack page. Indefinite blocks may not always mean forever, so perhaps a shorter block would've been better? Spellcast (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. Edits like this are totally inappropriate - and this wasn't the only one like it. User can always use the unblock template if he/she feels up to it. Tan | 39 18:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

In this case, I certainly hope indefinite does mean forever, and think "infinite" would have been appropriate too. We can do without someone spewing this stuff and throwing a tantrum when he doesn't get his way. --barneca (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The deleted content of his userpage = bulletproof indef. Nothing to review, no chance for unblock. MaxSem 18:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your inputs. I'm only bringing this here because users with some constructive edits are sometimes given chances. Spellcast (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh no way. This guy should not have his block shortened. He's also going to have to have a doozy of an unblock request to convince us to let him back. His user page was WAY beyond the pale, and the stuff he has done since it was deleted is inexcusable... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The thoroughly multilingual attack was a nice touch, though. Made certain that an admin would indef him pretty much regardless of which languages they spoke.  :-) — Coren  18:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I can't see his original userpage, but the commentary left for WereSpeil smells more like an indef-wish that anything I have seen in awhile. Thanks for taking out the trash. -t BMW c- 18:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Good riddance. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The mind-boggler for me was the previous, NON-hateful versions of his userpage--you know, where he talks about how much he loves his kid and throws in the "America Needs Jesus" userbox. Hope he and his version of Jesus aren't teaching his son those multilingual expressions of bigotry and hate...Gladys J Cortez 19:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Possibly a compromised account, but either way it's a good block. Like Jayron32, I'm looking forward to reading his unblock request. Baseball Bugs 19:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, I would only have checked the edit history of his user page back far enough to establish that the bile came from the user rather than a vandal, so I probably didn't see what Gladys noticed. Somehow I'd like to think it was a compromised account, just like I'd rather have been wiping IP graffiti off a user page than flagging an attack page for deletion. ϢereSpielChequers 18:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Editing notices for candidates' bios

I've strengthened the language of the MediaWiki editing notices for Obama and McCain's bios (the latter notice is new). The language reflects a likely zero tolerance response to BLP issues for these two articles. I did this in particular b/c they're both appearing on the main page in about 20 minutes as simultaneous TFAs. Comments and modifications are welcome. (This assumes the articles are not full-protected right after they go up.)--chaser - t 23:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Mainpage articles are never protected. And it isn't good that we adopt a "zero tollerance" approach - mainpage articles get lots of good faith experiments. BLP is not a worry as the stuff wil be instantly reverted.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Mainpage articles are sometimes protected. These two are too, I think. Mr Stephen (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, Chaser; considering the vitriol that has been dripping from nearly every single comments section on every election-related article I've read on the Web today, the next couple of days should be utter mayhem without a strong warning at the very least. I'd be cool with zero-tolerance for blatant political vandalism by any registered users, not so much for IPs - if that gets heavy, semi-protection for short periods would be something to consider. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Main Page featured article protection will govern as usual.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. They're already full-protected.--chaser - t 00:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Good. We're saving vandal-fighters a lot of time here :-) (I think the protection was discussed here at some point). – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Even under the circumstances, front-paging them was a huge mistake. Front page articles are the first thing they go for. Now we have to differentiate between political vandalism and some little bugger having a laugh. HalfShadow 00:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the protection logs, these are going to be fully protected all day it appears, Either way (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

How do you turn this on: yes, it was discussed on an/i a few days ago. The thread was just archived. ~ L'Aquatique! 01:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like Obama's page is fully protected but McCain's page is only semi-protected. Any reason? Aunt Entropy (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither should be full-protected, per guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Main Page featured article protection. Why has this guideline been violated, and what is being done about it? Tarc (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

In short, because it's a good idea, and nothing. Policies aren't binding, guidelines are double-plus not binding, and we make smart decisions instead of following bad guidelines. WilyD 21:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Now that we've abandoned the open editing model the above notices can safely be deleted. Bloody ironic that the preceding edit was to address accessibility concerns. — CharlotteWebb 18:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The full protection for both is set to expire within 12 hours, so the notices should become relevant again very soon. In the meantime, admins are the only ones who will see them by trying to edit the page.--chaser - t 21:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the protection is set to expire but by the time it does, the articles will no longer be on the Main Page, and will be subject to normal protection decisions. Risker (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible personal attack on user page?

I am not sure but User:Flyer22#Hall_of_infamy kind of seems like a long personal attack on Kctwty. Since I have recently had a disagreement with Flyer22, I am posting here instead of her talk page. Because I have kind of promised not to post on her talk page. If I am wrong and said "Hall of infamy" is not a personal attack, then I apologize in advance. This is not an attempt of harassing Flyer22. I just know that I would feel pretty angry if I were Kctwty. --Law Lord (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That seems quite out of line to me - it's one thing to bring attention to harassment to get it to stop, but it's quite another to continue it through a public vendetta. I'll wait for a couple more comments here before I take any action, though... Hersfold 01:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see these comments removed without much fuss and bother. This same sort of thing happened with another user around this time last year, and I certainly hope the ensuing drama doesn't repeat itself as well. —Animum (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, seems pretty out of line. Grsz 01:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

None of that text matters, and it can all be dropped. The email quoted could be taken as insulting; bringing it onto wiki could be seen as over reacting. Leave personal stuff off-wiki wherever possible. "Ask user to remove without fuss and bother, understanding why it's better to do so" seems right to me. FT2  01:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If I had written a message to another editor in which my assumption of their inviolable and eternal idiocy had been so thoroughly oozing from every clause, both dependent and independent, then perhaps I would also have skin thick enough to survive having my snobbery and elitism picked apart, nit by nit, in a public forum. Personally, I agree that yeah, it should probably be taken down, civil civil, nice nice--but if we're talking about "out of line" the onus in THAT regard is most DEFINITELY on the author of the e-mail, not on the user who posted it. Gladys J Cortez 02:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gladys. What's particularly amusing (or infuriating, no doubt, to the target) is that the e-mailer is hardly the impeccable stylist he claims to be if one is to judge by "I've worked and earned praise from national-award winning writers" and the consistent lowercasing of "wikipedia," among other things. Deor (talk) 02:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It would have been nice if someone had thought to inform Flyer22 of this thread; I have done so. While anyone who uses "right you off" in the middle of a mean and belittling email lecturing another on good English almost deserves to have their classless attitude displayed for the perusal of others, it's not particularly conducive to a civil editing atmosphere, and it's over a year in the past, now. fish&karate 12:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Please see this discussion on my Talk page, which followed this WQA discussion. Is Law Lord still trying to get Flyer22 in trouble? This is doubly disappointing, since I left a fairly clear warning to Law Lord to stop harassing Flyer22, and I know he read it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As I have stated, I am not harassing anybody. I think I have the same right as anybody else to report something, which could be a personal attack. I have not written anything on their talk page, because I said I would not. --Law Lord (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Private_correspondence --Law Lord (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I thought something like that would exists. Seems pretty clear cut to me. Grsz 15:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask Flyer22 to remove the text. I think I can find a less confrontational link, incidentally. So, having sorted that out, does anyone here believe it's just a coincidence that this editor is reporting that editor here, after reading the links I posted above? SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed SheffieldSteel is right. Law Lord is still in a blatant and transparent vendetta against me. He continues to try and attempt to get me blocked (which would only be temporary, anyway) or banned from Misplaced Pages. Why? Well, just look to the links SheffieldSteel provided above. He is furious that he was dead wrong about a disagreement/debate we just had, and has thus continued to harass me. This is just an extension of that harassmnet. He does not care that I blasted Kctwty, an editor who has not been here for quite some time. This is a bad-faith report.

At the time I made the "Hall of infamy" section on my user page...I was still a relative new user, and that editor outright told me that he did not care if I put that up on my user page. I felt that it was no big deal to put that dispute on my user page, especially since not one editor (and there have plenty) who have looked at my user page felt I was violating policy. I will easily remove that section from my user page now. And, hopefully, Law Lord will cease his embarrassing (embarrassing for him) attempts to take me down. But then again, maybe I should be pleased that I have such a passionate fan. Flyer22 (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Problem solved. --Law Lord (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Elonka’s ban of ScienceApologist and Martinphi from WP:FRINGE

Elonka (talk · contribs) has issued a 30-day page ban for ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) from editing the fringe theories guideline. Her alleged basis for this action is the concern expressed by "multiple admins" about the editing situation in this thread at WP:ANI. First off, a cursory reading of the entire thread shows widespread support of SA’s actions (with the exception of Elonka quickly calling for a block or ban of SA, of course).

Elonka has been repeated asked to disengage from her mucking about in Pseudoscience arbitration enforcement, and specifically been asked, both by SA and others, to let ScienceApologist alone, yet she refuses to do so. She popped onto SA’s talkpage to drop her banhammer after he made one edit to the guideline in question today, after a three-day break since the long discussion on ANI found that nothing more was needed than a reminder for SA to tone his edit summaries down, which he did.

I ask the editors here to answer two specific questions: (1) should the page ban be vacated, and (2) would you say that Elonka’s ban was even reasonable or appropriate to begin with, or executed in bad faith or poor judgment? HiDrNick! 03:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that we want to condone allowing an editor to unilaterally declare that an administrator, carrying out actions with community consensus, or enforcing arbitration rulings, is disallowed from a talk page. That's a bad precedent. That SA was repeatedly warned, and repeatedly removed the warnings is one thing. But to ask that Elonka not post there? No. I have myself wondered if Elonka sometimes is a bit meddlesome and persistent, but in this case I endorsed the warning, and I endorse the ban as well. Martinphi I am not so sure about, as I have asked already at her page. ++Lar: t/c 03:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

PS I am not sure I agree with HiDrNick's characterization of Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive487#Back_to_ScienceApologist as "widespread support of ScienceApologist's actions". Rather I see some admins saying SA needs to tone down edit summaries and some admins (including myself) endorsing the warnings given. ++Lar: t/c 03:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

See also: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive487#Back_to_ScienceApologist ++Lar: t/c 03:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

See also Elonka's talk page and my talk page and this. I may have made a mistake, but seriously.... It isn't as if I'm unresponsive to criticism. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Nick, did you see this? _{(Didn't notice it was already posted.)} seicer | talk | contribs 03:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ooof, I should have been more clear. The "widespread support of ScienceApologist's actions" I was refering to was in the superthread, which was the bulk of the discussion there and is in now in a colapse box in the archive. I aggre that no one suported the sort of edit summaries he was using there at the end, but clearly there was no consensus to block or ban there either. I haven't really reviewed Martinphi's contributions to the FRINGE page, and wasn't trying to leave him out per se, I just watch SA's talk page there. HiDrNick! 03:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

HiDrNick!, Elonka has been doing really exceptionally good work in general in the pseudoscience arena. I do not think that anyone should use this as an excuse to go after her. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. She just missed the mark a bit here with Martinphi. It happens... let's fix it and move on. Or we could have a long drawn out discussion in which everyone defends their positions vociferously and much hard feeling is engendered. It's up to Elonka I guess. ++Lar: t/c 03:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This is noot an isolated incident. For instance, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive26#Martinphi_at_WP:NPOV. I was the last victim of his response to this: a mixture of outing, personal attacks, and attempting to get me banned. I shan't link because of the outing - e-mail me for details. This incident is comparatively minor, but I think that we have been very, very lenient with Martin, and that it is beyond time that something is done. However, every time something is done, he throws a hiuge fit, attacking the admin, or even person wh o has simply scriticised him - the attempt to get me banned was over me saying that that he probably shouldnðt be editing WP:NPOV in ways that increase its friendliness to his views while under a arbcom sanction for POV-pushing (well, soapboxing is the exact word they use.)

I don't like talking about Martinphi, because I get the strong feeling that he wants me to be his next Scienceapologist, so, whatever is said here, I shall say no more. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems a far less wikidrama course of action would simply have been to protect the page for a time until concensus was achieved on talk. Drop the bans and lock the page to a version prior to the current warring. Vsmith (talk) 03:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I endorse Elonka's actions here. I see nothing out of order. ···日本穣 03:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I had considered protecting WP:FRINGE; discussion is occurring, but it seems to be in parallel with edit-warring, and a guideline should really be more stable than this. But I don't want to get involved anymore. I don't quite understand the immediate trigger for these page bans, though the long-term history is clear enough. In any case, 1RR might be preferable, but a page ban won't kill anyone. I would like to see more eyes on WP:FRINGE, as I find it populated almost exclusively by editors who are active and opinionated in the fringe subjects in question, whether pro or con. MastCell  03:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This is absolutely out of line. Protection would have been the standard practice and I see no good reason to do this. Frankly, I'm beginning to think that Elonka should stay away from everything related to fringe issues since her presence creates more disruption than it solves. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I am ignoring everything Elonka says from now on including her "page ban". Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Instead of risking a permanent block, I recommend that you start keeping a running tab of all the vandalism and POV-pushing and other junk that occurs on that page, and bring it up here or some other appropriate venue, and ask, "Who's going to do something about this?" Baseball Bugs 04:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm personally surprised that there is more "oversight" going on with the general discussions in a guideline page. If admins allow an edit war to continue in what hopes to be policyspace, no wonder we have problems in pretty much every sector of Misplaced Pages :-( Shot info (talk) 04:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You do so at your peril, I think. This is an ongoing discussion that will result in the ban being endorsed or overturned, but until that consensus becomes clear I view it as in effect. I'll enforce it, with regret, even if I happen not to agree with it (and I expect I'm not the only admin that will), if your actions are too egregious. So watch out for that. ++Lar: t/c 04:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Elonka should stay away from pseudoscience. Since she has decided to unilaterally implement her version of EP, the wikidrama has increased rather than decreased. It would appear that she hasn't learnt anything from her RfC nor her recall notice (other than she can pretty much ignore anything she perceives as "negative" as she has enough "positive" support....much like SA has in fact). I recommend that, if the fringe articles are not properly policed, then some other admins should jump in, rather than leaving it for Elonka to "do the hard yards". Per her RfC and her recall notice it is clear that a large minority of the Community disagrees with her actions particularly when they inflame the situation rather than resolve it. Lar, if you feel that SA has overstepped the mark, then I'm confident that the editors at the coal face would appriciate your more active admining in the necessary areas...rather that leaving it to backing up Elonka attempt to rewrite policy. Shot info (talk) 04:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair point. In my copious free time I'll try to see what I can do. ++Lar: t/c 04:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Shotinfo - My experience with Elonka is that she's always reasonable, unfailingly polite when people respect her efforts at keeping things orderly and civil, and completely no-nonsense when people don't. heaven knows she's called me on enough of my own crap, and I've learned to respect her opinion. the main problem in this case is that the signal to noise ratio is utterly dismal. I think you would withdraw your objection if you dug through all the drama-trauma and actually looked at bare facts of the matter. --Ludwigs2 04:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm shocked. OrangeMarlin 04:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not, but OM I'm going to take on board Lar's comments below. Shot info (talk) 05:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I completely agree with that assessment, but it's immaterial. I think it's more important, here, to just stay confined to the narrow question of whether to endorse or overturn these actions. ++Lar: t/c 04:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Elonka has been doing a good job. I merely object to being treated in the same manner as ScienceApologist. I also object to the ban because at the very most I made a mistake with one edit (making it into an essay). However, that was just a reaction to what MastCell says above: it should be more stable if it is going to be a guideline. My revert (the other edit in question which was not the reason for the ban) was merely an "agree revert," along with two other editors who reverted first. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Martin, I've been trying to work with you across a number of projects, and I think we've made some sort of peace, despite our divergent views. However, I'm going to strongly disagree with your assessment of Elonka. OrangeMarlin 04:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me repeat... I think delving into the whys and wherefores of how we all feel about each other may not be the most productive use of our time. Let's stay focused on this action and whether to endorse or overturn it. Whether you come to bury or praise, save it. Not likely to be productive. IMHO anyway. ++Lar: t/c 04:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't often comment on blocks and individual incidents. But, speaking as (IMO, at least) a fairly "middle of the road" WP user with a primary main-namespace orientation towards category:philosophy and category:religion articles, side-by-side with a strong empirical orientation, I think this incident merits comment at the moment. ScienceApologist has for years been a diligent and highly valuable contributor to WP. Admittedly SA is often contentious w.r.t. issues he feels strongly about. And I recognize that a 30-day ban from one page is not ordinarily a :"great-big deal", The recent little brouhaha at WP:FRINGE, however, appears to me to be a very minor conceptual scuffle among good-faith editors with differing POVs about what the content guideline should be w.r.t. "fringe theories" (fundamentally a WP:WEIGHT issue anyway). I'm disturbed that SA is being painted as unusually disruptive, when in fact minor edit wars of the kind cited by Elonka happen very frequently with no more than a reminder to desist and discuss further on the relevant talk page(s). This block thus has the rather odd result of citing prior administrative action as a cause for further administrative action, with nothing else particularly out of the ordinary given in justification for this particular administrative action. The obvious implication is that future administrative action will threaten to draw also on this administrative action. I understand that there may be cases in which such gradual escalation of sanctions are reasonably deemed appropriate where users plainly are unproductive and additionally are chronic violators of WP policy. Here, though, we've got a fairly typical guideline disagreement about which SA evidently felt strongly in the face of edits by other user(s) who evidently also felt strongly about their preferred expression of the WP:FRINGE guideline page. I submit that the block should be immediately lifted and ScienceApologist excused here, at least absent much more extensive evidence that SA is being tendentious or disruptive in a way that can't be handled by the normal range of consensus process with which we're quite well accustomed in WP. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
..... P.S.: I hadn't noticed that Martinphi had also been blocked, or page-banned, or whatever exactly the case is here. IMO, no one should remain blocked under this circumstance. I've encountered Martinphi before as well, and as with SA, I've had differing POVs with Martinphi. IMO, somewhat similarly to SA, MartinPhi too is often contentious about issues he feels strongly about. But there's nothing here that can't be handled via the normal range of consensus process. Thanks. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I am a supporter of SA, in general, but I know he can be direct in his language. Elonka probably is the wrong person to do something about SA's behavior, since Elonka seems to have appointed herself the policeperson of pseudoscience articles. She has unfairly placed blocks on users such as User:NJGW, while ignoring the misbehavior of other editors who might be honestly described as anti-science or pseudoscience supporters. This is completely unfair to SA. OrangeMarlin 05:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, SA has partially removed part of Elonka's post to his user talk. John Vandenberg 05:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I put it back, because I want to go on record as standing behind this action, until and unless consensus develops here to overturn it. I'm not a big fan of going to users talk pages and arguing about whether an action outlined on that talk page is a good idea or not, so even if I were to disagree, I construe this as enforcable until consensus develops that it is not. If SA removes it again, he's within rights to do so, and we can construe the notice as being given, but he doesn't get to say "admin so and so can't talk to me". That's ArbCom's job I think. ++Lar: t/c 05:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The consensus does appear to be drifting towards a "drop the block and pursue normal page management practises" - which of course is being obscured by the normal amounts of commentary. Given that I'm prepared to be incorrect. Shot info (talk) 05:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sensing the same sort of very slow drift you do, yes, but there aren't a lot of different voices here yet, so it's hard to be sure it's a real consensus just yet. I'm on board in any case, whichever way it comes out. If I'm asleep, anyone else should feel free to do the needful (I'm guessing Elonka's asleep since she hasn't commented here once, despite being notified... odd, unless she is away) ++Lar: t/c 05:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it would be sensible to lift both page bans and lock the main page until some consensus is reached on the talk page. Mathsci (talk) 05:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I will also be available to block, and I've not been involved with the "fringe" page at all. Mathsci, I would agree with you, but we should not need to protect a page such as that when the primary disruptor is one individual whose prior histories give indication that he is unwilling to work with others. seicer | talk | contribs 05:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Partially resending my comment, I've went and protected the page for one week to see if SA and others are willing to work towards a consensus. If not... seicer | talk | contribs 05:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have a large enough number of allies on WP, you can pretty much act with impunity and without fear of reprisal or sanction. Why should this incident be any different from any of the uncountable number that came before it? Dlabtot (talk) 05:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It is my feeling that the temporary page bans on these two editors are a justifiable minor restriction, which is helping to stabilize the guideline. To give a bit more background on this: I had warned both ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) and Martinphi (talk · contribs) a few days ago, for edit-warring on the guideline page. I also specifically told both of them to disengage from each other. This is because they've been brought up in more ArbCom cases than I can even name off the top of my head, but try Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience to start. ScienceApologist was particularly out of line because he was trying to force through major changes to the WP:FRINGE guideline, but hadn't participated on the talkpage for months.

So anyway, things were quiet over the weekend. ScienceApologist was offline, but other editors were engaging in good discussion at the talkpage, and consensus changes were being gradually restored to the guideline. Then today the edit-warring started up again, ScienceApologist came in and reverted everything back to his last version, and Martinphi followed up immediately by trying to downgrade the guideline down to an essay. That last was definitely against consensus since this was discussed extensively in July and the page's status as a guideline has strong community backing.

The reason I chose not to protect the page, is because there are multiple editors working on the guideline, who do seem able to make incremental edits based on talkpage consensus. So I didn't want to "throw the baby out with the bathwater". It seemed that the best way to help protect the editing of the guideline was with a relatively minor editing ban on both ScienceApologist and Martinphi. After all, what does the ban limit? Both editors are still completely free to participate at the guideline's talkpage, and if the discussions there are productive, then other editors will agree, and those other editors can incorporate the changes into the guideline. All the page ban really does, is to prevent ScienceApologist and Martinphi from jumping the gun and making no-consensus edits. Which I see as a good thing. --Elonka 05:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi and Ludwigs2 have just been asking for the guidelines to be completely rewritten "from top to tail", possibly in jest. seicer made a very fair decision in locking the main page to let things calm down and consensus to be reached. The WP:FRINGE page needs far more eyes on it. Mathsci (talk) 06:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I support Elonka's page ban of SA. He was edit warring, plain and simple. He felt his version was the best version and rather than engaging in the discussions going on the talk page, he chose to revert to his version with inflammatory/egocentric edit summaries. This is SA's modus operandi. We've seen him do this very tactic many times in the past. Skirting 3RR, by edit warring slowly. Given his history, a 30 day block from editing one policy is extrodinarily lenient, IMHO.

I think MartinPhi's ban is undeserved. Unlike SA, MartinPhi was participating in discussion and I believe he only made one revert to SA's four. MartinPhi's choice to downgrade the policy to an essay - while not a move which I would have made - was something which he discussed on the talk page and when it was reverted, he didn't engage in an edit war.

Mathsci, I agree. More eyes on WP:FRINGE are needed and welcomed!

As a final note, to my fellow American Wikipedians: Be sure to log off from Wiki land today long enough to vote! -- Levine2112 06:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What elections? Mathsci (talk) 06:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Because that gratuitously non-neutral link was so relevant. I'm going to have to resist the urge to change it to link to that for McCain or maybe a third party candidate or maybe Cthulhu (why vote for the lesser evil?). JoshuaZ (talk) 06:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Theres an election?? From media reports here (ie/ not in the US) it's sort of apparent who is going to win....much like in Zimbabwe :-) Shot info (talk) 06:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh crap. I was going to cast aspersions about Levine's character, intelligence and overall usefulness to the project, and he had to go and be an Obama supporter. But I do disagree with his opinion of Elonka's fairness.  :) OrangeMarlin 06:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

OM, check out the The Tale of the Tape; you might be surprised what else I support or don't support. -- Levine2112 07:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Elonka says:

"This is because they've been brought up in more ArbCom cases than I can even name off the top of my head"

I've been in exactly two ArbComs.

One "agree revert" is not "edit warring" in the negative sense, but common practice, BRD.

I explained that the downgrade to essay was only meant to be till the guideline resumed a stable form. Thus, if the edit stuck, good. If the edit didn't stick, it was at least a message to others to stop edit warring on a guideline. Again, good. That was my intent. For that I'm given a 30 day page ban? I was aware of the consensus to keep it as a guideline, and my edit had nothing to do with that general consensus.

The argument of "minimum force" is something I'll let others decide. I already addressed that on my talk page , as admin actions are not punitive. Exactly how was I disrupting the guideline such that allowing me to edit there would harm Misplaced Pages? I would like Elonka to explain just how "minimum force" required me to be banned.

She speaks of "these two editors." To equate me with ScienceApologist as if we behave in similar ways is incomprehensible. That this is being done is reflected in Elonka's sentence which I quoted above, though she does seem to draw some minor distinction.

Elonka notes that "things were quiet over the weekend." I was there over the weekend. Working toward consensus. Please don't equate me with ScienceApologist. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This page ban is far more than what Elonka says "All the page ban really does, is to prevent ScienceApologist and Martinphi from jumping the gun and making no-consensus edits." Rather, it is symbolic that our actions were so negative that we can't be allowed to edit the page. Certainly, it doesn't have much practical effect on me, though it does for SA. If it stands it is because the community is saying "Martinphi deserved to be banned for 30 days because of his edit." Is this so? I don't want this on my record. And particularly, I want the community to stop equating me with SA. Were our actions equal? ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

SA was edit warring. There is no doubt about that. WP:EW states:

uninvolved administrators may either block the involved offenders for a period of time or protect the affected page(s). Protection is useful when the involved parties will work to resolve the conflict. Blocks occur when there is evidence that users cannot or will not moderate their behavior, often demonstrated by an inflexible demeanor, incivility, or past instances of edit warring and unchanged behavior

Blocks occur when there is evidence that users cannot/will not moderate their behaviour. It is clear wikipedia policy. SA was warned, and has been warned previously about edit warring. That edit warring continued, with his revert to back to his version. That shows that (s)he cannot or will not moderate the edit warring. Martinphi on the other hand, was not blocked for edit warring, but for disruptive editing. I'm not as sure that the downgrade to essay was clearly disruptive. Consensus definitely existed for it to be policy a few months ago, but as we all know, consensus can change - especially when the policy itself has changed to the point where people are edit warring over it. Overall, I definitely support Elonka's rationale for blocks instead of a page protection, and support SA's block. I am unsure whether Martinphi's block was appropriate, as I am unsure whether the edit was disruptive. DigitalC (talk) 06:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This entire situation is belittling to both editors involved, entirely inconsiderate, not to mention lacking in even the most fundamental hint of a clue regarding general human psychology, and can easily be read - with a slight amount of literary indulgence, mind you - as pure and simple bullying, with a mask of civility disguising the sheer contempt for those deemed "beneath" the grown-up alpha bully setting the rules. Business as usual from one of the most considerate, level-headed, uncontroversial and productive administrators who has ever graced this humble project with her exhalted presence. Badger Drink (talk) 06:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

