Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:32, 26 December 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

Umpteenth edit war in Gibraltar

Entire discussion moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Gibraltar to centralize discussion and to free up space on ANI. MuZemike

Request interaction ban on Drolz09

Entire discussion has been moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Drolz09 to centralize discussion and to free up space here. MuZemike

Grundle2600

Sigh. Despite pledging to be "topic banned from editing or participating in discussion of any political or politically controversial article, as well as BLPs. This includes articles directly about politics, but also includes politically controversial topics, like climate change," Grundle2600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is right back at it on Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. Per this recent ANI thread, this was supposed to be the last straw. I'd like to propose that the indef block that was lifted following his pledge be reapplied. At the very least, a block of considerable length seem warranted. Should be a no-brainer this time. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in the edit you cite, , he says that "I still reserve the right to make edits about international political articles that are not BLPs", so he is not violating the conditions of his unblock, and I see no immediate reason to re-block. (Whether that unblock was a good idea in the first place is a different question.)  Sandstein  22:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in the edit I cited "climate change" was specifically listed, but Grundle did not rule it out as one of his conditions. So interpreted strictly, he violated his own pledge. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I said, "I still reserve the right to make edits about international political articles that are not BLPs." Grundle2600 (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

So? You are still editing at a politically-controversial, left vs. right hotbed article on climate change. That's as clear an indication as any that you intend to continue the actions that got you blocked in the first place. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Please cite any diffs that I made since my last block ended that you think are in violation of any wikipedia rule. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

What has that got to do with anything? You pledged to avoid "climate change" and then went back on your word, as far as I'm concerned. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I said, "I still reserve the right to make edits about international political articles that are not BLPs, such as nuclear power, overpopulation, and sweatshops. My edits in these articles have generally been welcomed by other editors, and the histories of these kinds of articles shows that I have substantially improved them without causing trouble." Grundle2600 (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey is falsely attributing that pledge to me. I never pledged that. According to the text at the very link that Scjessey posted, this is what I said:

"I agree to avoid editing articles about politicians from all countries, including their article talk pages. I also agree to avoiding editing articles about people from all countries whose main notability is their political commentary, such as Diane Francis, Michael Moore, and Paul Krugman, as well as their talk pages. I do not agree to any such ban on BPLs for non-political people, such as Phoebe Cates, Stephen Hawking, or Jules Verne, because the issue there for non-political BLPs (I think Tiger Woods was the only one) was not my edits to articles, but instead, some jokes I made in the comment section and talk pages. Therefore, I agree to stop making jokes about all living persons in the comment section and talk pages for articles. However, I still reserve the right to make edits about international political articles that are not BLPs, such as nuclear power, overpopulation, and sweatshops. My edits in these articles have generally been welcomed by other editors, and the histories of these kinds of articles shows that I have substantially improved them without causing trouble."

Thus, I never said the words that Scjessey is attributing to me.

I am going to assume good faith, and assume that this was an honest mistake on Scjessey's part.

Grundle2600 (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, the concern was with your editing behaviour in regards to any article with political connotations. As part of your unblock request, you said you would like to be able to edit articles on animals, etc. Climate change is very obviously a politically heated issue, and violates the spirit of your pledge. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Grundle should not have been allowed to add his own qualifiers and interpretations to the conditions laid out at Proposal to unblock. But that ship has now sailed unfortunately, as I'd say the fact he was unblocked serves as an implied acceptance of those "modified" conditions. So like a defendant who gets off with a lesser sentence because of a clerical or judicial error, here we are. Tarc (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, totally agree. The conditions that were added by Grundle substantially weakened the proposed restrictions. Shrug - nobody said anything about it then, so I have to agree with Grundle that they were accepted by both sides. Based on the modified restrictions, his comment is not in violation. Ravensfire (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Throwaway85, you said, "Climate change is very obviously a politically heated issue, and violates the spirit of your pledge." You are wrong. It's exactly within my pledge, which states, "I still reserve the right to make edits about international political articles that are not BLPs, such as nuclear power, overpopulation, and sweatshops. My edits in these articles have generally been welcomed by other editors, and the histories of these kinds of articles shows that I have substantially improved them without causing trouble." Grundle2600 (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to make any judgements about Grundle's involvement, since I know nothing about the previous discussions on the subject. However, it should be noted that the article in question, while not a BLP per se, is fundamentally concerned with BLP issues since it relates to accusations against several individuals and organisations. It has been persistently affected by (and a number of editors blocked for) violations of the BLP policy. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: Allow Grundle to edit politics articles again and topic ban him from BLPs and anything related to science. Articles in the latter two categories are serious articles; you don't want problematic editors to edit these articles. Editing politics related articles is more of a recreational game on Misplaced Pages. Count Iblis (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I oppose this. Grundle has shown nothing but contempt for Misplaced Pages policies on any article that has even the slightest hint of a political flavor. This latest transgression should be the end of this. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you cite any diffs that I made since my last block ended that shows "contempt for Misplaced Pages policies"? Grundle2600 (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Count Iblis, ban me from science articles? Why? Please see User:Grundle2600#Articles_that_I_started for lots of science articles that I started. There's no problem with any of them. And there's no problem with BLPs that aren't related to politics either. Can you point out a single diff that I made since my last block ended that violates any wikipedia rule? Grundle2600 (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Grundle is making an honest attempt to abide by the restrictions he specifically agreed to as conditions of his unblock. On the other hand, due to his history of using Misplaced Pages more as a journalism/investigation site than an encyclopedia, I don't have a lot of faith that this will work in the long term. But until and unless he violates policy again, or goes back on his pledge to avoid political BLPs, I don't think that any further action is needed. -- Atama頭 23:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, here is the diff that Scjessey's ANI complaint is about:

"I vote for calling the article Climategate, as that is the most commonly used term, just as the article about Panthera leo is called Lion. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)"

"Q Science said, 'By the way, of the 157 MB of released files, only about 8 MB (5%) were email.' I think that statistic should be added to the section of the article called 'Content of the documents.' It also seems odd that the only subsection in that section is the one about the emails. Perhaps the info about the rest of the documents doesn't have any reliable sources - yet. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)"

Grundle2600 (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Update - Grundle has been WP:ICE CREAM-ing the regulars. I think this calls for an immediate fudge sauce with walnut sprinkles. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I support Wikidemon's proposal. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I note that Grundle has made no effort to apologize for this infraction, and continues to argue that he has done nothing wrong. Wikidemon attempts to make light of this, as he has done in the past, but frankly Grundle's "I'm a nice guy. I've done nothing wrong" routine doesn't work on me anymore. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey, the only "infraction" is that you falsely attributed a quote to me which I never said. At first, I said that I thought that you had made an honest mistake. However, since you have not admitted your mistake, and you have not apologized, and you continue to pursue this matter against me, I now believe that what you did was a deliberate, bad faith attempt to get me blocked even though I did not break any rules. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for doing that. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Urgh. Last week, on one of his unblock requests, he stated "Then they should ban me from all political articles from all countries, instead of blocking me, so I can still edit articles on animals, science, technology, and pop culture" I hate to say "I told you so", but when I declined his unblock request last week, I stated "I'm not sure how you could turn an article about an animal or science or pop culture into a political battleground, but I am sure you will try hard to do so." It seems clear to me that Grundle is not interested in editing in a way that avoids controversey. Immediately after being unblocked, he dove in head first into one of the biggest edit wars going on at Misplaced Pages right now. This is completely unacceptable. He claimed while blocked, several times, that all he wanted to do was avoid political articles and edit innocuous stuff. He gets unblocked, and goes right back to the same behavior has before. Can we just return his indefinite block, and call this done with. The experimental unblocking has failed after less than a week. --Jayron32 05:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

That was a different unblock request, which was denied. Also, if you think that what I did was so bad, then why have you not cited any diffs to show that I broke any wikipedia rules? Grundle2600 (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I changed the heading of this section from "Grundle" to "Grundle2600" because there is another wikipedia editor named Grundle. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I also made this edit on my user talk page before my block was was lifted, where I replaced Jules Verne with Bill Watterson. Obviously, Verne has been dead for quite some time. Silly me! Grundle2600 (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

Having exhausted the community's goodwill, the indefinite block of Grundle2600 should be reinstated.

• Support — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 05:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Please cite any wikipedia rule that I have broken since my last block ended. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• support --Jayron32 07:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Please cite any wikipedia rule that I have broken since my last block ended. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Just a clarification, is this a proposal for a community ban? That's what we normally do with people who have exhausted the community's patience. If what is proposed is a normal block, what would be the conditions for an unblock? (I have not yet formed an opinion about the merits of either proposal.)  Sandstein  08:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• One way to get unblocked is for the person to acknowledge that they broke a specific wikipedia rule, and promise not to do it again. Since I have not broken any wikipedia rule since my last block ended, there is no wrongdoing for me to acknowledge, so I could not use that argument to get unblocked. The only other way to get unblocked is to argue that the block was not justified. In this case, no block is justified, and several people have already explained why. Even the people who support blocking me have ignored my multiple requests for them to cite any diffs which show that I broke any wikipedia rules since my last block ended. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose So far, no one has posted any diffs of me breaking any wikipedia rules since my last block ended. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose pending some showing that Grundle2600 broke a policy or what he agreed to on his talk page. And please, could the usual suspects please avoid cowboyship by going and blocking in the middle of a discussion? Let's talk this out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, I have to agree with the two users above, someone needs to demonstrate how Grundle broke policy before we even think about a lifetime community ban. WVBluefield (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Wehwalt & WVBluefield.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support - No policy was broken this time, but Grundle2600 broke a pledge to avoid politically-controversial articles after being indef blocked for breaking policies in the past. Agree with Wehwalt that this needs to be properly talked out this time - let's not make this a thing that crops up every week or month. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Why not just re-apply the original conditions, without his qualifications? The case is murky, because Grundle was seemingly allowed to agree to restrictions only conditionally. If we reapply the restrictions and he breaks them, the case for an indef block will be much more clear-cut.--Cúchullain /c 15:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose regrettfully. Too much confusion over the exact terms of the unblock (terms asoriginally posted or as modified by Grundle) giving plenty of doubt that anything was violated. Wikilawyering by Grundle on this? Obviously! But in this case, because of a lack of clarity on the community's side, not Grundle. Ravensfire (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment What makes this even more ridiculous is that Grundle’s “violations” were made on an article talk page and not an article. This whole thread smacks of pettiness and demonstrates how one user can game the system to squash another editor. WVBluefield (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

  I beg your pardon? You'd have to be extraordinarily naive to think that article discussion does not have a direct affect on article changes. Also, I don't care for your suggestion that I am gaming the system. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Its becoming clear from the discussion above that not only has Grundle not violated any terms of his unblocking (as he wrote the terms favorably) but that you are using this forum to punish him for past run ins and not any current conduct. And for the record, an article talk page is not an article. WVBluefield (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's pure fantasy. This matter is nothing more than the logical result of Grundle2600's actions. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Conditional Suport I propose modifying Grundle's ban to include any articles with political connotations. I realize this may be difficult, but Grundle has editted productively articles which have nothing to do with politics, and it would be a shame to lose those contributions. I suggest modifying his block, and having rigorous administrator oversight to ensure future relapses do not occur. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Conditional Support per Throwaway85. I wish either my original unblock conditions had been left intact or else people hadn't allowed so many revisions by the blocked individual. He must have known this AN/I drama-fest would happen the second he set foot in that Global Warming email hacking nightmare. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, no. Given that my talk page comments were perfectly reasonable, it never occurred to me that anyone would file an ANI complaint. And still, even now, no one has cited any wikipedia rules that I violated with my comments. There is no legitimate reason to topic ban me from articles related to global warming. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Objections to complaint based on confusion over quote attribution

Scjessey, the person who created this ANI complaint against me, wrongly attributed a quote to me which I never said. Then after I explained his mistake and posted what I really did say, I said, "I am going to assume good faith, and assume that this was an honest mistake on Scjessey's part."

However, since then, Scjessey has not admitted that he mistakenly attributed something to me which I never said, and he has not apologized, and in fact, he has continued arguing against me. Therefore, I no longer believe that what he did was in good faith, and I no longer believe that it was an honest mistake. Instead, I now believe that Scjessey deliberately attributed a quote to me which I never said, in a bad faith attempt to get me blocked for something which I never said.

Shame on him.

Grundle2600 (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

We're talking about the topic ban quote here? Yes, I'd like to see Scjessey address that. Given that what is being discussed is the privilege of one editor to edit Misplaced Pages, we need to make sure what we post is accurate.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what we are talking about here.

Scjessey said:

"Despite pledging to be 'topic banned from editing or participating in discussion of any political or politically controversial article, as well as BLPs. This includes articles directly about politics, but also includes politically controversial topics, like climate change,'"

But I never said that.

This is what I actually said:

"I agree to avoid editing articles about politicians from all countries, including their article talk pages. I also agree to avoiding editing articles about people from all countries whose main notability is their political commentary, such as Diane Francis, Michael Moore, and Paul Krugman, as well as their talk pages. I do not agree to any such ban on BPLs for non-political people, such as Phoebe Cates, Stephen Hawking, or Jules Verne, because the issue there for non-political BLPs (I think Tiger Woods was the only one) was not my edits to articles, but instead, some jokes I made in the comment section and talk pages. Therefore, I agree to stop making jokes about all living persons in the comment section and talk pages for articles. However, I still reserve the right to make edits about international political articles that are not BLPs, such as nuclear power, overpopulation, and sweatshops. My edits in these articles have generally been welcomed by other editors, and the histories of these kinds of articles shows that I have substantially improved them without causing trouble."

Thus, I never said the words that Scjessey is attributing to me.

Grundle2600 (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'd like to see Scjessey address this point. If Scjessey is maintaining that Grundle said this, and certainly that is the implication, I'd like to see Scjessey post a diff. We get enough drama at AN/I without questionable bases for persuing a matter, if that's what we have.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I also made this edit on my user talk page before my block was was lifted, where I replaced Jules Verne with Bill Watterson. Obviously, Verne has been dead for quite some time. Silly me! Grundle2600 (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I already explained this yesterday. I'll do it again if you like. Here's the gist of it in easy-to-read points:

• Grundle2600 was indef blocked for various violations of policy, including the most sacred (see archive of ANI discussion)
• A list of "sanctions" were proposed (see archive) by User:Multixfer. "Climate change" was specifically mentioned in the list of points.
• Grundle2600 pledged (with conditions) to abide by these points diff, but no mention of "climate change" appeared in Grundle2600's conditions.
• Grundle2600 violated the agreed-upon terms by joining the debate on a highly controversial climate change-related article.

I think this is a direct violation of his "promise to be good" pledge. Even if you don't agree, you'd have to argue that it is at the very least a violation of the "spirit" of that pledge. Grundle2600 has repeatedly demonstrated an inability to edit or discuss political (or politically-controversial) articles in a responsible manner, either by directly violating policy or trying to push a political agenda. How much more of this must we put up with? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

In Grundle's defense, his version of the conditions includes the phrase "I reserve the right to make edits about international political articles that are not BLPs...". I think that does cover the climate change articles for the most part. His changes are pretty cleverly written to include many of the articles that he wants to edit without imposing too many new limits on him. Ravensfire (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The talk page Grundle2600 edited has a BLP tag at the top of it, as pointed out by another editor above. It may not be a biography, but for the protection of the various individuals being discussed within the article it certainly falls under the auspices of WP:BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The article does not have a BLP tag. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles don't have BLP tags, their discussion pages do - as in Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident (the very first tag on the page). If you are going to pledge to avoid BLP articles, it would certainly be helpful if you could actually identify them! -- Scjessey (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The Jay Leno article says "Living people" in the list of categories at the bottom. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. So? -- Scjessey (talk) 02:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

(No indent) You just said, "Articles don't have BLP tags." So I said that you were wrong - the Jay Leno article does. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Another proposal

Grundle is to abide by the original unblock conditions without any qualification:

1. Grundle is to refrain from posting his list of seven questions or referring to them anywhere on Misplaced Pages.
2. He is topic banned from editing or participating in discussion of any political or politically controversial article, as well as BLPs. This includes articles directly about politics, but also includes politically controversial topics, like climate change.
3. Grundle agrees to take note of and adhere thoroughly to WP:SYN
4. Grundle agrees to disengage from and avoid those he has had disputes with, especially political disputes.
5. Any posting of his seven questions or referring to them, or breaking of his topic ban, or deliberate engagement with those he has had disputes with will result in his indefinite block being immediately reinstated for a period of no less than 4 months.

This will clear up the confusion about what restrictions were placed and agreed to.--Cúchullain /c 15:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

For now, I disagree. Grundle has several restrictions on him at this point from previous discussions/cases plus these new ones. Let's see if he can abide by his own restrictions without causing disruption. If he can - great! Job well done! If he can't, it should be easier to be get additional restrictions. I think he got let off the hook on this one, but maybe he'll work better under restrictions that he was able to modify, rather than have them dictated to him. Ravensfire (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Extremely disgusted and reluctant oppose - I'm sorry to say but the unblocking admin seriously screwed the pooch here by accepting Grundle's conditions, so unless another admin wants to start the ol wheel-war fun, we're stuck with dealing with the consequences. I have no faith whatsoever that Grundle can make positive contributions to such a politically charged as global warming and the e-mail hacking incident, but the unfortunate outcome of the unblock is that it will have to be tolerated until it crosses the line. Perhaps this will serve as a cautionary tale for the future; don't let the accused dictate the terms of the probation. Tarc (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

  Yeah, it looks like Grundle2600 is going to get off on a technicality. Ambiguity is the friend of the accused. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Scjessey, the only "ambiguity" is that you attributed something to me which I never said. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Tarc stated, "I have no faith whatsoever that Grundle can make positive contributions to such a politically charged as global warming and the e-mail hacking incident." You are mistaken. The most recent edit that I made to any such article was this one from December 9. And if you look at the current version of the article, you will see that the information that I added to the article is still there - 2 weeks after I added it. In fact, even Scjessey, the person who filed this current ANI complain against me, has edited that article since I added that info, but left intact the information that I added. Thus, I have just proven that I am capable of making a positive contribution to such an article. However, if you think that my edit has made the article worse, you are free to remove that information from the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• A single edit is not much of a sample to go on, and the bulk of your past disruption stemmed from talk page contributions, not article edits. Tarc (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Tarc, here is the diff that Scjessey's ANI complaint is about. It's on the talk page. It's a perfectly reasonable edit. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• You continue to ignore the facts, which I have laid it in an easy-to-follow form above. You are less likely to get sanctioned if you admit your error (or even admit it could be seen as an error), instead of arguing with every editor who disagrees with your version of events. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Grundle, I voted to oppose, albeit reluctantly. Take your victories where you can and stop quibbling. Tarc (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I believe it to be in the best interests of all concerned for Grundle to maintain his editing priveleges, with the caveat that he refrain from editing, or commenting on the talk pages of, any article with political connotations. I propose, as above, that an administrator undertake to monitor his edits, and ensure he does not violate said condition. While I agree that technically, he has not violated any rules since his previous block, I feel his recent edits violate the spirit of what was imposed. The unblocking admin was perhaps too quick to accept Grundle's proposed conditions. I think we can avoid much future drama, and Grundle avoid future blocks, if he agrees to adhere to the condition I have proposed. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• I oppose blocking - But this should be considered a "last chance" for the editor. I think that's the consensus I see here, most people opposing an immediate reblock do so because of a technicality and because no disruption has occurred afterward, and I'm in that camp. But I don't see many people putting a great deal of faith in him. I say that if he can somehow avoid trouble, despite his history, then great. If he acts as everyone expects he will, then there's cause for the indefinite block to be reinstated. -- Atama頭 20:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment It is not a last chance for Grundle, because as far as I can tell, he has not done anything wrong. He is within the scope of his editing restrictions. Now, I will say that possibly the unblocking admin should not have let Grundle amend the understanding that way, but it did pass by unremarked, and Grundle's entitled. The edit itself seems unobjectionable. I would say that I'm far more upset at Scjessey. Either Scjessey's complaint that began all of this lacked clarity, or it lacked candor. I have my opinion on which, but I AGF. Frankly, I see nothing further to do here. Let's close all of this.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I gave you the thorough explanation you requested. As far as I am concerned, Grundle2600 agreed not to involve himself in politically-contentious areas of Misplaced Pages, and he went back on that agreement. That is my interpretation, which I have made in good faith. Indeed, Grundle2600 continues to involve himself in the same article, with this proposal. Bear in mind that Grundle2600 was expected to act "whiter than white" in order to get the indef block rescinded. If Grundle has not done anything wrong, then perhaps the failure to properly restrict Grundle in the first place should be addressed. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

He is within the scope of his editing restrictions. Thus, he did not do anything wrong. Nothing further to be done here.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Grundle has wriggled out from under this one, but his choice to wriggle is disconcerting. This edit to the Irish Famine article is disconcerting, too: he tries to put the famine in the context of laws that had been repealed a generation or more before. So, he'll be back, and I will gladly bet the under for January 5. PhGustaf (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• PhGustaf, I was not aware that those laws had been repealed. I was just citing what was in the source. I am interested in accuracy, so thank you for pointing that out to me. This was not a deliberate attempt on my part to add false information. If you look at the source that I cited, I think you will see that my edit was done in good faith. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• The first line of Section I of your source says, "The Penal Laws, dating from 1695, and not repealed in their entirety until Catholic emancipation in 1829,...". PhGustaf (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• That's my fault for not reading every word of the source. It was a careless mistake on my part, which I should not have done. But it was not a deliberate attempt to add false information. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, now might be a good time to take a step back from articles with political connotations. You do yourself no favours by editing such articles, as it only increases admin surveillance of your edits. It might be wise to stick to entirely uncontroversial articles for awhile, and let things cool down a bit. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. I am now voluntarily on break from all political articles. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Grundle2600 agrees to take voluntary break from all political articles

As of now, I am taking a voluntary break from all political articles and their talk pages. I am doing this as a gesture of good will, and to show that being allowed to edit the rest of wikipedia is important enough to me that I am willing to compromise. All I want to do here is to improve articles, and there are plenty of articles that I can work on that aren't political. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and Merry Christmas (from an uninvolved non-admin)!—Finell 17:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you too! Grundle2600 (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good. Can I suggest that you do this for at least a month and also drop a note here on AN/I when you are ending it, so we are all on notice?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll raise you to two months and change. I will avoid editing political articles at least until February 28, 2010, 11:59 PM. And yes, I'll post a note here when I'm ending it. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Good plan. Be careful, though; you're sufficiently talented to work tendentious political commentary into articles on bacon without even noticing it yourself. Stick to stuff like peeps. Cheers, PhGustaf (talk) 21:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh heh. Thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit trying to force an image as free of copyright/submitting editor trying to force personal preferences as if they are policy

For nearly a year now, User:BQZip01 has been attempting to force marking as free the athletics logo of the West Virginia University, claiming it as PD-Text. I'm not here to debate the validity of those arguments. I am here to request an administrator offer a caution to this editor to see appropriate dispute resolution pathways rather than continue the nearly year long edit war.

There are two images in question:

• File:WestVirginiaMountaineers.png - This image was deleted after being replaced by the second of these two images. There is some discussion regarding the status of this image on its (please do not delete) talk page.
• File:West Virginia Flying WV logo.svg - A replicate of the above image, except the colors are reversed.

An administrator, should they restore the first image, will see in its edit history multiple cases of BQZip01 marking the image as free and being reverted by more people than me. Similar pattern has erupted on the second image after it replaced the first. BQZip01 has attempted to make a claim that this is an entirely different image, and therefore the earlier non-consensus discussion does not apply.

Substantial discussion occurred regarding the free or non-free status of this image occurred in October of 2009 at Misplaced Pages:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2009/October#West_Virginia_logo. No consensus was arrived at that the image was in fact free of copyright.

I have repeatedly asked User:BQZip01 to start a Request for Comment. To date, he has not started one and based on his talk page edits refuses to do so. I would appreciate it if an administrator would step in and please ask BQZip01 to cease and desist and direct his energies into the form of an RfC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ummmm.. What is BQZip01 thinking? The files are obviously non-free media. That image is clearly not simple enough to be considered PD. -FASTILY 16:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The only reason why the colors were reversed was due to the WVU guidelines I used for the logo images. User:Zscout370 17:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I will start with each assertion by each person

1. Hammersoft
   1. Can you twist the situation and statements any more to twist the truth?
   2. Because you refuse to discuss anything regarding this image ("I'm not here to debate the validity of those arguments.", you are trying to force your opinion of this image as "not free of copyright." WP:KETTLE?
   3. You are not trying to build consensus. You are trying to dictate how Misplaced Pages is run.
   4. Just because you feel no consensus was made, doesn't mean we go with your opinion of how things are made. I could just as easily conclude that, after discussion, only one person disagreed; you. In reality, the discussion yielded no consensus either way.
   5. An accusation of edit warring? Really? You've reverted me at each step.
   6. There is no requirement for an RfC. In fact, WP:TALK dictates you should at least try use the talk page before going to an RfC, a step you seem hellbent on skipping or bypassing as often as possible rather than discussing any of the points I've brought up.
   7. "The standing conclusion of the prior discussion is there is no consensus this is free." I am a Texan and we routinely use this phrase: that's Bullshit! There is NO Misplaced Pages policy or guideline that states the default for any image is non-free until proven otherwise. This is something you want as policy. Guess what? It isn't! Acting on your own personal beliefs as if they are policy and demanding that everyone else acquiesce is in appropriate. For a veteran user to dictate such is hostile. As such, your logic is faulty and your "reasons" for reversion are moot.
   8. The RfC did not consider all the points I have brought up on the talk page, ergo, there is reason to discuss them.
   9. An RfC is not immutable and (even if one agrees with your assertions) consensus can change. However, WP:TALK dictates we should try the talk page FIRST!!!
   10. I am tired of trying to assume good faith on your part. It is obvious that you have no intention of discussing the issues I have presented (whether on the image talk page, your talk page, etc.). Instead you are only trying to push an agenda in spite of any facts presented to you. You are demonizing anyone who disagrees with you. You are being rude, routinely hold grudges (see your user page for scores of examples), and twist anything said to your advantage. Until you decide to discuss the issue
2. Fastily
   1. An additional opinion is certainly welcome, however,
   2. No one is saying that this image is free of all restrictions
   3. "It is clearly not simple enough to be considered PD." "Simple enough" is not the criteria that is used. Just declaring anything to be so doesn't provide any logic or any discussion. The image is ineligible for copyright, not exactly PD in the sense most people think of (i.e. created in <1922 or sourced from a US federal entity), but under US law, Misplaced Pages policy, and Misplaced Pages guidelines, it meets all the criteria:

      There seems to be this mistaken thought by some people that a design must be "simple enough" or "plain text" to be PD. In fact, the criteria are that any typeface or simple shape is ineligible for copyright (Eltra Corp. v. Ringer: " typeface has never been considered entitled to copyright under the provisions of §5(g)") A "Typeface" is a term defined by the House Report of the 1976 revision of the Copyright Act as "...a set of letters, numbers, or other symbolic characters...whose intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text." Things like standard ornamentation do not affect this law: "...mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring ... ." This logo consists of a "W" and "V" with serifs at the top. Ergo, this logo consists of letters that are intended to be used as letters and it is ineligible for copyright. Specifically in Misplaced Pages, we clarify this to be "This logo only consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes. These are not eligible for copyright alone because they are not original enough, and thus the logo is considered to be in the public domain.". Comparable images include File:Texas-Tech-University-logo.png, File:LA_Dodgers.svg, and File:ALC-DET-Insignia.png (among MANY, MANY others).

      Contrast this with ASCII art or the Washington State University logo in which letters are not intended to be used explicitly as letters, but as a medium by which an artistic image is formed.

      Furthermore, there are trademark restrictions on this image and those are explicitly addressed by the Misplaced Pages under Misplaced Pages:Disclaimers#Trademarks.

Accordingly, I request that an admin direct Hammersoft to actually engage in a discussion rather than issuing proclamations, stop acting as if his own preferences/desires are policy, and engage in a discussion rather than being so hostile. — BQZip01 —  15:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Support: (Note: This is an ongoing issue.) I must certainly agree with BQ as his reasoning, especially in section 2.3 (above) is based on solid facts from the latest version of the Wikilawyer Reference Manual. Textpro (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC) — Textpro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

WP:SPA, WP:WIKIHOUND, and/or WP:SOCK? Take your pick. Anyone object to the removal of this unproductive insult? — BQZip01 —  03:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no horse in this race, but it surprises me that no one has noticed the mountains. The W and V are arranged so as to form a mountainscape, similar (in a stylistic way) to what one might see in West Virginia. And the team is the Mountaineers. Although there are other arrangements of W and V that would equally suggest mountains, an arbitrary arrangement might well not. Just my two cents.--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Erm... ANI being a noticeboard for administrator-related issues would mean this is an appropriate place to seek some advice before consideration of a full blown RfC. They're not asking for blocks or file bans or massive scorn; they're trying to use dispute resolution.

Claiming User:Hammersoft is here to 'issue proclamations' is sadly ironic given what looks like a brief of legal points affirming you're entirely right and anyone who disagrees is entirely wrong. If a user is unresponsive to requests-- as in, entirely ignoring them or not offering reasonable rebuttals-- then where else is an editor supposed to go to try to get some consensus on the situation? Oh, and could you please lay off the posting editor and someone who responded in good faith by offering a numbered list of reasons you consider their point of view to be completely invalid. BQZip01, I have no idea why you didn't just leave this at a talk about the image mentioned and felt like inserting a massive amount of entirely unnecessary drama. I particularly note For a veteran user to dictate such is hostile. from above as quite a chink into civility. Instead of stomping around like mad and swearing at other editors for what they believe is policy, please quote the appropriate policy, or your statement isn't remotely constructive. To prove someone wrong, usually WP:PROVEIT would be used.

This could have just been about image policy, but bullying around good faith volunteers at ANI opens this up to a civility issue. Even if attempts of direct communication have happened, I'd say they're all entirely moot now that this has come up once brought up in a public forum. Really, just stay on topic, apologize on the questionable civility, go back to the images. If in the right on policy no one should ever feel a need to go that far into trying to prove a case in the opposite direction. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 20:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It should be very clear that Hammersoft and BQZip (mostly them, but others, including myself have been involved) have long been at trying to resolve many smaller issues relating to a larger issue - the use of team logos on season and individual game pages - which this is just a part of (BQZip's reasoning is that if the logos are PD, there's no restrictions on reuse in the game/season pages - a completely fair argument, and one which he has sought to find PD logos for all teams). That said, we cannot determine exactly what level a logo that seems to be just a typeface or simple shapes fails to pass the threshold of originality and thus cannot qualify for copyright. There are obvious simple cases which are acceptable or not (Microsoft clearly falls under the ToO, while NBC is not. The problem is logos like the WV logo above. Now, the case that Hammersoft makes (which I do agree with) is that WP's position on non-text media is that there needs to be clear evidence of the work being in the public domain to call it free, otherwise we consider it non-free. As we cannot judge the intermediate cases of these logos being uneligable for copyright, we need to play it safe and call them non-free until proven otherwise. The fact that, as noted above, the previous discussion ended in no consensus, it seems completely reason, per how we handle images, to treat it as non-free until proven specifically for this image otherwise. And that's where this ANI issue is, is that BQZip, despite being told this, continues to try to assert the PD of this image with no other evidence specific for this. Quoting law is one thing, but law is so very tricky and not something us editors can guess at. If there was previous judgement on this particular image being PD or copyright, hey great, we can go off that, but again, we're a free work, that comes before being pretty.

(and for full disclosure, should logos like this be marked non-free, then the logic of NFCC says that no, they cannot be used indefinitely on the game/season pages, though that point is argued by BQZip despite the fact that there once was language in NFCC that clarified this and was only removed because it was considered duplicative in NFCC#3a. And yes, I'm involved in that discussion too.)--MASEM (t) 03:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Apropos of nothing, it is perfectly possible to copyright typefaces in the rest of the world and even in the US, provided the artistic element can be separated from the utilitarian, the design is copyrightable . It would follow that anything which modifies the typeface, lays it out in an unusual way, uses fancy backgrounds or anything which uses the type as building blocks for an image rather than a word (as with the Vs and Ws of the logo discussed above) is copyrightable. The other thing to note from that very in depth second reference is that the uncopyrightability applies to typefaces - ie a full set of numbers and letters intended for use in hot metal or digital type. Letters which are drawn freehand to fit a space are not typefaces. Only where the logo is strictly letters in say Times Roman on a plain background, can it be argued that the logo is in the public domain.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Please can I have some advice

I don't know if I'm in the wrong - I might well be - but I don't like how I've been treated by another editor, so would appreciate some clarification. If I'm in the wrong then I at least know not to do it again. There has been a debate on Talk:Avatar_(2009_film)#American-British_film.3F between myself and another editor. It's become a heated debate, but that isn't the problem. The other editor invited input at WT:FILM.

This is what he wrote: .

I have no problem with this. But in my eyes, it was non-neutral and continued the discussion rather than just notifed. That is the editor made a point and expressed an opinion, so I responded to the point raised even though the main discussion was taking place on the Avatar talk page:

The other editor moved my comments to the Avatar page, but left his own up. I reverted this edit even though I agreed with the principle behind it. The reason I restored my comments is because he left his own comments, which I felt were not just notifying other editors of the discussion but that he was furthering the discussion. You can see there were a couple of reverts between us:

I felt it was out of order that he made further comment on the subject but was deleting my comments while leaving his up. I also agree that the discussion should take place at the one location. This was eventually resolved when the other editor removed the 'bias' from his comments thus leaving it as a simple notification:

This is where things turned ugly with another editor, when User:Wildhartlivie left a comment at my talk page: . They accused me of edit warring because I had restored my comments to the talk page. I explained why I had done this, that i felt the other editor had done more than just notify the other Project members of the discussion, but had furthered the discussion: . The other editor did not agree: . He reiterated the accusation taht I was edit-warring which I felt was insulting. I was attempting to resolve the dispute through discussion for a start, and disagreed with the nature in which the discussion was raised. I didn't really see why the other editor's comments expressing an opinion on the dispute should remain, while mine were deleted. I felt it was appropriate for my comments to be there while his were. I felt the other editor finally acknowledged this by altering his comments to reflect my concerns. It may have been wrong of me to restore my comments, but I genuinely felt a injustice at the time. What I take exception to is this accusation of edit-warring by this other editor while I was taking part in a discussion so a dispute wouldn't become an edit-war. I thought it was rude, so informed him that I thought it was insulting to accuse me of edit-warring and re-explained my position: . He responded with this:

So there are some things I would like to clarify. Was the discussion raised in an acceptable manner? Was it legitimate for me to post a response? Was it legitimate for my comments to be removed? was it legitimate for me to restore my comments? And was it legitimate for this other editor to leave such comments on my talk page? Maybe my actions were incorrect, in which case I am sorry, but I do feel slightly aggrieved by the whole thing. Betty Logan (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Erik insisted on a biased notice to the talk page discussion in clear violation of WP:CANVASS. In his defense, after all of the drama he did eventually change it into a neutral notice but it shouldn't have taken an edit war to convince him to follow Misplaced Pages's policies. The warnings left on your talk page were inappropriate, you had a completely legitimate concern and his own bias was getting the better of him. Wildhartlivie had no call to drop edit war notices on your talk page, especially since Erik was closer to violating 3RR than you were.

Just an aside, did you notify Wildhartlivie and Erik of this ANI posting, as required by the board rules? -- Atama頭 22:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I was not notified of this posting until an uninvolved editor posted a notification to me. I do not believe my initial postings to the editor's talk page were in the least bit insulting. I posted after I noticed that User:Betty Logan had reverted the move of the posting from WT:TALK and I responded with the observation that moving it was appropriate considering there was a ongoing discussion at the article talk page. I did not at any time "drop an "edit war notice" at the editor's talk page, I only referred to "edit warring" in my posts. The editor's reverts included edit summary talk, such as "If you can make comments here, so can I" and "You didn't just bring the discussion to the attention of others, you expressed a biased opinion." For the record, I'd like someone to point out to me in the following edits where Erik also posted his own commentary when moving the talk page posting: 1. There is no additional commentary, 2. I see no additional commentary added here, and 3. Where the notice was "simplified" and it also removed Betty Logan's ascribed "biased commentary" posted almost 3 hours earlier. By the way, the only other commentary I see on that page was posted by Erik almost three hours earlier, it was in no way "additional commentary" in the way it has been characterized here, nor was any of this in violation of WP:CANVASS. By this time, I was somewhat exasperated with the editor and I did tell her not to come to my talk page and bandy about veiled threats about coming here and using words such as "insulting". User:Betty Logan removed my posting, calling it "vandalism". Righty or wrongly, I took exception to that characterization, commenting "Please do not misrepresent my comments as vandalism, as I stated assume good faith - it's a valuable lesson". That was removed as "edit warring". Outside of restoring my comments to her, in the context of her knee-jerk reaction to a posting made some over 2 hours earlier and mischaracterizing it as "posting a biased opinion and removing her posting", I did not do anything wrong and I object to her bringing this here and failing to notify me of her actions. This is precisely what her veiled commentary leaned toward when she posted to my talk page and precisely why I suggested she learn a bit about WP:AGF. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm completely cool with Erik, he's a good editor. We had a dispute and were trying to hack it out. He did alter his comments in response to my objections so the situation with Erik was resolved. I find it disheartening that Wildhartlivie accuses me of violating AGF when in his first message to me he accused me of edit-warring. The only reason there was a time gap was because I only discovered the comment several hours later. One of my concerns was that the debate on the original talk page was quite long, and I felt the notification on WT:FILM summarized only half of the argument, so I tried to balance that. I'm sorry that I didn't notify Wildhartive about this ANI, but this is actually the first time I've ever posted on this board. It is unfortunate that Wildhartlivie still doesn't accept he behaved incorrectly though. Betty Logan (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I do not accept that I behaved inappropriately. You made a huge stink about Erik having posted a comment and made it sound as if it were posted at the same time that he moved your posting, which essentially instigated all of this. It is not unacceptable to raise the problem of edit warring when it appears that is occurring, although I did not drop a WP:3RR warning on her talk page. When I responded to your edit summary comments and suggested it wasn't worth edit warring over it, you removed my posting as vandalism. Why would I "accept that behaved incorrectly"? I maintain that I did not. I don't know what you hope to accomplish here, but you dropped a thinly veiled WP:AN/I threat on my talk page and then brought me here and lament that I "accept" my incorrect behavior, when I was not the one reverting a move to a talk page message. It is thoroughly relevant that his comment was over two hours earlier, since you are asserting he added the comment with the moving of the talk page commentary, making it appear the two were directly related. If it is "all cool" with Erik, why did you bring this here? To drag me into what you perceive as "trouble"? Sorry, you're simply wrong. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is unwarranted. WP:ANI says, "Frivolous complaints and unsubstantiated requests for administrator intervention do not belong here... Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." No such effort was made. I moved Betty's comment to the article's talk page because I did not want discussion to take place on two different talk pages. When Betty expressed the concern that my notification was biased, I acknowledged and rewrote it. She is welcome to discuss conduct with me on my user talk page. Leave Wildhartlivie out of this; the dispute at its core is between us. Erik (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

This does not concern you Erik. I was not happy with the wording of your notification because I felt it summarised your side of the debate but not mine, and you corrected it. Our 'dispute' was quickly resolved, and the only reason you are mentioned here is to give my complaint context. I stressed a couple of times I have no issue with your behavior, and the only thing I took exception to in regards to you, you yourself quickly resolved without any outside intervention and I appreciate that. This complaint is entirely about the messages Wildhartlivie left on my talk page, and for the record I did address my concerns with him on his talk page where I pointed out that I felt insulted at his accusation that I was "edit-warring" and explained my stance. I was courteous in my message on his on his talk page, but he deleted it and left another message on my talk page instructing me that I must not leave any more comments on his talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 06:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Give it up. I do not intend to "admit" to bad behavior as you seem to want because I did not violate WP:CIVIL or other behavior guidelines. I cautioned you that your behavior did not seem in keeping with what you were claiming and stated that he was absolutely correct to move the posting. You were making a stink over a posting made almost three hours before your post and didn't even realize it. You stumbled on that time frame and made an issue where one did not exist, just as you are doing here. I don't know what you want here - do you want others to tell you that you are right and I am wrong? Read the first posting I made to your talk page above. There was nothing out of line about it. But I will repeat my last comments to you - do not post to my talk page again. I have every intention of following up on an WP:SSP case I found. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I came here for clarification on my behaviour in the matter, to ascertain that I did not behave improperly and that my actions were within the remit of Misplaced Pages guidelines. An administrator confirmed that Erik's notifification was inappropriate in its original form, I was not out of order in restoring my comments, and that you shouldn't have left the messages you did on my talk page. As far as I'm concerned this is resolved now, and what you do or don't accept is between you and your conscience. As for this silly sockpuppet thing as far as I'm aware I cleared the IP check and my personal edit history is beyond rapprochement. Betty Logan (talk) 09:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to bring this to everyone's attention. It's a WP:CANVASS violation, near as I can tell. Equazcion 16:08, 25 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Equazcion. I wasn't going to bring that up here, but it's worth mentioning Skag has filed a sock puppet case against me based on the comments of an unrelated editor at her talk page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

After noticing SkagitRiverQueen had filed a sock investigation against Wildhartlivie I thought the complaint might be relevant to this inquiry. I think bringing the details of an investigation into a particular user to the attention of another editor that has filed a sock investigation is hardly 'canvassing'. Canvassing would be going around messaging every editor who had a dispute with Wildhartlivie. There are now two investigations into Wildhartive that may be relevant to each other and I notified the instigator of the other investigation. This is clearly not canvassing because I was not incentivising an editor to take action against another user - they had already instigated the investigation and I made them aware of this one, especially since this investigation pertains to an editor's improper conduct, and SkagitRiverQueen has started another action pertaining to the same editor's improper conduct. Betty Logan (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

As an aside it is also worth pointing out that User:Equazcion is embroiled in a dispute with SkagitRiverQueen about reporting Wildhartlivie as a sock , so their judgement is hardly objective here. It may even be worth adding that user to the sock investigation. Betty Logan (talk) 19:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

What judgment? I'm not commenting on this ANI dispute, only on your canvassing for participants. It doesn't take much judgment to assess that. You notified someone uninvolved with this dispute based on their having been in previous disputes with the editor you seek to complain about here. That's canvassing. Read WP:CANVASS. Equazcion 20:05, 25 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notify the editor on the basis of a previous dispute, I notified them on the basis they have instigated a current investigation into the same editor that is being investigated here. If I were interested in digging up old grievances I would hardly have stopped at just the one editor. SkagitRiverQueen filed a complaint of her own volition, nothing to do with me. Betty Logan (talk) 20:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

You told the editor "There is an investigation into his conduct at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Please_can_I_have_some_advice if you would you like to bring your probelsm with this editor to the attention of the administrators". However you want to word it: You sought Skag's involvement here based on knowing they were in a dispute with the user. Whether they instigated an investigation, or whether the investigation is currently ongoing, are both irrelevant to the question of canvassing. Equazcion 20:39, 25 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I brought this investigation to Skag's attention on the basis of her being involved in another investigation concerning the user being discussed here. If it were just a dispute between the two parties there would have been no notification. I did not canvass the opinion because she has already officially filed it somewhere else. If you're saying that canvassing precludes informing other editors about investigations into users that they are currently officially complaining about then I think you misunderstande the concept of canvassing. Canvassing is there to preclude you soliciting opinion that otherwise wouldn't exist and that clearly isn't the case here. Betty Logan (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing policy is there to preclude the soliciting of opinions that you know already exist. If you know someone will likely take your side in a discussion, you're not supposed to choose them to inform about it. See Misplaced Pages:CANVASS#Votestacking. Equazcion 20:57, 25 Dec 2009 (UTC)

A veritable sock drawer at Articles for deletion/Tim Ireland

The Tim Ireland article has been controversial for some time, with several accounts nominating it for speedy deletion on multiple occasions, and/or repeatedly PRODding it (the repeat PRODs are, of course invalid). The article was originally PRODded by Magpie1892 in July, with the PROD removed by CJPargeter. Magpie1892 PRODded the article a second time in early December, I removed the PROD as invalid, and the sockfest began. The PROD was added back several times by IPs, then twice by User:Chithecynic, who has also acknowledged being one of the IPs. It was also speedy-nominated by IPs and by Seven-nil, who has virtually no edit history and only one edit not related to this article. On December 17, Chithecynic nominated the article for deletion. All but one of the "delete" !votes in the AFD (that by Fenix down, who is clearly editing in good faith and not involved in the shenanigans) appear to come from the accounts/addresses which had previously placed invalid PRODs or speedies (quickly declined/removed) on the article. These account share other features -- for the named accounts, very limited edit histories; problems signing posts correctly, and posting personal attacks on editors disputing their edits(mostly me, see such charming examples as (Chithecynic); , (Magpie1892); (Seven-nil); (217.28.34.132, open-to-public IP address with many other users); (92.41.202.43, presumably same access as !voter 92.41.217.22). I'm not sure this article over a minimally notable UK blogger has stirred up such a hullaballoo fracas, but it's getting way out of hand. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, you'll just love this, so :p - the following accounts are  Confirmed as being the one editor:

• Magpie1892 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Seven-nil (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Wolfowitz=twat (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

The underlying IP has been blocked, too, as it's been abusive in itself. The other accounts are  Unrelated - Alison 20:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Is that a resolved tag then? Throwaway85 (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone should likely deal with the accounts. As checkuser, I'm not going to block them, too - Alison 21:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast; thanks very much. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

So my understanding is that the IP editors have been blocked, is that correct? If so, should we start an SPI on the registered accounts? What's the proper course of action here? Or have the registered accounts already been taken care of? Throwaway85 (talk) 08:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No, they've actually all been done now. I ran a check on the accounts in question - sokay, we're good :) - Alison 00:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't you mean 'sockay'? Oh ho ho ho ho...God, I'm lonely... HalfShadow 00:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Day-O (The Banana Boat Song)‎

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

You never know where an edit war will break out. This skirmish is an IP address insisting that the song's lyric about the banana spider is a veiled reference to black people plotting to kill white people. What should I do? Wait until he breaks 3RR? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Damn, this is sad. I love that song. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has discussed this with the editor, on his/her talk page, until now. Also, editor has not been given the courtesy of an ANI notification. This complaint is premature and should be shelved until proper process has been followed. Rodhullandemu 01:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You are suggesting that IP editors actually are aware of what gets posted on their user talk pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

They get the big orange notice, assuming anyone posts to an otherwise empty Talk page; however, I see there has been some engagement on the article Talk page, which is where the discussion belongs. I assume the editor, not having been welcomed, should benefit from education first, criticism second, and sanctions third, if they don't get it. However, the education process seems to be continuing. Rodhullandemu 01:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I also posted a comment on that article talk page point the IP to here if he wants to say something. That particular IP's last edits were 3 1/2 years ago. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, all. It appears that the IP has backed off, for now at least. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

come mister tally man, tally me banana --Jayron32 04:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs (personal attack redacted by Jeremy ) has a problem with a NPOV interpretation who goes running to the administrators after a few minutes of a disagreement. I think we are working the disagreements out on the article page. But go ahead and block me. There is no point in being able to edit if the edits always get undone anyways. Why contribute anything useful to Misplaced Pages then? It would just be a waste of my time.

On a different topic, why can't I just respond to one topic on this page? I had to edit the whole page. Is there a way?

Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm just putting the userlinks here so it's easy to block Baseball Bugs if an admin wants to.

24.125.41.207 (talk) 07:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I advise against that, especially since calling him a "fascist" is very much blockable as a personal attack. -Jeremy 08:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

What if he really was a fascist? What if he was a member of a fascist political party, or admitted to a fascist philosophy? He may want to be known as a fascist. 24.125.41.207 (talk) 08:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You do not know any of that, however, and as such it is a personal attack. Let's not argue semantics here. -Jeremy 08:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy, if I called him a democrat, would it be a personal attack? I don't know that he is or isn't a democrat. I don't think it's a personal attack. I intend to argue semantics because it's Misplaced Pages. You are getting off topic. We are trying to decide the level of citations that is needed for interpretations of music. There are articles with uncited interpretations of music all over Misplaced Pages. And then Baseball Bugs, the self-appointed dictator of Misplaced Pages, doesn't like an interpretation he sees and says it's original research, doesn't have any citations, and all of the usual libel that self-appointed Misplaced Pages dictators dredge up. I am trying to work on that question on the article page. 24.125.41.207 (talk) 08:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

IP, you're going to have to rein in the personal attacks. Nobody is going to listen to any substantive points you may make when you're using overly emotive (and inaccurate) terms like "fascist" and "self-appointed dictator of Misplaced Pages". Indeed, we're likely to skip listening to you entirely and just hit the block button. Want to try again? ⇦REDVERS⇨ 09:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

OK REDVERS, I can be less emotive with how I talk about people. However, it seems like Baseball Bugs simply assumes that he's right. Look at the tone in his posts about this article. Without saying that I am talking about Baseball Bugs, just talking about Misplaced Pages users in general, can you please give me Misplaced Pages advice about how to deal with people who constantly patrol articles to enforce their non-NPOV perspective on those articles? Is there a way to complain about users who are too protectionist, activist, or authoritarian? 24.125.41.207 (talk) 09:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You got caught inserting potentially racist, but nevertheless uncited commentary in an article about a still-popular song. They were thankfully removed. Why do you suddenly feel the urge to bite the person who caught you? That will never detract from the reality of what was done, and that it was fixed. Misplaced Pages is not a game, and getting mad at the people who protect it is never going to get you far. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Games are great. :) --cremepuff222 (talk) 10:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: Cremepuff now blocked (see a section below). ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

To the IP, who asked - and ignoring Cremepuff222's attempt to be unhelpful - the basics of sorting disputes are first to self-edit any and all emotive language (so that's a checked-box straight away - thanks). Now, does the problem seem to you to be one editor or multiple editors? If multiple editors, start a thread on the talk page of the article, and list concisely and factually the issues, then how you would see them resolved. If it's one editor, start a thread on their talk page and do exactly the same. This part is negotiation.

Lets assume that the start-talking step above didn't work, for whatever reason. That's when it's time for one of the avenues in our dispute resolution processes to be followed. There are lots of options here and you'll likely spot one that suits you best. This is the point to stop editing the article - it gives you the higher ground if you've not edit warred or done anything silly in the meantime. Staying calm and factual is the best way to get somewhere with dispute resolution, so collect your sources now. You'll need any problematic diffs to hand, and also some reliable sources (as links is best) to back your point of view. Dispute resolution is never quick, but we're not on a deadline here and we're all volunteers, so you're not going to get speed out of us!

The only time that administrators can intervene is if someone breaks one of our bright-line rules. The community doesn't empower admins to make judgements in content disputes; we can only act where a rule has been clearly and unambiguously broken, or where a consensus can be shown to exist and continue to exist for or against something and needs enforcement - and even there we tread carefully as the community is rarely happy for admins to make too sweeping a judgement over anything.

So your next stage appears to be to try dispute resolution. You may also like to make a free account and edit with that: you don't have to, but since 70% of our vandalism comes from IP addresses, people tend to have a prejudice against them. The account can be throwaway - use it for the dispute resolution, then quietly forget about it once it's over. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 10:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The IP also characterized wikipedia editors with various extremist terms, on the article talk page. He also removed a section to make a point, although the point might be right. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the links REDVERS. That's a great explanation of how to work on these edits. You should add it to a help page.

BWilkins, the interpretation is not racist. By saying that "if I think it's racist, it must be wrong" undermines the effort to create factual articles. If you actually have something constructive to say about the topic, come work on the article. 24.125.41.207 (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Factual articles are awesome. Those based on WP:OR, or a lack of WP:RS (emphasis on R) have no place on Misplaced Pages, nor does your apparent snootiness, thanks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

So now that the IP cannot add his interpretation of the song, he removes another interpretation.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Query - User creating hoaxes in another user's space

--Wehwalt (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I recently discovered something very strange while recent change patrolling. One user, "Mr. Frank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)" has been creating possible hoax pages in another user's namespace. See here: . These are all within the TheWho71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) userspace. This was extremely perplexing to me. The articles revolve around a seemingly fictional band named "Smile", and the pages are written in past tense. Examples: "Smile (commonly typeset as SMiLE) are a rock group formally banded in 2010" "Then they had an above-average commercial success in their native province, with their debut Internet-only releases, their albums First Smile and Second Smile (2015), and their first concept album, Hit-Parade (2016). However, it is with the releases of their double album Two Times Rock 'n' Roll in 2017, a second concept album Performance in 2018"

This all seemed very strange (and rather fishy) to me. What do others think of this? Should steps be taken to prevent this material from hitting mainspace? - I.M.S. (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that you notify Mr. Frank of this discussion. I suggest that we ask him; he has been most industrious in building that page. I can't imagine that that page has any legitimate encyclopedic purpose, but let us see what he says.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, a "hoax" which discusses what a band is doing in 2017 is so obvious it couldn't survive casual inspection, so I wonder if it is an actual hoax or done for some other reason.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I've notified him of the discussion, and I hope he posts here soon. I agree with you - he has been extremely industrious in the building of those articles. I wish he'd devote that energy to real ones. :). Another interesting thing I noticed, adding to the "hoax", is that the Grateful Dead, including the deceased Jerry Garcia, play with the group on their 2014 live album. Very strange. - I.M.S. (talk) 01:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed so; if it was a common hoax, I'd delete first and ask questions later. But these obvious huge red flags make me want to hear from him, and at the very least give him a chance to copy them elsewhere before we delete them, as a sign of respect. We do no harm by waiting. Do we have an archive of the best hoaxes someplace?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

We did, somewhat. Here. There are a couple other places in which users preserve "silly" articles, or hoaxes that had so much work put into them that they didn't deserve to be erased. Some people save them in their userspace (User:I.M.S./User:TheWho71/band/smile live 1‎, for example - the page does not exist) but this practice is frowned upon, I believe. I'm sure you know about all of that, however. Responding to "waiting for his opinion" - I completely agree with you. Waiting can't hurt. - I.M.S. (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if TheWho71 is a part of this, and if we should be talking to him as well. Would a page created in his userspace automatically be part of his watchlist? And the fact that his name derives from a band and this "hoax" is about a band is an interesting coincidence ...--Wehwalt (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm, from experience, that subpages of a user's userpage are not automatically added to their watchlist. So if TheWho71 is a separate user from Frank, he wouldnt automatically know about the creation of that band page. (But then, TheWho hasnt edited since May 2008 anyway, so it's kind of a moot point). -- Soap /_{Contributions} 01:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Never mind the notification, I see you did that. Nice work. Why would you go into another's userspace unless you had permission? I mean, it is not as if you are hiding anything, it is going to show up in your contributions and the article history.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, edit conflict. Responding to your second from last comment: Too much of one, perhaps. I'm not at all suggesting a SPI, but I do think it rather suspicious that Mr.Frank's ~30th edit was to establish this page, and he has devoted hundreds (perhaps over a thousand) edits within TheWho71's space. - I.M.S. (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Why aren't you suggesting a cu? Given the fact that most users on their 30th edit couldn't intentionally make a page, it seems very possible and would explain a lot. Again, though: screamingly obvious.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

How do we go about it? Should I open a formal case, or should we contact a CheckUser? What's the best way? I must admit that I've never opened or even been involved in an SPI before. - I.M.S. (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Go to the SPI page and create the subpage with the checkuser thing. I could start it if you want, as I have done so before, only to have one of the most stressful SPIs possible. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I created the investigation here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for creating it, Kevin. As I'm rather busy right now, I feared getting caught up in an SPI, as I don't have that much time to devote at the moment (much like some of my FACs/GANs in the past). I'll submit my evidence to the case, If you'd like. Many thanks - I.M.S. (talk) 14:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe this really qualifies as a hoax, because it's set in the future. I'd call it a fantasy article, really, and it reminds me a lot of the fantasy hurricane articles that Dylan620 created in his early days on Misplaced Pages. And Dylan was allowed to move those articles to Wikia, where he could work on them at his leisure without worrying about any of them getting deleted. I suggest we do the same with this person. -- Soap /_{Contributions} 00:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Tend to agree. Let's let the sock investigation conclude. Now the article is being edited by an IP. It's all very odd. There seems to be no malicious intent whatsoever.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

pehaps we should tell Mr. Frank that he has X amount of days to move the article/s somewhere else befroe they be deleted. S/He isnt doing anything that is hurting the project but it is still hoax-like.--Coldplay Expért 00:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Give him ten days, and tell him that if he doesn't act, they will be deleted, but he can always ask an admin to email him the pages if he misses the deadline? And notify all of them, including the IP.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm in favor of that. - I.M.S. (talk) 06:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, everyone... I just have been warned, and I realize that I did something wrong... Hum, pretty embarrassing... I agree that these pages are not really at their place. These are not a hoax, it's a bit of fantasy written about a band I know (a kind of fictitious career plan), and as you may have understood, these are not finished. What can I do if I wish to continue to edit these pages without trouble, but also without disturbing the project (for which I participated a lot with my accounts TheWho71 and Monday94) ? Mr. Frank (talk) 14:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait. Are those accounts yours? As in they are legal sockpuppetts. We all thought that they were seperate users.--Coldplay Expért 14:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

They aren't. Actually, I lost my passwords for these accounts, so I created Mr. Frank. Mr. Frank (talk) 14:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

That said, I began to save them on my computer, but it's not over. I'll give the signal if you want to delete them. Mr. Frank (talk) 14:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Guys, does that sound good? The user has admited that those were his old accounts and seeing as he forgot the password, he made a new one. (You may still want to put the Legal SP tag on them so this will not happen again) He has also agreed to move his work to his own computer and at the end of the day they can be deleted. Sounds good?--Coldplay Expért 15:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I can close the SPI now if you guys think it is okay, since it is basically confirmed. At least he was honest about it, and all is well. Thank god this was peaceful. I guess we are all in the Christmas spirit here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am gratified to see how laid back everyone was about this. Not a single admin jumped in and started throwing blocks around. Can we bottle some of this Xmas spirt and have it available the rest of the year?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm pleased with the outcome as well. I truly was not expecting Mr.Frank to show up here, but now that he has, it's made this issue quite a bit easier to resolve. Thanks to all that helped me figure this out, and happy holidays - I.M.S. (talk) 21:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

IP with a long history of disruptive edits

216.153.214.89 (talk · contribs) seems to attract complaints and conduct warnings from a great many users, as one can't help notice perusing the IP's talk page history and contribution history. There doesn't seem to be one specific problem, just the general pattern of being utterly uninterested in anyone pointing out his behavior runs afoul of various Misplaced Pages policies and community norms.

My encounter with the IP is on Talk:Mel Ignatow where they are continually adding their personal opinions on the trial the subject of the article was involved in, and reverting myself and another editor who mention that this really isn't what talk pages are for, per WP:NOTAFORUM. The IP claims their opinion on prosecutor actions will somehow improve the article, but it's a very thin and self-serving claim, they showed up to discuss their opinion on the trial, not the article, and have continued doing just that.

This should not be a big deal... but the IP continues in the face of objections to the point of being belligerent. As this is not even close to being the first time this has happened, I am submitting it here. Perhaps a block is in order, or perhaps someone with more tact can step in and resolve things through discussion. Ultimately I do think it looks bad for the talk page of a relatively controversial person to be filled with newspaper-forum style opinions.

I will notify the IP of this thread but their talk page indicates they will just remove the notice. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like pretty much forum talk, I collapsed the discussion. It's not appropriate for any editor, much less an IP to have an entire section on their personal opinion of the trial, complete with saying the participants dressed like tramps and were hicks. Dayewalker (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The IPs userpage was tagged as a sock of an indefinitely blocked serial sockmaster until the IP came along and blanked it . Perhaps this merits an SPI investigation (without Checkuser obviously, as the main account is too old). The IP is clearly a sockpuppet per this -- <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Page should reverted and indefed by an admin. Also the IP who blanked it should be blocked as well. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Harassment by Cremepuff222

Cremepuff222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) seems to have decided to continue their campaign of leaving stupid messages on my talkpage (see here for earlier discussion). I don't know what the solution is, but their behaviour has to stop. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 09:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I propose this discussion take place elsewhere. I see no reason for administrative intervention. --cremepuff222 (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I've responded to this suggestion on Cremepuff's talkpage. I see the need for administrative intervention because nothing I can do seems to stop these soppy notes being left on my talkpage. Cremepuff's admin rights were removed, and it still carries on. This clearly needs the community to step in and help resolve the "dispute" – such as it is. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 09:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I ask if you like apples. Cremepuff222 gets banhammered? Just answer the question. :) --cremepuff222 (talk) 09:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Honest question Cremepuff: Why would you do this? It seems as if you are just asking to get banned. We just finished a prior proceeding where your behaviour was deemed inappropriate. Why stir the hornet's nest again? Are you still tying to prove your "everyone should relax" point? Throwaway85 (talk) 09:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah, checking back the records, there have been a couple of other similar/worrying from Cremepuff today and yesterday: This really needs to be sorted out. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 09:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I decided to read the discussion that went on here earlier, and some comments were not very nice! --cremepuff222 (talk) 09:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and that double support on the RfA was quite a mistake. The first diff, however, was quite intentional. Edit summary just wasn't that nice. --cremepuff222 (talk) 09:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously man, just address the question: Are you trying to make a point here (again)? This is getting tiresome. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I wasn't trying to make a point here (again), sir. His comments were not very kind, and posting silly questions clearly disturbs him greatly. So an act of revenge I believe! --cremepuff222 (talk) 09:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I very much like your userpage, Throwaway85! It's lovely. :) --cremepuff222 (talk) 09:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Back to the issue at hand? Throwaway85 (talk) 09:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Needs attention ASAP, this is the same matter that looked like a compromised account a week ago and it shouldn't happen again. Both of you, I'd suggesting backing off for a few hours and taking a powernap while matters are sorted. Continued bickering isn't going to accomplish anything and just result in unneeded incivility or disruption.

Given the severity of the last matter, it needs to be discussed and investigated. Given the holiday and ArbCom appointments coming, it may or may not be better to discuss here first, I've no right to opinion on that. One condition of the indef block overturned 5 days ago was for no further disruptions or other nonsense. It may or may not be deliberate that this is starting exactly 1 week after the first block (of 1 week) was initiated, perhaps thinking that it results in a clean slate for some reason... however, the block was changed to indef, so even that claim is moot. This is out of place for me to suggest, but a short-term block could be used to pause this, as it was last time. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 09:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. Because further "harassment" will cause much harm to our beloved editors. Hmm, the one week business is quite a coincidence too. I think we should discuss on my talk page though, if possible! --cremepuff222 (talk) 09:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

CP, could you please just agree to stop provoking editors in this manner? If you would do so, I think everyone involved would be willing to move on and forget anything ever happened. Continuing on this course, however, will only engender more drama. Please stop. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll stop. :) --cremepuff222 (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. For the record, I think it best to cease any interactions of any kind with TreasuryTag, given the delicate nature of the situation. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Note—this is precisely what Cremepuff promised to do a week ago: "Whatever the case, I will not engage in anymore of these nonconstructive editing sprees. And again, apologies to those whose time I've wasted." That promise held for about six days. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 10:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I know, but let's just leave it be for now. If it happens again, it's flagrant trolling. For now, let's AGF that he's being honest here. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that, Tags. I'll stop for sure this time. --cremepuff222 (talk) 10:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Give it up on your talk pages, too, please. TreasuryTag-- WP:DENY on any and all further postings since you know responding won't do anything. Just track any future troubles tonight until this gets looked over, and after you know the deal with WP:WQA and WP:AIV for use in the future. An admin can review the terms of the unblock, but I will echo Throwaway85 in that AGF stands for the timebeing. The promise of "never again" came up last time as well, if I recall... ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, I guess I forgot about that little detail. --cremepuff222 (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you honestly suggest it was "revenge"? That's either WP:POINT, WP:BEAR, WP:DICK or WP:STICK ... pick one, it's awfully uncivil activity. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't suggest, I quite clearly stated that it was indeed revenge. :) And... I like all four of those. They're nice. --cremepuff222 (talk) 10:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Really??? Are you here to write an encyclopedia or screw around? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Lol, not gonna lie. Both! --cremepuff222 (talk) 10:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This nonsense on the part of Cremepuff needs to stop. Toddst1 (talk) 10:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That's "Cremepuff222" to you, sir. And why do you speak of me as though I am not listening? Speak to me, more effective. :) --cremepuff222 (talk) 10:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, taking a look at his talk page has convinced me that this problem is not going away. Can we focus on a permanent solution? Or, correct me if I'm wrong, has he already been blocked? Throwaway85 (talk) 11:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I've restored his indef block. Edits like this prove he is here to screw around. The rest of us are not and simply don't have time for this childishness. Edits like this prove he doesn't care much either way. Without meaning to be rude, we're well shot of him; alas, because he was a productive and useful editor once. But no longer. Wikisuicide. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 11:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, pity. Hope we will see him again in a mature guise.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Good block. Let's close the case and move on. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I was about to block when Redvers beat me to it. Because he may come back, and because of this disruption, I have removed his rollback rights. Dougweller (talk) 11:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

He's indeffed right now, to my understanding. If he wants to come back, he needs to appeal the block, and I don't see that happening (successfully) any time soon. Still, good preventative measure. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

< Good block, thanks, Redvers. A real pity it had to come to this... ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 11:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Just to say that I support this block. It's very sad seeing a former administrator and a long term contributor indefed, but come on, Cremepuff, enough is enough. Way too much time has been wasted on his childish game playing already with the last ANI, the RFC etc and he either needs to get with the program and stop using Misplaced Pages as a toy or go away and come back when he's grown up a tad. What I find most alarming in all this is that someone this immature could get through RfA and it's really yet more evidence that we need to find a better way of selecting our admins. Sarah 11:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • In talking to Ryan Postelwaite, his nominator, it seems that this childish behaviour is recent, and that he behaved in a much more mature fashion during his RfA and the period following it. This recent behaviour seems out of place. Inexcusable, nonetheless. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The childish trolling continued on his talk page, so Anonymous Dissident blanked and I've protected it indef to save him from himself. I'll unprotect after a month or so, to give him growing-up space. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 11:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to have been so blunt in my questioning this morning. I'd seen enough, and realized that appealing to his ego was actually going to get the true answers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The former administrator-in-question, had become irrelevant to Misplaced Pages. The indef-blocking is the correct course of action. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what Cremepuff was trying to achieve here - I emailed him last week when he started messing around and he seemed quite genuine with his apology to me. After he gave up his admin rights, he seemed to behave more collaboratively for a few days then we get hit with this. The only thing that I can think of is alcohol (or some other drug) getting in the way of his clarity (especially given the time of the recent troublesome edits (around 4am his time)) but that doesn't really matter anyway - Well deserved indefinite block in my opinion. I want to make it clear though that when Cremepuff became an administrator, he was a role model for other young Wikipedians - he worked extremely hard and was well respected, it's unfortunate what's now happened. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to be able to attribute the behaviour to some substance, but it appears as if this has been a concerted effort on Cremepuff's part to disrupt. I'm sorry that you got dragged into this, and I know it must not be easy to see someone you had a lot of respect for go down in flames like this. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Cremepuff 222—clearing up the mess

Cremepuff has helpfully posted a list of his misdemeanours on his talkpage, some of which may need looking into, particularly this – a case where Cremepuff seems to have reversed, without explanation, a decision made at MfD. He has also admitted another vandal-sockpuppet about which even last week's Checkuser drew no evidence; perhaps this merits further investigation. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 11:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the disruption on his talk page, that may need to be protected as well. It's a shame that a previously productive editor has ended his time here like this. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

He's now spamming my email. I just received the following message: Sup. :P Gonna post this on ANI as more evidence that I should be burnt at the stake? Okay. :) Sounds like great fun! While his email address reveals his real-life name, I'd very much rather this stopped. Could he be re-blocked without email? I'm happy to forward it to an admin if necessary. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 12:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(Now received multiple emails from him... *groan*) ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 12:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Not much anyone could do about off-wiki emailing. Just mark his email addy as spam and be done with it. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

There is, he can have his use of Special:Emailuser disabled (see Misplaced Pages:BLOCK#Setting_block_options). ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 12:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done GedUK  12:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming you didn't reply to anything he sent? Throwaway85 (talk) 12:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

< Thanks, Ged. And no, I certainly didn't reply to anything he sent, I have hopes of living the rest of my life in peace! :P ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 12:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Well good luck with that, and may your holidays end in a much less stressfull manner than they started. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

As sad as this is to say, this went far more smoothly than last week, and being why this time everyone being so flat and blunt was useful. User has no one to blame but his/herself for this all and we still don't know where this came from or why it started. Remember the concerns about the compromised account and the appeal to Meta for an emergency desysop? Given this happened again, and seemingly very deliberately at the end of what the user thought was still their 1 week block/sanctions, it should be reported somewhere "higher" (I wouldn't know where) and a check on login info being from different IPs than the usual? ...Do we do CUs of a single account in these cases? All the question marks that appeared then that were chalked up to a one-off bit of adolescent whatever are now back. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 14:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Good block. I'll have to note the permalink of this discussion for the next time somebody asks me why I oppose admin candidates who are minors.  Sandstein  21:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Good block, enough is enough. Sandstein, please don't paint all minors with the same brush, adults act immature too so this really does not prove anything. Chillum 21:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Piling on to endorse the block. We gave him a chance and he blew it with his eyes wide open. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I know we don't usually take preemptive actions, but I went ahead and reblocked his socks with talk page access revoked, and re-instated the autoblock in the interest of heading off any more of this monumental foolishness. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Other sockpuppets

Cremepuff222 (userspace) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) needs to be blocked, I don't think it was listed on his 'list of issues which need to be fixed'.— Dædαlus 23:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done good catch. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You may also wish to check out this list.— Dædαlus 00:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I blocked two that were fairly obvious off that list, but we would need a checkuser for the rest. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Multiple new accounts adding mysterious external link

A situation was raised in this thread at the External Links Noticeboard that deserves administrator attention. Someone is creating multiple new accounts with the apparent sole purpose of adding links to the site at sites.google.com/site/datemix/. The accounts are created, given user pages dressed up to look like the pages of experienced users (e.g., putting a supposed user profile claiming to have begun editing in 2006, when the account was created that day), and from there the only activity is to add this link. I'm particularly disturbed by the user-page dress-ups, which suggests a relatively sophisticated attempt to prevent the accounts from being immediately blocked. The link itself goes to what is basically a blank page, so I suspect either malware distribution or an experiment to see whether this type of approach will work for spreading spam in the future. Accounts involved include:

• Edunsi (talk · contribs · block user)
• Denenc (talk · contribs · block user)
• Menxuo (talk · contribs · block user)
• Benzuo (talk · contribs · block user)
• Carlode (talk · contribs · block user)

I'm working on removing the remaining instances of this link, and I'm going to report it to the spam blacklist, but something needs to be done about these accounts. --RL0919 (talk) 15:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the user and talk pages, they are full of fake claims - Denenc has copied User:Magicartpro's user page, for instance, and is claiming to have created Magicartpro's articles. I'd say block them all, and I might just do that. Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Socks. Look at User:Menxuo's user page... Banner up top suggests persons look at their alternate account which they're on break. Okay. That sends us to User:Merlion44, which itself is a puppet of User:Merlion444. Sock of a sock was approved? Highly unlikely. Same MO on userpages and edits for all 5 of those. imo it might only have been copied because it is the same user. Worth an SPI for Magicartpro and Merlion444 probably. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked all the socks, will file an SPI to root out sleepers. -Jeremy 15:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Got one more - Xinoov (talk · contribs · block user). NawlinWiki (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, will add to SPI now. -Jeremy 15:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• • And another, Dexora (talk · contribs · block user). NawlinWiki (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• And have added that one as well, as well as requested any CU doing it to also hit the underlying IP. -Jeremy 16:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• By the by, SPI up. -Jeremy 16:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Found a bunch more, I'll add them to the investigation. The pattern suggests to me that it's User:Tile join, but that's just a hunch. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And CU complete. It's not Merlion444 or his socks, nor is it Tile Join and his socks - it's a Spanish ISP, a /23 of which has been given 48h. I think we're done 'ere. -Jeremy 14:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on closed AFD and personal attack

I'd appreciate it if someone else could take a look at this and possibly leave a comment on their talk page. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I've left a message on their talk page regarding this, I don't think we're quite to the level of needing any admin actions yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree, I just thought it would have more effect coming from someone with whom he had no previous interactions. postdlf (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to ban User:PCHS-NJROTC from Misplaced Pages:Abuse response and vandalism-related issues

Vandalism and personal attacks by user user:Rahm Kota

The editor is engaging in edit warring in the articles Jediism and Tatooine. He is refusing to discuss the changes and leaving edit summaries like "Didn't mark it as minor, idiot, and it's a source. I FU-KING SAW IT IN THE NOVEL" and "WHAT IF YOU ARE FOLLOWING A LINK THAT LEADS DIRECTLY TO THAT SECTION? HAVE YOU EVER THOUGHT ABOUT THATM SMART GUY?" . He has improperly tagged 2 edits at being done by a non-autoconfirmed user. And then the user has vandalized the users pages of those he disagreed with. He blanked user:EEMIV's user page and replaced it with "'FU-K OFF, JACKASS". . Then he went to my user page and added "Hello, I am a retarded and condescending faggot." to the top of my page. . Niteshift36 (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

In Rahm's defense (and as I wrote on his talk page), I did make a mistake in thinking he tagged a non-minor edit as minor. Also, I am a jackass. He's receiving both some helping hands and some template warnings/links to guide him. I don't think this necessitates an ANI response; if the editor persists in personal attacks, vandalism, 3RR and/or deliberate MOS violations, it can be handled through ARV. --EEMIV (talk) 03:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• The problem, as I see it, and the reason I brought it here, is that he is completely ignoring the help he is being offered and just edit warring. I considered taking this to WQA instead, but the user page vandalism isn't the sole issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was drunk. I will try not to edit drunk in the future. Rahm Kota (talk) 04:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

You were drunk for this and 4.5 hours later for this, and making a bunch of minute edits to hyphens, piped linking and undoing vandalilsm in between? Suuuuure. How about instead you simply offer, "I'll make a sincere effort to abide by policy and guidelines from here on out." --EEMIV (talk) 04:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

What makes this hilarious is that you were editing an article on alcohol intoxication while intoxicated. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• I know I'm supposed to AGF, but that doesn't mean I have to believe everything I'm told. 2 hours between a personal attack on my user page to "Oops, I was drunk." Niteshift36 (talk) 00:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

PimpUigi impersonator

Merry Christmas, and Happy Holidays Misplaced Pages Admins.
I'm sorry if this incident has been made in the wrong section, I don't think this fits into the other categories.

I've finally decided to start making edits to Misplaced Pages, and I find someone has been impersonating me.
I've been trying to make my name for a few months now.
Every time I try to make my name PimpUigi, I get the message "too similar to the user name Pimpuigi"

I've never registered here, and I am an ex pro Smash Bros. Melee player.
http://super-smash-bros.wikia.com/Smasher:PimpUigi
I was relatively famous, and very popular in the pro circle from 2005 to 2007
I've never been impersonated anywhere except for here, to my knowledge.

I can do whatever you want to prove I am who I say I am.
Voice verify, web cam, PMing my established user name (PimpUigi) on forums, cell phone, passport, drivers license, etc. etc.

I have made small but accurate, handy, sourced edits to the 32X, and 32X related articles, as well as the JVC Star Wars article.
I plan on continuing to provide respectable assistance, but I will not make another name that is not mine.

I have the AIM account PimpUigi, and my use name on every forum I want to be part of is PimpUigi.
Pick a random one to PM, and it will be me, I can guarantee it.

My email addresses are not PimpUigi, because I want to remain professional for my real life profession.
I can and will provide email addresses if asked, I do want my user name linked to at least one of them.

I did not chose my nick name, my name chose me.
Dukey Brown Mario came up with it as a cool name for the Pink Luigi, and people just simply started calling me "PimpUigi" because I would shout "PimpUigi!" when someone would pick the Pink Luigi.
It stuck to me so well, the admins of www.smashboards.com changed my user name from whatever it had been at the time, to PimpUigi for me.
It's a very fond memory of mine.

I tried once before to resolve this, but as I had no other interest other than someone was impersonating me, I let it drop.

I looked over your guideline for misleading user names.

"There are four kinds of usernames that are specifically disallowed:

• Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. Misleading names include those that imply you are in a position of authority over Misplaced Pages, or those that impersonate other people."

Someone impersonated me under my name.
I can already see they made my name look bad.
This makes me very unhappy, especially since I want to help contribute, and be semi recognized for it.--70.20.246.58 (talk) 07:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The "Pimpuigi" account appears to be unused for several years. Surely someone could rename it and make it available for you to use.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

That account was actually just a vandalism account (and is indef blocked, so it won't be making any more edits anytime soon), so it might meet the "...rare exceptions are made where old edits do not require attribution under the GFDL" at WP:USURP, since all of its edits have been totally reverted as vandalism. Regardless, since it's registered, usurpation would be required, so you'd have to create an account of some type to move to that name. Bureaucrats also generally prefer to see that you've made a reasonable number of good edits with that account—it's a waste of their time to usurp for people who aren't going to stick around anyway. I think, though, that if you make yourself an account (what about something like User:The Real PimpUigi?) and edit under it for a while, if you explain your case, there's a reasonable chance a usurpation request would get accepted. Seraphimblade 08:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

As this prospective user wants the name with different capitalisation from the existing account that is blocked they actually need to request the account be created for them. WP:ACC or the direct link to the form, http://toolserver.org/~acc/ . delirious ☯ 18:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

ApprenticeFan and deletion processes

In the online communities for which are based on one of my editing areas here on Misplaced Pages, the television series "Tensou Sentai Goseiger" has been known about for a month or so now. A recent magazine article came out which has officially confirmed this entity today, and I wrote the article on it found at Tensou Sentai Goseiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Fractyl (talk · contribs) had been working on a draft of this article in his user space using information that was not found in standard publications available to the general (Japanese) public (proprietary catalogues given to marketing people) found at User:Fractyl/Tensō Sentai Goseiger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

ApprenticeFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) discovered my authoring of the main space page today and listed it for speedy deletion as a copy-paste move of Fractyl's subpage. I advised him of his mistake and moved on by adding onto the page. He took my statement as an invitation to list Fractyl's user page for MFD using faulty reasoning.

ApprenticeFan has participated in many deletion debates but it does not appear that he knows when a page should or should not be deleted. Very often he provides improper deletion reasons and definitely in the two "Goseiger" pages his inability to discern proper deletion processes is evident.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I decided to speedy closed the discussion minutes ago. I'm deal with this. Done. ApprenticeFan 07:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Wiki Greek Basketball

   4. What is your theory on quantum physics in relation to RFA?

       A.

   5. What is the square root of 3.14xJimbo?

       A.

   hear hear. -FASTILY (TALK) 15:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC) 

   The more humor the better. ;-) --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 15:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC) 

   Your comment right there genius, tells all. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 15:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry and Happy Christmas!

Is there any chance of a Christmas truce on Misplaced Pages?—Finell 17:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Between whom? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:ILIKEIT and WP:NOTINHERITED violation at AFD

Hello. I'm new-ish to the Wiki so I don't even know if this is the correct place to post these concerns, but I have some worries about Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Amy Pond, which I started today. It appears that users who regularly contribute to related articles are !voting under what appears to be the influence of their personal preferences and claims that any article related to the topic is notable. Due to the holidays, I fear that a lack of traffic to said pages will cause the consensus to be swayed in a biased light due to these unruly practices. What can be done? WossOccurring (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

You can't come and run to the administrators just because you don't like the way an AfD is going. There are plenty of sources for that article, just because you didn't do your homework and don't like it doesn't excuse dashing here and pleading for help. Cut it out. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 19:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that I don't like the article? Please read WP:CIVIL or you may find yourself blocked from Misplaced Pages. WossOccurring (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, for starters you nominated it for deletion, so it's reasonable to assume you don't like it. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Also, be careful about throwing block threats around. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:N does not equal WP:IDONTLIKEIT. WossOccurring (talk) 19:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

But it's a reasonable assumption to make, and claiming that to be a blockable offense is arguably a civility violation also. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't the issue; the problem was clearly TreasuryTag's short, snappy attitude. WossOccurring (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

You being a newbie, if you stick with it, over time you will find out what real incivility is. Or, if you're lucky, maybe you won't. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that a lot of advice on that arguments to avoid essay those shortcuts link to are indeed valid, especially WP:JNN and WP:ITSCRUFT, these are in the end arguments that are considered "weak" or "frowned up", but not actually "violations." A violation requiring admin help would be an argument that is not WP:CIVIL or perhaps one that is blatantly dishonest (such as saying that an article is only sourced by a website if all of the references are actually books). Weak arguments should be discouraged, but are not technically forbidden. Best, --A Nobody 19:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

These issues are best addressed within the context of the AfD itself. The closing administrator will weigh all the views and arguments presented. In this instance, the worst thing that might happen is that we keep an article that was arguably created a couple of months too early, which in all honesty is completely harmless. I'd be more concerned if poor arguments were being used to retain a negative, dubiously sourced BLP article or the like, but absent that, the normal AfD process can be allowed to run its course. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec x 3???) WossOccurring, AfD can often become quite confrontational at times due to its very nature. Interpretation of guidelines on those along the margins of notability can be quite variable too. Spending alot of time there can get frustrating but to each his (or her) own :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Only evil Daleks and Cybermen want to delete things. :( Cirt (talk) 20:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

(multiple ec's) WossOccurring, I've not bothered to look into your history, but am WP:AGF that you are new-ish. There is no problem with a good faith AfD nomination. Let the AfD run it's course, if it is kept accept the fact with good grace. As said above, don't throw block threats around, these can have a nasty habit of backfiring. Mjroots (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, especially memory blocks, those are very sad. Cirt (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be the second complaint over an AfD the user nominated that wasn't going the way he hoped. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive586#WP:CANVAS_and_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FList_of_YouTube_celebrities_.284th_nomination.29. It might be worth considering Misplaced Pages:Adopt-a-User. This way, you can have an experienced editor as a mentor who should be able to help with knowing when it is worthwhile starting an ANI thread? Best, --A Nobody 20:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note—this editor is still threatening to block me, and insisting on the rather extreme {{not a ballot}} template, but is refusing to give a reason for its use. Could someone look into the behavioural issues here, please? Ta :) ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 21:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

  So far we're assuming that he's making newbie mistakes. The facts of that template are understood; it doesn't need to be there. The nominator needs to understand that point. He also needs to curb his enthusiasm for blocking anyone who disagrees with him. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I've given WossOccurring some friendly advice, and pointed out a relevant fact re who can block and who can't. Hopefully the advice will be taken. Suggest a short block if there are further occurrences of threats to block editors. Mjroots (talk) 22:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Mjroots (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 22:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

If I may just but in here (without wishing to re-open the can of worms) I'd suggest we could perhaps be a little less bitey and a little more willing to assume good faith on the part of WossOccurring who, according to popups has been editing for less than a month. I'm confident that both the AfD and this thread were initiated in good faith (if, with hindsight, perhaps mistaken) so perhaps it would do more good to point out, as Mjroots seems to have, ways for WossOccurring to improve his editing rather than pointing out his mistakes. HJMitchell You rang? 22:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Before this devolves into an edit skirmish, I'd like to hear an admin's opinion whether the "not a vote" template is needed on that AFD page. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to but back in here but may I ask a simple question: does it really matter? There is no harm that could come from having it there and its removal would neither add to nor detract from the debate. HJMitchell You rang? 23:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Reporting User:Shshshsh: Are wikipedia articles private property of established users?

• This situation doesnot require admin action, there has been no attempt to resolve the dispute through normal channels such as the talk pae, WP:3O, or other dispute resolution. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hagger

FYI: Hagger on Wheels for Christmas I42 (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Was quickly nipped in the bud. Nothing to see here now. I42 (talk) 21:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Reblock request

I am requesting editor DriveMySol be reblocked. The editor was originally blocked for persistently ignoring warnings against using uncited claims and original research. After the block was lifted the editor used some sources but still added a lot of uncited originally researched material to the New Wave Music article. Also the editor favors making large revisions to articles. After the block is lifted it would be a good idea if possible to prohibit the editor from making more then one or two sentence edits for a period of time. Edkollin (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Warned user. -FASTILY 00:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Disruption, POV-pushing, tag-teaming on Iraq, Mesopotamia

I know it's Christmas and all, but the situation in Mesopotamia and Iraq is out of control. Two highly tendentious Iraqi ultranationalists, User:Izzedine and his tag-team buddy User:Mussav have taken it upon themselves to equate Mesopotamia with "ancient Iraq". They are resorting to edit-warring to push their nationalist POV and admonish other users to get consensus for their edits, even though it is their POV that is against the consensus, as evidenced from the talkpage. They also are hypocritically dishing out warnings to other users in attempts to intimidate them , while they themselves are just as guilty of edit-warring. Izzedine in particular, has a loooooong history of tendentious POV-pushing on Iraq and Mesopotamian articles and has been warned MANY times . There is also a suspicion of tag-teaming, as Izzedine and Mussav burst out on the scene late on Christmas Day almost simultaneously and take turns reverting. At this point, page protection until the dispute is resolved would seem appropriate. --Athenean (talk) 00:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Athenean (talk · contribs) is calling the kettle black, as he is as much guilty of edit warring as anyone else he mentions, and he is a Greek ultranationalist who edit wars with Turks and Albanians and regularly deletes whole referenced paragraphs that he doesn't like, he's now pushing his frontier into Iraqi territory. He also threatens other editors with blocks on talk pages. Do please acquaint yourself with the talk pages and edit histories rather than taking his wild claims at face value. And a Merry Christmas! Izzedine 01:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Izzedine (talk · contribs) was making problematic edits on Europe and Talk:Europe a week or so ago. This blew over then, but there was evident POV-pushing as to the status of Georgia as a transcontinental country. The kind of inflammatory language he is using here seems to be par for the course. He also seems to be misrepresenting User:Athenean in an extreme and irrelevant way. Mathsci (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Check the talk pages, I engaged in much discussion and provided the highest quality references for my edits, and suffered terrible abuse from Satt 2 (talk · contribs) which I filed a Wikiquette report about here. This was weeks ago. Mathsci (talk · contribs) disagreed with me at the time and agreed with Athenean, and he has now seen an opportunity to chime in with Athenean's mud-slinging. Izzedine 01:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Personal attacks will get you nowhere. If I were a Greek "ultranationalist", I wouldn't give two cents about Iraq. The accusations about pushing my "frontier" into Iraq are malarkey. The reason I am filing this report is because I have become incensed with your tendentious ultranationalism and POV-pushing and because your actions are extremely disruptive to this encyclopedia. Multiple users have disagreed with you, and yet you keep trying to push the same POV over and over and over again. And the fact that you chose Christmas for this latest rampage speaks volumes. --Athenean (talk) 01:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking blocked User:Breathing Dead

Hi, I think that it was a mistake to have blocked User:Breathing Dead. I was looking over his edits, and the edit that seems to have gotten him blocked looks to me like it was in good faith. I disagree with the decision made by User:Gwen Gale in blocking this user, and think that in the dispute between this user and User:Gwen Gale, WP:CIVIL was violated on both sides. In general, I think that admins should not use the tools in disputes that they participate in. This user made many constructive edits to Misplaced Pages, this is certainly not a vandal account, the "sockpuppetry" seems to be due to the use of multiple proxy servers and is not clear evidence of a deliberate attempt to appear to be multiple users (since even when posting from other IP addresses this user identified himself as User:Breathing Dead). I think this user should be unblocked so that they can continue their positive contribution which have improved the quality of the encyclopedia. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 01:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards