Misplaced Pages

• Ask Xeno how "difficult" it is to work with me, when you approach me and say, "Could you wait a second, I'm going to add some sources there shortly" instead of just wholesale reverting unsourced information into a BLP, and leaving orders on my talkpage. UnitAnode 20:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

UnitAnode, I have asked this of you before and suggested that we avoid AN/I on it by gathering a consensus beore acting, but will you kindly stop or greatly slow down your removal uncontentious information from articles unless you take the time to check for sources to see whether it's verifiable, pending the outcome of the current RfC on the topic? Many editors including myself think it is a bad idea unsupported by policy, and the collaborative nature of working together to edit an encyclopedia suggests that you wait until you have consensus before engaging in large scale edits like this. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Among the material Unitanode‎ has removed unilaterally and without notice from articles are movies and films which actors have been in. In at least one article, while not specifically referenced the information is fairly well known to people who go to the cinema or watch U.S. television, had been in the article for about 5 years, and was easily verifiable by looking at imdb or a couple minutes of googling. I've suggested to Unitanode‎ that adding {{cn}} or something similar first might be more appropriate. I also wish to draw attention to the word contentious in Misplaced Pages:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed restriction

Proposal: UnitAnode be restricted temporarily from removing unsourced content from BLPs, unless that content can reasonably be construed as contentious. "reasonably construed as contentious" to be determined case-by-case on a consensus basis. This restriction shall run until the conclusion of the BLP RFC. Rd232 21:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per the comment by Lar (talk · contribs), above. Cirt (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If by that you're alluding to Arbcom, I refer you to the community-endorsed Sandstein view noted above. Rd232 21:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This. Cirt (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Other than showing that lar doesn't actualy know what our BLP policy is ( unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material) I fail to see the significance of said link.©Geni 21:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Since he was clearly referring to the opening lines of the Verifiability policy, you may wish to consider what is by shown by your own statement. CIreland (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The lead of WP:V does not support the indiscriminate high-volume removal of unsourced uncontentious material. Rd232 23:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Lar did not suggest that it did. "Indiscriminate" is your characterization. CIreland (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Per the comment by Lar (talk · contribs), above, more specifically "work with Unitanode and others on how to effectively and efficiently improve articles instead of posting not very collegial stuff." The limited time period of the proposal makes sense to give Unitanode time to do this, because the BLP RFC is working on developing a global solution.--Milowent (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support, if only to get him to slow down, stop edit warring, and wait for the community to catch up and come to a decision. –xeno 21:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • • Comment, not supporting this will create a position, supported at ANI that anyone can delete any content that is uncited from any BLP, also any comment that is about a living person in any article that is not a BLP. Off2riorob (talk)
• Oppose Websters explains that contentious means to be marked by contention or provoking or likely to provoke controversy. If an editor removes it, it means that it is provoking controversy. This is simple english and its policy. This end around on a huge ethical matter (we're up to 141 unsourced BLPs for Febraruary 2010 so far -- forgetting badly sourced/misleadingly sourced/vandalized blps. Those, who knows?) does not reflect well on people (who have no solutions of their own to offer except to sit on our hands and let the problem to continue to grow and not start setting some minimum standards so it doesn't keep happening again. And again. And again.)Bali ultimate (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

  Oh come on. Ridiculous semantics. –xeno 22:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

  • No, simple English. Simple English.

• What you describe would generaly fail the good faith test and would count as gameing the system which is per policy vandalism and blockable.©Geni 22:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Just you try it Geni. You won't get very far.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Even if a person is acting in good faith in the sense of sincerely believing they are right and improving the encyclopedia, there has to be a good faith belief that there is something wrong with material other than lack of sourcing, before removing it for lack of sourcing. But I wouldn't call it vandalism or blockable, just circular reasoning. We've dealt with this issue many times in different contexts over the years. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• No, that makes the actions contentious, not the content. Geni is right. Using this reasoning to defend these actions would be nothing more than attempting to game the system and disruptive. Resolute 17:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support It's not the removal that's the problem so much as the indiscriminate, mass reverting of content whether or not anyone knows that the content is negative or in some way contentious. Unless something is clearly harmful, the intent of policy has never been to remove content indiscriminately. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have no doubt in my mind that the Arbitration Committee as a whole and Jimbo Wales himself would endorse the actions being taken by UnitAnode. JBsupreme (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Neither of those make policy.©Geni 22:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom interprets policy. And has. ++Lar: t/c 22:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Current consensus says otherwise.©Geni 22:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think WP:BLP policy already supports the removal of unsourced material. We are now just arguing the semantics of "contentious", are we not? JBsupreme (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you wish to propose "Chan has a bachelor's degree in the social sciences from the University of Hong Kong and a master's degree in the social sciences from the Chinese University of Hong Kong." is contentious?©Geni 22:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Without knowing the full context of what you're referring to, absolutely YES. There are people adding fake credentials to WP:BLP articles without sources all the time. We've had some problems in the past with that specifically in fact. Unsourced credentials are just as contentious as any other unsourced claim to fame or infamy. JBsupreme (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Any unsourced fact might be contentious. We just don't know, absent the circumstances. In the example case, it might be something that is being used to falsely obtain some benefit or claim some expertise. ++Lar: t/c 22:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You've just implied that the credentials in question might be fake. Thats defamation and thus your responce is in breach of BLP. If you are going to rule lawyer have the decenecy to do it well.©Geni 22:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Are your arguments always this silly, Geni? I did in fact "imply that the credentials in question might be fake". That's true of every single unsourced statement in the entire project, it might not be backed up by sources... we just don't know one way or the other. Pointing that out is in no way a BLP violation. Your grasp of BLP needs work. Or this is some pathetic straw dog. Or both. ++Lar: t/c 00:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You might wish to read the post above yours. In any case you are the one arguing for an insanely broad and bady rule lawyered version of BLP. under those conditions claiming any given action doesnn't violate BLP is kinda questionable.©Geni 01:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I never would have believed that people would find removing unsourced info from BLPs disruptive. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia isn't it? Kevin (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if we try hard, it won't be one soon. I haven't been an active editor for that long (about six months), but I remember as a reader that wikipedia had few cited sources not that long ago. I agree that sourcing is to be much preferred and our goal, but random removing of unsourced non-contentious information at an alarming clip degrades the project.--Milowent (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• It's more the manner he's going about it. Earlier he was edit warring to remove a section outlining selected works of an author. Those very books can adequately serve as the source that she wrote them. (He eventually self-reverted after I pointed this out) –xeno 22:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support per Xeno and JohnWBarber, and please let's stop the circular wikilawyering around the word "contentious". --Cyclopia 22:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - per my previous comments. Also, if there was a proposal asking for a rate restriction, instead of a blanket prohibition, maybe. Or, better, if Wikidemon and other concerned editors approached Unitanode, you know, cooperatively and collegially, asking to work with him to make sure he's not working faster than they can handle, I bet he'd work with them. I'd lean on him if he doesn't. But the argumentative approach isn't going to work. ++Lar: t/c 22:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Anyone who likes can see what I'm actually doing, which is how I'm assuming that Wikidemon has found which unsourced material to attempt to insert back into the BLPs. UnitAnode 22:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. And block anybody who reinserts an unsourced statement to a BLP without providing a reliable source. nableezy - 22:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with this. Cirt (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There are sections of almost every BLP in Misplaced Pages which do not have a RS, or at least what I could cast some doubt on being an RS. Some of them are indeed contentious, and must be removed; some are unsourced opinion, and should be removed; some are routine bio facts, which are overwhelming likely to be true. It makes a certain amount of sense to concentrate on the actually problematic ones. DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Enough of this serial shitting on the thousands of people who bought into "anyone can edit" and contributed their labour here in the past. Removing "he murdered his wife three times", yeah absolutely, removing "he coached a boy's soccer team", nope. Misplaced Pages, the 💕 that anyone can edit, then a few people will take vast pleasure in destroying your work. Franamax (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. The edits pointed out, while occasionally adding some value, are overwhelmingly destructive rather than helpful. Unitanode seems sufficiently unaware of the purpose and spirit of WP:BLP and other policies that restricting this mass deletion behavior is the best approach. LotLE×talk 22:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Sanctioning people for doing exactly what policy tells them to seems like a bad idea, see WP:BLP, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" and "Remove any unsourced material to which an editor objects in good faith". If there are concerns about Unitanode making a point or gaming the system in some way, I don't see it in any diffs. He seems to be working in good faith to apply the letter and spirit of WP:BLP. --Jayron32 22:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen any "contentious" material rightfully removed that I can recall, having deprodded a number of Unitanode's prods. And in fact, he is frankly saying that he simply removes any unsourced material, that's his method.--Milowent (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - The fact that it is unsourced is what makes it contentious, that's the point here. There is no valid reason being given to prohibit this user from performing these edits, just a bunch of niggling IDon'tLikeIt inclusionist-at-all-costs types. Stop acting like the fucking sky is going to fall just because some reader is going to come across Beth (musician) and be deprived of an unsourced "I'd rather die than enter Eurovision" quote. Tarc (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Uphold. The ban is needful in view of the disrespectful manner in which the unsupported deletions are being undertaken. The deletion of patently uncontentious material is against policy. Deleting it at alarming and unsustainable rates is clearly counterproductive and unacceptable. — James F Kalmar 22:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Uphold" what? Your comment makes no sense at all. UnitAnode 23:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

  From what is said, I think it clearly means support sanctions. DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. We're a couple months shy of April. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Fighting to keep unsourced content in articles is far more damaging to the project than removing it. Mr.Z-man 23:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oooh thats completely false. The number of newbie editors we've pissed off by summeraly removing their content is one of the reasons why we are picking up fewer new editors and we have a lot of people who don't like us very much floating around the web.©Geni 23:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I would much rather have quality content than be more popular or have a bunch of editors who don't care about basic things like citing sources. If keeping a new user means putting up with a bunch of crappy articles that no one but them cares about, then that's too high a price. Mr.Z-man 23:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Keeping the new user means someone continues to care and can learn to write better articles.©Geni 23:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, I think the cost outweighs the benefit. If they're willing to leave in anger because we ask them to respect basic standards like sourcing, it may not be worth our time to educate. Mr.Z-man 23:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between asking and indeed showing compared to just ripping out content.©Geni 23:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• suggested solution Let him be restricted to removing content that is not present an immediate threat of harm, only after he has made a good faith demonstrated reasonable try to source it. That way everything he does will be beneficial to the encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The proposal already includes that idea: "unless that content can reasonably be construed as contentious." Showing that a reasonable effort to source the content failed would be enough to make it contentious. There is a world of difference between "unverified" and "unverifiable", and making some effort that content falls into the latter category is enough to make it contentious. Rd232 09:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Completely oppose unreferenced material can and should be removed from BLPs by everyone. Viridae 23:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support ignoring all of this/us. What we have here (with a few exceptions) is the same x-number of people saying entirely predictable things they've said 25 times already, dug firmly into their BLP foxholes and determined not to come out, but at times quite happy to lob rhetorical grenades at the other side. It's frankly pathetic—really pathetic. The problem of unsourced BLPs (a subset of a larger problem) is not going to be solved on ANI, nor it is going to be solved by individual editors who think they're on a mission from god and therefore sod the rest of you dummies. We'll deal with unsourced BLPs best if we work on it together, and people not interested in doing that, or more interested in scoring points against foes, threatening them directly or implicitly, or making over the top pronouncements (like this ridiculous thing I'm writing!) should seriously just stop talking. If these kind of discussions make you lash out at others, then don't participate in them. These support/oppose pissing matches could not be more disheartening, and it's precisely these kind of conversations that have in significant part led to BLPs being a problem for so long. It's the fault of all of us for often being more interested in fighting and/or sticking to our self-righteous guns than actually trying to work together to solve the problem. I'm not sure why this thread pushes me over the top to write a goddamn it! comment like this, but I'm pretty disgusted by the lot of us, which includes me for even sticking this stupid goddamn comment here. In the time we spend arguing about this and coming to no conclusion we could have probably dealt with about 100 of these articles (or at least collegially discussed a way to better expedite the cleanup process). But I guess that would also take away the fun of yelling about it. We have a very real "BLP problem" that affects real people, but we also have a "BLP problem" in that the very topic leads to huge e-fights that a lot of Wikipedians clearly get off on. If you think that's not you it might be good to think about it some more. That's what I'm a gonna do. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• The problem is that UnitAnode's actions make coperation effectively imposible.©Geni 01:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Well at least you've left some room for negotiation and further discussion! Oh wait. And don't get me wrong, I'm not endorsing how Unitanode has approached this, I'm just saying that when both sides say "we can't work with them, they don't get it" that pretty much becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. At least 60-70% of this discussion is based on personal and quasi-philosophical animus, and that's why it isn't going anywhere and hasn't in years. A lot of people who have perfectly good intentions are to blame for that because they started seeing other editors as very-bad-guys quite some time ago and now that's just about all they see when a BLP issue comes up (I plead guilty to doing that too). Somewhere between the polls of "Unitanode can do whatever they want and so can anyone else" and "Unitanode is totally banned from doing this one thing" is a perfectly acceptable solution that probably everyone could agree to if they could drop the sniping and the deep, deep assumptions of bad faith. The first step into changing the dynamic here is realizing that the current one is unacceptable, that it's not solving the problems we need to solve, and that to an extent we are responsible for the failure to work together to fix what needs fixing, which is at the core of how we (supposedly) do things on this project. Laying blame on Mr. X, or Ms. Z, or Category-of-Editor Y just perpetuates this depressing (and frankly selfish, on the part of all us collectively) bullshit. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Geni: Bull. I have found that UnitAnode is easy to work with, if you actually try. Have you tried to cooperate with him? Asked him to slow down a bit while you worked on items he marked as needing attention? No. Here are your recent user talk page contributions: ... the only time you were on Unitanode's page, was to start a rather belligerent thread entitled Okey_what_is_your_justification. Get a grip, Geni. If you want cooperation, you have to actually be cooperative. Not belligerent. Bigtimepeace is right. More cooperation might be a good place to start. Anyone who turns up at my talk page asking for help gets it. Anyone who turns up at my talk page asking for a fight gets that too. ++Lar: t/c 01:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Or, "Anyone who turns up at my talk page asking for a fight won't find one, because it would be a waste of time for both of us, and I'm only interested in constructive collaborative efforts." I guess that's more what I had in mind. I've already commented here three times more than I should have so I'm done now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• The key point is that there is a difference between politely seeking cooperation (and then perhaps not getting it) and turning up at a talk page spoiling for a fight and then complaining about not getting cooperation. Those who seek cooperation are far more likely to get cooperation. Geni wasn't, any claims made to the contrary. Geni was spoiling for a fight. That sort of behavior needs to stop. ++Lar: t/c 14:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. Anyone who seriously thinks that a well-known, good faith editor who is removing unsourced BLP information should be constrained for doing what is in the best interest of Misplaced Pages is themself not looking out for the best interest of Misplaced Pages. Woogee (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse the user's actions. –Juliancolton |  02:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose prevention of anyone from removing unsourced material from BLPs. If you think the material is correct, find a source and add it back. If you are not sure, or can't find the source, it should stay out. Anyone cleaning up the unsourced BLP mess should be commended. Crum375 (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I would support more strongly a topic ban on Unitanode from BLPs. He/she has not only shown no interest in improving articles by sourcing them, he/she has shown a clear antipathy to doing so and persists in purely destructive behavior against the consensus of other editors. This is not the sort of editing behavior that can be trusted in sensitive areas such as BLPs. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It is quite clear that there is nowhere near a consensus for this "proposed restriction", so I am proposing something different: collapse this section and point people to the RFC at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Content. JBsupreme (talk) 06:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it appears unlikely that a topic ban will gain consensus, although I note that there are strong opinions voiced on both sides. I would leave it open for perhaps a full day to make sure anyone who wants has a chance to weigh in. I haven't endorsed that myself, I would just hope for a more collaborative approach as Lar suggests. A clarification of policy based on an RfC is probably a more productive way to go about things, and anything else is just a stopgap. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikidemon, "unlikely that a topic ban will gain consensus" is an disingenuous way to characterize the debate. Might I suggest, alternatively, that a better summary might be "an editing restriction was resoundingly rejected"? Or perhaps, "Consensus was that Unitanode's edits were not problematic but rather were beneficial"? CIreland (talk) 13:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Et tu? 10 to 14 is not "resoundingly rejected". "No consensus" is more appropriate. –xeno 15:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, the response to this proposal illustrates the disconnect between ANI and the wider community, which is more accurately represented in the longer-running and higher-participation BLP RFC. Editors should have a responsibility to respect that clearly expressed view. Rd232 16:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Disingenuous? Gee, thanks for the assumption of good faith. No, I was being charitable. The fact that an editor's mass edits gain so much opposition that a sizeable minority of people watching AN/I would topic ban them means they are problematic and do not have consensus. Mass edits of any sort really ought to have consensus, and can be undone per BRD. Further, a considerable number of those opposing the restriction are arguing against current policy or clearly misinterpreting it. If this were a deletion debate those would be discounted or ignored. But this is AN/I, where discussion often grinds down to a stalemate. I'm simply observing that the way things work around here, it does not seem likely that an administrator would step in to enact this proposal. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• I am amazed to hear people here say that it is better to remove material than source it, and that contentious means "any material that someone would like removed". I could claim that the sources for almost any material at all was not quite adequate, and remove it , saying it was contentious because I contested it. Contentious means reasonably seen as questionable, not what some person may take it in their head to want to remove. In general, routine biographical facts are not contentious. Somewhere above someone said all unsourced claims of degrees should be removed. In three years here, out of tens of thousands of these, I've seen one proven false, and a few where the nature of the institution or the degree was perhaps not fairly stated. These all occurred in articles where essentially the entire career seemed inconsistent, or the overall assertions of notability wildly exaggerated. in all such cases, the article was deleted or truncated, as appropriate for material that could not be documented. (& in some of these I did a good deal of work personally in making sure it was removed.) The difference is between presently un documented and can not be documented. Almost always , routine biographical detail, even if formally published, is associated ultimately with an official or formal statement by the subject, which has always been accepted in RSN as a sufficient source unless there is a reasonable challenge. for example, an author tells a publisher when he was born, and the publisher prints it in the book; the Library of Congress copies it from there--or if not stated, writes to the author and asks him, and accepts his word for it, and we accept their record as authoritative. Certainly people sometimes deceive in such matters, but not frequently enough that we insist on birth certificates. (If there is a reported dispute, of course we source and report it.)
  

In particular, the editor we are discussing has typically deleted material consisting of one paragraph of general puffery or unsourced opinion, and one of almost certainly true biographical details. Half of that is right to remove, without bothering too hard to source it. (I note that then people seeing only the facts of a persons professional career, complain irrelevantly that the article should be deleted because it does not contain enough personal information). What I look for in any article I see is puffery and promotionalism, and I remove it. That's the real threat to Misplaced Pages, that we be seen as a publicity medium. Some of the statements here are like people worrying about avoiding extremely rare diseases while continuing to smoke. Let's first look for material that is really questionable, and remove it. There's no problem finding it. DGG ( talk ) 14:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The key policy is called Verifiability. Fundamentally it means content must be verifiable with reference to external reliable sources, and cannot be defended purely on the basis of "I know it's true". It does not mean that everything not verified (to what standard?) should be removed immediately, purely because it is unverified. Content should be removed if reasonable attempts to verify it have failed; or if attempts cannot be made at present but the material is contentious enough (other than being unsourced) to justify pre-empting attempts to verify. Aside: besides confusing unverified and unverifiable, people are confusing verified with sourced. Just because it has a footnote doesn't mean it's verified to a reasonable standard. The most serious BLP violations which actually matter for the subject ("X is dead" is just embarrassing for Misplaced Pages) are those which appear to be verified by sources, so that readers give much greater credence to the false/misleading claims. Rd232 16:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support proposed restriction. Regardless of one's opinion on BLP policy, Unitanode's approach is problematically belligerent. For example, he says, "Your uncivil condescension aside...I'm disengaging, s conversing with you is pointless," only two continue the discussion two minutes later, followed up by calling the editor a liar. So, regardless of where any of us stand on the policy issues, this particular user's approach is incredibly antagonistic. His dispute with particular editors are occuring in multiple venues and for anyone it is probably best to walk away on Misplaced Pages when things are escalating so intensely. Best, --A Nobody 16:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• What bullshit. No, per Lar, Bali ultimate and others. I especially like BigtimePeace's comments. These mobbings at ANI are a problem that needs sorting. Any littlun can show up and start a shite-storm.
  Here's a Bold Idea™ —Any ANI thread that's not a run-of-the-mill call for a mop in aisle 6 gets bumped to a protected subpage where only admins comment. This would, presumably, keep things focused and produce results rather than noise. Oh, the mob would be free to swarm the subpage's talk page and be largely ignored (kind of like AC/workshop pages;). Sincerely, Jack Merridew 16:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support per above. WP:BLP says that contentious material that is unsourced is to be removed, not all unsourced material. UnitAnode does not have the right to unilaterally change policy, take ownership of the project himself, or put himself above the community the way he has. The number of supports to this restriction should be enough to tell him that his actions are not supported in the eyes of the community. Resolute 17:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Follow policy. The policy is about Contentious material.

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. As of January 2010, a push to source all material about living persons is under way. A discussion of how to accomplish this is taking place at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people."

I find it odd it mentions that there is a push to source all materials. Why is that on a policy page? Anyway, it hasn't been pushed through yet. If the material is not contentious, then you don't have the right to simply remove it instantly. Form a consensus on the talk page. Dream Focus 18:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose unequivocally. BLPs are the worst of the festering sores besetting Misplaced Pages's decomposing corpse, and anything that wipes up the pus is a good thing. Endorse this user's actions in their entirety. → ROUX ₪ 18:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support The does appear to be a unilateral and destructive reinterpretation of policy intended for contentious content.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose restriction. A referenced stub is more useful to the hapless soul who comes to Misplaced Pages looking for information than a bloated mass of speculation, puffery and, potentially, libel.   pablo_hablo. 20:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support As reasonable pending outcome of the RfC. Noting, particularly, that the incidence of "libel" appears an order of magnitude greater in "referenced" material than in short BLPs. Collect (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support: The policy specifies contentious. Quoting Jclemens, "Most BLPs, even those that are unreferenced are innocuous, provide useful material, and do no harm." While violations certainly do exist, mass deletion or stubbification probably affects far more good faith pages than bad ones: creating unwarranted collateral damage. Sifaka 21:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• What "collateral damage"? I fail to see any "collateral damage" in not having unsourced information in a BLP. UnitAnode 21:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Unitanode is just being plain lazy. Any other editor could manage a Google search, but Unitanode thinks he's special. He's not. Quit the crusade, there is no rush to remove uncontentious material. Unitanode should join all the other editors who are working through the backlog in a discriminate manner. Fences&Windows 22:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm being lazy? Have you even seen my work page?!? I may be a lot of things on-wiki, but lazy isn't one of them. That's just bullshit. I've been working hard on these articles. I can (and do) take a lot of criticism for my work, but that is the single most ill-informed and ignorant bit of criticism I've yet seen. You do understand that -- in addition to the awful removal of unsourced material from BLPs that you guys are bitching about -- I've also cleaned up references, formatted things so it reads better, and even caught a couple of blatant copyvios. But by all means, call me fucking lazy. UnitAnode 01:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sure that those who review matters he will agree you are working hard at an important task. But other people are working hard too.... the backlog is going down, and that's a good thing. Together we can address this. But calling people lazy doesn't help. Fences&Windows was out of line with that characterization. I'm sure in a less heated moment he/she will apologize. And so should you, I think. We need to not let our tempers fray. Easy advice to give, hard advice to take. ++Lar: t/c 02:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support: As said before – The policy specifies contentious. --Kleinzach 03:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Per Xeno, JohnWBarber, Resolute and DreamFocus. This is a collaborative project, and Unitanode's dismissal of the clearly defined concerns of his fellow collaborators as "bitching" is obnoxious. Warrah (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC

I've opened up an RfC on the policy question here:Misplaced Pages:RFC/BLPContent. I'm not too familiar with RfCs so I could use some help regarding any notifications, templates, certification, etc. I hope we can minimize discussion here regarding what the policy is and shoud be. We can't set policy here. It should be pretty obvious that people disagree on what the policy is. The question I posed and hope to answer is whether we can allow UnitAnode to continue doing mass edits despite objections, while the discussion continues. I would think the answer is obvious but some people oboviously believe that the normal rules don't apply where BLP is concerned. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That seems a rather non neutral statement of matters. ++Lar: t/c 14:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's also rather redundant to the larger discussion already ongoing. A discussion that I wish people like Unitanode would take the time to respect rather than impose their own personal policy on everyone. Resolute 17:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Which part isn't neutral: (1) I am not familiar with RfCs and could use help, (2) I hope we can minimize policy discussion at AN/I, (3) People disagree on the policy, (4) I posed a question, (5) UnitAnode is doing mass edits while the discussion continues, (6) there are objections to the mass edits, (7) I think the answer is obvious, or (7) Some people believe that BLP trumps normal BRD / CONSENSUS rules? I've carefully limited the subject to the question of editing, and edit warring, over objections based on a disputed interpretation of policy, and my request to simply pause that until the community decides what policy is. Responses like "we can't have unsourced information in BLPs" are policy arguments better made in that discussion, not this one. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll give you 1 and 2 as neutral but the rest, not so much. Your rewords the second time might be a bit better. But whenever you say "it seems obvious that most", you might instead say "23 out of 27 opinions expressed were in favor of" and the like. ++Lar: t/c 21:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That's rather extreme. I guess your views must be polarized here. Each of those statements is very straightforward, unbiased, and demonstrable - the one place where I state my opinion I do so because it is relevant to explaining the basis for what I'm doing, and I qualify it with "I think". Frankly, I've bent over backwards to try to be fair and hold my tongue on any complaints both here and in the RfC - I'm getting attacked and accused of all kinds of things per the norm around here but I just don't want to play that game. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

YOU start a second ANI thread on ME, and create a proposal that I be banned from removing unsourced material from BLPs, and then have the gall to claim that YOU are being attacked?!? That seems like more than a bit of hubris. UnitAnode 23:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It is an observation. You accuse me of things for occasionally reverting deletions that I considered unwarranted, you accuse me for notifying you that I will file an AN/I report if you continue edit warring to undo my R in the BRD cycle, you accuse me of things for actually filing a report when you do continue, and now you accuse me of bad faith for filing the RfC I told you yesterday I would file. It is hard to view this statement (which is untrue) as anything but an accusation of bad faith. I asked you there to remove it. Will you remove it? It is not a proper comment for an RfC. Please try to tone down the accusatory rhetoric. I have avoided the wider behavioral issues here, but you may do well to explore the reasons why you have had conflicts with so many editors in different topic areas. This one fits into a common pattern. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Would someone please close this mess? I'm tired as hell of Wikidemon hounding me, and then accusing me of hounding him. At some point, he needs to stop pummeling the carcas of a non-living equine. UnitAnode 23:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Will you hold off on any more deletions until we have a chance to assess community consensus at the RfC? You can surely see from the above that there is a lot of opposition and desire that you do so. If so the matter is done and we can discuss what the policy should be. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I will not. Unsourced material has no place in a BLP. UnitAnode 01:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

And if I restore deleted content to an article because after review I believe the content to be both verifiable and uncontentious, will you let the content stand and seek consensus if you disagree per WP:BRD? - Wikidemon (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Only if you source it properly. Unsourced material has no place in BLPs and putting it back does nothing to solve the problem. Work with UnitAnode instead of being at loggerheads. ++Lar: t/c 02:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Per Lar, if you source it properly, or come to my talkpage (or the talkpage of the article) to inform me that you're in the process of sourcing it in the next few minutes, I'll let it stand. But no, if you simply readd unsourced material into BLPs, I will not let that content stand. UnitAnode 02:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

UnitAnode and Wikidemon - you both are at or past the point that your actions are becoming disruptive on this point. On opposite ends of the spectrum, you're disrupting the community policy process and pushing buttons attempting to combatively establish precedent.

The time for swinging hammers around to try and score points on this issue is over. You are both violating WP:DISRUPT and WP:AGF, regarding each other and regarding others, reviewing upthread further.

Further disruption would be extremely unadvisable. This has to end. Right here and now would be preferable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

If you have something to say, say it Herbert. If you mean that I shouldn't post to this discussion anymore, fine. I won't. If you mean I should stop working on BLPs as I've been doing, I'll have to respectfully decline. UnitAnode 02:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a slight majority consensus upthread for a topic ban on that behavior. At the very least there is significant objection and indication that you're pushing past commmunity consensus supported activity here.

I would rather let everyone continue to stay involved in the policy discussions and get to a position of agreement overall. But continuing controversial actions after over half of respondents say "stop", in the face of ongoing active policymaking efforts to determine what community consensus really is, is textbook disruption.

The community loses if we keep having people fight this issue out in this manner, outside the policymaking process and without regard to civil consensus building and the community as a whole. If you will not respect that, then you are placing yourself outside the Misplaced Pages community.

Any of the policy proposals which are floating around now are acceptable end results. Continued fighting over the topic area is not. I strongly urge you to step away from active measures which remain highly controversial and work to help stabilize a consensus for a workable policy. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)As long as UnitAnode is working at this in a calm reasoned manner, and people aren't provoking him, and he's not provoking others, and the rest of the community can keep up, there is no need for extreme measures. I again assert that if people ask for cooperation, they will get it. Can we try to start again, and put all this fighting aside for a while and work on the problem of fixing the BLPs? That goes for everyone. ++Lar: t/c 02:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The proposed topic ban and its discussion are significant evidence that the extremes of both sides are currently outside the current community consensus. Wikidemon is assuming policy decisons will end up one estreme way, UA assuming the other extreme way, and both are acting on those presumptions and in a confrontational manner.

These two specifically are butting heads significantly. In general; I believe that the extreme reactions this is engendering (still) indicate that the time for boldly pushing on this is past, until the community hashes some more out.

The middle has to hold here. Fixing articles is great. Fighting over bold actions, in this area, is not great anymore. If people are not going to pay regard to avoiding disruption and respecting the policy process and community writ large, we need to stop that.

As I said - any of the policy proposals are ok. What is not OK is presuming that your preferred one has passed, and attacking others on that basis. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been "confrontational" at all, unless attacked at my talkpage. I've just been working on the 242 articles that I initially worked on last week. UnitAnode 03:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I urge you to re-read your comments above in the proposed topic ban section, and reconsider whether you are being confrontational or not.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I was pretty clear that I'm not confrontational unless people attack me unjustly. This is the second time someone has started a pointless ANI about me. When someone's trying to get me topic-banned for simply removing unsourced material from BLPs, then yes, I get a bit frustrated. UnitAnode 03:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There's currently a 19:17:1 consensus for topic banning you from that activity. You are acting on the presumption that you are obviously gloriously in the right here, and that there are unfair people attacking you for it.

I as an uninvolved administrator would like to insist that your presumption is a presumption, not settled policy, and insist that you respect what the community feels on this topic as well. If the proposal got a 19:17:1 majority to topic ban you, it was not pointless. It was at the very least representing a strong minority of vocal opinion, and apparently a plurality thereof.

Wikidemon is presuming that the opposite policy stance will prevail. In that sense, he's not being any more fair or reasonable than you are. Neither of you are being helpful on that regard.

Please stop pushing so hard. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Not sure what you even mean by a "slight majority consensus" Herbert. There's no such thing as a "slight majority consensus." And I'm going to keep working on my little corner of this problem. I worked with 242 articles last week. I'm still working on various aspects of those 242 articles. UnitAnode 02:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Compromise?

I suggest that if UnitAnode sticks to those 242 articles, there really is no problem here for others to get so concerned about. The community as a whole can easily deal with whatever PRODs result. There's no need for Wikidemon to reinsert unsourced material, which really isn't helpful and maybe everyone can draw a line and resolve to be less belligerent going forward. Cooperation, not confrontation. ++Lar: t/c 03:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to clarify here - I am not edit warring, I am asking for a community discussion. I have selectively restored information to four or five articles, all after careful review, and have not reverted a second time. In most cases I reviewed the deletions and let them stand; in others I added some sources. Undoing controversial mass edits is permissible per BRD, and past deletion campaigns in this area and others have been undone en masse, generally not by me, when found not to have consensus. I am being a lot more measured and by-the-book here. AN/I reports for behavior, and RfCs for unsolved content and process questions, are how you're supposed to handle disagreements that cannot be resolved through discussion. It's best to take what I say at face value here and not assume motivations or beliefs here. Any assumption that I hold an "extreme" position is wrong. I am not a proponent of unsourced information of any sort in any article. Rather, I am concerned about mass-edits that are made without coordination or agreement among editors. My rhetorical questions here are to illustrate the problem with letting things stand without resolution. If you think that is disruptive, then allowing for my particular position regarding mass edits, what else should I have done? I'm not going to edit war, and discussion has run out, so what other possible recourse did I have? I believe the provisional resolution here to maintain the status quo while we discuss what to do is exactly what I asked for here - I appreciate your asking for a solution, Georgewilliamherbert, and I will abide by that. Meanwhile there is an RfC and whatever the outcome, I respect that process.- Wikidemon (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we find a compromise that works? How about this: UnitAnode, you stay on your list of 242 until and unless every single one is properly sourced or deleted (in which case let someone else make up a list for you), or a process is decided on by community consensus, and Wikidemon, if you choose to reinsert material that was removed, instead of sourcing it, make a note of that on UnitAnode's worklist so others can easily find it and try to source it. UnitAnode won't reinsert stuff. If no one does source it after a reasonable time, it may get prodded (again?) or AfDed. This is "roughly" the process that the RfC seemed to favor most and it's a reasonable compromise. Would you 2 agree to that, and to dialing down the invective? ++Lar: t/c 03:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I will not re-insert anything from that list of 242 without adding a reliable source to it. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you, Wikidemon!!! By the way I meant "UnitAnode won't redelete stuff", not reinsert, that was a typo. Apologies for any confusion. UnitAnode, will you confine yourself to that list for now, then, and dial down the invective? Even if you feel you were provoked? ++Lar: t/c 04:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The only time I've even sworn is when I was called lazy. As for "confining" myself to those 242 for now, I've already been doing so. So, yeah, I guess I agree to that. I'm just tired of being attacked again and again and again. UnitAnode 04:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The underlying problem here is the confrontational actions regarding BLP articles and confrontational treatment of editors who complain about it. I agree that a cooperative attitude would go far. Unitanode has been asked to stop deleting, and the proper response in a collegial environment would be to cooperate with such requests rather than brush them off. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

User "Dirtyjew,allahpraiser,biblebasher-lover" making disruptive edits

Really hard to AGF on this one. Considering the repeated edits to the creation myth page and related pages and the ongoing debate over using the term creation myth at various articles I'd recommend a Check User / Sockpuppet investigation of Dirtyjew,allahpraiser,biblebasher-lover.. Nefariousski (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

As a minimum, it is a serious WP:UAA issue. --Cyclopia 23:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked as such. It looks like a common vandal to me. -- zzuuzz 23:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to avoid going to WP:UAA right away because from recent patterns of vandalism on related pages regarding the "creation myth" controversy I thought it best that it was investigated as a sock first. Nefariousski (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe someone could add the blocked template to his page? Nefariousski (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

He'll know from the block message. Maybe we should just delete the talk page. -- zzuuzz 23:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for that suggestion Nefariousski (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw the subject title, and thought to myself, Wow! Who would think that someone with the username "Dirtyjew,allahpraiser,biblebasher-love" would make disruptive edits? Because that sounds like the kind of person who would be a total asset to the encyclopedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User:IMatthew

Logged out bot?

Is 66.171.182.55 (talk · contribs) a logged-out bot? Woogee (talk) 03:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Looks like one of the AIV Helperbots. TNXMan 03:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyone know how to fix it? Frmatt (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the last few edits at UAA, it appears to be logged back in. Not sure about the how or why though. TNXMan 03:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I run one of these bots, hold on while I get some info. Chillum 04:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a bug in the older version of the bot and I have already made a change that should fix it here. I noticed that after releasing a new version announcement on the bot operator's mailing list the some of the bots where still editing while logged out. I sent out an e-mail to all of the bot operators asking which version they are running and from one IP. Only 1 operator responded and he was running the new version(with the fix) and his IP has not been editing logged out since the fix. I am assuming that those bot operators that did not respond are the one's editing while logged out due to not being upgraded.

If editing while logged out is disruptive the the heading on WP:UAA(or any other page it serves) can be adjusted to require version 2.0.21 which has the bug fixed(I hope). This will tell any bot below that version to not edit the page. If that is the consensus then I can make that change, there are at least 2 bots running the new version and they should be able to handle the load until the others are upgraded. Chillum 04:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I have no problem with the bots editing while logged out. It's pretty clear who/what they are and they're not disruptive (and thanks for maintaining them, by the way!). TNXMan 13:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe the helper bots all run on the toolserver, I have a vague memory of this problem being brought up before, and someone mentioning that editing while logged out was against the toolserver's terms of use. Not sure if this is true, but if it is then the older version should be stopped. - Kingpin (talk) 13:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No, not all of them. At least one runs off the tool server and it was editing while logged out a while back, but the rest of them run in separate locations for redundancy. The one on the tool server should be upgrade or turned off per the rules of the server. That is beyond my control, I am not sure which of the operators run the one on the tool server. Chillum 14:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks ThinkEnemies

ThinkEnemies has continued with personal attacks after being warned on his user page. Would appreciate some attention to this matter.

• first: first
• warning on user page: warning
• second: second Scribner (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I am here to answer all complaints. ThinkEnemies (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC) It's true. I've convinced myself that your nonsensical arguments are due to... Something I cannot pinpoint. ThinkEnemies (talk) 06:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Scribner has been engaging in edit warring on Sarah Palin. And he has also engaged in uncivil behavior on Sarah Palin talk page . He is now edit warring by placing the tag on the Sarah Palin article. Scribner has been blocked before for this exact type of behavior on Sarah Palin. ThinkEnemies was simply attempting to remove Scribner's POV pushing. Earlier, Scribner removed an edit there, without using the talk page, regarding Palin's book sales which was sourced. He then came back sometime later and put in the comment of the PAC buying copies of the book. It appears to be WP:SYN to imply that Palin's book sales were a product of her PAC buying the book. ThinkEnemies moved the section to the separate article and rendered the sentence left on the Palin article within WP:NPOV. Scribner does not come here with clean hands.Malke2010 06:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Clean hands or no, ThinkEnemies is making things quite personal. Warned again. --SB_Johnny |  13:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Another warning? What's the purpose of warning him the first time? At what point do you start enforcing policy? Scribner (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, Johnny. I hope Scribner has also been warned, to keep it evenhanded. ThinkEnemies (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Warnings are policy. Basically, when an editor misbehaves they are given a proportionate response; some forms of disruption merit an immediate block, others will bring a warning, which if ignored brings a stronger warning, and if that is ignored then we block. An initial warning lets the editor know that what they're doing is wrong which is often enough to stop the behavior, further warnings let the editor know that they can actually be blocked which itself can stop the behavior. Only after those warnings fail do we block, to prevent the behavior from continuing. -- Atama頭 18:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The user was already warned. Why are we warning him again? Scribner (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't engage in WP:IDHT. I've already explained why we give multiple warnings.

To ThinkEnemies, I'll agree that this edit by Scribner was uncalled for. Calling another editor an ass is wrong no matter how poorly they are treating you. Consider that a mild warning to Scribner that responding in kind to personal attacks is still a personal attack. -- Atama頭 19:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Just an addendum, for Scribner's sake, to avoid giving the wrong impression. These aren't toothless warnings, further incivility can and will result in a block. The hope is that ThinkEnemies will take these warnings seriously and moderate their tone. If that doesn't happen then the only way to prevent further problems is a block. -- Atama頭 19:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I do take the warnings seriously, and have engaged Scribner in a more civil tone on the Sarah Palin talk page. I admit to becoming frustrated with POV editors, especially after they attack my motives. That's a problem I will work on. Thanks for your time. ThinkEnemies (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No warning should be a "toothless warning". You've wasted a lot of time here establishing moral hazard for a user that's violated policy. Scribner (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It is a matter of established, written Misplaced Pages policy and longstanding precedent that we issue escalating warnings culminating in short and then increasingly long blocks, rather than jump straight to blocking or banning people. This is short circuited for certain particularly bad behavior, but this does not seem to rise to that level based on presented evidence. If ThinkEnemies behaves in the future as he has in the past there will be a block, without too many further warnings, but we also do not dwell on prior bad behavior if someone acknowledges the issue and reforms. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Tko96 and sock

May an admin please look at

• Tko96 (talk · contribs)
• 66truekillerobituaries99 (talk · contribs) (sock)

The userpage is inappropriate and linked to various articles. I have patiently warned the kid and undone the linking, but since they have now created a sock, and did not redact their page and instead copied it to their sock account and to mainspace (Musculion) and continued linking, it seems like time for administrative action. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've seen the contributions of both accounts and they have both participated in the TKO article at least; So if you think the other account is disruptive, should we block both of them? I'm not an admin so I can't block users yet I'm afraid. Minimac94 (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Musculion looks like another sock. --Chuunen Baka (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Incident with User:Nothughthomas

(for reference: Nothughthomas (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log)

User:Nothughthomas placed a speedy deletion tag on David Lewis Anderson (since deleted) requesting speedy deletion under the A7 criterion. The article, however, had assertions of importance and notability which made it not meet A7. I removed the tag, provided an explanation both in the edit summary and the talk page, suggesting AfD or PROD instead, then left a friendly message on Nothughthomas' talk page, suggesting the same. The user blanked their talk page and placed the db-person tag on the article again, with an edit summary saying they would "file a complaint" against me. I then noticed there had already been an AfD discussion on that article, so I replaced the tag with {{db-g4}} and wrote another message on the article's talk page explaining why that was the proper tag to be used in this situation. I then went and wrote another message on the user's talk page, explaining the same thing. They somehow took that as a threat and began to go off on me, accusing me of violating policies and making personal attacks both on their own talk page and on the article's - for the record, I did neither. The user edited a completely unrelated comment on my talk page and again accused me of vandalising their talk page and said they'd file a complaint about me, at which point I decided to simply not say anything to them anymore. Afterwards, I noticed that they left a note on their user page and the article's talk page saying they were quitting Misplaced Pages because of personal attacks from me (they don't directly say it, but they repeatedly accused me of calling them a "crazy old bat"). I feel bad for turning someone away from Misplaced Pages, and I do believe that the user, with some guidance, could be very useful to WP because of their expertise in certain fields. However, they have also been blocked three times for pretty much doing the exact same thing. I asked User:NuclearWarfare for assistance and they suggested I post this here. XXX antiuser 06:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have had serious run-ins with Nothugthomas previously. I refer everyone to the following talk page conversations:

• Talk:Art Bell#Obama vote
• Talk:Václav Klaus#I Ask Consensus for a Substantial Rewrite of this Article by a Native English Speaker
• Talk:BBC#Clarified the BBC's Status as Britain's Semi-Official State Broadcaster
• Talk:Dog#Carbon footprint

I would seriously consider blocking this editor for making consistent personal attacks and completely derailing any discussions on articles they suddenly appear on. When the editor is asked directly on their talk page, they normally tell the other party they are attacking them, even if they are not and then demand they leave them alone. However, their behaviour continues.

I am also concerned with the bizarre behaviour exhibited on their user page, not to mention the decidedly ridiculous discussion on Talk:Dog, which seems to have been a disruption because of conflicts over Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. Furthermore, the whole BBC discussion only occured because of disputes at Fas News Agency.

As I have been involved with this editor in the past I will not be able to take any admin action. However, I recommend an indefinite block in this case as they are significantly disruptive. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 07:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies to the admins who have to sludge through these personal grievances and ongoing drama/soap opera.

The entry in question was an unsourced UFO conspiracy entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=David_Lewis_Anderson&action=edit&redlink=1) that had previously been deleted by 6-0 acclamation. My speedy deletion was upheld by an admin and it was deleted over userid:antiuser's objections which he made primarily on notability grounds (he only offered a tangential objection on inappropriate tagging, the crux of his argument was over a scan of a letter the conspiracy theorist maintained on his website, antiuser claiming it proved notability). As for his claim I said he called me a "crazy old bat" ... I double-checked logs, apparently he only called me "crazy", I misread the "old bat" part, my apologies to him for assigning an insult to him that he only partially made. User:antiuser also spammed my Talk page after I requested, on five separate occasions, he leave discussion about the entry in question on the entries talk page.

The other user, Tbsdy lives, repeatedly "appears" in any entry I participate in editing to take the opposite position of mine, regardless of what that position is. He has filed repetitive complaints against me, frequently accusing me of "personal attacks" but never providing an actual source - just general links to talk and discussion pages - and threatened me repeatedly and is the cause of my previous wiki-break. Regrettably it appears he ducked into adminship during my wiki-break, I can assure that any review of our previous interactions would have quickly kiboshed the community's decision to grant him admin privileges given his rather off-kilter way of interacting with other contributors, specifically me.

Per my previous conversation with another admin I'm not replying to any of his specific, further accusations in hope he'll get bored and move on with a minimal amount of disruption to wikipedia. Please also note that this users presence in this ANI discussion is as a result of targeted lobbying userid:antiuser is doing User_talk:Tbsdy_lives#Discussion_at_WP:AIN_you_might_be_interested_in, an apparent effort to "game" the system and "stick it" to those who are raising issue with the UFO conspiracy / tin-foil hat entries.

Apologies again to involved mods for getting pulled into this soap opera. I'll not be monitoring this section any further, but please feel free to contact me via Talk if you have specific questions. Thanks and best regards - Nothughthomas (talk) 07:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of when I called you crazy. If I recall correctly, I said "that's crazy" in response to something you mentioned, but not to you directly. The article was speedily deleted per the G4 criterion, being a recreation of deleted material. It did not meet criterion A7 as the article contained assertions of notability. As for the "spamming" of your talk page, I was only replying to the points you were bringing up and trying to make you aware of what the policy is. You were the one who treated a friendly note as a "threat", as you so put. As for your allegation of "targeted lobbying", I was merely notifying another user that I know has had a run-in with you in the past that I had started a discussion about your actions in this case. I have also notified User:Fastily, who as far as I know is completely uninvolved. Like I said, I believe you could be a productive editor if you so wanted, but you choose to be confrontational, uncivil and disruptive instead. XXX antiuser 08:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The link is above, in my original message. Thanks. I'm sorry you took exception to my objection over your claims that "David Lewis Anderson" met notability guidelines (in point of clarification, this was antiuser's original objection before he moved on to the question of the SD criteria tag), however, the issue was upheld by 6-0 acclamation. If it is your intent to file ANI complaints when speedy deletion occurs over your objections I have no problem with that and AGF, but please please do not lobby other contributors on their talk pages to flock here to support you in an ANI discussion. Discussion should be kept here, where it is transparent. We don't need vendetts hammered out in smoke-filled back rooms. I AGF that your lobbying was unintentional. Thanks. Nothughthomas (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You know that's not the reason why this incident was filed. Please don't lecture another user about supposedly lobbying when you have yourself engaged in this practice. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 09:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This all seems like a bit of overreacting from multiple different parties. Cirt (talk) 08:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I believe the only party overreacting here is Nothughthomas. So far as I can work out, antiuser basically advised Nothughthomas that he/she had used the wrong template on a speedy deletion. We are now having a discussion on WP:AN/I after Nothughthomas retaliated with the following edit. I've asked antiuser to leave this thread alone to stop the drama, which they have agreed to do. Like I say, I think Nothugthomas has proven that he/she cannot contribute in any productive way to Misplaced Pages and I would again suggest an indefinite block. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 09:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Quick addendum - I initially declined the speedy deletion because the article contained a claim to notability. It was only after I did a search for it that I found the AfD on it and replaced the template for CSD G4. XXX antiuser 09:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Update - I've just gone into mild arrhythmia (I'm okay), which is what happened last time Tbsdy started going after me. I was warned by my doctor not to participate in wikipedia any further, or to create a new username, so that I don't get upset when he comes after me in the future but I just couldn't leave well enough alone. My fault. I'm afraid, for my health, I won't be able to monitor this discussion further. Please do not take my forthcoming silence as acquiesance to any faux point or accusation thrown at me; I'm sure many will be forthcoming. I believe an actual thorough reading of any of the links Tbsdy or User:antisuer provided will more than acquit me of this frivolous vendetta ANI (this is their M.O. - overwhelm the board with multiple links and then vaguely proclaim loudly the links contain evidence of my "personal attacks", when - if someone actually reads the links they provided - it can be seen no such thing occurred). The community upheld my request for speedy deletion of entry David Lewis Anderson, an entry for a conspiracy theorist who claims he invented a time machine and is being chased by the "New World Order", and I trust the jurisprudence of the admins and community to see through this rather transparent vendetta from the UFO/Bigfoot crew as well in my health sabbatical. Thanks; I'm sorry I'm not stronger to go tete-a-tete in these brawls anymore. Nothughthomas (talk) 08:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I rather suspect that the only heart I have ever made flutter is my wife's. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 09:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for possibly further stoking the fire, but this comment on my Editor Review is more proof that User:Nothughthomas fails to understand the reason why this incident report was filed. I never tried to push POV anywhere - I merely declined a speedy deletion nomination that did not meet the criterion and then corrected it to use a criterion which applied. This user seems to have a pattern of overreacting and just making stuff up whenever anyone disagrees with what they're doing. XXX antiuser 19:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You're offended by me rating you as "GOOD"? (This is what I was talking about, above, when I said this contributors M.O. was to throw out a link to a discussion I participated in and say I did something awful there, I can only assume with the assumption that no one would take the time to click the link and read. How anyone could be offended by being rated as "GOOD" in an editor review is really beyond me and leaves precious few alternate explanations.) Nothughthomas (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've removed this review. I see this as a general attack on them, and not productive whatsoever. Stop interacting with this editor please. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 00:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've had some encounters with this user, in fact I blocked him at one point early in the Climate Change probation page process. I am not sure that he quite grasps how to interact with others here effectively, as it seems that anyone that turns up on his page to offer any constructive feedback of any sort immediately gets accused of pestering him. In view of his continued challenges, and of his own stated health issues... maybe parting ways is appropriate. ++Lar: t/c 21:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

First, in point of clarification, I was one of no less than 6 contributors blocked within a 24-hour period after the probation on all climate change entries was enacted. Second, it's unfortunate you're suggesting disallowing participation in wikipedia by contributors on the basis of physical disability. Third, I am not a "he." Fourth, I have clearly enumerated the rules for participating on my Talk page therein and offered anyone who is discontent with them the opportunity to choose not to participate there. There is no record of me being abrasive outside of my Talk page. The reasons for these rules I've been forced to implement are also clearly stated there, are just and reasonable and - ultimately - beyond the purview of the community as no content on my Talk page is outrageous. If you don't like what's on my Talk page, don't go there. Quite simple, really. Thank you. Nothughthomas (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Show Nothughthomas the door. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This user is probably something other then they wish to appear to be, I don't believe a word on their userpage. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm being block shopped to the best. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride_2/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Durova Nothughthomas (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Nothughthomas is now accusing me of "flooding admin talk pages with every conceivable complaint" and "lobbying" to get her blocked. I simply asked User:NuclearWarfare for advice on how to deal with this user prior to initiating the incident report and asked two uninvolved admins (User:Fastily and User:Wehwalt) to look at this incident report. At no time did I attempt to steer them toward either side or make any accusations regarding Nothughthomas. XXX antiuser 23:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I stand by each and every word of what I said. If someone is being "block shopped" that person has a right to raise an objection. I have done so privately to an impartial admin so as not to contribute to the significant disruption of the "Now nothughthomas is saying this!!!" hysteria that is being stoked and fueled here by one contributor. You have complained the UFO conspiracy entry was deleted, you have complained I rated you as "GOOD" in your editor review; clearly there is nothing I can do that will not offend you. I'm at a total loss. However, You have asked for "advice" from no less than half-a-dozen admins. I will not stand by while another contributor is "block shopping" me, no matter how many more complaints you file against me in the interim for such frivality as rating you "GOOD" instead of "EXCELLENT." Please stop the disruptive complaining. Nothughthomas (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone block this editor?

Can someone please put an indefinite block on this editor? Honestly, it's getting out of hand. There have been numerous blocks on them already, and now that they are harassing antiuser I really think that my earlier suggestion seems more relevant than ever. If ever I've seen an editor who can't participate productively on Misplaced Pages this is now. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 00:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have advised the user to take a break due to health issues. Hopefully this will give the individual time to think things over and reflect on the situation. Cirt (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

They've technically been on a wikibreak through this entire process, it doesn't seem to have stopped them. XXX antiuser 00:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Cirt (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw that, but there's also XXX antiuser 00:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

During their "break" they have been attacking antiuser. I don't consider this to be much of a break. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 00:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose block. Let's see if the break I suggested takes. If not, and if there is disruptive behavior after this, then I will block the user myself. Cirt (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • All right. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 00:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Not much of a wikibreak. They are now back. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 00:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Totally misread that. They are off. When they return, I'm fairly certain that this behaviour will continue. We'll see. I'll be keeping an eye on them. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 01:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Agree with Cirt. Let's wait and see if they can stick with the wikibreak. We don't want anyone to die over this. XXX antiuser 01:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, but I just think that's their way of dealing with issues when it gets a bit hot due to their disruptive editing. In two weeks time they will be back again, and by this time they will believe that everyone has forgotten about this. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 02:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
          • @Tbsdy - feel free to message me, if that occurs, at that point in time. Cirt (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• Is anyone else seeing this as a blatant troll? If you read the above, this fragile old lady seems to have an excellent grasp of all sorts of policy, uses terms like "block shopping", can dig up old arbitration cases... and then somehow manages to completely misunderstand antiuser's changing of a CSD tag despite having it spelt out clearly what actually happened? Her account was created on 22 December 09 and yet she's already been to a doctor about WP, and the doctor was WP-savvy enough to recommend a different username to avoid associations with her (month-long) past? She awarded herself this barnstar after only 10 days? The "cat lady trying to blame dogs for the sinking of the Maldives" schtick? The deliberately PC "78 year old grandmother, Tourette's syndrome, recently lesbian, environmentalist with Meteorology PhD" who nevertheless is fighting against the "manipulation" of climate change articles by her fellow environmentalists? And to top it all off, after massive disruption ensues, she's suddenly in danger of a heart attack? Holly25 (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, as a matter of fact, yes. I think this is a troll account, and if it isn't then incredibly disruptive. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 00:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree that this editor is not what they appear to be, and that their purpose here is not to improve the encyclopedia. Typical of this type of user: only 13% of their edits are to articles, over 40% are to User: Talk. They're either here for the drama, or to back-handedly push a POV (climate change disbelief), or both. Either way, they're disruptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I find it incredibly perplexing that this editor has not yet been permanently banned. Please anybody willing to believe that this is a little old lady with a weird cognitive disturbance coupled with conveniently timed periods of apoplexy or somesuch, just look at his or her output.

But I'm not writing him or her off. Let's just wait and see. Over to you. --TS 01:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not happy about being accused of wikistalking and abuse of power. Cirt asked me for evidence of this, so here it is:

• On their user page Here, here, here, here and here.
• On user talk pages, here, here, here, here, here, here (accusation I will impose a block a block while noone is looking!), here (referring to me) and here.
• On WP:AN/I here, here ("Regrettably it appears he ducked into adminship during my wiki-break, I can assure that any review of our previous interactions would have quickly kiboshed the community's decision to grant him admin privileges given his rather off-kilter way of interacting with other contributors, specifically me"), here and here.

Surely folks can see how disruptive they are? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 02:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

They're either crazy, a troll or both. In any case, they don't seem to be contributing anything to WP, but rather only causing disruption and drama. XXX antiuser 02:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The disruption is spilling into main article space. Have a look at Talk:State media, which I just stumbled upon. They wrote that "independently reviewed the cited reference and can find no evidence the above phrase exists in the cited page, or the preceding or following pages", but a quick check of Google books for this source shows this to be untrue. I don't think they did review the book at all. They also got into disputes over "state controlled" in Fars News Agency and BBC, where they were categorically told they were wrong and not to change the article against consensus. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 03:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Is there also perhaps a problem with this username, "Nothughthomas"? The user's initial few weeks of editing all centre around challenging criticism in the Christopher Monckton article. Hugh Thomas was Director of the Centre for Policy Studies during the 1980s, where Monckton worked as an advisor from 1982-1986. This could be a malicious attempt to create the impression that Monckton was editing his own article and dropping a cryptic hint in the username. Holly25 (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I am suitably convinced of the need to bock that I have indef (but not permanently) blocked. I do not know if they must remain permanently blocked. They may be able to engage positively in the future. Please use normal administrator discretion on unblocks if there is reason to believe they will participate positively in the future. Please feel free to unblock without asking me first if you believe that they've convinced you of that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm convinced of the need to "bock" :) , but I endorse this block. ++Lar: t/c 03:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Captain Typo rdies again! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks George, I think that's a reasonable response. But I just don't see any evidence that they can contribute to Misplaced Pages in an acceptable manner. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 03:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No objections to the block. Though I would have preferred this went differently. :( Cirt (talk) 06:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

So I was trying to set up a new category

called Category:Hal Blaine Strikes Again - which I eventually did, but first I created one called Category:Hal Blaine Strike Again. No s on the end of "Strikes". It would be nice if someone with the appropriate skills would delete that category for me because I don't know how. The only civility problem here are the things I'm saying to myself. You don't want to know. Thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 07:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

British National Party

I'm trying to improve the article on the British National Party and have improved the thing a fair bit so far, copy editing it down and putting it in a more WP:Summary style, trying get it to follow the WP:Article size, WP:MOS and WP:Not news. Making sure everything has got a reference with a book and is evenly weighted, etc. In following with the advice on the last peer review. Yet a small vanguard (Snowded and Verbal) of non-contributors, who have absolutely no intention of putting in the Will and Energy to the article which I can, wait around by the sidelines, reverting apparently for no other reason than WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT (the former, at least has openly admitted to being a Marxist, which may or may not be motivation when considering the article subject). In any case, I got a consensus on talk where Will Beback and Gabagool also agreed it must be shorter and in a summary style.

Yet when I started to work on it this morning, boom, there is Snowded, over my shoulder reverting for no particular reason. I have said to him, that I am willing to dicuss any specific content issues he may have on the talk, but he just doesn't seem to listen. He seems to be more interested in getting in the way of the article progressing to a higher quality standard. Its starting to annoy me, because he doesn't cop on. - Yorkshirian (talk) 08:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a pre-emotive strike as I asked Yorkshirian to consider a self revert before I posted the report below. I think we all want the article shorted and of a higher standard, but that does not authorise Yorkshirian to make 5 reverts against three editors over three days without really using the talk page. --Snowded 08:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) ANI report prepared in parallel to the above

User:Yorkshirian was readmitted to the community after a long ban last year. I was one of the editors who supported that as s/he appeared to have reformed and is a good content editor. However the old ways seem to have come back. Yorkshirian is currently focused on the British National Party and has been making a series of edits, many of which have improved the article. However several have also been contentious. Most recently a major set of changes were made to shorten the article, these were reverted here with a request to discuss by one user Yorkshirian then restored the changes without discussion and they were reverted again here by another user

Discussion on the talk page indicates an agreement that the article can be improved, but doubt is cast on several of the changes by Yorkshirian who is asked to summarise the changes for discussion and consensus. Yesterday Yorkshirian simply put the changes back in place a day later saying that no one had stated a rationale for opposing his changes (which is misleading to say the least) here, and the changes were reverted with another request for discussion

This morning the changes were back again, diff here I reverted with a talk page request and within minutes it was back again. I then reverted once more and placed a warning on the users page here which was simply deleted and the page restoredagain to Yorkshirian's material. So over three days we have five reverts by Yorkshirian, edit summaries which imply a consensus when none has been achieved. (I think I have all the diffs right, but its all there in the page histories). I have brought this here rather than treating it as a simple 3rr given the editors past history. I still think Yorkshirian is a useful editor, but when it comes to right wing politics or the catholic church s/he can get carried away. There needs to be some sanction or restriction - maybe a 1RR per week or similar. --Snowded 08:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be disingenuous at the least. As anyone can easily see, I have entered the discussion on the talk and am always willing to discuss any specifics. How else would I know that both Will Beback and Gabagool agreed on there that the article must be shorter to comply to the guidelines? Needless to say, I have not violated the WP:3RR anyway, nor do I intend on doing so. Snowded's attempts at trying to get in the way of the article being moving forward, seem to me totally political and non-constructive. - Yorkshirian (talk) 08:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Yorkshirian is making large, unilateral, and contentious changes to a controversial article without getting agreement. The consensus on the talk page is that discussion is required. It is disingenuous to say that Will supports Yorkshirian, he has expressed support for trimming the page, but not Yorkshirian's methods. His continued editwarring, misleading edit summaries, biased removal and summary, and disregard for other editors and consensus building on the talk page need to be tackled. At the very least, either the page should be locked so he is forced to discuss, which unfortunately means the page can't be improved in the meantime, or he should be blocked or banned from editing the page for a time until consensus on how to trim the page (what to summarise, what to spin off) is decided. Verbal chat 08:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the average observer, from a simple comparison, will be able to see which is more in following with WP:Summary, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:Article size and WP:MOS—the progressive constructive one or the flyby politically motivated revert one. It seems somewhat comedic, that the two people whose sole contribution to the article is reverting any edit which does not coicide with their political views (as if some sort of police guard), claims somebody else who is actually trying to construct is edit warring (!). A simple look at the history of the article shows the contribution-vs-noncontribution, construction-vs-nonconstruction, effort-vs-timewaste. As I have said, I am more than willing to discuss content specifics on the article, and have done. Yet there seems to be an unwillingness from certain quarters to speak in specifics (and its obvious why). - Yorkshirian (talk)

The various accusations and assertions above are part of a historical pattern with this user. What we have seen in a battery of changes which are hard to monitor, no discussion of known controversial issues and (If you look at the Dewsbury example on the talk page) a failure to provide supporting material. Yorkshirian seems to be under the impression that volume of edits gives her/him some special status and exempts him/her from the need to use the talk page. Also if someone agrees the article should be shortened (everyone) it doesn't mean that you have agreement for your version of the changes. Its really very simple, if a change is challenged then discuss it, and that involves responding to people not simply reverting every 24 hours.

--Snowded 09:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Content dispute. Try Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, but given the number of people reverting, I'd say a discussion seems appropriate and deleting 20k characters at a time (and 30 sources) seems a bit excessive. In my view, as to this comment, if nobody is raising points as what should by changed, Yorkshirian, you could always offer that instead of just repeating that it should be summarized. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've made a section on the talk for the final part of the history as you've suggested. - Yorkshirian (talk) 09:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded's comments above. Also the suggestion of 1rr/week is a good one. Mjroots (talk) 09:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• I find the continued personal attacks by Yorkshirian particularly disturbing. Verbal chat 09:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• I'm busy preparing a detailed report on Yorkshirian's blatant POV editing and misuse of references on the BNP article. As the Dewsbury Reporter situation is mentioned above, I'll address that now. Yorkshirian has added a reference to that paper dated 1 July 1989 claiming there is a story titled "Saturday rioting". I've alrady obtained a copy of the Dewsbury Reporter that covers the riot, and it isn't dated 1 July 1989, the name of the story isn't "Saturday rioting" and it doesn't reference the sentence Yorkshirian added it to. Anyone needing verification that I do in fact have a copy of the edition in question is welcome to email me (known racists excepted) or alternatively ask ArbCom member SirFozzie (talk · contribs) who I have emailed verification to and I've also asked him to comment here. Yorkshirian's claim that he isn't edit warring is a false one, he's been edit warring for weeks to remove any attempt to bring the article in line with what the references actually say or remove the blatantly false ones he's added, he may have only broken 3RR once (see here) but he's made three reverts during a day on multiple occasions as the history of the page shows. He's also making spurious accusations of vandalism (something that in addition to his edit warring and attacks has already caused one RFC and ArbCom case) such as this and this. Something needs to be done about Yorkshirian, if nothing is done today I'll finish my detailed report and we'll go from there. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a look at this article for the first time. Just discussing the edit first mentioned, it seems clear to me that the revert, , of Yorkshirian's edit was perhaps over extensive. It restored some quite peripheral material, especially the last two paragraphs of section 1.4.3 , such as the quote of an un-named detective that he was disappointed in the light sentence. I question also including such details as the ages of the defendants. It also included an extremely detailed description of the 2007 split. The sections restored also contained a variety of unsourced opinion, e.g. " although this has not been the case in any previous court cases." On the other hand, Yorkshirian's version, while shortening the description, also removed them both as separate sections, which seems clear under-emphasis. As frequently is the case, somewhere in the middle would be better. I think the editors involved should be able to find a compromise version DGG ( talk ) 13:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Despite ONiH offering physical evidence to prove that Yorkshirian has made up the reference, Yorkshirian still maintains his reference is verifiable. Perhaps, until SirFozzie is available, some well respected admin could email ONiH and ask to see the evidence and post here when they have received it? BigDunc 14:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Just passing through the drama pit, no previous involvement in this issue. I just wanted to point out—before anyone wields the hammer—that ONiH's evidence (as described) wouldn't prove that Yorkshirian made up the reference, just that it isn't in  ... a differently-named article in a different edition of the newspaper. From the one that Yorkshirian says. Um. Steve  15:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well read it again, the evidence does prove it, since the Dewsbury Reporter is a weekly newspaper. BigDunc 15:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well it could still be an edition from a different week. However, I think that 1st July 1989 was a Saturday, and the paper is printed on a Friday. Unless the print day has changed there is something fishy going on. Quantpole (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have commented on the information sent to me at the talk page discussion. SirFozzie (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I issued a warning at User talk:Yorkshirian#Edit warring at British National Party, failure to assume good faith, and personal attacks; as there is now active discussion at Talk:British National Party#Specifics, I do not think a block is necessary at this juncture. The personal attacks above and elsewhere are particularly troubling. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, its a matter of regret that it had to come here to get that discussion running, and I didn't seek a block, just some collaborative behaviour. Hopefully that will now happen. --Snowded 06:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Eyeopener: Vandalistic vandals vandalize

Some folks from "The Eyeopener" decided to vandalize the wiki:

http://www.theeyeopener.com/articles/4437-In-Soviet-Russia-lies-Misplaced Pages-you

Since they freely admit in their piece that they already know wikipedia policy, and are flaunting it anyway, I guess that's a near no-brainer sanction.

If we're feeling particularly nice we could tell them the have 24 hours to fix their own mistakes? :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 11:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That edit has been reverted, and was the only one carried out by that IP. If anybody feels the need to comment on the article, feel free to do so. Interestingly, all of the comments on their page are vetted by their editors. Hmmmm... Throwaway85 (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh That article irked me. I wrote the following to their editor-in-chief in response:

As an editor of Misplaced Pages, let me begin by expressing my disappointment in you. There is nothing clever or noble about vandalizing something that countless thousands of people put countless thousands of hours into making. You are in no way providing a service to your readers. You are behaving like bored teenagers, plain and simple. You changed a single digit in an article about your institution. Congratulations. For three days visitors might have thought your library to be slightly taller than it is. Are you fulfilled now? Is there some aching pit within you that has been filled by your miscreancy?

Your actions are not only rude, but unethical. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, built entirely by volunteers, and offered free to the world. We don't ask anything in return for this bevy of information, save a modicum of respect. Many of your readers refer to us daily, and are quickly able to find free, reliable information on any topic under the sun. Does Misplaced Pages get vandalized? Of course it does. We have hundreds of editors patrolling recent changes 24/7 just to repair the damage vandals do. Misguided and thoughtless actions such as yours do not help. Are there problems with allowing anyone to edit? Undoubtedly. Without that credo, however, the project would not exist. Take a look at Citizendium to see what a closed model produces.

Misplaced Pages is at the forefront of ushering in a new age of information, instantly accessible and free to all. You wrote a hack piece on a tired subject to fill whitespace in a college newspaper, and damaged the project to do so. Is this the "award-winning journalism" of which you boast? Are these the investigative journalists who will be breaking the Watergates of tomorrow? Shall you hold a mass rally before all of Ryerson's students and proudly proclaim, "Look! Look at what we have done in your name! Aren't we clever? Aren't we pithy? Are we not deserving of your praise?"

Grow up.

Sincerely,

(redacted)

Proud Wikipedian.

Holy war (sort of)

An anonymous editor is visiting various articles and changing "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic" (example). While it is generally true that the term preferred by the Vatican is simply "Catholic" (presumably a matter of primacy for their brand of Catholicism), in most instances these changes have been made despite sourcing explicitly stating "Roman Catholic". Various editors have tried to explain this problem to the anonymous editor (who was blocked for this behavior at one point), but the editor continues this "crusade". To complicate matters, 3 separate IP addresses have thus far been involved:

• 71.145.143.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.145.166.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.145.166.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I am not sure what action can be taken (if any), but I would appreciate some advice about how to approach this problem. Up until now, I have been reverting the anonymous edits in instances where the sourcing specifically says "Roman Catholic" and leaving the others. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have also been involved, reverting more than User:Scjessey. I am in agreement with his concerns. Note that the edit histories of this user include wildly incorrect statements. It may seem persuasive to say "just call them what they call themselves", but he makes up falsehoods about what they call themselves. See a long list at User talk:71.145.166.252 of cases that I tracked down. Tb (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Also note that many of the anon user's edits are entirely careless search-and-replace edits which break wikilinks, categories, and other such things. Tb (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Note as well that User:71.145.143.99 was blocked a few days ago in connection with this. Tb (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm a little disappointed by the lack of administrator interest here, even if it's just to tell me it's no big deal and I shouldn't worry about it. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have enough knowledge about rangeblocks to do one without risking collateral damage. I'd suggest semiprotecting the articles but the scope is too wide. Hopefully an admin with skills I lack will come along. I don't think that it's not a big deal. -- Atama頭 00:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a range of 71.145.128.0/18, which would block up to 16,384 IPs. I don't think we'd block that many potential users for long, but perhaps an anon softblock for 3 days might concentrate the mind. Rodhullandemu 01:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You missed:

• 71.145.140.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.145.141.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.145.143.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.145.144.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.145.146.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.145.147.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.145.150.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.145.154.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.145.162.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.145.167.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.145.168.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.145.168.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

and I'm sure many others. Unfortunately, this range is shared by many editors. I've blocked the most recently used one for 31 hours. Jayjg 03:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

81.144.203.173 at Kent School

• 81.144.203.173 Continues to insert WP:BLP sensitive material without adding a source, to Kent School. He has violated 3RR while doing it and added some incivility to my talk page for pointing out what's wrong with his edits (, ). Has also edited as 86.180.20.87. It doesn't like he's willing to stop and listen, so I request someone make him stop.--Atlan (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for 3RR/BLP violation. JamieS93 15:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Stürmkrieger's SPA edits to Bosniaks

User: Stürmkrieger is a single purpose account. His prime purpose on Misplaced Pages appears to be to provoke Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims). I warned him of Balkans Sanctions on 8 January User_talk:Stürmkrieger#Balkans_Sanctions. His old account (see User talk:Der Stürmer) was indefinitely blocked for having Nazi links to the username, he claimed this wasn’t his intention but his new account User:Stürmkrieger sounds just as Nazi in tone and can be interpreted as “storm warrior” which seems like a reference to Sturmabteilung. His explanation about it being a football nickname might be acceptable if he didn’t appear to be a Croat nationalist editor whose only role on Misplaced Pages appears to be nationalist in nature. Extreme Croat nationalists often have Nazi links through the Ustaše. I don’t think this is a case for a simple change of username which is why I am reporting to AN/I and not UAA. This is because his additions to Talk:Bosniaks (the only article he makes any contribution on) are generally uncivil and provocative. I feel his additions appear to be racially motivated in a negative way. This is made more evident by the name of the account. Examples of his additions are “I hate to tell you but you are (like every other Bosnian Muslim) totally wrong ... Bosnian Muslims (or as they call themselves Bosniaks)“ ,, ,,,,. There should be no room on Misplaced Pages for this type of single purpose editor. Polargeo (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support block or at least long-term topic ban. I've looked over a sample of his contributions, and found nothing either polite or constructive. And the username, in pidgin German complete with Heavy Metal umlauts, is problematic in itself, as it indeed suggests identification with Nazi elements. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have indef blocked. Look at the editor's first edit, declaring themselves as the blocked editor Der Stürmer. That editor was blocked for having a username with Nazi propoganda, and was asked to create a new account. They did so (after asking 3 times to be unblocked), and made an account with a name that was just as objectionable as the one before. The POV edits are just icing on the cake here, really. I've hardblocked the editor, I think we've given them enough chances already. -- Atama頭 18:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Outcome of discussion about playmate notability policy

Maybe some administrator(s) would be the right person to state the outcome of the recent discussion contesting item #3 of the notability criteria for porn performers. The criterion states that if someone "is a Playboy Playmate", that she is notable. The discussion focused on either or not this is in odds with WP:BLP#1E.

I tried to implement the change in the policey but it seems my views interfered with my interpretation of the debate outcome (if any). I would like someone to step in and do the Right Thing. --Damiens.rf 16:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any consensus was developed in that short discussion. Perhaps frustrating, but I think either more discussion or a different venue would be required.  Frank  |  talk  16:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What would be the proper "different venue"? for discussing a perceived incompatibility between policies? --Damiens.rf 16:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, now you want me to say something useful? :-) Honestly I'm not sure; how about WP:P* or WP:RFC?  Frank  |  talk  16:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This looks like an issue easy to decide in a straightforward yes/no RfC. Pcap ping 16:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:P* would not be a good place. The criteria was created by the folks there, so their opinion is already knows. It should be a place where a more broad audience (at least include those interested in the broader policy WP:BLP#1E) would take part.

Is it really need to start an RFC? While some argued against the removal of the criterion, there was not really arguments for how it does not fails WP:BLP#1E. Are RFCs productive in such discussions? I'm not that familiar with them. --Damiens.rf 17:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's WP:SILENCE to consider. My answer above reflected that I don't think consensus was established. Finer points about the policy itself and its relationship to 1E are probably not productive on this page.  Frank  |  talk  17:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

By "police" I assume you mean "policy"? I've amended the header but will leave it to you to correct your typo. –xeno 17:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I was about to ask how I can apply to join the Playmate Police. Sounds like fun. :) -- Atama頭 17:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Thanks, --Damiens.rf 17:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have created the RFC at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (people)#RFC: Every playmate is notable. I hope we can build something from that discussion. --Damiens.rf 20:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Threat made by user

"Anybodies edits on the page of Kundalini Yoga, which are not in line with the will of God, lead directly to hell. Whoever feels confident enough to know what that is, is free to make them. For you however, is this THE LAST WARNING! If you think you can not be cursed in the grain of sand on the beach of an ocean in your next life, you are mistaken."

I've notified the user in question for you!

To be fair, they look pretty disruptive, but if their "threat" is to put a curse on you, I'm not sure how seriously it should be taken... ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 16:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, you got there before I did, but it was the other user that made the threat and I've notified him. Between believers, which seems to be the case here, a threat of cursing is as real and as damaging as a threat of legal action or violence. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, threats of curses are psychological harassment and can upset some editors, but as a first offense and in isolation it is unworthy of much action, give him a level 4 warning about it and if he curses anyone again treat is as a civility violation. Off2riorob (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Besides the curse, the editor doesn't seem to understand the proper use of article talk pages, which he seems to be using to preach. Dougweller (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What if we cast an itching curse with a protection spell back at him? I mean, clearly I get that this could offend people who believe in such things...I guess. --Smashville 19:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Surely I deserve a curse sent this way for having protecting the page? Anyhow the same editor did threaten to challenge my admin rights, in case anyone is interested. I simply ignored it. NJA (t/c) 19:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I doubt he'll do it. The curse would barely be justified (even with a Ravenloftian rationale) and he's not taking into account the possibility there are other worlds with sapient beings out there - worlds where such vague curses are good-luck exhortations. —Jeremy 19:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to worry, I've cast an anti-desysopping-via-curse protection spell. --Smashville 20:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User:84.61.165.65

I didn't know where else to report this since technically some may question if it's vandalism. User:84.61.165.65 has been continually re-adding a signed comment to replace a redirect in main space . I don't believe this can be considered simply a 'newbie mistake' as they have edited articles before and they've been blocked twice for various other things and have a history of disrupting the RD and other places (primarily asking silly questions like why can't X be a word in Y language, recently making silly claims about the Australian Aboriginal flag). Special:Contributions/84.61.165.65, Special:Contributions/88.76.229.55, Special:Contributions/88.78.236.1, Special:Contributions/88.77.251.184, Special:Contributions/88.78.5.162, Special:Contributions/88.77.230.244, Special:Contributions/88.77.254.193, Special:Contributions/88.78.2.122, Special:Contributions/88.78.239.53, Special:Contributions/88.77.239.146, Special:Contributions/88.77.243.108, Special:Contributions/88.78.6.57, Special:Contributions/88.78.8.180, Special:Contributions/84.62.213.156, Special:Contributions/88.76.254.9, Special:Contributions/88.77.234.55 (probably more then this). They also appear to have somewhat of a history of trying to add silly/pointless things to articles, e.g. (note that the use of templates here further suggests they aren't simply a clueless user, and in case there's any doubt it's the same user see this ) Note that while the IP looks up to Germany, they clearly have a good command of the English language. In terms of the comment they're trying to add, it's appears to be true, but there's definitely no point to an article and I don't see much point for a disambig page; there appears to be only one other possible target I'm aware of, part of the name of a character in an anime series. If someone else feels there's a better way to handle this then just blocking the user, be my guest, I wash my hands of it. Nil Einne (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

IP was just blocked for a month per AIV report. Edit: removed resolved tag, didn't see other IPsThrowaway85 (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry just for clarification, I only put those IPs since I had gathered them earlier for somewhat unrelated reasons and to show the extent of the disruption from the IP on the RD (although most of those were only a few edits). The IP is clearly dynamic so it's possible they may come back, but there's little point doing anything with the other IPs and I don't think the disruption meets the level necessary for a range block yet. Also, for future info, the IP usually geolocates to ESSEN, NORDRHEIN-WESTFALEN although occasionally other places in NORDRHEIN-WESTFALEN. A few times the IP either doesn't geolocate at all or geolocates to Berlin which I presume means the geolocation isn't properly set up so it's geolocating to the home base for the ISP, Arcor DSL. Cheers Nil Einne (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Geolocate should never be viewed as exact, it merely gives a rough idea of where an IP originates. Barring any further activity, are you alright with marking this resolved? Throwaway85 (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

AlexLevyOne-Numéro1Mondial

Hello, please block Numéro1Mondial who is an AlexLevyOne's sockpuppet (see checkuser verification on fr:). Thank you in advance, Moyg (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. JohnCD (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

And tagged. Tim Song (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks against me on and off site by User:92.3.214.51

Editor Antmarkhemingway and a series of anon ips have trying to add a site that has been blacklisted as spam by Hu12. The user uses a variety of IP addresses from the same internet company in the UK. The user, who has admitted he is the owner of the site, has continuously used abusive language against people who have kept his websites off wikipeida per policy.

Now, an anon IP editor is now attacking me as well as editor Momusufan on the message boards on the banned site -- and asking me to check out these attacks on my talk page (which I will not take off for now). I am not sure this is the proper place for this discussion, but, I believe this crosses the line. Thank you. XinJeisan (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What is the objection to the link? It appears to be the official web site of the band in question; such links are standard, are they not? If the band's official web site is on the blacklist, it's easy to understand why fans are irritated. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Because the owner of the site had previously put obviously incorrect information about another former Bananarama member,Jacquie O'Sullivan, (see Talk:Jacquie O'Sullivan, on the site that the owner claims to be official as well. There is no evidence to suggest the site is official besides the owner calling itself official. You can see the discussion before it was blacklisted as well. XinJeisan (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

On the forum, they're saying that the official web site address is published on the band's album. I don't have any copies of the band's album; does anyone else? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Just for full disclosure: I've registered at the forum and had a short discussion with the webmaster there. I'm hoping to find a scan of the album that has the web address on it, which would resolve the question pretty neatly. And if it isn't on the album... that would resolve it pretty neatly, too. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

And now I'm going rollerskating for the evening, so that's all I'll be doing on it. Whee! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If it can be proven that it is official, that's fine. That isn't my concern, per se. (I believe there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that says that it is not actually an official page, although using unreliable/biases sources for BLP pages -- which is what the "fan page" was being used for especially those that aren't being followed closely is very problematic) but, the user has time and again personally attacked people as opposed to acting civil. Because of major errors made on websites administered by the same person, as well as his unprofessional conduct here on Misplaced Pages in answering legitimate questions about the nature of the site, its difficult to believe that this website is an "official" website, and not just a fan site.

Also, just to be clear, I have no real issue with this band, etc. I came aware of this through the false information about that was listed on the Jacquie O'Sullivan (that she was working for a "Lee Dennison" which a different problematic editor added to Wikipeida (see the Ron Livingston talk page for more information about that), that was then most likely subsequently added to the Jacquie O'Sullivan website. So, it seems that the webmaster was using Misplaced Pages as a source for information on his websites. The owner claims both the websites are official, and claims to be the webmaster of both. The owner also wishes to not only list the website, but to use the website as reliable source, which, because of the errors that have previously been shown to occur on these websites, is problematic.

Also, with things for sale on his website (although, curiously enough for an official website, not the new album which is released under the artists self-owned label), the webmaster also as a personal, financial stake in using Misplaced Pages for advertising to get the word out about his website.

However, his constant rebuttal to the suggestion that these are not in fact has been constantly been "because I say so," has become uncivil when people do not take his word for it. That incivility actually is the larger issue. This continuous incivility is why I brought this here. XinJeisan (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Official Shakespears Sister And Siobhan Fahey Web Site

Thank you FisherQueen for visiting our forum. I have uploaded the evidence here:: www. shakespears sister.co.uk/SFTRR.jpg (please remove the space between shakespears and sister ) I would like to complain here myself for the unfair treatment from XinJeisan, who in my opinion has totally acted in an unprofessional manner. Firstly; Songs From The Red Room, is not sold via the website, as it is a new release and availble via retailers during its Charting period. Websites very rarely sell new releases through their own web site, they usually provie and external link to another retailer, as we have done. Secondly, I totally think that XinJeisan is talking of another L Dennison, as I have no idea what that discussion is about on Ron Livingstons talk page. I can confirm I am the webmaster of both Jacquie O'Sullivan and Siobhan Fahey, both former members of Bananarama. Jacquie O'sullivan did work for L Dennison Associates where she casted dancers for music videos productions. My "attacks" on XinJesian were not exactly attacks, they were simply my opinion, and at first i was polite when I asked to why these sites were being removed. But my frustration, built as clearly Xinjesian and Momusfan clearly were not researching the matter properly. Finally, as for advertising, it has always been a well known fact to fans that the MGA Sessions was strictly a web site release! Sold exclusively on Fahey's old web site siobhanfahey.com, and now sold on her new site shakespears sister. co. uk. This wasnt an advertisment, it was helpful information to fans. Thank you for taking time to review this matter. And for the record, shakespears sister.co.uk should eb applied to both Siobhan Fahey and Shakespears Sister wiki pages, as Shakespears Sister is Siobhan Fahey.

May i also ad that Xinjesian claims that i have used multiple IPS is totally untrue and with propper research you can see this. I have the one IP address, and my service provider is not Carphone warehouse and never has been. I think Xinjesian saw that our forum members were trying to add the site in support of Siobhan, and he/she has assumed/accused me of chaging my IP address. I really do not appreciate being accused of that. Antmarkhemingway (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that the image in question seems to show that this is indeed the official web site, I think that it should be removed from the blacklist. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Accounts

• Antmarkhemingway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 92.13.53.79 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.6.238.202 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.10.15.171 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.12.126.195 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.3.104.60 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.8.226.103 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.9.69.179 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.0.153.204 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.3.214.51 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Registrant(Owner) of these sites is Anthony Hemingway (AKA Antmarkhemingway (talk · contribs)). Long term spamming and abuse including Moving ones own link "UP", which is never a sign of good faith, and off site harassment and personal attacks origionating on the site in question. I Would find it difficult to believe this is anything more than a fan-spammed-site. I see no need for the continued disruption, harassment and abuse that has occured by this individual.--Hu12 (talk) 06:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat at Hentai

An IP editor has made this legal threat regarding an image on the article Hentai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (NSFW). Nihonjoe (talk · contribs) has already left a note about not making legal threats on the IPs talkpage. Looking though the article's, there appears to have been several attempts to remove the image since it was added in July 2009. There may be a need to make this a protected image. —Farix (t | c) 22:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked. He's said very clearly that he will be suing Misplaced Pages, which means his lawyer needs to contact Wikimedia counsel. If he was lying, that is his responsibility to clarify. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

B once again

/b/ attack at Osaka. Thread at: /b/res/194078892 Jarkeld (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Please look at activity of BellsFromSeychelles

This user made some edits that I disagreed with. When I asked if we could discuss it on the articles discussion page the edits escalated and appear to me to be vandalism, or at least a heavy attack to ruin the article. Please check this out. The page I am concerned with is the David Carradine article.--Ishtar456 (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing really concerning here. You both edit that page, and I could see where you are coming from since you seem to have a strong emotional attachment with the page. Just try and talk it out with him and come to a consensus. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sterile revert warring

Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot (talk · contribs) is engaging in sterile revert warring in violation of WP:STATUSQUO. The account has made a number of edits at List of Internet phenomena, one of those edits was to blank a section that has existed there for years. I reinserted the section and expected the account to then refrain from reverting and instead discuss and/or seek dispute resolution. Instead, he has engaged in a sterile revert war and referred to the section as "wrong" and promised to keep reverting me . Per STATUSQUO, the status quo is to be retained and consensus is to be sought to CHANGE the status quo. This editor seems to refuse to accept this and states that the STATUSQUO policy does not apply because I am "wrong". Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, I see other issues with his editing, including marking nearly all of his edits (including huge ones) as minor and using some rather questionable edit summaries. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to this discussion. I almost always include an edit summary in every edit, and I don't see how any of them are "questionable". If I am being accused of vandalizing, that is a false accusation. WTF? (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe this is a violation of WP:STATUSQUO in this case because the reverts made by Burpelson AFB were done without any understanding to previous edits of the page. As I explained here, the email section was removed because those items simply do not fall under the category of "internet phenomena", and are really email hoaxes or false virus warnings. There's already a separate listing of Virus hoaxes as it is. I tried to explain myself reasonably, but that was reverted, hence why I reverted again. WTF? (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You're trying to turn it into a content dispute. It's not, this is a complaint about your behavior, which is in violation of STATUSQUO. That guideline is clear. Two of the three listings wouldn't go in the virus hoaxes category anyway since they're not virus hoaxes. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) This is a clear-cut content dispute. Take it back to the article talkpage, WP:CNB or WP:ANEW. If none of that works, try over there -->. —DoRD (?) (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editor

Can something be done about this IP editor who is using these IPs 201.73.141.50 (talk · contribs) and 189.76.226.161 (talk · contribs)? The IPs are both from Brazil and are editing the same and only one article. First off, they are deliberately changing sourced data even though the sources do not agree, to make their edit "seem" legitimate and push their own POV. Secondly to make it seem like they're edits are legitimate, they are deleting references to what it seems like conceal information and lie. Furthermore, they have been disruptively editing on the only article they have been editing even despite warnings I gave for edit warring, they persist on reinstating the same edits (deleting references and changing sourced information). They also have been reverted by two other editors: Revert 1, Revert 2. Elockid ·_Contribs) 03:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for Admin Assistance: WP:WikiProject Medicine/Toxicology task force article assessment table not working

Hi -- I've been working on setting up the Wikiproject Medicine Toxicology task force, and I'm just about done, but am having a problem with the article assessment statistics table. Please see the project home page, in the section "Tagging/Assessment" ... for some reason, the table of statistics will not show up. What am I doing wrong?

Thanks, Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed (your table was missing the pipe to start the cell in which the template was residing), though it's pointing to a page which doesn't exist. Is that what you needed? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Nihonjoe -- it should be showing a table with article assessment statistics in it. See for example, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment#Task force statistics -- it should look like the tables for all of those other task forces. I've totally bungled my attempts at getting the table working. The table displays now, but it isn't working properly. Please see my notes on the project home page about what I did wrong for the table (the notes are in the "Tasks/Todo" section)

Thanks for fixing the other problem though. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks and disruption on Talk:Sarah Palin

We need an uninvolved admin at Talk:Sarah Palin, where Scribner (talk · contribs) has descended (again) into personal attacks and tendentious editing. Disregarding his total failure to assume good faith (towards any editor whose views differ from his own), he has made his current target SB_Johnny (talk · contribs) who was identified by the community as an uninvolved admin assigned to deal with disputes on the article. (See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive504#Sarah Palin probation proposal.) Since Johnny is the target of Scribner's abuse, he might be accused of a CoI if he blocks Scribner, so I am asking for another uninvolved editor to take a look and decide if action needs to be taken. FWIW, I have a long history of conflict with Scribner on this specific article (and no others), so take this report with a grain of salt. Horologium (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

He's pushed a lot, but not to the point of blockability quite, in my opinion. I have left a warning on his talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Horologium, you've got history with this article that's quite embarrassing. (Redacted personal attack.) But, as an administrator and editor you're the worst I've encountered. Scribner (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, on top of Johnny's failed enforcement of policy regarding personal attacks, there's been retaliation edits on the TN GOP article by Malke. So, in attempting one simple edit on the Palin page, I feel like I've suffer three separate retaliations. Wiki at its worst. Scribner (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've redacted an absolutely unnecessary personal attack from the preceding comment. jæs (talk) 06:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)