:-) - no support for blocks/bans of either editor. That was unnecessary and unhelpful. dougweller (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I echo the positions of OrangeMarlin, JoshuaZ and Dougweller. Elonka had no business banning/blocking MartinPhi, who was engaging in discussion and did not edit war. Her action was plain and simple abuse of admin powers. Her rationale that MartinPhi was involved in some Arbcom cases is ridiculous — she has substituted her judgment to that of the Arbcom. Furthermore, if we consider long-term positions, like Elonka's doing in the case of MartinPhi, then Elonka is not an uninvolved party in this case. Elonka has adopted conciliatory positions towards fringe theorists, like the recently indef blocked User:Ariobarza, who kept filling Misplaced Pages with his inane WP:OR, while she's shooting on sight editors that try to keep Misplaced Pages an encyclopedia. VG ☎ 10:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Also agree with OrangeMarlin, BadgerDrink, JoshuaZ, Dougweller, VG, et al. that this block is a bad block. Verbal chat 10:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I have been watching this ongoing debates at multiple boards and watching just a few editing this page. I am an outsider to this whole thing and have no opinion of any of the editors per se. I think the blocks were unnecessary and caused more heat then light. I also think Elonka was aware that this would not be wildly excepted. What I am seeing are editors with strong views and strong headiness. Protection of the page would have brought things to a cooler level and should have been done to begin with instead of the warnings to just these two editor since there were more editors involved in reverting and just popping in to do the revert. Some just did the revert, popped a quick comment on the talk and left, kind of looked to me as a protection to prevent a block even though the action done was done because of which editor made the last edit. This kind of gaming needs to be stopped and now. I am not going to mention names, if you want to see the whole picture read the talk page and the last edit summaries when the warring really started. I have to also say that I do not believe Elonka should be patrolling these articles as mentioned by others above and I have stated this before. There is a lot of bad blood amongst editors with her and I would assume her with them since the RFC and the recall, which a lot was said. So, I am saying, if it matters to anyone, that both editors have there bans/blocks removed, the page stays protected for thirty days or until things on the talk page shows calmness, and other administrators do the patrolling of the different articles including this one. Are there other administrators that are not involved with this that can be useful to helping get better guidance and control over the pseudoscience area? I personally feel that at this point Elonka in involved with conflicts with certain editors or at least there is an appearance of this to make her cause more drama with decisions than needed. I am just trying to give the view of someone who has been watching things for quite some time now and this is how I see things. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGal 11:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Dougweller, Tim Vickers, Dbachmann, MastCell and Moreschi have a lot of experience with WP:FRINGE and are well aware of the issues involved. Why not be led by their experience? Mathsci (talk) 11:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Crohnie's summary is very good and has some very good suggestions in it. I myself did revert, but quickly did a self-revert on realising there was a bigger problem. Verbal chat 13:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF and WP:NPA are essential policies, without which Misplaced Pages will eventually collapse in an ugly heap. So I am dismayed if edits like this can be made with impunity. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Quick two cents here: I had SA's talk page watchlisted when the ban came down from Elonka. I thought that, in light of the ArbCom rulings, SA was really pushing things, and I'm not sure I disagree with the ban per se. That said, if Elonka thought the ban was uncontroversial, she should have asked another admin to make it official. There is way too much history of Elonka taking aggressive administrative action against the anti-fringe crowd, and regardless of whether a given action is valid or not, it invariably leaves one with the impression of retribution, or at least conflict of interest.

SA's reverting was not so disruptive that it required immediate (as in <10 minutes) action. So it seems to me there was plenty of time for Elonka to find another admin lurking about, point out the situation and the ArbCom rulings, and have that admin institute the ban (assuming he or she agreed, of course). This just seems like a no-brainer to me.

Or does anyone here seriously believe that all interactions between SA and Elonka are impersonal at this point, hmmm? --Jaysweet (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I am deeply bothered buy the admission from an editor that he has been humiliated. In reviewing Martin’s edits to the Fringe article and in assuming good faith I have to question, while respecting Elonka, the ban on him. His actions were not comparable to Science Apologists, and there is no sense in any of us suggesting that they were. Behaviours following the ban are a further clear indication of how each editor deals with such situations differently. Yet each received equal restrictions.

I think Shot Info and SA are right. We can’t stop SA from editing the Elonka article, and attempting to ascertain why any editor edits an article can only lead to mistakes and frustration. Most of us don’t go there. Whether it was prudent for SA to begin editing this article now is another matter entirely.

As a kayaker if you play in “big” water near the eddy line you are bound to find yourself in the water eventually, your kayak overturned. That’s the risk you take for the excitement you experience, and no intelligent kayaker expects to take those risks and not be faced with the ensuing repercussions that can follow even a small mistake in judgment. SA plays near the “eddy line” on Misplaced Pages, and being intelligent I can only assume he knows the risk he takes. His actions following Elonka’s ban are clear indications that he plays in this slightly dangerous environment, and for reasons of his own. Although nothing stops him from editing the article of the blocking admin., he had to know that this would cause some Wikidrama as it has. There’s no sense in pretending SA is stupid either. I would assume then, that he is fully aware of the risks he takes, and if he overturns his kayak must have expected the possibility.

Martinphi, whatever his behaviour has been in the past seems to be steering clear of this kind of editing. His actions on the fringe article if reviewed indicate efforts to edit in a manner that supports collaboration whatever his POV might be, as do his actions following this ban. These are two very different editors.

I am sorry to see the ban on Martin given his progress. I think its unfortunate and unfair to him. And this is Misplaced Pages. Since we have to assume good faith, we must trust that SA edits the Elonka article for the right reasons, whatever we think, however imprudent we judge that editing to be. We have to also trust Martin made the edit and revert on the Fringe article for the right reasons as he says he did, whatever the results. I can only hope the admins. reviewing this case will very carefully re evaluate the situation, and to remember that Martin is not SA and vice versa.

This isn't about how small a ban this is, but is about fairness and humiliation. Humiliation should not be something that is supported on Misplaced Pages for any editor, for any reason, and however tedious reevaluation is, fairness is of the utmost importance. If a mistake has been made, then it should be fixed. Its that simple.(olive (talk) 16:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC))

Page protected

The page is now protected, so what is the point of continuing the problematic bans? Revoke or undo the ban stuff and nip the drama. Vsmith (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I protected the page with the hope that all parties will come together and discuss. So far, that really hasn't happened. The protection lasts for one week. If any of the parties continue to edit war after the protection, the ban will be enforced. I hope that that is not the case, so let's hope for the best. seicer | talk | contribs 15:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And to clarify: SA or anyone that was involved was not blocked. I don't know where people have been getting that at. seicer | talk | contribs 16:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there seems to be some confusion here, so to clarify, I have not blocked anyone. Neither Martinphi nor ScienceApologist has a new block in their logs. I instituted a very minor page ban, which in my opinion was even less restrictive than page protection. When a page is protected, no one can edit it. What I did was to restrict two of the editors on the page, but just from editing that one page, and nothing else. It's a very precisely-crafted restriction, as authorized by WP:ARBCOM, via Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project." Martinphi and ScienceApologist are not blocked. They are still allowed to edit anything else they want, except for exactly one of the 2.5 million pages on Misplaced Pages, which is the Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories guideline. Meanwhile, they can still participate at the guideline talkpage. I have to admit that I'm perplexed as to why people think that page protection is a preferable solution here, since I see that as much more severe, affecting all editors, not just the two who were involved in disruptive behavior. --Elonka 16:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

So now the page is protected you are rescinding the ban, which doesn't have universal support, per Vsmith? I think the block/ban distinction here (in this discussion, not in general) was just "lazy" language (or, more likely, not using wp admin jargon). The ban is a block from that page, and no one said block in this section. Verbal chat 18:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to lift the ban, especially with ScienceApologist making statements like this. The editors who should be empowered at the page are those who are staying civil, participating in good faith, treating other editors with respect, and willing to work through the normal steps of dispute resolution. Currently, ScienceApologist does not appear to be abiding by expected standards of behavior; therefore his editing is restricted. If he continues with disruptive behavior, his editing privileges should be further restricted. This is not about punishing ScienceApologist, this is about reducing disruption to the project, and allowing other editors to get on with their work. --Elonka 18:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you are no longer an "uninvolved admin" in regard pseudoscience, especially if you use the same version of "uninvolved" as on your agreement to be subject to recall. Fair is fair. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As the page is protected, the ban is useless - if, as stated above, it was for prevention of disruption. Maintaining a useless ban would seem "punitive" rather than "preventative". Seicer protected the page (indefinetly according to the log), so until he unprotects in a week or whatever, there can be no disruption on the page. Now, if you are maintaining the bans for other reasons: then state those reasons - else lift them. Starting to look quite bad for your "uninvolvement" stance. Suggest that you rescind the bans and back away - let other admins take action if disruption reccurrs following lifting of protection. Vsmith (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

To Verbal: Someone mentioned block in the above section, not here. seicer | talk | contribs 18:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Elonka said "The editors who should be empowered at the page are those who are staying civil, participating in good faith, treating other editors with respect, and willing to work through the normal steps of dispute resolution." How is that not what I have been doing?

I'm no longer willing to accept punishment just so an admin, even one such as Elonka who I generally support, may have the topical appearance of justice while actually conflating editors whose behavior could not be more different.

I have two main complaints here:

First, by no stretch could my edits have been construed as deserving of this kind of humiliation.

Second, to give ScienceApologist and myself equal treatment is an intolerable insult. It says our behavior is similar.

I also object to punitive admin action: there is absolutely no justification for saying that I must be banned to prevent harm to the Misplaced Pages process. The ban is therefore punitive.

I have already appealed to ArbCom, but as I stated before, I wanted to work it out with Elonka instead of going that rout. I still do. Here is what I want: I want to be unbanned, and I want it to be acknowledged that conflation of myself and ScienceApologist is wrong. I want it done in a clear way which leaves no doubt. After all this time, I deserve that consideration.

I'll be back some time late tomorrow. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's rare for me to agree with Martinphi on something, but his comment that he is "no longer willing to accept punishment so...Elonka...may have the topical appearance of justice", I think that really cuts to the heart of the matter here. This is why Elonka should not be performing administrative actions in pseudoscience- and fringe-related areas. Now it's not just the anti-fringe crowd that is questioning Elonka's motives: Now, Martinphi also has legitimate reason to feel that he has been wronged as the result of Elonka's personal entanglement in this debacle. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Elonka should not be performing administrative actions in pseudoscience and fringe-related areas. She is perceived as having a bias toward editors who advocate fringe theories, which calls into question her role as an uninvolved administrator. If she is biased, that could do irreparable harm to the encyclopedia by placing other concerns over some of our policies. If she is not biased, the perception of the bias causes her actions to contribute to the drama that seems to surround this area. Many wikipedians (including me) expressed doubts about her tactics in the RFC. I encourage Elonka to find other areas in which to use her talents and to stay away from pseudoscience and fringe related articles and the editors who frequently edit there. Karanacs (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Can another individual, who is uninvolved with the above commentary, provide feedback at Elonka Dunin? If it is not appearant, administrator Elonka is Elonka Dunin, and SA just recently began a push to have the page moved -- which coincidentally occurred after he was page banned from FRINGE by Elonka. seicer | talk | contribs 20:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The following was snipped from Talk:Elonka Dunin:

Your block log makes me question your little crusade here. Perhaps you can find another article on Misplaced Pages to improve. There are over a million you can choose from. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Per comments left at your talk page SA, I strongly encourage you to find another article to edit. Your strong conflict of interest, especially in light that Elonka imposed a page ban on you only yesterday, is giving undue bias towards your commentary here. Lar and others have made this distinction. seicer | talk | contribs 20:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Seicer has his own conflict of interest with respect to me and should not be involving himself in this situation. He wikistalked me to Elonka Dunin and has written me very uncivil e-mails in the past. I find it deliciously ironic that he is invoking conflict-of-interest here. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe Seicer implicitly disclosed his conflict of interest when he asked for an uninvolved party to jump in. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I have yet to edit the article, only offering commentary in the talk page in relation to the page move and sources. seicer | talk | contribs 20:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? You've definitely edited the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Elonka's bio is a bit puffed up. But that's mainly due to the sources, e.g. "She knew binary - the language of computers - by heart." With sources like that, what can you expect. OTOH, SA is a bit too aggressive in tagging. The timing is also a bit suspect. I suggest he cools off and, if he's really interested in Elonka's bio, come back when he's less passionate. VG ☎ 20:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind people discussing the tagging. I'm trying to point out the issues. I think that commenting on content rather than contributors should be exercised here. Why are people refusing to do that? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that Seicer made an extremely poor editorial judgement in this edit which removed tags that were discussed on the talk page, reverted edits by people other than myself (despite his claim that the revert was all about me), and reintroduced formatting errors. Is this above-the-board? Should an administrator with a vendetta like Seicer's be editing in such a fashion? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, but I have never been involved in any of this, and I have no conflict of interest, and in fact I've sympathized with the crap up with which you have had to put in the past. I'm basically on your side. And I'm telling you that editing Elonka Dunin or Talk:Elonka Dunin right now, whether it be fixing a misspelling or nominating it for deletion or anywhere in between, is incredibly ill-advised, and is going to garner you a block, I'm pretty sure, and more importantly, give more ammunition to the "ban SA forever" brigade. Please don't do it. Please? --barneca (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please explain to me which edits were problematic.... Why would editing that article in an attempt to improve it and Misplaced Pages garner me a block? Under what policies/guidelines? I appreciate this concern, but really, I think because Misplaced Pages is explicit that we should comment on content and not contributors, I would like to be judged on the quality of my edits and not the perceived "risks" associated with my person. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to spend too much time on this discussion, because I think in my heart I know you know the answer to this, and are asking more for rhetorical effect (if so, let me know in future, so I don't spend time writing something that won't matter). But the answer to your question is, none of the edits themselves, if made by, say, me, would be problematic. But pulling the "contributions not contributor" card isn't going to fly, when the only reason you're editing that article at all is because of your dispute with User:Elonka. You're aware by now, I assume, that Misplaced Pages isn't utopia. It might be nice if you were able to edit that article regardless of your disputes, but the fact of the matter is, it's going to be considered disruptive by enough people that you'll be blocked for harrassment, or being POINTy, or something, and it'll stick. Maybe that's Fair, maybe it's Unfair, but it's true. --barneca (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm actually not asking for rhetorical effect at all. I'm not pulling any card. Either Misplaced Pages abides by the principles it stands by or it doesn't. If you wish to ignore all rules and assume bad faith out of me, then yes, you'd have a point. But I know I'm above the board even if you are suspicious of my motives. My dispute with User:Elonka has no bearing on the mainspace. I consider mainspace to be the real reason we're here and when I see problems in mainspace, I fix them. That's what I was doing. If I have harassed Elonka, please show me the diff. Since I'm not the one who has screaming and stamping my feet about editing, I fail to see how I'm the one who is disrupting Misplaced Pages. The rest of the field, including a goodly number of editors and administrators who consistently hound me are responsible for continually taking things to this place and other locations all the time. I am fine with the "unfairness" of Misplaced Pages. I've come to terms with it long ago. I am no more trying to "make a point" than someone who starts to research a subject and begins to edit the article on that subject is trying to "make a point". Since you yourself admit that my edits are fine, I see no reason for the alarm bells that people are clanging with alacrity. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

SA, you are aware that as soon as I made that edit, that I reverted seconds later with the edit summary: "Whoops, SA did provide a rationale"? seicer | talk | contribs 20:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I am, however, that is not the edit I'm referencing above. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) As a passer-by, I'm going to echo Barneca's recommendation. The situation and timing is not to your advantage, and in the interest of good relations, you might consider not touching the Elonka article for a couple weeks. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I will consider it, but again, I must ask for someone to explain to me when this became the encyclopedia that everybody but ScienceApologist can edit? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There are 2,612,000+ other articles available in the English language Misplaced Pages you can edit. Try one of those instead. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia anyone can edit. I'm anyone and I'm editing an article. No one has pointed out anything beyond "excessive tagging" that is wrong with my edits. I believe the article has improved markedly since I got involved. That's evidence enough to me that I should be involved in editing that article. I appreciate the advice on the number of artiles. I choose which ones I'm interested in, as is suggested by Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. I have yet to see a policy/guideline that forbids me from editing that article. If you can find one or would like to create one (this is a wiki after all), please let me know. Love and kisses, ScienceApologist (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

SA, this doesn't help your cause much. I recommend you don't touch this article. You are correct that there's no policy reason to prevent you from doing so but it really doesn't look good. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

My "cause" is to improve the encyclopedia. I am abundantly aware at this point that "it doesn't look good", but I'm not here to "look good". I'm here to improve Misplaced Pages. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:COI: "A Misplaced Pages conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Misplaced Pages, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor." It's quite to clear to everyone involved that your aims in editing this particular article are incompatible with the aims of WP. Ronnotel (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If you think that my aims as an individual editor are incompatible with the aims of Misplaced Pages, please let me know. My aims for editing this article, which you must assume I'm telling you the truth about are to improve the quality of the article and, perhaps, the overall quality of the encyclopedia by proposing an eventual merger, redirection, or perhaps deletion (though I'm not sure right yet which one of these options is best, so I've put it to the field). In any case, it would be nice for you to take that to heart considering your own stated aims outside of this website with regards to cold fusion. Hugs and kisses, ScienceApologist (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I do WP:AGF you, with whip cream and a cherry even. However, in response, I simply ask that you have the decency to follow WP:CONSENSUS (which, in fact, you kinda have to do as well). I have yet to read a single commenter on this page say they think it's a good idea for you to involve yourself with article. Ronnotel (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

So it's in SA's best interest to ignore Elonka's article? If anything he's pointing out that its a puff piece of a barely notable subject....who happens to be an admin. So because she's an admin her article fall under a different set of standards? Could someone please cite me the rules for editing an article about an admin if they're somehow different? Despite the bad blood between them, the edits thus far are ceratinly well within '...improving the quality...etc...' and I'm sure he knows damn well to stay inside those guidelines with this many eyes watching. Guyonthesubway (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

because she's an admin her article fall under a different set of standards? Absolutely not. But because she is an admin who recently took action against SA, it is in SA's best interests to let other people clean the article, while he waits on the sidelines. The odds of SA wisely choosing to do so: 0.0%  :) For better or worse. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This looks to me like a Misplaced Pages version of the old game of "I'm not touching you..." so beloved of children on long car trips. For those who haven't witnessed this cultural delight, it involves child A pointing at child B, keeping their fingertip as near as possible to child B's face or body without touching it, while repeating the magic phrase "I'm not touching you..." in a sing-song voice. I await developments with interest. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 22:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

SA, your comment "This is an encyclopedia anyone can edit. I'm anyone and I'm editing an article... Love and kisses.", and also, "My aims for editing this article, which you must assume I'm telling you the truth about" ..... You might want to read WP:GAME before telling people what they "must" assume. Wiki policies are not a suicide pact and users often apply judgement rather than being "rules wonks ". Barneca has capably summed up the widely held concerns. If you have a concern on the article, ask an uninvolved user to look at it for you, but this combined with mass tagging and deletion listing, with the subject being someone you have a personal agenda/"history" with, doesn't look like a purely neutral content editor at work. FT2  10:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Guys, it's easy, let SA edit the article....if you think that is edits are a problem, then deal with the actual edits. Just because (as discussed on WR) Elonka's own article is a walled garden doesn't mean that editors should be encouraged by all and sundry to leave it alone. Lets face it, SA is policed probably like no other editor and Elonka's article is more than likely on a long list of watchlists. So if anything untoward goes on, I'm sure there is a lot of people who will jump up and down. In the mean time, how about we let a bit of editing to occur???? And like normal, if the long list of people above who feel that SA shouldn't be editing an article....how about you jump in and improve Elonka's rather than leaving it to SA? Shot info (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It does highlight an issue with Elonka being an admin...I suspect she should make a comment specifically encourging folks to hold her article to wikipedia standards...its seeming to me that folks are holding editors to a higher standard on her article. Tough to be have two sides of her presence on Misplaced Pages, and not take the appearance of something unseemly. Guyonthesubway (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

G2K11

G2K11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would suggest you view the userpage first, it concerns me the most. Other than that, I don't know how to go about this one. The user keeps removing comments from Jimbo's talk page, adding in thanks for not being a commie "barnstars", in the simplest of terms. These are the user's first contributions after creating an account not long ago. There is also a faint suspicion of sockpuppetry here, but as I have no past users to go off of that I know of, I have nothing else to go on but WP:DUCK.— Dædαlus /_Improve 03:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, they got a level 4 warning by an admin and removing stuff from talk pages is vandalism. So if they continue, report for blocking. If you think it's a sockpuppet, maybe you should try WP:SPP as well? Regards SoWhy 13:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking it's a puppet as they have a slight amount of beforehand knowledge, but I have nothing else to go on, and CU isn't for fishing.— Dædαlus /_Improve 00:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Completely unacceptable block by an admin.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Please have a look at this block log.

CWii mentioned on IRC that he had just "lost The Game" and was promptly blocked by DragonflySixtyseven.

Here are the relevant parts of the IRC log:

<CWii> I just lost the game.
<Dragonfly6-7> you mean the "don't be banned from Misplaced Pages" game?
<Dragonfly6-7> Okay.
<Vandalism_dstryr> game?
<Dragonfly6-7> Vandalism_dstryr - whenever people talk about "losing the game" around me, I block their accounts.
<Dragonfly6-7> there you go; three hours out

CWii raised in channel that he had been blocked and this is some more from the logs:

<JulianC93> What did you block him for? :O
<Dragonfly6-7> JulianC93 - he said he lost the game. I asked him if he meant the "don't block my account" game, and he didn't deny it.
<JulianC93> Oh
<JulianC93> Meh
<Crimedog> The :dont block my account" game?
<Dragonfly6-7> JulianC93 - every time people around me tell me that they've lost the game, I block their account.
<Dragonfly6-7> Crimedog - yep!

Please can we discuss what sanctions need to be taken against DF for this blatant abuse of his admin bit. ChaoticReality 03:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, he's unblocked. He plays games, I play games. DS (talk) 03:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Looks like a bit of harmless horseplay. The block lasted all of fifteen minutes, and was lifted by DragonflySixtyseven himself. If CWii has a problem, let him raise it himself. Incidentally, aren't IRC logs not supposed to be posted on-wiki? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not that bad, no harm done. CWii_(BOO!|Eeek!) 03:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

...... DF67, please don't do that again. While this is relatively harmless, the admin bit is not a neat toy to goof around with.. I had a lot more concerns based on someone blocking on Wiki based on IRC, but I'll back off since CWii has said there's no big deal.. but again, the admin bit is not a shiny. Don't do it again, please. SirFozzie (talk) 03:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ten: it was only lifted when CWii said in channel "Unblock me now or I'll cause drama". CWii has now said there was no harm done but I'm still concerned about the implications of DF just lightly blocking someone based on a throwaway comment in IRC that was nothing to do with WP. ChaoticReality 03:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I coulda sworn that IRC logs were not to be published on-wiki (as TenOfAllTrades noted). ···日本穣 03:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, what's with this 'please can we discuss sanctions...blatant abuse' bit before we even have a chance to hear from either involved party? Ready! Fire! Aim! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, could we agree that everything about this thread stinks like open ass? We shouldn't post IRC logs ever, we shouldn't fuck around with the block function, and we shouldn't involve ourselves in business that doesn't concern us. If Cwii isn't complaining, how did this thread even get started? There's already a 10-fucking-page thread above that is basically about someone getting called a name at IRC... the more of this stuff that goes on, the more that admins as a class of users lose their credibility. For the record, this should not reflect on admins as a group, and it should only make those involved look like asses, but it does and I'd rather not be tarnished by it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Run along children, there ARE vandals afoot. CWii_(BOO!|Eeek!) 04:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

So now WP is just a kiddie's playground? Admins are supposed to be sensible and uphold the "policies" of the community, not fuck around like bored adolescents. If someone had blocked a controversial user (for argument's sake, let's say Kurt) for a few minutes, and then unblocked them when the user complained on IRC, there'd be an outroar (I think this has happened in the past but I may just be going mad), yet here, it's just swept aside. Why am I the only one annoyed by this? ChaoticReality 04:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as an admin, I am terribly embarrassed to see a fellow admin blocking others as part of a game. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No, ChaoticReality, you are NOT The only one. I believe that, when I said this entire situation "stinks like open ass", I was not paying anyone involved a compliment... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron, but you said "and we shouldn't involve ourselves in business that doesn't concern us", which implies I should not have brought this issue up. When I started this thread, CWii hadn't said in IRC that he was happy with what happened, and even so, I still think the issue should be raised. It does involve me, as it involves everyone here, because people like DF are representing the site and community that we are all part of. I didn't raise it out of outrage on CWii's behalf, but out of concern that people with that sort of attitude have "power" on WP. ChaoticReality 04:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you were not exempted from that statement. Merely because other people acted reprehensibly doesn't necessarily mean Misplaced Pages is better off for us all knowing about it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Between this and the admin who was deleting things with IAR as a rationale, I really think something needs to be done to empower the community to remove the bit. Celarnor 04:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No fucking kidding. I may have to oppose CWii just because he shows poor judgment in not being upset by childish behavior from an admin. It appears that Dragonfly feels Misplaced Pages is a game, and wants to flex his new "skills". He needs to be canned immediately. Go play WoW. I'm glad ChaoticReality brought this up. Plus, this is a person with poor judgment who has blocked 3848 users, and deleted 17493 pages. That is a ridiculous number. Do I want someone with poor judgment doing that? No. And how did DF67 respond? "He plays games, I play games". I guess I'm a bad guy for not trusting this guy, based on what I'm reading here. II | (t - c) 06:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

DF and CWii should not be playing games together, especially in view of CWii's upcoming RfA. Mathsci (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(multiple ec) I'm going to take a wild guess here and assume that DragonflySixtyseven actually knew in advance that CWii had a sense of humor, and would take the block in the spirit in which it was intended. (Call me crazy if you will.) Had DragonflySixtyseven actually blocked someone 'controversial', I'd probably be calling for his head too, because that action would have demonstrated exceptionally poor judgement. Still, that isn't what happened. As it is now, the only problem that DragonflySixtyseven faces is a completely uninvolved third party calling for his head.

Look, has no one here ever thrown a paper airplane or played a Flash game in the office after hours? (Ye gods, I'm a scientist by trade. In my younger days my coworkers and I built bombs in the office.) I'll note that Dragonfly even had the good sense to disable autoblocks to avoid any risk of collateral harm. This is a tempest in a teacup, brought forward for no good reason. Doesn't anyone here have anything useful to do? (Taking my own advice, I will make no further comments in this thread.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Playing a Flash game in the office during working hours is not comparable to this. Sure, I've done irresponsible things like smoke joints in the bathroom, but somehow I don't do them now that I've graduated from college and have responsibilities to people. And the people who have done a lot of irresponsible things tend not to have any power -- for good reason. II | (t - c) 06:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but isn't there a bigger issue here? Aren't logs from #wikipedia supposed to not be posted, like... ever? JuJube (talk) 04:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not? I guess I'm not up on these 'unofficial' community rules, especially as they relate to IRC, since I try to spend my time adding references to articles rather than gossiping. If you bring IRC bullshit into Misplaced Pages itself, you should expect some Misplaced Pages attention. II | (t - c) 06:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the last time I checked, it was in the channel topic that logs from the channel are not to be reposted. Maybe that's changed, though, I dunno. JuJube (talk) 07:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"Teacher! Teacher! Doug said the f-word during recess! You're not allowed to say the f-word!" Badger Drink (talk) 06:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Really, who's the childish one? II | (t - c) 07:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's see... the guy who's goofing around with a friend, making an inconsequential block on a website that a certain very vocal contingent of folk take far too fucking seriously for their own good... or the guy seeing this going on and racing to AN/I to get someone in trouble (complete with pompously overwrought text that would have Chicken Little in awe). Is... is this really up for debate, here? Badger Drink (talk) 07:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, under the circumstances, the name 'ImperfectlyInformed' is almost artistically apt. I...I may weep. HalfShadow 07:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes. ChaoticReality and I are the children because we take a website which provides an indescribable amount of information to hundreds of millions of people, and which accepts money out of my meager income every month, seriously. And I always chuckle a bit at the irony who point out my username, especially when they misspell an easy word in spite of the automated spellchecker. I guess I better go back to playing with my little toys and leave the big boys to their toys, since I'm obviously too immature to understand what maturity entails. II | (t - c) 07:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't use a spellchecker. Unlike you, I'm capable of seeing my mistakes when I make them and fixing them. Go away. HalfShadow 07:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

II, in this case it looks a bit like it. Also, "Go play WoW" wasn't exactly a civil thing to say. If you can't take the heat, don't comment at the admin gaming boards. Everyme 10:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Badger Drink, amusing, but not as good as "Ready, Fire! Aim" above, which gets my vote for comment of the month. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes I just can't help but suspect that everyone here has already lost it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Sometimes I just can't help but suspect that everyone has lost this. iMatthew 12:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Resolved – Protected by Raul654, presumably per consensus @ Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive487#More_Obama-Drama. --slakr 15:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Resolved – Edits all checked. User blocked. either way (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

The course is MAS 229 at Macquarie University. The "G. Meikle" whose book is cited in so many of the edits is the Dr Graham Meikle who runs the course.

Resolved – Opcn and the IP were both blocked. Some of us are still keeping an eye on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Watson, which was the subject of off-site canvassing. EdJohnston (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

div#siteNotice {display: none !important}

Resolved – Not for long - already blocked by Ricky81682 EyeSerene 10:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Resolved – blocked as proxy Toddst1 (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards