Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:56, 27 January 2010

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

User:JCRB

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

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

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

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

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

You know what, what you can read down below is merely your own particular opinion on why the references provided aren't acceptable. However, reliable sources such as United Nations' resolutions usually have more bearing here than your peculiar POV. Finally, we could use a little bit more of politeness and a bit less of original research. Thanks. Cremallera (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

A peculiar POV of UN resolutions? I presume you're referring to the suggestion that the UN says that Gibraltar is Spanish is that the WP:OR you refer to? No that isn't a view I'm advocating. Funnily enough the view of the UN C24 is in the article, because I was one of the people that added it. But they we aren't actually speaking of UN resolutions are we, there is no UN resolution that specifies Gibraltar is a none self-governing territory. We're looking here at UN documents being abused for something completely different. Justin talk 21:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Whatever. I removed the contentious phrase from the lede since it had no cited source, was contradicted by a very credible source and the default for contentious and disputed material is to remove it pending formation of some consensus. And do you know something? After I removed it the article read so close to the same that I bet anyone who's not already engaged in the WP:PANTO will never know the difference. But you'll never guess what happened. Apparently I have to "discuss" in in a way that is not satisfied by a new section on the Talk page. My how Misplaced Pages changes: discussion now happens somewhere other than talk pages, maybe. Who knows. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Justin and User:Gibnews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UNINDENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PLEASE, SOMEBODY HELP US!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UNINDENT

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

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

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

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

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

The UN GA did not, as you infer, set up a working party with an atlas and a pencil to draw up a list of "none self-governing territories", they were nominated and listed by the colonial power way back in 1947 - verifiable fact. The list is now maintained by the UN C24 and adopted annually by the General Assembly. Big difference. The status of the list is not as you infer "suppressed", it is in the article with due prominence. The position is explained; the lead does not mislead.

The UN C24 definition of "self-governing" bears no relation to what the average person would consider "self-governing".

I only mention your original comments, because the comments this week are exactly in the same vein. Like how Gibraltar is "Spanish" based upon a perverse intepretation of UN resolutions. If you're "labelled" as a "Spanish nationalist", that may well because of the comments in the vein of a "Spanish nationalist" as to why Gibraltar is Spanish. Groundhig Day? Like when something is explained to you and you go but the UN says....when it doesn't. This one goes to 11. Justin talk 20:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Justin, please stop playing with words. The personal interpretations of verifiable information are secondary to the information itself. We don't care how or who set up the "working party" that put together the UN List of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The question is Gibraltar in on that list. Yes, the current lead misleads when it says that Gibraltar is "Self-Governing". This is quite arguable at best (specially as the UN says it is not). And please refrain from making accusations of "Spanish Nationalism", they are hardly justified. JCRB (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Then don't misrepresent UN Sources, Special Committee on Decolonization hears petitioner from Gibraltar as Spain opposes its removal from list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Justin talk 14:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar Articles

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

To stop the disruption I propose:

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

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

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

The people who I'd propose would be:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UNINDENT

Justin, does your proposal include a ban on removing other people's messages in your talk page and stop using reversion as an editorial tool? It would be greatly appreciated. Otherwise, your proposal seems extremely faulty? --Ecemaml (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no need for a ban on using reversion as an editing tool; WP:EW is a policy and one that can lead to blocks if not followed. Removing other people's messages on your own talk page is a privilege we extend to most editors, and nobody should be faulted for doing so. It's assumed that the person removing the message has read and acknowledged the message prior to deleting it. Even warnings can be deleted, generally the only sort of message an editor isn't allowed to remove from their talk page is a block template for as long as the block is in place. -- Atama頭 22:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

And now for something completely different...

Right. How about standard discretionary sanctions, and start the process of topic-banning the edit warriors? It's apparent to me that people have completely lost sense of perspective, and have also forgotten some fairly fundamental Misplaced Pages principles. Such as: the solution to text that supports a POV you don't like is not to edit war back to text that supports a POV you do like but to say neither until you can reach a consensus about how the external dispute should be described here (WP:BATTLE, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS and so on). "Revert to consensus / stable version" is offten a red flag in cases like this, and telling people to "discuss" changes when they have already done precisely that, and have no prior involvement in the dispute, and have no evident ties to the POV you don't like, is not exactly indicative of a productive attitude. Incidentally, it also doesn't help when you say something is sourced from Britannica but Britannica does not use the term you claim, and actually says something that rather supports the opposite POV. The Spanish editors will no doubt claim that I am biased against them based on my nationality, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I think it's time to start dealing with this battleground mentality. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I just checked the cite you say doesn't support the text and it says "Gibraltar is an overseas territory of the United Kingdom and is self-governing in all matters but defense." Do you have java enabled? I don't have a POV I like, I would prefer it if the article would not suffer while there is an attempt to skew the POV. Thats whats at hand here. Oh yes people have forgotten wikipedia principles, the relevant one being NPOV, and some have gotten frustrated after trying to explain this and gotten more bad tempered than they should. What is helpful is a considered approach, not blundering in without understanding first. My apologies if I vented at you but thats precisely what you did. The problem with it, is you're encouraging further disruption. Justin talk 00:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Justin, you are being obstructive and disingenuous. The BBC News says "Gibraltar is self-governing in all areas except defence and foreign policy." - that is equivocal and the BBC is British anyway. The Chief Minister's speech was prompted by the UN's report stating that it was not self-governing, so unquestionably cannot be taken in isolation. The Telegraph (British) says "GIBRALTAR'S parliament approved an ambitious package of constitutional reform yesterday designed to give the colony almost complete self-government" - that's equivocal too. To state in the lead sentence that Gibraltar is self-governing based on two equivocal and one partisan sources, while ignoring the fact that the CIA World Factbook and the United Nations both say its not, is POV-warring of the worst kind. I have removed the statement again, I note you have reverted at least once more. Please do not do this. Your edit history shows a lengthy involvement with articles with contentious issues of sovereignty, and always on the British side. You are clearly not a neutral party here and should step away from the firing line and discuss matters on talk.

For now, I have left the opening sentence saying that Gibraltar is a British overseas territory. This is not sufficiently ambiguous to demand that we make a statement supporting either of the competing POVs regarding self-government.

I want to be clear here: a bald statement that Gibraltar is not self-governing is POV, and a problem. Equally, a bald statement that it is self-governing is also POV and also a problem - especially since the sources you provide are actually rather less good than those supporting the opposing POV. The logical thing to do is to simply remove the self-government status from the lede until a proper form of words can be decided, not to enforce one POV that is liked by the article WP:OWNers. To state that Gibraltar is self-governing based on these sources and ignoring - indeed without reference to - those which dispute it, is tendentious and disruptive.

I have done what you should have done in the first place, which is to start an RfC: Talk:Gibraltar#RfC:_Self-government.

I would ask that uninvolved admins should watch the article and swiftly enact blocks and topic bans against editors who display single-purpose and advocacy behaviour. I see several editors whose entire history seems to be around promoting the views of one or other side in articles where sovereignty is contentious, including Gibraltar and the Falklands. This needs to stop. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

No, to be polite, you intervention has been unhelpful and your comments naive and ill-informed. Not only that but you've edit warred to impose your will on the article. As I have already indicated on your talk page I have no intention of edit warring. But I'd nontheless support those editors who return it to a NPOV.

Seeing as you mention the Falklands, where I am active, I have worked constructively with a number of Argentine editors to improve those articles. The improvements share information to ensure NPOV is maintained. I actually feel quite priveliged to address Darius as old friend. I have also gone to great lengths to explain the matter to a number of editors who have sought to skew the POV of the article, great lengths, yet they return to the same point again and again. Now that could well be based on the fact that they've only been taught 1 POV but there comes a point, when you see someone claiming that UN resolutions asssert that Gibraltar is Spanish, then you realise they're not interested in NPOV.

Again trying to remain polite, you've blundered into an area you don't know anything about, have ignored the point that editors have been misrepresenting those UN sources, funnily enough the one UN source you missed confirms that. But don't worry as I took the trouble to add it to the article. I'm not ignoring sources as you assert, seeing as the UN C24 list was introduced into the article as part of my edits, but rather ensuring they're treated with respect to NPOV. You're excision of those terms actually favours the editors who have tendentiously edited the article to skew the POV.

Not only that but ignoring the presumption of good faith, you've labelled the editors who work constructively in this area as "POV Warriors" to favour those editors who would pervert sources to advance an agenda and use Misplaced Pages as a platform to support their POV rather than maintaining a NPOV.

From my perception, all I see is an admin who hasn't looked at the problem, has jumped to conclusions and is failing to recognise their initial mistake. Ironically the only editor to breach 3RR is yourself. Do we take from that, that you're calling for uninvolved admins to impose a topic ban and a block upon yourself? Justin talk 14:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Just two points, Guy. First of all: "I see several editors whose entire history seems to be around promoting the views of one or other side in articles where sovereignty is contentious, including Gibraltar and the Falklands." As Justin kindly mentioned, we have been working in several Falkland-related articles. Even when my position regarding the topic is, obviously, pro-Argentine, we managed to keep the NPoV on the pages we have edited by checking both British and Argentine sources and discussing their reliability. Thus I think it's very unfair to include Justin in your 'list' of edit warriors.

Second point: the issue of self-government. My personal opinion is that the words speak for themselves; self-government, by definition, supposes a form of administration "not completely sovereign or independent". Therefore, I see no need of further clarification in the narrative, since self-government is at midway between "direct rule" (by a foreign power) and "total independence". The British sources questioned as 'partisan' are quite reliable as they only describe the naked fact of a political decision, not a posture.--Darius (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The idea of topic banning editors simply because someone has a different view and wants to enforce it sounds rather draconian and contrary to openness on the Internet. I and not advocating banning JCRB simply because he has been waging a single issue campaign to make the article on Gibraltar more supportive of the (dead in the water) territorial Spanish claim by denying Gibraltar's political progress.

Guy, do you realise when you attack the BBC, that it is not Gibraltar's national broadcaster? They most certainly have no bias towards Gibraltar and accept corrections to their online content when it is wrong. In order to make some editors happy, ones who believe Gibraltar should be Spanish, you could kill the present population its only a few thousand people who stand in the way. I trust you realise the point. But like censoring the fact that Gibraltar IS self-governing some might disagree with you. --Gibnews (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Darius, that is the problem with editors such as Justin and Gibnews. When they don't like certain information which is supported by (highly) reliable sources like the UN itself, they switch to personal interpretations or opinions. Please don't go down that path. The term "self-government" does not speak for itself. In fact it is quite controversial. Some would think it means autonomy, others complete independence. In both cases it carries a British POV by subtly justifying its colonial status or foreign rule. The question here is neutrality and verifiability, not personal opinions. The term "self-government" is inappropriate according to both these policies. Either both the British and Spanish POV's are included, or the issue is avoided altogether. JCRB (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You have yet to demonstrate there is any Foreign rule exercised by the UK Government. I don't see any and frankly would not put up with it. --Gibnews (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, don't make people loose their time. Gibraltar is a British territory, therefore it is ruled by Britain. You want to define "Britain" now? Or should we look up "foreign"? JCRB (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Rdm2376 starting mass deletions

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

Discussion seems to have stopped on the above thread (actually it's moved elsewhere), putting a time stamp here so this gets archived. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

So when are the articles going to get restored? We cannot be the source of all human knowledge if we delete stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.174.71.124 (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

my restrictions

So I've been told I have to go here to get my restrictions modified/removed. I think I deserve to be part of the full community again. It's been almost a month.--Levineps (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

On what grounds? What have you done since the restrictions have been placed that show that the restrictions are no longer needed? --Jayron32 04:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The user has abided by the restrictions. How about lifting the restrictions on March 1, 2010 with relaxed probation until April 1, 2010. Relaxed probation means that the user should be aware of the concerns on the previous restrictions and try not to offend anyone during that additional one month. JB50000 (talk) 04:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Diffs and links to prior restrictions would be helpful. Not everyone knows what is going on here, so it is hard for uninvolved people to comment on the situation. Could you provide a link to the original discussion that led to the restrictions so we can all know what is going on here?!? --Jayron32 04:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Look at his userpage. That will show you the terms of the restrictions.--Coldplay Expért 05:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I dunno, his recent edits look in line with his restrictions, and I don't see any problems in the last 500 or so edits. However, I also don't think that 3 weeks is long enough for restrictions of this nature. I like JB's suggestion to revisit this in March. I'd also like to hear from Levineps a bit more on what he has learned from his prior problems and sanctions. Just showing up an ANI and saying "It's been long enough, take them away" does not necessarily give any indication that the user intends to abide by community norms. I routinely decline unblock requests which state "Sorry, I won't do it again" without any indication that the blocked user understands what "it" is, and I also don't see anything here that Levineps understands why the restrictions were put in place, or how he intends to avoid the problems that led to the restrictions in the first place. He has shown that he understands what his restrictions are, and appears to have followed them (for about 3 weeks or so) but I still don't see evidence that he understands what the initial problems were or what he intends to do differently to avoid those problems. --Jayron32 05:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

All I know about this is from this thread and what I see on Lev's user and talk pages, but: The restrictions are actually very modest, and except for "No new categories" are mostly just good manners. So the restrictions were apparently imposed because of category abuse. How has Lev's understanding of category policy changed in the last three weeks? PhGustaf (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

To show his good faith, maybe Levine could list here some new categories he has in mind. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion which led to the ban is here. I was the editor who reported the problem.

The sanctions were imposed not in response to a single incident, but after a prolonged period (nearly a year, I think) in which Levineps has created new categories and recategorised articles and categories at a prodigious rate. Much of this work was controversial, but Levineps repeatedly failed to respond to attempts by other editors to discuss his edits, or responded with rude or dismissive one-liners. When I finally startes reverting his disruptive edits, he repeatedly accused me of vandalism.

Nothing in Levineps request indicates in any way that he intends to behave differently than before, and his comment on Coffee's talkpage merely says that he has been restricted for a week without complaint. The disruption caused by his previous edits will take a long time to resolve, and I hope that the restrictions will not be lifted that has been cleaned up and Levineps can give some clear indications of how he intends to work differently than before. Like Jayron32, I see no evidence that he has learnt anything at all about why he he was banned, and I would oppose any lifting of the restrictions until Levineps can persuade the community that he really has learnt from this episode. So far I see Levineps using edit summaries, but no sign of him working collaboratively to resolve differences, which was the kernel of the problem before.

Rather than deciding now to lift the restrictions in March, I think it would be much better to ask Levineps to reapply in March, with a clear warning that a simple "I want to edit categories again" request will result in the ban remaining in place. If and when it is lifted, I hope that there will be a much longer period of probation than the 1 month suggested above by JB50000. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

How about this proposal. Levineps can re-apply on March 1. and if it his ban is lifted then he is on probation for another 3 months. Does that sound good?--Coldplay Expért 03:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with User talk:Baseball Bugs—that it would be helpful to know what kind of category work Levineps has in mind. If he's just going to go back to doing what he was doing before, there's no point allowing it—now or in March. The category ban was not a "punishment" that he can "serve" by sitting out a period of time like a person can serve a jail sentence—it was kind of a last resort in a situation where the user was repeatedly causing major problems in the category system. Unless that changes the ban can't change. Good Ol’factory 04:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jayron32 and BHG. Given that the main problem was a lack of communication and responsiveness, I don't think the restrictions should be lifted unless Levineps can, at a minimum, expressly show his understanding of why the restrictions were imposed. The above request falls woefully short. It shouldn't just be a matter of him behaving by complying with the restrictions (though kudos for that). He needs to explain and prove himself through his own words, not by implication from his conduct. I don't think it particularly matters what category changes he wants to make, particularly not if the suggestion was to base the removal of his restrictions on whether he puts forth good ideas. He's completely free to propose category edits to others on talk pages while the restrictions are in place, and I can't think of a better rehabilitation than forcing him to go through that process. postdlf (talk) 05:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I completely understand why I was banned even if I disagree with all the restrictions put in place. I have definitely learned to communicate and when I do communicate to be more respectful. Even if I was trying to crack a joke or two, it might not have been the greatest idea. I think this period of time has also allowed me to be productive in other areas. I do intend to create as many categories (if at all) and would focus more on overcategorization. I also like the feedback I have gotten and plan to act on those changes.--Levineps (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's a start, but I'd like to see a a clearer acknowledgement of exactly what was awry before you were banned: for example, the problem before was not that you cracked a joke or two, but that you cracked jokes in place of any substantive communication. Let's see if you can improve things further by March. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I would hope to be able to apply for reinstatement/partial removal of sanctions (whatever you want to call it) before March, but if it's March than so be it and ill wait.--Levineps (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Protection request

Thank you. History2007 (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Creation according to Genesis was protected for 3 days, now may need several more days of protection to avoid a revert cycle. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

That you would start making changes to the article after that articles protection has lapsed, only to request protection from reverts of your changes, is nothing short of disruptive behaviour. Ben (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

And you would know from disruption, since you're pretty good at it. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ben Tilman has just entered the 3 revert zone, and 2 warnings have been issued to him now. Admin action is in order now, please. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Based on his comments on the article talk page, nothing will change 7 days from now. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The discusion has been productive. Two editors are attempting to force through the version they prefer while the discussion is still going on. That is not right. And that's why it's been protected for a week in their version. Auntie E. (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about Ben and that other guy. FYI, I'm not watching that page any more because, as with the Noah's ark thing, it's an endless loop and a waste of my time. Ben is absolutely determined that the very first sentence of any Old Testament article is going to assert that the story is a pack of lies (or a "myth", as he calls it). ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as you continue to misuse the terms in play, that's probably for the best. --King Öomie 21:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You and Ben know full well that the average citizen understands "myth" to mean "fairy tale", and that's why you're so insistent on it being in the first line of the article, to push a particular POV on the matter. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, creation myth applies to any religious account of creation, whether it's Norse creation myth, Greek mythology or Creation according to Genesis. Just because some people believe one is true and the others aren't, doesn't restrict us from reporting what reliable sources say. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, to be fair, more than 75% of the world believe in some kind of Creationism, according to the demographics of religeous belief globally. To me it seems that this insistence on pushing the word "myth" in the article is a lot like poking the bear with a stick and then acting surprised when it wakes up angry. There is no need to be intentionally antagonistic. Rapier1 (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Particularly when he's focused totally on the Old Testament and pooh-poohs any question as to why he's not aggressively pursuing the same issue in other creation stories. Or not at all, actually. It's like he has an obsession with this particular creation story. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

On the flip side, we don't see Buddhists aggressively pushing Creationism in their article, either. It's a side-effect of being an English-language, Western wiki. Given Christianity's predominance in our audience, that's going to be the contentious articles. As for not being "intentionally antagonistic", I'd say WP:NOTCENSORED. Creationism is inherently a creation myth. I can only say that I'm not pushing it to be antagonistic, but to stick to the facts. Just like the Mohammad image isn't censored, I don't see why we should back off on this issue either. — The Hand That Feeds You: 12:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Block review on User:SuaveArt

I just blocked SuaveArt (talk · contribs) for a week for disruptive editing of other editors' userpages. One of the diffs I cited was his eighth attempt to delete links he disliked from User:Filmcom -- the change has been reverted by 3 different users and a couple of IPs. He was also told to stay out of disputes with User:Seregain, but he apparently thought it appropriate to edit it today, claiming votestacking. Does anyone (besides the usual suspects) want to take issue with my assessment of the situation? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Increase it to a month. IconicBigBen (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Support proposal by IconicBigBen--Coldplay Expért 00:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

IBB has been indef-blocked as a sock, so let's not be taking his advice automatically here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

He reported his own sock at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Pickbothmanlol. Testing the system, I suppose. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Support editing other peoples user pages with out consensus is frowned upon.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Support - Same reason as James, above. He can't just go around unilaterally deleted stuff off other editors' pages. He should bring it here. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

(copied from SA's talk, per request)So which is easier? Say I see 10 users with inappropriate content on their userpages (ex. a link to their online music store). 1. I start 10 AN/I topics on each of these users for different reasons, but all related to what they have on their userpage, or 2. I just remove the content and cite the policy that the user violated. Personally I think we should just create a new policy stating officially that only admins are allowed to edit other users' pages without consent, because that seems to be the unwritten rule around here anyway. A user uses their page to host a spamlink for their online store, I removed the spamlink citing policy - the link gets put back and I get a temp ban for "disruption" because I removed a promotional spamlink from a userpage. I'm still trying to figure out just how this all works here. But if editing other users' pages is always or almost always disruptive, then please just take my policy proposal into consideration.--SuaveArt (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Option 3: Report all 10 of them here at once and let the group discuss. Don't take it on your own to delete stuff from other users' pages. That's nannyism. And you wouldn't like somebody deleting something from your own page on their whim, I'm sure. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There would be a case to answer here if SuaveArt was removing fair use images, or something else that we ban from user pages. But removing a link to a blog from a user page is not supported by policy. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 23:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No objections. Amerique 01:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh Jclemens (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Question I thought part of the deal here was that SA and Seregain were supposed to be leaving each other alone. If that's the case, what is Seregain doing removing a comment of SA's from someone else's talk page. I'll grant you, the comment he removed had a certain snark level, but wouldn't it be better to let American Eagle tidy his own talk page, especially considering how hot things have gotten? (Note, I haven't discussed this with Seregain as I have no desire to step into that hornet's nest.)--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

D'oh! So much for that no-contact order between the two of them. I'm going to leave a notice to Seregain that he's being discussed here in this ANI. -- Atama頭 19:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but I likely would've removed the message anyway. (Or, as SuaveArt himself would do, warm him for using a talk page for forum discussion.) Seregain probably should've left it alone, simply because it looks like he's battling with SuaveArt again, but it doesn't matter to me. I endorse whatever block is decided upon for SuaveArt. The user has been disruptive to no end, and he's been warmed enough. American Eagle (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I am on a no-contact restriction with one particular user, and if it gets broken, a block will follow. If either of those guys is on a no-contact restriction, and they violate it, then a block should be automatic. And besides, that's nannyism. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Atama for letting me know my name and behavior came up here. Yes, I admit I probably shouldn't have made that edit. It was one of those "That's wrong, I'm here, so I'll remove it, oh crap, I just did it" moments when you hit the button that submits things online and you can't take them back (though technically I suppose I could have in a sense here). Though I felt the comment I removed, which was there for over 6.5 hours, was egregiously and gratuitously inappropriate and its removal by anyone else would've been completely non-controversial, I still should have left it for someone else - American Eagle, preferably - to do it. I actually did not remove the comment out of any vendetta against SuaveArt and I apologize to both him and anyone else who may have seen it that way. I apologize to everyone, including SuaveArt, for that edit, which, despite what I or anyone else thought of its content, I had no business removing after being urged to disengage. Seregain (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

<sigh> Support, though I wish I didn't have to. SuaveArt has shown up here at ANI under threads by 3-4 different OPs for 3-4 different issues in the past month or so. Its getting rather bothersome that his behavior has not changed despite all of that. --Jayron32 04:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Support This is getting ridiculous. I am running out of good faith NativeForeigner /_Contribs 01:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha

A note that this discussion is occurring has been left at Misplaced Pages talk:Requested moves#RM for the article "Jew"
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 16:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me if I am in the wrong place. A simple request: Ucucha, whom I've never seen editing before within the subject areas in which I participate, in a period of several days unilaterally moved/renamed the article Jew to Jews. Although some discussion was held between January 18 and the present, there certainly wasn't a clear consensus - especially by the core group of editors (including members of the umbrella project dealing with Jewish-related articles). Part of this short time fell on the Jewish Sabbath, when some of these editors do not work on Misplaced Pages. Then, this user closed the discussion, archived it, obtained a semi-protection, and made the move. Is this, uh, kosher? Thanks. Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I closed a requested move that had been open for the full seven days required by established procedure. My rationale for this close is at Talk:Jew; I interpreted consensus as being in favor of moving the page "Jew" to "Jews". Any seven-day period will include the Sabbath, so I don't see the relevance of this argument. I did not obtain any semi-protection; I only moved protection settings from "Jew" to "Jews" (which is done automatically by the software).

I am open to constructive criticism of my close. A Sniper and Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) have now undone my move, which carried out the conclusion of a valid requested move. Ucucha 05:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ucucha's account of the facts. I didn't see anything wrong with the way Ucucha closed the discussion.

I moved Jews back to Jew only because A Sniper had moved Talk:Jews, and I thought the article (which was move-protected) should share the name of its Talk page. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 06:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Then I don't quite understand why didn't you move Talk:Jew back to Talk:Jews.

I have commented at Talk:Jew#Requested move that I will move the page back to "Jews" in accordance with the result of the RM unless A Sniper comes up with a good reason why that should not be the case. It would be even better if another admin could make that decision, though. Ucucha 12:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

In retrospect, I probably should have moved the Talk page instead of the article, but A Sniper seemed agitated and I didn't want to start a revert war. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 19:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Please let an admin confirm whether or not consensus actually took place. I disagree entirely that it has. Considering this move has been debated before - and consensus never achieved - I think it should be only made with considerable care. Hence my wanting to slow the process down slightly. Thanks. Best, A Sniper (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a reasonable point. Consensus can change, and I think it did here, but I'd be happy to have a different admin do another assessment. Ucucha 14:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I can not honestly say "consensus" for moving was reached in that discussion. Counting up, I find 4 supporting the change, 7 opposed, and one who does not care. Collect (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I count 84.92..., Nick Graves, V = I * R, Yoninah, Prezbo, Jimsteele9999 in favor; IZAK, Bus stop, 74.66..., Debresser against; Malik, Rebele, Jayjg, Jmabel neutral. I count that as 6-4-4; don't know where you got your numbers from. There are some weak arguments on both sides that should be discarded, for example Jimsteele9999 and IZAK. Most of those with an opinion seem to prefer the plural, although many apparently don't care much either way. Both sides can cite some other articles that their proposed title would be consistent with, but I see no reason there to disregard the rough consensus. Ucucha 15:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact is, this is the RM process. If User:A Sniper doesn't like it, he should have at a minimum discussed the issue with User:Ucucha before edit warring over the move (both by reverting the discussion close, and reverting the move of the talk page, which created a mess for the article as well). I don't think that User:A Sniper is widely experience with our policies and procedure however (obviously), so nothing more then a good trout slap should come from this, but doing nothing or allowing his poor behavior to stand is not a solution at all. I should note that I did support the move, but I want to point out that the RM request itself is the only thing which brought me to the article, and my feelings on the matter are entirely academic (which I think are manifest in my comments during the RM). User:A Sniper should note that he/she is free to open another RM, preferably in a month or two.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 16:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have been editing for several years, so I will take the slap in the face by a tasty trout, as suggested by V = I * R. However, my revert and missives are well intentioned. I have been one of several editors from our Project editing this article and merely felt that, even if the RM was followed to the letter, that the discussion was taking place with a fair number of editors brought to it merely by the RM itself. I mean no offence towards 84.92 or Ucucha when I state that I have never seen them editing any article within the realm of the project, and that some leeway could have been granted to allow for more time - at least as a courtesy to the many who have dealt with the issue of the article name whenever it has reared its head. Thanks. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add as the nominator of the move, I took part in editing many Jewish related articles when I was a registered user. The move was purely motivated by feeling the title I suggested better reflected the content of this article. I will also disclose that I am Jewish. I feel that A Sniper is being unusually agressive in what should be an uncontroversial move request, and that he has not yet given any reason for opposing the move. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, IP, but I don't know what you're talking about. If you aren't registered, there is no way to know who you are, what you edit, and it is difficult to get to know you as an editor. I don't think I'm being 'aggressive'. If you want reasons, why don't you check the archives for the other times people have drifted in to the article, made moves to change the name, were unsuccessful, and then drifted off again? If I must wait a short period, and then rally the troops to look at the issue again for another consensus, so be it. Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to know more about me, I will happily answer any questions you submit to me. If you're interested in what I edit on Misplaced Pages, please view my user contributions. I can't see why you can't just state what you dislike about my requested move and have done with it. I looked at the archives of Talk:Jew before I made the request, as I mentioned on my move request itself, but the suggested moves had different rationales to mine. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to "rally the troops"? Jew is watched by 800 editors, and on January 17 I posted a notice to WT:JUDAISM. There were more than 100 edits to Talk:Jew last week, all of which showed up in those 800 editors' watchlists. Nobody can say they didn't know about the proposed move. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 05:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Unknown Lupus

I really don't know how else to address this problem, but there is this account named Unknown Lupus that has been hounding me and harassing me long enough and I will not tolerate it anymore.

First of all I believe it's a single purpose account since in his 79 editions he only dedicated to patrol Bolivian culture articles to revert editions made by Bolivians to defend an extremist POV which as he says in :

Back then when the Spanish came there was only the land called Peru, there was no Bolivia, no Chile, nothing except New Spain, and Peru. I don't believe either countries should have the right to call the folklore theirs

So this person actually tries to vandalize Bolivian and Chilean articles to nullify their entire culture and make it look as all the culture in South America is Peruvian, which is completely ridiculous.

I could never had a direct interaction with this person as I try to address his content deletions on the articles talk pages yet he ignores them and continue hounding me or insult me, I don't consider he's even trying to be serious I feel that he, for my nationality, tries to keep me away from the project. A clear example of this is:

In a talk page I saw an IP just insulting other countries and I said this, yet Unknown Lupus insulted me and offended me with this.

Now I was working on other article that was unsourced and contained many misspellings and he came again hounding me again to battle me just eliminating arbitrarily parts and putting copyrighted images , .

I'm tired I'm honestly tired I don't know what else can I do with this individual, I left a "inuse" sign as I'll be editing the article tonight but I hope he doesn't come again to delete arbitrarily pieces of information.

List of systematic reversions or Peruvian nationalism: , , , , , , , even ridiculous changes like this, there are more examples but I think it's enough information.

Thanks. Erebedhel - Talk 07:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Other than the notice saying you've already tattled on him/her, I don't see you trying to discuss anything with the editor. Perhaps that's a better place to start. Toddst1 (talk) 07:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but no I didn't talk to him over his talk page but I tried it on the articles talk pages, yet he doesn't answer me just ignores it and continue attacking me. Erebedhel - Talk 07:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S besides I did try before even a Mediation cabal for other article where I invited him and he didn't participate just continued reverting edits, I have this problem with him since August of last year, he doesn't really participate just follow me and revert or delete things while I'm editing something without giving explanations or calling it "useless information" when I mention it on the talk page of the article he never answers just insult me in Spanish on other editor's talk page like I showed above. Erebedhel - Talk 08:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal and he didn't participate? How was the user supposed to even know it existed except if he actually was hounding you? Nobody told the guy it was going on!! Geez! Toddst1 (talk)

I provided the link above it's a response to a comment he made about me on a talk page, it's from October, I believe I addressed it in a civil way. Erebedhel - Talk 03:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I filled a Mediation Cabal form here Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-10-18/Diablada and I hope we can soon have a mediator to help us reach consensus about the page

I think it's clear enough. Erebedhel - Talk 03:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Continuing abuse

This user was notified, he ignores this warning yet he keeps hounding me calling "unnecessary lines", I believe there is a clear policy about hounding I don't know what else to do but I'll not tolerate this kind of behaviour. Erebedhel - Talk 22:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone help this person with their hounding complaint? It appears valid and they have attempted to communicate with the other party at the various article talk pages, even attempting mediation. Additionally, rude and snarky comments like Other than the notice saying you've already tattled on him/her are not helpful in the least. If someone feels they are being hounded or Wikistalked and they ask for help they deserve to have their problem investigated without sarcastic dismissals. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree - the whole "tattling" line is a bit embarassing, considering this is an appropriate place to report hounding. It does look a bit suspicious, but on the whole the editor is making largely constructive edits, though I don't believe that they are using the talk page enough. It looks like Unknown Lupus has a genuine interest in Peru/Bolivian articles. Definitely I think they are skating close to the edge in terms of problems with NPOV though. I think that we should probably continue to monitor this editor for a while and see what happens. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 02:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You guys are full of it. There is still no discussion - not from Erebedhel or from any of you armchair quarterbacks on Lupus' talk page. Get off ANI and at least try to fix it yourselves! Toddst1 (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe there is a misunderstanding due to my initial phrasing but I tried to address his behaviour in a civil way before on another article's talk page but he ignores it even though he does read talk pages; it can be visible in this sequence: → → . That's how he responded when he made a complete section dedicated to me because of what another IP did. (and yes his buddy ran to try to block me accusing me of sockpuppetry which of course turned to be false). That's from October, I have been having problems with this editor for months and I believe I tried to address it in a civil and patient way. I don't know how else to make it clearer I didn't feel the need to template him because I consider that my comments on the articles' talk pages were enough. Erebedhel - Talk 03:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that addressing an individual's behaviors should not be done on article talk pages. If you see a problem - a pattern of behavior with a user - talk to them on their talk page where they'll see a big orange banner when they continue to edit. Templates are usually not the right answer for anyone who has been around more that a brief period. Talk to them, explain that they need to change their behavior, point to policies and when and only if that fails, pursue WP:DR, WP:WQA or . Toddst1 (talk) 07:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll do the following as I told Tbsdy, I'll try to continue editing explaining my editions to him in a calm way and if he continues I'll point out the relevant policies in his talk page. However I believe that the scale of the problem I have with this user and another editor MarshalN20 wasn't clear in this report because since now the problem is only with Unknown Lupus I didn't want to bring back the problem with MarshalN20. However in August I observed that both editors were making offensive comments on the Diablada article and asked them to stop, MarshalN20 specially reacted against me in a disproportionate angry manner. That led to Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-10-18/Diablada which failed and now is on Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Diablada, but that also led to a RfC for user conduct on MarshalN20 where we also observed that Unknown Lupus does act suspiciously similar to Marshal so there is the possibility that these accounts are in coordination or is a case of sockpuppetry. Unknown Lupus did know perfectly about that because he participated actively in the debate and did read the section where his policy infractions were addressed. Naturally I did point out at the beginning "please keep WP:CIV WP:NPA" when they first started making those comments but the conflict escalated till the RfC, which I recognize wasn't perhaps the best approach because I wasn't familiar with the procedure and the other editor who signed it didn't participate. I try to remain calm but dealing with these two editors has been extremely exhausting I'm afraid that if it doesn't stop it'll reach arbitration but they don't seem to change their way to treat me. Maybe my mistake was just mention the policies on the articles talk pages and avoid taking it to the boards as I didn't want to look authoritarian, maybe I should have done that instead earlier but now is too late to follow a different path. Erebedhel - Talk 08:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Drop me a note on my talk page if you need help. Toddst1 (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok thank you I'll keep you informed of how it goes. Erebedhel - Talk 19:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

When does something stop becoming a !vote, consensus, or debate, and turn into someone trying to make a point?

Before someone comments on the fact that I closed The AFD, I know that I was a little bit bolder than I should have been. However, as I stated in my closing rationale, the deletion process was completely ignored. Those who want the article deleted seem to have somewhere from a small to a large COI and/or a one sided POV. I felt, that as I read through the debate, that while the nominator and one or two other individuals were trying to hang onto every last thread, that there was a major consensus against them to keep the article. Now, can someone take a look at the article and the AFD and PLEASE tell me what you think? Dusti 10:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

As you closed it and someone else re-opened it, it would probably be wise to allow the debate to run the full 7 days, then allow an admin to close it. Mjroots (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Has it not? I believe today was the 7th day? Dusti 11:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I am the editor who reversed the NAC on Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/The_Skeptic's_Annotated_Bible_(2nd_nomination), which is the crux of this concern. The closure was done one day early and it did not take into account that there was a measurable quantity of Delete !votes as part of the debate. In my understanding of non-admin closures, these issues made this particular NAC inappropriate, and that is why I reversed the NAC. Since this is the seventh day of the discussion, I would welcome an admin's review of the discussion. Thank you. Warrah (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Definitely not appropriate for NAC. Tan | 39 15:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, there was nothing close to consensus there. Advise you take a step back from NACs Dusti. Also, review the guidelines for NACs Throwaway85 (talk) 03:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Those are some serious accusations, Dusti. I don't know who you think is making a 'point' or what point they are supposed to be making, but I disagree that the 'deletion process is being completely ignored'. An AFD is not a vote, it's a discussion, and when there is a question as to which side has made the stronger argument, we rely on administrators who have, in theory, earned the trust of the community to make the more difficult calls. Yes, there are several people who !voted to keep the article, but there are also several who gave substantial reasons why it should be deleted based on Misplaced Pages's notability criteria. This is not a question of "I don't like it"; in fact, if anything I'd say there is a certain amount of "I like it" going around. This was not an AFD that should have been closed early by anyone, and it was not a good candidate for a non-admin close, because it was not a clear-cut decision. I think you may have allowed yourself to be swayed by the frequent and inappropriate accusations of bias from one editor who very strongly wants the article kept.

Also, it'd be a good idea (that is, it would reduce the likelihood of further drama) to let the AFD run long by whatever time it spent closed when it should have been open; that's often done in cases like these. -- Vary | (Talk) 15:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue of Dusti's non-admin closures is a recurring one and they have been advised in the past that it is not a good area for them to pursue. Apparently they have returned from a long wiki-break without taking into account the changes to AfD that happened in their absence. Non-admin closures should not be something that editors go looking to perform. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

As a long-term acquaintance of Dusti's I am little concerned over where his non-admin closures are going to take him. I and several other editors raised concerns before he went on a wikibreak; given that improper closure are still happening; I would advice him to step back a bit and do some other tasks for the project. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to go on record (first of all) and say that I was wrong in doing the NAC, and I feel that the individual who re-opened the Afd was also incorrect. Secondly, I appreciate those who have been respectful in their suggestions for me. Thirdly, I would like a little bit more respect here, as a fellow Wikipedian, I did something in my judgement. The Afd was closed as a keep, only to be turned over to Deletion Review, but I did something that I thought was right. If you look through my contributions, rather than second guess them, you will see that Afd isn't something I have been focusing on. I also did offer to reverse what I did out of respect for the nominator. Now, with all of that aside, I respect each and every one of you to the highest degree. You are all wonderful people, but please, understand that individuals will always have a different opinion than you do somewhere in the world. We can stand behind usernames and debate all night, but in the end, we're still here for one thing, to build this encyclopedia. Standing here and yelling at me for a minor mistake isn't going to change the fact that I did it, and I have apologized. Now, let's cease this thread and move on, I'm sure there are bigger fish to fry. And no, I will not stop NAC closures, I will merely be a lot more careful. How else can I learn? Dusti 08:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You can learn by watching other people close AfDs correctly for a while, then going back to it. I really don't think you've been demonstrating good judgement in your recent closures, so some time away would be a Good Thing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No one is yelling at you, Dusti - you brought this to ANI, not anyone else. I would highly recommend taking Sarek's advice. There's a thousand other tasks that need to be done here, all equally important. Tan | 39 14:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to pile on, but that closure was fairly ill thought out. Although some keep votes weren't well thought out, at least asking another admin would have been a good idea. Of course i'm not an admin, but this is how I see it as a neutral third party. NativeForeigner /_Contribs 02:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's questioning your motives or your good faith, Dusti, but even good faith edits can be problematic at times. You've had several people here suggest you stop doing NACs for awhile. While I understand your desire to improve, perhaps it would be best to observe some more and review the guidelines before jumping back in. Even if you do everything correctly, you don't want people who disagree with your closure to be able to say "Dusti closed it, he has a history of bad closes, his decision should be ignored." Let things cool down a bit and take the opportunity to beef up on policy while attending to other matters. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Restoring deleted unsourced BLPs

I believe that restoring of BLPs deleted in the recent deletion of unsourced BLPs incident is uncontroversial, provided that someone is volunteering to reference the restored article ASAP. To make this as smooth and quick a process for editors as practical, I've started a section in the article rescue squadron at wp:SJR. Suggestions as to better homes for this, extra admin eyes and of course any feedback as to appropriate limitations or better homes for this would be welcome. ϢereSpielChequers 17:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like something that WP:REFUND should be handling, rather that the Article Rescue Squadron. NW (Talk) 22:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well in normal times yes it should. But as these were deleted out of process, if we simply ran through the normal process wouldn't they all get restored? Whereas setting up a temporary separate process where they only get restored if someone is willing to bring them up to BLP standards doesn't formalise the out of process deletions, but it does give editors a way to rescue some of these articles that I believe is acceptable even to those who deleted them. ϢereSpielChequers 00:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

They should only be undeleted on a case-by-case basis, and only after at least one editor offers a firm commitment to providing sources immediately. There is no emergency situation in restoring the articles, so there's also no rush to do so. UnitAnode 00:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Send them to wikipedia:article incubator. I would be happy to help. Ikip 08:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Simply ask if you want to restore deleted unsourced BLPs

I have gotten up to 10 userfied articles from administrators before, let me be the first to ask.

And anyone else can ask WereSpielChequers to incubate 10 articles for them too, right here, for themselves. We will all be responsible to find sources for those 10 articles we ask for:

1. Ikip 08:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Please incubate the FIRST 10 red linked articles for me at Misplaced Pages:ARS/BLP. Thank you.

A bad move!

I would think this is a bad move, unless you are adding in valid references. ArbCom have already said that what the admins who deleted the articles is valid, so restoring like this could be construed as wheel warring. Isn't there discussion about this going on somewhere else though? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 09:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed. Restore individual articles if sources are provided, fine, but don't just arbitrarily reverse the previous actions that got us into this mess. ArbCom was very clear; BLP enforcement is a paramount concern. Deleters got a slap on the wrist; people restoring are unlikely to be treated so kindly. Ironholds (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • If "provided that someone is volunteering to reference the restored article" isn't enough reassurance for you that this is not wheel warring, please see the discussion at User talk:Scott MacDonald#Restoring deleted unsourced BLPs, or watch what is happening at wp:SJR. ϢereSpielChequers 00:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I'd be happy to undo any out of process deletion if you bring it to my attention, and this includes BLPs that meet the notability guidelines (in my judgement anyway, I tend to be a bit stricter than many) and were deleted for being unsourced. Prodego 03:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
      • So you'ld be willingly recreating unsourced BLPs, without any intention or indication that they will be sourced soon afterwards? That would indeed be a bad move. Or did you mean that youare willing to undelete any that look to be notable and where someone (the one asking for undeletion, presumably) indicates that they will add sources more or less immediately? Fram (talk) 09:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Both, until such time that policy is properly changed. Unsourced BLPs are not a CSD, and any PRODed article's deletion may be contested post deletion. Prodego 13:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
          • But WP:BLP is a policy as well, and it contains things like "In order to ensure that information about living people is always policy-compliant (written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources) the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. Editors adding or restoring material must ensure it meets all Misplaced Pages content policies and guidelines, not just verifiability of sources." So the burden of proof that the article is based on good quality reliable sources is on you if you undelete the article. Fram (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Motor skill

I'm here instead of RFPP because this is a bit tricky -- apparently there is a class somewhere that has been assigned to work on this article; the problem is that they don't know what they are doing and are making a mess of it. Some edits look like vandalism, others are good-faith but clueless. None are sourced. I've tried engaging but haven't had any luck. I wonder if it would be possible to protect the article temporarily in order to force them to the talk page? The article wasn't very good before they started on it so in principle we could just let them hack away, but that doesn't seem very useful even as an educational experience.Looie496 (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Followup -- now taken to RFPP due to ongoing vandalism and lack of response here. Looie496 (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit tricky but-hang on! What's that noise? Oh, it is a jet ski! Hold on a minute,. I cannot think twith this noise!--222.154.161.61 (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No no, you fool. That's engine skill. HalfShadow 21:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently a University class! (University of Illinois), Kin 457. Woogee (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The instructor's personal page is here. Woogee (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Would someone be interested in pointing the instructor to Misplaced Pages:School and university projects and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Classroom coordination? We can probably clear this all up pretty quickly if someone does this. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 09:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear God. We should indef anon block every school and university. Fences&Windows 21:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Addition of links to National Institutes of Health GeneReviews

An IP editor is adding a large number of links to the NIH GeneReviews articles to our articles on genetic diseases. For example adding Adenosine Deaminase Deficiency to our article Adenosine deaminase deficiency. Since these are free-access articles written by experts on these genetic diseases, which have been peer-reviewed (see GeneTests page) and hosted on a NIH website, I think these meet our external link policy. However, there has been some discussion as whether or not to block this editor for adding these links - an idea I object to. Do other people think this is editor is acting appropriately or inappropriately? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Note - these links have previously been discussed here. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

205.152.158.201 (talk · contribs) has been adding these links to about 300 articles, starting 28 August 2009 (as far as I can tell from the edit summaries). To complicate the situation, it appears this account is being used by another person at the same time, leading to the block in Sept'09. --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The project has gained useful content on 300 articles. Why is this a bad thing? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that is an IP address, it is by design shared. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 09:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Even if the new links end up being valuable, it creates awkwardness if we are endorsing the actions of an editor who refuses to participate in discussions. They have never commented at User talk and they have only left one comment on article Talk ever. (This seems likely to be a private individual and not an office at NIH. The IP geolocates to Louisville, KY). Do we have the ability to add these links on our own? I would suggest we seriously consider a 1-week block but not revert the edits, unless they are individually checked. EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

So by not blocking, we are endorsing? Beach drifter (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do you worry that adding useful links might create awkwardness? I'm not feeling in the least awkward, in fact I'm considering giving them a barnstar! :) What possible reason would there be for blocking them? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tim. Common sense and good faith trump any spam guidelines. It is troublesome that the editor is not communicating but that is no reason for a block. Beach drifter (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I've checked about 20 of these links and they are being added carefully to the correct articles, eg the IP editor added the NIH article on Adult Polyglucosan Body Disease to our article on Glycogen storage disease type IV (which is an alternative form of the same disease also discussed in the GeneReviews article). Tim Vickers (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing objectionable about these links and agree with Beach drifter and Tim Vickers that blocking is unnecessary. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to agree with Tim et al. We had a similar issue some months ago with respect to the IUPHAR database. As long as the links go to a reliable, scholarly source, are added specifically to the page to which they belong (rather than just plastered across pages), and improve the information value of our pages, all of which are true in this case, then it is not spam. The issue comes up because it looks like spam. In the IUPHAR case, it proved helpful to talk with the IP and educate them about appearances, and perhaps that would be helpful here. A punitive response would not. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think at least some of the unfortunately bitey response to this editor was prompted by their adding links to genetic disease articles at roughly the same time as this spammer who was adding commercial spam to a genetic testing company. Perhaps a case of friendly fire? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the spamming, reviewed the discussion at WP:ELN, noticed the editor hadn't responded to the discussion, and determined that his behavior fit WP:SPAMMER. From this, I thought a {{uw-s2}} or {{uw-s3}} would be appropriate. Because of the extent of the spamming since the WP:ELN discussion, I chose the s3.

As I discussed, my concern is what to do if the editor continues. I'd like to see him consider the recommendations from WP:ELN and WP:SPAMMER, but at least acknowledge the discussions. --Ronz (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It would indeed be nice if they choose to talk to us, but if they don't the consensus so far seems to be that, since their edits are helping and not hurting the encyclopedia, we shouldn't do anything that might discourage them from continuing to contribute. Templates warning them that they might be blocked would certainly not appropriate for an editor making good-faith and constructive contributions. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I was involved in the original WP:ELN discussion, and I favor these links.

Misplaced Pages doesn't actually prohibit its volunteers(!) from improving the encyclopedia only in one way. There is no rule that says you have to add at least one sentence of text for every valuable and wholly guideline-compliant external link you add, or that tiny improvements are somehow actually damaging, or that people should be punished for merely looking like a spammer when they actually are not violating any of Misplaced Pages's standards.

It's unfortunate (for us) that the editor isn't talking to us -- if the editor reads this, then WP:MEDGEN and WP:MED want you! -- but a person that silently improves the encyclopedia should never be punished for making valuable contributions, however small the contributions may be. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Breach of ARBMAC civility parole, trolling, harassment by User:Sulmues

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

Back in December, this user was placed under the following 3 month civility supervision per WP:ARBMAC by User:Moreschi for outbursts such as these . Since then, he has continued posting trolling comments such as these (the "Trojan Horse" is a reference to Greek editors), calling me a vandal , while here he is making the false accusation that Albania had to be protected because of "vandalism" on my part, when in fact it was *I* who requested semi-protection because the article was plagued by IPs. Here is talking smack in Albanian with the indef-blocked User:Lceliku (translation available on Google Translate).

Particularly odious is his restoration of this TOV by User:Lceliku with the mendacious excuse that the guy "welcomed" me and I "banned" him. When I became irate over this, his response was to mock me .

Lately, he is also now falsely accusing me of breaking 3RR when in fact I did no such thing.

Here he is trying to disrupt an SPI I have filed by somehow implying that I'm anti-Albanian and that therefore the checkuser should take this into account.

The final straw, however, was that even though Moreschi explicitly warned him that further accusations of vandalism against me would constitute a breach of his revert parole and hence would be blockable , he has continued to do so . There is a clear pattern here of incivility, bad faith assumptions, trolling, and personal attacks since he has been put on civility parole. This is intolerable and has got to stop. I would ordinarily be perfectly content to let Moreschi handle this, but he appears not to be active at the moment. Athenean (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It might be better if you were to put this in the form of a {{Sanction enforcement request}} at WP:AE, which would provide for a structure for response, discussion and review.  Sandstein  06:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, I think Arbitration Enforcement is to enforce a closed Arbitration Committee ruling, and I still have not had the chance to see this ruling. When I was blocked by Moreschi in December, I never had the chance to protect myself. Do I get the chance here to defend myself? Athenean has brought here plenty of accusations which I have to reject. His interpretations of my behavior are very agressive. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 13:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit looking at all of the diffs (and digging through contributions for quite a while) that it looks like both of you have been a little hot headed and it may be better served for you guys to just back away from each other. Sulmues may be throwing words like vandal around a bit loosely but I can't deny that it does appear you are following him around a bit as well (just recently accusing him of being a banned user here and taking barnstars off of his userpage is a bit much. Too much wikilawyering is not good in the longrun. James (T|C) 13:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Except that I'm not under civility parole, but he is, and he has clearly breached this parole. I mean, he never misses an opportunity to make a dig at me , even when welcoming a new user. I will go to AE and request enforcement of his civility parole. Athenean (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I wish I could. athenean within the last 24 hours has brought me to the attention of Moreschi (see where he uses inappropriate language, ckatz and Luna_Santin where he accuses me of receiving a barnstar from an IP that was subsequently blocked (see User_talk:Ckatz) and User_talk:Luna_Santin#Block-evading_IP_of_indef_blocked_users_going_around_giving_out_barnstars) and he is now reporting an incident that is caused only by his accusations and his sufference to see me edit his Albanian pages. He has also a history of blanking references that are perfectly valid and it seems like I need to get banned or blocked at any cost and I cannot work in peace for my contributions to Misplaced Pages, because I have to spend all my time to defend myself from this user. Athenean's 6.3k edits are all patrolling Albanian related topics (See here that 7 out of his 10 most edited articles regard Albania). He does not know Albanian, but he'll make sure to blank references that I bring to the table. I'm bringing this (but I could bring at least 50 such blanking cases) where he takes out references which you can easily see online.sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 13:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Passport-related edit war

I just blocked Ozguroot (talk · contribs) 1 hour for edit warring. Happenstance (talk · contribs) made two requests dif dif by on his talk page that he stop mass reversions of Happenstance's edits and resume discussion at Talk:Passport. If anyone feels that my block was in error, feel free to unblock. I did not block Happenstance for edit warring as he did not try to revert Ozguroot. I have to run for an hour or so, so this is a quick post. -- Flyguy649 01:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this is almost certainly a sock of the banned User:Izmir lee. A look at the contribs of Izmir lee and his socks User:Aegean Boy and User:Turkish Flame screams WP:DUCK. Same bot-like behavior on diplomacy articles. Athenean (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This account has also started editing in a similar pattern rather abruptly - Special:Contributions/Eu6. I would suggest a block for the sock-puppets. —what a crazy random happenstance 10:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I really didn't mind the ban. All what i did was reverting the deletion a bit earlier than the editors of those articles. Because nobody seem to agree with deletion of those sections. see: Romanian passport reverted by El Otro. Mongolian passport reverted by Edward Vielmetti, Serbian passport reverted by Avala, etc. They spent their hours, days, months, for them. Are they socks too? Now you call me "a sock" of the banned user Izmir lee. Who is Izmir lee? I totally have no idea. Administrators: Please --> Talk:Passport. Too many angry "X passport" editors there. Regards. --Ozguroot (talk) 12:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Errm the user in question was going in line with consensus while the other user that complained Happenstance as well as RashersTierney were equally abusive and reverted him then he reverted them etc. I find it absurd to block him for these edits. User RashersTierney has run what I believe to be a canvassed straw poll to establish consensus but soon after the "consensus" was noted by regular editors it became apparent there was no consensus to remove large amount of info from 200 articles. The "consensus" was thus gone the very next day. Ozguroot might be angrier then the rest because unlike us he didn't just loose months of work but also a lot of money he gave to receive prompt updates on the subject so that he could update Misplaced Pages. Finally I will quote one user from the talk page, I see no signs of consensus from the dozens of diligent editors who maintained those pages and were blindsided by their removal without so much as a notice on the corresponding talk pages of the articles affected.--Avala (talk) 11:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we may have averted this edit war by deciding to fork the content that was being hastily deleted into its own set of pages. As with any diplomatic mission the fine details are being worked out on Talk:Passport. If there are any remaining angry "X passport" editors with pages that have been multiply reverted there is a workable, though not perfect, solution at hand to copy the table in question to a new article "Visa requirements ... " Edward Vielmetti (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Climate change proposal

Trying again

Does no one think there are problems with the climate change articles? Why is discussion being collapsed? -- 32.174.160.76 (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are a great many problems in the climate change articles, which is why we now have Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation. See Help:Diff for technical information on how to present a link showing who made what edit; WP:No personal attacks and WP:Civility are policy - please respect your fellow volunteers even when you think the project would be better if they were to direct their energies elsewhere. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

File talk:MiddleEast.A2003031.0820.250m.jpg

I'm certainly not gonna touch this with a 10 foot pole myself (it's not my fight at all), but someone may want to look into File talk:MiddleEast.A2003031.0820.250m.jpg#Border with Syria
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 11:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I took a stab at it. The image is on Commons, so deletion discussion is not appropriate here. And shouldn't that be a 10 feet (3.0 m) pole? ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  16:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Main article on simple Misplaced Pages for Jessica Lange is blank while an extensive version of the page exists elsewhere on Misplaced Pages

Dear administrators,

I have tried to edit the page http://simple.wikipedia.org/Jessica_Lange in English without success.

Would you please correct these mistakes; every time I tried I seem to have made some mistake and the page was deleted rapidly. Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.29.253.209 (talk) 12:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That is on the Simple version of Misplaced Pages, and it has it's own rules and admins. Looking at the page, it gives some clear reasons for the deletions— the last was "Complex article from another Misplaced Pages, little sign of simplification/conversion." Please discuss at simple:Misplaced Pages:Simple talk. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  12:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

User Goldor

Goldor (talk · contribs) was given a final warning by me about personal attacks. I also reverted some personal attacks at Talk:Bosnian_Royal_Family which he reverted. He's calling editors scum at RPP and the above talk page. I'm going to block him, anyone object to an indef block? Dougweller (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I went to his talk page to tell him about this, he's already blocked indefinitely. He was clearly not here to benefit the project. Dougweller (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/JWASM

Could an uninvolved admin possibly take a look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/JWASM and maybe have a quiet word with Hutch48. He has taken this nomination very personally and is being rather intimidating to other contributors and potential contributors . There is more but AfD is only short - it's probably easier to read it in its entirity than by diff, but he has also made his comments about other contributors on another editors talk pages , and he does have a very recent history of being totally offended whenever someone makes any comments to one of his articles note edit summary (Magioladitis added an orphan tag to JWASM) (response to Orange Dog querying notability of a different cyberwidget) editor opined that article should not actually be about how to create compiler code.

NB - although I have not ventured to offer an opinion in the AfD, as I don't want any more comments about my technical knowledge, I have notified Hutch48 of this thread. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me of your complaint. To save retyping my response to the actions of the compainant, please refer to the discussion page related to the deletion of the JWASM page. I have asked that editors properly comply with the rules of Misplaced Pages as stated in the direct URL that I have cited.

Hutch48 (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

As you can see. Hutch48 continues to argue that I "broke the rules" by PRODding an article about some compiler code that had no sources verifying notability (indeed, at the time did not even make any claim to notability, just to usefulness) and appeared to me to be completely non notable under Misplaced Pages definition, Magioladitis "broke the rules" by tagging the article as an orphan, and OrangeDog "broke the rules" by listing the article for deletion. While he is entitled to his opinion, I do not feel he is entitled to continue to intimidate other editors away from AfD. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we have someone with some serious WP:OWN issues. It should be pointed out that a lot of times when an editor can't prove the notability of their subject, they take to attacking other editors. All I see are walls of texts, none of which establish notability. More so, looking at his contributions, I'm more concerned about how Hutch48 (talk · contribs) is continuously harassing OrangeDog (talk · contribs). --Smashville 16:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the facts speak for themselves so I'll try not to get into any arguments here. I would however appreciate a retraction and apology from those who have accused me of bad faith editing. As for the MASM article, I left my comments on the talk page and editors may act on them as they wish. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hutch48 does have some serious ownership problems, specifically in the belief that people who don't "have sufficient historical or technical knowledge to comment on an article of this type". Similar language along these lines has continued at the AfD. -- Atama頭 23:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It would appear that Hutch48 has taken his bat home. I would guess this incident can be closed and the Afd left to run its course. (And I never signed this post!!! Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC) )

Oh very interesting Hutch48 appears to be the admin of www.masm38.com's forum (no outing, he put the url and his real name on his userpage and he uses a similar username to his Misplaced Pages one at this forum), and according to him, Misplaced Pages is now scheduled to go down the tubes because we trashed his article. Unfortunately for him, even the code nerds aren't taking his complaints too seriously. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Although all of the admins are apparently driving around in Lamborghinis with their Wiki-riches. Hmm...apparently my check has been lost in the mail. --Smashville 15:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that always the way :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to thank the Misplaced Pages admins and editors for sticking to the established rules in a fair and unbiased manner. In the last decade, Steve Hutchesson (Hutch48) has rarely shown any "social" or diplomatic skills, in such conflicting situations on the internet, outside of ad hominem and other forms of bullying. As for OrangeDog expecting an apology, just be thankful that an entire USENET slander campaign hasn't been waged against you and Misplaced Pages as a result. Thanks and please keep sticking to your guns. As for the JWASM page itself, I wish to request a delay in any approval of its deletion. I would like a chance to review and bring it up to Misplaced Pages standards over the next week. It's a very useful tool, perhaps even the unofficial successor to MASM itself, and I wouldn't like to see the corresponding page lost as a result of the shortsightedness of one Steve Hutchesson. Thanks much. SpooK (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Seoulight keeps going after 24-hour block

Seoulight (talk · contribs), fresh off 24-hour block for edit-warringm keep going: Special:Contributions/Seoulight.

Won't respond to notes left on talkpage. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 15:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW: notified. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 16:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 1 week. Looks more like a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT than anything. –MuZemike 16:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Extended to indefinite for sockpuppetry. The name-calling didn't help much either. Seems like a new editor with strong views, anyone feel free to unblock if you think there's sufficient (or indeed any) recognition of the edit-war issue and an agreement to follow WP:BRD or similar. Euryalus (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Kaiserble is back

So now the other guy Kaiserble (talk · contribs) is off *his* 24-block and keeps going...Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Inuit18 and User:Tajik

Tajik (talk · contribs) from the Germany-Holland region (who has a long list of blocks) is using IPs to insult, provoke, and attack ethnic Pashtun editors and Pashtun articles. See one example of many Kussmadar...Lol...your mom was fucked by Tajiks and Momngols for centuries, dirty bastard, son of dirty semites, mongols, dal-eating dog...PigTuns, who were fucked and raped by all invadors for millions of years, prove their dirty bastard origine with their dirty language and culture.. I assure you that banned User:Šāhzādé, User:Germany2008, and User:Draco of Utopia are sockpuppet of this same individual who tries misleading adminstrators by changing his level of English and writing style.

Inuit18 (talk · contribs) who is restricted to one-revert-per-day is used as a proxy account and I assure you it's another sockpuppet of the banned User:Anoshirawan. It's possible that Tajik is using it as a proxy connection to log onto Misplaced Pages using USA's IP from the Germany-Holland area, which works but with slow internet speed. Both Tajik and Inuit18 have one point of view when editing Misplaced Pages and they always edit the same articles relating to Afghan races and ethnicity, critisizing all Pashtuns anyway possible while giving Tajiks good names even if they were labelled warlords in mainstream media. Tajik and his anti-Pashtun racist gang is not only spreading racist POVs about Pashtuns here in Misplaced Pages but he's also involved doing this at Youtube, blog forums, chat rooms, and etc. I believe that banning these trouble seeking users (or user) will serve a good purpose so that other unbiased editors can come in the future and cleanup the articles that these racist guys (or guy) have vandalized. Thanks!

Would anyone actually feel provoked by such a ridiculous rant? It sounds like the French guard at the castle in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There may be a cultural thing here. The original poster should open a Sockpuppet enquiry. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I blocked the IP for a week, anyone want to change that, feel free. Dougweller (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It might be ridiculous to you, Bugs, but it hardly reminds me of "your father was a hamster & your mother smelled of elderberries". Instead, it strikes me as flat-out hate speech (substitute the ethnic terms for any more familiar ones, say referring to Germans, to see what I mean), & the individual deserves a permanent ban. -- llywrch (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You may well be right. I'm just saying that if someone grossly insults you, and you react the way he expects you to, then you're letting him control you, which seems counterproductive. Never let 'em think they got you, or they win. Unless, of course, you have a secret weapon, such as a nuclear bomb, or a friendly admin. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If this is an IP socking campaign, a WP:SPI report may help.  Sandstein  19:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Coach Station or coach station?

I don't pretend to know enough about this really to go and start making reverts and changes, but an editor is changing many many bus and coach stations to lower case titles. The biggest coach station I know is Victoria in London - this though, has managed to remain Victoria Coach Station.
As this is the name of the station, capital C and S for Coach Station seems justified in the title.

Newcastle coach station, Bristol bus station, Birmingham coach station to name a few, have all been changed recently. A quick search of google would suggest that most sources, newspapers included, use capital letters to denote coach stations. National Express website also uses capitals for their coach stations, ie. "Bristol Bus Station".

Any thoughts? _Will (Talk) 17:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an admin issue. Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous), Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Transport, or Misplaced Pages:WikiProject England would be appropriate venues (one, not all). -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 17:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Other ideas may be the talk page of Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions or one of the subpages thereof. --Jayron32 17:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll try there in relation to the naming of the pages - was slightly hinting also at whether it's a tad controversial moving all these pages without any mention or discussion on the articles talk pages - I know that in cases of train stations, ie. Talk:Birmingham New Street railway station, where "railway" has been added against consensus, and Station changed to station, it has kicked up a bit of a storm... "If it ain't broke don't fix it" or "fixing something for the sake of fixing it" comes to mind. _Will (Talk) 17:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Botched page move

Found via new user edits. Sabre1936 (talk · contribs) during a series of page moves has moved talk page Talk:Congregation of Sisters of St. Agnes to main space page Congregation of Sisters of Saint Agnes and needs an Administrators intervention to preserve the page histories during correction. Recommend checking the user contributions to see what has actually gone where.--blue520 17:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

•  Done As the user cannot actually move over existing articles, it was only a matter of fixing the cross namespace redirects. I'll leave to others the evaluation on whether this was intentional disruption. MLauba (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Almost certainly just a mistake. Looie496 (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Levineps in violation of his editing restrictions

Immediately following his request above to have the restrictions removed because he had complied with them, Levineps just removed a huge chunk of the warnings and complaints from his talk page that had led to those editing restrictions being imposed here.,,. This is in clear violation of one of his restrictions, which state that he must "ot remove warnings or notices from his talk page or anywhere else they are posted." postdlf (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

ok my bad I will revert these. I thought I could what I wanted with my talk page, I guess not.--Levineps (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't see that as a reasonable misunderstanding on your part, in light of the clear language of the restrictions, and the particular history of your talk page notice and complaint blanking that caused that restriction to be imposed. I'll leave it to others here to determine if this violation warrants a block; under the terms of your restrictions, it does. But at a minimum, what you've characterized as your failure to comprehend very clear and simple restrictions will obviously impact if they will ever be rescinded. postdlf (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I made a mistake, sorry I'm not perfect. I put it back right away. If others feel the best move is to block me, then that the community's decision. I have enough faith in the community that they will see a good person made a mistake.--Levineps (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that this is the restriction as noted on his user page:

Warnings

Levineps must:

* Not remove warnings or notices from his talk page or anywhere else they are posted

I fail to see how this is a simple mistake. The wording is rather clear and concise. Personally it is too early to lift the editing restrictions. March 1 is simply too soon, especially after this mistake. I'd say he should not be allowed to reapply for 1 year starting today. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I reverted it right away, apologized for it. I think this should be one of those "live and let live." I meant no harm in the process of doing this.--Levineps (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

After it was reported here right? The point is that the notice of your restrictions is rather clear and you ignored it. Since you are trying to have the restrictions lifted one would expect that you would be bending over backwards to make sure all edits are in compliance with the restrictions. You did not do that which is not good. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Judging from this comment of his on my talk page, he apparently didn't consider it the "main restriction." postdlf (talk) 01:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't important, I believe that the reason I got into trouble was mainly the categories. It's an opinion, I really feel like my words have been twisted (which will happen no matter what I say). I've taken responsibility for this incident. I don't think I exactly committed the cardinal sin.--Levineps (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The terms of the restrictions are very clear, and this is a straightforward violation of them which undermines any claim for lifting the restrictions soon.

It may be relevant that these removals followed this discussion with Levineps on my talk page, in which he was trying to persuade me to support lifting his restrictions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You asked me not to write on your page, please stay out of my affairs. You can't have it both ways.--Levineps (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The issues can be discussed here in a centralised place. Your lobbying campaign of individual editors is unnecessary, and undermines the principle of centralising discussions so that other editors do not have to follow multiple pages to track discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Levineps latest trick is revert-warring on my talk page. Not very impressive conduct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

One revert doesn't exactly a reverting war, but good try on that one. But I would like to ask, why can't I write on your talk page?--Levineps (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

As you well know, it was not one revert, it was two: , and restoring in part a comment removed earlier. The reason I don't want you posting on my talk page is that a) if you want your restrictions lifted, discuss it at a central location (here); b) The discussion on my talk page was a waste of time, because despite your belated claims to have learnt something, you still think that the edit-warring which led to your ban was because you were "provoked". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Geez, I made one comment on that. I feel as if your prosecuting me. Fair enough with the one centralized spot. I might not agree with it, but I am willing to do it. I think you overstate some of the things I say. You always find one little thing I say and use it against me instead of focusing on my entire message. Really let's move beyond this, I think both of us have better things to do--Levineps (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Levineps, I put in a lot of effort a month trying politely to engage you in dialogue, and got no response. When things eventually got to the point widespread by disruption by you, you repeatedly accused me of vandalism ... so at this point, you have ling since exhausted my good faith. If you really have turned over a new leaf, then take some time to show that that you can keep it up, and stop complaining. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The transgression has been self-reversed, and therefore I don't see the merit in blocking in this instance. However the administrative response to any future transgressions would probably take into account this incident. I think Levineps would be advised to be very careful about adhering to the terms of his restrictions, and seek advice in advance if he needs clarification. Rockpocket 01:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

From the comments above, I don't believe that restrictions should be removed yet. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 19:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Minor corporate whitewashing at Carhartt#Popularity_with_drug_dealers

Over at Carhartt, there's a Carhartt#Popularity_with_drug_dealers section, cited to the New York Times. That's been removed at least twice by accounts with few other editing interests. Today, it was removed by 70.227.70.3 (talk · contribs) in this edit.

A traceroute returns "70-227-70-3.carhartt.com". Geolocation returns (42.3165 -83.205), in Dearborn, MI, approximately 1000m south of Carhartt corporate headquarters.

Please watch.

(Amusingly, a Google News search for Carhartt returns recent articles, each about a different crime, like "The second suspect was described as 5-foot-8, 170 pounds, in his late teens, wearing a black Carhartt coat, black ski mask and dirty white gloves", "the suspect was also wearing a brown Carhartt workman jacket", and "Witnesses described him as a light skinned black man, 5 feet 5 inches to 5 feet 7 inches tall, about 140 pounds, and wearing a brown Carhartt style jacket". Those are all in the top 10 on Google News. That really is their demographic.) --John Nagle (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

this seems really unfair as a general statement. it may be part of their demographic in certain areas. DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have explained to the IP, i.e. Carhartt employee, that they shouldn't edit that article, but should make their case on the talkpage, instead. —DoRD (?) (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved eyes needed at the Nikolay Sergeyevich Borisov article

A few days ago I created the article Nikolay Sergeyevich Borisov, a professor and holder of a chair at Moscow State University. Two days after creation the article was discovered by the admin User:Malik Shabazz who took an interest in the article, added a speedy deletion tag and several other tags. What makes me wonder here is that previously I have interacted with User:Malik Shabazz in a less than enjoyable way during discussion on the Richard Tylman article. There he strongly defended the current state and the existent of the Richard Tylman article, whereas I was on the other side of the conflict, arguing that the Tylman article was dubiously sources and does not satisfy the notability criteria. Malik also strongly defended User:Poeticbent who created the article and is the subject of the article. What made this worse than normal interaction on Misplaced Pages where several false accussations and borderline attacks on me, including the accusation that I deleted a suggestion for an RF/C (which I did not - I removed personal attacks that explicitly stated that there is no need for an RF/C), and then accussed me of WP:GAME by reading my mind (in response to my suggestion that this article needs to be taken to an AfD after the closure of the EEML arbcom case closed).

It was this interaction that makes me wonder why Malik discovered this article created by me (two days after creation - I could understand if it would show up in the recently created list, but two days later seems rather unlikely), and then went on to decorate it with a plethora of cleanup and speedy delete tags. There is additional evidence available that could sheed lead on this coincidence, but I am unable to post this evidence here due to the confidential nature. I can email it to an interested and uninvolved admin. Pantherskin (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I never knew it was a Wikicrime to nominate a poorly sourced, peacock-laden biography for speedy deletion. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 20:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest AFD the article, as that will stop the dispute. Off2riorob (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No, but stalking and harassment is. Can you explain how you found this article, despite it being obscure, two days old, in a topic area you normally do not edit? The excessive tagging almost looks like a retaliation for me adding a notability and a secondary sources needed tag to the Richard Tylman article. And as I said there is additional evidence available, that I can send to an uninvolved and interested administrator. Pantherskin (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

(Further comments removed. Ucucha 20:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC))

Your personal squabble aside I did look at the article, run a Search Engine Test and review the meager results and post my thoughts on the talk page of the article. Nefariousski (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I came to the same conclusion earlier today. There may be some Russian-language sources that help establish notability under WP:ACADEMIC, but if I doubt it. I would expect Borisov's own CV to include his highest honors. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 20:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd be somewhat surprised if the AfD didn't end in a keep. Certainly speedying an article under A7, no indication of notability, that asserts the subject to be a professor at Moscow State Univ. is so questionable an action as to invite scrutiny about the possible motivation. DGG ( talk ) 22:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but professors—even department chairs—are a dime a dozen. They are routinely speedied under A7. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 22:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No, they are not. Certainly, not full professors from places like Moscow State University or, say, Harvard or Princeton. Nsk92 (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have been doing that, you're speedy-ing articles incorrectly. Nsk92 is correct here. NW (Talk) 23:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll keep that in mind in the future. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 23:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You still did not answer how you found this obscure article that you then excessively tagged and nominated for all kinds of deletion. Given our past interaction which showed some extent of hostility towards me I am not convinced that this is a coincidence. Pantherskin (talk) 07:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

And why are you, Malik, threatening me with outing? Do you know who I am, or are you just guessing? It is disgusting that you are willing to go down that road. You should know better, and it does not make it look like you accidentally stumbled upon this article and nominated it for deletion as an uninterested party. Pantherskin (talk) 07:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

He is not threatening to out you. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 19:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Right because he did that already. Pantherskin (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't see where. You can email me directly if you have evidence of this and you don't want to note it here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 20:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know what this is about?

Some weird edits on arbitration related pages, eg and this and contributions by user:Excellentedits. Dougweller (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked this account for harassment. (Referring to Excellentedits, not Dougweller!) I find as a fact that the edits are not, in fact, excellent, or even acceptable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I should have asked Antandrus first, he's explained it elsewhere. This is resolved. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Edgar Martins and user:A.montenegro

Previous report, which fizzled out with no action, here.

A.montenegro (talk · contribs) has been appearing every month or so to whitewash/textdump quotes on an article about photographer Edgar Martins. His additions fail NPOV, and attempts to explain this to him on the article talk page, his talk page and various edit summaries have not gotten through to him. The user does not engage in discussion in any form, and simply continues to revert the article to his preferred, non-neutral version: his first go was partially reverted and partially integrated, again, again, again, again. It looked like he might at least be trying with this shorter addition, but alas, he continues to whitewash and textdump with no response to messages. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have indef'ed the account, on the basis that their insertion of the same content against consensus and with no apparent desire to discuss the matter is disruptive. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I just went back to the article talk and found a tl;dr dump by the user from around the time I added this report here (oddly, its addition didn't then and continues to not show up on my watchlist, so I guess it's lucky I happened to go back to view the page later on?) stating that they have filed "official complaints" with Misplaced Pages about their/the article's treatment . Not sure if this makes any difference in anything, but it seemed like a good idea to add it to this report. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat

I have no experience whatsoever in this area; can uninvolved admins please have a look at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Mark Weisbrot and advise me if there's a problem there, and if so, how it is handled? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No, saying that an article is libelous is not a legal threat, no more than saying that an article is a copyright violation. Very many of your our (fixed, sorry) articles are libelous, copyright violations or otherwise violating applicable US law at any given time, unfortunately. It would be a legal threat if the editor said "It's libelous and I am going to sue you for it!" or words to that effect.  Sandstein  21:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, did you read the discussion? He was not saying the article was libelous; he was saying that my diff-backed statements about his edits "verged on libel". We're talking about him, not the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"Be aware of waht the law says" "OMFG you threatened me!" is the caricature version of how I read that conversation. Made into a ludicrous paraphrasing of how it ran, can you see the difference now? Blood Red Sandman 21:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't actually find your response clarifies at all. It appears that you also think he was talking about the article, rather than my diffs about his editing of the article, which are characterized as "verging on libel" of him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I tried. I often find using an extreme example a useful way of demonstrating a point, but I rarely try and make it work in the written form, so translating to text will be an issue. (edit conflict: it doesn't matter what he was referring to, the substance still stands, which is why I didn't mention that in my response) Blood Red Sandman 21:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Just using the word "libel" isn't really a legal threat, though I think it strays into WP:NPLT territory, as it could be construed as an attempt to scare the other editor. The word "libel" is a red flag for a lot of people, and is best avoided here. I've left a note for Rd232 in case he cares to comment. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's important for editors to be able to point that out. Perhaps "I have no intentions of action myself, but be careful because..." would be better, however. Blood Red Sandman 21:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No, libel should not be discussed in that way. It is a clear red flag, and the editor should strike the accusation. It has a chilling effect and is contrary to the goals of the project. Verbal chat 21:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The implied corner of the policy (as opposed to the clearcut threat) is one I am not familiar with, that I will openly admit. Surely, there must be a way of nicely saying 'be careful' without chilling? Otherwise, you leave someone to get into real trouble. We don't know that user's intent, but I certainly think dropping such a mention should be doable in some way. Has there ever been a discussion on how? Might be something for the village pump if not. Blood Red Sandman 21:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There isn't much at the harassment policy; accordingly, read it for myself :P. It isn't perfect, but I'll accept it will do. I still believe my proposed wording works under that, though. Blood Red Sandman 22:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

(after 3 ecs) I am reminded of why I don't enjoy coming to AN/I, but where else does one go with possible threats? Sandstein has completely misread the statement at BLPN, where Rd232 was saying that my characterization of his sourcing on the State Dept issue verged on libel. Can I at least get a response I can understand to the real issue? I haven't deciphered Sandman's response, and Sandstein missed it. Thanks, Verbal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Er, I'll re-read it, but since this is not a request for admin intervention, and so as not to duplicate the discussion, may I suggest somebody close this thread?  Sandstein  21:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No! Can you please not complicate the BLPN thread with the legal threat issue? The tendentious editing and reverting and edit warring issues there are relevant; why should that thread be complicated by a threat? Doesn't that belong here? Also, if this is not the correct place for intervention of possible legal threats, could someone please tell me where that would be? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's unclear, let's clarify here before closing. First, I understand Rd232 was talking about something you said about him, not talking about the article. Second, saying "I think that was libelous" is not a legal threat. He is not threatening to sue you. However, it can be a perceived legal threat, as described at Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Perceived legal threats. As it states there, repeated use of such language could lead to a block, but one-off's like this are, instead, met with requests to clarify the intent. Rd232 has done so, on his talk page. As long as it doesn't become a habit, it seems to have been resolved. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

All right, I think I'm clear now; thanks :) Was this the right place to raise the query? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, yes, if you weren't satisfied with his response to you on his talk page. Until we create the Legal threats noticeboard, anyway (please, God, let that be a redlink when I hit save...). --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Noting, for the record, that HalfShadow altered Floquenbeam's post above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, as it says in WP:NLT: "Legal threats should be reported to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or an administrator." Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 22:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks again everyone, good to close this thread whenever you want. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Per WP:NPLT, "It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats" - key word being reasonably. To quote my original comment in full:

It's pointless to pick out all the inaccuracies in that comment (an obvious one: I said "mostly written about Venezuela's economic policies" just up the page - how does that translate to "confined to"?), though the misrepresentation of the State Dept sourcing issue alluded to verges on libel. Anyhoo, for some reason there is an upswing in interest in Venezuela articles, and I certainly agree with Sandy more people being involved would be excellent.

Yes, I apologise for using the word libel; but in the context I do not think it overly reasonably to construe an actual threat. What's really not reasonable is to waste people's time with this at ANI after I'd clarified the lack of threat on both my user talk page and WP:BLPN. And to add insult to injury, Sandy at BLPN repeated the claim which prompted the remark, despite it not having any actual relevance to the BLPN thread in question. Frankly if I was looking at this as a third party, there'd be trout flying around. One for me, one for Sandy. Bon appetit. Rd232 22:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The apology is appreciated (although I can't say I agree with some of your other statements :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• There's a trout needed, but not for Sandy. UnitAnode 00:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible Admin Abuse

I was blocked by User:Materialscientist for 'abuse of editing privileges.' I politely contested my block on my user talk page, as I am allowed under the terms of the block, and the admin User:Beeblebrox not only extended my block, but he locked my talk page from editing. You can find out why I think my first block was unjustified on my talk page. I can see absolutely not justification for the extension of my block. My IP address is dynamic so luckily I can post again (I hope this isn't in violation of the rules). Anyway, my issue is with User:Beeblebrox and not User:Materialscientist, even though I found his original block to be unjustified. Thanks for any help! 209.235.156.28 (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, this is my user talk page! User talk:209.235.156.67. 209.235.156.28 (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have notified both users of this discussion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Time to close this. Not worth even worrying about. Funny, though. WP:PLAXICO, anybody? Avoiding a block will get you blocked for a longer period of time. Woogee (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This user is only here to disrupt, and has been removing whois templates from numerous talkpages and stalking another editor who adds them. No evidence of any intent to actually work on, you know, Misplaced Pages itself, just a "protestor." Beeblebrox (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha "Plaxico'd" I'm definitely going to start using that. Nefariousski (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like 209.235.128.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) has been used exclusively for this sort of nonsense, recently; rangeblocked for a month. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A possible editor for hire?

• Aldenmedia (talk · contribs). According to their Twitter page, Alden Media is a small web media company specializing in clean, simple web design with websites, social media profiles, and more. According to their website, Along with creating websites, we work with clients to integrate tools such as Twitter, Facebook, and Linked In, etc., into the website that is created, and create a more interactive experience for the people visiting the website. A possible editor for hire? Woogee (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't be the first. raseaC 00:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

-

Given that their first contribution is to create Down in the Valley (Retail Chain) which I personally would have tagged for deletion as advertising, perhaps so. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages tolerates lots of paid editors. Why should Aldenmedia be treated differently just because it's honest about it? I'm against paid editing in general but... I prefer honesty and sunlight, at least. If I have to deal with paid editors, better paid editors who are honest and straight forward rather than dealing with game playing and lots of whining about "outing" and "harrassment."Bali ultimate (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I also wonder if it's a single-editor account. Woogee (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually thinking it's a one man company - and if it designed this its a ----- web designer to boot.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed BLP violation. -- 32.174.160.76 (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you mind! I was referring to the company. It is by no means a BLP violation to offer the opinion that if the company designed that page it's not a very good design company - or not very good at HTML, which comes to the same thing in web design. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Is that relevant? If he had an awesome webpage would you allow the paid editing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.174.71.124 (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

One has nothing to do with the other. Woogee (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

IP editor - are you Aldenmedia? Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The IP sources to Florida, Alden Media is in Maine. Woogee (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Might be wintering-over in Florida. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Ok,Ok let's all just calm down and not make this a bigger deal than it has to be. I've blocked the account because regardless of whether they were being paid, their name represents an organization. So, let's just call it good and leave the accusations out of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Recreation of deleted article after block for same

User:Armynews has created Michael corleone hill and variants thereof over and over again, (see his talk page), despite repeated warnings leading up to a block this past January 1. Today he's back at it with Michael hill (army officer).  Glenfarclas  (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked again for a month. Next time should be indef - user makes no other contributions. If anyone feels this should go straight to indef, I would have no objection. JohnCD (talk) 12:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I've salted a few variations of the article name. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 20:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing edit war

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

There is an edit war ongoing at Messiah Foundation International. Both users have been advised of the fact that this is an edit war and the issue is persisting. Preferably at least protection would be applied to the page. It appears WP:3RR has been severely violated, as well. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 08:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: The users involved are Omirocksthisworld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 116.71.15.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Additionally, please note that I only randomly came across this article in my antivandalism efforts and don't have any major insight into what spawned the dispute, only that it is ongoing. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 08:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe this is more appropriate for WP:AN3 and WP:RPP CTJF83 chat 08:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)I posted to WP:RPP but given there's a little backlog there I posted it here in hopes of a faster resolution, since it was quite severe. Since it has seemed to calm down since the posting here, perhaps the thread can just be closed without further incident. I have no reason to believe action is necessary here if it's stopped, despite the fact that the users haven't yet responded here, as blocking is not punitive. For such reasons, I won't pursue reposting to WP:AN3. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 08:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please be noted I dont want wikipedia to read false information, that's why I have humbly requested to above to provide the 3rd party reference, which he/she is not providing. This is in accordance with wikipedia rules & regulations, your job which I am doing. The user is a lier and his all articles are pile of falsehood. Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.15.61 (talk) 08:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

IP please remain WP:Civil and don't attack the other user....I'm going to WP:AGF that this was removed by mistake. CTJF83 chat 08:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Messiah Foundation International, Younus AlGohar, Sufism, Imam Mehdi Gohar Shahi (until this page was recently protected), and The Representative of Gohar Shahi have, in the past couple of days, been constantly vandalized by numerous IP addresses which seem to be using the same edit summary for their edits. see the Younus AlGohar history, the MFI history,Sufism history,The Representative of Gohar Shahi history, and Imam Mehdi Gohar Shahi history. I have left comments on the IP user's talk pages regarding their edits, but mostly they responded by bizarrely re-pasting my comments to them or throwing random insults. both Messiah Foundation International and Younus AlGohar were protected previously due to similar vandalism. However, in Talk: Messiah Foundation International it was discussed what needed to be done to improve the article and soon after whatever constructive suggestions made by the users involved were taken into account and more information was added to the "Controversy" section of the article. On Talk: Younus AlGohar, I made a section whereby it could be discussed what issues the IP addresses had with the article, and I notified them on their talk pages. See User talk:116.71.15.61, User talk:119.160.19.13 and User talk:119.160.27.188. It seems possible that it is the changing IP address of one user, as they have identical edit summaries and edits. In addition it has been mentioned by editors previously disputing MFI's credibility on Talk:Messiah Foundation International that they are from Pakistan, where, apparently, IP addresses change frequently. The vandalism done by these users include adding tags even at places where there are already citations, adding NPOV tags (Claiming that their issue was that there were not enough references), and removing a whole section including references on Younus AlGohar. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 08:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC))

• If I may, I'd like to revert the articles back to their original forms before the IP user edited them, as right now both Younus AlGohar and Messiah Foundation International are littered with NPOV tags, numerous "citation needed" tags where there are already citations, and Younus AlGohar is missing the "Activities" section. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 08:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC))
• Here is the last reported incident regarding both articles, which was about 2 weeks ago. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 08:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC))
  • The above user is not providing 3rd party and reliable reference to support his articles but the user seems to be playing with wikipedia rules & regulation, he is not providing reliable references, you may check yourself that most of the references were their own websites. Please take necessary action. Thanks & Regards,

I have mentioned to the IP users the references I used here, though they seemed to disregard it. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC))

• • • The above user is trying to revert my edits. Please take action accordingly. Thanks & Regards

I feel that the best way to deal with this is to provide some sort of protection for the articles, as even though I try to explain why I am editing and why what the users are doing is considered vandalism, they simply revert my edits with strange explanations. see here, where the user has removed a whole section, and here. This is becoming frustrating, as this is happening more and more frequently in recent days. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 09:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC))

User:Markjeremy12

Please revoke User:Markjeremy12's ability to use his talk page. Said user is continuing to post spam despite being indeffed. Thanks. (Apologies if this isn't the correct forum.) MER-C 08:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Usually this would go to WP:RFPP, or possibly WP:AIV. NJA (t/c) 09:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

User:VirtualSteve

Admin User:VirtualSteve is helping the racist trouble maker and edit-warrior Inuit18 (talk · contribs) (new sockpuppet of banned User:Anoshirawan) who has violated his 1 revert-per-day but instead of blocking this sockpuppet, admin User:VirtualSteve blocked a totally new user (User:Abasin) without any warning. Abasin has stated that he's behind the Netherland IP. Vandal Inuit18 and admin VirtualSteve are now working to ban him just because he's Afghan. It is a good idea to remove adminship from VirtualSteve because he's abusing his admin power and helping one race over another in a dispute. He has been helping this vandal Inuit18 for a long time now., There is nothing wrong with people who are proud of their race but all racist people who attack others should be gathered and shot on site.

If you file request for W:SPI investigation I gurantee you that Inuit18 will be confirmed sockpuppet of banned users User:Anoshirawan or User:Šāhzādé, User:Germany2008, User:Draco of Utopia, User:Tajik, User:Beh-nam. Please look into this matter, thanks.--Tyrone Watkinson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.1.61 (talk • contribs)

VirtualSteve? The sysop that originally blocked Inuit18 indefinitely? Uh-huh... LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support the block of Abasin, and suggest to make it indefinite considering this obvious block evasion and the fact that this seems to be a trouble-only account. -- Atama頭 17:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. Nothing to see here, very suspicious that the anon has come here with full knowledge of SPI, but does not know how to sign their name nor login under an account. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 20:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

COI and BLP nightmare

A couple of weeks ago I discovered not one but thirty separate articles authored by Wolfang (talk · contribs) all of which were about Spanish language voice actors (one of which was himself, the rest are his coworkers). I decided to make a batch AFD concerning these, as they are all interrelated. This was met with "close, renom all individually" and then closed as non consensus because of the mixed signals.

After this closed, I decided that the better thing to do rather than open thirty new AFD nominations was to prod tag all of them. One of the thirty was deleted by Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) until Jafeluv (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) deprodded the other 29 and told me that because I made the first AFD, I would have to send them all to individual AFDs. I told him this was nonsense and all should be deleted (I decided against speedy deletion because they claimed notability but didn't support it). So, because of my actions and Jafeluv's there are going to be 29 more non-notable unreferenced BLPs sitting on the project for another five days after they've been sitting here for more than three years without any information added to them other than the subject spamming himself and his friends across the project. The following are the 29 AFDs.

Can something be done that does not allow these pages from remaining on the English language project any longer (none of them have pages at the Spanish Misplaced Pages and those that did have had those pages deleted for the same reasons they should be here).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Confirming that Ryulong's description of the situation is accurate. I'd also like to note that I don't think these are quite A7 candidates, and that the articles are not new but from 2007. A few of them have already been deleted for various reasons: , , , . Jafeluv (talk) 13:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that mass AfD was closed correctly - it probably should have been relisted. But the deletion process is that if WP:PROD fails, go to AfD, so it seems like that was the right thing to do, although also an annoying thing to have to do. Prodego 13:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

My AFD came first, and after that was closed, I went to PROD as the close was "no consensus". It is a waste of time to start 30 new AFDs.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If a general agreement can be arrived at that a group listing is the correct way to go (and the arguments here seem to suggest that this is so), can we simply reopen/relist the original group AfD and move on? If someone raises a specific objection (something with credible third-party sources, please!) for any single individual on the list, we can stipulate that that individual's article can be separately relisted for a new AfD. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I support that. Dougweller (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Group nominations are handicapped when it comes to chances of success, because inevitably someone will question whether one or more of the nominated subjects is notable, and it gets cumbersome and goes into irretrievable no consensus discussion. The AfDs seem the way to go, 7 more days isn't going to do any harm. Kudos to nominator for putting in the needed work.--Milowent (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

These should have just been speedy deleted. They're unreferenced resumes for non-notable people. A batch AFD would have been the second best chance. What exists now is just a bureaucratic joke that's almost beyond parody. I just had to manually cut and paste the same thing 30 times -- because the content i was dealing with in each case was identical.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me know when your parody is up.--Milowent (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Now I know this isn't the correct venue, but the matter is somewhat urgent and my post on WP:RFP is being ignored for some strange reason. User:Ragusino's IP and User:PIO (with both his ever-present and apparently invincible IP "incarnations") insist on editing the House of Bunić article and its talkpage. This article, previously deleted by Dougweller due to the constant edit-warring and its lack of relevance, has recently been recreated by the banned account User:Ragusino (via his sock, User:Mljet). Since then, it has been a constant focus of sock activity and a source of conflict.

To cut to the chase, the article and its talkpage desperately need semi-protection from IP socks. Alternatively it can be deleted as a sock-created article. Regards all --DIREKTOR 15:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection is Ok with me. Sir Floyd (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm completely fed-up with these "invincible" Italian nationalist socks that edit Wiki continuously for months and years regardless of their ban. A long-term semi-protection would probably be safest. Nobody needs another "Dalmatian edit-war". --DIREKTOR 15:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I hate edit-wars. Debona.michel's input on the article (just my humble thinking) is important from here onwards. Sir Floyd (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I've semiprotected House of Bunić. No objection to further deletion process. Admins can look at User:Ragusino's deleted contributions to see the past names he used for this article. A similar article was speedy deleted as an A7 by Dougweller on 17 December, 2008 at House of Bunić/Bona. This would be an almost-keepable article if the sources were good and were findable in libraries. Most likely the sources say that the family *existed* and won't have much substance about what the family members did. (Which could establish notability). EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

EdJohnston can I edited the page. Sir Floyd (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Incorrigible, repeat-offender vandal

User: 70.158.235.38 recently vandalized Briarcrest Christian School. I was initially going to give the user a level-2 warning, but after looking at his/her talk page and noticing that this user had engaged in vandalism many times over the past two-and-a-half years, I decided to make it a level-4 instead. Actually, I think indef-blocking might be warranted in this case, since this user has been blocked several times the past and nonetheless continued to vandalize. Not only that, but I noticed that the user has posted this "manifesto" on his/her talk page:

Nobody likes Misplaced Pages. You guys suck and i will make it my lifes mision to mess up your entire website!

Misplaced Pages supports gay people and abortion!

This user appears to have a personal mission to vandalize Misplaced Pages, which makes me think drastic action may be necessary to prevent further vandalism. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, IPs are rarely, if ever, blocked indefinitely. The IP has made one edit today, so there is no need to block right away. If they continue to vandalize, they can be reported to AIV. TNXMan 15:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) He has received a last warning; the next piece of vandalism will probably get him a long block. WP:AIV is the more appropriate venue, by the way. Ucucha 15:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

In addition, this user has been deleting warning templates off his/her talkpage (as can be seen in the linked edit), which means that the real number of incidents is likely far greater than just those shown on the talkpage. This user appears to have a personal mission to vandalize Misplaced Pages, which makes me think drastic action may be necessary to prevent further vandalism. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind, as an IP as opposed to a registered account, theres a good chance these edits are coming from a number of people. May not be a single nefarious individual. From the looks of the edits I'd guess that this is a school IP and we're seeing a number of bored students.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Geolocates to Kiln, Mississippi. It'll be Hancock High School. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless it's Brett Favre.  :) 67.51.38.51 (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Nothing but vandalism since previous 3 month block expired. Indeed, nothing but vandalsim ever, since August 2007. {{Schoolblock}}ed for 6 months. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1

Eyes on Mbz1 (talk · contribs · logs) this user, please. Either they retire, or they don't. I don't know what behind-the-scenes shit went on here, but between the suicide threat, the constant retiring, and the rant on the userpage full of personal attacks I keep deleting, this situation needs attention. Again. Tan | 39 15:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what retirement has to do with it; the template is not some binding promise to never edit again. Several respected users have happily slapped up retirement messages and continued editing. Second, the only attention required is a lack of it. Leave it alone and it will diffuse. Maedin\ 15:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is the quite obvious personal attacks on the userpage. "expect from a heartless, merciless robot?" And, apparently we are to provide therapy for this editor and let them rant, simply because they have provided quality pictures in the past? It's Giano-itis. and the situation did NOT diffuse; in fact, the user clearly states they are going to add to their list of reasons they don't like the project. Tan | 39 15:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It would have diffused, but for Jac16888's inflammatory response to Mbz's apology. Tanthalas39, if you're going to edit her talk page, would you please unprotect it too? -- Avenue (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Has this editor been problematic in the past, or is it just since they got checkusered due to Pickbothmanlol's creation of a sock named Mbz2? I would be very upset if Pickbothmanlol succeeds in his attempt to get someone blocked through no fault of their own. -- Soap /_{Contributions} 15:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

When I filed the SPI originally I made it clear that the primary objective was to, first and foremost, make sure that it was Mbz1 behind the two accounts I added and not Pickbothmanlol. I, for the most part, have apologized to Mbz1 for everything that happened, and the response I get is an indictment? —Jeremy 20:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Maedin here. I don't think that this situation needs attention at this point. Mbz1 is an excellent, long-term contributor to Misplaced Pages whose fantastic photography has greatly contributed to the quality of the encyclopedia. Sadly, she apparently decided to retire following a painful discussion at ANI yesterday. Even worse, it seems she was personally distressed by the events. I think that the shorter this thread is, the better for everyone involved. At the moment, nothing is happening. I think it is best to leave Mbz1's user page as it is, to avoid escalating the situation which, as Maedin says, will diffuse if left alone. Best, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, we allow personal attacks in certain situations. It's become extraordinarily clear that this is the de facto policy here on the project. We should probably change policy, since it's descriptive. Tan | 39 15:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The comment you've referred to twice now has been present on Jac's user talk since 9 o'clock last night and neither you, nor Jac himself, have bothered to remove it. If you're really not trying to inflame, you could have removed just the comments you found offensive. Maedin\ 16:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Now that's a fair statement. Tan | 39 16:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This user is claiming that they asked for their talk page to be deleted per RTV, they obviously haven't so their talk page needs to be restored. Sorry, I cannot see what possible justification there is for a bunch of back door discussions that result in allowing some user to be sheltered, their behaviour white washed, and then get to sit there and snipe at other users from their user page.--Crossmr (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting it justifies anything, but an invasive check user was run without good evidence, in a short period of time, because she was suspected of being a sleeper sock, while being ridiculed for her poor English (which, btw, is only poor when she's upset). Didn't anyone realise that she doesn't have an SUL account and could have logged into Commons to prove her identity? Shoot first and ask questions later? Maedin\ 16:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I think everyone needs to just leave this be. Digging at it won't help. The checkuser shouldn't have been run so quickly, but there has been a lot of overreaction. A lot of the comments are making the situation worse. Sometimes what is needed is a good dose of mellowness. I don't want to single anyone out unnecessarily, and there were other people that could have done better, but I found Jac16888's comments somewhat insensitive. ++Lar: t/c 17:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we might hurt their feelings. Better let the personal attacks stay. Tan | 39 17:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do you care so much? Just leave her be. How many people would have even noticed the "personal attacks" if you had not brought this up here? I think she is being overly emotional, but I can understand why she feels and reacts this way. Can you try to look at this as a human being and not just a Misplaced Pages admin? nableezy - 17:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a case where human decency, courtesy, compassion, and common sense far, far outweigh any putative blind allegiance to guidelines that themselves have within them the realization that there are times that said guidelines do not apply. This is not a recidivist sock puppeteer, a vandal, or a troll; this is a well-meaning contributor who has had a hard life, who is very sensitive, and who has more need of the courtesy and decency with which we should be treating everyone. Admins are expected to use their common sense and judgment; if all we wanted was blind obedience to guidelines, we could have Prodego and Werdna write a few admin-bots that read filters and we could dispense with all of the maintenance roles on wikipedia. I have dealt with Mbz for over a year now here and on the commons, and while she may need to be blocked/take a forced wikibreak for her own good, treating her like a common vandal is both incorrect and indicative of a lack of compassion. I am confident enough to say that of those people in wikipedia who are aware of my work (and I have been here since 2005) I would venture that 95%+ of them will confirm that I am a stickler to wikipedia policies and guidelines under all cases, almost Lawful Neutral, if you will, but this case is one where the SPIRIT of the wikipedia weltanschauung dominates the letter of any policy (which, I reiterate allows for deviations when deemed necessary), and I am doing so. If you would like to call this an IAR, fine, but I find it disheartening when I see people treating Misplaced Pages like a bad case of Nomic. Always remember: WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A GAME AND WIKIPEDIANS ARE NOT GAME PIECES There are real people with thoughts, emotions, and feelings behind the usernames. And when someone is not a vandal, not a sockpuppeteer, but a person with some issues, we should be working WITH them, not against them. If you have issues with my actions, I invite you to open an RfC or an RfAr, but I will continue doing my best to help the project and all of its members, as I still believe in the ideal of "Misplaced Pages: the encyclopedia", and not "Misplaced Pages: the role-playing game." -- Avi (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

What he said. People need to mellow out. If there are things Mbz1 has done that you think need fixing, ping me about it and I'll see what I can do, if you must but stop with the combativeness, please. Or I'll have to kick some butt. :) ++Lar: t/c 17:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

In reply to Avi, since apparently the red, bold, squared verbage applies to me. I can't begin to tell you how much I disagree with pretty much everything you said. This is how I read this conversation:

Tan: "No personal attacks allowed."

Everyone else: "Stop being a meanie. She's had a rough life, and you shouldn't care that they have personal attacks on their userpage. Stop treating this like a game. It's treating her like a common vandal to remove those personal attacks."

Now, of course I put words in your mouth there, but that's pretty much the gist of this thread. We are apparently allowing this user to attack other editors (whether or not said editor(s) cares or not is irrelevent), simply out of... compassion? I think too many of you are letting past history or off-wiki actions influence your decisions here. Again, it's Giano-itis - if an editor has done good work, NPA is NA. Tan | 39 18:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• @Tanthalas:
  1. Actually, it was not in response to you, see my talk page
  2. I deleted the rant on her user page; is there something else of hers that I missed?
  3. She apologized to all involved on my talk page, as I protected both her user page and user talk while I am trying to work with her off-wiki.
  4. She will not be allowed to attack other users, but, over the past 12-18 months, in EnWIki and the Commons, I have seen her respond, not instigate, for what it is worth.
  5. Even if I am dead wrong on all of this, someone has to take the initiative and act more maturely and beyond the strict letter of the law. I would hope that wikipedians in positions of trust (admins, etc.) would naturally be the ones from whom to expect more.
• So, I believe you are mistaken in your assessment, and if I remain unclear, please let me know what else I can do alleviate misunderstandings. -- Avi (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, out of curiosity, if the red verbage didn't apply to me, who was your target audience? Tan | 39 18:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said, please see my talk page, it should be obvious. -- Avi (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I specifically did not name the person/people, hoping that s/he/they would understand it on his/her/their own. This goes in concert with my opinion that we need more compassion, decency, and CONSTRUCTIVE criticism and less destructive criticism and more concern for rules than (non-troll/vandal) people. -- Avi (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, okay. I still see no obvious target for your post other than me, but I'll take your word for it. Tan | 39 18:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks, if such they are, should not be allowed to stand. But there are good ways to handle it, and bad ways. What's being called for here is more sensitivity and less abruptness. ++Lar: t/c 18:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, "they such were". There's absolutely no other way to interpret what was there; I see no need for your qualifier. As for the abruptness, I'll concede that point, and take that under advisement for future issues. Given this users history of invoking RTV and then wanting a page-long rant, complete with NPA, I saw no further need for coddling, but I could be mistaken. Tan | 39 18:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please give Avi the time and space to work this out. He is trying to be responsive to everyone's concerns and balance the needs and interests of everyone to the benefit of Misplaced Pages. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if someone is obviously having trouble please take it easy. Fred Talk 18:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. There are no personal attacks on their current revision, clearly the editor is going through anguish. Let's leave them be. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 20:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Complex hoax needs speedy removal

Andrew de Rothschild, Stefan de Rothschild, Rothschild Estates, James Mayer de Rothschild II and Nathaniel Mayer de Rothschild need speedy deleting as part of a mass hoax. User:Womblethereof should be blocked as an SPA hoaxer. I have spent some considerable time investigating this, there is a discussion on . I have email confirmation from Quinlan Private a company Rothschild Estates claims to have purchased confirming this is a definite hoax. Polargeo (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there some reason we should circumvent the already running AfD process? A hoax appears likely, but it isn't "obvious". --Smashville 15:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes an email from Quinlan Private to me

"<blanked private e-mail>"

Confirming that the claim on the website is bogus. Add in the fact that there is no trace of these supposed multimillionaire heirs anywhere. Polargeo (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Clear unambiguous massive hoax with potential in using the Rothschild name to defraud on a massive scale. Misplaced Pages should speedy clear this one up. Polargeo (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, that was totally inappropriate to post here. Tan | 39 15:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

My real name is Julian by the way :) Polargeo (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No it wasn't Tan Polargeo (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Some guys name, phone number, fax number, with a quite obvious suffix that you are not allowed to release it under GFDL? "...it may contain privileged and confidential information". Probably need an oversight on this one. Tan | 39 15:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, it was. I blanked it. What part of this didn't you read? "This email is intended for the named recipient only. It may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, notify the sender immediately and destroy this email. You must not copy, distribute or take action in reliance upon it." Besides that, e-mails are not released under GFDL and therefore cannot be posted here without express permission by the sender. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 15:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The disclaimer on the end of a private email is just standard. it is a public company I have full permission from Quinlan Private to sort this out so just becasue the disclaimer was there does not matter. I have permission to report that this is a hoax. Polargeo (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe so, but did you have permission to post the e-mail here in it's entirety (especially with phone numbers et cetera contained within)? Summarise its contents next time. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 16:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have emailed oversight to suppress that edit. You are wrong here, Polargeo. Tan | 39 15:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I emailed Oversight too. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 16:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I am right. Give me about 5 minutes and I will post complete confirmation from the emailer that I have full right to post that email. But rather than get into this craziness will someone do something about this. Polargeo (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Blank private information next time. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 16:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sort out the email, but could someone speedy those articles, or at least explain why not. We should not allow hoaxes like this to run for the full time of an AfD. Quantpole (talk)

Fully concur. As usual we are wasting time on percieved issues rather than dealing with the real problem. And please block the user while we are at it. Polargeo (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have informed the user who created these articles of this discussion, per the instructions at the top of this page. – ukexpat (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Great. The user should however be blocked immediately. Polargeo (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not as if User talk:Womblethereof is not already covered in warning tags about this issue with no response thus far. Polargeo (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Irrespective of that, it is common courtesy at the very least to inform a user when they are being discussed here and even more so when notification is required by the instructions on this page and in the edit notice. – ukexpat (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou for taking the trouble to inform the user. They have now been blocked and informed of this. Polargeo (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Anybody who thinks that the Rothschilds are WASPS needs an education. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, Arthur de Rothschild (with the specified dates, parents, and much of the ancillary information included in the deleted article) certainly existed: the hoax element of the article was giving him a wife and children when he had neither, as can be determined by consulting the standard work on the Rothschild genealogy, Le Sang des Rothschild, by Joseph Valynsele and Henri-Claude Mars, (L'Intermédiaire des Chercheurs et Curieux, 2003), p. 97. The footnote (#158, p. 161-2) contains enough information for a factual article to be written (including some interesting comments by Elisabeth de Gramont about his misanthropy), so this deletion should be taken without prejudice to its re-creation. - Nunh-huh 18:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It may have been a hoax in the manner of this fake company, which was used to defraud Sven Goran Eriksson. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/mining/6431534/SCH---the-biggest-company-youve-never-heard-of.html

But then it couldn't have been used on anyone more than the most vulnerable pensioners etc, since anyone with suspicions can contact one of the family's real banks. It's more likely the fictitious blogger "Stefan de Rothschild" made the fake websites to promote himself, no doubt partly so that he could produce citations for his biography on wikipedia. 86.26.0.25 (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

False accusation of canvassing and reverting during consensus discussion by User:Gavia immer and User:Tbsdy lives

• Moved here from WP:AN#False accusation of canvassing and reverting during consensus discussion by User:Gavia immer and User:Tbsdy lives. —DoRD (?) (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is an attempt by me to alert others to two distinct behaviors by the above editors:

1. False accusation of Canvassing
On my Talk Page, and on Talk:List of suicides, false accusations were made against me (by Gavia immer and Tbsdy, the second false accusation that Gavia immer has made against me regarding that article in a year.

I have refuted this accusation on Gavia's Talk Page by pointing out what the Canvasing policy really says, and how I have not engaged in any of the four behavior that that policy lists as criteria.

In addition, Gavia posted an extremely defamatory banner repeating this false accusation atop the List of suicides Talk Page discusssion. Rather than remove it outright, I moved it down to a separate section in case anyone else wants to discuss this accusation, separate from the discussion on sourcing for that article.

2. Reverting during a consensus discussion
Reverting disputed material during a consensus discussion is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy, and a blockable offense. Despite this, Gavia reverted the material in question, without providing an inline citation to it, the very point of dispute being discussed, instructing readers to Read the Talk Page, when that discussion is ongoing, and so far, most people seem to agree that that article needs its own inline citations. In the edit summary of another of his/her reversions, this time for Hatazo Adachi, s/he says "Read Adachi; referenced", when the entire point of the discussion is that references in a BLP article are insufficient, and must be added to any other article in which that material appears.

This behavior is completely unacceptable. The first set of behaviors violates WP:AGF and WP:ATTACK, and serves to potentially defame me in the eyes of many other editors (especially all those who might read that banner), while the second violates policies such as WP:CONSENSUS, and the collaborative spirit in which we are supposed to work together on issues such as this. Nightscream (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Most of this needs to stay on Talk:List of suicides rather than being shopped around in the hope that I will get in trouble for disagreeing with Nightscream, but as to the assertion that Nightscream has canvassed: look at his actual contributions, e.g., etc. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and just to be clear: This has nothing whatsoever to do with BLP. Every single person under discussion is deceased, that being rather the point. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Nightscream, may I respectfully suggest that, per WP:NPLT, you find a more appropriate term than "defamation"- using words that could be perceived as legal threats is not helpful, though I'm sure you didn't intend for your comment to sound that way. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 17:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Are the 'accusations' by Tbsdy this and this, or have I missed something? To me those look like friendly warnings that you might get in trouble with other users, and if you disagreed you could have just ignored them. Additionally, it seems pretty clear to me that Tbsdy was assuming good faith ("I suspect that you don't know about , so take this as a friendly caution"). Olaf Davis (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Goodness. I was just giving them a friendly caution. I'm not going to dignify this with any other comment. Very silly. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 19:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Without delving into the larger issue, I would just say that Gavia, for future reference, probably could have avoided this blowout by using {{notavote}} instead. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite possibly. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I was not implying, nor do I tend, to make a legal threat, so if you want to disregard to remove that term, go right ahead, with my approval. As for Tbsdy, he didn't say that I "might" be canvassing, he said that I did. In any event, if Gavia had a problem with my activities, he could've made an attempt at reserving judgment, and talking to me, rather than flying off the handle with false accusations, and plastering them all over a consensus discussion, where they do not belong. He could've kept that discussion on my Talk Page or here, but instead chose to use it to attack me, the second time he has employed a false accusation when I did something he disagreed with, as there is nothing in those three diffs he provided that shows canvassing. He is again ignoring the criteria that WP:CANVAS gives for canvassing, despite the fact that I showed him on his Talk Page that my messages did not meet them. ] posted on Talk:List of suicides to that my messages were neutral. Gavia simply ignores this, and repeats the charge, without refuting any of this, or even mentioning it. This, and the fact that he has reverted during a consensus discussion, (which you haven't addressed yet), suggests that he is engaging in WP:OWN-type behavior, and employs such tactics to force his personal style on the article (ironic, given that he is accusing me of favoring a certain "style", when what I favor is based on the policy). This behavior by him is deplorable, and needs to be addressed. Nightscream (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick AIV note

All the helperbots are down at AIV; anyone know who to contact? I think Chillum runs one, but I really have to go now and want to punt this to someone else. I've been working it pretty solidly for the last hour. The backlogged notice isn't going to go up until the bots revive, so a few extra eyes to delete reports of already blocked editors, stale or incorrect reports, etc. would be cool. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Assuming there aren't any objections to a non-admin helping out, I don't see a reason I can't keep an eye on it to help you out too; let the admins do the work that requires an admin. Popups is pretty good at identifying blocked users, so I see no reason this should take too much of my time. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

When the bots stop working it's almost always because someone has screwed with the header. Fixed. -- zzuuzz 18:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

D'oh. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

ANEW

There's a report pending at WP:ANEW but the edit war is continuing, could an administrator please close the report and determine what action needs to be taken. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 20:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• NPOV disputes