Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:08, 22 January 2010

• 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

Requesting Admin action

Hi. There is a problem with user Gibnews attitude. Himself, me and other editors have been tensely discussing Gibraltar-related articles for some time already. This editor has usually resorted to ad hominem arguments, focusing in the contributors he disagrees with instead of in the actual content of editions or articles. Dissenting editors have constantly been described as 'Spanish', and both 'Spain' or the 'Spanish Government' have been pointlessly vilified quite often as well. Here are some diffs to illustrate my statement:1- 2- 3- 4- 5- 6-

He has been asked more than once to refrain from this kind of uncivil behaviour. In fact, a moratorium concerning the disputed articles was agreed amongst the editors involved in the ongoing discussions "with the understanding that the entirity of ones comments must be about the proposed editions and not the editors". However, today I've seen this, and I feel that it is enough already. This can't go on forever. You may very well agree with Gibnews' positions, or mine, or neither. But this reiterated conduct is unacceptable. So long, there have been several attempts to engage with this particular editor in civil debate, the latter being the aforementioned 'moratorium' (to my knowledge -I am not the only editor involved here-).

Thus, I request Admin action as a last alternative. --Cremallera (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• There always has been a problem with his attitude - mainly that he has one POV on a highly polarised issue and other people have the opposite POV. You want dispute resolution. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it. The diffs predate the moratorium and the diff you've just posted isn't a problem from what I can see. Gibnews does have an attitude problem, made worse when he is baited. Which he most certainly has by editors that include Cremallera. I can confidently predict the usual suspects will be along presently to demand his head.

The atmosphere on Gibraltar articles was getting quite poisonous, which is why Narson quite sensibly proposed a moratorium to cool emotions. DR is currently being tried, so I really wonder why Cremallera has suddenly appeared to make this post out of left field. Justin talk 23:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I can provide post-moratorium diffs also. The latter I've provided is, in fact. However, you admit he has an attitude problem as well. And he has done nothing to put an end to it, even with past and current dispute resolution attempts. PS: do you really see no problem in modifying another editor's comment to state that his IP belongs to 'Telefonica Espana'? It is quite serious actually. --Cremallera (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I see Gibnews appending to the comment much the same way that a person would put a SPA template at the end of a person's comment in an AfD. I wouldn't call that "modifying another editor's comment"; that's a pretty harsh bit of hyperbole there. On the other hand, it wasn't necessary and certainly escalates the nationalist problems, which is a problem that Gibnews has (and others who edit those articles). That's one reason to have a moratorium, pointing out who is "pro-Spain" and "pro-Gibraltar" and constantly referencing it derails any productive discussion. Justin is absolutely correct in that Gib was baited though. Honestly, I'd totally give him a pass in that pointing out that the editor is editing from a Spanish ISP is the worst comment he made in response to an SPA (sock?) trying to stoke the nationalist fires. -- Atama頭 01:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

He was discussing with an IP (Firethingol, I guess) who hasn't attacked him personally and whose immediately prior comments have been labelled as racist and demeaning by Gibnews himself... He wasn't precisely baited, in my opinion.
Anyway, how many more times should he get a pass for that, Atama? You know that he's been doing this repeatedly and for a long time already. He's been asked to refrain plenty of times as well. It is not an isolated case by any means, and I agree with you that this conduct is certainly intended to derail any productive discussion. Last, but not least, constantly profiling other editors by their putative nationalities is a racist attitude. I pointed it out before to no tangible gain, so I don't see the point in giving him a pass just another time. I am already sick of it. --Cremallera (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You might like to visit Gibnews on YouTube and observe some of the appalling racial abuse heaped in Gibnews' direction by a person calling themselves Firethingol. I have to admit I like Gibnews, I don't agree with a lot of what he says, he is overly nationalistic in many ways but he at least speaks his mind openly so you know where he is coming from. I also observe that if you butt heads with the guy, he'll butt straight back. However, if you approach him reasonably and don't scream and rant about POV, or accuse him of a racist attitude he is direct but reasonable in return - something you should know about after you stopped screaming POV and discussed the Tireless incident in a reasonable manner. His attitude toward Spain is understandable given the history of the way Spain has acted since the '60s and I speak as someone who is half-Spanish who finds the attitude of a now democratic Spain towards Gibraltar uncomfortable. Sometimes the perspective of how others see us makes uncomfortable reading but that doesn't make it racism. I don't see his conduct as intended to derail discussions, his conduct is usually a response to being provoked. I see it as counter productive to run here, saying look at what Gibnews has done now and conveniently omitting the conduct of the editor that provoked the response in the first place. Equally counter productive is combing his contributions to find things to complain about. Is this the 3rd thread on AN/I aimed at sanctioning Gibnews in as many months?

What interesting about the diff you've just supplied is that it relates to yet another thread aimed at sanctioning Gibnews. I say interesting because it seemed to be counter productive to that aim in that several commentators recognised the attitude of the person making the report as being problematic in disrupting articles to make a point. Equally that you were tag teaming with the same editor and there was a WP:Battleground mentality developing. When that comment was made, you instantly attempted to turn the comments into a racial issue. You didn't take on good faith the comments on your own behaviour were problematic.

None of which is intended to justify the problematic aspects of Gibnews' behaviour but what does act as a counter point is that he is a very productive editor, who has contributed much in terms of imagery and is very knowledgable about a limited subject. If you wish him to refrain, then my suggestion is to avoid provocation and to equally condemn the people who provoke him in the first place. Constantly focusing on one aspect of the problem and myopically ignoring the other side of the coin won't help.

As regards Atamas comments, yes I think there is a sock at work trying to stoke the nationalist fires again and to derail the DR that is currently underway. I could make an educated guess at who is doing it and my personal suspicion is that the person responsible is looking to stymy DR to push things to arbcom. Equally as Atama has quite reasonably pointed out in his mediation efforts, the behaviour of all of the editors on Gibraltar related articles has been unhelpful for quite some time. Narson's attempt at a moratorium to cool tempers doesn't appear to have worked as the first edits following its end were baiting Gibnews again. What needs to happen is to allow DR to run its course, if there is any admin action required it would be to stop the IP activities intended to derail it. I don't see demands for Gibnews' head to be helpful. Justin talk 09:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the first AN/I thread I start. The other ones I know of were posted by Ecemaml and Gibnews himself. In the first place, please stop the discourse concerning my attempts to turn his comments into a racial issue. He has been profiling dissenting editors as 'Spanish' for months. I've provided several diffs. To repeatedly describe or address people by their ethnicity is racist. And, myopically or not, I just can't ignore it. Neither you should, in my opinion.
On the other hand, what are you suggesting exactly? To just endure the reams of offensive comments he keeps writing over and over, despite previous multiple requests, AN/I threads, moratoriums and the like? What exactly are WP policies for, then? --Cremallera (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems my suggestion to stop reducing everything to racial and ethnic lines is going right over your head. You don't recognise the problematic aspects of your own behaviour or the people on the same side of the dividing line as yourself. Brushing this under the carpet is unhelpful. As Atama observed if this goes to arbcom, no one will come out of it with any credit. And several independent observers have pointed this out to you, perhaps listening to them would help. Just a suggestion. To avoid the risk of another AN/I thread degenerating into a tendentious mess, this will be my last comment here. Un abrazo. Justin talk 10:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

RESPONSE

1. I have not raised the matter of FireintheGol on Youtube as firstly I can't be sure its the same entity, and secondly I blocked him/her from posting further abusive comments there, and Misplaced Pages is another thing.

2. I did not consider that the IP user who left an unsigned comment was that particular editor anyway as FireintheGol writes coherent English What you are complaining about is

• I will not remove, I will put it in Gibraltar position, which is the section that must have Gibraltarians opinion, regards 81.39.209.75 (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Where I added to an unsigned comment which signbot had added the IP that it had originated from telefonica Espana. Its useful information to know that an anonymous editor who wants to express a Gibraltarian opinion is posting from Somewhere else. There has been no further comment excepting it seems to have upset Cremallera.

3. In relation to my two warnings that FireintheGol has made racist comments, This and This where he claims he is not being racist about Gibraltarians because we are not 'a race' I politely referred him to the wikipedia article which explains why that assumption is wrong. HOWEVER as we seem to be having a reasonable dialogue, and its Cremallera who is complaining here, I question the motives for this complaint. Looks like harassment to me. --Gibnews (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me but have you modified the title of the section?
First of all, whether an IP belongs to 'Telefonica' or not is not useful information. I wholeheartedly think that this should be clear already, given your experience in Misplaced Pages and the previous queries. What the IP said may be relevant (or not), just like other contributions are to be considered by focusing on their actual content, regardless of your opinion on whether the editor who wrote them is 'Spanish' or not.
Secondly, I'm not even getting into your issues with FireintheGol neither here nor in Youtube. That's your bussiness, as long as you behave in a normal fashion, which you don't so far.
And finally, my posts here are the first ones since the moratorium was agreed to, the 22 December 2009, so it hardly looks like 'harrassment'. What does look just like it are your reiterated comments on other editors, namely concerning their POV, nationality or alleged nationalism. And, since you've agreed to refrain from this kind of attitude here, yet you engage on it, I have no further option that to request for external help. --Cremallera (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with altering the title of the section here to something appropriate, after all it IS a complaint about Gibnews, whats the problem with that? As its on ANI 'requesting admin action' is a bit vague whats your problem?.

Yes we had a moratorium, if you read what you have cited it expired last year, indeed one of the other editors broke it first. Thats all it was, you are making up the rest.

This complaint is pure harassment, but lets see what others think. You have said enough and as have I. --Gibnews (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Cutting through all of the other complaints, I believe I see what the core problem is here. Gibnews stated, "Its useful information to know that an anonymous editor who wants to express a Gibraltarian opinion is posting from Somewhere else." No, it most certainly is not. Viewing editors through such a prism is a very dangerous thing. To label one person as Gibraltarian and another as Spanish is very unhelpful. Gibnews, I hate to say this but if you continue to approach the articles with such an attitude you're going to eventually find yourself in very hot water. Such attitudes tend to bring topic bans, because they are very divisive and prevent any hope of useful collaboration or participation in consensus-building. Fireinthegol is just as guilty of doing this, with such statements as "that reference is an opinion by a Gibraltarian", but seeing as how that editor is probably a sockpuppet you're bringing yourself down to the level of a banned editor. The proper reaction to such talk should be to ask the person if Gibraltarian opinions are automatically invalid as reliable sources because they are Gibraltarian, not to comment in kind. As to the comments about Signbot, Signbot only signs comments, it doesn't label editors as being a particular nationality. You really need to stop that mentality, and if you can't, perhaps you should stay away from Gibraltar-related articles. -- Atama頭 20:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I never said the anonymous editor was Spanish, indeed they might be Romanian or Martian however the ISP used by the anonymous editor was Telefonica Espana and that was my ONLY comment on the subject, except for here. However there does seem to be an ongoing problem that due to the intransigent attitude of the Spanish government and its irredentist claim, currently being pushed by the PP opposition trying to wrong foot the incumbent PSOE prior to an election in Spain, that a number of editors from that country seem to want to rewrite Gibraltar wikipedia pages in line with the totally negative Spanish view of the territory and its inhabitants. Tactics include Filibustering on the talk pages, engaging in edit wars, and taking disputes to every available area and article. I'm sick to death about arguments over whether an obscure town in Spain should feature on the Gibraltar page, tens of thousands of bytes and countless hours have gone down the drain. Although arguments on the Internet are preferable to cannon balls and sieges, after 306 years and 99% of the Gibraltar population rejecting any Spanish involvement in our country, enough is enough. And a Misplaced Pages which contains a substantive amount of lies irrelevancies and propaganda is worthless. Goodnight. --Gibnews (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

See, personally I'd favour topic blocking everyone who has previously edited those articles in order to clear out some of this, but knowing those involved it would result in a sock fest. The nationalist accusations are, and I agree with Atama here, one of the most unhelpful things coming from either 'side' (I also dislike the concept of there only being two sides). It results in this concept that 'Oh, he is British/Spanish, he must really be biased and can be ignored' and that isn't good. The attempt at a moratorium worked in a way, in that it seems to have reduced the ad hominem attacks for a short period, but there was baiting from various parties almost straight after it ended and now we are back to the same position. I do not want to take part in that talk page as it is and I am watching some good editors or potentially good editors head into a bad spiral entering it. DR needs to be followed through to the end now. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Atama yes the nationalist tendencies on both sides needs to be tackled, equally the baiting issue does as well. I'd also suggest that people need to recognise bad behaviour on all sides of the coin not just the one they favour. Part of the problem is only labelling one person, when the problematic behaviour is endemic among a number. In the latter I would include my own tendency to rise to the bait. Justin talk 23:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with you Justin, I spent some time with most of the editors who regularly work on the Gibraltar articles over the course of the mediation, and I think I saw nationalist behavior come up from everyone now and then. My biggest concern is this... You acknowledge that labeling editors along nationalist lines is a problem. Cremarella certainly does. Imalbornoz seems to as well, from what I see on Talk:Gibraltar. I'm not sure about Ecemaml right now. But Gibnews doesn't seem to be acknowledging it. That's what has me concerned, not that Gibnews is doing what he's doing, but that he doesn't see what's wrong with what he's doing. -- Atama頭 02:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that all the editors you mention adopt a national view about the subject, and the Government of Spain spends a large amount of money generating adverse propaganda which influences their views. --Gibnews (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem began when Gibnews wanted to put this in the introduction: "Spain continues with political harassement despite improved relations". The only reference to state this severe accusation was an opinion column. I said that his reference was only an opinion column by a Gibraltarian, to say that his statement was based on an opinion and possibly not neutral opinion because Gibraltarian journalists talking about Spain never have a favourable thing to say. Gibnews answered that I was racist. Racist?

I personally read an article in which an Spanish politician said: "Gibraltarian authorities must stop insulting Spain". So if, based on that, I write in the introduction: "Gibraltarian authorities continue insulting Spain despite improved relations" it cannot be considered a good edit despite having a reference. Someone will tell me: "That is an opinion by a Spaniard, not a fact". It is not racism, it is trying to stop POV pushing.

What I personally think is that Gibnews wants to continue with his POV pushing in the article, so he calls other people racist and spaniards to spoil their activities.

I cannot find Gibnews channel on youtube, I would like to look at it to see if the harassement is true.

I think that Gibnews has to assume that Spanish arguments are not always based on fairy tales and have the right to be included on Misplaced Pages the same way Gibraltarian claims or arguments do.

Also, he always uses the discussion as a forum to express his ideas. Fireinthegol (talk) 09:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all: yes this was as partisan as the minutemen. To edit war in order to publish this statement "Gibraltarians remain suspicious of the Spanish Government which continues with political harassment", moreover when it is based upon a sports article which is supportive of a particular position is a blatant POV abuse. To call you racist for pointing that out wasn't helpful either. And it is a weird word to be used by Gibnews, who is openly prejudiced against all things spanish (here's a diff showing another disturbing anti-spanish rant, written a few hours ago here in the AN/I thread).

However, prior invectives can't justify statements such as these (the "unfair tax schemes" bit is not neutral either). Two wrongs do not make a right.

Last, but not least: Gibnews, you've been asked several times in this very page to stop vilifying Spain, the Spanish government and other editors regardless of them being brainwashed by 'Spanish propaganda'. Your behaviour is noxious to civilized debate. You should be blocked. --Cremallera (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Except that both should be blocked if there are any blocks to be handed out, thats the bit you just don't seem to get. Justin talk 12:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I don't get it. That's it. Look, I'll be the first advocating for a block on both editors, provided that their behaviour is similar. Tell me, has User talk:Fireinthegol indulged dozens of times in personal attacks directed to other contributors? Has he calumniated for several months already any country or made slanderous remarks about its government? Not really, don't you think? --Cremallera (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Written defamation is called Libel, and neither I nor wikipedia engage in it. If Spain does bad things in relation to Gibraltarians, its reasonable to describe it. Editing it out, or banning people for including sourced material supporting that is censorship. Sometimes the truth is unpleasant. The UEFA situation is widely reported - The Spanish football association has been ordered by its government to threaten to withdraw if Gibraltar was admitted (which is legally required) That is a political act of harassment. Where a reference does not use the word 'Unfair' introducing it is the POV of the editor and wrong, his current edit removing that is factually correct. So complaining has been productive and produced a more factual page. Someone else pointed it out before me and was ignored.

Its naive to claim I am against all things Spanish I visit Spain regularly, indeed was there yesterday seeing friends.

PS: Gibraltar journalists report the news about Spain in a neutral manner. --Gibnews (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

To me it is logical that Spain oposses the Gibraltar entrance to UEFA, because Spain does not recognize Gibraltar as a country. Imagine a match Spain vs Gibraltar, it would be similar to giving up the claim to sovereignty. It is not political harassement, it is being consistent with your claims. But I think that now, the article expresses this well, it says that Gibrltarians see this as political harassement, not that political harassement is being produced as a fact. On regard to the word "unfair" to describe the taxes that are being phased out, it is not meant to be offensive or anything. It is used to describe taxes that can distort "fair" competition, so unfair refers to "not fair" competition taxes. This is he reason why they are being phased out, because there are not fair. It is even used in economy of Gibraltar. But well, now the article has other wording to avoid using "unfair". I don't think that Gibnews should be blocked, but he should try to avoid seeing spanish editors as a kind of evil imperialistic editors. Fireinthegol (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I most certainly don't, indeed Justin is Spanish. Our mutual exchanges have been productive and the compromises we have reached make for a better article. Indeed you have been more reasonable than others who argue tendatiously and simply will not compromise. This is not the place to go into the UEFA business anyone interested can read about it here. A similar case of political situation existed with the telephones, which was resolved under the Cordoba agreement. That Gibraltarians distrust the Government of Spain is well established, even by Sr Moratinos. Given the history and policies its quite understandable. You yourself added that Spain wants to block importing rubble incase we use it to reclaim land its hardly surprising we consider its every action politically motivated. --Gibnews (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If Gibraltarians distrust Spanish government is not necesarily because the Spanish government is evil, like you want to state in the articles' introduction. You are always stating that Spanish government is evil, it is your opinion. And please if you don't want the UEFA issue to be discussed here, don't begin to talk about your opinion on the subject. It's okay to say that Gibraltarians distrust spain, but its not okay to try to justify it at all costs. Justin I would like to know why I should be blocked. I also want to know where I harassed Gibnews in youtube. I also would want to know why am I racist. Fireinthegol (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggest you ask a sample of Gibraltarians what they think. I have not expressed an opinion on UEFA the link given explains the situation. Nobody is suggesting blocking you here, its me that is the target, although putting that in the title upset the OP for some reason. I suspect this is going nowhere. Someone close it please. --Gibnews (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yugoslavian issues on railway articles

edit warring between 2 or more users with no basis in the actual subject (railways) - but seemingly based upon nationalist conflicts. One of the editors self reported the issue here : Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#serious_problem. This issue has nothing to do with wikiprojectrailways, and clearly both editors are not working right - I see numerous 3rr, AGF, COI etc issues here, with neither editor acting productively in association with the other.

The primary editors involved are User:LAz17 and User:Ex13. Shortfatlad (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to mention that above statement I see numerous 3rr, AGF, COI etc issues here, with neither editor acting productively in association with the other. is neither true or correct. How to work productively with user (LAz17) who is calling everybody who does not agree with him nationalist? It has to be noted that the same user (LAz17) is blocked repeatedly because of his abusive behaviour. I hope that puts some things in the right place/perspective. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. LAz17 has had big trouble with permanent conflict and personal attacks over a different issue, and I had to topic-ban him under WP:ARBMAC from certain issues recently. Hoped to keep him out of trouble but that doesn't seem to have worked out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

We had this discussion in the past... Template talk:Urban Rail transportation in the former Yugoslavia. I assumed that it was closed and let it be. Then after some time user ex13 reopened the can of worms.

Shortfatlad proposed the idea that both templates be used - I suppose that this can be a simple solution. User ex13 has had a problem with this though - but that was in the framework of the discussion of "this one or that one", and he was against that one.

FPaS, I do not believe that there are any personal attacks going on right now. User ex13 has been previously banned on wikipedia and from what I understand, he has given user Direktor much grief. User Direktor in particular is important in this issue as he was involved from the beginning - and he was on my side.

This issue however should not be difficult at all to fix. And your words describe me as if I am some sort of animal??!? (LAz17 (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)).

FPaS, I went to look for mediation to help in the dispute. I saw that the dispute will go nowhere with me and him. Therefore I seeked help. I wanted this resolved. Why do you think that I am some sort of troll? If I was interested in edit-warring I would not have seeked help. As for Shortfatlad, I strongly condemn how you worded this - on the wiki rail project I asked for help. Hence I am looking for solutions in order to stop the issue. (LAz17 (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)).

But... I often see such disputes going off with totally unnecessary nonsense talk. My experience with the maps was that I was led to believe that one map has to be deleted, not that "the better one replaces the poorer one". So, lets cut down on the these unnecessary stuff and get to the points.

1) I made a Yugoslav Urban Rail Article, which Direktor helped improve.

2) In response, nationalist croat, user ex13, created a croatia tram thing and decided that the thing to do would be to replace the yugoslav rail template with it.

so... what now? I find it bothering that ex13 has a problem with the yugoslav rail one. I think that the solution would be to redirect his croat tram, or to have both as shortfatlad suggested. If there are other possibilities please bring them up. If there are other ideas please bring them up. How hard can it be to resolve this simple issue? This is probably as simple as simplicity gets, no? (LAz17 (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)).

The solution would be to have both templates. Both do what they say on the tin. {{Urban Rail transportation in the former Yugoslavia}} covers all countries which formerly made up Yugoslavia, {{Trams in Croatia}} covers tram in modern Croatia. LAz17 - there are no nationalist Croats on Misplaced Pages, only editors. Mjroots (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

From a rail transport point of view here is what should be standard practice:

• {{Urban Rail transportation in the former Yugoslavia}} should cover only things that were in operation when the political entity yugoslavia existed. (just as "XXX in the former soviet union" does) - thus sections such as "planned trams in croatia" are not 100% correctly placed in that template; though basically acceptable. templates for each separate state would be preferable)
• {{Trams in Croatia}} should cover only things in the modern political entity called croatia, if there is a historical political entity called croatia that had trams then this could be a separate list in that template.
• There is no reason why {{Trams in Serbia}} ,{{Trams in Slovenia}} etc should not be created, this is what Ex13 should make instead of trying to re-purpose the yugoslavian template. (I mentioned this to Ex13)
• Alternatively you could have templates by geography, and have subsections in those templates by chronology.

However none of this will work until both contributors agree to work along the same lines - so you'll need to reach an agreement. It doesn't look like user:DIREKTOR is actually interested in the tram system articles - I would strongly advise not to invite friends to contribute to the debate as this makes it seem like a continuation of previous editor conflicts.

Is that ok?Shortfatlad (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

All of these tram systems in Croatia were built during the Austro-Hungaria. Do we need the template {{Urban Rail transportation in the former Austro-Hungaria}} also? Can I make the template {{Urban Rail transportation in SouthEast Europe}}? Where is the limit?

We have a problem if LAz17 continues calling me nationalist. What kind of nationalism is when someone talk about trams and railways? (Am i nationalist because croatian trams??) Also he accused me that i'm sockpuppet. I'm CU on hr:wiki. I do not want to play with sockspuppets. LAz17 had major problems with his rude behavior, and as I see he is blocked right now.--Ex13 (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

SFL - here are some issues...

1) The croatian tram template, if it should go under what you said, would lose quite a few of its links. Two systems were never part of a croatian entity - but part of Italy. Another one was part of Croatia only a short time- after the transfer of land from italy. Similarly, the ex-ussr metro template includes systems built after the USSR ceased to exist. I think that the best way to go about this would be to include systems in the geographic region.

2) The yugoslav rail article includes rail things that are more than just trams. There is no planned trams section in croatia there. But, as we can see, the USSR template includes planned metros, so I figure why not include it?

3) Trams in Slovenia, Trams in Bosnia, and such would be "too small". It's ridiculous to have only one or two tram systems in the template. This is why it is necessary to have it as the former yugoslavia.

4) I see only two possible solutions. One, to redirect the croatian tram article. Or, to use both croat tram and yugoslav rail on the same pages. (LAz17 (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)).

Apologies for my lack of involvement in this, I should've notified people I'm on a prolonged WikiBreak... --DIREKTOR 14:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

User:JCRB

User:JCRB has been disrupting Gibraltar articles to make a point for some time now. He has been trying to force his edit into the lead of the Gibraltar article for some time. Now he is trying intimidation threatening to report people. I suspect this is a sock puppet of User:MEGV and that he has used several IP addresses as well. Before this is dismissed as a simple content dispute see , this effort dates back nearly 2 years where he tried to fillibuster the opposition into submission. From the looks of his contribution history his behaviour looks to be disruptive on Phillipines related articles as well. Justin talk 00:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Without looking further into any other allegations, I'd like to point out that the JCRB account was created on July 17, 2007. The MEGV account was created on May 14, 2008. JCRB has 303 edits, while MEGV has had 59. I don't think MEGV would be a sock of JCRB, rather it would be the other way around. I'd also like to point out that both accounts have clean block logs, and MEGV hasn't edited since August 1, 2008. I don't think an sockpuppet report would be useful because the MEGV account has been inactive for a very long time. -- Atama頭 02:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I really do wish people would look into this further, because it is incredibly frustating that the DR process is being disrupted. I make the suggestion of sock puppetry because both used to log in within moments of each other, then proceeded to agree with one another. There are also a number of IP addresses involved as well. Justin talk 09:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is an odd form of "disruption". He is replacing the unsourced statement that Gibraltar is self-governing with a statement that it is non-self-governing sourced to the unquestionably reliable United Nations: . I'm bound to say that we could probably do with a bit more of that particular kind of disruption. Guy (Help!) 16:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You know what, this is exactly why every conspiracy theory nut or ardent nationalist swarms round wikipedia like flies round shit. People have taken the time and effort to explain why its disruption, its down below. People have independently looked at it and agreed, the information is down below. People have actually explained why its wrong in detail on the talk page of the article. Did you read any of it? No. Do you know anything about it? Obviously not, but you're quite prepared to wade in with a pair of size 10s and back the disruptive editor over the product editors who desperately do need admin help on an article that is literally besieged by people trying to advance their agenda using wikipedia as a platform. Marvelous, absolutely fucking marvelous. Justin talk 17:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Justin and User:Gibnews

User:Justin's accusations of "disruption" are an interesting example of hypocresy. For months this editor and User:Gibnews have blocked verifiable and neutral information about Gibraltar, preventing relevant information about its status or history from being included. A number of editors including User:MEGV (of whom I am accused of being a sock puppet), User:Imalbornoz and myself have attempted to include some dosis of neutrality (starting here , ending here ) with little or no success. The result is a biased article about a disputed territory which portrays only the British and/or Gibraltarian POV. Minimal or no reference to the Spanish (Andalusian) POV, or even the position of the United Nations is permitted by these editors. Issues like the arguable transfer of sovereignty according to the Treaty of Utrecht, reference to UN Resolutions on decolonization, or UN declarations expressing disapproval of the Gibraltar Referendum of 1967 have all been rejected despite reliable sources being presented. There has been constant opposition to citing the basis of the Spanish claims, specially territorial integrity and UN resolutions, as well as the San Roque issue. A complete overhaul of the article was suggested a few months back due to its overwhelming lack of neutrality. Again these editors blocked specific improvements. Up to this day they deny the Non-self-governing status of Gibraltar despite this being the definition given by the United Nations (my latest edit with reference to UN 64th General Assembly statement was again reverted). In summary, these editors permanently block any pieces of information which appear to oppose the British POV on Gibraltar. By constantly pushing their POV and refusing to include certain relevant facts, they are not only preventing the article from being more neutral and accurate, but they are disrupting the normal process of editing of the article. Finely enough, it is I who is accused of "disruption". JCRB (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem I see with your contribution, JCRB, is that it omits half the information. There are sources which affirm that Gibraltar isn't a self-governing territory. UN ones, for instance (which makes it a relevant POV, in fact). But your edition fails to acknowledge that other sources define Gibraltar as 'almost self-governing' (encyclopedia Britannica uses this wording, althought makes the exception of foreign policy and defense). Whether this information belongs in the lead section or not is arguable, at the very least. I myself think that there's a more appropiate section in the article to include these considerations. However, as indicated below by Atama, this has to be dealt with through discussion on the article's talk page. --Cremallera (talk) 09:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you disagree about what should be in the article, that's hardly a surprise. I've let Justin know that there's no point in sockpuppet accusations, everything else will have to be dealt with through discussion on the article's talk page. -- Atama頭 07:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think JCRB describes the situation well. Yes, there is opposition to rewriting the article on Gibraltar to show its a British colony of pirates on stolen Spanish soil. --Gibnews (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all I would actually welcome somebody independently investigating the allegations made by JCRB. He complains the article is POV, what he actually means is that it doesn't represent exclusively his POV. He claims the view of the UN C24 isn't represented, it is, he claims that the disputed nature of the territory isn't mentioned, it is (and we have an article dedicated solely to that). However, to properly understand the allegations made you need to have some understanding of the unique definition that the UN C24 applies to self-governing territories ie it bears no relation to the actual degree of self-government. I don't see Gibnews' intervention as particularly helpful, it may seem extreme to some but it wasn't that long ago that es.wikipedia did actually use the term pirates. Justin talk 09:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'd comment on Gibnews' tiny soliloquy above. But he can't be serious so, with due respect, I'll simply ignore it.
Atama, you've told Justin there's no point in baseless sockpuppetry accusations how many times already? Three? Four perhaps? I've been accused by him of being a sockpuppet more than once as well. So have Ecemaml and Imalbornoz in the past few months, as far as I remember. On the other hand, do you know how many times has he been accused of sockpuppetry by the aforementioned editors? Zero times. Quite frankly, all those editors' behaviour (myself included) isn't always exemplary, but reiterating this kind of unfounded accusations is as out of place as any other personal attack. Yet, he gets away with it every time he indulges in this kind of misdemeanour. One by one, it is 'just annoying', but when you look at the trend, it becomes gross.
I am not editing anymore nor discussing in the talk pages, as I am really tired of the constant disrespect and ridiculously vehement discussions over the most petty (and reliably sourced) issues. Yet, I am complaining here because previous notices and requests to cease this conduct have not been listened, dare I say. Sincerely, I concord with Narson here: I'd favour topic blocking everyone who has previously edited those articles (and I am one of these editors) to clear out some of this. To my disappointment, I put my best hopes on the moratorium. It is time, in my opinion, to be more expeditious. Thanks for your time. --Cremallera (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I've never accused you of sock puppetry. If you want to be precise I expressed my disquiet that given the messages on your talk pages you appeared to be co-ordinating your activities, including off-wiki by email, which is meat puppetry. Thats as far as it went. To be blunt as well, you're wading here in without being in full posession of the facts and I would suggest you ask Narson about MEGV and JCRB. You'll find it illuminating. Justin talk 09:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The action here seems to be focused on getting active editors who oppose a particular agenda being imposed on Gibraltar articles banned. This has been preceded by long tendentious arguments to bore the arse off everyone else interested, which has worked. As noted, another wikipedia did indeed recently refer to British pirates occupying Gibraltar. --Gibnews (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it takes much effort to look through JCRB's past contributions on all articles. My observations are that this editor likes to push Spanish POV, and when challenged, becomes very stubborn and unpleasant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Philippines&diff=prev&oldid=334902097
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Spanish_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=331912740

Regualarly breaks 3RR which would imply regular edit warring. Good faith is obviously not assumed and bullies other editors into submission. Don't take this as a personal attack. I am purely stating my opinion from what I can see in the contributions list... _Will (Talk) 16:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It is exhausting to try to make the Gibraltar article more NPOV. As Atama has seen, it takes months to change even a little bit of the article. For example (regarding the Capture and the San Roque episode), only to include some facts that are in EVERY History book ABOUT GIBRALTAR is taking months (while other less notable historic facts go unchallenged). Regarding the lead, I think that unless someone else gets involved, it will be impossible to solve the current dispute.

I think there is a dispute between two POVs (JCRB's defending the UN and Justin and Gibnews defending Gibraltar's and myself trying to include all POVs propotionally). I would propose that someone helps to reach an agreement in order to include all of them proportionally (Justin and Gibnews have rejected any alternative of mediation, RfC, ... in order to solve this dispute).

I would also like someone to make Justin quit attacking other editors (he has accused myself and many other editors of sock and meat puppetry -and many other things such as nationalism, tendencious editing, disruptive editing, ...- without any consequence), using reversion as an editing tool (he has recently been reprimanded for doing it, but seems to go on , he even got blocked once for doing it some time ago), deleting other editors' comments in articles talk pages when he does not like them (several times he has deleted my comments, JCRB's, ...), making every little change in the article a long and painful process...

Thanks. --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That is untrue, I was not reprimanded, I was falsely accused of something that I hadn't done and cleared. I did not use rollback inappropriately. I was blocked as a new and inexperienced editor nearly 3 years ago, when I mistakenly breached 3RR when misunderstanding policy thought I was reverting vandalism. Some people seem to like misrepresenting things it seems.

Also Imalbornoz is misrepresenting his edit, which pretty much is the same as JCRB and is giving undue prominence in the lead to something that is actually in the article with appropriate coverage. The article is neutral, he seeks to skew the POV of the article to favour his own.

Imalbornoz has edited tendentiously, he shopped round multiple forums pushing this same edit. And again the suspicion of meat puppetry was expressed when it appeared from talk page comments that 3 editors were communicating off-wiki to co-ordinate their activities. Raising that was a legitimate concern.

As regards his claim we've refused mediation, not true, he seems to think mediation is about forcing his will into the article. He has never shown any willingness to compromise. Now it seems there is a campaign to get rid of editors who dispute their editing agenda. I could be paranoid but it seems co-ordinated to me. Justin talk 23:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

So what you're saying is we have three editors who appear to be using Misplaced Pages as a means to further their opinions in a real world dispute? JCRB, Imalbornoz, and Gibnews appear to be editing with a nationalist point of view, and if they cannot separate their nationatlist opinions from their Misplaced Pages edits, they will probably be banned from the cite.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Banned from the cite? Contravention of policy! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 07:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record: I do not favour a Spanish or Andalusian POV but a neutral point of view in the Gibraltar article. I've made this point many times in this and other Talk Pages. I sincerely believe in neutrality because it is a crucial element of accurate information. It also happens to be one of the policies of Misplaced Pages. But as Imalbornoz says "It is exhausting to try to make the Gibraltar article more NPOV it takes months to change even a little bit of the article". I agree. For over two years the two editors reported here have continuously rejected all constructive attempts by good editors to improve the article with small dosis of neutrality. What's more, in the case of Gibnews, he takes an academic discussion personally making aggressive ideological and political statements which are completely out of line (see his ironic comment above). In other cases, these editors twist solid arguments around and beat about the bush when presented straightforward and well-supported information. They imply sources are not "always" reliable, or "books can say many things". They will say "everybody knows that's not true", or in the case of the UN listing Gibraltar as a Non-Self-Governing Territory, well "it's because Spain is putting pressure on the UN". Judge for yourselves. In other words, it's not just their continous blocking of information they don't like, acting as if they own the article , it's their negative attitude, their lack of etiquette, and the complete absence of neutrality. Some specific points regarding the above:

• Here is an example of what I mean about favouring neutrality, and not a particular POV. If indeed there are sources that say Gibraltar is "self-governing" in "some issues" despite being listed on the UN List of Non-Self-Governing Territories, then a consensus phrase could be "Gibraltar is a partly self-governing British overseas territory" with a reference at the bottom of the page that explains both points of view and sources: the UN list on one hand, and the encyclopedia that says the opposite on the other.

• One of the points I made in the past is that the lead paragraph is very biased in that it reflects only the British POV. Indeed, it mentions the transfer of the territory from Spain to Great Britain under the Treaty of Utrecht (1713) but nowhere does it mention that according to Spain and some English-language sources this treaty only transferred the property of the castle and the fortifications on the rock, not the "sovereignty" of the territory, or "territorial jurisdiction" as it is called in Article X of the Treaty. The article goes out of its way to mention that the "majority" of Gibraltar residents oppose reintegration with Spain, and that Britain has committed to support their wishes (both of which provide legitimacy to the British POV) but no mention of the basis of Spain's claims: territorial integrity and a number of UN Resolutions mandating decolonization (UN Resolution 1514 (1960), General Assembly Resolutions 2070 and 2231 (1965) on "Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples) . There is no mention either of the UN decolonization process itself, or the Consensus of the Committee of 24 and the annual meetings that all parties hold. Why is all of this omitted? Again, my proposal for a more neutral sentence was to add "based on territorial integrity and UN resolutions on decolonization" (with a link to these). The sentence would read:

"Gibraltar was ceded by Spain to the Crown of Great Britain in perpetuity, under the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, though Spain asserts a claim to the territory based on territorial integrity and UN resolutions on decolonization, and seeks its return."

• A final example of lack of neutrality which I pointed out some time ago, but was rejected by these editors is the sentence about the 1967 Referendum . It avoids mentioning the irregular nature of the Referendum, or the protest by one of the parties in the dispute, or the UN Resolution against it. The sentence simply reads "Gibraltar's first sovereignty referendum was held on 10 September 1967, in which Gibraltar's voters were asked whether they wished either to pass under Spanish sovereignty or remain under British sovereignty, with institutions of self-government". The sentence suggests a normal, legitimate vote by a sovereign nation, instead of explaining its exceptional nature: a referendum by a dependent, disputed territory. It was protested by Spain and declared a contravention of international agreements by the United Nations. My point back then (and today) was simply to add in the latter sentence:

"Although the UN declared the referendum to be a contravention of prior General Assembly resolutions, it led to the passing of the Gibraltar Constitution Order, granting autonomy in May 1969..."

I would appreciate outside editors to read our statements carefully and act accordingly. Let's see what happens to these renewed attempts to correct the biased tone of this article. JCRB (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

One hundred words or less please.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thats part of the problem, see Talk:Gibraltar biased in this context means disagreeing with JCRB and a group of editors with an agenda of grinding down any opposition and having the burger their way. --Gibnews (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed that is the problem, the talk pages are filled with tendentious argument and its remorseless. You take the time to patiently explain things to people, assuming in many cases its a language barrier or perhaps the tendency for British constitutional matters to be unwritten isn't easy to understand. Then its straight back to the same point again. And again. And again. Its driven numerous people of the article, any effective progress on the article is stymied, the sheer frustration of it all is making people snappy. Can we please get some help here. Justin talk 09:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I see someone saying that I try to forward some kind of nationalist agenda in Misplaced Pages and with a Spanish nationalist POV. That is wrong and worries me deeply. In the current dispute, all the sources I have tried to include were either from the UN, from the UK Government, from the Government of Gibraltar or from Gibraltar newspapers (that does not look like a Spanish nationalist list of sources, does it?) If you look, all the cites I have brought to the talk page reflect the official position of those governments. I have never said in WP anything vilifying Gibraltar or the Gibraltarians (as Gibnews implies). Notice that no diff is provided. Of course, I can't provide any diff of my "not posting nationalist comments".

On the other hand, Justin and Gibnews have tried at all cost to remove any reference to the UN POV in the lead of the article, or to the complete POV of the UK Government about Gibraltar (which is not that Gibraltar is self-Governing, but that it has an important measure of devolved internal self-government).

I insist, there is no evidence that I am pushing a nationalist POV. If you think that there is any, please show me so that I can either clarify it or apologise and change it. Personally, I feel VERY uncomfortable when someone considers me a nationalist, that's why I try to avoid any nationalist attitude at all cost. --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No evidence? Never said anything to villify Gibraltar? Do I have to post your contribution off-wiki again? You're not pushing the UN POV, you're misrepresenting UN resolutions. You don't listen, you simply push the same line constantly, its reams of tendentious argument that is stymieing any progress. Justin talk 12:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There we go again. You take the time to explain the problems with the article, you give examples, you provide the references, and you propose a more neutral wording which is neither Spanish nor Gibraltarian POV. You do this to find a consensus and move forward, yet again these editors call it "tendentious argument" and "misrepresentation". No more to be said. I am also offended when accused of "pushing a nationalist POV". JCRB (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Justin, I am starting to feel VERY OFFENDED. REALLY. I said: "I have never said in WP anything vilifying Gibraltar or the Gibraltarians." So far, Justin has not been able to bring any evidence of the contrary, yet he keeps accusing me (and referring to "off wiki" comments out of context; are this kind of attacks usually accepted?). If I have vilified anybody for his/her nationality (which I am very sure I haven't), I will apologise (of course).

I find the word nationalist as very offensive and disruptive in discussions about Gibraltar - specially in discussions about Gibraltar. Meanwhile, through these repetitions, outside editors will come to the conclusion that, if I am so persistently accused and I am -in fact- discussing about a foreign territory, I must have a very strong nationalist POV. WHICH IS NOT TRUE.

Therefore, I would ask the admins whether is it possible that I make the following request: "If no editor brings a diff proving that I have pushed a nationalist POV in WP discussions, then I insist that Justin and Gibnews do not keep offending me and disrupting the discussion. I would also request that in case no diff is brought here, Justin and Gibnews apologise for those offensive and disrupting accusations."

Is it possible to make that request? And, if someone keeps accusing me of nationalism without any basis, is it possible to qualify that behaviour as disruptive? Thank you very much (and apologies for bringing these ugly issues to this page, but they have gone too far). --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You have kept out of actually editing pages and have resorted to long tendentious arguments on the talk pages preventing progress and creating new articles, but here is a a diff where you repeatedly reject a reference because it comes from 'a Gibraltar law firm' one which employs 70 professionals, has an international profile, and no connection with me. You have previously expressed the view that "The Peninsula of Gibraltar is a colony" and "it should be returned to Spain" and that "Spanish Minister Moratinos visited Gibraltar last week in order to negotiate how to mend some of Gibraltar's many disorders that have arisen under British rule (criminality, smuggling, tax evasion, ..." but I trust that reading the wikipedia page on Gibraltar and six months of discussing things for inclusion at GREAT length have modified that initial distorted view ? --Gibnews (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

If that is a way of saying that I have not "vilified Gibraltar or Gibraltarians" nor "pushed a nationalistic POV" in WP, then I am very glad.

Regarding the removal of the source, I quote my comment of 7 August 2009: "BTW, when I removed the lawyers' citation, I did it because I really thought it was immaterial (with all the respect to Gibnews and what seems a large and prestigious law firm); but the context of the "self-governing" citation seemed more commercial than informative, thus my -I will admit- sarcastic reference to the next sentence "Gibraltar is well placed etc." In fact, my next edit had the following tag: "Was reference to private law firm site (the next sentence in that page is "Gibraltar is tax-effective, well regulated, well placed and well developed.", maybe we should add it to the introduction too?)" In fact, the quote was so out of place in WP that nobody (not even Justin) defended that source as reputable. Honestly, I think this is not a very good diff to prove that I have made a nationalistic comment... It is also a bit embarrassing that you have not yet realised how out of place that cite was... ;-)

Also, you are quoting some off-wiki sentences by myself which 1) are out of context (and you know it because I explained them at length six months ago) and 2) about which I have apologised in WP several times in case I had offended anyone (the first one in the beginning of August and the beginning of my edits in WP -not 6 months later- just when we began to discuss about this and Justin brought those off-wiki comments to the discussion). I think that is very much out of place if what we are talking about is whether I have pushed a nationalistic POV in WP. I am a bit disappointed and offended by that.

I repeat that I have only insisted in including the UN's, the Government of UK and some Government of Gibraltar POVs. Obviously, that is not pushing a "Spanish nationalist POV"...

I insist, is there a way to stop people accusing me of pushing a nationalistic POV if no (serious) diff is provided? IT IS VERY OFFENSIVE. --Imalbornoz (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I neither defended nor opposed that reference. And I will highlight you are not seeking to present the UN view, rather a somewhat perverse interpretation of UN resolutions to "prove" Gibraltar is Spanish. And that isn't a nationalist view point? Please also don't attempt to portray your comments as anything but sarcasm, you insult people's intelligence.

Again I ask the question, do I have to post the comments you made off-wiki and acknowledge as yours? Justin talk 23:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that Gibraltar is Spanish. It is British. So I have no intention to "prove" that Gibraltar is Spanish. I only say that, if the lead says that Gibraltar is a "self-governing territory" (a very respectable Gibraltarian POV), it should also include the fact that the equally respectable UN's General Assembly has listed Gibraltar as a "non self-governing territory" as per NPOV. Also, in that case, it should show the POV of the UK: the very respectable UK Government does not say that Gibraltar is "a self-governing territory PERIOD" but that it has an important level of "internal self-government" (that is, that Gib is self-governing except in the areas of defence, foreign affairs, internal security and the public service -which are not insignificant exceptions). This, I am sure, is not a nationalistic approach. But I have already explained this to you more than 20 times (this is not an exaggeration)

I have asked you already in the article 9 times to accept an alternative to just keep discussing with the same arguments over and over. Are you finally going to answer me and accept mediation, RfC or any other dispute resolution option? --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all the UN General Assembly has NEVER listed Gibraltar as a "colony", Gibraltar is on the list because the UK nominated it back in 1947. You have constantly and consistently misrepresented sources to advance an agenda. Secondly, the comments about the UN C24, who maintain it on the list due to lobbying by the Spanish Government, are included in the article. The article as written is NPOV. The UK Government actually says that Gibraltar is self-governing except for defence and foreign relations - the limits are in the article. So what you're asking is nothing to do with NPOV.

Back in June last year, whilst doing some research on the Economist website I came across the following unpleasant post of yours:

Even for a Spanish nationalist thats a pretty extreme expression of opinion. Your first edits were to remove the fact that Gibraltar is self-governing , , you then proceeded to try edit warring to keep it. You then proceeded to tie the talk page up in tendentious argument its nearly 156 kB long . None the less people engaged in good faith and tried to explain it to you, you've never once listened and still push the same line. It hasn't changed all the below were just this week.

The UN says no such thing, its a gross misrepresentation of sources to claim that it does. Similarly:

Again, the UN says no such thing, its a gross misrepresentation of sources to claim that it does. What is clear though is the POV agenda behind it. Now having a POV is not a problem on Misplaced Pages but what is a problem is disrupting the article with reams of tendentious argument to try and skew the article to favour a particular POV. Whats also a problem is lobbying for sanctions against other editors, claiming they're being "insulting" and that you're "offended" when all that has been done is to point out you're misrepresenting what you're setting out to achieve. The article is currently paralysed, nothing can move forward, so please can we have some admin intervention. Justin talk 12:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE, SOMEBODY HELP US!!!

This is very frustrating. I have been for six months asking for outside help in the discussion. Now Justin -even though he does not answer directly to me, after 10 times asking for his opinion on outside help in dispute resolution- seems to agree that some admin intervention is needed. Now is the moment...

(even though I have explained the previous comments to Justin many times, he keeps bringing them out of context -maybe to paint me as an extremist to outsiders of the discussion; so I will -boringly- explain them once again:

• The off-wiki comments were not a serious discussion trying to improve an encyclopedic article, but to -playfully, as you can see in the style- make fun of a (very coky) commentator in The Economist who pretended to be a translator from a very prestigious university, but kept making mistakes in Spanish while putting other commentators down laughing at their English. I am not proud of those coments and have apologise many times in WP for several months. I sincerely apologise here once more if they offended someone. Anyway I think they are not relevant in WP.
• You have just seen one clear example of what has been happening during the past 6 months: Justin says that the General Assembly does not list Gibraltar as a non self-governing territory. On the other hand, I have posted the following link like four or five times to Justin but he -maybe because the discussion is very heated- seems to ignore it. Please take a look a it:

I do not say that Gibraltar does not have any self-government (my opinion is irrelevant). I only say that the UN General Assembly lists Gib a non self-governing territory.

• Justin brings some of my comments on UN's resolutions (those were the texts where the "keywords" came from), and says that the UN "does not say so", but he fails to bring the UN texts just one line up from my comments where it is clear that the UN says that the referendum among Gibraltarians was a contravention of its resolutions (because it does not consider Gibraltarians as the people with the right to determine the status of Gibraltar, otherwise that referendum would be very happily accepted by the UN). I do not say that Gibraltarians are not the people of the territory (again, my opinion is not relevant). I only say that the UN says so.

Please, I am getting very tired of this discussion. I know that Justin and Gibnews and other editors from both sides are too. I am afraid that this will get too heated at some point. It has already been six months. I agree with Justin that we need some admin intervention to help us out.

Please... --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No the list is compiled by the UN C24 and adopted by the General Assembly, there is a big difference. And the fact remains that Gibraltar only ever got on that list because the UK nominated it and for no other reason. Misrepresenting it, is intended to give the list more credibility than it actually posesses. The article already includes this information, you're not seeking to improve the NPOV you're looking to skew it. You are abusing UN references claiming they say one thing, when they do not. Justin talk 17:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

It feels like Bill Murray's character in "Groundhog Day": I have just cited the UN list, then you say that it's not the UN official position as it's there only because it was listed by UK, then I'll say...

...that the fact that the UN website has a page that says (in capital letters in the source) "NON SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES LISTED BY GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN 2002" is as clear as sources can be, and that so is the sentence by Chairman General Mr Ban Ki Moon in the UN website:

Whereby (if you look at the General Assembly list) the 16 territories are: Western Sahara, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands (Malvinas), Montserrat, St. Helena, Turks and Caicos Islands, United States Virgin Islands, Gibraltar, American Samoa, Guam, New Caledonia 4, Pitcairn, and Tokelau (other 80 territories have made to the status of "self-governing" according to the UN, but -and you can explain it as you wish, and call it fair or unfair- the verifiable and notable fact is that Gibraltar obviously has not).

Then you'll say that this list is already in the article, then I'll say that indeed it is in the article but not in the lead (where it is said as an undisputed fact that "Gibraltar is a self-governing territory", when it is actually under dispute by the UN and some more), then you'll say that I only say that because I pursue a Spanish nationalist agenda, then I'll be offended, then you'll cite the off-wiki comments... (and that's where the radio alarm goes off and Sonny & Cher sing "I've got you babe" like in "Ground Hog Day" when the day starts all over again for poor Bill Murray).

Please, we need some admin assistance to make this dispute move on without anyone being blocked: after 6 months we've had enough of a try. PLEASE. --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar Articles

An idea that I ran past Atama to stop the disruption on Gibraltar articles, that I'd like to open up to wider community discussion.

To stop the disruption I propose:

1. Indefinitely semi-protect the articles to stop IP disruption.
2. Introduce a red card system, where any mention of nationalism or ad hominem attacks gets a yellow card, then a red card leading to a block. With an escalating scale of blocks, 24 hrs, 48hrs etc. A yellow card would last for say 24 hrs.

What would be slightly more difficult to deal with is the filibustering that has taken place, ie constantly returning to the same point again and again. Its gotten extremely tiresome for all concerned.

I'm imagining this would be a voluntary scheme that all of the editors would sign up to. I asked Atama if he would agree to be "referee" the process. I believe admin overview would be necessary as I suspect sock/meat puppetry may become an issue.

The people who I'd propose would be:

User:Ecemaml
User:Imalbornoz
User:Cremallera
User:Gibnews
User:Justin_A_Kuntz

Does this seem a workable suggestion? Justin talk 23:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't really make new sections if they are directly related to another section earlier up on the page. That and topic bans are much easier to enforce.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That's my fault, I should have been more specific. I should have clarified that you should have added that to one of the two existing topics on ANI. I'm moving it for you. -- Atama頭 23:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that proposal gets to the root of the problem, which is that there is a very different perception about Gibraltar in Spain as a result of the active pursuit by its government of its sovereignty claim. Yes its simplistic and probably not in line with wikipedia policy to explain it like that. But its true Today on talk:gibraltar I've been informed politely that the real 'people of Gibraltar' live in San Roque, that the UN considers the current population mere colonists, and that the Government I elected does not govern the territory. This is what some want in Misplaced Pages. Its wrong. --Gibnews (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I would agree to the proposal of a compromise to block anyone mentioning nationalism and ad hominem attacks. I would not limit the list to those five editors, in any case (there are several others -of several tendencies- who have engaged in nationalist and ad hominem attacks in the Gibraltar talk page).

In order to avoid filibustering, I think that the agreement should include the enforceable compromise to use dispute resolution tools (mediation, etc.) when a point has been repeatedly discussed. --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

disagree with blocking anyone as although the editors information may be wrong, apart from long tendentious arguments and the inability to compromise or agree there is not the sort of malice experienced from, for example Vintagekits who deserved to be banned and was. BUT the point of including anything on these pages is to try and involve some outside parties rather than to just open up yet another 100k of exchanges. I think all the involved parties have all said enough and its time to let someone else form an opinion. --Gibnews (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Rdm2376 starting mass deletions

This very long discussion, has been moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rdm2376's deletions. — Coffee // have a cup // ark //

Seregain's disruption, POV-pushing, and WikiStalking

Going to bring this user's behavior and evangelcial-POV pushing here and let admins review it in it's own context, since this user continues to disrupt Misplaced Pages through POV-pushing and creating false AN/I threads on our earlier conflicts which contain intentional lies, misinformation, and (now) outing attempts against me on other website.

Sockpuppetry and attempt at "outing" other members

1. Seregain logged out of his account and made this personal attack using his IP ("Reverting censorship by disruptive troll). He admitted that his was him in these later edits 1, 2 "This was my edit. Neglected to log in.

2. In his latest disruptive AN/I comment, he attempted to "out" me by linking to an off-site (Misplaced Pages Review) profile which he believed to be me, complaining on Misplaced Pages because of a comment on Misplaced Pages Review which accused him of POV-pushing.

Suspicious/POV edits/outright trolling

1. He only has 200 edits, and (like Guy mentioned) his 1st edit was a well-formed AFD for Secular Student Alliance. This leads me to believe that he is a possible sockpuppet of a banned evanglical POV-pusher.

2. Soon after this AFD started, he removed a sourced entry about the Secular Student Alliance visiting Ham's "Creation Museum", using a deceptive edit summary. His summary stated that it was "in the wrong section", but he removed it entirely. After I added it to the correct section, he removed it again, this time giving the reason that it "doesn't belong in the article at all".

3. In Human papillomavirus (newer edit than original), Seregain inserts a claim (in an incorrect section) that "HPV vaccines will do little to reduce rates of cervical cancer" using Dr. Diane Harper (who apparently spoke at an anti-vaccination group's conference while delivering this statement) and the Catholic Exchange as sources (apparently to push an "abstinence-only POV". In the diff I linked, he also inappropriately reverted nearly 20 newer edits just to reinsert this dubious claim into the article after it was removed.

4.In Cervarix (newer edit than original , Seregain inserts the same claim he made in the HPV article, using Diane Harper as a source, claiming a "lead researcher comes out against Cervarix". Like in the HPV article, in the above diff he also inappropriately reverted multiple editors just to re-insert his questionable content after it was removed.

5. In Gardasil, Seregain removes text from the article which identifies Dr. Diane Harper with the anti-vaccination group National Vaccine Information Center.

6. In Carman (singer), he reverted a consensus-supported revision which was decided upon during a recent AFD.

7. In National Science Foundation, Seregain inserted a claim that "porn surfing is rampant at the National Science Foundation" (using the Moonie Times as a source).

8. In his latest AFD for The Skeptic's Annotated Bible, Seregain showed a strong personal motive for wanting the article deleted, by attacking the owners of the article's sources personally (ex. He claimed that a source was "unreliable" because the owner of the source had criticized Jack Chick) and making otherwise disruptive and POV comments.

WikiLobbying

Seregain has frequently lobbyed other admins and members on their talk pages, such as SarekOfVulcan, Jclemens, and others to intervene at his earlier AN/I comments (while at the same time, he claimed that he only wanted the comments of "objective, uninvolved admins", therefore lying). I would be happy to provide specific links.

--SuaveArt (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I just blocked SuaveArt for 31 hours for personal attacks and disruptive editing. I welcome further admin review of this. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I declined an unblock request, as the block seems reasonable given the circumstances. I also asked SuaveArt to disengage entirely from interactions with Seregain, just and you and JClemens have asked Seregain to disengage from interaction with SuaveArt. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 21:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

My (Seregain's) response

"Sockpuppetry"

• Point 1: I took a break after attempting to reach an agreement with you on the Left Behind: Eternal Forces article. I was not up for that headache. When I returned to editing, I failed to notice that I was no longer logged in. I made three edits under the IP in question, realized my error, admitted to it and apologized for it. It was a mistake and not an attempt to be deceptive. The edit summary was, admittedly, based upon your own choices for edit summaries and justifications (e.g. accusing people of censorship and being disruptive trolls).
• Point 2: Do you deny that is you? It's pretty obvious it is you. I don't think Misplaced Pages looks kindly on people who go to other websites to plot their targeting of other editors.

"Edits"

• Point 1: WP:EDITCOUNT is not policy and AfDs are quite simple to create.
• Point 2: The section had nothing to do with Ken Ham himself. I removed it as irrelevant to the article, which it was, so it was not "deceptive." In fact, an editor far more established and far more respected than you has since agreed with me.
• Points 3-5: I did not add any sourcing from the Catholic Exchange, as my edits prove. The sources I provided were the Philadelphia Bulletin and CBS News. I reverted nothing but your censorship of the relevant material. And as far as I know, Dr. Harper is not directly associated with any anti-vaccination groups.
• Point 6: A consensus of virtually one - i.e. you - is not a consensus. To wit:

07:29, 9 December 2009 Seregain (talk | contribs) (11,425 bytes) (rv to last good version by Bucksburg at 14:11, 15 October 2009) (undo) 03:07, 9 December 2009 SuaveArt (talk | contribs) m (5,310 bytes) (undo) 03:06, 9 December 2009 SuaveArt (talk | contribs) m (5,329 bytes) (undo) 03:05, 9 December 2009 SuaveArt (talk | contribs) (5,402 bytes) (removed tags) (undo) 03:04, 9 December 2009 SuaveArt (talk | contribs) (5,815 bytes) (broken ref) (undo) 03:02, 9 December 2009 SuaveArt (talk | contribs) (5,978 bytes) (further cleanup) (undo) 02:56, 9 December 2009 Gongshow (talk | contribs) (10,785 bytes) (some cleanup) (undo) 01:43, 9 December 2009 SuaveArt (talk | contribs) (11,781 bytes) (Nominated for deletion; see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Carman (singer). (TW)) (undo)

The first edit on the list is the reversion you point out and the last is your first edit to the article.

• Point 7: The Washington Times is not an unreliable sources, as you falsely claim. What the heck is "Moonie Times?"
• Point 8: The article lacked references establishing notability and no one was adding any despite it being tagged. Perhaps I should've given it more time, but I was not finding any reliable sources (and the fact that the new sources are either foreign language or very weak indicates a severe lack of reliable sources). The two sources I "attacked" were self-published by someone who is banned from Misplaced Pages. I never argued in any way, shape or form that a source was unreliable because of what they said about Jack Chick. I argued that the reference was trivial and pointed out the Jack Chick thing as something that was amusing. As far as your last assertion about me, I will simply ask you to consider the plank in your own eye.

"Wikilobbying"

• My comment to SarekOfVulcan was, in fact, in response to a comment he made first and he has stated that he did not see my comment on his talk page as anything you are trying to portray it as. My comment to Jclemens was due to the fact that he was mentoring you. He found nothing wrong with my comment, but clarified that his involvement would be as a neutral party. There have been no "others" regarding this accusation as is proven by my edit history.

Your accusations are groundless. Seregain (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• So what was your previous account? There is no way in the world you're going to persuade me this account is your first experience of Misplaced Pages. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• I'm pretty concerned by the following: "The edit summary was, admittedly, based upon your own choices for edit summaries and justifications (e.g. accusing people of censorship and being disruptive trolls)." This is not only a very childish response, but completely against WP:POINT. I endorse your 31 hour block. When you come back, please learn to edit in a more civil manner. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 09:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Seregain wasn't blocked, SuaveArt was. Auntie E. (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Disengagement injunction

I just left a warning on both users' talk pages to disengage. I suggest that if either chooses to ignore this they be treated to a WP:TROUT, with escalating slaps up to and including the full-on killer whale treatment. Meanwhile I think those of us on the sidelines could usefully take a long hard look at the contributions of both parties. I see significant cause for concern in one, I am less sure about the other. See here for some discussion of this, as you'll see from the talk page history he seems none too keen on having other people read that, much good may it do him. I vote that the first of them to start commenting on the other wins a kewpie doll. What say? Guy (Help!) 23:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse as common sense and in line with what I've said to both of them. Jclemens (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Good idea, and really there's been too much drama about these two editors lately. -- Atama頭 00:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - My removal of your warning has nothing to do with being "none too keen on having other people read that." I don't need a warning regarding something I already agreed to. Seregain (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - You have the right to remove stuff from your talk page. Guy was in the wrong to repeatedly reinsert it. SuaveArt as well, both editors are reminded to abide by WP:HUSH (although in SA's case, the disengage agreement renders that moot). -- Atama頭 01:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't "repeatedly reinserting it", I was trying to have a conversation, which is hard if one party insists on deleting what you say and then replying in a different place. The conversation was necessary since Seregain appeared to be under the impression that any injunction should apply to me, preventing me from commenting here on Seregain's problematic behaviour. It don't work like that. You don't get to choose to have your case discussed only by those who are sympathetic to you. Guy (Help!) 07:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

He can delete anything he likes from his talkpage. Might I suggest that you just respond where he does, instead of baiting him? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion is unnecessary, the conversation was over yesterday. Of course, if Seregain really wants to aggressively assert his innocence on one of the most watched user talk pages on the project I don't especially care, but I rather thought the attention would be unwelcome to him. Somebody might want to educate the obvious sockpuppet on the true meaning of harassmenat, though. Guy (Help!) 17:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

He seems to have a better grasp than you do, since you were in violation of the harassment policy as I cited. Reinserting text onto an editor's talk page or user page after they've removed it is a violation. It doesn't matter if you are attempting to have a conversation, if you put back information that an editor has tried to remove, you are being disruptive. Don't do that again, at Seregain's user pages or any other editor's user pages. -- Atama頭 01:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'd AGF re: the sock accusations unless the editor is disruptive. If I may quote Tsbdy further down: "If the account is not being disruptive, then let's not concern ourselves too much. IMO, the only time to be concerned about sock-puppets is when they cause disruption." Auntie E. (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

So would I. The editor is disruptive. A fundamentalist POV-pusher. Guy (Help!) 19:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

There is an edit war brewing on Creation_according_to_Genesis with various warnings issued on: User_talk:Ben_Tillman#Creation_according_to_Genesis_3RR. Please intervene to revert a POV edit war. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You're making a fool of yourself. Ben (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no edit war, there are one or two editors seeking to overturn a long established consensus. – ukexpat (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually user Ben has been doing too many reverts and now personal attacks. If there is no edit war, can I revert him? History2007 (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Re this comment on my talk page, I actually said "long established consensus" (see above) and it's dealt with at Talk:Creation according to Genesis. I have nothing further to add. – ukexpat (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack

To Misplaced Pages administrators: Please note that the above comment by Ben was a "direct and unprovoked personal attack" on me. By Misplaced Pages rules this can not be allowed to continue. Please take appropriate action against the offending party. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The main issue here is that Ben is continuing his perpetual practice of labeling everything Biblical as a "myth", i.e. as "untrue". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In any case, Ben needs to be reverted so he will learn not to ignore 3 revert situations and not to issue personal attacks here. This requires admin action. History2007 (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If he has broken the 3 revert rule, the best thing is to take him to WP:3RR and report him for edit warring. That doesn't preclude an admin from doing something about it here, but it's the more formal process. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone post diffs of the personal attacks? Thanks. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait... in reference to the personal attack again (making a fool). Ben: Stop that. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

k :( Ben (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict ad nauseum) Knock it off both of you (not you Bugs). This is already being discussed in an RfC on the article talk page. That's the appropriate place for this. Take it back to the talk page, work it out like mature people, and then abide by consensus...even if you don't agree with it. History: I don't read that as a personal attack, a slightly barbed suggestion, but not an outright attack. Ben: labelling something is "myth" is just as NPOV as not labelling it as such. Not everyone is going to agree with your assessment of it as myth, and if consensus and references are against you, then either find better references or take your seat and follow consensus. Frmatt (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Key question: whose version gets displayed while the debate continues? The debate is cyclic and Ben seems to enjoy these debates. Hence unless there is action, he will continue reverts. Can I revert him now? Does he have more revert authority than other people? History2007 (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

( → Frmatt) It's all on the talk page, sources and cited policy. I'm not going to rehash it here. Ben (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It's on full protect for 3 days. Get an appeal at WP:RFPP if you folks can get it worked out by then. Otherwise, the RfC should help a bit. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it was unfair to protect the page while it was on Ben's version. Encourages his type of behavior. After 3 days he must be reverted. History2007 (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you both need to be a little more congenial; work it out on the talk page. As for whose version I protected on, see m:Wrong Version ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing has discouraged Ben yet. He's bound and determined to push that "myth" POV, at any cost. Trying to work it out on the talk page is futile. That's why I stopped fighting him on the Noah article - it was like dealing with a mule, or my grandmother. Eventually other editors will have had enough and there will arise a consensus to banish him. But that might take awhile. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Still not an admin Bugs? Anytime now mate, I'm sure of it. Ben (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have never been interested in being an admin, and you couldn't pay me enough to take the job. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a content dispute. Have you considered WP:MedCom, WP:MedCab, WP:3O or something similar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavexgoem (talk • contribs)

It's a content dispute, but it's more than that, it's a philosophical dispute. For a long time now, Ben has tried to label everything Biblical a "myth", i.e. a "fairy tale". While denying it, of course. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

History2007 is one of the troops and just came in guns blazing (see his recent edit history). My level of congeniality wrt to History2007 isn't a high priority at the moment, though I'm happy to discuss things on the article talk page with him. Thanks for everyone's time. Cheers, Ben (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me end by reminding every editor who's wandering across this thread that Misplaced Pages is a consensus-driven project, and that congeniality is a requirement, not an option. Thank you! Xavexgoem (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel I must suggest that it would be best for Nefariousski (talk · contribs) to voluntarily ban himself from future discussion on this topic, on the grounds of ignorance. In this reversion, he made the statement, "There's no Genesis 2." He's apparently unaware that the Bible books are divided into chapters (1, 2, 3, etc.) I'm guessing even Ben knows that's not a myth. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

He's even wrong about the movie. PhGustaf (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You realize, of course, that you're insulting someone not involved in this thread, in a section called Personal Attacks? Just checking. --King Öomie 01:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Nefariousski was involved in the edit war. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Is it too late to call WP:LAME on this? Guy (Help!) 17:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This thread's a little stale, but Bugs, I insist you withdraw that personal attack on your grandmother. And the mule. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

She'd be the first to admit it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Who would? Your grandma or the mule? Before you answer, remember WP:BLP violations are a serious matter. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Unitanode making personal attacks

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

In responses related to the unref BLP deletion threads, Unitanode (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has made a few personal attacks on me, the first listed in response to my response that he stop after the prior ones:

...and one stunningly inappropriate suggestion:

The overall incident there is certainly not going to be helped by it escalating into personal attacks... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Or by distraction with irrelevant AN/I sideshows about sharp elbows. There's nothing really to this particular report in the grand scheme of things. How many of those deleted BLPs did you want userified so you can fix them? ++Lar: t/c 05:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Not personal attacks. Grow a pair. Viridae 05:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

George, I have access to Infotrac and am willing to help you find references for any of those deleted BLPs that you are currently trying to find sources for if you don't have the time to get down to your local library. Just let me know. Cla68 (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The comments were not very civil, but the overall situation is certainly not going to be helped by it escalating here to ANI simply because some infelicitous remarks were directed at an admin. A lot of heated things have been said in the last 24 hours or so, and it's best to let them go for the most part. There's no admin action to take here, and this is not the place to discuss userfication and sourcing of deleted articles. Next person who comes to this thread should close it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Closing per Bigtimepeace; feel free to undo/move it to WP:WQA (if you really want to), etc. NW (Talk) 05:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal regarding incivility on BLP issue

Leaving the above section closed because we shouldn't single out one editor here - Wikidemon (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

We need to invest in a large WP:TROUT farm here. In the scheme of things, rudeness during the Wiki equivalent of a policy coup is not a huge deal. In fact, the entire BLP issue is not a big deal - it will merit at most a few blog posts by total wiki-wonks. I doubt many of the 50,000+ subjects of these articles will even notice. But the fact that there is widespread incivility on this issue doesn't mean it's okay to engage. I think we should encourage cooperative editing here, not insults. I've been on the receiving end of this particular editor's impassioned comments so I've got a conflict in recommending what to do here, but as a general rule an admonishment is in order at the very least when people get too uncivil, if it can be done in a way to calm rather than inflame. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. I think a few of the calmer sorts should watch Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people and clerk the hell out of it if this sort of sourness turns up there. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The coversation did seem to take a sharp nosedive into unpleasentness somewhere along the way, didn't it? Never quite realised how complex (and emotional) things seem to get on the Wiki. But yeah, a couple of calm and neutral eyes over on the RFC would hopefully help a lot. - Tainted Conformity 07:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight

{{resolved|···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)}} I've scratched that resolved tag per the user's edits, which I shall post my opinion on below;— Dædαlus 22:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight

There appears to be an ongoing edit-war on this talk page involving multiple parties. Cirt (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Incident concluded. The improper reverts have been undone. Warnings have been issued. Everything has been documneted for Arbcom. Proofreader77 05:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• I blocked Proofreader for a week for reverting several times, he has had a recent 72 hour block for edit warring as well that I took into account when determining this block length. MBisanz 05:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nod, but there were multiple other parties involved in the disruption of the page... Cirt (talk) 05:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I could protect it, but it's a talk page and everyone else only reverted once. MBisanz 05:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay. No worries, Cirt (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: Now at User_talk:Proofreader77, he's requesting review for an unblock... Cirt (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And that has now been declined by Abecedare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).— Dædαlus 06:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And they have requested another one, which I have commented on. I suggest any reviewing admins read this comment.— Dædαlus 07:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have declined the unblock. If he makes another unblock request, best to lock the page for the duration of the block. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 10:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

indef?

This user continues to post copyright violations to their page.. they have stalked my edits, and, from the recent post regarding those edits, it appears as if they aren't taking this seriously at all, more like it is some game or debate. I don't see any evidence at all that they are going to stop their problematic edits after this all is over, therefore, I request that an indef block be considered, or, a longer block. For the version I refer to, please see this link. Please discuss.— Dædαlus 22:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Scanning the user's contributions, I see little benefit to the project. I do see a sarcastic, idiotic tone in almost any discussion, a touch of MYSPACE, and currently a misuse of talk page by a blocked user. Grsz 22:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• I suggest locking Proofreader77's talk page for the duration of the current block and would advise Daedalus969 in particualr to, quite frankly, move on. HJMitchell You rang? 22:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The editor is now attacking the difficulties I had of using {{tl}}, {{tlp}} and {{tlx}}.

• Support - An indef block, per the above. We don't need someone like this here. Before I was asking that it be considered. Now I'm requesting it be put in place.— Dædαlus 00:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to note, evidence of stalking.— Dædαlus 01:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with HJMitchell's advice. (No opinion on the suggestion, tho.) —DoRD (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

More stalking. They wouldn't really know of my edits unless they were watching my contributions.— Dædαlus 02:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the irony. —DoRD (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

user:Enax99 was allowed to skate and is now back with their hoax edits again

The previous discussion concerning Enax99 (talk · contribs) was about how, even though he had a final vandalism warning on his Talk page, and yet continued to vandalize, he wasn't going to be blocked because he wasn't vandalzing at that very instant. Well, guess what? He's back, and continues to insert provably false information into articles. Since he isn't at this very instant vandalizing, does that mean he gets to continue? 67.51.38.51 (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have looked through the users contributions and they havent editerd for the last two days. When they start editing again and they are being constructive I dont see why the user couldnt edit here but I am sure that this will be backed up if the user then starts to vandalise then they will be blocked. Corruptcopper (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Report him to WP:AIV, and hope that this time you get an admin that will put a stop to it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah. So the answer is, "yes, he gets to skate yet again". Thanks. I won't bother to revert any more of his hoax edits again. I understand why User:Woogee gave up on his attempts to get this constant vandal blocked. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the answer is "blocked for two weeks". Suggest you wait more than 10 minutes next time before starting with the snark. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) No, the answer is "Please assume good faith while the situation is investigated." Enax99 has been blocked now (by SarekOfVulcan) for a two weeks. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

AGF is not the issue. Patience or lack thereof, is the issue. Sometimes an admin will jump on it right away. But other times no one's watching. AIV and/or ANI can sit "backlogged", sometimes for an hour or two. Speaking of AGF, the IP was trying to report damage to wikipedia and was getting impatient. Don't hassle him for wanting to get a problem fixed. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I note that the user involved has now been blocked for two weeks. Subtle vandalism is becoming a serious problem; see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Evidence. It's a huge time drain to catch and fix such edits. A hard line on this sort of thing is appropriate. --John Nagle (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but time must be taken to properly investigate the issue to make sure a good understanding of it is in hand before making any block decisions. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) I'll add, though, that AIV isn't the route for that sort of vandalism because it's not obvious, i.e. it isn't obvious to someone unfamiliar with the subject. I do agree, of course, that sneaky vandalism is not to be tolerated. —DoRD (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It depends on which admin you get. Some admins watching AIV will analyze the situation and take appropriate action. In the original situation, the admin was new and was being cautious about blocking. Nothing wrong with that. And the "hasn't edited for a couple of days" argument is good for IP's because they can float. But a registered user whose only activity is vandalism should get blocked even if he hasn't edited for 2 days. Note edited for 2 weeks, 2 months, 2 years, maybe no block. But 2 days, yes, especially if he has a number of entries already. One-time drive-bys, maybe not. It's always a judgment call and it's also subject to the approach taken by a specific admin. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering there are 6-day-and-above gaps in the contribution history, I didn't think that anything under 2 weeks was likely to be meaningful. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, much more likely to catch him. And if he does it again after his block expires, then a stronger message would be next. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I just want to note, I saw this late but per my prior pledge I would have definitely blocked this editor, had Sarek not beat me to it. -- Atama頭 18:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, seeing as how every single edit from this editor has been problematic since the first one, if this editor continues this behavior after this block expires I'd support an indef block. -- Atama頭 19:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Which raises a question in my logical but somewhat warped mind: Which condition is worse? To be indefinitely blocked? Or to be definitely blocked? :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

why are you concerned about my or the IP's patience? Repeatedly declining to block a repeat vandal who has been given a final warning yet continues to post hoaxes, would try anybody's patience. And why do you accuse the IP of failure to be patient, when they were told When they start editing again and they are being constructive I dont see why the user couldnt edit here? In other words, they just get to keep vandalizing because nobody can catch them in the act, and nobody would block them. But thanks for the two week block, though it should have been indefinite. Woogee (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Patience only in the sense of "don't expect the user to be blocked within 10 minutes of the post." Sometimes no admins are watching. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• For some strange reason, after reading over this topic the term 'shiny van hitch' comes to mind. I'm sure that must be an error on my part; perhaps I'm mis-thinking it. HalfShadow 01:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Rule of inference

This is a formal written request for action to be taken to stop User:EmilJ from repeatedly removing valid content from rule of inference. I recently, after much research, added a statement to the article "Every valid rule of inference is put forward as a logical truth and every logical truth can serve as a valid rule of inference." This statement is supported by a reference to one of the foremost experts on the topic and is the only one supported by references in the whole article. Emil seems to believe he has a counterexample in mind, however he does not, in fact. He needs to be told by people other than myself that he needs to stop. I am requesting that A) The content be replaced and B) Emil is explicitly told to stop vandalizing the page. Be well. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that has had little discussion on the article talk page and does not require administrator intervention. Obtain consensus on the article's talk page instead of edit warring or running to an admin. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 18:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a sense in which nothing requires anything on WP. I think that some people outside of the fields of mathematics and philosophy should step in here in a purely leadership capacity. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Then you should use the Village Pump, or some other appropriate forum. It says right up at the top of this page: "What this page is not: This page is not part of our dispute resolution process for content issues." and "Frivolous complaints and unsubstantiated requests for administrator intervention do not belong here." Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 19:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) My approach in situations like this is to ask for input from a WikiProject -- in this case WikiProject Mathematics seems like the obvious place. If you can't establish consensus that way, appealing to ANI is probably useless. Looie496 (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay folks, I have heard you and understand. I am withdrawing my request here at "incidents". I appreciate your time and efforts. Thank you also Looie for good advice. I think WP:Philosophy is more appropriate for this issue and that is part of the bigger problem. I invite any correspondence from administrators watching incidents concerning my on-going issues with systemic bias from mathematics editors in logic articles. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Zhoroscop

This user is under an indefinite, global block for spam across multiple projects. Today he started putting {{unblock}} requests on his talkpage; after the third one is declined I protected the page. While the editor is useless and will never be unblocked, I still do feel that I should leave him some sort of message, out of fairness, explaining "this is why your talkpage was protected; if you want to appeal your block you may use e-mail (but be aware that if you abuse this privilege and make repeated requests without understanding the reasons for your block, your e-mail privileges will be revoked)." I just don't remember who exactly I should tell him to e-mail...is it ArbCom?

I'm about to be away from the computer for a while, so if anyone else wants to leave a message in my place feel free to. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 18:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I left a note at User talk:Zhoroscop suggesting he write to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org for any further appeals. In my opinion you were correct to shut off further unresponsive unblock requests from this user. On the question of full protection of Talk, I have noticed that many admins would now reblock the user with talk page access disabled instead of full-protecting their Talk. You asked about appealing to Arbcom. My impression is that arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org is needed only for difficult questions, though any blocked user may apply there if they want to. EdJohnston (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the unblock requests were made from IPs, which is why I chose to protect instead of re-blocking.

Thanks for adding the message; I had forgotten about the unblock-en e-mail account. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 20:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:TROUT required

GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making rather a nuisance of himself over his advocacy of a factoid sourced from a primary source and not covered in any reliable independent sources (see Talk:WrestleMania_23#RfC).

• reversal of the burden of evidence
• " still no valid opposition" (exceptionally rude given that there is actually rather a lot of opposition stated, he just appears not to like it)
• forum shopping
• forum shopping
• edit-warring to include the source as reliable in a related style-guide.

We recently topic-banned an IP for a similar campaign of obduracy. I think this editor needs to just stay away until the RfC is over. As an aside, I still cannot really understand why it so fantastically important to include this figure, and yet not one single reliable independent source discusses it. Wrestling is weird. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought everything in wrestling was fake? Should this be any different? (Joke.) -- Atama頭 19:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this is not the first time that editor has gotten into a similar clash. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right but I have wasted way too much of my time on this fool already so I really can't bring myself to dredge it all out (and it would look vindictive anyway). I have to learn the Monteverdi Vespers and a stack of other early music including Jesu, meine Freude for concerts at Douai Abbey plus several lesser pieces including solos for Mozart's Missa Brevis K.259 and some of Vaughan Williams' Songs of Travel. Time to stop all this troll-wrestling and get back to rehearsal. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, just coming back from a rehearsal of Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied here, and having to learn the madrigal version of the Lamento di Arianna, I can certainly empathise with your plight :-) But, you know: "Lass den Satan wittern / Lass den Feind erbittern / Ob es itzt gleich kracht und blitzt" – just let him talk. The RfC is working out fine; once that is closed with a clear consensus, we can and will then firmly ask him to step away from the dead horse. Until then, "es ist nun nichts Verdammliches an denen". And watch out for that "Tobe Welt und springe" passage, it's a nasty bugger (assuming you're a bass) :-) -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I know singet quite well, we performed that last year also at Douai. And yes, I am a bass (bass 1, a bass-baritone really). My favourite thing to sing in the bath right now is Schubert's Winterreise. Guy (Help!) 12:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"You must notify any user that you discuss." Apparently, the rules at ANI don't mean any more to you than the policy on Verifiability; the policy on Civil that prohibits users from calling other users a dick, a fool, an idiot, and a fuckwit; the policy on Wikihounding; and the policy on Original Research, which would prevent users from declaring information unworthy of inclusion because it ends with a 7 instead of a 3. Yes, folks...that truly is a key point of his argument. And I'm the one who needs a trout? GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because you are yet to prove your point in fact. And despite many invites to do so, you continue to whack a dead trout instead of doing do, claiming WP:V has been fulfilled, when in fact it hasn't because the figure concerned is unproven and wrong anyway. Not to mention WP:GAME and forum shopping by this user AND causing a user to leave Misplaced Pages sometime back for similar policy pushing - in spite of the fact that it appears that it got admin support that time. Whilst Guy might have been a bit out of line with his language, I will defend him on the grounds of provocation. I disagree with Future Perfect though - the RfC is stuck in a rut, and Gary is the reason for that. !! Justa Punk !! 02:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:V is only unfulfilled if (1) you ignore the fact that Verifiability requires publication in a reliable source rather than conclusive proof of accuracy, (2) you misunderstand the issue altogether and fail to see that the issue at hand is not the number itself at all, but rather the fact that a different number what stated, or (3) both. And if requesting clarification on the Original Research noticeboard on a possible misunderstanding of original research is forum shopping, what does that make this thread? GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The case for WP:GAME rests. Along with whacking a dead trout. !! Justa Punk !! 04:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It is disappointing that once again you are arguing your (widely disputed) content point rather than addressing your problematic behaviour. I understand that this is characteristic, as is your tendency to misrepresent the arguments of others (in this case about the validity of stating an estimate to five significant figures, a higher degree of precision than the figures on which it's based). Guy (Help!) 12:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Persistent non-static IP vandal

There's been an ongoing problem with a persistent IP vandal that's been going on for at least 8 months. What we've got is a non-static anon who likes to shuffle around the "personnel" sections in articles about his favorite bands and albums in order to place his favorite members at the top of the lists, among other obnoxious behavior, despite being constantly reverted & warned by numerous other editors. Here's the earliest example I could find (May 2009), and here's the most recent (today). Hidden messages have been added to the articles asking these lists to be kept in alpabetical order, but the editor simply removes them. There have been dozens of such edits across a handful of articles from a number of IPs. Here's a list of most of the offenders:

• 81.129.5.163 (talk · contribs)
• 81.152.10.20 (talk · contribs)
• 81.152.71.171 (talk · contribs)
• 81.157.184.82 (talk · contribs)
• 81.157.185.175 (talk · contribs)
• 86.134.250.163 (talk · contribs)
• 86.136.32.244 (talk · contribs)
• 86.136.33.6 (talk · contribs)
• 86.136.34.91 (talk · contribs)
• 86.136.34.103 (talk · contribs)
• 86.136.38.3 (talk · contribs)
• 86.136.38.40 (talk · contribs)
• 86.141.136.98 (talk · contribs)
• 86.142.103.29 (talk · contribs)
• 86.144.21.142 (talk · contribs)
• 86.149.155.75 (talk · contribs)
• 86.152.56.61 (talk · contribs)
• 86.154.223.12 (talk · contribs)
• 86.156.85.82 (talk · contribs)
• 86.159.233.55 (talk · contribs)
• 86.159.235.20 (talk · contribs)
• 86.162.208.48 (talk · contribs)
• 86.165.134.186 (talk · contribs)
• 86.167.225.106 (talk · contribs)
• 86.165.134.194 (talk · contribs)
• 86.172.104.9 (talk · contribs)
• 86.172.105.235 (talk · contribs)
• 88.112.96.224 (talk · contribs)
• 217.42.224.119 (talk · contribs)
• 217.44.65.71 (talk · contribs)

Common sense says these are all the same person, as the edits are nearly all identical and to the same articles. No edit summaries are ever left, and warnings on talk pages, in edit summaries, and in hidden article text are ignored. Here are some of the main articles affected:

• 21st Century Breakdown
• The Blackout (band)
• Hollywood Undead
• Foxboro Hot Tubs
• Sum 41
• The Network
• 21st Century Breakdown (song)
• Trivium (band)
• The F-Ups
• 21 Guns (song)
• East Jesus Nowhere

Also note this clear act of vandalism after being reverted & warned. Not sure what the best course of action is. Article semi-protection has been tried a couple of times, but the anon just resumes after protection expires. Blocking likely won't help either, due to the number of IPs and the fact that they aren't static. We could try semi-protecting all the affected articles, but it's more than a few so I don't know how the community feels about that. And rangeblocks probably aren't a viable solution either as the IPs seems to span a wide range. What can be done? I was going to bring this to AIV but it seems like too complex a problem for that page. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In the case of prolonged, persistent disruption, a long-term or even indefinite semi can get these buggers out of your hair, especially given that shorter periods have failed. A rangeblock on the 86's seems feasible (but I don't know enough about IPs to make that call). I've semi'd many of the articles above; I did not protect some of them as they were either fallow or there would be collateral IP damage from a semi. —Jeremy 20:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this IllaZilla. I'm glad to see some of these articles finally indef'd after so much abuse. And thanks a bunch for the protections, Jeremy. Timmeh 21:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't thank me just yet; like I said I had to leave some of them unprotected because they were fallow (no edits for a week or more) or there were helpful IPs whom would be hit by a semi. —Jeremy 21:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Indefinite semi-protection is the answer until we finally get flagged revisions in place. Oh, pipe dreams. JBsupreme (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd've preferred a rangeblock, but since I'm not knowledgeable in them I semi'd the articles instead. —Jeremy 05:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request by Mujahid1947 (talk · contribs)

Mujahid1947 (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely on January 2, 2010. The user now requests to be unblocked.

Short background:

• The user has mostly edited on pages on casualties of the war in Afghanistan.
• In at least one case, he has misrepresented a source. He has not responded to postings informing him about this adequately.
• He was blocked for "Removal of Content, POV pushing, addition of incorrect info, and a disruptive username".
• He has continued to edit using IPs. (I have been involved in seeking protection for page he edited.)

• While the edit in which he misrepresented the source was not typical of his edits, the major problem is that the user apparently does not understand what the specific issue is.
• His behaviour is, as far as I can see, not that of an editor who would be intent on introducing false information in a deceptive way. (Rather, it seems a bit confused.)
• The user has agreed to change his username.
• UrukHaiLoR (talk · contribs), a 1179-edit sockpuppet of Top Gun (talk · contribs), has accused the user of several wrongdoings. However, Top Gun was indefinitely blocked for "lying about sources, and a whole lot of other sins", and I'm not sure whether the accusations of his sockpuppet are true.

The blocking administrator has been contacted. See User talk:Mifter#About user Mujahid1947.

I have no experience in handling blocked editors, and I am not an administrator. My feeling is that the indefinite block was somewhat disproportionate, and he should have been blocked temporarily. I don't know exactly how to assess the case at present, as it has become more complicated. Can someone review the user's request, and make a decision, possibly asking the user for further clarification.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Is "Mujahid" a valid User name? Woogee (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be? It's a real name - I know two or three Mujahids personally. Bettia (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Other discussion on this User talk:Mifter#Name_issue and here, I am perfectly fine with the user being unblocked, as this appears to be more or a less a case of a newbie making some mistakes while being ignorant about our policies and not a vandal. Best, Mifter (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment This name may be questionable since it's very close to Mujahideem (or various spellings) , which is a term being used for certain Afghan rebels. Given where this contributor is working, this could become a problem.

I'd ask for a different username. _{Naluboutes,Nalubotes} 14:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The user has now indicated that he would seek to change his username to Gameboy1947. See User talk:Mujahid1947#Mujahid1947 → Gameboy1947 and the section above on that page.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ip on Talk:Crucifixion in the arts

Ip is making disruption on this talk page. Admin help please to warn? Warnings were issued to IP today. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There are multiple IPs there. The one to which History2007 is referring is User:150.135.210.16, who has been rather incivil and prone to edit warring. May blow over on its own, but it's understandable that History2007 would feel put upon. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

History, you really shouldn't be removing someone else's comments from a talk page as you did here. That's to be done only to comments that clearly do not address the issue of improving the article. Also, the IP has every right to remove comments from his talk page once he's read them. You really haven't got any business reverting those removals as you did here and here. You've been around long enough to know better than that. Both of these actions are far more serious misconduct than anything the IP has done. To behave that way while suggesting that the IP be blocked as you did here and here suggests that you'd be well advised to pay a little more attention to the beam in your own eye. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Administrator Scott MacDonald self blocking to avoid a block

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

This thread has been archived to avoid it being archived.

Scott MacDonald (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) self blocked himself yesterday and then unblocked himself today.

Another administrator, Rdm2376, who was performing the same types of deletions, was blocked three times, therefore it can be argued that Scott MacDonald was avoiding a block by self-blocking himself.

In the recent User:Cremepuff222 case this same issue came up. User:Cremepuff222 blocked himself and unblocked himself.

User:TreasuryTag wrote: " also abused his admin tools by...blocking himself for fun." 16:23, 5 January 2010.

User:Wehwalt blocked Cremepuff222 stated with the stated reason: "User not allowed to unblock himself" (after Cremepuff222 blocked himself) 13:30, 17 December 2009.

Now, I strongly felt like these self blocks were okay and harmless, but in this case, the administrator was probably going to be blocked but wasn't because of his self-block.

Interested in the communities opinion on this.

Is there any arbcoms which address this issue? Ikip 22:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

THROW IT UP ON THE WALL, SEE IF IT STICKS! This is in front of ArbCom. Hipocrite (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Just looks like an admin playing silly buggers because he doesn't think admins should be blocked for being disruptive. DuncanHill (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I advise Scott self-medicate instead. But it's a free country.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• ;) Jack Merridew 22:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

SOMEBODY's playing silly buggers, but it's not Doc. This is a spurious request and should be closed and archived forthwith. Ikip needs trouting. Again. ++Lar: t/c 22:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Trout-close this thread, please. JBsupreme (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done Jack Merridew 23:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, now I have heard from the group who emphatically endorse this administrators disruptive behavior, (except for maybe Duncan) no suprise about their collective reaction at all, I would love to hear from other editors. Ikip 23:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

As an "other editor", I think there's little to hope. What's the point in asking for process? Or consensus? Don't you know that from today, it's WP:IAR all the way down? I'd love to say "I am sarcastic", but unfortunately it's exactly what is happening, Ikip. Black days these are. --Cyclopia 23:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ikip is the last person to be criticising other people for using pre-emptive selfblocks to avoid proper blocks. – Steel 23:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

MySpace vandalism

A non-autoconfirmed user somehow managed to vandalize MySpace. I cannot undo the edit with my new account.--Can't sleep, clown will treat me (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Never mind.--Can't sleep, clown will treat me (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You're really you? Welcome back! --TS 23:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back, indeed. By the way, you are a "confirmed" user now, and should be able to edit semi-protected pages. Abecedare (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Was there some sort of off-wiki verification involved? Might be a good idea to point that out somewhere if so. --Onorem♠Dil 00:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think verification is needed. If this is the same user as User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me, I would have expected the edits by User:Phonephonephonecat to Stephanie Berto to be reverted; instead a {{fact}} template was added to an edit that was probably vandalism and clearly a violation of WP:BLP. snigbrook (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that some verification would be useful. Can someone who knows CSCWEM from his previous tenure, email him ? Abecedare (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Dickensfest

Where do I start? attacking a user via AFD's twice because he didn't like the articles. Now, is his user name a violation? It's basically Dick Fest (no puns intended). Dusti 23:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not a username violation. –xeno 23:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, looks like a bad-hand sock account. If anyone has an idea of the likely puppetmaster, a CU may be useful; else we can just see how the account edits from here on. Abecedare (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Socky, socky... –MuZemike 00:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. I believe it is User:Torkmann, but User:Dalejenkins is another possibility. Could someone forward this on to a checkuser? I would, but I have to run. NW (Talk) 02:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done Dusti 02:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Selkirk

Selkirk is currently the subject of low-level edit warring regarding the inclusion of a Scottish Gaelic name for the town in the article. Discussion, (seemingly fruitless at present) can be found here. Some assistance in resolving the dispute and (perhaps) temporary page protection until a reasonable solution can be determined may be useful. Cheers, Mattinbgn\ 00:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

User warned and told to discuss on article talk page. No point in semi-protection being applied as user will shortly be autoconfirmed. Mjroots (talk) 06:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Attacks and vandalism by IP editor

I've become the focus of the alleged head of the International Sport Combat Federation as User:75.5.253.232 because I nominated the article about his org for deletion. Actually, it has been deleted twice because, it simply had almost no coverage by reliable sources. Any found was trivial. Anyway, aside from repeatedly holding me personally responsible, he has steadily refused to read and follow the policies I pointed him to. He came right out and said he doesn't have time to do it (although later claims he did read them, but still doesn't seem to grasp them). Admittedly, after having him blame me personal enough times and hearing the same question over and over, I did that links to youtube "don't mean shit". However, his latest diatribe was nothing but a personal attack. . When it starts out with "Niteshift36, you are such a TOOL!", you kind of know it's not going to be productive. Twice, this editor has gone into closed AfD discussion and added long posts about how nobody who !voted delete knows what they are talking about etc. And that has been his general theme all along: "We're notable, you're just too ignorant to know it". I've explained the notability requirements in detail. I've brought the COI policy to his attention, as well as what constitutes a reliable source. Instead of trying to comply with that, the editor goes on a rant. Nrmally, I'd take this to WQA, but coupled with this being a WP:SPA, with an obvious COI who has stated that he has no intention of reading applicable policies, let alone follow them....I decided here was a better place to address it. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Warned user. Please report the IP to WP:AIV if the disruptive edits continue. -FASTILY 06:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

IP's racist comments on talk:Atheism

Pretty self-explanatory: In this dif, 86.123.168.47 (talk) included the gem "Muslims go to mosques ,pray ,beat up their wives ,blow up ,etc" I'm not sure what policy is concerning IP editors making satements such as this, and whether it should be treated as mere vandalism or something more serious. Thoughts? Throwaway85 (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Is "Muslim" a race? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

also why would policy for IP addresses be different than for the rest of us? Beach drifter (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

On the Vandalism front, we are much more lenient with IP vandals than we are with registered users who vandalize. I wasn't sure if this would be seen as vandalism, hate speech, or what have you, so I wasn't aware what policies would apply. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If we are more lenient, then why was this user blocked with no warning for simply poor judgement? I can find no other edits to support a block. Beach drifter (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Their "poor" judgement is likely to seriously piss off a billion or so people. Hopefully they don't make the same mistake again. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If that is the real concern, then why not just remove the offending material and warn the IP? I think that is what a vast majority of editors would do. Beach drifter (talk) 04:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Immediate block, doesn't matter if it's directed at a race, religious group, sexual orientation or gender, using Misplaced Pages to promote hate is unacceptable. DuncanHill (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The IP was making an example, with a very poor choice of wording. I'd think a strong warning would be more appropriate. Beach drifter (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reviewed some of her other edits; it doesn't look like she's an anti-Muslim edit-warrior, just someone who expressed herself poorly when trying to communicate that idea. In context, it reads more as an unsuccessful attempt at humor than as hate. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. His comments called into question his editing (see last contrib). It's only a 31h block. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide the diffs for the harassment? Beach drifter (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's up above. "Harassment" isn't the issue here, though. It's more the personal attack, or at least the very real potential thereof. Furthermore, it calls into question the edits in those areas. I believe I made a note of this in the block log, but I may not have. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I just have a few concerns. Mainly that this really appears to be poor taste on behalf of the IP. It was an example on a talk page, it was not directed towards anyone in the least. There was one edit afterwards in that area, which I understand is the cause for concern, but I can't understand how that warrants a block, especially with absolutely no communication taking place with the IP. The editor has made some actual contributions. I also don't think that the perceived 'potential for a personal attack' is good reason for a block, again especially without any communication. At the very least tell the editor what is going on. Your block log did not say anything that they would understand. Beach drifter (talk) 04:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, point noted... made a comment to the user's talk. Hopefully we'll get a reply. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Beach drifter (talk) 04:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Fisher: I'm tempted to agree, but that's still in spectacularly poor taste. Also, your point on the label "racist" is well-taken. What would be more appropriate? Throwaway85 (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... "Self evident inadaquate mental functions propogated through stereotypical depictions of xenophobic sentiment". It kinda rolls of the tongue, donchathink? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the word you're looking for is "bigotry". -- Atama頭 19:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

User:William S. Saturn bogus "vandalism" claims & out of policy "warning" threats

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

I concur with daTheisen - this has gone to hell in a handbasket. The reporting user should be cautious with the sock allegations, but if a concern about the other user still exists, please see WP:WQA. —DoRD (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Despite several requests to stop practices that are in direct violation of WP:VAND, WP:SOCKS, WP:TE, and WP:AGF,for which User:William S. Saturn has already received repeated warnings and been blocked on several occasions, this user persists in:

1) Claiming that legitimate edits with which he disagrees are "vandalism", simply because he disagrees with them. This is textbook WP:TE. It is also obviously a false claim, immediately rejected by any review of WP:VAND. It is also a clear violation of WP:AGF: ], ].

It is also particularly ironic given that this same editor himself used identical language in a WikiNews article just days earlier. The headline was "Republican leads race to fill Ted Kennedy's vacated US Senate seat": ]. The irony (and double-standard) is clear, given that the edit that User:William S. Saturn claimed was "vandalism" in the Scott Brown article is the statement that Brown was succeeding Ted Kennedy's seat! Awkward.

2) Deleting notice on his own talk page that his actions & practices constitute clear violations of Wiki policies: ].

3) Vandalizing another editor's talk pages on at least two occasions: ] ].

4) Using a sock account User:EATC to "get around" 3RR violations: ] ] ] ].

5) Issuing bogus "warnings" on another editor's talk pages that do not adher to Wiki policies regarding warnings: ].

Someone really needs to firmly & forcefully remind this editor that this site is not his own personal playground for peddling his partisan agendas, and if he persists in behaving like it is, his toy will be taken away from him. He has been warned and blocked before. In one instance, the block was removed by a sympathetic admin. Obviously that did nothing to get the message to sink in. Obviously, its time for a wake-up call that will finally stick. Thank you. X4n6 (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Brown is, in fact, succeeding Kirk and not Kennedy. Kirk succeeded Kennedy by being appointed and is a sitting Senator. However, Saturn's labeling of your factually incorrect edit as "vandalism" is ridiculous. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a very secondary concern, but concerning point 2, removing warnings/notices from one's own talk page is explicitly permitted. It is assumed a user who does so has read and understood the notice. See WP:User page. Considering this, I'd say point 2 is moot. - Vianello (Talk) 05:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That's correct. You can delete anything you want from you user page, on the assumption they've been read, except for one thing: Rejected unblock requests while you're still blocked. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

As well as IP-identifying tags under a certain category whose name I forget and which is increasingly tangential to this. - Vianello (Talk) 06:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, typically schools and such, because an IP user does not "own" his page to the degree a registered user does, because an IP could be many users. It's connected with the reason that IP's are never indef-blocked - although if they're connected with schools they can get put on ice for months at a time. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Would somebody please block this troll? The edit he made was not vandalism until he kept inserting it after he was told that he was wrong. He then accuses the editors that reverted the vandalism as being sockpuppets of each other. I've only been editing since 2007, I don't see how I can have a sockpuppet that was created in 2006. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

X4n6 (talk · contribs) has a rather curious, sporadic editing history under that ID - going back 3 1/2 years, yet only covering about 3 screens worth of contrib list, with long gaps in between periods of editing. If that's truly the only editing he's ever done here, then he might not know what all the rules are. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I obviously disagree with Baseball Bugs' conclusion that Brown is succeeding Kirk. Kirk was never elected, so it could never be Kirk's term. He was merely a governor-appointed, temporary, seatwarmer until a special election could be held. An asterisk at best. It's clearly Kennedy's term that Brown is completing, proven by the fact that it will expire exactly on the day that Kennedy's term would have expired.

I also accounted for any ambiguity in my edit, with the word (death): ], and the article itself does mention Kirk. But to suggest that it was Kirk's "term" - which is exactly what is being suggested, is obviously dead wrong.

But yes, while this may be fodder for a spirited debate on the technicalities, you're absolutely right about one thing - it comes nowhere near the threshold for being accused of being "vandalism". Even though you and I disagree about the technicalities, Baseball Bugs, even we both see that attack for the utter ridiculousness that it is. Thanks for the support. And thanks for the clarification on #2. My experience was different, but as you and Vianello both agree, I have no reason to question your understanding of the policy. But that only addresses one complaint out of five. Thanks again to both of you. X4n6 (talk) 06:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

And William S. Saturn excuses are weak and desperate. I certainly know enough about the rules to know what constitutes edit warring and what constitutes vandalism, and what constitutes good faith editing. I also know enough to know that vandalism is content based, and good faith disagreements are expressly NOT vandalism. If the editor in question doesn't know that basic fact, then perhaps he should read the rules before he ignorantly accuses others of violating them. Maybe it would also have saved him from being blocked last week - exactly for committing 3RR abuses. X4n6 (talk) 06:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not vandalism to post a good-faith but incorrect edit. It could be considered vandalism if you repeatedly post something on a user talk page on the grounds he's not allowed to delete it - but if you didn't know that rule, it's still a good-faith edit. If you know the rule, then it's vandalism, or possibly harassment. Regarding Kirk vs. Kennedy, yes, it was "Ted Kennedy's vacated seat", but it's not currently "vacated"; this guy Kirk has it until Brown is sworn in. By comparison, for precedent, there is the Senator Norm Coleman article. He was elected to the Senate after Paul Wellstone died. You could say he took over Wellstone's "vacated" seat. However, he actually succeeded Dean Barkley, not Wellstone, and the article points out that Barkley preceded him. As with Teddy, Barkley was appointed by the governor as an interim. Barkley would come back to haunt Coleman by running as a third party candidate in 2008, but that's another story. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you've gotten yourself confused regarding the series of events. Not even the troll in question has tried to accuse me of repeatedly posting something on his user talk page that he is not allowed to delete. Nope. He's claiming that factual information I posted in an article constitutes vandalism. His problem is that good faith says it's not. It also says that you don't go throwing the word "vandalism" around, and threatening to block accts because you think that's the way to intimidate editors you don't agree with. So he fails on both counts. As well as the other two abuses I've catalogued above.

Second, as regards "Ted Kennedy's vacated seat", that's your term, but it suits my argument. It was Ted Kennedy's vacated seat. Not Paul Kirk's. So who does the newly elected senator succeed? The last person to be elected: Ted Kennedy. You make an interesting point about Norm Coleman, but you forgot what happened next. That seat actually remained "vacant" for the several months that Coleman contested the results in his bid against Franken. That seat was literally vacant from Nov 4, 2008 to July 7, 2009. Probably the only way to accurately list the "succeeding" section in the Brown article would be to list BOTH Kennedy AND Kirk. X4n6 (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Another similar situation is Roland Burris, who was not elected either, he was appointed by Governor Blago in one of his last acts before being booted from office. Yet Burris is in fact the junior Senator from Illinois. Any of these guys could have run during the next election if they wanted to. Just because they weren't elected, and didn't run in the next election, doesn't mean they're not Senators. They became Senators through the means prescribed in their respective states' constitutions. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No one is saying that Kirk & Burris were not senators. But they are appointed caretakers, not elected officials. For the purpose of our discussion, and in answering the question, it's really that not any more complicated than that. X4n6 (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The two harassment-only accounts that sprang up for a few minutes and then disappeared (both since indef'd) might not be connected with the complainant in this section; they could be a troll who seeks to impeach the complainant, as happened to Axmann8 by a bunch of impostor accounts last summer. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's also pretty laughable that within minutes of my launching a sockpuppet complaint against User:William S. Saturn, he launched a retaliatory sockpuppet complaint against me. HA! Clearly no points for originality there. So despite the fact that I haven't used my account in literally months, I guess one day I knew I would want regular socks to attack User: William S. Saturn?! Good thing I can think years ahead, huh? It would be funny if it weren't so damn desperate and pathetic. And such a transparently stupid lie. X4n6 (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The accounts were created today. --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

At 6:17 and 6:34, meaning that they were created whilst this thread was ongoing, regards, Spitfire 08:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, it would take a checkuser to be certain, but I don't think Saturn and EATC are the same editor. There is some overlap in their interests, but not all that much. Their focuses are different. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

We'll only know for sure with a checkuser. Even you admitted the overlap. X4n6 (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You sure are arrogant to think that I'd build up two accounts for over three years without any interaction just to revert your insertion of false information into an article. --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

To the contrary, the arrogance found here is all yours. So are all the lies. You are arrogant in assuming that I have nothing better to do than establish two sock accounts to respond to you. Really?? Why? When I'm obviously quite capable of dealing with the likes of you on this one account.

You are also arrogant in issuing empty threats when you & your sad little agenda don't get their way. Apparently, making empty threats is easier for you than actually having to defend ignorance.

But you are also incredibly arrogant in believing that I would be the least bit intimidated by either you or all the compulsive lies you obviously have to tell to try to get your way. Or the fact that you exhibit absolutely no conscience while telling such obvious lies. How sad to be you. X4n6 (talk) 09:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This could qualify for WP:LAME. Jauerback/_dude. 11:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Reset button, please. Common sense makes me encourage the original user file at WP:WQA since this imploded to no productive ends whatsoever. It's been evaluated and noted that though the templated user was using factually incorrect information in edits, that this isn't vandalism in any way shape or form either and doesn't justify much of any of the above diffs, but also noticed that no opposing diffs were given so I don't know if there's another side to review or not. If the problem is ongoing incivility that the posting user seems to insinuate is borderline hounding at this point--whatever-- it can head there and deal exclusively with those aspects. Socks are socks, but (I feel so absurd saying this) we all know that anything that gets dragged out as this already has spirals into a WP:TLDR blob of text garble, and that nothing will ever actually come in terms of concrete outside opinions given. When there's a legitimate concern with an editor, this only means another incident swept under the rug so that we can go through this next time.

Consider the original complaint forked to an obtuse backward angle and split into WQA-able civility concern and SPI sock complaints. Handle them there please, and nothing is going to get accomplished with more increasingly-less-professional chatter in this section. If one or both parties still have issues this would seem like a pretty by-the-book RfC/U filing, but no one wants to waste time there either. ...Sorry to be a buzzkill (really, I am, but we know better). ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

John Bright School

There appears to be a cut-and-paste attempt to change the name. Needs a history merge or something. 98.248.41.72 (talk) 08:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There was no history at the pasted-location, so I just reverted the redirect and redirected the pasted one. I have no opinions as to which name it should actually be under. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 08:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict/mistake

I know this edit is two days old, but I'm worried that some of the material it removed was not restored. The edit in question.— Dædαlus 10:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed , thanks. –xeno 14:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Category help needed

help! the following category is acting really weird. Category:The Holocaust and United Kingdom never seen anything like this before! appreciate any help. thanks!! --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

well now it seems ok. before, some weird code seemed to come up, and the category didn't load. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

ko interwiki links removed by Jyusin

A large number of ko interwiki links seem to have been removed by Jyusin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). A check of a few showed that the interwikis were legit ? Wizzy…☎ 15:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• User notified as required. —DoRD (?) (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a little early to bring this to AN/I - the links were removed about 8 hours ago, so I'm guessing that the user isn't online now. Let's give them a chance to respond on their talkpage first. —DoRD (?) (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I was a little hasty - I figured they should be restored, it would be painful for me to do it, and the Big Buttons belong to you guys (I presume there is a Big Button for mass rollback of one editor). Wizzy…☎ 16:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope. {{sofixit}}, I guess... Guy (Help!) 18:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV backlogged

Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:AOBF issue with IP address 94.193.135.142

As referred from WP:Wikiquette_alerts#WP:AOBF_issue_with_IP_address_94.193.135.142. Rapido (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am the one being accussed, I would like to remind you he deleted my editing on the user EdJohstons talk page, which demonstrates his problem causing behaviour, and stress first hand look at the situation as Rapido displays alot POV, even when reporting and accusing people. He often uses the word "attack" to describe what are editorial criticisms and criticisms made against his editing and rapid reverting style. He often, despite me stating I am an static IP user, and am 1 person, refers to me as "they" and accusess a mob editing. Discussion on the matter can be found at these places:

The Original 3RR report made by Rapido:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:94.193.135.142_reported_by_User:Rapido_.28Result:_24h.29

EdJohnstons user page who kindly protected the BBC Television page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:EdJohnston#I_have_commented_on_Rapido.27s_false_claims_under_his_report

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:EdJohnston#Rapido_has_removed_my_links_on_your_talk_page

The article:

History and proof of Rapido's uncoperative editing style:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=BBC_Persian_Television&action=history

Discussion page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:BBC_Persian_Television#Satelite_Jamming_dispute

I would also liked to remind you, Cunando, replied in the discussion that he agree's Rapido's sourcing is weak.

Rapid's discussion page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Rapido

Regards --94.193.135.142 (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

On Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts, Rapido was advised "Just ignore him (me, the IP user). He has no standing to raise any stink over a content (non-)issue. IP editors sling ridiculous threats like this all the time. --King Öomie 19:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)" showing the attitude of some editors and suggestion made by some --94.193.135.142 (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC).

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards