Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:59, 16 December 2010

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

BLP violations by User:Delicious carbuncle

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

• Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Repeated BLP violations by the user in question, despite requests to stop and 3:1 consensus at WP:RSN against using a questioned source that fails WP:RS on a WP:BLP page.

1. Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) adds controversial info sourced to website "www.truthaboutscientology.com" to WP:BLP page on Jamie Sorrentini, diff link
2. After talk page discussion, this issue was taken to WP:RSN. At the RSN discussion three editors, myself and two others, did not support use of this website as a source.
3. Fifelfoo stated, "Unreliable. Self-published; absence of recognised expertise; no editorial oversight."
4. Becritical commented, "There's no indication that the site is reliable."
5. Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) was shown a prior Request for Comment on the matter, where dispute resolution did not find consensus to use the website as a source, at Talk:Catherine_Bell/Archive_1#Request_for_Comments_-_Use_of_the_.22truthaboutscientology.22_website from 2007.
6. In a strange edit summary actually acknowledging there is no consensus supporting use of a questionable source in a BLP, Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) willfully violated BLP anyways, and added the questionable info back with the website source that fails WP:RS, see diff link.
7. I posted a note to the user's talk page, asking him to stop the BLP violations at the BLP page, and stated the issue would be reported if the disruptive behavior continued, see diff link.
8. Despite the 3:1 consensus against using this website source from the WP:RSN thread, and the WP:BLP issues involved as mentioned at the user's talk page - Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) proceeded to add this website source and questionable info to the BLP page, now a 3rd time, see diff link.

Requesting a previously uninvolved admin take action here. The info violates WP:RS and violates WP:BLP. It is contentious, poorly sourced info about a BLP, and should be removed from this BLP page. Admin action should be taken with respect to the disruptive behavior of Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs); deferring to uninvolved admins to review. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 07:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• This looks also as though it has WP:ARBSCI implications, especially remedy 13 and remedy 4. --Jayron32 07:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, however the user has not been previously notified of WP:ARBSCI by an uninvolved admin. In any event, it seems actionable simply under the repeated WP:BLP violations, itself. -- Cirt (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    • DC has now been notified that all Scientology articles are under ARBCOM sanction. I have also removed the contested text per WP:BURDEN and WP:BLP pending resolution of the issue. I have no opinion over the reliability of the source nor of the appropriateness or relevence of the text to the article in question; the removal of the text is purely administrative as Misplaced Pages policy is clear that contested text of this nature is to be left out until the dispute is resolved. --Jayron32 08:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

He obviously meant the edit summary to be "there appears to be no consensus on NOT using this source and it is used on other BLPs" We really need to have a consensus for or against using it, it seems to be a wider issue. I see no indication of editorial oversight as I said before, and would not use it. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 09:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply by Delicious carbuncle

I am not a Scientologist nor an activist against Scientology. In fact, I have no particular interest in Scientology and have no strong opinion on the reliability of the source that seems to have sparked this tempest in a teapot, but I hope that this episode does get the attention of ArbCom as there is clearly something very wrong in the area of Scientology-related articles.

1. I identified Jamie Sorrentini as a Scientologist, citing a source that at that time was being used in other biographies of living people (I know this because I copied the citation from another BLP to save myself a bit of typing).
2. Literally within a minute of my adding that reference, Cirt had removed it, claiming it was not a reliable source.
3. After I point out on the article's talk page that Cirt has used that source themselves, they state "I have not used that source for years, after discussion on multiple talk pages and consensus against using that website as a source".
   1. The first statement is simply wrong, as this same source had been added by Cirt to articles as recently as August 2009, including BLPs (eg Barret Oliver). What is more , as recently as April, Cirt left the source in a BLP when they went on a spree of trimming information from BLPs of Scientologists.
   2. The second statement (about consensus) appears to be wrong, although it is repeated by Cirt in the WP:RSN thread that they started ("Consensus in the past at Scientology-related talkpages has been that it is not an acceptable source and fails WP:RS"). When Cirt provides a link to this consensus, it is a discussion from 2007 that is inconclusive and where Cirt (editing at that time as User:Smee) is in favour of using the source. Cirt later contradicts their earlier statements by stating that "There is not consensus now, there was not consensus then...".
4. Minutes after saying "there is not consensus now", Cirt posts in the RSN thread saying that I had gone against consensus and "violated BLP" by adding the information back into the article. Again, this was a source that was being used in other BLPs and the RSN thread was still very new.
5. In messages left on my talk page and elsewhere, Cirt uses the phrase "3:1 consensus" meaning that three editors have suggested that the source is not reliable and one (ostensibly me) believes it o be a reliable source. This appears to be a novel interpretation of consensus.

Although I was not aware of the extent of Cirt's involvement with that source, my feeling is that they were content to use it so long as it suited their purposes. Once I used it to label Jamie Sorrentini as a Scientologist (and note that there appears to be no dispute that Sorrentini was a member of the Church of Scientology), Cirt decided that it was no longer a reliable source. Only after this dispute began did Cirt remove the source from CoS-related articles. And only after being questioned about it did Cirt remove sections in BLPs that were left unsourced or poorly sourced by that removal.

To be plain, Cirt's purpose here and on Wikinews is to advocate against the Church of Scientology (hereafter referred to as CoS for brevity). Not to ensure a neutral point of view, but to identify, minimize, and add negative information about members of the CoS and the CoS itself. This is the sole reason for the puff piece Cirt created about an otherwise unremarkable minor actress named Jamie Sorrentini who has split from the CoS and become a critic. It does not suit Cirt's purpose to have her labelled as a Scientologist, hence the aggressive reaction to my edits, by which I hope Cirt has helped to make the real issue clear. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The simple issue here is of Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) adding a poor source website that fails WP:RS to a WP:BLP page, then when this was clearly disputed and consensus did not exist to re-add the source, repeatedly, to the WP:BLP page, Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) did so anyway, despite objections to the source from multiple editors at WP:RSN. -- Cirt (talk) 08:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You can certainly fault DC for using a BLP to make his

Cirt, do you dispute anything that I wrote about your anti-Scientology POV-pushing, and the disturbing ownership of Scientology-related BLPs that you have demonstrated through your actions in this tempest in a teapot? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• There is quite a difference from adding the link in as an EL and using it as a reference in an article. Furthermore, the consensus at the RSN discussion is quite apparent and it seems to me that you are the only one arguing for this, even when multiple other users have clearly explained why it shouldn't be used. Also, you went ahead and added the information back in, twice, essentially starting an edit war. I agree that something needs to be done about this, especially in light of the ARBCOM sanction in the article area. Silverseren 19:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • You seem to be misunderstanding the situation, Silver seren - no one is arguing for the use of that source. I have agreed that it is not a reliable source, and it has been removed from all articles where it was used as a reference or as an external link. The issue is now Cirt's POV-pushing and anti-Scientology activities. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
    • DC, can I suggest that if you have specific BLP or NPOV concerns with entries edited heavily by Cirt that you attempt to engage him directly about those concerns first? To my pleasant surprise he immediately addressed two such concerns when I brought them up at the RS/N. See Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#BLP_Problems_remain_in_two_entries. Just a suggestion. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Scientology-related article fall-out

Rather than spread this out across WP:RSN, WP:BLPN, and WP:NPOVN, I am going to post items here to back up my allegations of Cirt's anti-Scientology agenda. I believe it is glaringly obvious, but some recent examples may be helpful. Bear in mind while reading this that Cirt is an admin who is very well-versed in our policies and guidelines, that my interest here is our neutral point of view (not Scientology), and why this thread was started. To make sense of this, it is also helpful if you know that Jamie Sorrentini is someone who has split from the Church of Scientology and is now publicly critical of that group.

Only after I used the source to cite that Jamie Sorrentini was a Scientologist did Cirt object to www.truthaboutscientology.com. Cirt repeatedly and falsely claimed there was consensus against using this source and inaccurately claimed that they had not used it "for years". In fact, there was no such consensus -- although there is now -- and Cirt had used this same source for the same purpose as recently as August 2009. More to the point, that source was left in biographies of living persons edited by Cirt, as this example from April 2010 shows. It was only after Cirt had started this thread and the RSN thread that they went through and began removing it from articles.

I fully support the removal of the www.truthaboutscientology.com source, but although Cirt is normally a very careful editor, their edits have left us with some problems:

• Heron Books - this article, which has a large Scientology footer on it and lots of Scientolgy categories, appears to exist only to label it as related to Scientology. Where it previously used that source to identify the founding headmaster as a Scientologist (i.e. a WP:COATRACK article), Cirt's removal has left it with no source at all for the connection to Scientology. Although untouched by this, Delphi Schools appears to be in a similar situation (and is similarly a coatrack article).
• Barret Oliver is now identified as a Scientologist, completely unsourced.
• Alexandra Powers continues to be in Category:American Scientologists despite the removal of the poorly sourced identification. This article could probably be speedily deleted for lack of notability.
• On Lee Baca, Cirt removes the reference (which was actually applied to the 'wife of the subject) but then takes another swipe to remove what appears to fairly innocuous material sourced to CoS sites. Heavy-handed removal of positive or neutral material about people associated with the CoS seems to be a pattern with Cirt. Note that Cirt failed to remove an unsourced statement about the Baca's salary.

Much of this could be attributed to plain sloppy editing, which would be unlike Cirt, but in each case it serves Cirt's purpose, which is to identify, minimize, and add negative information about the CoS and associated individuals. The flip side of that is creating articles about anti-Scientologists like Jamie Sorrentini and oddly controversial wine bars. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• This has absolutely nothing to do with your actions explained above and is clearly an attempt of misdirection of the topic onto Cirt in order to avoid coming under further scrutiny yourself. Bringing up events from the past (events that are about content disputes no less) about another user in a discussion about your own conduct is not appropriate. Silverseren 21:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Silver seren, considering that all Scientology-related articles are under an ArbCom probation, I fully expect to be under a great deal of scrutiny for this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I asked Cirt to remove this material. It is trivial at best.Griswaldo (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Silver I can't make heads or tails of how you get from here to there. I think it is clearer than day that User:Delicious carbuncle inserted that reference specifically to make a WP:POINT -- and yes I think he ought to be admonished for violating WP:POINT. However, what he is now doing appears, again rather obviously, to be the larger point he was trying to make in the first place. By all means take issue with his methods, I think there are issues to take with them, but lets not pretend to misunderstand what is going on. Carbuncle, if you think there are serious NPOV, or BLP issues with some of Cirt's articles you should have posted to the NPOV/N or BLP/N and not inserted an obviously unreliable reference to one of his articles to illustrate your point. That said, I think at this point this is exactly the type of productive thing that can come out of this. I have already, myself, started addressing some of the issues. Please keep them coming.Griswaldo (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

As some one who has a lot of interaction with Cirt, due to our similar interests (though completely ideological perspectives) I am unsure of what your problem is. I suspect it because you believe him to be paid editor with COI. That being said I cant see what the problem is other than your irritated with him and assume things that may or may not (and knowing Cirt are not.) If you feel so strongly collect evidence in RFC/U but really I fail to see any issue apparent here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not irritated with Cirt, nor do I believe them to be a paid editor (although that has been suggested by others, as the link you provided shows). My "problem" with Cirt is the campaign against the CoS which they are waging on Misplaced Pages. Cirt does a lot of good work in both an editorial and admin capacity, but it is time to put a stop to their rather blatant POV-pushing. As much of a problem as the pro-Scientology activists have been here, we should be looking for a neutral stance rather than having one of our admins using Misplaced Pages to advance their own ideological position. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not the proper venue then, I but heads with him more often than not. Cirt does good work thus people at WP:NRM and balance him out quite adequately for NPOV. His extensive collection of work demonstrates the ability for neutrality. start an RF/U or drop the stick there is nothing here that needs immediate Admin attention. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity when do you butt heads with him? I agree that I'm not sure this is the right venue. RFC/U does seem more like what carbuncle is looking for unless he wants to just tackle the content issues in which case there are several applicable noticeboards, and I already mentioned two above.Griswaldo (talk) 05:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

While the noticeboards can help with individual articles, they are not intended to deal with a pattern of biased actions. I have placed notes on the relevant ones linking to this discussion. There is no need for an RFC/U as all Scientology-related articles and editors are already covered by the WP:ARBSCI ruling. I have notified ArbCom of this discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

More fallout: Speedyclick.com & Doug Dohring

Connections with Scientology The founders of SpeedyClick, Farid Tabibzadeh and Shahab Emrani are both OT VIIIs, the highest currently attainable level of the Church of Scientology. Doug Dohring, Scientologist and CEO of NeoPets, was a significant shareholder and personal acquaintance of Tabibzadeh and Emrani. Donna Williams, co-founder of NeoPets, worked as an administrative assistant at SpeedyClick for a short period of time. Like NeoPets, SpeedyClick was run according to Scientology business management techniques.

I am not sure how it is relevant that the former owners were Scientologists, but the source used is something called "Freewinds 45 (Scientology publication)". Note what Cirt said when questioned by another editor about {http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Lee_Purcell&diff=401216959&oldid=400929558 removing Scientology sources] from an article just days ago: "In particular those primary sources are notoriously unreliable and will say whatever they wish to manufacture, in order to promote the parent organization. Get it?". So it is ok to source membership in the CoS to CoS publications, but not to cite that someone was the MC at an event?

In the external links section, there are links to what purport to be (but are likely not) the personal websites of the former owners, identifying them as Scientologists. Remember that this article is ostensibly about a company not about the former owners. The section that links those named individuals to spamming either relies on dead links or is fabricated since I could turn up nothing relevant at Spamhaus. (Finally, could someone remove the AdPro Auction spam from Speedyclick? I'd rather not touch anymore CoS-related articles in case people misunderstand my goals here.)

According to the Church of Scientology's magazine Source, Dohring completed the course OT VI, which, according to Scientology, means that he is progressing on a program to become "essentially a being able to operate free of the encumbrances of the material universe".

I can see no reason for including that quote except to make Dohring appear foolish. Although they removed the one source that was under discussion, Cirt, an admin who claims to be very concerned about my possible violation of WP:BLP, managed to overlook all of the things that I have pointed out in articles that are in Cirt's primary editing area. I am sure if someone wants to start digging, it won't be hard to find much more evidence to back this up. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The case is well made that Cirt is an attack account. I'm sure this will be dealt with now. Right?Bali ultimate (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The above comment clearly violates NPA. Silverseren 23:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are you spinning all of this as if it was a Cirt problem? Did Cirt introduce those problems in the articles? (assuming for the moment that they are problematic, which I cannot judge yet). No, apparently he did not. He hardly edited these two articles at all, and the only edits I can find are those where he removes those external links, an action which you say is justified. What kind of twisted logic is this: he went and touched an article, uncontroversally fixing a problem, so now he's suddenly responsible for all remaining problems in that article, real or perceived, that he happened not to fix? If you feel those articles are problematic, then go and fix them, otherwise drop the stick, or this is going to become a boomerang for you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's a Cirt problem, but the references to publications such as Freewinds is certainly problematic. A fair few of the articles are just unsourced coatrack articles, and although I have every respect for Cirt, there does seem to be an ongoing issue as to whether or not in-house magazines such as Freewinds are actually good enough for references on BLPs. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The simple cases are in the "Scientology-related article fall-out" section above. In Barret Oliver for example, Cirt did add the source. When Cirt removed the source, they left Oliver identified as a Scientologist with no sourcing at all. Cirt is an admin. An admin who claims to be very concerned about WP:BLP. Scientology is their primary editing area. Cirt reacted very aggressively to my sourced addition that someone was a Scientologist, yet when they edit BLPs they accidentally leave people identified as Scientologists with no sourcing at all? In multiple cases? So you are suggesting that Cirt is merely incompetent? Sometimes? But that the rest of the time they are fastidious? Really? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

So he committed an error of judgment by adding that external link (not "source"), and then he later fixed his own mistake by removing it again. So what? It still wasn't him who inserted the claims about Sc. membership in the article – that was in there unsourced even before his first edit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• I echo Future Perfect. Are you seriously going to say that any user who edits an article must immediately notice anything bad that's in it and removed it or it is their fault that the bad stuff is in there? That is utterly ridiculous. It is not his responsibility to remove all of those things from the article. If he had been the one to add them in, that would be one thing. But he didn't. This is a completely frivilous section and an utter waste of time. ANI should not be used for content improvement. If you don't have any actual situations to report based on a user's conduct, then this discussion should be closed. Silverseren 23:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
  • It's not just that Cirt has left BLP violations inserted by other editors; this edit is as clear a BLP violation as any I've seen. At Talk:List of Scientologists Cirt insisted for a long while that anyone who had ever done a Scientology course should be listed as a Scientologist, because that is the definition of a Scientologist the Church of Scientology uses (to inflate their membership statistics). Listing people like Chaka Khan, Gloria Gaynor and Will Smith as Scientologists spawned several BLPN threads, and got Jimbo involved. Cirt wrote a complete puff piece on minor politician Kenneth Dickson (Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Kenneth_Dickson_(2nd_nomination)), because Dickson at the time stood against another candidate deemed too friendly to Scientology. Cirt has in many ways become more cooperative and proactive in recent months when there have been disputes, and has written some articles on Scientology of late with whose neutrality I was genuinely impressed, given Cirt's history in this topic area, but no one should pretend that Cirt's hands are entirely clean here. They are not. --JN466 01:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
    • That doesn't change the fact that ANI is not the place for this content discussion. Take it to the article talk pages or make a subpage somewhere, but it shouldn't be at ANI. Silverseren 04:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
      • ANI is, however, the place to discuss editor behavior. If these edits do show a pattern of tendentious editing, that can be dealt with here. — The Hand That Feeds You: 23:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
    • OK, I'm lost, can someone explain why that video link is a BLP violation? I'm sure I'm missing something obvious, but I'd appreciate the explanation anyways. Hobit (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
      • It is a self-published YouTube video, airing various allegations against living persons, including rumours of sexual abuse. It fails WP:BLPSPS. (Imagine your son making a YouTube video about all the things they didn't like in school, and you including that video in our article on the school.) --JN466 16:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
        • I've only listened to parts and didn't hear any names (I'm not doubting you though). If there are such clear BLP issues, why not nominate the file for deletion? In any case, I think the accusations in the file are of abuse, and much stronger than just things she didn't like (yes, being made to sleep without adequate protection from the weather is abuse.) Don't think that has anything to do with the BLP issue, but your attitude about such claims worries me quite a bit. It's more than a child complaining, it's an adult describing abuse they suffered as a child and to brush that aside as a child describing things they don't like bothers me quite a bit. Hobit (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
          • It is self-published, Hobit, and the people who ran the school are mentioned by name in the article. We either have a BLP policy or not. In Roman Catholic sex abuse cases we don't include links to self-published YouTube testimonials about sexual abuse suffered at the hands of Catholic priests either, no matter how harrowing or genuine they may appear. We wouldn't even do this if there had been an actual verification of the crime and conviction in a court of law. If you tried, you would find yourself here on this board and subject to sanctions within a very short time. --JN466 11:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Case study number one: Michael Doven

Michael Doven is apparently an actor and a producer. His biography was created almost solely by Cirt. We actually get four sentences into the lede before Scientology is mentioned (if you discount the completely unnecessary reference to well-known Scientologist Beck in the second sentence). Like other BLPs of this type, it is a coatrack on which to hang information about the individual's connection to the CoS. There are four paragraphs in the section labelled "Career" - the first is fluff the rest are about Scientology. Those who doubt my accusations against Cirt should simply read this article and ask themselves if this is just a normal BLP or if it is something more. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this article was problematic. It did have the appearance of a Coatrack. I think that it has improved drastically now, with Cirt's colaboration. One possibly remaining problem is whether it conforms to WP:EGRS, and whether the person in fact selfidentifies as a scientologist.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see action by Maunus (talk · contribs) in edit to article, see edit summary: "remove neutrality tag - Cirt has argued well for the merit of included material" -- thank you very much for this. This comment and action is most appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Case study number two: Jamie Sorrentini

Jamie Sorrentini (the article involved with the start of this ANI thread) is an minor television actress. Most similar bios do not survive AfD, but they are usually created by publicists or the actors themselves, not by Misplaced Pages admins. It may be helpful to connect some dots here:

• 15 July 2010 - Marty Rathbun, well known critic of the CoS, posts on his blog a piece by "Jamie Sorrentini Lugli" about her split with the CoS.
• 15 July 2010 - Cirt creates Jamie Sorrentini
• 16 July 2010 - Cirt creates Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant. The restaurant is named after one of the founding partners, Daryl Sorrentini, mother of Jamie Sorrentini, and herself a former member of the CoS.
• 8 October 2010 - Rathbun posts an entry entitled "Free Daniel Montalvo". According to Rathbun, Jamie Sorrentini and her husband Tiziano Lugli got Montalvo released from jail by posting his bail.
• 9 October 2010 - Cirt uploads the image of Daniel Montalvo uses on Rathbun's blog entry to Commons
• 9 October 2010 - Cirt creates an article on Wikinews entitled "Scientology defector arrested after attempting to leave organization". One of a long series of anti-CoS articles created by Cirt. There likely isn't a lot of positive news about the CoS, but nor is there a need to write negative pieces, except by choice.
• 22 October 2010 - Rathbun posts an update about Daniel Montalvo, including the information that his lawyer is John Duran.
• 23 October 2010 - Cirt uploads an image of John Duran (plus two cropped versions)
• 23 October 2010 - Cirt makes nearly a dozen edits to John Duran including adding the image from above.

I haven't taken the time to find further correspondence between Rathbun's blog and Cirt's edits, but it should be blindingly obvious by the above that Cirt is in lock-step with a well-known critic of the CoS. It should also be clear that Cirt's contributions on Wikinews need to be examined to get the whole picture. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

yah, and that proves nothing as far as WP:NPOV is concerned, because wikipedia is not concerned with your personal opinion, personal motivation, or even where you get your inspiration. Even WP:COI doesn't say "if you get your inspiration from" or "people with the following opinion/occupation can't...". All of those articles you mentioned are sourced, verifiable, and a few went through heavy discussion to validate their notability.Coffeepusher (talk) 07:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Yeah, I read the blog. That is in and of itself a non-issue. Actually, if from there I find BLPs that need quality improvement, that is a good thing. This is simply an attempt by Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) to deflect attention away from the user's BLP violations. -- Cirt (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing for me to deflect. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

 Note:: User:Cirt is requesting Arbitration Enforcement under WP:ARBSCI sanctions for User:Delicious carbuncle at WP:AE#Delicious carbuncle

Cirt's anti-Scientology articles on Wikinews

User:Malcolm Schosha and User:Kwork

This is a multiply banned user. Kwork got dinged years ago, then was allowed to "vanish." He somehow was allowed to return as User:Malcolm Schosha got banned under that account too (mostly for serial and unfounded accusations of antisemitism against people who disagreed with him). That discussion is here.. He's then been found to be socking through IPs, advocating for other banned/indef blocked users, throwing around unfounded and hateful accusations against others (me among them, if that wasn't obvious). When i came up against him, i figured out who the IP belonged too by looking at old talk pages and archives of noticeboards like this one. If I were to be subject to such stalking and abuse now (without the background i have in my head at this point) I wouldn't be able to put two and two together. Why? A series of "courtesy deletions" of the "Malcolm Schosha" talk pages and user pages. If one goes to any of the old noticeboards and stumbles across the name Malcolm Schosha (or, as i did, looks at the "global contributions" of one of his IPs and find him correcting his own logged out edits on commons, where he's still somewhat active as "Malcolm Schosha") and try to look at the user's contributions, you find he's been airbrushed out of history. It turns out that, as a courtesy to this banned abusive editor, an account called User:Kwork2 has been created for his old contributions. But you'd never find it or stumble across it in the same way. It's my understanding that banned, abusive editors don't have a right to vanish, or courtesy blankings, or what have you, particularly ones with a recent record of socking to abuse others. As I see it, a nationalist edit warrior (who repeatedly said he intended to sock and edit as he sees fit, when he sees fit) is being enabled by this obfuscation of the history. What do i want? While i think the talk page of Schosha should be restored, i'll let that go. All i want is a redirect from the old name User:Malcolm Schosha to the "courtesy rename" of User:Kwork2. Why? So others will have as good a chance of catching him and his abuse when/if he turns on them. Would be interested to hear the reasoning behind these favors being done for this fellow, and why they're being done (obviously emails/chatroom stuff).Bali ultimate (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's his contributions under the name "Malcolm Schosha" at commons. . Have a look at the block log. Reminisicent of his own behavior here.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Malcolm Schosa has done lasting damage to a lot of articles (see his tactics at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Judaization_of_Jerusalem/Archive_1 ) and contributed to the dreadful state of the Middle East topic. It's difficult to understand why his contribution record has disappeared, other than to make it easier for him to return and carry on where he's been forced to leave off. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

"Courtesy deletion" of a usertalk page? We don't do that (or at least, admins who aren't intent on acting contrry to policy don't do it). DuncanHill (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

uhh Duncan you should prolly check the page then; Malcolm's user talk page was deleted for courtesy reasons. User:Smith Jones 23:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

That's bizarre. What possible purpose could erasing the history of a disruptive editor serve? Sol (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Any deleted talk pages should definitely be restored; these should be deleted only in exceptional circumstances. SlimVirgin 03:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the log, the userpage was deleted because "The intent here is to minimise drama and reduce disruption." Looks like it may have backfired a bit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

i thinkt here are issues with the right to wp:vanish here. his talkpage should be deleted since without it peopele can still interact with him as if hes still here, even though hes not. that is contrapositive to the purpose of the concept of the right of vanishment. User:Smith Jones 05:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Vanishing is a courtesy to users who make a credible announcement of their permanent departure from the site. If the vanished user breaches the courtesy by coming back, the vanishing can and should be withdrawn. Restore the pages as appropriate. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 06:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• The account has been renamed. While the redirect remains (and that is 100% of the content that I deleted, a redirect) he will continue to obsess over it. If it's gone, there is a chance he might not. WP:RTV. He freely acknowledges that any attempt to evade the block would be trivially easy to detect as his style is distinctive, and he understands that if he does come back then so will the redirects and templates. The issue is not that he's trying to obscure previous issues with an account, but that the account was in his real name. That is a mistake fro which we can and should allow people to recover, even if they are to remain blocked. Given that he has an account on Commons it is possible this was set up as a unified logon, I don't know; I have registered and blocked the account so that cannot happen again. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Last time he lied repeatedly, including claiming when caught that the fact he was socking was known about and approved of by Arbcom. His style had nothing to do with how I uncovered him when he was attacking me. I uncovered him because i looked at the contributions of the account "Malcolm Schosha." That is now impossible. What you've done is against policy, standard practice, and common sense. As for the "real name" -- that was his choice. He continues to use his "real name" on commons, where he also has a horrible reputation, so I think you're being taken for a ride when he tells you (by personal email) that his real name is a concern here. All you're doing is helping to cover the tracks of a serial abuser and sockpuppeter. The redirect should be restored. Bali ultimate (talk) 12:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Admins can still see everything, the way it's set up now. That said, I wholly agree that MS has asked for this as a way to cover the sad wake(s) he has left behind, likely for another comeback, which for both the project's sake and I would think, his own peace of mind and privacy, mustn't be allowed. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

In my case, I had to figure out who was harrasing me myself. What an admin might be able to see was irrelevant, and will be if this guy starts taking shots again at me or anyone else. This makes it easier for him to harrass again without being uncovered. The banned user is being enabled by JzG here.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe I can say, JzG isn't trying to enable anything of the kind. However, I do agree the lack of a redirect will hinder non-admins from looking into things if (which is to say, when) he does try to come back. There can be no "fresh start" on en.WP for this user, he's had at least three or four already. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Could have a bot replace every reference to User:Malcolm Schosha with User:Kwork2, but that's probably too disruptive. Barring that, I think he's forfeited the right to have the accounts unlinked given the consequences for enabling socking. Disclosure: Schosha almost made me quit WP. Rd232 13:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I had thought of that yesterday, but I've never seen it done cleanly and tidying up the loose bits would take scads of someone's volunteer time so I didn't bring it up. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Schosha continues to be active as "Malcolm Schosha" at a website called wikibias, a site where wikipedia editors gathe to coordinate efforts to fix what they perceive as bias against israel in wikipedia articles. Much of their work focuses on outing and harrasing editors here. For instance: . Most recent post of his i find there under the name "Malcolm Schosha" is Dec. 1. This stuff about his real name is a red herring.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say that's true, Bu and given that, I don't see harm in a redirect. Truth be told, only since this has come up again, I wouldn't care if all the histories of all his accounts were restored, though keeping them out of public view may indeed tamp down some kerfluffle. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's at minimum get the redirect back. As stanard practice, the talk page shouldn't have been deleted and should be restored, but i'm not going to fight about it. But the redirect is the minimum and I guess that will go back on shortly.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Malcolm Schosha should never have been deleted - blanking and/or redirecting are acceptable, but we don't speedy usertalk pages. They can go to MfD, but even then it's rare for them to be deleted. DuncanHill (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It won't tamp it down a bit. Schosha also infests the lowers rungs of the Misplaced Pages Review; getting these gift courtesy blankings/deletions...which should be undone IMO...hasn't altered his obsession one bit. Tarc (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC).

I agree that the talk page should be restored -- though it could live at "Kwork2" with a redirect. Interesting to find out what led Administrator Jpgordon to provide a "courtesy deletion" on Nov. 11 2010. In the logs, we see that Gwen had deleted the talk page in June 2008 per his first request to vanish and then that the talk page was restored by Happy-melon in May 2009 with the note "RTV has not been adhered to, restoring." Why exactly are rules and practices being bent into pretzels for a banned troll who made life hell for many contributors in good standing?Bali ultimate (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

None of the several deletions of the usertalk page were acceptable in policy. We don't speedy in RTV, and we don't speedy just because someone's a prolific banned troll. DuncanHill (talk) 14:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Kwork should have its history restored too. A lot of admins do seem to have been bending over backwards to protect this person. DuncanHill (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Kwork was deleted in November 2007 by User:Pedro with edit summary "User request - right to vanish - after due consideration. Should be restored is user returns. content was: '{{:db-userreq|rationale=rationale. Since my actual name is on my user page, and in some talk page discussion, I would like to have my user page and". User:Malcolm Schosha was created in January 2008. So either Schosha isn't his real name, or he was screwing around with the original RTV request, because it would hardly make any sense to RTV because of privacy and then create an account not that long after with your real name! Rd232 16:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have received an email from User:Kwork2 via the Misplaced Pages email, which he has asked me to convey to the board.

It is frustrating that I can not explain on AN/I what I am trying to get done.

It was never my intention to have my user pages deleted, and I did not request it. Neither am I trying to hide anything. What I wanted was to have the two tags ('banned' and 'sock') that were on the top of my user page and talk page removed and replaced with 'retired user'. I wanted nothing else changed.

The reason I wanted that done is because anyone on the web who does a search will see that, but the rules they refer to exist no place in the world but WP. The tags made me sound like a wiki-criminal or reprobate, and I am not. So the request seemed rather small, but has (so far) proved out of reach.

I only requested that my user name be changed when my request to remove the tags proved futile. But I would be quite satisfied to have my user pages restored to their former state as User:Malcolm Schosha, IF the tags are not placed there.

No doubt it was a mistake to edit with my own name; but, considering that I did, I think the request to put 'retired user' instead of the other tags is a modest request and changes nothing essential about my block.

I have promised that I will not return to WP. I have moved on to other things.

Perhaps you could convey this to the thread.

DuncanHill (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Trouble is, he's a twice banned user with a history of using socks to evade his blocks and attack other editors (which is what led to the page having "banned" restored to it after he started socking again. He's forfeited any standing here by his own behavior, for which he alone was and is responsible. And he continues to use the internet handle "Malcolm Schosha" to attack others elsewhere.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I must say, he learned years ago how to find admins who didn't know him and were willing to help with civil requests. That email is not unlike the first I ever got from him almost two years ago (?). It began, as I recall, with a request for "retired" tags. Over time, with input from other helpful-minded admins, it became yet another "fresh start." I could look into the background further but I don't think it's worth my time. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, he found me and I'm not an admin. The history of the talk pages should be restored, as there was never any justification for deleting them. DuncanHill (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• Here's the simple truth: if we insist on having a redirect, he will waste the Foundation's money responding to a frivolous lawsuit. And the benefit we get form this is... is... is... no, actually, I can't see any benefit. Other than the satisfaction of making it plain just how much we don't like him, which I think he already knows and so do we. Is there anything worng with shoing a little class here? Guy (Help!) 16:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • This has the effect of enabling him (I accept that's not your intent). Lawsuit? What nonesense. On what grounds? He'd be laughed out of court (indeed, prolly out of the lawyer's office when he asks one to take the case). He's just throwing empty threats (apparently) by email. The benefit is not to allow him to try to drive more editors away -- you know, the editors who haven't been indefinitely blocked and banned.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The benefit is not facilitating a sockmaster in escaping detection of future socking. Why should we believe he won't sock again, when he's still active in coordinating in the dissemination of his beliefs on WP? Let him sue, it's not our problem (and he's probably bluffing anyway). Rd232 17:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

"The tags made me sound like a wiki-criminal or reprobate, and I am not." We seem to have a disconnect here: that's exactly what the tags are there to warn people of. He's got a laundry list of blocks on both accounts and appears to have dedicated a lot of time to earning his ban. If he wants a "Retired user" tag he should have retired. Removing his history does nothing but makes it easier for him to come back. Whether or not Malcolm Shoscha is his real name, he's indemnified WP from any privacy tort by volunteering it as his user name. Sol (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

What's the concrete objection to User talk:Malcolm Schosha being undeleted, blanked (in whatever fashion), and renamed without redirect to User talk:Kwork2? Uncle G (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• Uncle G -- do you have ANY idea that cost of defending of against even a frivolous lawsuit? Malcolm Schosha could burn away thousands ofdollars of Wikimedia Foundations money if he sues us under the WP:NLT barnstar. in the same time, we are also in the middle of one of the most comrpehensive fundraising campaigns in history. it would be a tragic and monsterous crime for this devious fiend to suck away all the money that has been raised so far in this foundations fundraising. Pehraps before we make a move we should contact Wikimedia Foundations legal counsel and seek his or her advice and assistance on how to proceed. User:Smith Jones 17:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • In amongst all that hyperbole, I cannot see an actual answer to my question. I repeat: What's the objection? Uncle G (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
    • The problem is the absence of the redirect from User talk:Malcolm Schosha to the new page (and from User:Malcolm Schosha to the new user page). Why? The redirects allow people who come across the edits/discussions involving "Malcolm Schosha" to actually find his history, rather than come to a complete dead end. That's the objection to the absence of redirects in a nutshell (and such redirects are standard practice). This is the general nature of the objections from others in this thread. If i'm misunderstanding, and it's possible to simply rename everything so that all the old links go seemlessly to "Kwork2" i wouldn't have a problem, and i doubt others would either. Is that feasible, i.e. if one clicks on User:Malcolm Schosha you're taken directly to the new page (and the histories) without redirect? Bali ultimate (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
      • No, not with the way that MediaWiki works. But that's an objection to a different thing — an objection to having no user page rather than an objection to restoring and renaming the user talk page. Consider the real Malcolm Schoshas of this world. (Is this this person's real name? There's certainly doubt about that. And do you have reason to think that there's no-one else in the world named that?) They find Google Web coming up with "Malcolm Schosha, Misplaced Pages troll and sockpuppetteer" high in the list of results for their names. That's one reason not to have everything in the name "Malcolm Schosha". But, as I've noted and as several others have noted, it's not a reason for the user talk page history to not be available, behind a blanking, at User talk:Kwork2, which at least would enable you and anyone else, along with this log entry and these log entries to find where the user went and read the old user talk page discussions, should that be necessary.

        Having the user talk page alongside the renamed account satisfies the sockpuppetteer, satisfies the people who want the talk page history available (when they come across an edit that leads them to Special:Contributions/Kwork2), and (additionally) prevents harm to the real Malcolm Schoshas of the world. I'm trying to determine whether there's a concrete objection to that state of affairs, because it seems like a reasonable, and simple, compromise amongst competing interests. Uncle G (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

        • If i follow you, that wouldn't satisfy me. I found this guy because i found a discussion of User:Malcolm Schosha. What i want is to be able to click on that link and get to somehwere that allows me to review his contributions and history. Right now it's a dead end, and will remain so by your proposal. I'm not concerned about satisfying him, and i'm particularly unconvinced by this "real name" nonsense. That was (and on commons and other sites, still is) his choice. There's no reputation risk for other m schosha's, if any exist (which is doubtful). It just shows that someone misbehaved on a website and got booted. Let's stop enabling this guy, particularly since it violates the websites policies and guidlines dealing with banned users, RTV, and so on.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• It would make things harder to understand any socking to come (which is likely, given the background) and easier, in time, to get what would be more or less his 5th "fresh start." I don't like saying it, but he has always gamed steps taken in the name of this project's forgiving and worthy outlook on tidying up the userspaces of those who have left, even under a cloud, to to speak. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The project's attitude to user talk pages is we don't speedy them - just some admins refuse to abide by policy. DuncanHill (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
    • The current, fairly new policy is that only bureaucrats can delete user talk pages under WP:RTV and that such deletions are seen as exceptions. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Policy for quite a long time has been that user talk pages are not eligibly for speedy (including RTV) and that MfD is the venue for their deletion. DuncanHill (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• • Maybe we should just tell trolls and sockers that the easiest way to get the evidence of their misbehaviour concealed is to threaten a lawsuit, and that certain admins will bend over backwards to help them. DuncanHill (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The account has already been renamed to Kwork2 (talk · contribs) and the talk page would at least be associated with the account whose contributions history it matches. What's the objection to undeleting it and having it there? That's what people are (in part) pressing for. What's the objection to that? Uncle G (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a compromise is possible: stick a "retired" tag there, but also link manually (not with template) and as politely as possible to the ban discussion and socks. Rd232 17:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• i agree with the above. although perhaos we should redact the link to the ban discusions and the socks. if this user is actually leaving, why maintain a secret file against him?? there is noer ason to continue to menace someone who has left the project; what is he going to do, badmouth us on some other site?? that hath never been a policy on Wikiepdia b4 and it should not become one now!!! By closing the book on this incident, it limits the amoun tof drama created and helps make the proejct more efficient and mature. User:Smith Jones 18:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Only saying, most of the time, RTV and other tidying done by request when a user leaves doesn't stir up much if any fuss, so we only hear about it when someone has come back and caused disruption. Mostly, from what I've seen, the way this kind of thing is handled on en.WP is most of the time indeed "mature" and "classy." This can be (and is now and then) gamed, but not all that often. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• In response to some of the above lawsuit discussions....whatever is decided here should not at all be made in concern with "spending the WMFs money" or similar sentiment. That is an ugly, slippery slope to go down. Tarc (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree. If someone sent me an email threatening to sue WmF I wouldn't even answer it, but would likely forward the email to arbcom. Likewise, I don't think talking about legal management is within the bounds of ANI. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• We had a recent RfC about deleting talk pages when users want to vanish, and the consensus was that they should not be deleted as a rule. The idea that this is an exception because it's his real name doesn't wash (whether it's his real name or not), because he set it up after he was blocked as Kwork, so he can't say he was a newbie who didn't understand the dangers of using real names. Regardless of what happens to the user pages—whether they are deleted, linked, or directed to new names—the talk pages ought to be undeleted, because they were not written by him. SlimVirgin 19:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• I agree that the user talk page should not have been deleted, and have asked JzG to restore it and to send it to MfD if he still believes there are good reasons for its deletion. I also see no harm in restoring the redirect to the renamed account. WP:RTV is normally extended only to users in good standing, which this user is not. It is not our job to speculate about lawsuits. If Foundation staff believe that any action is required to avoid a lawsuit they will take that action per WP:OFFICE. Until then, we should proceed as per our normal policies.  Sandstein  20:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Remember: JzG just deleted redirects made afterward by Shell Kinney (for the user talk page) and Bali ultimate (for the user page). It is jpgordon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) who is the person who actually deleted the original user talk page and user page. Uncle G (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Ah, yes, thanks. I've notified Jpgordon about this discussion.  Sandstein  21:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

This seems fairly simple, and although I've repeated the question already once to Smith Jones, who didn't answer it, it deserves general repetition. Non-administrators want the user talk page around, so that they can keep track of things, and I find myself sympathetic to that. "Malcolm Schosha" wants things not to come up under xyr (possibly) real name in a Google WWW search. It seems possible, at least to me, to accommodate both sets of people by undeleting User talk:Malcolm Schosha, blanking it (in some fashion), and renaming it without a redirect to User talk:Kwork2. That way the user talk page, with all of the prior discussion, is visible to everyone, associated with Special:Contributions/Kwork2 which is the account's current name, and not associated with the name "Malcolm Schosha" (the new Malcolm Schosha (talk · contribs) account now belonging to JzG, as stated above and as recorded in the log). What are the concrete objections to this? Uncle G (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I have none, but it is also not clear to me why we should seek to accommodate a disruptive banned user at all by disassociating their former username (which is picked up by Google in many places) from their edits. The right to vanish is normally granted only to editors in good standing. If they choose to disrupt Misplaced Pages under their real name, they have to bear the consequences.  Sandstein  21:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

If the google search is the complaint, can't we just "noindex" it the way this page is (i believe). I would not object to that -- i'm concerned with people inside wikipedia being able to keep an eye on all this; i don't care if they can find the userpage or not on google.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Uncle G, you mention the problem that a Google search for the name still links to various disruption-related pages. Can't that problem be solved by NOINDEXing the relevant pages? I think the request to be able to connect the "Malcolm Schosha" signatures to the banned account and its contributions (e.g., with a link from User:Malcolm Schosha to User:Kwork2) is reasonable. By the way, meta:User:Malcolm Schosha, where he is not blocked, still contains a lot of googleable personal information put there by the user themselves.  Sandstein  21:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

sory, Uncle G -- I didnt see your original repetition; it wasnt a deliberate attempt to ignore you. I am not too concerned over the Google image bu t i am worried that this users right to vanish is being tempered by the fact that he can be constantly blackballed and cockblacked using his prior bad acts regarldess of whether or not he has reformed. the cornerstone of WP's antivandalism and pro-vanishing policy is that a user who doesnt want to participate in the project any more can just leave without being having to worry that they will be continually monitored, tormented on their talk pages, or followed around off-wiki. Instead of linking to his bad history on his user page, why not just undelete his talk page and post the history there, or a link to an external page maintained by the community. User:Smith Jones 22:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• RTV is a courtesy we may grant to users in good standing. This guy's multi-banned, so we should move things back to the MS account, which seems well-out-of-the-bag per Bali's extern, and point the others at a {{banned}}/{{indef}} tag at user:ms ("{{retired}}" is simply off-the table). the prior user page history can be deleted, but the talk should be restored. There are lot of links and sigs pointing at u:ms and folks should be reasonable able to find the laundry. nb: no OFFER for this POV-warrior. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• The out of process talk page deletion is now being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 12#User talk:Malcolm Schosha. Of course, if the talk page is undeleted, it should be courtesy-blanked.  Sandstein  23:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I have restored User talk:Kwork per the discussion here, the other one should be restored as well but since it is at DRV now, I thought it better to let that one run its course. Fram (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like both Kwork histories will wind up being restored, which is ok by me (as to policy). Perhaps letting non-admins know about the link between MS and the Kworks by putting up a retired tag, with something like see User:Kwork2 in the edit summary only, would do the trick. MS can always go to WP:BASC with any other questions. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we have a consensus to restore the redirect. How about this: A redirect at User:Malcolm Schosha to User:Kwork2 underneath a "noindex" tags for yahoo and google to opt out of the searches. That way privacy satisfied, my and other concerns that future socking will be easy to uncover satisfied. Random internet searches won't lead to the page.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as an uninvolved user, that sounds like the ideal solution: restore, redirect, tag as banned and "noindex". That allows us to follow the user's history, while keeping the world-at-large-via-Google from hitting those pages. — The Hand That Feeds You: 23:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me:  Done. Rd232 10:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but I have re-deleted the userpages; they serve no useful purpose given the ex-user's stated intention to leave Misplaced Pages permanently. The primary concern here is that they involve the renamed user's real name and interfere with the desire to separate him from the project. The pages should be restored if the user returns to Misplaced Pages and resumes socking, but otherwise there is no point to doing so. I express no view on the talkpage deletions; they honestly do not trouble me, but I understand that others may have issues with those. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Except that he's a known liar, a frequent abuser of socks (to abuse editors in good standing here) and you've just helped to cover his tracks yet again, overriding a rather extensive consensus, both here and at the recent DRV. What gives you the right to act by fiat, and against the interest of being able to uncover his bad behavior in future. Are you one of the arbs that he claimed was in his pocket the last time he was caught brad? You're way out of order here, at any rate.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Not the first known liar who abused other editors that Brad has gone out of his way to help. DuncanHill (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree in principle with Bali ultimate. Also, Brad deleted the "Kwork2" userpage, not the Malcolm Schosha one... his name isn't Kwork so the deletion rationale doesn't seem to apply. The sockpuppet tag should be reinstated to the Kwork2 account for purposes of keeping track of someone who has "vanished" multiple times in the past, only to return and resume his disruptions. I would suggest a soft redirect from the MS account talk page (which is already robot.txt'd out of the Google spider). His old MS user page can probably stay deleted since that's what was upsetting him so much. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry too, because you don't seem to appreciate that (a) this user's stated intention is worth zip; he's socked repeatedly and AFAIK continues to coordinate activities on Misplaced Pages offsite (b) their primary claimed concern was their real name showing up in Google, which my noindexing took care of (c) they exercised RTV as User:Kwork allegedly because of privacy concerns only to return as User:Malcolm Schosha, allegedly his real name! So his privacy concerns may be taken with a pinch of salt; and at any rate noindexing is sufficient. Rd232 14:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Struck a point I picked up from someone else without confirming myself, since Schosha objected to it (via Misplaced Pages Review). I believe the original reference I picked up was related to Schosha's moderation of a forum on Yahoo groups, but I haven't confirmed that activity or the significance thereof, and at this point it doesn't seem worth doing so. Rd232 11:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Can someone recreate the Kwork2 userpage that was deleted out of process and against the wide consensus formed both here and at DRV? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This is seriously worrying. I have great respect for Newyorkbrad, but none, including he, are above the deletion policy or the wheel-warring policy. By deleting that page instead of taking it to WP:MFD, he has repeated an administrative action opposed by several administrators (notably the most recent recreator of the page, Rd232). From WP:WHEEL, bolding in original: "Do not repeat a reversed administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it. (...) Wheel warring usually results in an immediate Request for Arbitration." Is there a good reason why such a request should not be made in this instance?  Sandstein  17:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes he overrode the consensus of this discussion, the recent MFD, standing policy and practice and he's been asked to reverse the decision, which he has not done. Incredibly high-handed and innappropriate -- now the histories of the sock evading IPs are gone, an ability to link the banned accounts to their past actions is gone, etc... I'll certainly take this to arbitration if it isn't dealt with quickly.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Whoa. He re-deleted the user pages, not the talk pages. That doesn't do much to cover up a history, but does help address the person's concerns about real-life harm. I do not see that any harm is being done to Misplaced Pages by Brad's action that would outweigh the potential for real-life harm he is seeking to avoid. Misplaced Pages is not a pillory. alanyst 17:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

While this has been messy, I can say, there is no way Malcom will ever get away with socking or another "fresh start" on this website, however the Kworks are handled. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• NYBs actions go against consensus here and that at the DRV. As with the Fences&Window's bad unblock of Colonel Warden last week, this is the sort of thing that should be clearly reversed immediately. Tarc (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Absolutely no more reversals. Extending the chain of disputed administrative actions at this stage would be a very bad idea. Instead, those who are concerned about the action should discuss it until a final consensus emerges. Jehochman 18:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Final consensus did emerge and one Admin overrode it unilaterally. The deletion rationale for "Kwork2" is that it's that users real name, but his name is NOT "Kwork2". It needs to be undeleted and correctly tagged as a sock. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me, but fuck that logic. That is the issue that came up with Warden; an admin can perform an action and then another admin can, with absolutely no leg to stand on at all simply reverse that action. And then THAT is where the oh-my-dreaded wheel-ewarring comes to play, where if anyone tries to restor the CRSTAL-CLEAR consensus, Then THAT admin is the one that is at fault while admin #2 goes scott-free? I believe it was Black Kite who reversed F&W that time anyeays and was roundly supported for doing so. The same should happen here. Now. Tarc (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Any banned editor wanting to make it harder for the rest of us to see what they got up to is strongly urged to engage in sockpuppetry, on and off-site harassment, and legal threats. DuncanHill (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

As I've said, MS has gamed RTV for years. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Worth noting the discussion on NYB's talk page, where he indicates, amongst other things, that he won't stand in the way of undeletion. DuncanHill (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

As indicated, I've set forth my views on my talkpage, at some length. (Although, less length than it would have been in the past; I've given some attention to the authors of voter guides who opined that some of my posts are too long.) My intention in deleting these particular pages was not to show disrespect for the views of other editors, but to address an issue affecting this particular banned user, in a fashion that calculated to further that banned user's separation from Misplaced Pages. Based on my four years of experience, I think that our approach to tagging the userpages of banned users is terribly misguided and counterproductive, and this is an instance where we are perpetuating a negative interaction between the banned user and Misplaced Pages rather than trying to put an end to it. Those interested in my thoughts on this matter in further detail may find them on my usertalk.

I still believe very strongly that the action I took was best for all concerned and should be allowed to stand. I hope that some other editors with significant experience in dealing with significantly troublesome users might weigh in here with their opinions, which I believe would generally parallel mine. However, if in spite of these views there remains a consensus here to reinstate the tags, I will not interfere further. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused as to whether we're discussing his user pages, which can be deleted on request, or his talk pages, which should not be deleted without consensus—for the simple reason that he did not write them. The deletion of user talk pages by admins should be rare. See Misplaced Pages:Right to vanish. I can only see deletion of the user pages in Brad's log, but I can't find the talk pages, so if someone could explain the current state of affairs, that would be very helpful. SlimVirgin 21:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way (and yes, I've known about this all along), NYB missed deleting User_talk:Malcolm_Schosha. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, Gwen; I see the talk page history is there. That should be moved to User talk:Kwork2, so that the new account's history (contribs and talk page history) is intact, just under a new name. SlimVirgin 22:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, spot on, as you say. This has all been handled very messily, but then, MS has always stirred up messes on en.WP. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, done that. Rd232 22:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Brad, there are better ways of changing policy and practice than to try to force them through by ignoring what has been said in an ongoing debate. I think it shews very poor judgement that you went ahead with the deletions without even attempting to see if there was any consensus for them - this thread was open, you must surely have been aware also of the DRV relating to the user talk pages, but you imposed your own solution without consultation. You are also, I am sure, aware that your position as an arb makes it very hard for others to meaningfully challenge you when you choose to use your admin tools in such an issue. Few admins would want to risk their tools to take you on. DuncanHill (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, per consensus here and Newyorkbrad's comments on his user talk page, I've recreated the user page as a noindexed redirect to the user talk page, which has had its history restored and is blanked apart from a mention of the renaming to Kwork2, and also noindexed. I think that might just make everybody happy? Schosha gets his privacy respected, and the link between the Schosha name and the Kwork2 edits remains for information purposes (primarily possible sock detection). Rd232 22:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Whatever we do, the account's contributions and its talk page history must either be at the same place, or linked. SlimVirgin 22:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Contributions and talk history are now at Kwork2. User:Malcolm Schosha, as noted above, is a (fully protected) noindexed redirect to User talk:Malcolm Schosha, while User talk:Malcolm Schosha, also noindexed but not protected, merely notes the rename to Kwork2. With any luck, that's an end of it. Rd232 01:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That seems fine. Thanks for sorting it out. SlimVirgin 02:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Good enough. The Kwork2 had the old language from the MS talk psge on it that made no sense in its current location so I replaced it with the sock template, leaving in the noindex stuff. Guess I'll mark this resolved. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I have created User:Kwork2 as a redirect to User talk:Kwork2, which seemed to be reasonable. DuncanHill (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I replaced the sock template with a note; AFAIK he wasn't actually blocked for socking, and anyway this labelling isn't necessary. Rd232 15:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson's claim that the current spelling of Marseille is POV-pushing

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

His disruptive edits: ,

This user has been reported on project pages mutliple times for tendentious edits and for creating problems, Now, without any support from WP:RS, he is suggesting that one of the two major cities in France after Paris, Marseille, is normally spelt in English with an "s". He has tagged the page twice now to suggest that this spelling violates WP:NPOV. It appears that he has decided that his next major battle on wikipedia will be over this topic. As far as I can tell, from his past editing history, he has no interest whatsoover in the content of the article or WikiProject France.

The same "argument" (whatever it is) would presumably apply also to Lyon, for which the old-fashioned spelling in English has an "s". Pmanderson has not brought up this city ... yet. Pmanderson's activity seems to be an attempt to disrupt wikipedia to make a WP:POINT.

On the talk page of Marseille—and I will not repeat the arguments or the links here—it has been carefully explained that most major English-speaking newspapers, the Encylopedia Britannica, British airlines, travel guides in English and the British and US consulates in Marseille all now adopt the spelling without an "s". This has made no impression on Pmanderson - it seems that he believes that he is simply right and doing a huge service to wikipedia in righting a terrible wrong. The issue has no real importance, but he has made it so. Straight WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct.

I have reported this bizarre activity here in the hope of nipping it in the bud. It could be the straw that breaks the camel's back, from the point of view of ongoing problems with this editor. It certainly seems to be "his style". His block log speaks for itself. In this case he has made an unsupportable but hardly very interesting claim seemingly devised to waste other editors' time. I am unable to see any possible benefit editing of this kind could have to this encyclopedia. Mathsci (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Marseilles and Lyons are perfectly normal English spellings, as used in the Oxford Dictionary of the World, for example. DuncanHill (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Not only "normal", but also common in English. Pmanderson has only himself to blame for acquiring a reputation that allows bringing his actions here based on a vague handwave toward his past problems, but in this content dispute he would seem to be correct, even in the argument that you have invented on his behalf without asking. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) True, but that is hardly the point. As with Mumbai/Bombay and Calcutta/Kolkota, things change. The US government is not pedantic. Tagging in the way Pmanderson did was clearly not a helpful approach to improving this encyclopedia. It does not quite rise to the level of tagging articles like Europe, for example, but it was not far off. Mathsci (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually the U.S. Government is pedantic; the Board of Geographic Names tends to prefer systematic forms to what English-speakers actually use (as the guideline on geographic names explains) and in principle their decisions are binding on the Federal Government.

But this complaint is another effort to settle a substantive dispute by false claims of misconduct. As the move discussion on Talk:Marseille would indicate, the fundamental issue here is my unwillingness to simply accept the opinions of a major contributor to an article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree at all. Pmanderson's edits today have nothing to do with calm and reasoned discussion. He has chosen to adopt a battleground attitude on an article, in which, until today, he appeared to have absolutely no interest. I am currently on wikibreak, so have only a few articles on my watch list. Pmanderson's edits today on Marseille are amongst the most dire I've seen in almost five years of watching the article. Mathsci (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Recommend WP:DR. Nothing else to see here (other than to note I just blocked PMA for similar activity, but hasn't edited the project space since). Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I was surprised to learn that Marseilles is now being spelled "Marseille" in English. This must also come as a bit of a shock to the citizens of Marseilles, Illinois, for example. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

As my recent edit at Talk:Marseille will show, the (current) French spelling seems to be catching on with the sort of columnist who laces his prose with malfamé and bistronomie. It is still a less common usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the POV-title tag. There may be a good-faith discussion of which spelling should be used, as happens from time to time with many geographical names, but this cannot reasonably be framed as a "POV" issue: no "point of view" is promoted by using the spelling "Marseille" as opposed to "Marseilles" or vice versa, except on the sharply limited issue of which is the correct spelling. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

But there are two - which is why dispute resolution will be welcome: The point of view there are no distinctive English forms of names - and even more seriously, that the anglophone Governments do and should determine English usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a legitimate article title/requested move issue that is subject to dispute resolution on the basis of which title better comports with our guidelines on geographical names. Appropriate dispute resolution seems already to be well underway with the RfC/RM discussion that is now taking place on the article talkpage. Adding the "POV" tag does nothing to advance a decision as to which article title should be used. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Little enough in all honesty; but if we cannot even protest the entrenched territorial cliques which seek to use articles to promote a political or (as in this case) a linguistic program, we have very little hope of checking them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

What "political programme" is this here to promote? Who are these ""entrenched territorial cliques"? What is wrong with my "grasp of the English idiom"? Mathsci (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

For third parties (and on the off-chance that this is ingenuous):

• As I said, "in this case a linguistic program": that the characteristic English forms of names should be downgraded, and English be subjected to Government standards.
• Well, to begin with: "grasp of the English idiom" isn't idiomatic; neither is "dire" (unless you're writing Tolkien parody); nor is Marseille; the reactions of anglophones in this thread alone should have been enough to make the last clear.
• And as for the clique entrenched on the territory of the article: I invite any curious reader to look through Talk:Marseille and see how the self-declared "most frequent editor" has been behaving. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting now that English might not be my native language and that is why I have not agreed with your point of view? Mathsci (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If English is your native language, you have an abominable grasp of idiom; if it is not, you have an abominable grasp of idiom, but this would be explicable. I believe l'idiotisme anglais would be correct French; but I will defer to a literate native speaker. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

But really, if having a tag added twice is "amongst the most dire" things to happen to the article in years, the real complaint here is that I have not immediately conceded to Mathsci's opinion and his grasp of English idiom on his article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

See above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

My Webster's, dated 1994, gives Marseilles as the preferred and Marseille as a secondary spelling; Lyons as the preferred and Lyon secondary; and Rome (not Roma) as the English name for the Italian city. So it seems that the "Marseille" and "Lyon" spellings, without the "s", are the ones that writers have actually tried to impose on us, to override the traditional English spellings "Marseilles" and "Lyons". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This input is welcome, but would be better placed on the article talkpage, where the requested move discussion/RfC is in progress. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson's continuing disruption on Marseille

Pmanderson's conduct continues to be disruptive. As well as adding various other drive-by tags and dramatic notices of innacuracy, he just tagged a reference to Thucydides in the article, claiming that Thucydides did not mention Massalia. But that claim is wholly inaccurate, since I checked the reference directly in Thucydides and also in a secondary WP:RS, a very long recent history of Marseille (in French). This second bout of tagging is as disruptive as the first. I cannot guess what Pmanderson's motives for this type of editing could be, but at first glance it appears to be unrelated to improving the encyclopedia. He has now reinstated the questioning of the quote from Thucydides. I find the edit summaries that he left with his talk page diffs extermely aggressive without provocation. It seems that Pmanderson is questioning a number of statements which are not in doubt, although, as always, could be better sourced. On the other hand—and I think he has decided to take this as a personal attack—I pointed out that he himself probably does not have access to a detailed history of Marseille. I do, but at present I see no point in using my own history sources to edit the article when overnight it has been transformed unrecognizably from an anodyne backwater into a full-blown toxic WP:BATTLEGROUND, (In RL I am very busy finishing off a research paper, which probably will be linked by another user to one of the mathematics articles. That partially explains my wikibreak from articles.) Maunus has written that the tags are not merited. He wrote in his edit summary: " Probably the tags should be removed altogether this looks like someone is trying to make a WP:POINT". That is my feeling too. Mathsci (talk) 03:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed before that Pmanderson is quick to tag. It would be helpful if he could use the tags as a last resort only (i.e., when prolonged discussion has failed, or when he has looked for sources and found none, but removal is being reverted), and then only if the text leaves verifiability or neutrality issues. We shouldn't use tags to signal that we personally dislike something. SlimVirgin 03:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for intervening SV. The Peloponnesian war is one of the texts that has been studied to death (we had to read book IV at grammar school in England) and there are numerous commentaries. The particular seven word sentence referring to the colonisation of Marseille has generated pages and pages of comments. Here is one example that runs over three pages (310-312). More modern ones place the history in the context of recent archeological discoveries and in fact are unsurprisingly in agreement with most of what is in the article. The ancient history of Marseille seems to have some kind of fatal attraction. Mathsci (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This appears to match a textbook definition of WP:POINT - I have asked PMA to explain his reasoning and intent.

As a rule, not the sort of behavior a recently blocked, historically multi-blocked editor under all sorts of additional scrutiny should be engaging in. At all. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This statement is another effort to settle a content dispute by spurious conduct charges. In addition, it alleges that I said things I did not say, and do not hold.

While waiting for the RM to settle itself, I read through the article, and found the ancient history section seemed most implausible. It cites three sources.

• Thucydides is claimed to support the settlement of Marseilles in 600 BC. He does mention the Phocaean settlement at Marseilles, but gives no date. (I have now said three times that he mentions the settlement; all this is on the talk page; therefore Mathsci's assertion above is false.)
• A book called Vintage; the History of Wine is cited for trade between Massalia and Rome in 500 BC. It actually discusses the trade around 125 BC.

These claims, therefore, I tagged as failing verification, and added Talk:Marseille#History to discuss them.

The proper response to such tags, I thought, is to answer them; to fix the article, to convince me I am wrong, or to convince a consensus that I am mistaken. Mathsci did none of these; instead he reverted; so I restored them until one of the three appropriate means of resolution can be done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Tagging can often be seen (rightly or wrongly) as simply a way of signalling that we didn't get to make the edits we wanted. It's best to do it only after trying everything else, including prolonged discussion, and looking for additional sources yourself. SlimVirgin 04:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Since the the existing sources don't support the text, and my relatively careful phrasing has been read to assert something I have never said, I doubt additional sources will do any good. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

A quick Google Books search shows several sources for the founding date, including this from George William Cox, published in 1874 (p. 156), which helpfully cites its sources in a footnote. SlimVirgin 04:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is another footnote in a more recent text dating the founding of Marseille to c 600 BC. It is one of many. What is interesting here, and a reason for administrators to keep tabs on Pmanderson, is that this time he has chosen to disrupt in a disproprtionate and uprovoked way a neutral and uncontentious article, amongst the main wikipedia articles on France. I made a simple edit modifying "historically" to "in antiquity" in the lede ; then very shortly afterwards Pmanderson appeared to tag the section of the article concerned with classical antiquity. Pmanderson appears to be more interested in other editors than in content. Mathsci (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Who was right and why in this dispute is beside the point here - all that can be resolved at the talk page. What is relevant here is how the dispute was handled.

If you add a tag in good faith and that tag is removed, especially with someone with whom you're already disputing, I suggest presuming WP:AGF and the R in WP:BRD and proceed with D. Do not engage in yet another edit war, no matter how sure you are that you are correct. This is an edit war

(cur | prev) 18:08, December 14, 2010 Pmanderson (talk | contribs) m (77,945 bytes) (Reverted edits by Mathsci (talk) to last version by Pmanderson) (undo)

(cur | prev) 17:50, December 14, 2010 Mathsci (talk | contribs) (77,826 bytes) (Undid revision 402439004 by Pmanderson (talk) tagging seems inaccurate) (undo)

(cur | prev) 17:21, December 14, 2010 Pmanderson (talk | contribs) (77,945 bytes) (→Prehistory and classical antiquity: not really.) (undo)

Again. No matter how sure you are that you are correct... don't edit war. Just don't. Take it to the talk page. I've learned that lesson without ever being blocked; how many more times does PMA need to be blocked to learn that lesson? --Born2cycle (talk) 06:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

As this kind of information about the early origins of Marseille is copious and freely available in academic sources, there was no rationale beyond simple disruption for the edits of Pmanderson. At least PHG did his research properly even if he was at that stage pushing Greek colonistation of Provence a little too far. I would hope that Pmanderson might take note of what NYB, SV, GWH and Maunus have told him and drop this habit of disrupting wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. Mathsci (talk) 10:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Please note the participants in the Franco-Mongol case; I know all about PHG. This continued series of personal attacks, to defend an innacurate rendition of a local history of a century ago, is indefensible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Request to block Pmanderson for removing sourced content and continuing his tagging campaign

• Pmanderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has been warned for tagging the article by four administrators, Newyorkbrad, SlimVirgin, Maunus and Gerogewilliamherbert. He has now added tags and removed a substantial amount of sourced content. What he has written contradicts one of the main sources,

• Duchene, Roger; Contrucci, Jean (1998), Marseille, 2600 ans d'histoire, Fayard, ISBN 2213601976

I have no idea why he is behaving in this way after the mutliple warnings he has received, but his block record speaks for itself. Mathsci (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I have, as requested by SlimVirgin, on Talk:Marseille, found other sources; I have added them, with input from third parties; my sources may be seen in this exact reversion, which looks like Mathsci's fourth in the last 24 hours; see the history of the article. (There are better sources, which I could add shortly; but why bother when they will only be reverted.)

Please deal with this disruptive WP:OWN violation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I have reverted Pmanderson's later "essay-like" additions because they conflict with known sources. The legend of Protis and Gyptis was removed, despite being sourced. The legend has the same status as that of Mary Magdalen being conveyed on a sailless boat without rudder or oar from the Holy Land to Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer in the Camargue and then, following her death in a cave on the Sainte-Baume, being wafted by angels to Aix-en-Provence and the site of the cathedral of the St Sauveur. But the provencal legend is well sourced and discussed carefully in those sources. it can therefore be included in a wikipedia article (as a legend). Pmanderson included a phrase about a "romantic idea" that seems to be of his invention. But wikipedia is not Pmanderson's blog , he can't act as a historian here, and he should be editing according to the usual rules of wikipedia: no special rules apply to him. He should avoid removing sourced content just because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. His approach is unscholarly and adversarial. Nobody expects to read Marseille and suddenly come across a little essay on the history of Marseille "according to Pmanderson", an unknown author with unknown credentials. There are excellent sources and Pmanderson is simply not using them. Some of the principal ones happen to be in French: I don't find that in the least bit surprising. Once sources are known to exist on the history of Marseille, it's not a great idea to dismiss them and then attempt to cobble together the history from fragmentary sources elsewhere. Pmanderson seems to have a bee in his bonnet about French sources and possibly even the French: that does not in any way excuse his disruptive behaviour. Some of the comments levelled at me, which I have ignored, indicate that he thinks that I am French, which is not the case. Although on en.wikipedia, we do not use fr.wikipedia as a source, editors concerned with WikiProject France usually do pay attention to the corresponding articles there, which usually are written prior to the English version. (Exceptionally that was not true with Chateau of Vauvenargues but fr:Église_Saint-Jean-de-Malte_d'Aix-en-Provence has no English equivalent: that would be an article that I would normally consider writing, although not if I'm scared off WikiProject France by hostile editors like Pmanderson.) In the case of major cities, the French language articles can provide a useful guide to missing content. When the two corrsponding articles become widely divergent and contradictory (as was the case with Pmanderson's personal essay on the history of Marseille), alarm bells will normally ring. That is just common sense. Mathsci (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson is misrepresenting his own actions. He removed a lot of sourced content that he didn't happen to like. His actions are as disruptive as those that have resulted in previous warnings and blocks. He certainly didn't seem to like the legend of Protis and Gyptis, which he removed, That is a short section that I rewrote and sourced. Certainly SlimVirgin was not suggesting that he remove content that he didn't like, that he restore his tags and that he rewrite the ancient history section as a personalised essay from fragmentary sources. Pmanderson is not righting a great wrong. He is just attempting to manufacture a WP:BATTLE by editing in as awkward a way as possible. It is a classic case of disrupting WP to make a WP:POINT, as others have already commented. Mathsci (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci is telling great and small untruths. As his revert-warring will show, I retained the fable of Protis and Gyptis; what this good soul omits is the consensus of the sources that it isn't likely to be true - whether or not Massalia was founded in 600 NC, it wasn't founded like this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest that this be resolved by sticking closely to academic secondary sources? It would make sense to write up a brief suggestion for that section, together with the sources, and post it on talk for discussion. SlimVirgin 20:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

PMA and Mathsci both blocked for 48 hrs for edit warring

IMHO - Both stepped clearly across the line. PMA backed away incrementally from his prior behavior but not from disruptive editing of the article. He did engage on the talk page, but kept butting heads with people. Mathsci kept reverting without adequate talk page involvement.

Both parties are longtime users with extensive experience with dispute resolution. They both know what we expect of editors participating in a content dispute. Neither chose to act in accordance with our policy and community standards. Both are blocked for 48 hrs.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't say I agree with the Mathsci block, George. It seems to be a "pox on both your houses" response, which can often be unfair. PMA has a history of this kind of approach, and a long block log as a result. I'm less familiar with Mathsci's editing, but looking at the diffs, he seems to have reverted three times between Dec 13 and 15, and he brought the issue to AN/I to request help. I can't see how those reverts alone can fairly trigger a 48-hour block. He has only two previous blocks, both in 2008 and both regarding the same issue, as I recall, and it had nothing to do with edit warring. SlimVirgin 00:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

We have a problem here in that George blocked Mathsci and PMA for 48 hours, then went offline. So now at least one of them (perhaps both) is arguably unfairly blocked with no one to sort it out. I'm reluctant to unblock Mathsci, because I would also have to make a decision about PMA, and as he's someone I've disputed issues with in the past, I don't feel uninvolved enough. But I'm not happy about seeing Mathsci blocked for 48 hours for three reverts in three days, accompanied by talk-page discussion and considerable provocation (in my view) from PMA. SlimVirgin 04:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Review and additional input on Mathsci's unblock request would be useful at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm highly inclined to grant Mathsci's unblock request. After review of this thread and the Marseille talk page, I'm not seeing any grounds for blocking him. Courcelles 04:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

According to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Mathsci_.28conduct.29, Mathsci's engaged in "borderline edit warring in May and June. This editor was also formally reminded not to edit war in the Abd-William M. Connolley arbitration." To simply say that there was nothing to do with edit-warring or there was no grounds for blocking is questionable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said, Ncmv, I'm not really familiar with Mathsci's editing, but I do feel this is a long block for a small number of reverts, and without warning that I can see, especially as he was making other edits that appeared to be improving the article by adding sources, e.g. here. SlimVirgin 04:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If there is an unfamiliarity with the user's editing, then obviously it's going to seem like there are no grounds for a block whatsoever. I think the fact that he was warned in an arbitration ruling, the fact that the behavior was identified again in a more recent arbitration ruling with clearer terms (borderline) is quite sufficient to the point that you would expect the editor to avoid doing the same - without yet another warning. His restriction from that recent ruling was in the process of being lifted so he should be especially mindful of what not to do. What I am saying is that it is incorrect to assert that a block was unjustified (which is what you seem to be saying - according to Mathsci). GWH was familiar with the user's editing, and with the arbitration, as far as I am aware. All that said, Pmanderson did misuse rollback as well, and does seem to have been making pointy edits, so on the grounds that the block has served its purpose (as time served) and that per his unblock request, he will be more mindful of his reverts (and avoid that behavior in the future), I'd support Mathsci's unblock. (I'd oppose an unblock on the grounds that the block was unjustified.) Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking at the narrower picture here, with some awareness of the wider one, but it was justified here specific to the recent incident (IMHO).

PMA took the issues in good faith to the talk page, but kept doing things very nearly alike what he'd been warned was disruptive and told to stop.

Mathsci did less disruptive stuff, but kept doing it and didn't go to the article talk page to discuss it in good faith. He was engaged in other discussions there, but not with PMA on the key disruption points over the period he was reverting. Mere participation in talk page discussion (which Mathsci did over that time period) doesn't mean he was discussing what he was reverting enough to avoid it being at least marginally a sterile revert / edit war. PMA's larger disruption explains but does not justify Mathsci responding with repeated reverts rather than engagement.

Mathsci has responded reasonably and deescalated. He was seeking outside review prior to the last actions. Reduction to time served would be reasonable. I'm going to do that now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Confirming - Mathsci is now unblocked, reduced to time served. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've been around Mathsci for a long time. He is an extremely good content contributor (I'd go as far as to say one of Misplaced Pages's best) who is mostly sensible but has a tendency to get prima donna-ish in some situations, and whose approach to DR isn't always the greatest. I'm less familiar with PMA but I think I've seen him/her around the mathematics refdesk and s/he is also pretty good. I didn't even try to read this mind-wobbling dispute much, so I can only think of this. Can't those two have WP:TEA instead of fighting? Anyway, I'm all for unblocking Mathsci if (without having to admit fault for edit warring) he says he's ready to edit again and that he can maintain calm discourse going forward. On general principles, that's probably also the right approach for PMA. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 06:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC) OK, Mathsci is unblocked now, which is good. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 06:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• @ GWH: Thanks for unblocking me and responding to other administrators promptly.
• General comment Slimvirgin's comment about secondary sources is a key point here and very well made. Most detailed material concerned with the history of Marseille is not surprisingly in French, since it is the history of a place. Writing about Porte d'Aix required buying the 50 page detailed booklet: I did not use the article on fr.wikipedia at all. (Looking at the French article now, it would be an idea to incorporate the newly added photographs of architectural details in a gallery, as happened at Arc de Triomphe, a move which I helped instigate.) I know of nowhere else where the detailed information could be found. The same applies to the history section in the article about Marseille, which I believe was originally a largely unsourced direct translation of the French wikipedia article. Often it can be the case that a book cannot be found on the web. The anecdotes about Francois I and the stranded rhinocerus on the Chateau d'If and the story about Louis XIV arriving on horseback and ordering his troops to fire a cannonball through the city walls are items a casual reader might tag as being unlikely. However, they are recorded in WP:RS. I cannot see any merit in using outdated texts from around 1900 to write history, Again that problem arose with Auguste Pavie, in connection with PHG, and although Pavie's own journals are available on the web, these are primary sources which can only be used in conjunction with secondary sources. In that particular case there was a recent illustrated monograph on French explorers (in french) which I used as the principal source for writing the article. The book is not available on the web except for snippet view. Mathsci (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Powerchip

I have blocked 58.106.54.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) temporarily for legal threats. However, I am concerned that they may have true concerns regarding article content. I would request more experienced editors to take a look at the recent flurry of edits to determine if any of them need to be reverted to avoid trouble for Misplaced Pages. I have e-mailed the foundation and will notify the IP of the post. Thanks Tiderolls 03:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems closer to AFD or Speedy Deletion than anything. It looks like some legit concerns The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article and removed the unsourced negative stuff. I agree with TRA that we probably have a deletion candidate on our hands here.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a retraction of sorts on the IP's talk page. If another admin wishies to unblock I won't scream. However, I don't think this would help the present situation. Tiderolls 03:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it's still a legal threat (against the "poofters"). --Mkativerata (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Article at AFD see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Powerchip The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just waded through the page history. What a mess. I've made two revision deletions but other admins might find cause to do more. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I took out six more versions. No way am I going to let that stay in the history. - KrakatoaKatie 05:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) The AfD is being hit by anon IPs and SPA accounts, one of which is making "statements" about someone's wife. Can someone look into that and block as necessary? One of the IPs is clearly also double voting as an SPA account. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I just speedied it -- it appeared purely promotional to me, and the opinion on the AfD was unanimously for deletion anyway. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• I've also salted the founder's bio, since it was created today for the purpose of attacking him. If notability is established, it can be unprotected. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Don't forget chip tuning, where that same person is mentioned. Uncle G (talk) 04:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I removed that and linked to here from talk:chip tuning. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 06:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Harassment by Lunalet

LAz17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Lunalet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Issue

Lunalet (talk · contribs) has been making personal attacks against SMasters (talk · contribs) since December 4th. This has gone to the point of harassment.

Desired outcome

Lunalet (talk · contribs) will desist in making personal attacks against SMasters (talk · contribs) and will stop harassing SMasters.

Background

On December 1st, SMasters sent out a large number of neutral messages to all of the GoCE users informing us that there was an election going on. The purpose of this election was to elect new coordinators for the Guild. The election was by simple affirmation voting in "support" sections, with another section for comments or questions. He also sent out ~18 neutral messages to other users who have actively used our services, encouraging them to vote too. (This was acceptable since non-GoCE members were permitted to vote in the elections.)

Development

On December 3rd, 01:36 UTC, Lunalet makes his first post to the election page asking about SMaster's AWB run. On December 4th, 00:01 UTC, Lunalet makes his first canvassing accusation. Just after this, he makes a post containing the edit summary "support the only good candidate" (supporting Diannaa). I then read this and ask were SMasters was canvassing, and he answers "see question 4". Suspicious of canvassing, I then struck my support, but reinstated it when I noticed Lunalet's talk page was full of civility violations. After a bit more of this passes, I reply to Lunalet's harassing, upon which he directs a personal attack at me. Lunalet then sends out messages to users whose articles were specifically copyedited by Diannaa. Diannaa then asks why Lunalet did not send messages to the other 4 candidates. I then reply to Lunalet's personal attack against me, pointing out how he appears to be attempting to destroy the Guild. Lunalet then dodges Diannaa's question. Lunalet then makes an even more blatant personal attack on SMasters, which I reverted and warned him for violation of personal attacks. There also are no "oppose" sections on the election page since it is simple approval voting. Lunalet then undoes my revert claiming that it is not a personal attack. Finally, SMasters replies to this new personal attack.

I would also recommend reading the page since there is a great deal more I have not mentioned here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Without commenting on the issue at hand, you don't need four sections for this. To minimize how much longer this lengthens the table of contents, I've removed them, and replaced them with markup that has the same effect in terms of bold.— Dædαlus 05:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed a large quantity of civility issues from this user. I first became aware of their behavior at an AFD (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sun Way Flight 4412), where they were making lengthy and fairly uncivil posts with regard to positions they did not agree with. When queried they accused pretty much every user who voted keep of tag teaming (see User Talk:Lunalet for this). Their posts to the aforementioned AFD were this account's first posts on wikipedia. The user is obviously not new, and does not claim to be. Lunalet claims to not remember the name of their previous account. I find this hard to believe, and based on Lunalet's present behavior consider it highly likely that their previous account is subject to active sanctions. However, I have no idea what the previous account is and as such am unable to file a SPI case. And as Checkuser is not fishing I don't think a request would be granted. I left a note for this user on their talk page regarding WP:CIVIL, which was responded to with a terse and fairly pointy message. My reply has since gone unanswered, as have all other posts on Lunalet's talk page. A check of the user's contributions to see if they were still editing turned up the user's participation in the Guild of Copyeditor's Elections, on which which Lunalet appears to be making pointy edits, possibly unfounded accusations, borderline personal attacks, and potentially causing disruption through canvassing. Hopefully someone reading this thread recognizes the behavior and can determine the name of the previous account. If not, there is probably enough disruption here to warrant a block, though Lunalet should be given the opportunity to respond here first. N419BH 07:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea about the stuff re SMasters, but endorse N419BH's comments; Mjroots, will, too, I expect. This is an obvious returned problematic editor; wade through the evasiveness on their talk and you'll see. I did last week. Bzzt. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The guy is a self-admitted sock, and I reported him 2 weeks ago and nothing was done. Maybe they will this time. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 10:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Between trolling, he has some odd habits, like moving stub tags. Seems to use AWB or some similar program, correcting "dashes" and such. Doc talk 10:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(ears burning) FWIW, I don't buy Lunalet's assertion that they can't remember their previous username. I agree with N419BH that the user is probably a sock, and the puppetmaster is probably under active sanctions. I'm not sure whether suspicion of sanction evasion is sufficient grounds to indef the account. However, sock or not, the editors behaviour is open to scrutiny and may be grounds for action in itself. Mjroots (talk) 11:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The account's most recent edit as of now says it all. For me, "Knowledge of policy" coupled with a deep misunderstanding of policy = Possibly Frustrated Troll. And that is not a "personal attack", mind you. The forming consensus seems clear that this is a disruptive account and one that may need a "wake-up call". This edit is also "interesting" and may give a clue to the account's identity. Doc talk 11:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Good catch, Doc. And thanks to LHvU↓ and Google Chrome OS for sponsoring the free in-flight wifi. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You may well be onto it, as the one editor's last edit was shortly before the other editor's first. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

AIV wouldn't do anything, just like 2 weeks ago, but hopefully an admin here will take care of it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I was the admin who blocked LAz17 for 3 months and, if I recall correctly, declined to block Lunalet - since it was not obvious socking - when reported by Baseball Bugs. I think I suggested an SPI request, should there be sufficient grounds, because if positive it would mean the editor is evading a block which is an indef on the sock account and possible repercussions for the master. It seems to me that there is sufficient evidence now to present in an SPI report, and I suggest that option again - any evidence of disruption from a block evading sock will likely result in strong sanctions being applied. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I declined Bugs' most recent AIV report, in spite of a strong itch in my banhammer hand. Concur with Less that there is an SPI case in this. Favonian (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sock or not, he's been attacking other editors from the get-go. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That edit to Laz17 looks like their only slip-up. I don't see any reason why Lunalet would visit that talk page unless they were previously familiar with it, and the timing is extraordinarily coincidental (Laz17's last edit was a mere 4 hours before Lunalet's first). Anybody see any other behavioral links? I also think it likely that this isn't the only sock we're dealing with. I bet he's created another account due to the extensive heat on the Lunalet account, as the contributions, quick at first, have slowed to a trickle. Looks like Lunalet is now a SPA for Guild of Copyeditors. I bet there's another one out there now working in other areas. Just a hunch. N419BH 20:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

User:SMasters does not have any overlapping edits with LAz17, so it is unclear why he as been selected as a target. Sarek has removed the most recent post as a personal attack. Any further attacks by Lunalet and I would like to see a block for harrassment/disruptive editing. They are not here to improve the encyclopedia. --Diannaa 20:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea why Lunalet has singled me out as a target. Lunalet is not a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, has never worked on any of our projects, is not on our mailing list, and has never participated in any of the Guild's drives. The attacks started a mere five days after the account was created. I also don't buy Lunalet's assertion that they can't remember their previous username. However, I don't recall any major conflicts with anyone else, so I guess I might just be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Nevertheless, Lunalet has wasted all of our time here. The account appears to have little contribution to the encyclopedia except to make personal attacks and to cause conflict. Someone has mentioned that his strategy may be to cause disruption or to even destroy the GOCE by pitting the leaders there against each other. I am concerned that the attacks will continue after our elections are over. – SMasters (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Update: Lunalet was informed of this ANI by Reaper Eternal on 03:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC) . Lunalet chose to ignore this and SarekOfVulcan's revert on 05:03, 14 December 2010 , and continued the attack by posting on the GOCE voting page on 00:08, 15 December 2010 . This was then reverted by The Utahraptor , who was probably not aware of this ANI. The Utahraptor then posted a warning against personal attacks on Lunalet's page . So, the attacks have continued despite several editors telling him not to do it, as well as several reverts, in addition to knowledge of the existence of this ANI, which he has chosen to ignore. – SMasters (talk) 08:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have blocked Lunalet for 3 months, the same as LAz17 who I suspect is related, for their disregard of the concerns, requests and warnings from other editors. I still think an SPI is warranted, but perhaps it might wait for the next forgetful new account to start posting. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks LessHeard vanU for your time in looking into this. I hope that any forgetful "new account" will not hound me. – SMasters (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have filed an SPI case at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/LAz17. N419BH 20:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Denigration of Australian National Awards

In the discussion Angela Slatter (AfD discussion) the Ditmars and Aurealis Awards, Australia's national SF awards that have a long and proud history, have had their value and worth repeatedly questioned by User:Ttonyb1 and User:EEng

I would therefore request an administrative ruling that recognises these awards are important, notable and that being nominated for or winning one would be suitable to contribute to WP:CREATIVE. I am not suggesting that these be suitable as sole criteria, but that they be able to be included without prejudice.

If these awards are not given suitable recognition, this may create an impression of bias against Australian literature. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment I am not sure how I have Repeatedly questioned the awards. My comment in the AfD to Punkrocker1991 was, " I am unfamiliar with the Australian awards listed. If you are saying they are adequate then, I can only assume they are. Assuming as such, the article will most likely survive the AfD." Punkrocker1991, I suggest you get your facts straight. As far as the alleged bias I find that to be absurd. ttonyb (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Lol, the Ditmars ARE a non-notable award. Half my friends are winners. The Aurealis awards, yes, are almost certainly notable. But more to the point, this isn't a matter that requires administrator intervention. It can be resolved through normal discussion, and more importantly WP:CREATIVE is in any event subordinate to WP:N, and if in doubt you can decide the matter by whether the subject passes the general notability guidelines. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • How are the Ditmars, an award that has been presented annually since 1969, a non-notable award? Are the Hugo Awards similarly non-notable, afterall, their processes are quite similar? Punkrocker1991 (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
    • The Hugos (and Aurealis awards) are typically covered by both the mainstream press, and the major SF news sources. The Ditmars generally only receive attention within Australian fandom. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I beg your pardon, while I hold to the above, and the Aurealis awards certainly do have better mainstream coverage (which is what comes of being backed by a publisher) after doing some searches I think there's sufficient evidence that the Ditmars are notable, at least to the extent that I've seen less notable awards kept at AfD. But, again, fixable through normal discussion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh, actually I think I know you personally, Punkrocker1991. (Does your last name rhyme with "bar"?) If I'm correct you've been a Ditmar nominee and maybe winner yourself, and probably not well-placed to independently comment on their notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I am probably who you're thinking of, but can't work out who you are. I have been nominated for and won Ditmars, Aurealis and other Awards. But then so have the likes of Greg Egan, Margo Lanagan, Jonathan Strahan, Sean Williams, Garth Nix and a host of other people. I have also been a reader, critic, reviewer and contributor to the Australian SF community for 20 years. Am I wrong to think that this means I might have some knowledge in the field? Punkrocker1991 (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I'll email you. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Am I wrong to think that this means I might have some knowledge in the field? No, but it might also mean that there is a conflict of interest. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Knowledge and interest in a field does not necessarily translate into a conflict of interest. if it was an article about this writer, or one of their works, sure, but not something as general as an award in the genre one works in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
          • I apologize for the unclear wording—I should have pointed out that I was referring to the fact that Punkrocker1991 has been nominated for and won the award in question. To me that indicates a much closer connection to the subject, particularly when determining if the award is notable. I assume good faith and am not claiming an actual COI, but the current language at WP:COI is just fuzzy enough that this example could be open to interpretation. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
• You seem to think that admins are some sort of judges. I think you're looking for dispute resolution, not this page. Corvus cornix_talk 02:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oh, for crying out loud, as stated over and over, I never questioned the value of these awards, but merely pointed out that the subject of the article under discussion did not win them. What a lot of fuss over imagined slights! EEng (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• After reading the discussion at AfD, anyone will see that this thread here is spill-over from an acrimonious debate. (Part of the reason for the dispute is due to problems in Misplaced Pages's definition of notability for writers, but I don't see a way to improve on the definition without introducing subjective opinion -- & thus original research.) I pity the Admin who closes the discussion, because it's clear one side or the other will continue fighting to keep or delete the article. Other than that, as Corvus cornix writes above, there's nothing here that an Admin can do for all involved. -- llywrch (talk) 18:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Not acrimonious as far as I'm concerned. It's beginning to look like the subject might be notable after all. Too bad Punkrocker didn't spend less time complaining about imaginged disrespect, and more time reading policies and guidelines (on notability likely, and on opening an ANI thread for sure!) and marshalled the evidence systematically and clearly in the first place. EEng (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sanity Check at AE

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Wee Curry Monster

Please look over that enforcement request and my suggested solution. A couple of outside opinions from other administrators, whether agreeing or disagreeing, would be helpful. Most of the people are fairly constructive, but there are signs of behavior that lead to the previous ArbCom case. I'm just looking to impose a bit of calm and push them towards WP:DR to sort it out, while leaving little room for any further disruption. Vassyana (talk) 03:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks pretty complex to review well... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

As I commented at AE overly harsh and punishing the victim of baiting behaviour rather than the perpetrators. Given the behaviour complained about is not ongoing this is punitive rather than prevantative. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

sockmaster using openproxy

A few days back a prolific sock master Shinas/Anwar Sadaat was banned Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Shinas/Archive after a check user. Now he has popped up again using an open proxy in Germany. He was earlier using an IP range 117.193.32.0/19 to edit articles and is currently using the 84.19.160.0/20 open proxy range to edit the same articles. Comparing edits from known IPs ( with and with with indicate this is Shinas/Anwar Sadaat. A google search reveals 84.19.160.0/20 (Keyweb AG IP Network) is a open proxy used for spamming. I am reverting his additons.

My question is what do we do with open proxies like this? do we block them? (if yes i request a range block on this)--Sodabottle (talk) 07:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Also FYI: he has opened a new account in Commons; compare with ). I have posted in the admins notice board there.--Sodabottle (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

If they're properly open proxies, yes we'll rangeblock them, usually after it's been confirmed and the range properly determined. This range appears to belong to CyberGhost, so if someone wants to download the free version and confirm what ranges it uses these days, list them here or at WP:OP, as well as list some of the IPs being abused, that would help speed things up. -- zzuuzz 09:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I downloaded Cyberghost as suggested. It is using the server 84.19.165.217 to connect as anonymous. Which is the same as the IP used today by the sockmaster. On December 8 he used 84.19.169.163. How do we identify the range from this?--Sodabottle (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the rangeblock calculator: "Range 84.19.160.0/20 (up to 4096 users would be blocked)" --Moonriddengirl 12:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!!. So dear admins, can someone please block this range (or should i go through WP:OP?)--Sodabottle (talk) 12:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I've proxyblocked 84.19.169.160/28 pending more information. -- zzuuzz 13:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't block today's IP - 84.19.165.217. shouldnt it be a /20 block instead of /28?--Sodabottle (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a variety of network providers in that range. Personally I'd rather target the blocks on abusive known proxies, and so I've now blocked the 84.19.165.208/28 and 84.19.169.224/28 CyberGhost ranges. Feel free to mention any other examples and/or (admins) adjust the blocks. -- zzuuzz 18:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The organization delegated those ranges also seems to own 217.114.211.240/28, according to RIPE. Anomie⚔ 21:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

RevDel Request

I would like to request a RevDel under the second paragraph of WP:CFRD for my user page at User:The C of E. I am requesting this because last night unknown to me an IP, 89.242.208.253 vandalised my user page and left some rather rude, insulting and offensive comments about me in it here. Thankfully Duncan reverted it but I'd like it if the slander from the IP could be RevDel'ed please as I'd rather not have it left there to be read as I don't think that people should have to read rude vandalism if they had a look through my history. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Which of the RevDel criteria do you think it meets? It just seems like normal vandalism of the sort which we usually revert and leave behind to me... ╟─TreasuryTag►pikuach nefesh─╢ 08:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material one. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

'But not "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations' – ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 09:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The content of the edit seemed to go beyond an "ordinary" attack in my opinion so I deleted it prior to refreshing this page and seeing your comment, hope that is okay. Camw (talk) 09:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that went pretty far beyond ordinary incivility. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Well you'd know – ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 17:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

User abusing other editors

Among other disruptive actions, Humaliwalay (talk · contribs) is constantly abusing me and my edits , , , refusing to maintain civility by filling my talk page with many bogus warnings , using unreliable openly Shia-centric websites as refs which only provokes sectarian edit-wars. . Talk about a fearless no-respect-showing disruptive user , who even edit-wars with admins , .--AllahLovesYou (talk) 09:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I just asked you to have break, that was intended to calm down your aggressive and editing. "Need some break" is not abusive statement rather accusing someone wrongly of abusing other editors is an attack of accusation. You even claimed in the headline that abusing other editors, can you bring any abusive word which I used in front of us? I am in discussion with admin Dab here where is the edit warring? - Humaliwalay (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I asked this on the article talk page, but someone needs to explain to uninvolved parties why the website is so bad as to not be a usable source.

I see that it seems to be a mildly advocative "Shia and Sunni aren't so different" site, on first impression, but I suspect there are levels I am not understanding on reviewing it briefly.

There appear to be very vehement feelings about it - those need to be explained.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

IMO comments of [[ASE were more abusive as they tend to encompass whole community and definitely those comments point that per se user's comments, Indo-Aryans are some what inferior to Semitic-Arabs in addition those comments tend to defile dignity of Shi'a community by accusing them of forging lineage links.

But, imo, everybody should stick to the point and refrain from attacking believes, communities, nationalities, individuals, etc.

Finally, al-islam.org can be relied upon as it contains reliable articles such as , , , , , , , , , etc which are work of reputed Shi'a, Sunni & Western scholars. May be we should be cautious while referring to it as this website is an online library and all content at this website may not be NPOV or academic (as in the case of physical libraries) but that does not discredits importance of the website as source.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haiderc_s 19:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Who made the comment "Indo-Aryans are some what inferior to Semitic-Arabs", and where is the diff? A per se attack on another editor's culture/ethnicity/*ism is not acceptable, and editors really ought to keep such opinions to themselves while on WP. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Did I use "per se" right? I love needless latin.

The term per se means "by itself". Not sure that applies here. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I also have a question: Why is it that the Arabic word for God File:Dcp7323-Edirne-Eski Camii Allah-ds.svg resembles a Viking ship? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

i have no answer to bugses question but i think per se is correclty used here. "per se" might mean "in itslef" but it is generally used to mean "without reservation or explicativeness", such as the legal term "negiglgly per se" which means "to negligct without reservation or reason". you could say that the attack was "per se" because he didnt say "SOME iNDO-aRYANS" were inferior but NOT all of them since the remark itself was unqualified. however, you might have done better to use another greek Phrase, ad hominem which means 'against the homan' or against the person you is talking to. User:Smith Jones 03:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, ad hominem ("toward the man") would seem to be the proper phrasing here. Per se means "by itself" or "in itself"; separated from the rest of a particular discussion.

Can you provide the diff for Indo-Aryan being inferior to Semitic-Arabs? I'm not seeing it. I did find one reference to the theory that Iran's Muslim leaders are Indo-Aryan and hence not descended from Muhammad's family. If he made a broad and seemingly racist comment, I must have missed it. Although much of his argument has to do with sourcing, so he might have been talking about the quality of sourcing rather than the ethnic groups. But without the diff, I can't tell. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the comment was made, then I conclude that "per se" was correct. Even if it's in a religious context, it can easily be misconstrued. And if not misconstrued, then whoever said it could have been making a point outside the religious context. In other words, hypothetical person who made that comment: don't do that. Xavexgoem (talk)

AladdinSE made the comments which I pointed out in my previous comments which can be found here, notably after I pointed out this I was reported for SPI by ALY which may be point out that these users if not SPs are working in collaboration and are not in Good Faith. I'll try to respond any further queries but my responses may be slow as I'm too much busy in my real life (I'll be back, may be after more than 12 hours). --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haiderc_s 05:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That was what I saw. The actual quote is, "In fact, all the mullahs and Ayatollahs around the world, especially in Iran, claim decent from Muhammad and Quraysh when statistically they are not even Semitic Arabs but Indo-Aryan people and therefore cannot be descendants of the family of the Prophet." Where are you seeing anything about "inferiority" there? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Removal of AfD tag

Page: Sabby Dhalu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Johnsy88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Johnsy88 continues to remove an AfD tag for an article nominated for deletion. He also continues to remove a "failed verification" or "dubious" tag for content that is under discussion on the talk page. TFD (talk) 15:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed with an admin (NawlinWiki) who has originally flagged the issue, consulted with myself via his discussion page and resolved the issue and this issue has now been brought up again by the above editor TFD, The reason for my removal of the deletion tag is due to the previous discussion with the admin. I would also like to mention that the above editor has been involved in the editing of the article Unite Against Fascism and has also had previous issue against my user name attempting to persuade me to change my user name under the presumption and prejudiced assumption that the number 88 was due to a link to Nazism. the user TFD has also made factless assumptions about my editing and request for help by apply canvassing label to my user page discussions in the past and i feel that this user is targeting me for an unknown reason Johnsy88 (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Johnsy88. Articles for deletion is a week long discussion/debate over the merits of a particular article. Any Misplaced Pages editor may start one up and any Misplaced Pages editor may contribute to the discussion. After the week is over an uninvolved administrator will judge a rough consensus to either keep the page or delete it. Just because one admin told you the article looked ok doesn't mean other wikipedia editors feel it is ok. At these debates admins and regular users have the same say, so if 2 admins think an article should be kept and 6 regular editors feel it should be deleted, the debate could easily be closed as "delete". Because it is important to let readers and editors of the article know that a deletion discussion is occuring, the deletion tag must remain on the article for the full week. If you want the article to be kept I would advise you to look over the reasons why deletion was proposed and attempt to fix the article so that it meets the objections. ThemFromSpace 15:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The particular issue of the removal of AFD tags doesn't really need to come here; I have warned the user that he will be blocked if he continues, as he clearly knows this is against the rules. In general, though, I would say that this editor seems particularly inflexible when confronted with Misplaced Pages policies, instead choosing (as in the above comment) to believe that there is some sort of organized campaign against him. Johnsy, I can assure you that there is no such campaign, and I think nearly every editor who has tried to work with you has operated civilly and politely when trying to explain the rules to you. (ESkog) 15:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I have restore the AfD tag, with an edit summary which explicitly states it should remain until the discussion is closed. Johnsy88, please note that NawlinWiki knows quite well that the tag should remain as long as the discussion is open, and what the rules are for closing it. I find it hard to believe that he would advse you to remove an AfD tag - you may be confusing it with the PROD tag which he added earlier. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

i resent the accusation of inflexibility considering that in nearly all cases i will attempt to resolve any issue with consultation with the opposite editor. What i feel is plain to see is that the editor TFD has on more than one occasion appeared to attempt to use other tactics (accusations of nazi code words in name, non suitability of article) when discussions have failed to produce an outcome that would benefit him (discussions on the UAF article).

If i am breaking policy by removing the Deletion label (which i now fully understand i am) then that is my fault and i humbly apologise for my mistaken removal.

What i would say is considering the weight of sources that prove the article should exist due to the notability of the person "sabby Dhalu" i would say that their is a probability of an agenda when it comes to the flagging of the article for deletion. Johnsy88 (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Johnsy, you need to comment on the articles, not the editors. Accusing editors of having an agenda for nominating an article for deletion when insufficient sourcing about the subject has been provided is not generally a good idea around here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

We call it the "assume good faith" policy; and it's one of the necessary social lubricants which makes this project viable. Don't ignore it. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand and although i stand by my opinion of above mentioned editor i am willing accept deletion of the article above (please see http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sabby_Dhalu#Sabby_Dhalu) due to the fact that i am in the wrong with regards to the requirements for acceptance of an article on policy grounds. Johnsy88 (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Improper removal of speedy deletion tag

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

Resolved – CFD now has a reason to live. --Jayron32 23:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Last week I tagged Category:International military aircraft 2010-2019 for speedy deletion per the C1 speedy deletion criteria. Shortly after, User:The Bushranger (the original creator) removed my tag and placed the {{empty category}} template in its place, stating "no reason to delete it when it will only need to be re-created later". I objected to this on his talk page, detailing how he shouldn't have removed the tag himself (as the original category creator) and how the category didn't meet any of the exceptions to the C1 deletion criteria. I then re-tagged the category explaining that Bushranger should use the "holdon" template if he had any objection to the deletion, for the reviewing admin to consider. Immediately afterward, however, User:Ahunt removed my speedy deletion tag, stating that "this is a useful category. If you still think it should be deleted than take it to Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion". I once again objected to this, because Ahunt is not an administrator, and because the category still did not meet any exceptions to the C1 speedy deletion criteria. I don't dispute that non-administrators can remove speedy deletion tags, but it is my understanding that they should only do so in unambiguous situations where the tag was obviously improper or no longer applies. This was not the case here. Looking for administrator input as to what I should do next. I don't think CfD is appropriate, as I don't actually object to the merits of the category, only the fact that it is empty, which is a procedural issue that clearly meets the C1 criteria. It's been empty for well over a week, by the way, so it can be deleted any time. 69.59.200.77 (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

No, speedy tags can be removed by anyone. The reason for the speedy delete process is for a means to remove uncontested articles - as soon as it is contested for any reason the article needs to go to AfD. Them's the rules. So, open an AfD discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

No, CSD tags cannot be removed by the article creator. Doing so is disruptive, and doing so repeatedly usually earns a block.—Kww(talk) 20:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Er... whoops. Couldn't have been paying much attention - since I was wittering on about articles anyway. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

At this point, the CSD tag has been removed by someone other than the creator, so it would have to go through CFD.—Kww(talk) 20:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to pile on, CSD-tags can be removed by anyone, except for the original creator. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 20:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems pointless and perhaps even a little GAME-y to require a cfd discussion on something that so plainly meets the criteria, when the very criteria itself was introduced to prevent people from keeping empty categories around because they like them. If that's consensus here, though, I'll respect it and bring it to CfD, where my sole argument is that it's empty and doesn't meet any exceptions, and the sole arguments to keep will go completely contrary to the criteria, and will still be eligible for speedy deletion even if the CfD ended in keep. 69.59.200.77 (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we can close this one. Maybe leave a note on Bushranger's talk about removing speedy tags from articles you've created yourself. N419BH 20:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

92.14.73.142 and 92.14.116.65‎;

I think this is a clear case of being the same person, despite the latter IP being blocked for a month. Do i need to go through SSP? Simply south (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for vandalism 24h; seems to be dynamic IP so not matching the earlier 1mo block. Pretty obviously the same guy. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Wait, changed it to 1 month based on further research. I don't know if it'll change faster than 24h. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

What if i encounter them again under another IP which i think will happen judging what's happening? Simply south (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV or ask for a rangeblock here. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ben_Henderson_(fighter) Needs temp protection

The page on requesting protection recommends speaking to an admin before doing anything, and that's what I am attempting now. The issue is minor, but is vandalism none the less. The fighters record has been modified to show him loosing to a fighter in an event that has not been held yet (the event is tomorrow night.) I recommend and request the page be protected until 11PM EST US (after the event is scheduled to end.)

Sdamon (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the correct place for this request. Page protection requests are made here --> WP:RPP. Whose Your Guy (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Something Unusual

I've got this my discussion reverted and an unusual legal threat from 69.31.68.51 who has a dynamic IP address. I think this is rather unusual for removing a sentence in Public opinion on climate change and posting the accompanying reason on the talk page. Maybe you can have a look and offer your opinion, because I'm a little taken aback. --CaC 155.99.230.249 (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This is just someone puffing out their chest in an intimidation attempt. I wouldn't worry too much about it. Stuff like this happens every day here on Misplaced Pages. Whose Your Guy (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Just revert, warn, ignore. If that IP user (69.31.68.51) keeps making legal threats, he is asking to get blocked. 00:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I've warned IP 69.31.68.51 with {{uw-legal}}. Whose Your Guy (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat

Made by user RubinAttorney at Harry M. Rubin. Edward321 (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, advice to contact the WMF at their contact page. Don't think there is anything else to do here. --Jayron32 01:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does that article look really socky? And if RubinAttorney is an actual attorney, I'll eat my hat. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked both User:RubinAttorney and User:RabidMelon as obvious socks of one another. RabidMelon restored the legal threat after it was removed. --Jayron32 01:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, maybe the page could be SPed for a bit? An awful lot of "new" account activity there. HalfShadow 01:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

There are 2-3 other accounts (then I stopped looking) with a similar MO in the last few months, and with no edits to other topics. I suppose since they're serial, rather than concurrent, it isn't a huge deal. But if they show up again now that the most recent accounts are blocked, then semi-protection or an SPI for an IP block might be in order. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Another sock was created, so I've protected the article for a week. This looks like a long-term problem, and evidently they've found the IP reset button, so we might be looking at long term semiprotection. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The article in its current form appears to be very neutral; if anything, it's largely positive. Perhaps the complainant is of the impression that BLP's require their subjects' "permission". Otherwise, if the complainant could state what specific objections he has, that would help. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Article looks spammy to me. I always want to delete such articles, but I know how hard that is. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 06:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
      • It could always be modified to cut out the spam and/or nominated for deletion. Not by someone threatening to sue, though, but by someone challenging notability or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
        • I can't edit the article due to protection, and I hate getting sucked into such things anyway. But I notice it is currently sourced mostly to press releases and what I'd consider to be primary sources. If you AfD it, I'll support deletion, but WP practice in this area is so screwed up that it's likely a lost cause. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 07:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
        • I changed C. M. Rubin (about Harry M. Rubin's spouse) to a redirect. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 07:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
          • If you take out the questionable stuff, how much would be left? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
            • You're basically asking what it would take to make that guy's advertising page acceptable to Misplaced Pages. I'm much more interested in deleting it on the grounds that we don't do advertising, than in spending probably 2 or more hours cleaning it up for him for free (and it would still be an ad, even after that). There's basically nothing in it sourced to high quality RS, but on the other hand, most of it is just fluff rather than being really contentious, so wiping the content indiscriminately (leaving a minimal stub) would be a bit pointy. I'd instead have to carefully weigh and research each bit of fluff for possible relevance/retention, rewrite stuff carefully to tone down the spamminess, check around for better sourcing, etc. I think we're not here for that, or at least we shouldn't be. The article is IINFO, a COI vehicle, and a drama magnet all at the same time, and it's just not worth it and we're better off without it. IMO, articles like this should be speedy-deleted and if an unconflicted editor later wants to write a neutral article about the person from scratch, they can do so. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 09:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Kurdo777 reverting Binksternet

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

Binksternet blocked for 2 weeks. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I am wondering what should be done about User:Kurdo777 who has demonstrated a consistent pattern of edit warring behavior in which he makes out-of-hand total reversions to any of my substantial contributions to articles which touch upon Iran in 1953; reversions which are not accompanied by talk page discussion or any attempt to build consensus. The diffs listed here are only the most recent spate of reversion interactions stretching back for many months on the 1953 Iranian coup d'état article. His usual reaction to a substantial edit of mine is 100% reversion.

• Reversion of my contribution to Darioush Bayandor, 02:17, December 14, 2010
• Reversion of my contribution to Darioush Bayandor, 21:49, December 15, 2010
• Reversion of my contribution to Mohammad Mosaddegh, 22:53, December 15, 2010
• Reversion of my contribution to Mohammad Mosaddegh, 23:22, December 15, 2010
• Reversion of my contribution to 1953 Iranian coup d'état, 21:29, December 15, 2010
• Reversion of my contribution to 1953 Iranian coup d'état, 22:45, December 15, 2010

I have indicated on his talk page that edit summaries are not the only place for noting why a revert is taking place, that the better way to resolve content conflict per Misplaced Pages:Edit summary is to participate on the talk page. Since then, Kurdo777 has not discussed any reversions of my work on an associated talk page and has even made null edits so that he can use the edit summary to put my edits down further. One of his edits listed above includes the edit summary "Rv - This is unacceptable. You reverted all my edits for no good reason", an ironic statement considering his consistent use of the 100% reversion, and an incorrect one considering I had adjusted my version to correspond with one of his disputed points, to leave out the Macmillan biography bit which stated that Bayandor was a lecturer.

I have been discussing on Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état a new book about the topic, a scholarly book by Darioush Bayandor, an Iranian diplomat who makes non-mainstream conclusions, and Kurdo777 routinely works to marginalize the book's author and import, calling it 'fringe'. At Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#1953 Iranian coup d'état, User:Rocksanddirt told Kurdo777 to stop using the 'fringe' label to try and suppress a minority viewpoint, but in this edit to Mohammad Mosaddegh, he once again uses the fringe accusation and reverts my article improvements in their entirety.

Kurdo777 and I both were blocked in April 2010 for edit warring at 1953 Iranian coup d'état and since then he has not allowed any of my substantial content contributions to stay. This looks to me to be a personal vendetta, with Kurdo777 dead set against anything I might bring to the table on 1953 Iran topics, especially anything from the new book by Bayandor. It is unacceptable behavior in a fellow editor, not collegial, and bad for the project. I wonder whether Kurdo777 should be blocked or topic-banned to stop the harm that he is doing by his edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The truth is the exact opposite. I am surprised that Binksternet decided to file a complaint against me, given his own behavior and record. He cites Rocksanddirt's comment to me as some sort of proof that he is right, while ignoring the fact that 3 other editors, in the same discussion, told him that Darioush Bayandor should not be given any weight in this article. (Example ) This exemplifies his tendency to ignore what he does not like to hear, ignore consensus, and engage in edit-waring while violating various Misplaced Pages polices dealing with sourcing. A simple count of the revisions on this article, shows that Binksternet is the party responsible for most reverts, and may have had twice as many reverts as me in the past year. He has a habbit of reverting, instead of discussing, to make his desired changes. He also abuses automated revisions which are meant to be used against simple vandalism, to edit-war in content disputes. That is why he was recently blocked for one week for excessive reverting and disruption. Kurdo777 (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. I previously blocked both Binksternet and Kurdo for this kind of edit warring on 1953 Iranian coup d'état. However, I have since come to the conclusion that Binksternet is the main instigator and culprit of the edit wars on the article and related pages. He ignores content-related polices, overlooks consensus, and tries to forcefully implement his POV-ridden changes onto these articles. Today, for example, he was told told by no less than four different editors/administrators (on the article talk page and fringe theories noticeboard) that a book that he is trying to introduce to these articles as a reference is in fact a fringe source. In addition, he has been told that the author should not be given any weight for now, yet he continues to attempt to introduce to the source to one of these articles despite the consensus against it. Binksternet has also been stalking several editors who have opposed his view on 1953 Iranian coup d'état, into other related and unrelated articles, which he had never edited before. Given that the sheer volume of Binksternet's reverts, and that since my block in April, Kurdo has stayed clear of trouble, while Binksternet has been blocked twice for edit warring and disruption, I would recommend a warning or a short block for Kurdo, and a minimum two week block for Binksternet - given his failure to have learned anything from his last block which was one week long. Khoikhoi 03:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Brief view of the recent history of the articles provided above:

• Darioush Bayandor - on the 15th Binksternet makes cosmetic changes, one not-quite-so-good (changing ref name="economist" to ref name=Economist) and changing Pahlavi dynasty to Shah Pahlavi (something which had been reverted previously). Reverted by Kurdo, who made the first revert against the dynasty -> shah on the 14th. Also on the 14th, removes references to Bayandor's theories as being "revisionist" (Economist). 2 reverts by Binksternet on the same day.
• 1953 Iranian coup d'état - Binksternet changes an image caption that had read "According to the CIA's declassified documents and records, some of the most feared mobsters in Teheran were hired by the CIA to stage pro-Shah riots on August 19, 1953. Other CIA-paid men were brought into Tehran in buses and trucks, and took over the streets of the city." to read "A Tehran weekly printed a photo of armed men and soldiers with a tank.". This article again has 2 reverts by Binksternet on the same day.
• Mohammad Mosaddegh - adds contextually relevant though questionably sourced material, changing "More popular than ever, a greatly strengthened" to "Politically strengthened by his reinstatement as prime minister and by a favorable decision made by the International Court of Justice endorsing Iran's position on oil nationalisation", with the Bayandor source. I don't actually see any problem with this, but it's followed by another source altogether and may be seen to create an impression of WP:SYNTH to bolster Bayandor's presence throughout these articles. I'd AGF on that, since the edit did provide context.

This could easily be construed as tendentious. The image caption change reeks of white-washing. Both editors are skirting around 3RR. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and blocked for 2 weeks, per Khoikhoi and myself. Kurdo's reverts were within reason, but I encourage them to seek mediation in the future. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record, there are Binksternet's reverts and partial-reverts on the same pages, during the last two days, many with misleading edit-summaries like "trimming", "wording" etc, and often coupled with smokescreen-type of edits like fixing the referencing format or a technical edit of some sort, in order to hide the nature of the edit (revert) :

• Darioush Bayandor Revision as of 22:37, 13 December 2010
• Darioush Bayandor Revision as of 01:17, 14 December 2010
• Darioush Bayandor Revision as of 17:21, 15 December 2010
• Darioush Bayandor Revision as of 21:39, 15 December 2010
• 1953 Iranian coup d'état: Revision as of 15:43, 13 December 2010
• 1953 Iranian coup d'état: Revision as of 22:24, 13 December 2010
• 1953 Iranian coup d'état: Revision as of 21:26, 15 December 2010
• 1953 Iranian coup d'état: Revision as of 21:58, 15 December 2010
• 1953 Iranian coup d'état: Revision as of 22:20, 15 December 2010

Kurdo777 (talk) 03:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Need another admin opinion

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Captain Occam

It would be very helpful if another admin or two could review that appeal request and give their opinion. I provided my take on the situation. Another voice or two would sort things out. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Dylan Flaherty and Sarah Palin

• Dylan Flaherty (talk · contribs)
• Misplaced Pages:WQA#Dylan Flaherty
• recent: Talk:Sarah Palin#Africa (part I), (part II), (part III)
• archived: Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 42#Carl Cameron leaks, Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 43#Africa: Continent or country?

On December 9, an editor questioned on Talk:Sarah Palin why there was no mention in the article of an anonymously-sourced 2008 report that Palin believed Africa to be a country. The material was originally considered in 2008, and most agree the consensus was to not include the material due to sourcing issues. (The material has remained absent from the article since.) The recent inquiry triggered a new round of discussions, and the two ensuing conversations wound up with twelve editors generally opposing inclusion and four editors generally supporting inclusion. I think the reasonable interpretation of the discussion would be a consensus against inclusion, due to the poor sourcing.

One editor, User:Dylan Flaherty, however, has gone around and around, posing generally the same "questions" and using various debate tactics repeatedly — and interpreting the resulting exhaustion from every other editor as a wp:silent-endorsement of his "position." Although he has sought and been advised of several potential dispute resolution options, should he still wish to push for including the text despite consensus, he has thus far not pursued any of those options. Instead, he has just announced that "there is a consensus in support of insertion" of the material, and presumably plans to move forward unilaterally.

The article has long been subject to general sanctions and article probation, precisely due to this type of wp:blp-be-damned, point-of-view warrior-mentality. He has basically indicated on his talk page that he will not recognize any consensus from the editors that he believes "guard" the Sarah Palin article, and I think his intent now is to simply drive any editor that doesn't agree with him away through ad infinitum debate. Given the sheer amount of tabloid scheiße editors at the Palin article(s) must regularly sift through, I think his tactics to drive away any remotely objective editor can be particularly harmful (and are not unique, see User:Scribner and User:Manticore55 in particular).

User:Dylan Flaherty has previously been advised of the general sanctions and article probation in place at Sarah Palin, and I will also notify him of this posting. jæs (talk) 04:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

User notified. I've also let User:KillerChihuahua know about this post, given that she has been one of the primary administrators in handling issues relating the general sanctions imposed on the Sarah Palin article, although her talk page indicates she may be away tending to real life at the moment. jæs (talk) 04:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a slight correction. I was the one who used the term "guard" at Dylan's talk page. And, as I state at the articles talkpage, most recently the discussion had developed to a point where a spot for inclusion, if approved, would be logical. I'm sure more discussion will follow.Buster Seven Talk 05:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I think I'm supposed to respond here, but I'll keep it very short:

The question of whether, where and how to insert the Africa gaffe is not currently settled, as there are multiple editors arguing on either side. Apparently, the trigger for this report is that I offered to put together the proposed text for insertion, which I is something I was actively requested to do. I have not changed the article, and do not plan to do so without a clear consensus, so I'm not sure how this is a violation of anything. Having said that, it has become obvious that the discussion is not going smoothly and we are not moving towards any sort of consensus. For that reason, I believe that this complaint is, to put it mildly, premature and inappropriate. I would instead suggest that we handle this in the right venue: an RfC on the content dispute. Dylan Flaherty 05:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No, Dylan, we absolutely do not need to start an RFC over whether to include anonymous gossip in a BLP. You've already been told to stop beating the horse -- it's turning into glue. Cut it out before you find yourself restricted from the subject. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, it is not the case that I am the lone voice, and it is also not the case that this is about gossip. I can show diffs in which I explain that the notable aspect is the McCain campaign's post-election treatment of Palin, and I can show diffs of people requesting dispute resolution. Quite frankly, the tone of your input here is an example of why we need dispute resolution so much. Dylan Flaherty 05:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You're correct that you're not the "lone voice" that has argued for inclusion over the past two years (although you are in the overwhelming minority). The distinction, though — and the reason I've raised this issue here — is that you're the one editor that is using a nearly daunting amount of wikilawyering and tendentious "debating" to, as best as I can tell, exhaust every other editor to the point at which they surrender and allow the content to be included, notwithstanding wp:blp and actual consensus. jæs (talk) 06:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. I meant that I am not the only person who is currently favoring some movement in the direction of inclusion. It is presently an unsettled controversy among editors.

I'm not speaking of what the consensus might have been two years ago, as that doesn't matter one bit. Past consensus is not binding on the present, and that's a good thing because our views change as we learn more. It is only in retrospect that it becomes clear how the Africa gaffe incident marked Palin's split from the GOP. Only now do we have the hindsight to see why it was important and where it fits into her story. Two years ago, I would have agreed with omitting this incident, but now we know better.

We do not have a consensus today, and we need to get one. However, trying to get me topic-banned is not a productive step in achieving consensus. Moreover, your claims about my behavior, in addition to being less than accurate, open the door to an analysis of your own behavior, and I don't think you would benefit from that. You have been highly aggressive in trying to derail and shut down this discussion. Dylan Flaherty 06:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Nobody's perfect. It would be far more useful to find out what Palin has to say nowadays about Africa, if anything. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The point I've been trying to make is that it was never really about her knowledge of geography, but rather the politics of the leak. I somehow suspect that, if she were quizzed today, she'd do just fine. :-) Dylan Flaherty 06:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Please note: The link above to the WQA is misleading, the report was opened by Dylan about another editor for less-than civil commments. -PrBeacon (talk) 06:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Dylan Flaherty is certainly not the only editor who sees things the way he does. I involved myself actively in that thread for a few days, but withdrew after finding it virtually impossible to have a meaningful conversation with any who opposed my perspective. Points and compromise suggestions I politely made were responded to with totally tangential or irrelevant comments, at times quite abusive. As a non-American it was an interesting and educational insight into American politics. I saw people who would aggressively and irrationality defend their favoured politician's purity and brilliance, with no interest in sensible discussion. Seeing no evidence that such editors would ever accept anything I said, I judiciously withdrew, but kept an interested eye on the article. It's important to note that the absence of active editors from a discussion does not mean an absence of interest. HiLo48 (talk) 07:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, HiLo48. I had wondered where you had gone off to, but correctly concluded that you had been driven off by the harshness of certain responses. I'm sorry you were compelled to withdraw and I certainly don't hold that against you in any way. I can only express my hope that you might be willing to participate in a more structured discussion, such as the RfC. Dylan Flaherty 07:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. That discussion was a very very frustrating experience. I admire your patience (even if driven by boredom.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Oy vey. You have a clear point of view regarding Sarah Palin. It's evident in your absolute unwillingness to listen to anyone — other editors, administrators, uninvolved parties — who take the time to calmly, rationally explain to you that anonymously-sourced gossip is absolutely unacceptable for a wp:blp, no matter what level of unsourced synthesis you might be able to conjure up. You can't debate your way around or through such an obvious wp:blp violation. And while I admire your pugnacity and delicious sense of irony, your efforts are damaging to biographies, drive neutral editors away from controversial articles, and ultimately hurt Misplaced Pages. jæs (talk) 07:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That out-of-context link does not accurately reflect my view of Palin. Regardless, I believe we are all entitled to holding our own opinions as well as to making suggestions regarding article content. It would be very easy to find pro-Palin quotes from you, particularly if I wasn't picky about context and accuracy, but I would never deny you the opportunity to collaborate simply because we are not already in full agreement.

I think we've also established that it's not a WP:BLP violation, so please do us the courtesy of not bringing up arguments that have been shown to be false. Thank you. Dylan Flaherty 07:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I won't even bother addressing your attempts to imply, falsely, that I'm anything but neutral when it comes to this subject, but I once again admire your irony. But I do wonder exactly how many other editors and administrators have to try to convince you it is a wp:blp issue before you will actually acknowledge that fact? (I also find this comment from a few minutes ago to be not at all subtle. I suspect you didn't intend for it to be, though.) jæs (talk) 08:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You have twice now attempted to imply that I am not neutral. The point is that editors are not expected to be neutral, articles are. Simply having an opinion does not disqualify either of us. Dylan Flaherty 08:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

When editors clearly can't separate their personal opinions from their editing of a controversial article for a biography of a living person, there are serious ramifications for this project. If you cannot edit the article neutrally and objectively, that certainly ought to disqualify you. jæs (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You have offered nothing to support your claim that my suggestions for editing are anything but NPOV. It helps if you prove your claim instead of assuming it. Dylan Flaherty 09:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Alright you two that's enough. Disengage. Dylan, if you want to add a sentence into the article about Palin thinking Africa is a country, find a reliable source for it, and state why you think adding such a sentence would improve the article. Make your case on the talk page, and see what happens. If consensus is that the sentence should not be included, respect that. If you have already done this and the consensus is that the sentence should not be included, stop beating the dead horse. N419BH 08:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that reliable sourcing is absolutely essential. It turns out that we have no trouble finding reliable sources for both the original report and the analysis of its significance. Dylan Flaherty 08:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• I noticed this at WP:WQA#Bonewah where Dylan Flaherty reported what they thought was a uncivil comment, namely this edit. I had a look at the issue and noticed the repetitive attempts at Talk:Sarah Palin to record an alleged blunder by Palin re knowledge of Africa. Given that the article is under probation, and given the extremely low quality of the arguments in favor of introducing the Africa material, I recommend that an admin let people know that consensus has spoken, and the issue should not be revisited unless a new reliable source appears (and it would be even better if WP:DUE could be explained, i.e. you need more than one report before suggesting that Palin does not know the status of Africa). Johnuniq (talk) 08:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but calling me a liar is indeed uncivil. Moreover, the issue is not the alleged blunder, but the actual report. This is a delicate issue, so I feel that it is vital to do the necessary research to get the facts straight, prior to offering suggestions. Dylan Flaherty 08:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

N419BH - Many suggestions have been made on the Talk page. My reason for leaving it was that consensus is clearly impossible. I tried to present a different perspective and was howled down by those who cannot conceive of an alternative to their view that the content MUST NOT BE THERE. (Some of the comments to me were quite rude.) I am not American. This gives me both an independence from American party politics, and another perspective. I was not just ignored. I was attacked. Forget about consensus. It cannot happen. HiLo48 (talk) 08:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

HiLo, I am quite sympathetic, but I must tell you that I felt much the same about Tea Party movement, but a long mediation forced both sides to the table and yielded a mutually acceptable compromise. On this basis, I believe an RfC has some potential here. Perhaps I'm an optimist, but I'd like to give it a try. Dylan Flaherty 09:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone suggested confining it to the 2008 election page? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, the suggested location is the end of the election section. Its significance is not for the election, but for the transition. Dylan Flaherty 08:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The alleged statement is presumed to have possibly affected people's voting choice, yes? And if not, why does it matter anyway? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That was my initial thought, too, but I was mistaken. The gaffe itself was supposed to have occurred during the campaign, but Cameron was not allowed to mention it until afterwards, as it was given to him "off the record". Instead, it came out just as McCain conceded, as part of an effort by his people to lay blame at Palin's feet. This, according to reliable sources, had the effect of distancing Palin from the GOP mainstream and eventually leading to her role in the Tea Party movement. As I said, the significance is in the transition. Dylan Flaherty 09:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, just read the proposed content. The usual badly sourced BLP mud slinging content. I suggest as a resolution an admin leaves Dylan a strong but polite note to drop the stick and back away slowly, there is no way the content (at this stage anyway) is able to pass BLP concerns. Sourcing is pants (mostly news from the time as far as I can make out with nothing but trivial coverage). Significance is not established (no indication of the relevance or significance). etc. --Errant 09:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I did read your comment, but I'm sorry to say that you made some serious factual errors that undermine your conclusion. A key one is that you denied that anyone provided RS's for the "thrown under the bus" analysis. If you go back and read it more carefully, you'll see that there are two you missed. Dylan Flaherty 09:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I read all the sources in those three parts, perhaps I missed it. Care to post them both again? Stick them on my talk page. --Errant 09:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Dylan Flaherty 09:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

As a point of order, I requested that jaes not post further to my talk page. They have violated this request. I am requesting that an administrator take care of this. Dylan Flaherty 09:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that Dylan find a way to stop making increasingly regular appearances as the subject (or reporter-turned-subject) of so many threads that concern disruptive editing. Dylan isn't even four months old here, yet it's becoming "old hat" already seeing him surrounded by controversy. It isn't looking like a "rosy" future at this rate. Jus' sayin'... Doc talk 09:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You have said nothing about the subject of this report. Instead, you are bringing up your general opinion of me my editing "style", which is not relevant. On the whole, I do not find your comment helpful. Dylan Flaherty 09:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I wish you would find it helpful. I have no negative opinion of you as an editor (or a person) whatsoever: your editing "style" is the issue. You must have noticed a few "objections" to it by now... Doc talk 09:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, the reason I don't find it helpful is that it does nothing to resolve the issue that this report is about. At best, it is harmless commentary. At worst, it is mudslinging. In neither case, nor any in between, is it productive. While I will assume good faith here, I cannot conclude that it is helpful. Dylan Flaherty 09:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Since you clarified your intention, I redacted my original comment. Dylan Flaherty 09:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that :> After being here almost 3 years and never been the subject of even one AN/I/WQA/AN/3RR/etc., maybe my advice truly isn't helpful. I can't keep you out of them... so go with your instincts! Cheers :> Doc talk 09:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not denying that your advice may be helpful in a general context. However, my feeling is that offering it here in the place of an analysis of the situation that was reported is not helpful. I hope I have made this distinction sufficiently clear. Dylan Flaherty 09:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have to again contribute my comments from the thread, since everyone else is just repeating their stubborn opinions. I'm in Australia. The "Fact" that Palin does not know Africa is a continent was widely publicised here. No refutation of that "Fact" has arrived here. I acknowledge that some editors believe it should be refuted and have some evidence for that claim. This is a global encyclopaedia. (Hence my spelling of that word.) To have an article about Palin and not mention that rather sensational "Fact" would make it look like the article has been censored. Hence I proposed mentioning both sides of the story. This proposal has nothing to do with US politics, apart from making the description look complete. Believe it or not, the rest of the world does pay attention to US politics. Let's tell the full story. HiLo48 (talk) 09:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You're an American. "Methinks he doth protest too much". Doc talk 09:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Doc, that's a silly response. Do assume good faith. If you want, I'l scan my Australian birth certificate and post it here. You have to start trusting us foreigners! HiLo48 (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm an Aussie and I support HiLo48's post. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 09:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I think I'm beginning to notice something here. The actual story of Palin's Africa gaffe would, if it were true, make her look ignorant. It get the impression that some people get this far into the issue and then stop. They immediately react to a perceived attack and they never go any deeper, so they miss the point.

Yet, if they kept reading, they would understand that the significance is not that the story makes her look bad, but that the story is intended to; that it was told by the McCain aide to Cameron precisely because they wanted her to look bad. In this context, Palin comes across as a sympathetic figure, scapegoated by the establishment so that McCain doesn't have to take the full blame for losing the election.

Misplaced Pages is not here to praise or damn Palin, but to report on the facts. If we report that the gaffe was claimed and then explain what it means about her relationship with the GOP mainstream, we are just doing our jobs. Dylan Flaherty 09:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the sources you suggested and did a bit of digging; I agree, there is content here. On the other hand the "Africa gaffe" is a minor part of that, worth probably less than a sentence as part of the overall story. (but this is not the place for such a discussion really - we should figure out if admin action is needed, and if not then move on) --Errant 09:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Eickman

User:Eickman has repeatedly added a link to his personal webpage into the Son of perdition article. He was questioned about it here and here, advised against it here (which he responded to here), and then warned here and here. And yet he has added the link repeatedly, the most recent occasions being here, here and here. StAnselm (talk) 07:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

All this is sectarian nonsense from two individuals--StAnselm and Tawain Boi--to try and suppress the full release of factual information on Misplaced Pages representing all viewpoints on the given topics, including those of various Jewish groups, higher critics, minor Christian movements like the Unitarians and Idealists, etc, etc. And if you don't believe it, take a look at the articles before I started editing them versus after. (Better yet, take a look at what these two characters did after my last block for fighting with them over minority viewpoints--they immediately moved in to reduce the articles back to their sectarian positions.)

The pages are "Son of Perdition," "Historicism (Christian)," and "Book of Daniel."

Ike Eickman (talk) 08:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

As the diffs provided by StAnselm demonstrate, this has nothing to do with sectarianism. A range of editors have objected to your idiosyncratic POV edits and your repeated breach of Wiki policy. One of your sources was rejected as a WP:RS by the WP:RS noticeboard. You included it anyway. It was taken out, and you were informed that the WP:RS noticeboard had rejected it. You put it in again. Despite a number of editors informing you that it was not a WP:RS, you continued to include it, along with a link to your own book, which you advertise on your talk page. You are also blocked more than once for repeated abuse of other editors.--Taiwan boi (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Hometown Kid

User:Hometown Kid keeps inserting chart-peaks to the Rick Ross discography without providing sources. I recently cleaned up the discography of Rick Ross as it was lacking sources and had a lot of unverifiable peaks. I have warned the user four times already at his talk page that he should not insert peaks if he cannot source them. Instead the user persistently keeps inserting peaks again that cannot be found in the currently provided sources and refuses to follow WP:V. The user claims at his talk page that he views Billboard's charts on weekly bases and updates peaks accordingly, but again refuses to follow wikipedia's policy and continues to alter Rick Ross dicography in a similar manner leaving messages of this kind in edit-summaries, 1, 2. I'd appreciate it if someone could approach this user in a way to help that discography remain sourced and verifiable. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 07:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) grave errors

Last Dec 15, CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) removed a statement in the public opinion climate change citing that this is the sentence by savillo as shown below.

1. (cur | prev) 18:20, 15 December 2010 155.99.230.57 (talk) (24,690 bytes) (→Issues: see talk page Talk:Public opinion on climate change#Sentence by Savillo Removed) (undo)

Savillo did not write this but his comment was used as a reference. The statement that was removed blamed the IPCC and if you go to the reference citing the comments of Savillo- there is no mention of IPCC. IPCC is a very sensitive issue and Cac 155.99.230.57 (talk) will just state freshly that this Sentence by Savillo removed. What kind of editor is CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk)? Does this person has the immunity to blame a statement to someone in the reference even the the author of the reference did not write it? and the reference's comment does not support the statement? It shows that CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) has a low IQ, doesnot analyze the situation, an imbecile or an idiot. Blaming someones statement to the author of reference is a very grave error and ought to be punished severely.I know CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) is old to be taught how to and to feel sorry for therefore she/he has to suffer the consequences. Documents are documents and she has to face them. He/she is highly irresponsible, worthless, uneducated, unethical, not urbanized and a bullshit!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.185.187 (talk) 08:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Johnsy88#User_Name

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards