Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:35, 16 February 2009

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation

Some wikihounding going on

• Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor, obsessed with adding "Jewish" to articles, is WP:HOUNDing User:David Eppstein at Talk:David_Eppstein#Jewish.3F after their content dispute at Talk:Noam_Elkies#Noam_Elkies_is_Jewish. THF (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There's some edit warring and hounding, so a 12 hour block for disruptive editing would probably be justifiable. PhilKnight (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently a recidivist. Twelve hours seems light if a block is appropriate at all. THF (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

My reading of the block log is that s/he should be considered a user with a single block from over 6 months ago. PhilKnight (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Separately, there seems to be some similarity with Wolfowit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), though it's within the realm of possibility that two different editors have the same insistence about identifying Jewish bloodlines in biographies. THF (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

THF, just a heads up, but you already probably knew this, there are actually many IPs, editors, socks, meatpupetts, you name it, that have an obsession with Jewish related issues. I send alot of time sending them Jayjg's way :) So I wouldn't assume they are the same editor. I just "treat" them as I find them :). Anyways, cheers, --Tom 15:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this here. I did bring it up at WP:BLP/N but haven't yet received a response there. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

My take on this is that if an editor is going around generally inserting what they think is a person's religion into bios, they may be being a pain or tendentious or whatever, but probably not racist. But if they are only inserting Jewish into articles, well, that looks like a duck. dougweller (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Jews look like ducks? :-P Sorry, could not resist. /humor KillerChihuahua 16:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps wikifan may be aware of the Jewish background of some people but perhaps not aware of the Muslim or Christian background. People tend to know the background of our own group rather than others. That wouldn't be "racist," it would simply be adding material. I haven't looked at this article (and can't speak to the edit warring charge) and know nothing about David Eppstein myself, but generally speaking if a notable person is of an ethnicity or a religion, what is wrong with its inclusion (assuming that there are RS to support it)? Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, early Christians were primarily Jews anyway. Maybe someone is looking waaaayyy too closely at the photographs, and can determine if the individual in question went through their brit milah or not? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Could this be a content-dispute masquerading as an "edit-war"? Just wondering.  ? Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Not really. Please read this section. Is there a point here or not?? --Tom 18:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That is very creepy. I'd say BLP's requirement for conservative reporting and respecting people's privacy applies, and Wikifan should be warned to stay clear of reporting such information unless it is relevant to the living person's notability. It was not so very long ago that this sort of "one drop" of blood theory was used to create lists of people for adverse action, and we don't want any of that here. Ray (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

How is this obsession? Noam is Jewish, I found a source and put it in there. What is the problem? It was reverted a couple times because my original source was weak, and I got that...but I don't see why this is such a big deal. Half the article is uncited, yet all you guys delete is the Jewish statement? HE IS JEWISH. His name is friggin Noam. Eppstein starting stammering on about blood purity blah blah I don't care about political correctness. I don't care if it offends him, it's truth. I saw that he had his own article and there was no reference of him being Jewish. I googled his name and found some documents indicating he *might* be Jewish, so I asked: craziness. He said his father was Jewish and I told him that he might be considered Jewish, at least according secular law. We kind of got into a little heated discussion about who's a jew etc.. and then he accused me of being racist. Read through the link I provided. Look, If it really takes this much hassle to put it ONE fact, why friggin bother. If this is what wikipedia has come to....christ man. If anything I should be reporting harassment...you don't just call some racist. Whatever, take me away and lock me up. : )Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan is a thoroughly unreasonable editor with a history of calling others racists. That he takes such offense to that line from David Eppstein is astonishing. And saying that because somebodies name is Noam he must be Jewish, that is a bit OR isnt it? And googling to find if he is and finding information that 'he *might* be', is that reason to want to put in a BLP that he is? Nableezy (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Never called anyone racist, even if you agreed to that. Please actually read what is going on before posting your painfully biased opinion. You're an extremely pro-Pal, I've been an openly pro-Israel user....nuff said. This isn't going to be another witch-hunt like in the current talk..LOL. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This isnt the place for this dispute, but lies are lies: and . an anti-semite is a racist no? Nableezy (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

wikifan12345 break 1

You said I wasn't racist. Jews aren't a race, as far as I know there's no genetic code to prove one is Jewish. There are however common phenotype traits but they aren't always unique to Jews. anyways, my rationale for my accusations stands and I apologized for them...but only for offense. It's not like you're innocent Nableezy, you're notorious for dragging out accusations and accusing me of hate/blah blah on your talk which you conveniently removed. But, this isn't a place for that discussion. This is about Eppstein's unjustified noticeboard and some user's inability to appreciate facts, (I.e, Delson, Noam is JEWISH.). And that being fact and me trying to put it in the article isn't RACIST, as I am accused of being. Fuck this is exhausting. I give up, leave the articles as is. Facts don't matter these days anyways, only argument. So sad. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, Eppstein and THF seem totally obsessed with anything Jewish-related being shoved into articles. I provided a reliable source per TH's request, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Noam_Elkies&action=history But eppstein is still reverting, continually, without going to talk which I requested. this is a FACt. He is Jewish. It can't even be debated, my god why are you all doing this? Don't we have better things to do than combat over easily-proven and blatant facts? If you're a self-loather I don't care, but stop censoring out facts. I changed the sentence placement per MoS, I got a verifying and reliable source even though it's a known fact he is Jewish and half the article isn't sourced to begin with, and you know the rest. Argh. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Your first reference was not a reliable source. Your second reference does not mention the religion of Elkies, FWIW. And your questioning of David Eppstein this section was creepy and gives rise to the suspicion that you're a monomaniac. Why is this whole thing so important to you? Why don't you just drop it? --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not important to me, what's important to me is this arbitrary crusade to delete everything Jewish from those articles. And as I said, the excuses changed as new info was provided, the situation didn't play out like the poorly-crafted strawman you posted. Noam and Delson are Jewish, one sentence in the correct paragraph shouldn't be a big deal. It's not like I'm saying his a racist or sex offender or anything. My discussion with Eppstein wasn't creepy, he's the one that wanted it. And he accused me of being racist and promoting blood purity...NOW THAT IS CREEPY. Makes me cringe lol...blood purity WOW. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

He wanted you to come along and ask, "Hey David, are you Jewish?" ... where did he ask you to do that? And neither did he promote blood purity; he said "Regardless of your bizarre beliefs about blood purity, WP:MOSBIO says that religion AND ethnicity don't go in unless they're important, and WP:BLP says they don't go in unless they're sourced". You may believe your own propaganda, but the record shows your assertions - all of them - to be false. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh? David has his own article, I googled David eppstein and there was evidence indicating he might be jewish, I ASKED IF HE WAS JEWISH. Fair question, no? And guess what, he's basically Jewish. LOL. Again enough with the strawman and actually read the talk and this. I'm simply repeating myself. And don't get nasty. Poisonous words like racist, propaganda, and blood purity should not be said without justification. I'm sick and tired of this, I proved what I did and provided evidence for my statements, so STOP dragging this out. If you would like to continue repeating the same rhetoric, I will continue to answer it promptly, but don't expect me to sit down because you shout louder. Eppstein was being a creep, I wasn't. He has a tendency to remove anything non-jewish, and his opinion of ethnicities was evident in the talk. what a waste of bandwidth. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Update - anyways, issue seems to be resolved from an editors perspective. im sure you guys want blood so by all means, but the article is done for now. me and jay are talking about the source issue so yeah. cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Just a point of order. WP:MOSBIO says that ethnicity should not go in the LEAD unless it relates to the person's notability. It does NOT say that it does not belong in the article ANYWHERE. Most "well-written" bios include some mention of ethnicity and religion, whether that is relevant or not is POV. Also, this all started when Wikifan12345 added Jewish-American to the lead sentence which is against MOSBIO so I removed it. After that, we were off to the races as it was. Anyways, --Tom 15:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

There are other relevant policies here, notably WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Wikifan12345 seems intent on adding some mention of Jewishness to articles, based not on sources but seemingly based primarily on their names, and is uninterested in any other ethnic backgrounds that the same person might have. In the case of Elkies, the situation seems to be resolved: the word "Israel" now appears in the article, making Wikifan12345 happy, but it appears with a reliable source describing a group Elkies himself is actively involved with, making the rest of us happy. But I think Wikifan12345's edits bear continued watching. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, after reading the "creepy" section on Talk:David Eppstein here, I have to agree with the deep concerns. Wikifan12345 is ... problematic in his interest and approach, and if not racist, is at least biased and focused to an unbalanced degree. I suggest a topic ban on all aspect Jewish. He's not "getting it" here, or elsewhere. KillerChihuahua 17:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem here. Elkies is JEWISH, so is Eppstein according to several laws though that may be disputed. I've been involved in many articles that don't relate to Jews. I'm not a racist, I'm not the one deleting facts simply because it has "Jew" in the title. Why is it so controversial? Eppstein, you're reasoning is rather off. I googled Elkies and it turned out he was Jewish, as is the professor he supposedly replaced as the youngest one at Harvard. It is a moderately notable fact and wasting time bickering over it is suspicious. Do you have some undeclared resentment?? I honestly don't care about your personal opinion, but I stand by my actions as I see I've done nothing wrong. Adding a one sentence FACT to a non-controversial article is not bias, Chihuahua. I don't understand your rationalizations so if you would like to elaborate further feel free to. Eppstein, you constantly list BLP and NPOV but I don't think you understand, since I've thoroughly explained why my actions haven't violated those rules. Please see this: Adding the names of editors to an article in order to make textual attribution visible in the main text. I did however use unreliable sources to back up the statement, which has been cleared up as far as I know. You can punish me for that if you want. ; ) Cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You haven't answered a key question - Why do you think this information is relevant or proper to be on the pages? What is your objective or goal in having put that in all those pages? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

wikifan12345 break 2

I already answered the question: It is a fact. For Brad Delson, he is one of two members of Linkin Park who are Jewish. Also, he's been religious since a child according to one of the sources in the article. For Elkies, he replaces Jewish Dershowitz as the youngest professor at Harvard University. He is also actively involved in the Harvard's Israel Review, which promotes a positive spin on Israel. Are these not notable facts? Surely they're more notable than the rather unimportant philanthropy section for Delson or the house Elkies lived in at Harvard. My question to you is: Why are you so concerned about this? You imply that I have some sinister plan to paint Jew over wikipedia, when that is obviously not the case. A person's religion/ethnicity is notable if there is evidence and it relates to the topic. I've provided sufficient evidence IMO, if you disagree, please say so why. "You're a creep, racist, blah blah" is not acceptable and is highly inflammatory if not uncivil. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, unfortunately, there has been a rather clear trend in the past where anyone who went around adding large numbers of "this person is/was jewish" info to articles turned out to be rather vehemently and in some cases violently racist.

Wikifan12345, I cannot know what's in your mind and heart on this matter. And I have no particular indications of malice or misbehavior on your part. However, unfortunately, the historical incidents related to this particular behavior require us to take a careful and concerned look into it.

The answer "It is a fact." does not answer the question. It may be true - but is not sufficient justification to add the information. Where the information has been persistently used by racists in part of their campaigns to shape public information and opinion, we need a better answer than that.

Again - This is not assuming bad faith or being rude to you. If we were to simply assume that you are another in a long line of racists / antisemites who came here to vandalize Misplaced Pages and blocked you without asking or listening, that would be rude. That has not happened. You are being given every opportunity to explain your position and interests in the matter.

But the history of the situation demands that we examine what you're doing, and demands that we insist on you actually answering the question.

If you think that asking and insisting on more detailed and specific answers is implying or asserting that you are in fact racist or antisemite, I apologize for that implication. But there's no real way around us having to ask, given the situation and years and years of history about this type of behavior.

Please answer the question.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I just answered the questions. Here, I'll bold everything for you so there is no more repeating. This is your exact question not paraphrased: "Why do you think this information is relevant or proper to be on the pages? What is your objective or goal in having put that in all those pages?"

Here is my response paraphrased, you can look one post up to see the full version: "For Brad Delson, he is one of two members of Linkin Park who are Jewish. Also, he's been religious since a child according to one of the sources in the article. For Elkies, he replaces Jewish Dershowitz as the youngest professor at Harvard University. He is also actively involved in the Harvard's Israel Review, which promotes a positive spin on Israel. Are these not notable facts? Surely they're more notable than the rather unimportant philanthropy section for Delson or the house Elkies lived in at Harvard."

I appreciate your politeness, but that does not excuse the extremely abrasive and combative attitude of David Eppstein and KillerChihuahua calling me racist, creepy, etc...even after I explained myself. I hope if this ends up being cleared it is somehow established that I am not trying to smear Jewish propaganda over every article I edit. There must be a rule somewhere that doesn't allow users to accuse others of highly damaging violations without proper justification and appropriate conduct. Other users are also consistently reverting my edits in good faith I presume, because they see me adding the same thing over and see others reverting it and just assume. One argument was over sentence placement, but that is another story and doesn't apply here I think. thanks Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Update: THF, another editor involved, continues to revert my edits even with appropriate sources. I asked for an explanation on his talk and he deleted it, summarizing with: your single-mindedness on this is disturbing to me. Feel free to ask for a third opinion.. using TW Here is the edit in question: Edit Brad Delson I would ask for a third opinion, but I think this dispute should be resolved first as it may pose a problem. I'm sure you can imagine how frustrating unjustified roadblocks or refusal to negotiate can be, especially when it goes unnoticed. Argh. ; ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Let the record reflect that I did not revert. I deleted an SPS in a BLP, and I moved a link about Delson's Jewish wedding from his "early life" section to his "personal life" section where there was an unsourced statement about his marriage. I think that's perfectly reasonable, but if anyone besides wikifan finds that edit problematic, feel free to revert my edit. I stand by my talk-page edit summary. THF (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well according to this: Revert 1 Revert 2, you did revert. In addition to your removal of my edit (though it wasn't a revert). Check the history for more info: history. Can we just end this? I don't care any more, if you guys are this concerned it's not worth it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank g*d for transparancey aroud here :) Wikifan12345, sorry to say it, but you sound like you are ranting. Above, you highlighted the "fact" that Delson is is one of two members of Linkin Park who are Jewish...SO F*CKING WHAT?????? Two of the members also jerk off with their left hand rather than right, did you KNOW that also???? I have been "defending" the fact that I am actually ok with adding ethnicity to bios, but your apparant ranting has to make folks wonder and who can blame them. Your protesting WAY to much about a non-issue raises concerns for most. Again, what is your fixation here? You gave me a story about the "truth" and I have assumed enough good faith, time to come clean if you are man enough but I doubt it--Tom 14:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I really hope you don't have a reference for the "jerk off" comment (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is OR?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a general comment rather than aimed at any specific article or edit mentioned above. Seems to me that a person's religion or ethnicity is only notable if it is a major factor in what makes them notable. Barack Obama's race is notable because he is the first black president. In the majority of cases however, a persons religious persuasion (or lack of it), and their ethnicity is not going to be notable enough to include. There should always be references to back up the suggestion that the person's ethnicity or religion is genuinely something notable about them and worthy of inclusion in their article.Riversider (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I told you, I don't care anymore. I offered plenty of reasons why it should be included, if notability is your concern there are far more less-important facts in the article that I'd be happy to remove. also, please try to be civil. I'm trying to and whenever I slip I get the book. I would like for the admin who asked the question to respond, because I answered it thoroughly without strawman. Sick of wiki fallacies. sorry!forgot to login: Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment While according to generally accepted policy, a person's religion does not belong in the lead, there is no reason to not put that information in a biography. I just noticed that there are WP:categories called Jewish actors| Jewish Mathematicians|Jewish Americans| Belarusian-American Jews | Russian-American Jews|Jewish American writers|Jewish philosophers, etc. see: for plenty more. Alan Dershowitz's Judaism is noted in his "infobox." Those categories are there for a reason. They are given to help us understand more fully the subject of the article written. There is no reason NOT to include such information in an article if it is so and properly sourced. The allegation that to offersourced information on the religion or ethnicity of a notable subject is somehow "racist" is laughable. While perhaps it is more interesting to know whether they jerk off with their left or right, but it ethnicity and religion is one of the things that readers of an encyclopedia may want to know. So call this done already. Let's move on. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This isnt about adding Jewish categories, this is about wikifan following David Eppstein from a recent dispute to question whether or not he was Jewish, and then when getting an answer of a polite no insisting that he is in fact Jewish. Read the beginning of the complaint and you will see that was why this section began. Nableezy (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't follow David Eppstein. As I said previously (about 3 times), I went into his own article David Eppstein and made a talk section asking if he was Jewish. Google indicates he MIGHT be, so I felt it was appropriate to ask. You can either accept Nableezy's interpretation, or actually read the talk discussion. Please know that Nableezy and I have a long history of disputes, so his opinion obviously violates wikipedia:COI. Admin, or whoever asked me those questions, please see my posts above. I've been as cordial as I can be and if uncivil/false evidence continues to be provided, I hope this thing can go to a higher power (as in the next level) because I can't take it any more. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, for further reference please see Noam Elkies talk discussion. A lot of thought slipped into the David Eppstein talk, so make sure you read that first to get a better picture of the situation. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

End this mess

Okay, let's put an end to this silliness. Wikifan please be a little more careful that all "Jewish stuff" be reliably sourced. All the ts-ts editors here at the talkpage, if Wikifan wants to discuss religion/ethnicity at article talkpages, he has every right to. You can make a very logical argument that religion/ethnicity is irrelevant, but it does not represent the real world situation. The calls to block Wikifan1234 were ridiculous, and one has to question the reasonableness of any admin making such a suggestion. One fact overlooked by a number of editors is that the discussion about Eppstein's ethnicity took place at Talk:David Eppstein, not User talk:David Eppstein, an important distinction. WP:COI comes to mind here.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You're going to call WP:COI on me because an editor moves a confrontation with me to the talk page of the article about me? That's a bit rich, especially because both WP:COI and WP:AUTO say to go to the talk page rather than editing the article. And to be honest, it took me a little while to notice it was there instead of my user talk page due to the similarity of names between the two pages. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

He probably should have had more tact and not gone to the talkpage of your article, but I wouldn't call if a "confrontation". I'm not calling you out on WP:COI. My point is that if you would treat the article about yourself like it's Monster Allergy (TV series) this whole thing wouldn't have happened. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Btw, I find myself going to your Misplaced Pages article now that we have communicated; it's most natural. If I were to assume good faith, I would assume that the same thing that interested him at other pages (Jewish ethnicity) interested him at your article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me remind you that "this whole thing" started on Noam Elkies and that I got into it by trying to enforce WP:BLP standards on that article. And, while I think you're going completely down the wrong track thinking this has anything to do with WP:COI, I'd like to point out that I think it's unreasonable to ask me to stop paying attention to the article about myself, and that in suggesting that I should you're going far beyond what WP:AUTO and WP:COI recommend. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think COI has been put forth a couple of times without actually reading it, but a simple question is this. Even if it was fine to ask on the talk page, why when given the answer "no" is wikifan still insisting on saying that he is Jewish, even if he thinks it is true. Why not just leave it alone at the response of no. Why even here does he have to again say "And guess what, he's basically Jewish. LOL." Why does any of this matter at all? Am I the only one who is asking why this even started to begin with, and even if how it started was legit why did it get beyond the no? Nableezy (talk) 08:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

His ethnicity is arguably something that's intrinsically notable and thus discussion-worthy. The only reason why this whole thing became problematic was because User:David Eppstein cares about the David Eppstein article. We can't expect David to ignore the talkpage of the article about himself, but my point is that that this sort of a WP:COI issue because had he divorced himself from his bio we wouldn't be here now. Btw, I just noticed that the original comment included a smile, something that should be taken into consideration in this context. In any case, I'm done sticking up for Wikifan. He could use some more tact and maturity, but there's nothing here that requires any sort drastic action.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't do anything wrong. the rules violated were in regards to sourcing, not notability. They claimed notability, and I explained why that wasn't an issue several times but to no avail. I found reliable sources anyways, but they still didn't care. After being called a racist, promoting blood purity, intolerant, blah blah blah, I honestly couldn't care less what they thought. They wouldn't compromise in talk, so they came here to save face. Is that mature? I know I'm a little ignorant when it comes to the feelings of other users, but I just don't care if it conflicts with facts. I'm curious: Why is everyone so obsessed about including one's ethnicity? Elkies is Jewish, he has promoted Jewish/Israeli causes at Harvard, he is one of several Jewish professors at the University. Brad Delson was a little iffy, I didn't really think including his ethnicity/religion would be that big of a deal considering all the fluff, like philanthropy and guitar style (which had no sources). I was more than tactful, but you can't expect Gandhi when I'm being berated by 10 users who are allowed to be uncivil and mean because they aren't on trial. Totally absurd. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Per wp:undue, we only add information if they are relevant for the topic and have an enclopaedic value. The lead of an article is a summary of an article. To add in the introduction of the article of a person, his religious beliefs, it must be developed in the core of the article. To be in the core of the article, it has to be developed from wp:rs secondary sources stating it has some importance.

That is an easy stuff. If somebody refuses this and uses rhetoric in the talk page to circumvene these basic principles with bad faiths, he should be warned.

The same in the other direction if somebody refuses that the lead gives a fair and equilibrated summary of the core of the article. Ceedjee (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well. I didn't know Prof Eppstein but this discussion is enough to warn wikifan to stop. Why not to add the size and the weight of Epppstein, the name of his wife and his children, his personnal address, his emails, his phone number etc : . Ceedjee (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'd rather the article had more detail about my research; I don't care that it's undetailed about my personal life. But, contra brewcrewer, that's not the issue. The issue to me is the following, much of it has little to do with me. First, wikifan thinks that a name or a feeling about someone alone (or a discussion on a talk page) is enough of a basis to add claims about the person's ethnicity to their article, ignoring the requirement of sourcing in WP:BLP. And second, in cases like mine (my ancestry is a mix of English, Irish, and Jewish, and for reasons that seem valid to me I don't consider myself to be a Jew) he ignores everything but the "Jewish", violating WP:NPOV. I don't think he can be trusted to add information about ethnicity or religion to biography articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If I weren't such a nincompoop, I would add details of your research into the article. I think at this point Wikifan understands that ethnicity can't be added to bios sans reliable sources. However, there's nothing that stops him, if anything to the contrary, from initiating a discussion about a bio's ethnicity at the bio's talk page. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If the question of his faith is not developed, it should not be in the lede. Since this is not (in my view) a major point, I'm inclined to agree that Professor Eppstein's wishes should be respected. Incidently, even those with COI are perfectly welcome to engage on talk page, so the question of where the dispute was doesn't seem to me to be germane. We don't give subjects of articles veto power over what is in them, but in this case, I would say keep the question of his faith out of it, it is not what he is notable for and it is not developed (I assume) in the secondary sources which support this article. I don't even want to get near the question of "what is a Jew?" and it isn't necessary that we reach it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

hopefully brewcrewer and tundrabuggy's insistence on wikifan's talk page that he enable his email is meant allow them to encourage him off-wiki not to be disruptive. however, due to their defense of his actions on this thread, i'm finding it difficult to agf.untwirl (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your input, Untwirl. If you had actually read the thread before attacking me you would have noticed that I was critical of Wikifan's editing habits. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I wrote a nice response clarifying why Nab and Unt shouldn't be here but it was deleted or didn't register because of an edit conflict. Anyywaays untwirl, can you please stop stalking me? I wanted his advice on editing the various Israel/Gaza topics and for encouragement, not to group up and POV-push like you do with Nab and Darwish on Israel-Gaza conflict. Also, you seem to have a wild history with Jewish articles, specifically lol. That took me 30 seconds but I could be more thorough if I truly wanted to. I stand by my edits, I apologized for the incorrect sources and vehemently deny all challenges of racism, promoting blood purity, ideology-pushing, crazy Jew promoter, evil Zionist etc. Can I please go to jail now? ; ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The COI seems to be a red-herring. The main issue is BLP: If no sources are given for ethnicity, then it should not be included. If editors and admins would just follow the policy, most of the problems with BLP articles would be solved. The subject of an article should never have to dispute the inclusion of any unsourced content in their biography -it should be removed on sight by all editors. Only if there are reliable sources and the subject of an article disagrees should there be any debate about inclusion and the language to use.Yobmod (talk) 10:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yobmod, I provided sources, several of them. The way the whole situation played out was extremely combative from the start. Instead of assuming good faith and negotiating a clearly notable quality, they reverted, reverted, continued with the same rhetoric in talk, etc.. I could have been more cordial but I doubt most users could have avoided frustration. And as evident by the extremely personal attacks by calling me a racist, promoting racial supremacy, and encouraging a sinister agenda from the start...well, they speak for themselves. If the problem was truly BLP, which appeared to be another wikipedia violation of rule-booking throwing to avoid actual discussion, then they should have continued the talk before starting a war. Eppstein took a suspiciously personal stance in his own article, not surprising considering it's his own article but suspicious because of his supposedly profession as a teacher at the respectable UCI. I've proven my side the best I could, any further questions, accusations, or blatant attacks I'll be glad to respond to. Though at this point it would be weird for an admin to act harshly or impose any weighted punishment considering how far and polarized this has become without seeking a more controlled arbitration IMO. Thanks for the "impartial" and reasonable thoughtful response Yobmod. It takes balls to not get personal in these types of discussions. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The accusations & recriminations did seem to come pretty fast, huh? I wouldn't add ethnicity to any lead i wrote, but if i saw someone else do it with a source, i would assume they thought ethnicity was more important than I, and if it is not violoating BLP, then it is just a talk page formatting disagreement. Getting so involved in the formatting of pages with need of content work is rarely productive from my experience! One section on a talk page does not really reach "hounding" proportions imo, so there is nothing for admins to do, yet. More like a RfC?Yobmod (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

What a waste of time. It looked like a racist inquisition from an outsider point of view, and all that taking place on an article talk page. The time would have been better spent developing the shamefully lame article on Eppstein or thousands of other academics in fields that Misplaced Pages editors don't speak, or asking him for an image of one of those origami that look like the Chinese ivory balls within balls. --KP Botany (talk) 11:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

ok ok I'm sure wikifan "gets it" by now. If not, you can always bring this up again. Let's drop all the drama now and get back to work. boos to anyone who wants to carry this on ad infinitum. Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban

※I don't accuse anyone here. I accept topic ban if there is sufficient explanation and procedure.※

I edited some Japan-Korea related articles. I admit my edition tendency was somewhat rough.

I was Topic banned by Future Perfect at Sunrise after my edition of Comfort women and Talk:Comfort women. And this time is the my first edition of Comfort women and Talk:Comfort women.

• User talk:Bukubku#Blocked again

Then I protested my Topic ban with my explanation. (Before I was topic banned, I encountered Future Perfect at Sunrise at Yaeko Taguchi and Korea under Japanese rule.)

• User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 15#Let's have a conversation
• User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#Please talk civilly

After our conversation went awry, I accept my Topic ban. Then I read Misplaced Pages:Banning policy. I think there is lack of procedure. But I don't know Misplaced Pages rules well. My edition certainly tended to edit nationalstic issues, so I think I deserve topic ban. However, my topic ban has no specifically definition.

Administrators, please specify my Topic ban definition like other users.--Bukubku (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The topic ban was given at User talk:Bukubku#... and topic-banned as "I am therefore banning you from all topic areas dealing with Japanese-Korean political, historical and cultural controversies." Bukubku, what part of "Japanese-Korean political, historical and cultural controversies" is unclear for you? Without being familiar with the subject area, it would seem to me that one would know if an article did or did not fall under this description. Comfort Women - yes. Oxygen - no.

Oh, and may I say thank you to you for accepting the topic ban; very good. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Is only Japan-Korea related article and how long? Please, define like other users.--Bukubku (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It is only articles which fit the description "Japanese-Korean political, historical and cultural controversies" from which you are banned. There is no time limit on the ban. The normal mechanism for lifting the ban would be for you to ask for it to be lifted. You would have to show evidence that you are unlikely to undertake the same sorts of edits that got you banned in the first place. I would suggest that you need to do many months of good work whilst still having the ban to be able to convince an admin to lift the ban. But as there are nearly 3M articles on wikipedia, and millions more that could be added, there is no shortage of good work that you can do. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, thank you for your comment. However you are not Admin.--Bukubku (talk) 10:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not they are admin is irrelavant. Don't discount opinion on this topic, and insult others POV in this manner. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean insult. I wanted Admin replys and I thought him as Admin but not. So I said like that. I apologize my words. I'm sorry, Tagishsimon.--Bukubku (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Before accepting topic ban, things should be cleared for other users and me. I was topic banned as POV-pushing of the Comfort Women. However, I don't think as POV-pushing. There are reliable sources. If other users edit comfort women like me, other users will be blocked and Topic banned? Are everyone banned to edit women who are coerced into prostitution for non Japanese Military? South Korean women were coerced into prostitute for Military until 1980s. And Russia and the Philippines women were corced into prostitute near military base until 1990s in South Korea. I don't deny Japanese Military Comfort Women existence. I think Japanese deserves to be accused. However, why specify only Japanese?

My edition

New York Times

Sources

• Ex-Prostitutes Say South Korea and U.S. Enabled Sex Trade Near Bases New York times 2009/01/08
• Former sex workers in fight for compensation South Korean News Paper JoongAng Daily October 30, 2008
• Openly revealing a secret life South Korean News Paper JoongAng Daily July 31, 2005
• Deliver them from 'hell' South Korean News Paper JoongAng Daily October 19, 2002
• 미니 인터뷰 ‘한국군 위안부’문제 제기한 김귀옥 박사 “밝혀진 건 퍼즐의 일부” (Short interview ‘South Korean Military Comfort Women’ problems, Dr. Kim Gwi-ok alleged. “The thing which revealed were part of the puzzle” ) South Korean News Paper Ilyosisa 2002/03/26

(Google Translate)

• 朝鮮戦争時の韓国軍にも慰安婦制度　韓国の研究者発表 (South Korean researcher announced South Korean Military Comfort Women system during the Korean War) Japanes News Paper Asahi Shimbun 2002/02/26

(Google Translate)

Please reply.--Bukubku (talk) 10:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this is rapidly becoming content-related ... (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears to have swung from "I accept the content ban" to "I do not accept the content ban and wish to contest the whole matter from first principles. Not good. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I want sufficient reason for my Topic ban.--Bukubku (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason was tendentious editing & edit warring on Comfort Women, which you know. The problem with your proposed insertion is that it is about allegations of South Korean hypocrisy. It is not directly about comfort women, except in so far as it is they who are leveling the accusations. It certainly does not deserve to go in the opening section of the article. And we see a string of five edits constituting the war. Caspian blue quite clearly explained on the talk page what was wrong, and where else the information might be placed in wikipedia: you went to war; and you got a topic ban. I trust that clears the matter up. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Look the page signature correctly, Caspian blue inserted his comment between Oda Mari and Bukubku. He changed turns. And he didn't reply my last comment.--Bukubku (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Please, check Talk:Comfort women history.--Bukubku (talk) 12:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Bukubku has disrupted part of Misplaced Pages and many edit warring has been occurred. And three blocks in 2 months are one of the evidences that he has disrupted part of Misplaced Pages.--Historiographer (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

So I was blocked as 3 revert. Yes, sorry. However, this issue is my POV pushing of Comfort women. And topic ban or not, I don't want to edit Japan-Korea related article now. I mend my edition tendency taking this opportunity. I don't want to involve with you. Why don't you stop editing Japan-Korea related article for a while. You were blocked many times, too. We should leave the articles. --Bukubku (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Objection

Sorry, my lack of knowledge. I understand now clearly.

My topic ban did not accord Misplaced Pages rule.

(Misplaced Pages:Banning policy#Administrator)

There was no warm. I oppose--Bukubku (talk) 09:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, we don't unban clearly problematic editors based on a technicality, especially not one who clearly knew better due to prior blocks. Take the suggestions above: spend some time working in other areas and show you can properly handle disputes; after a few months of that, ask for the ban to be removed. Shell 10:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, your generous comment. However, please change Topic-ban reason. Because I didn't POV pushing of Comfort women. Please change the reason for other users who edit comfort women too. For example, edition war..--Bukubku (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain the answer to that will be no. You were pushing a POV, you have been blocked three times for edit warring, you are not really entitled to complain about a technicality. Do what Shell Kinney said and stop wasting everyone's time. Unless there are any objections from anyone else, I'm going to go ahead and mark this resolved. //roux   15:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It seem difficult to get consensus. Everyone have each opinions, they are not same. I like diversity. So I should try to contribute to Misplaced Pages non Japan-Korea related issues for months and mend my edition tendency. Thank you, everyone's comments. I keep in mind. Thank you.--Bukubku (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Plumoyr again creating large number of countryX-CountryY relations

Plumoyr (talk · contribs)

See - some were AfD'd in the past (and some of those I speedied some time ago. Is this a problem or do we just ignore it? dougweller (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops, another(?) editor was doing this recently, but the same articles, see . Sorry, that was on the AN board. dougweller (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I NPP'ed a few of these yesterday. I was wondering if he's going through every country pair in the planet and creating a stub for each one. Some of these might be valuable, but I have to question the sheer volume here. §FreeRangeFrog 21:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that bilateral relations are not inherently notable (see Burma-Greece relations, Greece-Turkmenistan relations, Greece-Guyana relations for some dead-end "articles"). Should Plumoyr persist in mindless creation of non-notable bilateral relations stubs, he should be warned and perhaps blocked -- there is no reason we should be absorbing this junk. - Biruitorul 22:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You what? You actually speedily deleted some of these? Which ones? They better have been rejected. They most certainly do not come under any of the speedy deletion crieria. AfD if you must. I agree that mass creating stubs that don't give any useful info isn't exactly useful, but an article on the relationships between any two countries could easily be FA is inherently notable, because there are so many sources out there for this type of thing (Hundreds per article I would imagine).--Patton 23:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No, they aren't inherently FA quality. Greece-Guyana relations, say; how do you thing that is going to get to FA? Greece has an embassy in Guyana. I assume Guyana has an embassy in greece. That's it. A lot of relations (UK-US) for example probably could be FA: long-term cooperation, a history, so on so forth; ones between country X and relatively unknown country Y? probably not. That being said as much as the mass-stubs annoy me CSD isn't really the way to go; AFD would be better (unless they went to AFD and you are deleting them as "pages previously deleted in a deletion discussion"?) Such articles will eventually be valuable, but we should wait on creating them until we have more to stick there than "Country X has an embassy in Country Y". Ironholds (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I doubt any of these will ever get to GA, let alone FA. The notable ones (future events notwithstanding) are already covered in detail. I honestly fail to see the encyclopedic value of an article about relations between Uzbekistan and Ghana that essentially says Ghana is a country. Uzbekistan is a country. Ghana maintains an embassy in Tashkent and Uzbekistan maintains an embassy in Accra. But that's just me. §FreeRangeFrog 00:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If some of these were afd and speedied in the past they're speedy candidates as recreated deleted material. In addition if the editor is "again" doing this, to me that sounds like he did it in the past and perhaps was told not to. In that case this would be seen as disruptive and frankly I don't see a speedy being out of order in that circumstance.--Crossmr (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If they were AfDed in the past that's fine. Btw Ironholds any of these articles could be FA. If that's all that needs to be siad then the article is comprehensive, and if it meets the other criteria it's FA. Most articles on this website can be an FA.--Patton 15:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sino-Roman_relations ← GA--Patton 15:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that "any" of these could be FAs - if the content really is "X established relations with Y in 19__; X has an embassy in Y's capital and Y has an embassy in X's capital", even if it's comprehensive, it doesn't represent "our very best work", as required by WP:FACR. We would be much better served by placing that information in "Diplomatic missions of ..." articles. (By the way, I'm not sure about FAC, but this definitely was a subject of debate at FLC - people were trying to make featured lists out of one-item lists (say List of heads of state of Eritrea), but it was decided such lists failed the "very best work" requirement.) - Biruitorul 17:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Er that's not half of what could be said, take a look at these: . The article could be huge. I could proably get it to FA if I could be bothered.--Patton 18:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

1. State visits are part of the normal course of international politics. Dinners are had, friendly words are exchanged, medals are bestowed, but they really don't rise to the level of encyclopedic content. So no, I rather strongly doubt the addition of a paragraph about a two-day visit (which, by the way, didn't even involve the Greek Prime Minister, where real power in that country resides) would be enough for an FA.

2. Even where bilateral relations are notable, it would be nice if these guys, instead of pumping out masses of junk like Argentina–South Korea relations or Greece–Uruguay relations and letting it rot for a year, would actually think before creating new articles, gather up sources, try to build up some meaningful content. But perhaps we're asking too much. - Biruitorul 19:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody thought to notify him? Really? Ok, he's been notified and should read here. First step he needs to do is stop recreating these things. Check the AFD discussion and if there's something debatable, consider WP:DRV. If not, find the ones that are allowed and work out the others until they are created. However, someone needs to be help me. For example, Ireland–Ukraine relations was deleted under G4, but I can't find a link to the prior discussion. I'll guess that's Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bilateral relations of Ireland. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this is Groubani, who was blocked for being non-responsive about the same thing. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As AfD is already so busy, i would certainly agree that having a full AfD for each possible one of these would break the system, so preventing their creation would be far prefferable, at least until some consensus if formed on which would be notable in principle. Shouldn't there be a wikiproject guideline made if they keep getting created? Without one, there is nothing to help AfD reviewers, and reading 100's of years of 2 countries histories to see if they had any notable interaction is impossible.Yobmod (talk) 11:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio Images sent to Wikimedia Commons

User Dominick1283 has placed dozens of inauthentic images into cryptozoology articles. While going through the process of deleting them, I found that this user has uploaded many, many images to the commons as his own work. He has agreed to change the tags, but I'm still concerned that the images are copyvio. DavidOaks (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The commons ones will have to be taken care of on commons — admins here have no power over commons. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, but some of us are admins on Commons. Please explain the problem in greater detail. I could do something about it, but need a better picture of events. Durova 05:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how much I can add. I saw a bad image added to an article I watch, then checked contributions, and found the user had added a lot of images to cryptid articles within a short time. I looked at those and found the images were problematic: in most cases obviously professional photos and illustrations (in various media and incompatible styles). Checking the filenames, I found some widely distributed on the net -- so the work was pretty clearly not that of the user who had uploaded them to the commons. Checking the userpage, this person is suspected to be a sockpuppet of a user banned previously for the same behavior, same articles and images. I guess an admin needs to look at all the uploads to the commons made by this person and his suspected sock(s), and evaluate the likelihood that they're copyvio. He specializes in monsters, firearms and naval vessels. (per instruction, I also posted a notice at the commons). DavidOaks (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Heading out to brunch now. If they're still there when I get back I'll take care of it. Best, Durova 17:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Having come upon the same problem in the past, isn't the advice to "consider uploading images to commons instead" (or whatever it says when loading claimed free images) counter productive to preventing copyright violating links on wikipedia? If i see a copyright violoating image on wikipedia, it is wikipedia's problem, so wikipedia's admins should be able to fix it, no? Would "admins have no power at commons" be a strong legal defence for wikipedia? Just wondering...Yobmod (talk) 11:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Harassment by dynamic IP sockpuppets of banned user Naadapriya (crosspost from WP:AN as the situation is spiralling rapidly out of control)

From WP:AN#Harassment by dynamic IP sockpuppets of banned user Naadapriya

Please comment at WP:AN#Harassment by dynamic IP sockpuppets of banned user Naadapriya, or better, do something immediately: We're sending the message that if you make it difficult enough for us, you can ban-evade and sock and harass any editors even tangentially involved with your ban to your heart's content. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotect the affected pages and WP:RBI the IPs with tight rangeblocks. Sooner or later they'll find another website to plague. Posting to ANI only encourages more bad behavior. Jehochman 13:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Great. So actually do that. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• IP appears to be blocked right now, please drop me a note if you think any pages need semi-protection. Since I'm reasonably familiar with this one I can probably help out there. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Just to note that I've made a proposal to formalize the community ban at the WP:AN discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

User archiving ongoing discussion

Diamonddannyboy (talk · contribs) insist on archiving an ongoing discussion about sourcing/BLP issues at Talk:Darren M. Jackson. Could someone other than me let him know that's not appropriate? Diffs: . Cheers, --aktsu  13:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Notified user. --aktsu  13:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Theserialcomma (talk · contribs) reverted him, so I guess it's resolved for now. Will take it to 3RR if he continues instead. --aktsu  13:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It does not come under the 3RR rule and its is totaly fine to archive at any time, I have archived no more than 3 times Aktsu insits on removing the archive, again 4 times now, now that comes under 3RR rule.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, I said " take it to 3RR if he continues" meaning report you at the edit warring noticeboard should you continue. And no, it's not "totally fine" to archive at any time... --aktsu  16:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I also only un-archived twice, not four times like you claim. --aktsu  16:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• i removed the resolved banner because he is still trying to archive the conversation. hopefully someone else will step in and explain why this is not acceptable on a tiny talk page with active discussion Theserialcomma (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see an archive attempt since 13:17, 15 February 2009. Can you show me a diff? THF (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

i was referring to ] where he said basically "problem solved, let's archive it?" after we kept explaining why it shouldn't be archived mid conversation. it's more of an issue of him pushing the issue at this point and acting like he is still trying to archive it. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Rules99

Rules99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could someone take a look at the huge-scale changes this user has been making this afternoon? I can't decide if they're good or bad, but his behaviour on an AfD page (asked if he would care to list a reason as to why one of his pages should be kept, replied simply "No.") etc. don't inspire confidence. And his Category:Lists of former entities is absurd. Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 14:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Also his continued posting of that category to pages despite having voted to delete it at WP:CFD. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 14:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Finally, the account is less than 1 hour old and is already correcting my syntax (very cleverly, but still...) - a little advanced for a "newbie"? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 14:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

*rolls eyes* Rules99 (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I find this diff to be problematic. I have no opinion on the validity of the bulk of edits, but I am concerned if they are being made in a pointy fashion no matter how otherwise valid they may be. As TreasuryTag suggests, but cannot bring themselves to say, this is not a new editor but someone who has created an account for a specific reason - and one that may not be in the best interests of the encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC) (*finger gently caresses "Abusive Admin (for the use of) Block Button"*)

Agree on the non-new editor part ... but I have button envy for LessHeard vanU`s special button which I apparently do not have. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If he won't explain himself other than giving sarcastic responses, then a block (for disruption) would seem to be in order. Baseball Bugs 17:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have given a level 3 non templated warning. If the behaviour continues any editor can drop a level4 warning and then/or take them to AIV. I suggest that WP:RBI be the response if there is no improvement or explanation forthcoming. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll enjoy this delightful response: Baseball Bugs 23:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Charming... and wrong. I note the editor is up at AIV, but without the level4 warning - and with the recent edits being a little more communicative if not exactly respecting WP:POINT (redirecting a list to one that is being AfD'd). I wouldn't block under the circumstances even if I didn't have a COI. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I took your suggestion as an "either/or". Baseball Bugs 23:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey your pitbull nominated that category for deletion before I had a chance to put anything it in, and nominated it based on it's "ludicrous" nature. This is not the kind of thing that will evoke a patient explanation from me. Rules99 (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, well - This is sounding more and more like a particular user who was recently indef-blocked for arguing that he has the right to be sarcastic in response to anything he doesn't like. Baseball Bugs 23:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

What was said user's username? --Deskana (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If I can think of it specifically, I'll send you an e-mail. In any case, it's obvious he's not a newbie, as this ID only started today and is very conversant in the nature of wikipedia. Baseball Bugs 23:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I sent you the e-mail. Maybe soon everything will be jake. Baseball Bugs 00:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh you do block people for sarcasm? ROFL, that's a cause for which I am willing to be matryed. Nail me to the tree. Rules99 (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Now, now. Don't get cross. Baseball Bugs 00:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ack now with the bad puns Rules99 (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You nailed it. To a T. Baseball Bugs 00:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Guess you'll just have to grin and bear it. arimareiji (talk) 11:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

harrasment

Hi, I have now been accused of sock puppetry twice. Users User:Wizzy has been following me around and reverting all my contributions because he seems to have an ideological problem with the issues I am concerned with. User:FFMG has now joined in and are 'tag-teaming' me. They have now both accused me of Sock Puppeting. After the first accusation by FFMG which did not go anywhere, Wizzy then recently accused me once again of being the same as user User:Skwanele. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Jaredsacks

I am obviously not this person and am perfectly willing to submit to any kind of investigation. I am willing to submit my personal data to an administrator and anything else requested of me. However, I want this investigation to finish ASAP and once and for all. Once I am cleared of these charges, I expect both users to stop harassing me and treat me with respect where there are edits that I make in error.

I hope that you can assist me as soon as possible but investigating this.

Thank You. Jaredsacks (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This really belongs at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Jaredsacks (2nd). But since this user is repeatedly being accused of being a sockpuppetry (Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Jaredsacks), continuously requests that a checkuser be initiated, we should accede to his requests. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

A checkuser would satisfy me. This is the first time I have filed one of these, I am worried I missed a step at the end that listed the incident properly. It seems the WP:SPI process has changed recently, without all the instructions being updated. Wizzy…☎ 21:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, since rule number one is: "if you're not willing to file the SSP request, then stop calling them socks". Being called a sock is a serious insult/incident, and not to be thrown around willy-nilly. I'm glad you'll be filing one. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Persian Gulf

Hi, 80.191.228.141 (talk · contribs) seems to be on a mission to add the word "Persian" before "Gulf" on every article. As a white guy in the UK this means little to me, but I think there is controversy over the name (similar to the Falklands/Malvinas dispute) whether it be "Arabian Gulf" or just "Gulf". Ryan4314 (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Persian Gulf naming dispute, most official bodies do seem to favour "Persian Gulf". However, the activities of this user do seem constitute vandalism as they have been inserting "Persian" into proper names of Arabic groups. How about issuing a middle-ranking vandalism warning?--Peter cohen (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've got a better idea: How about a custom-worded warning like the one I just left, which describes exactly what the user is doing wrong, why it's wrong, and what will happen if they keep doing it? --Carnildo (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems fair to me :) Ryan4314 (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Your warning doesn't seem to have worked. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Anon campaign against Jeremy Vine

I wonder if anyone could help me? Over the past week or so, I have been regularly reverting additions by an anon editor making regular uncited allegations about the BBC journalist and presenter Jeremy Vine which violate WP:BLP and WP:POV among others. For one of many examples see here, but roughly the same text has been added to the following articles, often several times:

• Jeremy Vine (example) - article now semi-protected
• BBC (example) - article now semi-protected
• BBC Radio 2 (example) - article now semi-protected
• BBC Radio 5 Live (example)
• Panorama (TV series) (example)
• Jimmy Young (disc jockey) (example)
• Newsnight (example)

Usually the IP address is 94.196.xxx.yy. Since I will probably be busy this coming week, please could some kind soul watch for similar edits to these articles and others, revert them and provide suitable warnings to the anon editor? I don't know of any other way (aside from semi-protecting all the above articles) of doing this, but if there is anything else that can be done, please do it! Whatever can be done, much appreciated, Stephenb (Talk) 19:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The diffs indicate that it's the same person behind all the edits. The warnings on all the IP talkpages, in aggregate, are sufficient for a block, imo. Semi-Protection of all the articles for a while is probably not a bad idea. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Spotfixer

Spotfixer has today repeatedly blanked well-sourced (and bland) material in the zygote article. The blanking seems more like vandalism than good-faith editing. I said to Spotfixer: “Re-write it if you think it's poorly written. Don't delete reliably sourced facts.” He instead went ahead and blanked the material again. A block would seem appropriate here. I'll notify him of this discussion.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll affirm the complaint. Although Spotfixer is correct that the paragraph Ferrylodge added is not very well written, it is well-sourced and at least somewhat understandable, so repeatedly deleting it without any discussion beyond edit summaries is not an acceptable approach. Looie496 (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As I commented, the problem isn't just that it's poorly written, but that the material is biased and inappropriate. I didn't—and still don't—see any way to repair it, short of deletion. I'm sorry that Ferrylodge appears to believe that he WP:OWNs the article, but he has to understand that not all of his contributions are acceptable. Spotfixer (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that mud won't stick. The article history shows that the article has existed for seven years, and that I edited it thrice (i.e. consecutive edits on February 11, 13 and 15). It's not your prerogative to blank all well-sourced material that you deem inappropriate, without any further explanation.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Have to agree with Ferrylodge. Spotfixer, use the talk page if you disagree. He's sourced the material, I think you should try to argue how it's "unacceptable". -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I hate to ask, but what in that material do you find biased? IMO, it's as bland as rice porridge. arimareiji (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

<-This has gone astray. Spotfixer said above As I commented, the problem isn't just that it's poorly written, but that the material is biased and inappropriate. If that were true, this would be a content dispute. But Spotfixer never made such a comment, at least that I can find, only two edit summaries saying "Poorly written" and then "Citations don't improve writing or appropriateness." No explanation of what is appropriate, no mention of bias anywhere. Looie496 (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if that argument had been raised before the fact instead of after, it's hard to believe that anyone could find this controversial in good faith:

"In humans, a zygote exists for about four days, at which time it becomes a blastocyst. A zygote begins as a fertilized egg (ovum), and contains all of the genetic information (DNA) necessary to become a baby; half of that information is from the mother’s egg and half from the father’s sperm that has fertilized the egg. The zygote travels down the fallopian tube, while dividing to form a larger group of cells."

Just my two cents' worth. arimareiji (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reinserted the language. Let's continue any discussion at Talk:Zygote. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)

Before I respond, can anyone explain why we're not discussing this on the article's talk page? Spotfixer (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Zygote#Lead language. Kevin (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad threat

I don't know if this is serious or not, but someone needs to deal with it ASAP. OrangeMarlin 22:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 5 years. Someone else can decide on further action. Viridae 22:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what do about it on MastCell's page, in case someone needs to keep it for evidence or something. OrangeMarlin 22:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Mastcell would probably know best if this should be taken as a real-world threat. Most editors' real-world identities aren't known to most people so this is probably just a harmless rant. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's that .01% chance that it's a valid threat that scares the crap out of me. There's that widely known story that someone who edited the same articles that I do pissed off someone who made threats then carried them out on the editor, nearly destroying his career. Don't we take this kind of thing more seriously? OrangeMarlin 22:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess I can only speak for myself, but if I got that message on my talkpage I wouldn't think about it for a second. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the threat of violence and protected the page to prevent further threats of violence. — Aitias // discussion 23:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

British Isles talk page

Hello there is an ongoing edit war at Talk:British Isles. An IP (who has been reported for breaking the 3RR rule) has on more than 6 occasions reverted content on the talk page. As of yet no action has been taken despite the posting by others on the Edit Warring board. Now a second IP has started to undo the edits so its possible its the same person. We really need an admin to take a look thanks. Special:Contributions/213.202.129.181 at Talk:British Isles and recent edit by Special:Contributions/78.16.156.75 BritishWatcher (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the talkpage for 1 day, as a quick review indicated that the majority of edit warring (by means of reverting) was by ip's against named accounts - and that the ip's were removing others comments. I suggest that if this recurs you take a request to WP:RPP. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, not even sure why the person kept removing the content in the first place it was a valid part of an ongoing conversation. :\. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, I have blocked both IPs for 24 hours. — Aitias // discussion 22:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Both ip's indicate an Irish Republic location. I am aware that there is some sentiment that Ireland (or that part of it that is the Republic) should not be included in the geographical term British Isles because of the political connotations. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Are maps now unavailable in the Republic? I certainly saw them on sale in Dublin about ten years ago. --Rodhullandemu 22:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Nay, not the pov-ridden British type;) PurpleA (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Runescape123456789

Runescape123456789 (talk · contribs) is mass creating video game walkthrough guides. They're all very similar, I think he may even be running a script from his caccount to copy and paste them en masse from somewhere.--Patton 23:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Script seems unlikely, as the edits are relatively well-spaced. More likely he's just copy-pasting them from a Runescape-related wiki. I'll delete them and ask him to knock it off. -- Vary Talk 23:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ack, he's still at it and I've gtg, sorry. -- Vary Talk 00:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Mostly copyvios, from videos if you can believe it. The text in the articles is the subtitle text from the videos, verbatim. Protonk (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Repetitive removal of discussion by Hu12 on MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist

I've become aware of the use of the spam blacklist (here and on meta) for purposes other than controlling linkspam, as well as of sometimes very aggressive action being taken against editors for alleged linkspamming, based solely on the number of links added, without regard, in the process, for whether or not the links were appropriate for the articles, the result being (perhaps rarely) substantial damage to the project. As I looked into cases where I suspected excess action, the name of Hu12 came up frequently, and, because I encountered situations where some remedial action could be taken, I started requesting him to undo certain actions: an article deletion here, a block there, or an error in a regex expression that was blacklisting sites not intended to be included. However, Hu12 is very active with the blacklist, and I've formed no opinion on his overall "performance." I considered it a courtesy to ask him first if I had a question about one of his actions (as well as a responsibility under WP:DR).

Because I see safeguards missing from the delisting and whitelisting processes, and guidelines are not being followed (acknowledged but possibly justified), I began to prepare a report at User:Abd/Blacklist and invited comment on the attached Talk page, and, so far, participation has been useful from Beetstra and A. B., and there has been supportive comment elsewhere from Lustiger seth (See permanent link) and others. This report is to be my report, it isn't a community process, as such, and I want to make sure that the point of view and needs of blacklist volunteers is fully considered and respected, as well as to document some of the experience of those who have been affected by the blacklist. I was not and am not ready to bring proposals to the community about the blacklisting process, though I've developed some ideas.

Because I'm now watching blacklist discussions, I made a comment in the discussion of ReadWriteWeb on MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, and mentioned User:Abd/Blacklist. The discussion was then closed over four hours later, having received no further comment and there being no need for further discussion, by Steven Walling.

Then, after another five hours, my comment was removed from the closed discussion by Hu12, summary (rmv urelated see WP:CANVASS). "Related" could be debated, but a violation of WP:CANVASS, it was not. If I wanted to, I could only ask those I think would have one opinion or another, and I'd be the one harmed by that, because then I'd end up with a shallow report that would make me look like an ignorant idiot, wasting everyone's time.

In any case, removing comment, related or not, from a closed discussion, is usually discouraged, so I warned Hu12 and reverted. I was surprised to see him remove the comment again. He also responded to my warning, with the kind of wikilawyering and assumptions of bad faith I've seen him use with naive editors in his actions relating to problematic blacklistings. I'm bringing this here for comment and advice, for which I thank the community in advance. I'll notify him of this report. --Abd (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Restore comment. Abd, thanks for the clear introduction. I was involved in that discussion, and witnessed the reversions of your comment, but it was a little tough to see what was going on.

The reversion of a comment on a closed thread is indeed an extreme step, and something that should only be undertaken in extreme cases. You're quite right that there was no violation of WP:CANVASS. I think it's clear that your comment should be restored.

I should note that I've read Hu12's comments on his talk page, and I don't find his position convincing. It's clear that he feels threatened by what you're doing, but I don't think his concern is justified. -Pete (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Hmm, I can't see anything wrong with your comment. As far as I can tell you are trying to encourage discussion on how we should remove entries from the spam blacklist, and posted an invite on the blacklist talk page inviting editors to come and discuss on your subpage. Is that right? If so that looks entirely appropriate to me. Theresa Knott | token threats 01:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I wrote a little more than that, but as to the subpage, yes, that's right. I pointed out that evidence of linkspamming in the past (which just preceded my comment) isn't relevant to continued blacklisting, unless there is reasonable fear that linkspamming would continue. Otherwise blacklisting becomes a punishment, and possibly a deprivation of the readers of the encyclopedia, and perhaps the operators of the web site, for the sins of an editor who sometimes was just trying to improve a bunch of pages. But, again, this report isn't about that problem, exactly, that is what the subpage will be about, and, hopefully, how to fix it without adding to the burden, already great, of the linkspam volunteers. --Abd (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Abd completely failed to mention that the comment removed by Hu12 after the discussion was closed had been added by Abd after the discussion was closed. It makes a difference. Looie496 (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It would make a difference, if it were true but the page history tells a different story.comment added discussion closed four and a half hours later Theresa Knott | token threats 01:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake. Looie496 (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that would have been so embarrassing, to report the alteration of a closed discussion, if I'd altered it myself! --Abd (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The plot thickens. I was wondering why the discussion for the delisting request didn't provide the original reports, that's the first thing I usually see when a delisting request pops up, piles of evidence why the blacklisting was perfectly fine. But it was missing in the discussion. So I investigated. It's a mess. In the blacklist log, readwriteweb.com is listed under March 2008. But it wasn't actually added until June 4. By Hu12. Based on his own report of May 19, with no comments from other editors, and no closure. The history is compiled at User:Abd/Blacklist/readwriteweb.com. The other evidences shown in the blacklist log don't mention readwriteweb.com, and Hu12's report, the only basis for his apparently unilateral action, was based on inaccurate understanding of readwriteweb.com's operating procedures and of our policies and guidelines.

When the delisting request was made, Hu12 formally declined it, thus having served as the original complainant against readwriteweb.com, the judge, the executioner, and the appeals court. --Abd (talk) 04:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This is, unfortunately, a frequent occurrence with the spam blacklist because not enough admins/users are involved in monitoring requests for additions/removals/whitelisting. If enough people became involved, we could set a practice whereby one doesn't take action on an item that one added to the list.. --Versageek 06:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand. However, there was no emergency. My concern here isn't so much that an admin added a listing based on self-report, though that's a problem, it is that the same admin rapidly declined a delisting request, and didn't disclose the self-listing. Overworked, perhaps. The guidelines suggest that blacklisting be a measure of last resort, not a first-line response based on an admin's opinion, against many editors, that a reference or link cannot be used. In discussions on this, the supposed ease of whitelisting is often mentioned. It's not easy, it's arcane, and I've seen what has the effect of retaliation for the request. I'm not prepared to try to establish all of this, I'm simply explaining some of why I'm concerned.

There was, again, no emergency in declining the request. But there is a battlefield mentality among some of the spam warriors. See WP:WikiProject Spam with its image of a battleship, guns blazing, or the user page of MER-C, with a nuclear detonation, and some of the comments some admins have made have been practically libelous; this is what comes from treating editors as "spammers," a detested lot. (Beetstra has properly pointed out that "spam" is a loaded term and probably not appropriate.) I'm not averse to letting the volunteers play their video game, because there can be some value in it, maybe even great value, but we need to confine the damage. This incident with ReadWriteWeb resulted in a rather negative report on a major blog. Other incidents I've been examining didn't create any big splash, but one, for example, resulted in the indef block of a good-faith editor (still blocked, User:Lyriker) who was doing what was obviously thought to be helpful, who had no apparent COI, and who stopped immediately when warned, even while trying to explain that the links were useful, which the vast majority of the links were, IMHO, and I haven't seen any clearly otherwise. The article this user created here, Lyrikline.org, on a quite notable web site, not to mention useful and a reliable source in its field, was speedy deleted as promotional spam. It remained on de.wikipedia, which ultimately whitelisted the site in its entirety. (The blacklisting is on meta, and multiple delisting requests have been made, all denied so far.) (See User:Abd/Blacklist/lyrikline.org for some of the history.) I should stop now. I'll continue extended documentation of the problem at User:Abd/Blacklist and attached Talk and subpages, and I appreciate any help provided in this, and comments and suggestions. I think it may be easy to fix this, and some elements might be that, absent an emergency, self-listing wouldn't be allowed, though that would make only a small dent (because the blacklisters work closely together and tend to back each other up, as they should), but, more importantly, handling delisting and whitelisting would be mostly hands-off for active blacklist administrators, unless they decide to delist or whitelist without further ado. ("Can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.") The blacklist notice that editors get when an edit is blocked should include clear and functional instructions as to how to request delisting or whitelisting, whitelisting should be very easy for autoconfirmed editors, and instructions should be given for IP and new editors as to how to seek the support of an established editor. (Category:Users willing to consider whitelist requests? WP:WikiProject Whitelist?). --Abd (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• The sound you hear is that of a stick hitting rotting horseflesh, I think. There is no real point discussing meta blacklisting policies or foundational issues in a user page on the English Misplaced Pages. The use of the blacklist to control forms of abuse other than spam is routine, virtually all URL shorteners are blacklisted, for example, to prevent circumvention and obfuscation. We have requested more than once that the list be renamed, due in part to the pejorative nature of the word spam, but there is no real dissent from the use of blacklists to control forms of abuse over and above simple spamming. This appears to have its root in the listing of lenr-canr.org, a fringe website whose owner is implicated in the issues around Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion; in that case Abd argued long and hard for the site to be removed from the meta blacklist, and the request was denied by meta admins with absolutely no connection to the content dispute or arbitration case. Another case linked above is that of Lyrikline.org, a site which hosts copyright content with no evidence of permission from the rights owners (and which was subject of an extensive debate on that basis). As a foundation issue, abuse of copyright is probably one of the two most serious problems facing the project; that and WP:BLP are the only two issues on which the foundation has mandated any kind of content policy. Is blacklisting turning into the new NFCC enforcement, where militant free-speechers will try to torpedo any and every effort to control abuse? I certainly hope not. Guy (Help!) 12:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the first possibly abusive blacklisting I saw, a self-listing with no log entry, and no linkspamming, and removal of links by the same administrator, being involved in the article over a long period, was by JzG (Guy). See User:Abd/JzG on the involvement and use of tools while involved. See also User:Abd/Blacklist/lenr-canr.org for detailed history. There is no copyright issue with lenr-canr.org, that is JzG's idiosyncratic opinion. Further, this report isn't about any specific blacklisting, except possibly that of ReadWriteWeb, so, talk about beating a dead horse, why is this relevant here?

The use of the blacklist for other than dealing with linkspam is not contemplated in the relevant guidelines and instructions. It simply grew up without supervision. Either the practice should change or the guidelines should change; the problem here is the extensive control of content by a small group of administrators, as small as one, based on opinions that are not clearly a matter of consensus. As examples where such extended usage is fully appropriate: sites with established and extensive copyright violation, such that linking is a legal hazard, or sites hosting malware or otherwise presenting a danger to anyone viewing them, spam linkfarms, and I'm sure there are plenty of others. "Fringe," by itself, should not be an argument for blacklisting, it is too easily abused, and fringe sites are, not uncommonly, useful in specific ways. --Abd (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

See? "The first possibly abusive blacklisting" - except that pretty much nobody else seems to agree. Just as nobody else agreed with you about bannign Jed Rothwell - ArbCom considered it so obvious as to call into quesiton whether it was even apprpriate to ask them to review it. You are coming across as a crusader for hopeless causes, Abd - actually a crusader for abusers and against hard-working wikipedians like A.B. and Hu12, whic is a lot worse. You can always join the spam wikiproject, which already fulfils the function you propose, or simply watchlist the whitelist page and comment. Anyone can. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, you usually do good work, but in this case you are clearly off the mark. The OP's concerns and complaint are quite valid. Jtrainor (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I've only had one experience trying to get a blacklisted site "white-listed", which put the burden of proof on me that it was not spam and was reliable (i wanted to use an interview on a previously spammed site as a reference). Considering that once blacklisted, a site is considered guilty until proven innnocent (no matter if the orginal spammer is blocked etc), wouldn't it be better that blacklist reviews are always done by someone other than the admin that initially added it? A longer waiting-list is preferable to perceptions of bias imo. That would prevent accusations like this one, yes? (not that i think this review got to the wrong outcome, but it is not ideal to only have one self-appointed arbitrator)Yobmod (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

From what I've seen, with only a superficial following of the blacklist discussion pages for a short time, and no comprehensive review, your experience was not unusual, Ybomod. Yes, there should be no rush on delisting or whitelisting requests, and, in fact, delisting should be discussed on a different page than the blacklist Talk pages, so as not to disrupt the blacklisting process. Whitelisting is already a separate page and maintained list. --Abd (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hu12 is in my experience less than communicative when his decisions on such matters are questioned. DuncanHill (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't resist it can you? I note you (deliberately?) fail to mention that Hu12 was continuing to edit in the area of contention while ignoring requests (not just from me) to actually enter into a discussion. Still, I shouldn't expect honesty or decency from admins any more, particularly not when one of their own is criticised. DuncanHill (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you just point me to the guideline on acceptable talk page practice while dealing with bereavement? It would have been helpful to me twice in the recent past, once when my sister died and once when it was my father. Sometimes the bereaved don't want to deal with abrasive, chippy, demanding people, so it would be good to know whether the normal permission to remove from one's talk page those comments to which one does not wish to respond, is suspended in the case of personal emotional trauma. Guy (Help!) 19:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If your personal circumstances prevent you responding to questions about your edits or use of admin tools, then don't edit and don't use admin tools. If you claim to be on a Wikibreak but continue editing, then don't complain when people do not believe that you are on a Wikibreak. DuncanHill (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody says such exchanges are obliged to be carried out on your user talk page. In some circumstances it is important to maintain at small pool of calm around yourself, and the user talk page can be the place for this. Repeatedly attempting to initiate plainly unwelcome dialogue on the user page of a grieving Wikipedian is simply crass; keep it to the article talk pages or ask a neutral third party to step in. If you were in the same position I suspect you would appreciate that small consideration. This is not a job, it's a hobby, and sometime we cut people a little extra slack. Admins patrolling the spam queues routinely get trolled, harassed attacked and otherwise abused, so it's not surprising if at times of stress they choose not to engage with disputants on their talk page - and if that presents a problem to the encyclopaedia then raise it at the time on AN, not months later. I thought that was pretty uncontroversial. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hu12's uncommunicative behaviour was raised on the noticeboards at the time , as you would know if you had the slightest idea of what you were talking about. It is unfortunate that A.B. chose to give such a misleading account above. DuncanHill (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I've often seen complaints about "uncommunicative behavior," and generally consider them off the mark. If an admin doesn't respond to a request, it's only a little worse than denying it. (Obviously, denying it is generally better, if it's on the admin's Talk page, because then the editor can move on more quickly, but.... we are all volunteers, and can't demand response, in my opinion.) However, if an admin doesn't respond to a request, then the admin shouldn't complain later if another admin reverses an action. I never complained about lack of response from Hu12, and I knew nothing about bereavement. If an editor doesn't explain edits, and continues making them, then the risk is the editor's, i.e., risk of reversion or warning or blocking. All I did, when I found a problem with an action of Hu12's, was the same I do in a similar situation with any admin whose action I question: ask him about it, discuss it a little, demanding nothing, and then, if not satisfied, proceed with the rest of the dispute resolution process. In filing this report, I did not seek any sanctions against Hu12, but I was concerned with behavior I'd not expect from an administrator. Perhaps bereavement explains this. I wasn't even terribly concerned about the comment remaining, I just thought that the community should make the decision, not myself or Hu12, and I thought that precedent was already well-established. I hope that Hu12 gets the support and rest that he needs, and that's sincere, and I hope that, if he takes a wikibreak, he comes back to an improved situation. --Abd (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hu12 has permitted restoration of my comment. The actual restoration was done by User:SarekOfVulcan. Hu12's comment permitting restoration was still, unfortunately, peevish, suggesting Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Wikihounding, but that's not an AN/I problem. Please, if the problems with the blacklist, and how to fix them without hindering proper blacklisting process, are of interest to you, please watch User:Abd/Blacklist or comment on User talk:Abd/Blacklist. Those pages will hopefully point to any guideline changes or other related process (such as a real RfC). My thanks to all who commented here. Are we done now? --Abd (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I have been in quite a positive, though sometimes heated, discussion with Abd lately. We seem now to agree on some points, but, and I have said that on a couple of occasions, I find his point of entry for discussions sometimes a bit too direct, and heading in the wrong direction, and have commented as such to Abd as well. Criticism is fine, but please formulate it without giving the feeling of assuming bad faith or similar on the user (in this case Hu12) who performed the action.

Many of the actions that administrators are doing, are after the action less visible, or require access to the original information, which is not always visible to non-admins (e.g. after page deletion) or is very difficult to compile (going through the edits of multiple IPs to multiple pages to find the total scale of 'offending actions' is quite a task sometimes). If the actions encompasses several wikis, the situation becomes even less transparant. That is the trust that is put into us (admins) by the community during the request for adminship, that we appropriately judge the situation, and I think that approrpiate appeal procedures are there (there are quite some admins active on the whitelist which I have hardly ever seen on the meta blacklist), and I think the same is true for deletion review. And yes, we sometimes do make mistakes, but I don't believe there is here any form of intent of making mistakes.

In a number of cases which I have been discussing with Abd lately there is, simply put, inappropriate use of the link, including: placement on many wikis (where sometimes the link is useless to the local wiki) , the link to a respectable organisation is in a group of sites being search-engine-optimised , pushed against consensus , or used by users who should engage more in discussion then just blindly put their links everywhere. That is indeed not always 'spam', but nonetheless linkabuse. If that encompasses multiple accounts / IPs who do that, then blacklisting and whitelisting is sometimes the harsh measure that needs to be taken to control the situation (I have my mop here next to me, but sometimes it is simply better to close the tap for some time). It is also our experience, that shutting down accounts, or blacklisting links only for a couple of weeks, does absolutely NOT stop the abuse, they will return (SEOs get paid to optimise the results of searches .., if you remove the link after one month, they will return). Misplaced Pages scores mighty high in Google ...

The current use of the blacklist to stop fringe sites, or similar, is indeed not written down, and I don't think that that should become pactice; the use only of such sites is certainly not a reason to blacklist them. However, and I do think that that was the case with the cold-fusion sites, they were heavily pushed by one editor/a group of editors while multiple editors where not convinced that that site should be used for that (Note: one of them also on a small scale cross-wiki spammed). That is not 'use' anymore, it gets closer to 'abuse', and I believe that all of the sites we are discussing are blacklisted because of that. Although much of the information on the site seems to be a correct copy (with proper copyright), it is also, and better, available on the official sites. Using these sites, for most of the documentation on it, is more convenience than necessery.

I indeed think that Hu12 feels a bit threatened by the situation, his actions are questioned in a direct way. In the comment I read a same feeling as I described above, the assumption that we do not thoroughly look at the site and it appropriateness (I mean the comment: "The spam blacklist community follows a general rule that multiple additions of links is spamming, with little regard for whether or not the links were appropriate in situ."). I have not looked into this specific case, but I do believe that that generally is absolutely not the case, we do address that. And I do think that the question if abuse will continue has been addressed as well, spammers don't always get the message that their edits are not wanted after blacklisting, and many will continue after their sites have been removed. Some of them get paid for it, and that goes for respected, important organisations just as much as for sex, tramadol and viagra-sites. --Dirk Beetstra 15:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If anything I wrote implied assumptions of bad faith, please point it out to me so I can redact it. The "general rule" comment quoted is actually not controversial, and it's apparent in the blacklisting discussions. Nor is that situation, in itself, considered, by me, to be inappropriate. It only becomes clearly relevant in three situations: the removal of links, which is editing of articles, delisting requests, and whitelisting requests. Blacklisting stops the addition of links. As long as users can easily appeal it, not only is there no harm in rapid blacklisting in the presence of significant linkspam, or simply massive addition of links, even if they are appropriate, but it may be necessary. To have a discussion on the merits of links is time-consuming and, meanwhile, additional links could be coming in and thus additional mess to clean up. Removal is more problematic, but, again, relatively easily undone if a problem is caught quickly, and if such removals are logged. They aren't, they would have to be found indirectly. (Cross-wiki removals are often done by IP, the blacklist volunteers don't register just to remove linkspam.) The "number of links" standard only becomes a serious problem when it is the primary argument in delisting or whitelisting requests. Yes, I think that my discussions with Beetstra have been useful. Above, though, we can see where we still clearly differ. His description of the situation with lenr-canr.org (and, not previously mentioned here, newenergytimes.com) is not balanced. Again, this discussion will continue elsewhere, so that we can find consensus. --Abd (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The part that I feel not too happy with is the "with little regard for whether or not the links were appropriate in situ". That is the part that I see as more a remark on how it seems that we blacklist, and I think that is certainly incorrect. We do check (and we do make mistakes as well :-) ). You now add "Cross-wiki removals are often done by IP, the blacklist volunteers don't register just to remove linkspam.". For as far as we know, the editors who are active on the meta blacklist all have a SUL account, before the implementation of SUL the situation indeed becomes more difficult. --Dirk Beetstra 15:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The examples I saw were almost a year old, so, indeed, this situation may have been improved. I have much less difficulty with massive removals if they are done by a single identifiable editor, who notifies the blacklisting report of the removals, and they can be easily tracked (and reverted) if necessary.--Abd (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I should add to this, the majority of the cases we encounter are not reverted, but simply ignored, or ignored after reverting. Only if it persists, or if it is real rubbish, we add it to the blacklist (but even a lot of the rubbish does not even get blacklisted, we revert and see if it persists). I really want to stress, that we are on meta really careful with these things. --Dirk Beetstra 15:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I began these investigations because of clear counterexamples to this claim that I found. But these are not issues to be resolved here. --Abd (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding to this, I guess we are done here .. I hope this situation can be resolved on the user talkpages, the blacklisting/whitelisting questions should end up somewhere else. --Dirk Beetstra 15:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The lenr-carn.org and newenergytimes.com links are a special problem, as is just about anything else to do with cold fusion articles on this site. I'm glad I haven't been involved and I don't envy the admins and arbitrators who have had to wrestle with all the issues (not just links) surrounding these articles and their editors.

Whatever decisions are made about broader blacklisting issues, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'd guess I probably rank in the top 2 or 3 admins for domains blacklisted, both here and on meta. 99% of these blacklistings involved open-and-shut cases of spam, both in terms of content and behaviour. In the majority of the cases, I was acting on problems reported by others. The remainder were based on links added to "spam honeypot" articles such as Mesothelioma (spammers drawing traffic to their mesothelioma sites earn >$50 US for just one click on a Google ads for asbestos lawyers) and Search engine optimization. In >98% of cases, the spammer has received 3 and usually 4 warnings from the community; in the few others I'm responding to something really, really egregious (hate sites, shock sites, etc.) I document and log the problem, then blacklist the domains.

Domain blacklisting is less draconian than actually blocking an IP or registered user, yet admins routinely block problematic accounts without first requiring a second look by someone else. We have block review processes in place to correct the small percentage of cases where a mistake is made. Given the typical backlog of 10 days for spam reports at WT:WPSPAM and WP:SBL, if all blacklisting has to go through some sort of double-checking, you'll see wait-times go out several months unless many more admins can be drawn into this work, which is sort of specialized. I think it would be more useful to have more admins pitching in with both spam-mitigation and whitelisting. I recently saw a statistic that we now average 18 external links added per minute; we all know that they're not all to scientific journals.

I would ask that folks assume not just good faith but also a decent level of good judgement and competence on those admins and other editors trying to keep up with our very large spam. --A. B. 16:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Correction: the number of links added per minute is even higher than I thought. --A. B. 16:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Abd, in the matyter of hounding, I would suggest that you are living in a glass house so should not be throwing stones. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you misread his comment above. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You are right, I did. Apologies. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There was an African king who retired to a thatch hut and kept his old throne in the attic. One day it broke through and killed him. Hence the old saying, "People who live in grass houses shouldn't stow thrones." Baseball Bugs 23:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

eyes please

• BLP1E/minor accused of doing nasty things, eyes wuld be appreciated on the relevant articles: (see this thread - I don't want to expand on wikipedia) http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=23005 Viridae 06:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

A couple of spelling variations now deleted and salted. Kevin (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Lih

This article on a Misplaced Pages administrator was created by a brand new editor, and then it was nominated for deletion by another brand new editor. CheckUser shows that the article creator, Lookie Louis (talk · contribs), and the creator of the AfD nomination, Poowe (talk · contribs), are likely the same person. I can't quite tell what they are up to, but if you look at the article's deleted edits, it seems that Andrew was previously the target of an article created about him by a banned user, so this may be related. Anyone want to figure out what to do here? Dominic·t 07:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy it under G7? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Article deleted and AfD closed on the basis that both are disruption. If someone can point me at where the CheckUser findings are, I'll permablock both accounts. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 08:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Dominic (Dmcdevit) is the CheckUser who performed the check :) -- lucasbfr 09:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Grrr! Down with changed usernames! :op ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 09:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about the confusion. :-) This was the CheckUser report, so to speak. I just wanted to bring it here rather than doing anything myself. Dominic·t 10:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned I would above, I've blocked both with non-templated notices that request further information and link to this section. ➲ redvers 10:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Lookie Louis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is requesting a block review. I'm happy to be overturned (or confirmed, obviously) without being asked, but any reviewer(s) should check with Dominic as the active CU in the case, please. ➲ redvers 21:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism from 59.92.x.x

Moved discussion to WP:AIV#Vandalism from 59.92.x.x. --MZMcBride (talk) 10:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Henrywinklestein

Moved discussion to WP:AIV#User:Henrywinklestein. --MZMcBride (talk) 10:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Black_Eyed_Husband

Please remove this deletion tag as this is the only article about a movie starring famous porn actress Francesca Le --Bziona86 (talk) 11:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a {{PROD}} tag, which you are entitled to remove yourself. However, I suspect the article will then be sent to WP:AfD. ➲ redvers 11:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

A7ed by JzG in the meantime. -- lucasbfr 13:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Raffaeleserafini and Xorxi Licensing problems

I was recently patrolling new images being uploaded without copywright/source status and was tagging them accordingly. I noticed user:Raffaeleserafini had uploaded a lot of images with no license (see their talk page). After a few days user:Xorxi decided to release the work under the GFDL licence which says they are the copywright holders and not Raffaeleserafini (which is improper). I think the source of these images is indeed questionable. It may be that the user just found them on the internet and uploaded them here. Is there any action required? --DFS454 (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Examples where Xorxi changed Raffaeleserafini's file info . See history in each case. --DFS454 (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Dumb question

Anyone wonder whether there's a connection between Mr. "Lex Luthor of Misplaced Pages" and the apparent upsurge of nasty vandalism? arimareiji (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Not his style. Is more the style of one of our other long-term idiots. (He Who Shall Not Be Named). //roux   16:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Point of interest - is anyone still getting emails from the illustrious arch-nemesis? Skomorokh 17:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't 'Lex' be doing something more helpful to the world as a whole, instead; stapling his own face shut, for instance? HalfShadow 17:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

He was, until the ankle-biters got to him. Mr. Luther has contributed more quality encyclopaedic content than 95% of those who comment here. Skomorokh 18:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Really? Because considering his actions thusfar, he looks much more like an asshole to me. You might consider seeing an optometrist. HalfShadow 19:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Could that be a consequence of it being "the encyclopedia anyone can edit?" And if so, whose fault is that? Baseball Bugs 18:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Skomorokh 18:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone said his writing was better than 95% of the contributors. Since any moron can edit, then certainly 5 percent of the population are going to write better than 95 percent of it. That does not give someone in the 5 percent a pass to do whatever he wants, though. Baseball Bugs 18:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of sockpuppetry

user:Afroghost has recently been accusing me of being a sockpuppet of a blocked user, in a rude and hostile tone, for no reason. I have recently been looking over an incident involving a blocked user (User: Shnitzled), where he was blocked for being uncivil and making personal attacks, I felt his case was handled poorly but that is a different matter. My reason for being here, is because this user making the accusations has been following me around, asking me the same question "Are you a sockpuppet of Shnitzled?" on 2 of the pages I have posted on, I feel I am being harrassed by this user. Could an admin please look into this? Thanks very much, U_(ser)N_(ame)I_(n)U_(se) 16:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This account was created on the same day that User:Shnitzled was blocked, and less than ten minutes later, she became involved in defending that user on a rather obscure user talk page. It is difficult to imagine how an unrelated user might have accidentally become involved in that conversation and even more difficult to conceive how she could have stumbled upon this conversation and drawn the conclusion that the wronged party was User:Shnitzled, unless she is either User:Shnitzled or a close personal friend of that user. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I can look into all right, but you are not going to like my conclusions. Blatant trolling almost certainly a sockpuppet or meatpuppet possibly deserving of an immediate block for trolling this board.UNIU please stop at once. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

UNIU is not a socpuppet of me, and cannot be for technical reasons - a blocked user cannot create accounts due to the restrictions in place, and why would I? That would only deepen my situation tenfold, all I want to do is get back to editing. I have no idea who this UNIU person is, all I know is that he/she or it was the only person who came and saw things from my POV, not that it was going to help, but I did notice it. I do feel that this Afrofrog person needs to lay off, he/she is bordering on incivility - precicely what I was blocked for. Shnitzled (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Afrofrog? Awesome, just back from your block and you are insulting other editors again. Afroghost (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Block review requested and seems like a good idea

Could some neutral parties have a look at the block on this user's talk page and see if it's being handled appropriately? I believe the user is also now blocked from commenting on their own page, which I think means they can't appeal? Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be reasonably routine. He's blocked from commenting on his own talk page due to soapboxing (abusing unblock process), but that does not prevent an appeal via email, on the condition he doesn't abuse that privillege like he did with his talk page. Another administrator has already reviewed the block and considered it valid too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. I don't think there is ever a routine block by an administrator who is themselves involved in the dispute, as is alleged here, especially if it is that same administrator who then blocks the talk page. This smacks a bit of judge, jury and executioner. With great powers come great responsibilities, and I don't see the incivility or the soapboxing as being so clear cut or so blatant that bringing more neutral involvement shouldn't have been considered first. Let me make clear that I am not arguing that some kind of block or other action wasn't warranted, I haven't reviewed the matter and the history carefully enough to determine that. and clearly Spotfixer was pushing and outside the envelope of discussing content and was feuding rather inappropriately, but I do think following best practices and protocols for handling these situations is important. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight - thanks for bringing this here for consideration - however if you don't mind please review the history carefully before you make broad allegations about my role. When you do review you will find that I am not involved in the dispute in any way rather I have been one of two or three administrators actively trying to maintain the peace at Rick Warren for weeks now - and Spotfixer has taken a one-sided view on that work. Please note also that others have reviewed that situation and they have already agreed that my actions were not inappropriate. Best wishes.--VS 21:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It may be a matter of perspective, but if he's taken a one-sided view of your role and disputes your methods, getting an outside view or a more independent Admin to review the situation instead of taking action yourself might have been helpful. A one week block is a substantial punishment (prevention per wikispeak). It is my observation (and stated in the guidelines) that once blocks are imposed they are difficult to have overturned, so making sure they are fair and impartially considered in the first place is important. His soapboxing amounted to a strongly worded request for independent review, and you were again the one to lock down his talk page. This after he requests "Take this into the light of a public forum". If others conclude the block and the talk page restrictions are warranted, I'm okay with that, but I do think caution needs to be used when a single Admin is the only one dishing out this kind of severe remedy in a case where the comments don't amount to grotesque or outrageous clear cut violations. The issue seems more to be about getting him to stay focused on content and not to grandstand or cast indirect aspersions on editors when frustrations develop. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Weirdness on userpage

I'm going to WP:AGF and therefore imagine there may be a legitimate reason for this hidden userpage text from an editor, Jaggre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has done nothing but create bad pages and edit his userpage, but I'm not smart enough to think of one. An admin who understands what is trying to be done here will know whether this requires intervention or if it's mostly harmless. THF (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: This

Hi all, I recently full prot'd Greek identity because of an apparent content dispute. I didn't look too much into the actual dispute but I did note there were numerous reverts between User:Deucalionite and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. I didn't want to block anyone (I wasn't in a "blocking mood"), so I prot'd for a week. A little while later Fut. came on my talk to complain about my decision, I can understand that he's exasperated but I don't think he realises that he has been edit warring too. Can anyone advise on what to do next? Was my decision out of line? Thanks in advance. Scarian 20:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it might be worth investigating Fut. Perf.'s charges of misquotation and misrepresentation of academic sources. From my perspective, if it's demonstrable that one party is inserting OR, misquoting sources, or misrepresenting what sources say, and another editor is trying to keep such edits out of the encyclopedia through reversion, it's not right to say that both parties are edit-warring. Please don't tell me that such problems are supposed to be solved through discussion; we know full well that there are too many Misplaced Pages editors who spend months or years pushing idiosyncratic, wrong, or false material into articles. At a certain point discussion becomes useless. I don't know whether that's the case in this particular dispute (I haven't had time to look through the history), but Fut. Perf. knows what he's talking about in this area, and Deucalionite has a checkered history. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Another case of scapegoating. It never ends. Deucalionite (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the material in question was discussed repeatedly on Talk:Greeks. Each time the discussion ended with a consensus to remove it. Each time Deucalionite has used his habitual tactics: stay away for a few weeks, divert attention away by making a few hundred harmless minor edits elsewhere, then returning with "minor" edits to the Greek-related articles, and finally inserting the same contentious material again when he thinks nobody is looking. Then he'll revert-war for a while, until he's sent off, and the cycle begins again. This was the fourth 3RR violation in this year alone. Last time round on Talk:Greeks#Genetics section, again, it was clearly agreed (even by the person who originally wrote the section) that the material was severely distorted and misquoted. Deucalionite has a history since at least 2005, of pushing the same idiosyncratic fringe views (mostly related to a claim of ethnic continuity of the Greek nation into the remote past). He is absolutely aware they are non-mainstream, but keeps pushing them single-mindedly and stealthily nevertheless. This is one of the most disruptive users I've come across in all my time on this project. Yes, at this point I refuse to "discuss" with him. The time for that is long past. I'm firmly convinced only reverts and blocks are the way to deal with him. He needs community-(topic)-banned, is all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh-huh. It was User:Xenovatis who created the Greek identity article in the first place to deal with the problems existent on the Greeks article. Xenovatis removed the "Genetics section" from the Greeks article, because there were too many disputes over it (there was a consensus to keep the section since no one acted on the previous consensus to have it removed). As for my habits, Future Perfect seems to recall every edit I make to be based on "fringe views" when his linguistically deterministic mindset prevents him from considering, say, physical evidence that he claims to be "distorted" merely because he disagrees with it. Given the fact that I'm capable of collaborating with other users only disproves Future's propensity towards labelling me as a vandal to fulfill his usefulness as a rouge administrator. Deucalionite (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If I was really one of the "most disruptive users" on Misplaced Pages, then I would have been permanently banned by the community years ago. So far, users (except you) have begrudgingly accepted me despite certain oddities in my behavior. The longer I contribute, the more I improve despite the slow process. Stop exaggerating and portraying me as some kind of Juggernaut. I'm NOT a threat to Misplaced Pages (though I am a threat to you for questioning your "authority"). Deucalionite (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

ANI protection level

I would like to propose that we leave the protection level on ANI as it is right now at "indefinte protection" because it seems like we it is lowered, the vandalism kicks up again. Just leave it be, no vandalism. People can still edit ANI, so it is not like it is hindering anyone. What does everyone think? - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 16, 2009 @ 20:12

But people can't edit AN/I only autoconfirmed users can edit it, no IPs and no new users. How can that be acceptable? The vandalism isn't that bad, it's easy enough to deal with IMO. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

What she said, was about to say the same. Viridae 20:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree; semiprotection is useful at times of high vandalism, especially if it's the same vandal persistently, but under normal circumstances the board should be accessible to anyone who needs to post here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know it would block out good IPs and new users. Oh well, it was worth mentioning :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 16, 2009 @ 20:41

well, we only know an IP is bad once it has been used to post, right? ThuranX (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Leaving in effect is probably good, though. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

We should have a subpage to be used by non-autoconfirmed users when AN/I is semi-protected (as we have for AN). I'd create one, but I wonder whether people might prefer, especially in view of the community's recent inclination to prefer other noticeboards to AN/I, that we simply add a note to the header directing users unable to edit because of semi-protection to the AN non-autoconfirmed page. Joe 22:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

We used to have one, and a notice directing editors to it. I have no problem with recreating it in the light of recent events; it's easily watchlisted. --Rodhullandemu 23:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

John Vanderslice

We have an SPA who, despite multiple requests, continues to upload an image of dubious copyright according to the GFDL. More problematic is that they have completely re-written the article in a POV fashion, removed a lot of content, and inserted sentences such as, "John Vanderslice makes lyrically ambitious, highly varied and sonically adventurous records"; "Vanderslice is an accomplished and inspired live performer"; "Vanderslice owns an influential recording studio in San Francisco"; and "Vanderslice has always been a forward-thinking progressive", amongst others, none of it sourced. It's becoming an edit-war that I wish to back away from. --David Shankbone 20:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean this and later similar diffs. It certainly looks like he has a conflict of interest, or is trying to promote the subject in some way. As he has no contributions apart from these and has been warned multiple times, I think it's safe enough to block him.--Patton 21:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The editor seems to be behaving himself a little better now; a block for a week-old editor who hasn't been told about the edit-warring or COI rules would seem WP:BITEy to me. The page isn't half as bad as Tim Howard (attorney), and Tim's been able to keep that autobiography up for over two years. THF (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Over three years, in fact, and it's such a ropey article that I've sent it to AfD. Black Kite 22:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Chelo61

Per a discussion on WT:VG, the consensus on roster lists were that they should be written in prose. Chelo61 completely disregards this consensus as shown here, here, here, and many more places. S/he has been warned too many times as shown here. I'm tired of reverting his edits, as he does not listen at all. A block would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Simon 22:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

They have also been warned many times about this matter and refuse to listen.--TRUCO 22:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Block review

Okay. So I just blocked User:TipPt indefinitely, again. (I'm certainly open to having the block changed without my consent.) This is a long-time single purpose account who basically only edits circumcision and its talk page, to complain about the content of the article, without actually adding much himself lately, except to put disputed tags back on it. (This is the most recent example of TipPt trying to add content, and a reliable source is removed to do it.) User has an escalating block log, doesn't appear to listen to reasonable advice, has a problem remaining civil, and thinks everyone is out to get them.

I felt that this editor is being unhelpful and should be removed for the time being, but people may wish to suggest an adjustment of the block, or, possibly, a ban. Grandmasterka 22:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite is not infinite; if the editor acknowledges and addresses the issues with his editing, fine with an unblock, but so far, support this block. --Rodhullandemu 23:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The user ID is certainly a tipoff. Baseball Bugs 23:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Mouth breathing and WP:AIV

There's an anon IP vandalising mouth breathing and removing the report from WP:AIV. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 23:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 23:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

He can try this again in 31 hours. Black Kite 23:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Now 55 because i got confused about what day it was in server land. Viridae 23:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone else appears to be vandalising mouth breathing still. Same person, different IP? No idea. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 23:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Different continent. Semi'd the article for a day. Black Kite 23:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

User:WikiGruvakia

Does the image on User:WikiGruvakia, in comparison to the text that is there, constitute a BLP violation? Is the text a violation of GFDL, since it's a copy of Misplaced Pages text with no indication that it's copied from an article? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• From the timeline of the edits, I'm tempted to assume it was a good-faith exercise in copying wikitext and markup and inserting images. Since the editor hasn't been seen since January 17 though, I've blanked the page. Black Kite 23:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards