Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ncmvocalist (talk | contribs) at 08:11, 8 February 2009 (→Big Dunc, blocked: reply to deacon and gwh). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive POV-pushing

Lear 21 (talk · contribs) has been pushing for the inclusion of the European Union in the various "List of Countries by ____" articles for some time now. A wide discussion over a year ago (a discussion he participated in) resulted in a consensus that has held steady to the present. Recently, he has edit-warred on List of countries by population and List of countries and outlying territories by total area in contravention of seemingly apparent consensus against his position. He has also canvassed inappropriately (example) to gain support for his position on the latter article. Most recently, he has announced his intention to edit-war on a daily basis to ensure his position is upheld. He has also claimed that I and other editors are a cabal of chauvinist ideologues that is a threat to an encyclopedia...dedicated to inform{ing} humanity. This all smacks of someone on a crusade to "educate" the rest of us, and demonstrates a clear intention to disregard any consensus that disagrees with his own view. This type of disruption is damaging to the encyclopedia and a waste of all of our time. Is it perhaps time for a topic ban? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

To clarify further, I am not seeking to get Lear blocked for any of this; I'm sure he is a very helpful contributor in other areas. I think an editing restriction would be a much more effective means to rectify the situation. Parsecboy (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered an RfC on the subject? After one year, established consensus can change. Either way the RfC should either reaffirm the consensus or establish a new one.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we did have an RfC on the issue a couple of weeks ago, but there wasn't much of a concrete result (mainly due to lack of participation from uninvolved editors). Parsecboy (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I would support a topic ban (as a participant in the dispute), and I don't think a block is necessary. Consensus can change, certainly, but the point is more that Lear clearly doesn't intend to accept any consensus that doesn't go his way - he tells us to "be prepared that this boring discussion will go on every day for the next years" in one of Parsecboy's diffs - so RFC would be a bit useless.

I've found it difficult to AAGF in Lear since he told me I was here to spread hate and ignorance early last month, and the recent discussions (if they can be called that) rather reinforce that view. I, too, was reminded of WP:TRUTH when reading these posts - he uses the word "reality" instead, but the concept is the same. Pfainuk talk 00:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Strongly against blocking - Come on guys, discussions can get quite emotional and hot. For the vast majority of his statements in the long discussion of the EU's entry Lear21 always came up with very valid points. The whole discussion became quite fruitless because of a lack of new arguments and not because of uninvolved editors as stated above. So don't try to find some single incidents that may be caused by some frustration about the fruitless all-over-again discussions to cut him out here, as this would be censorship. - Additionally, I feel obliged to add that it was Pfainuk who opened up this Pandora's box by deleting the EU's entry and violating the standing comprise in the first place. This started the whole mess/discussion and therefore his view in this incident notice can hardly be seen as impartial. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 09:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll not get into the details of the content dispute here because it's beside the point - though I'll point out that the original edit did not delete the EU from the article (I moved it from one part of the article to another), and that the EU did not have an entry on the list before this discussion started. I will note that I did declare my interest in this at the very beginning of my message - and I note with interest that you, also an involved party, did not.

Discussions can become emotional, sure, that does not justify Lear's personal attacks, nor his apparent intent to force through a change by perpetually edit warring, nor his refusal to AGF (here he told another editor that his comments were "a joke and therefore inexistent"). I'm not arguing for a block, I'm arguing for a topic ban. I think that when an editor all but announces that he's going to continue to edit war against consensus for "years", he needs to stop editing on those articles or be stopped from editing those articles. You say the discussion has got quite emotional - maybe (though apparently only one one side). But that's not an excuse to edit war until you get your way. Pfainuk talk 10:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Any block or topic ban should be based on the real facts. So, he announced he could go to edit war ... so what? Did he actually do it? When did he violate the WP:3RR? ... I think that in both our countries we wouldn't get convicted only on basis of announcing a misdoing - why should we act differently on Misplaced Pages? Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The point is this: Lear has canvassed in violation of WP:CANVASS. He has attacked other editors. And he has edited in direct contravention of apparent consensus on the talk page; that is disruptive editing in my book. Parsecboy (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that partially goes for Pfainuk as well, as he has pushed for the removal of the EU's entry from the initial section of the article, in direct violation of the established consensus without creating a new consensus on the talk page first. That's disruptive editing by the same standards. Consensus can change, nobody is saying anything different, but there was no new consensus in the first place. - Having said that, if Lear21 should be topic banned, so should Pfainuk ... and I'm nominating myself as well, as I'm not completely sure that I acted without flaws in all my past edits. - Otherwise, we all could just cool down and forget this whole nonsense. Really. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I boldly moved the EU from above the list to below it. When I was reverted, I took it to talk. That's actually endorsed by guidelines, not condemned. Pfainuk talk 14:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No, no one is perfect, but that doesn't give Lear an excuse to be disruptive. I think all of us—save Lear—could quite easily drop the issue and leave it as it is. That is exactly the problem; Lear has indicated that he will accept no outcome other than his own version. That unwillingness to compromise is totally unacceptable. Parsecboy (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

User Lear 21 has tried to uphold an article´s version which has been thoroughly discussed over several years including many editors and ended in a stable compromise version which lasted for more than year. User:Parsecboy and others have been involved in these previous discussions and now deny to stick to the compromise version. In this light user Lear 21 has come forward with a new proposal citing several external expert sources. As these credible sources (among them the CIA World Factbook) are constantly denied user Lear 21 took the freedom to insist on the acceptance of these sources. User Lear 21 has given credit to one of the basic principles of Misplaced Pages while conducting an argumentation based on multiple facts and high-profiled references. Lear 21 (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, Lear has mischaracterized my position in regards to the article; my only comments have been in support of maintaining the long-standing consensus version and towards attempts to keep the discussion on track and within policies (i.e., no edit-warring, canvassing issues, etc.). As far as I know, Polaron is the only other editor (with Lear and me) who participated in the old discussions, and he too (I believe) favors retaining the old-consensus version.

None of that really has any bearing on this discussion though. We are talking about the disruptive actions Lear has been doing over the past weeks. He has posted biased notices on the talk pages of those he believes will support him in an attempt to votestack (example diff provided above), he has edit-warred with other editors, and has more or less announced his intention to continue to edit-war. He has also attacked other editors who disagree with him. In my opinion, Lear 21 clearly needs to stop editing in an area that he has obviously made a personal issue; if he will not agree to do that of his own volition, then we need to make that decision for him. Parsecboy (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

User Lear 21 insists to either recognize external expert sources and the methodology of more than 20 sister Wiki languages OR to stick to longterm stable version which was backed by more than 10 editors over the last 3 years. User Lear 21 has not announced to start an edit war ! Quote "This will be a very long boring discussion in the next month, I promise." Instead user Parsecboy (initiator of this notice) and user Polaron have not intervened the breaching of a longstanding compromise version although both have been part of it a year ago. User Parsecboy is only willing to give incorrect and biased summaries of the discussions in order to get rid of an unwanted participant but established Misplaced Pages editor Lear 21. I have no doubt that this behaviour stands in a stark contradiction with guidelines issued for administrators. Lear 21 (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

We do not follow what other Wikis do, we are our own project; what fr.wiki or de.wiki do is totally irrelevant. Moreover, this discussion here is not over any content; it's about your poor behavior on both the articles and their talk pages.

As for whether or not you literally said you intended to edit war, "I will be a frequent editor at this list from now on to ensure that credible sources are acknowledged. On a daily basis." seems to be pretty clear in its meaning to me. I have made 1 edit each to both of the articles in question; I have no intention of fueling any edit-warring by adding to the reverts. Note this edit summary, where I chastised both edit-warring parties to stop reverting each other. Where exactly have I made incorrect or biased summaries? You have canvassed in violation of WP:CANVASS, attacked other editors, and edited in a disruptive manner. That you have not refuted any of these is telling. Parsecboy (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Strongly against blocking too

It's sort of intellectual dishonesty to quote people out of context. If interested, people can judge by themselve how does Lear can progressively come to such behavior. I can witness that the communication with two wikipedians on this article, namely BritishWatcher and Pfainuk, appear to be impossible as long as we don't follow their POV. They seem to fail to understand the aim of making medium proposals when there is strong POV dispute, they seem to fail aswell to understand that their POV are not worth more than others, they are infringing the 2nd pillar of WP and yet reminding others about WP rules.

For what I have seen, they are pushing -consciously or not- to avoid reaching a consensus that could not satisfy them at least at 90%. That's not called trying to reach a medium equilibrium between parties, and that's not an encyclopaedian spirit, a WP spirit even less.

So, when facing such behavior, when you keep explaining that 1+1=2 and you keep being answered that 1+1=3 for more than a month, I can understand that people can lose patience. Some here judge that Lear has been disruptive, he's probably not perfect in his behavior, but maybe those who launch such accusations should take a look in the mirror too and get a perspective.

I personally stopped fighting this, as such closed and rigid mind is out of my understanding. I'm trying my best to assume good faith and accept something that please everyone, but I have to admit that in the present case, it's hard. Rules, conservatism and own POV should never overlay common sense, wide view, flexibility, honesty, self-questioning, logic and deductive mind.

I, too, could ask for something that suit me better, but I'm trying not to overweight my requests to allow different POV to be displayed, as I'm constantly trying to follow the spirit of Voltaire ("I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"), but I have limits, like everyone else, including Lear. Orravan (talk) 07:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering if you're reading the same discussions I am. Barely a week into the current discussion, Lear was already attacking Britishwatcher and Pfainuk: I congratulate BritishWatcher and Pfainuk being a stereotypical, aggressive anti-European deletionists at Misplaced Pages like many others before, be proud of it. But please spare your hate and ignorance for the tabloid sections in your country without spreading it here in an encyclopedia. Nothing taken out of context; two whole sentences, linked to the post he made. Note that it was the second post he made to the discussion. This does not seem like someone who has tried for weeks to circumvent WP:ICANTHEARYOU type behavior, and finally losing patience. Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Barely a week into the discussion, it seems that Lear was also facing anew a behavior he fought several times in the past. There is something else Lear wrote, just above the part you've chosen to paste, which help to put the quote into perspective : "Since my first edits about these issues the only editors who constantly delete, diminish and vandalize EU related content come from one country, the UK. I have met or read about more than 50 of them during the last 3 years. These editors display almost no EU related knowledge and still feel being able to judge the issues."

It's indeed a personnal POV and we agree that it definitely does not allow someone to be rude. Now for my opinion : I don't consider him to have been rude, just being tired of what could be considered as vandalism in others situations, tired of what he saw several times and saw once again when Pfainuk and BW started to argue exactly the way 50 persons did before, with the same flaws and yet the same extreme self-confidence. Early into the discussion, I felt really uncomfortable myself about the way they were eluding some basic rationales and facts, like if they wanted to prove that their POV were better or something, while WP is about neutral knowledge, and not partisan choices. There can't be consensus nor agreement without fair equilibrium. Orravan (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That's missing the whole point of this issue. "Being tired" is not an excuse to attack other editors, nor is it an excuse to votestack, or edit-war. Lear is just as guilty of ignoring basic rationales and facts as anyone else; "being tired" doesn't give him a free pass to behave as he wishes. I've also been involved with these issues for quite some time. I too could say I'm tired of the whole debate; why don't I just delete the article and indef-block all the involved users, and save us the trouble? According to your line of reasoning, I too would be entirely justified to do whatever I want. My point is this: we have limits on behavior for a very good reason. If we choose to ignore them because a user is "tired of the same arguments", then what good are the rules in the first place? Parsecboy (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Lear could have been way softer, but for what I've seen, he have not been insulting or agressive at all, just tired and blasé.

Now to make it clear, no one said tiredness is an excuse, I'm just telling you : put things into perspective, in-context, to fully understand it before judging. Is the one speaking out loud guilty when pushed repetively by someone more disruptive but silent ? So I can keep insulting someone for days until he punch me, he's gonna be 100% the one pointed out ?

Also, if someone keeps erasing the data of an article, and I keep reintroducing it, would it be edit-war stricto sensu (aka : POV conflict), or protection from vandalism ? Pure POV issue here.

You can be highly disruptive without giving it the stance, I don't even argue that they have been on purpose, I think they are of good faith, just being overconfident about their POV, misunderstanding about the need for neutral point of view and fearing to see their POV overlaid by another one. It has not been the case here, as the aim is to reach an equilibrium between every POV. It can't be done when someone keep seeing your POV not worthy to be displayed along with his and reject POV he disagree with.

So, why is Lear blamed here ? Because he stated an opinion he made over his experience and expressed that BW and Pfainuk were acting the same way dozen of people did before ? To say it again : definitely Lear could have been softer, but for what I've seen, he have not been insulting or agressive at all, just tired and blasé. That was the substance of my previous post.

Also, you say that he reacted vigorously already in his 2nd post, but I started arguing with them myself one month and a half ago, do you think Lear unable to read what have already been wrote, compare to what he saw repetively in the past, and make a statement over it ? That's why it's important to me to look at the whole issue, to put things into perspective, to avoid being blinded by visible events only.

Once again, what I've seen definitely lacks tact, indeed, but is not at all over limit, especially when you look carefully at the dispute as a whole.

Now to make it clear, I'll be slightly off-topic to make a quick reminder to understand the dispute. Here's what WP says about the EU sui generis specificity : "In political science, the unparalleled development of the European Union as compared to other international organizations has led to its designation as a sui generis geopolitical entity. There has been widespread debate over the legal nature of the EU given its mixture of intergovernmental and supranational elements, with the organisation thus possessing some characteristics common to confederal and federal entities." (from Sui generis article).

Arguing that the status of the EU is not clear and fixed —both de jure and de facto— is not a POV, it's a FACT, and that's why the dispute is and will be endless as long as someone think to hold the Thruth. The dispute is now about whether the EU should be above or under the list, which is childish and a loss of time, and endless aswell.

I came with a proposal already applied elsewhere on WP and almost everywhere out of it : including it unranked in the lists. If you've carefully read me until now, you easily understand how it's a compromise as it reflects a reality, a fact. Should you be a pro or anti EU, nobody cares, as the purpose of WP is to provide knowledge, and as far as I've seen, it seems that Lear had been the one willing to accept compromise and sticking to facts (as I try to do myself). Orravan (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

As for a precision, I care no more about how things will change (or not) on said article, I don't want to fight more for it, I let people do as they want. But I don't like when people are judged in an indiscriminate manner as Lear is in the present case. And by the way, I write a lot and I may do some mistakes, please accept my apologies if there is some misunderstanding, as I'm not a native english speaker. :-) Orravan (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

To be blunt, Lear called other editors (among other things) "chauvinist ideologues"; that surely doesn't pass WP:NPA. I disagree with your assessment that Pfainuk or BritishWatcher have been silently disrupting the article any more than Lear has. In my view, a more correct assessment would probably be Pfainuk/BW and Lear shouting past each other, to no avail. The crucial difference is that Pfainuk and BW have not resorted to name-called or votestacking to "win" the debate. It's a bit disingenuous to frame the dispute (which is 100% a content dispute) as vandalism and reversion of that vandalism. If Pfainuk and BW were editing from an anti-EU POV (whether consciously or unconsciously), as you assert, then wouldn't they be attempting to remove the EU from the article completely? They have both said that they want the entry in the bottom, in the footnotes to the table (regardless of POV, this could be viewed as a logical solution. Footnotes are used all the time to include information, say in a book, that doesn't necessarily belong in the text, but is relevant to modify/clarify information). I agree with you 100% that the current dispute, whether the EU should be above or below the list, is a waste of time (and hence I have not commented on either proposal). Regardless of any of this, Lear has apologized, and pledged to refrain from personal attacks. I think this is enough. Parsecboy (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

If any user had the impression of being personally attacked by my edits I´m sorry. I apologize for it. I will return to fact based argumentation, citing references and providing logic reasoning in the future only. The initial complain of this notice, the disruptive POV-pushing, has to be rejected by all terms though. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Lear, thank you. I was hoping that this would be a sort of "shock" to get you to examine the comments you've made a little more closely. If you agree to restrain your behavior in congruence with policy, then I think that's a suitable resolution to this issue. Parsecboy (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Handing off

LirazSiri (talk · contribs) is, by admission, the co-founder of a software project, TurnKey Linux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The article Liraz wrote on this project was deleted as promotion (WP:CSD#G11). It was reposted, again by Liraz, with the addition of a couple of trivial non-independent sources (the Ubuntu community wiki newsletter). This has now been to WP:DRV, my talk page and WP:VPP. Liraz is convinced the deletion means we are an evil deletionist cabal. Liraz also believes that my statement that continuing to argue the toss over content you write about your own projects can lead to blocking, amounts to "suppression". Rfwoolf (talk · contribs), who has a long-standing grudge against me personally, chose to try to "help", and in the end Liraz appears to be interpreting everything xe doesn't want to hear according to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and to interpret everything which is even slightly pleasant as support for the crusade to have the article. Liraz' judgment that the original deleting admin was an abusive bully has now been transferred to me and amplified, and I am now "suppressive" a "bully" and "censoring" stuff. So I am walking away. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It reads like an advertisement, and the belligerence displayed by its author is typical of self-promoters. Baseball Bugs 13:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Strongly agree. Guy has been, in my view, reasonable in his dealings with LirazSiri, who apparently feels that there have been personal attacks and harassment occurring, none of which I've been able to spot in their dealings. Rfwoolf has a long and problematic history with Guy, was not involved in the discussion, and then threw an attack in out of nowhere. There is also a lengthy discussion on the Policy pump that is horribly misplaced as it's turned into an argument over the admin activities. While the deletion may have been a borderline decision at the start (I may have AFD'd the article, for example, while others would speedy it), the entire situation is now spiralling into a brawl. Definitely needs more eyes (besides mine, as I'm a cranky bastard with too many deadlines this week and next and the block button is getting bigger and shining red as I go along). Tony Fox (arf!) 17:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with both of you... but... assuming the best, this seems to me to be an editor who wishes to create an article about a product that (IMHO) is notable enough to deserve an article (the article's subject isn't "just another Linux distribution", as I first thought, and seems to have at least one quite innovative feature). The editor, as a newbie, failed to establish notability and ran up against WP:COI. Their close relationship with the article's subject made them defensive, and that in turn led to problems working with other edtors and admins. Despite my previous belief (struck-thru', below) that we could possibly mark this as resolve, I believe the editor is still railing against other editors (a situation that is, to some degree, being encouraged). In particular the editor is reluctant to create the article in userspace. Would it be possible for an admin to (a) offer some degree of protection to the editor's userspace, and (b) possibly offer mentoring (the mentoring wouldn't necessarily need to come from an admin; I'd be prepared to mentor, for example). I think some degree of strong message to the editor is necessary, but not one that closes all doors. As I said back-a-ways I do believe that this subject is notable, and that a decent article could emerge. Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 10:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Per this edit it sounds like the editor is stepping back too. Various editors have left advice should LirazSiri (talk · contribs) choose to re-create the article. Mark this as resolved?

Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 17:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Striking; I'm not convinced that the editor has stepped back. This flag once was red_deeds 10:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know what you mean by railing against other editors, but I feel your original assessment on stepping back from the article is true. Perhaps if I truly had something to gain personally by continuing to pursue this I would be more motivated to continue fighting for the article's inclusions and the basis for its notability but I've discovered an ugly side of Misplaced Pages that has discouraged me from further engaging myself in this dispute. I created the article in the image of the other articles on Ubuntu derivatives covered in Misplaced Pages. In this form it existed for months without any objections being raised. Sure there was room for improvement, there always is. Perhaps as you mention the article didn't emphasize the notable aspects of the project it described sufficiently. I would have welcomed friendly collaboration with other editors to improve the article (or any feedback really). Unfortunately, instead of a peaceful discussion that would have perhaps led to the necessary improvements, I suddenly found myself thrust into a battlefield, with much of the fire directed against me personally. Naturally I got defensive. I didn't sign up for all this drama and though I find Misplaced Pages's community and culture fascinating I really do have better things to do with my time than fend off these attacks. Now that I know how quickly things can turn into a battlefield just as soon as you attract the wrong kind of attention, I'll come back only after I believe my position is strong enough to convince even the likes of Guy, other die-hard deletionists and the blue wall of allies that would otherwise gang up on me and accuse me of having bad faith, abusing Misplaced Pages by advertising "yet another non-notable Ubuntu fork" on Misplaced Pages (in order to promote myself of course), while acting in conflict of interest. I don't know why they singled TurnKey Linux out as it is more notable than any of the other unofficial Ubuntu derivatives that have articles. I have my suspicions. It's a free software project that is giving away software appliances that other proprietary vendors are charging a hefty ransom for. I can't prove anything though, and there's the old adage that you should never attribute to malice what can attributed to simple incompetence. It doesn't matter though. An article on Misplaced Pages matters little in the grand scheme of things. LirazSiri (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(Small aside: by "railing against other editors" I meant, in part, the section on your talk page titled "Attempted censorship of critical speech on this talk page". Note that I am not taking sides here; I'm not saying you're right/wrong and Guy's wrong/right or whatever. I'm just noting that this suggests that the matter at hand can't simply be marked as "resolved". Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 14:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

Wouldn't it be helpful if an outside person had a sit down with Rfwoolf about his/her "help"? AnyPerson (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"Help" indeed. This minor skirmish reminds me of the battle royale that occurred last summer over someone else's pet computer language, something called MKR. Baseball Bugs 01:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Not being an admin I don't have access to the delete logs (or I do and I'm too stupid to know it), but what was the reason given for deleting the userspace article? And what does this say about using userspace to clean-up articles? If we can't collect our thoughts and improve an article we're just supposed to get it perfect the first shot out of the box? That doesn't seem right. Padillah (talk) 12:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Refusal to comply with WP:SIG

I'm not sure how to deal with this, because blocking seems to be rather extreme, but it's frustrating dealing with an editor who refuses to comply with a behavioral guideline. User talk:Ottre (userpage is a redlink) has customized his signature to eliminate any links (to his userpage, his user talk page, or even his special:contributions page). I first contacted him on January 21st on his userpage (diff) asking him to change his signature to conform to WP:SIG. He never responded to me, but when it was raised on another talk page, he dismissed it, stating that he "didn't abide by policy on linking signatures". (diff) Meanwhile, when he left another comment on a talkpage that is on my watchlist, and I followed up on my original message, he responded on my talk page "I saw your first message. I am not fixing my signature, as it encourages contact with editors who follow WP:V—contact I would rather avoid." (which was left with only a timestamp, no user name whatsover).(diff) Does anyone have a suggestion on how to resolve this situation? Horologium (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ignore it for goodness' sake. Bishonen | talk 22:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC).

↑What Bish said. Is there really nothing worse going on to worry about? – iridescent 22:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll ignore behavioral guidelines. Should I ignore all of them, or only certain ones? Horologium (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Just the ones that, when ignored, don't actually harm the project. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Only certain ones. Knowing which ones to ignore is part of the IAR final exam. --barneca (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I *did* say that I tended to be more EGOUR than rouge. I've invoked IAR only twice since confirmation, although I have been tempted on a few more occasions. However, it's a bit frustrating to have to pull up the talk page history to leave a message with a user who doesn't have his sig linked, which is what originally prompted me to address the issue. The page in question (the one on my watchlist) is under article probation, so it's a little more than just rule-wankery or nannyism. Horologium (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought that it was going to be something stupid like a excessively bolded names, but I would say a sig with no identification is bordering on disruption, and pointy disruption at that, considering he apparently wants to "avoid" those who follow policy. There's no reason to invoke IAR for this; it's not improving the wiki; I say we give him the chance to fix it or block. Simple as that. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly inconsiderate. If he didn't sign his name at all, I'd be more inclined to make a big deal of it. But if the signature includes his unlinked username (I believe User:Doku does something similar), you don't need to go into the history, it's just the extra effort of cutting and pasting. That's not really a sig with no identification. I suggest just muttering under your breath about his lack of consideration for other people, and leave it at that. Now, if he's being disruptive in other ways, this would be one more log on the bonfire. But I wouldn't act on that issue alone, if there was nothing else. also, I don't understand why he's worried about editors who follow WP:Verifiability? :) --barneca (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It's User:Docu who used to do that (and still does: ); and similarly drew complaints. Baseball Bugs 00:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Echoing EVula, while having a non-WP:SIG compliant signature is annoying, annoying ≠ disruption. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I've made thousands of edits without any major problems so far. Is it a wank that I think WP:V is a trademark, which should be replaced by freely-created American, Australian, British, Canadian and South African versions of WP:RS? I know thousands of editors share this view, and do things like deliberately red-linking to their (deleted) userpages, so it can't be that disruptive. 23:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottre (talk • contribs)

(as an addon to my previous post) That said (for whatever reason my browser didn't want more text, sorry to split this) do you have examples of no-name signatures in article talk? That's where it's disruptive, and while it's still acting like a jackass to not link your username if he's at least making it clear it's him there's not as much of an issue. (ec twice) ...And the above is exactly what I'm talking about. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with David Fuchs. Ottre is aware of this is causing discomfort for others. If he is unwilling to be a collegial member of our community by following simple norms about signatures, he should choose an alternate hobby. If he doesn't fix the signature promptly, a short initial block would be in order. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Just ignore me then! I have never made a completely anonymous post to a talk page, and indeed have signed ~100 IP contribs—particularly at AFD. Not linking to my history on WP is a core part of my editing philosophy; do you refuse to consider the idea that if people can confirm a user has added unsourced information in the past with a single click, they tend to delete, when they otherwise would have considered researching the addition? I do, and am actively in sourcing information by adding page refs, and checking the print edition of newspaper refs used in WP:ACOF articles. 23:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottre (talk • contribs)

So, I genuinely prefer WP:RS to WP:V. Could you tell me why not having a linked sig is a protest against WP:V? I'm really confused. Skinwalker (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I too am really confused. Some of the posts above have no signature at all. I do not know how I can follow this thread when I don't know who is posting the message. It becomes impossible.SteelSkin (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll watchlist both your talk pages now. I'd also like to submit this case be closed, as I always sign with my unlinked name (except in this case, to prove the conversation can easily be followed with just a timestamp and identifier) and this practice per se can hardly be considered disruption. Likely just an intolerant administrator, rejects the concept of generationalism (my name for the above, editing philosophy). Ottre 00:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but what does this have to do with verifiability vs. reliable sources? Does not having a linked signature somehow abrogate WP:V? I'm not an admin, and therefore can't block you, but I'm genuinely curious about your stance. Skinwalker (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is not the place to discuss how (incredibly) well it works. Ottre 00:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Warn & block. There are good reasons for linked sigs, and I'm unconvinced by reasons to the contrary. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Warn and then nuke. The attitude to ignore is ridulous and a reason for alot of drama. Should we ignore until there is a certain threshold of disruption and drama? Is or is this not against policy/guidelines? If it isn't then I apologize but I would be more than annoyed if I was interacting with this user with his present signature. --Tom 00:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I would support a final warning, followed by a block if there is no improvement. EdJohnston (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Really? And what , Tom, does "policy/guidelines" stand for—why do you call it that? Do you think WP:SIG is "almost policy", or "policy on a bad day"? It's in fact an editorial guideline Do we really need to display our ZOMG Great Adminz Powerz at every opportunity, like the peacock displays its tail? I'm sure very few people *want* to sign like Ottre does, and out of those that do want to, peer pressure will stop most of them putting it into practice. That leaves a miniscule minority who will actually do it. It's a bagatelle. But contrariness might turn it into a Movement, if somebody here insists on making a big deal of it. Please mellow out. Contrariness ≠ disruption. Bishonen | talk 00:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC).

I think the only one who needs to mellow out here is you, Bish. We agree on a low-drama solution to possible and past POINTy disruption, that's done with. Ottre and you want to turn this into something more. Bringing this back in hand, Ottre, I think you should consider yourself warned. Please sign with at least your username, linked or no. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 00:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Bishonen, I was trying to say that if this user is not breaking any policy or guideline, then I apologize and that user can carry on, but I would find it annoying, thats all. Also what does ZOMG stand for since i see it alot. I know after its explained I'll have know that. Anyways, no biggie, cheers, --Tom 00:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As explained here and also with somewhat less clarity in wiktionary, OMG is "Oh My God" and the "z" or "Z" in front of it has no particular meaning except emphasis. Baseball Bugs 00:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting to note that "All Gods Forfend" is the most common equivalent amongst pagans. Anyway... Ottre 00:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You entered the discussion without even clicking on WP:SIG first? Wow. I mean, I see. ZOMG means Oh My God, with a Z in front of it for extra internetspeakiness. :-) Bishonen | talk 00:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC).

I did read it, but missed the part about it being "behavioual" vs a "guideline" which is different from a "policy"?? My freaking head is going to explode :) Even with the user name, without it being link does make it more effort to contact a user. For the 3rd time, if this user is within policy or guidelines or whatever, then its my problem not his.OMG :) --Tom 01:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If you haven't been following, please don't use words like "effort". My talk page can be accessed via PageUp > History > Ottre:Talk. This is a matter (I hope) of whether or not it is acceptable for an experienced editor to flaunt established but minor editing practices. Ottre 01:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I really don't want to waste your time. That past POINT was made for a very constructive reason, unlike the "policy-wise" admins who are calling for a block if there is "no improvement" (Come on! Of course I am going to agree with consensus), and I only had to sign three times without any username at all. Ottre 00:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• For the love of , you're not required to have an account, you're not required to sign your edits, you're not required to link to anything in your sign - it's a polite suggestion, and shrugging it offer carries the penalty of getting nasty looks and naught more.
  • You're not required to respect other Wikipedians. You're not required to assume good faith. You're not required to use common sense. You're not required to say anything useful. You're not required to talk about Fight Club. Er.. wait. Ignore the last one. I hope you get what I mean, tho. :) --Conti|✉ 14:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• WOW! what an utterly ridiculous complaint this is. Some admins really have too much time on their hands. RMHED. 00:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Cheap. On a collaborative project the ability to communicate clearly is rather importance. Making authorship of talk page comments easy to identify is kinda an important part of this.Geni 01:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Or, they could just edit as an IP, or register a new account for every edit. Then they'd be perfectly in line with policy and even less traceable. WilyD 01:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I might add that my words above, where I said this whole discussion is about a "minor editing practice", aren't meant to suggest it is unimportant. It's minor/trivial because by this stage in the project, there are probably millions of edits where people have logged out to contribute something to an article. Ottre 01:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Then log out and edit as an IP so no one will bother with you, or else continue with your unlinked sig; however, WP:SIG as guideline or essay or no, leaving only a timestamp is disruptive; if you continue to do so, you may be blocked. That's all that needs to be said. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this an encyclopedia, or a social experiment by one member to see how much annoying behavior can be withstood by other project members? The only convincing argument s/he has made so far is that s/he does it so other project members will have a more difficult time verifiying if s/he is making constructive edits. The ability to do this is what protects the integrity of the project. I'm all for personal privacy rights, but their rights end where the rest of societies rights begin. Deliberately annoying behavior for it's own sake is disruptive.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What is going on here? Ignore this guy. There is no reason to ban/block/lose someone over something so amazingly trivial as a signature. there is a name and a timestamp. IF we are honestly considering blocking this person for that and only that, i'm...well I'm not even sure that I recognize this place. Protonk (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Come on, it says right at the very top that there can be exceptions. This. Is. Not. Blockable. SarekOfVulcan, 03:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• No name signatures are little different than IP signatures; there's no return address likely to connect with the sender so the conversation must be of little import. Although I shouldn't be by now, I am surprised how much angst such a minor thing that doesn't affect anyone gets some people - go on, edit something by now... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:SIG clearly states that a signature must link to the user page. This is to provide easy communication amongst users. Some think that communication is a minor thing, but I think it is vitally important. My suggestion to Ottre is to put the link back into your signature and sign your posts properly to avoid angst among other users, and to end the fuss. Do it now, then we can all go home.SteelSkin (talk) 04:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, what's with all the sigs that include names but no links all of a sudden? Is this in response to this? rootology (C)(T) 05:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably. Always listen to Bish. This could have been over at post number two. I really dont see why people want so much unneeded drama. -M 10:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably because the first thing we tell anyone who's in a dispute is to discuss it with the other editor. How's that possible if there's no link in the sig?

I know, we can all figure out where to leave messages, but we've been here a while. New editors wouldn't have any idea from looking at a talk page how to contact him, and aren't those the editors we're supposed to be welcoming?

It might or might not be strictly against policy, but it's certainly an arrogant statement, one that says "if you don't already know how to contact me, you shouldn't be doing so anyway." Dayewalker (talk) 10:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That is a bit WP:ABFish, but on the other hand it does look as if the user is being a bit pointy. This is not the first time it's happened (e.g. Docu) and there is a reasonable degree of consensus that linking in the sig is something one should do, but no consensus to make failure to do so a hanging offence. If it's a protest, then that probably violates WP:POINT. It does confuse n00bs, and annoys some people. The obvious answer is for the user to simply fix the problem. I have a redlinked user page, and that is deliberate, it is actually quite useful to see how people react to a redlinked user page, but my sig still takes you somewhere you can talk to me. It's that absence of a quick way of getting to the user directly, which causes friction. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Lemme see if I can get this right...based on: "if people can confirm a user has added unsourced information in the past with a single click, they tend to delete, when they otherwise would have considered researching the addition", it seems the primary motive here is deliberate obfuscation. They don't want to "have contact with" anybody who tries to enforce WP:V, because they don't personally think they should be required to follow WP:V as it pertains to uncited statements in articles. By refusing to provide a link to their contribs, they are hoping that the (albeit small) amount of extra effort required to check their editing history will: A)lower the chances that an editor will notice their history of adding uncited statements to articles, and thus B)increase the chances that people won't challenge and delete their current unsourced contribs to an article based on that history...phew. Convoluted, eh? If the guy had just said "I don't feel like it", I probably would have just said leave him alone. But now I'm really uncomfortable with invoking WP:IAR so this guy can run his strange, pointy Breakfast Machine-esque obfuscation scheme and confuse people wherever he goes. Bullzeye 13:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's see... in the case of User:Docu it is relatively easy to type in the username and get to the appropriate page. On the other hand, SHEFFIELDSTEEL isn't terribly helpful for anyone trying to get to my pages. That's because I use caps in my sig that aren't in my username, of course - but what about an editor who has extended / non-Roman / Unicode characters in their user name? It seems that the only way people could get to their user page would be to cut and paste their sig. Not exactly convenient.

Now, in the real world I would be right there on the barricades if anyone suggested we all had to get our addresses tattoed on our foreheads, but this is a wiki. It's based on hypertext. It is supposed to be easy (convenient, even) to click on links to get to other pages. Those users who have refused to follow this communal norm, of providing a link in their signature, have yet to provide any convincing justification for this. Whether you call that refusal "making a point" or "being pointy", it is counter-productive to the ideal of building a community whose purpose is writing an encyclopaedia. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Or people could click the history. We should also be pretty wary of community norms that develop in the late stage of community formation. They may have more to do with defining a community (outwardly or inwardly) than they do with making an encyclopedia. We should be doubly wary of our temptation to equate those community norms with what is or is not "counter-productive". Protonk (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no problem getting to User talk:Ottre as such, it just requires extra typing. It's basically rudeness on the part of Docu and Ottre to compel people to do that extra work. But there are a lot ruder things that go on here that don't get blocked. Baseball Bugs 16:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Either it's okay for the everyone else to force individuals to put a link to one of their pages (user, talk, or contribs) or it's okay for individuals to force everyone else to have to go to the history to scrutinise their edits. Personally, I think that avoiding scrutiny is bad, and that having a link in one's sig is good, but I'm willing to accept it if consensus is (after e/c) that a certain amount of rudeness is okay, as long as it's within the letter of the law. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 16:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No one has been able to force Docu to change his ways, so consensus must be that it's not important enough to make a thing out of. Consensus can change, though. Baseball Bugs 16:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This whole issue sounded familiar, so I checked the VPP archives and found Method to protect your user and talk page from "quicky" vandals. However that editor was eventually convinced to added a link to his sig. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In the early stage few people thought it was worth faffing around with their signatures. That kind of MySpacery is a late-stage artifact, to be sure, but not necessarily a welcome one. I for one would not care if the ability to customise signatures was simply removed. Guy (Help!) 20:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oy. When I brought this up, I noted that I thought a block was extreme; in other words, I wasn't suggesting blocking. If I thought a block was appropriate, I would have done it; I'm not afraid of using the tools when appropriate. In this case, I was looking for any community input on how to resolve this situation without going the block route. Some of you flamed me, some of you went off on wild tangents, some of you provided relevant input, and a few of you got to the heart of the issue. I remembered the dustup over signatures a few months ago, but I couldn't remember the relevant players (User:Docu and User:Pigsonthewing) and I couldn't recall if the situation was resolved. (It appears that Docu started linking his name for a while, and then went back to his old form.) Obviously, this isn't going to be resolved (either here on AN/I, or on WT:SIG), so I'm not going to press the matter. My main concern was that on the talk page of an article which is under article probation, an editor who had never posted before challenged the reliability of one of the sources; that editor's signature had no links in it. My first request to modify the signature was totally unacknowledged (it wasn't even deleted/archived, which is a form of acknowledgement). Perhaps I overreacted, but those of you who are berating me for bringing this up on AN/I are out of line, in my opinion. Horologium (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Just disable his customized signature ability :) ANyway, if he wants to prostest WP:V, I'd recommend he change his name to User:I protest WPV or something like that. But if he's not abiding by WP:V (the reason for disabling his links so he hopefully won't get reverted), then that is a serious offense, and should be taken up somewhere. For the record, I'll revert any edits he makes on the mainspace that I run across, with the stated reason that "I am protesting non-lined sigatures made in prosted of WPV, as the edits probably violate WPV anway" :) BillCJ (And can someone fix the heading so it's easier to post on this thread? Or is that a protest of WP:EL?)

Next we ban people whose signature displays a name that isn't their username. That'll show 'em. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I would fully support that...err, ahh, never mind....--Tom 18:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Jimmy Hammerfist

Referred from WP:WQA, beyond the scope of minor incivility, personal attacks on another user and Gerardw (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks for that since the second one was on the heels of a final warning. Watch for the promised socks. Toddst1 (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Two weeks may be turn out to be too brief. The user's talk page contributions subsequent to the block do not demonstrate willingness to become a model community member. See the last three edits in page history. --Orlady (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Reverted upage vandalism and changed length to indef and protected user talk for 2 weeks. Toddst1 (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Scribe711/Wired for Books

On January 27, 2009 Scribe711 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) added links to over 35 biography articles, mostly in their "External Links" sections. The links were to an external website, Wired for Books, consisting of audio interviews of important authors. One of those articles was Maya Angelou, one of my "pet projects" on Misplaced Pages. Several hours later, I reverted Scribe's edit, and put a warning on his talk page. Then administrator Anthony.bradbury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) wrote a note on Scribe's talk page, explaining why his additions were spam. In spite of this, Scribe replaced the link, which I again reverted.

This began a discussion over the next several days between Scribe, Anthony.bradbury, and me. Instead of spending time detailing this conversation, I direct you to Anthony's talk page: and and mine. As you'll notice from these discussions, Scribe was rude and condescending. You'll also notice that Scribe711, on several occasions, deleted content from all three talk pages. It certainly is his right to delete content from his own talk page, but certainly not the talk pages of other editors. After some warnings, he ceased deleting Anthony's and my talk pages, but he continued to delete any kind of communication from either of us on his. This in spite of the fact that I offered to listen to the Maya Angelou interview and determine if its content was suitable for any Angelou-related article. (In the meantime, I placed the link on Talk:Maya Angelou, as per WP policy.)

It's obvious from Scribe711's behavior that he's not at all interested in contributing to Misplaced Pages. He has an agenda and as Anthony.bradbury states, he's arguing from a conflict of interest. (Scribe711 is David Kurz, the creator of Wired for Books.) He has accused me of eliciting other editors (meaning, I suppose, Anthony.bradbury) to label his additions as spam and vandalism, but Anthony, someone I've never had any kind of contact with in the past, joined the controversy on his own. Anthony and I both believe that adding a link to the end of an article, and doing that to dozens of them, constitutes spam. Scribe711 disagrees, and instead of negotiating a compromise with either of us, has chosen to reinsert the link with no conversation about it, or to delete content from talk pages. I believe this behavior warrants a block, at least a temporary one. Thank you for your consideration. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Warned one last time, will keep an eye on him. yandman 10:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I see he's been banned for multiple accounts. Apparently someone recognised him... Figure, would you mind removing some of the links he inserted? I doubt I'll have time this afternoon. yandman 10:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Be happy to. I'll probably have time to do it tonight. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the socks, and yes, we have been here before:

• wiredforbooks.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• Bono06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
  • Bono06 was blocked a long time ago for persistent spamming
• Dkurz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Scribe711 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

I will add the link to XLinkBot, so new socks will come up pretty quick, and do some cleanup on external links added by these three accounts (and see if there are other spammers as well). I should note, I think that the link has been used in a proper way as well, and it may be of use to the project here and there (as long as the links obey WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:EL). --Dirk Beetstra 11:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone may want to look at Rex User (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) too. He's been creating articles with the WiredForBooks link in the external links section, with the link in the same format used by the Bono06 sock brigade. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Michael Blohm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Another user who added the links, I have cleaned a lot of the link additions by the SPA-edits, and I see that Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth has done the edits by Rex User. The rest seems to be added by non-involved editors for as far as I can see. --Dirk Beetstra 17:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• 132.235.75.195 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

An (old) IP adding the same links. --Dirk Beetstra 17:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• As far as I'm concerned, once someone demonstrably associated with a site starts spamming links here, the consideration of NOT#DIR and EL go out the window. The site is spam, links should be deleted, the url should go on the spam blacklist, and future additions should be reverted on sight. That's probably a minority opinion. :) Protonk (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I found exactly one reasonable use of the site while I was looking over the contribution lists for these socks, and that one was used as an actual reference. (Wow! A real use for it!) I made sure the reference had the correct title and let it be.  :) Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I saw 2 of these links being removed via my watchlist, and have a few queries. I'm fully aware of the problems we have with being spammed (and serial-spammed, as in this case), but I'm distressed by Protonk's attitude above. I've listened to a few of these interviews, and found them informative, and have now added the link as a ref to Isaac Asimov, and would like to continue examining, and replacing where warranted, the links to these interviews. Is there going to be a further future problem with this, or can non-COI editors add/replace these links where appropriate? Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If there's good information in the interviews, then they should be used as references for specific facts in the article, in which case there's no question that the links should stay. Just as plain links in the External links section, though, the interviews wind up looking an awful lot like linkspam. That's my take on it, at least, from reading the policies. But I'm not an admin, just some guy or other.  :) Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well FM&C, at least you reviewed the links. From reading only this thread, I am very tempted to suggest that the site be added to the blacklist, so that this person can't keep coming back & adding his spam. However, if there is useful content at this website, then the best solution would be to work with this person to have him add the content to the body of the article -- per Quiddity's comment. -- llywrch (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

He's been socking for at least two years. It also, from the comments made by another editor who was from Wired for Books (named something like WiredBooksEditor), looks like the people at Wired for Books were having interns add links to their site to Misplaced Pages as well. I found one good link out of a couple hundred, and that one link had - I believe - been added as a reference by someone other than the spammer *after* the spamlink was added. Therefore, I honestly think it's best to leave this sockfarm blocked and let other editors link up any interviews that have references they need. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

After following this discussion, I've changed my mind about using the content of the WFB interview in the Angelou article. I believe in compromise and assuming the best of people, but it's simply not worth my time. I'm sure that the information can be gained in other places. Let the guy's interns do it. At least I know what to look for if and/or when he strikes again. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

FM&C, in response to last comment I formally suggest we list this site on the spam blacklist with the understanding that any established Misplaced Pages editor can whitelist individual URLs -- unless people here enjoy playing whack-a-mole with spammers. The tool is available & intended for situations like this -- so use it. -- llywrch (talk) 07:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Question though: When trying to add a blacklisted link, is there a link on the 'you can't do that' screen to the whitelist talk page and a 'If you are trying to add a citation or firmly believed in link relevant to the article, please leave a message here to request and exception for this page.' note? ThuranX (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to object to that blacklist proposal. This isn't someone trying to promote a commercial product - this is a former library director and grandfather (yes, I'm playing the age card) who seems to be a bit baffled by people deleting links to thoroughly relevant information ("Wired for Books was chosen in 2006 by the National Endowment for the Humanities as one of the best online sites for education in the humanities."). The repeated removal of all wiredforbooks links is following the letter of WP:SPAM, but I don't think it is following the spirit. 35 articles is not a gargantuan cleanup problem!

I suspect that he is simply one of the many academics who find our methods and manner of communication to be slightly-hostile and slightly-overwhelming (talkpage warning templates, referrals to large pages of instructions and simplified-legalese, being "talked about" by many people at many pages at once, etc).

Also, it was stated above that User:Rex User has "... been creating articles ...". . I'm really confused as to why this is seen as a bad thing.... Isn't that what we're trying to do here? Did anyone explain to Rex User that it is preferable for references to be directly cited, or placed in a ==References== section, rather than in the EL section?

In the spirit of AGF, I'd like to propose that I make an attempt to contact Mr Kurtz via email, and convince him to stop adding links to the EL sections of articles (and to explain the preferred methods of adding citations/content to articles). Would that be acceptable, until/if such time as further mass-link-additions are made? Thanks.

Thanks for considering the other points of views. Sorry if I've missed any critical details - more coffee required. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Quiddity for this view. I must say I am already past my GF on this one (I wrote a rant here yesterday, but I did not save it). But I am not yet inclined to put it on the blacklist. I have gone forward and indef blocked the current users, and put it on XLinkBot. That should revert the new users (socks) and IPs that add the link, while established users can use it without noticing. If this still results in more and more socks who don't (want to?) get it, then we can consider blacklisting.

I left a note on the talkpage of the major user, I hope to get a response on that.

As a note, these links in the external links sections fail WP:ELNO. A.o. because rich media is unfriendly for users behind a slow internet connection, and (as I saw on many pages large linkfarms) we are not a repository for external links. It is however useable as a reference, as they are more for verifyability (the link does not need to be followed to understand the document, while external links invite to follow as the information is probably not incorporated in the document). --Dirk Beetstra 21:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I do realize that the links were being "spammed" in batches (over the course of 2 years), and that some of our articles have very large EL sections (to their detriment, from some perspectives). I have written an email to Mr Kurz, which will hopefully explain some of (what I think were) the earlier miscommunications. I have (gently) repeated the advice that he reads WP:COI, and re-suggested the change in behavior of adding content/refs in the future, instead of plain ELs.

I am still a bit distressed that the site and the contributors who have linked to it are being vilified for what could be seen as a trivial detail (this might never have been an issue if the contributors had instead been adding the links to the References sections all along - everyone seems to agree that it is a good site, just badly placed in EL sections, and too many COI additions at once). There's more (like starting off with level-4im template warnings instead of level-1), but I'm trying not to belabor the point. Patience, above all!

Hopefully this can all be resolved amicably, as the resource appears to be unique and interesting. I will try to keep an eye on all the relevant userpages, and a few of the relevant articles. Thanks again for your help and understanding. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

User:SmashTheState, or, Now we see the violence inherent in the system!!1

• SmashTheState (talk · contribs)

Without looking at the users contributions I see two problems:

1. Username is probably not inline with Misplaced Pages:Username policy#Inappropriate usernames (may fall under eiter promotional or disruptive usernames)
2. Userpage is a violation of Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks and Misplaced Pages:User page

Please take a look at the users userpage before replying.

-- Cat 15:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

i.e. "Misplaced Pages is the place where angry, white, male, overprivileged, socially-dysfunctional nerds with serious personality disorders come to take out their frustrations on others." I wouldn't be against a block here (even if what he's saying is true in my case :) )  GARDEN  15:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's a poser: If someone calls you a name, and it's verifiably true through reliable sources, does it still count as a "personal attack" under wikipedia guidelines? Or if it's not verifiably true, but could be true, is it really a "personal attack", or is it just a POV-push? Some IP address awhile back called me an "ugly ignorant fool". My answer was, "How dare you call me ugly?" Because he might be able to prove the "ignorant fool" part, but the "ugly" part is strictly POV. Baseball Bugs 17:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with the name. You can ask the user to change the offensive portions of their userpage. Protonk (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with the Username concerns, that is a little bit of a reach to my mind. As for his userpage....hrm. It is iffy. Is it a breach of NPA or just a lack of civility? Does it demonstrate a systematic failure to AGF? Can't say I'd want to make the call. Garden does help by highlighting the exact concern phrases. Perhaps if Whitecat could highlight the specific things he thinks are wrong, SmashTheState could take care of it without the need for admin. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC) (ec)

It's threads like this that got me to unwatchlist AN and ANI a little while ago, and (after backsliding) have just caused me to unwatchlist it again. Everyone needs to grow some thicker skin, and stop actively looking for things to be outraged about. This casual talk of blocking for, I suppose, not showing proper deference in the phrase quoted by Garden (or maybe it was having the audacity to use the word "factotem"?) is.... I don't know what to call it. "Proving SmashTheState's point" comes to mind. --barneca (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Holy crap. You had AN and AN/I watchlisted at some point? Wow. Dedication. Protonk (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Heck, I'm even thinking of unwatching my own editor review - two editors who disagree with my comments (or who cannot read) have taken the opportunity to majorly skew context and trash me. Good thing I'm used to WP:DRAMA from around here :-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Once upon a time I had WP:AfD watchlisted. I found that was about as useful as alphabetizing the entries in a dictionary. -- llywrch (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like satire. Don't fret none about the user page. Watch the contributions. That's what's important. If he's engaged in POV-pushing and original research, then he'll be brought to a screeching halt. Baseball Bugs 16:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Satire? Read the rest of that section and see if you still think he is being satirical rather than nursing a grudge. Ironholds (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I read it. It's a rant. But it raises the question, If he really hates wikipedia so much, then what's he doing here? Hence the need to watch the contribs. If he starts pushing a point of view, then he can be stopped faster than you can say, "Help! Help! I'm bein' repressed!" Baseball Bugs 16:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering the exact same thing: if he hates us then why is he here? (And I have to seriously question the judgment of anyone who considers the average Wikipedian to be a "Randroid".) -- llywrch (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the presumed superiority of the old Soviet system vs. the American system reminds me of this one, from Will Rogers: "In Russia, they ain't got no income tax. But they ain't got no income!" Baseball Bugs 16:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly he's probably just another white, male, middle class person from an English speaking OECD country bitching about wikipedia being comprised only of white, male, middle class people from English speaking OECD countries. Pretty standard, and easy enough to ignore. Protonk (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I was going to write something about the whole rant being sadly amusing, but you kind of nailed it down there. His editing style *is* rather confrontational, looking at some of the discussions he's had in the past, so it's probably something to keep an eye on. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, the user is an anarcho-syndicalist, just like Dennis from the greatest movie ever made. Surely the user sees "the violence inherent in the system". MuZemike 19:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• It's not so much the grudge-bearing evident on the user page as edits to content with summaries like "Rand was a psychopath" which raise major red flags for me. I have blocked the user pending a credible explanation of his behaviour. Guy (Help!) 19:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

  Maybe they have good reason to bear a grudge, who can say. The edit summary was appropriate given the content and ref they added. So all in all an extremely piss poor block without any merit at all. RMHED. 20:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Side note: Why has this only just been brought up now when the user account was created two and a half years ago? I would have preferred the user to have had the chance to explain himself before a block considering he isn't a very active editor. Plus, his rant has been on his userpage since July 2008 - I'm a tad surprised at the block given the fact its only just been raised now. D.M.N. (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Good god there are some thin skins on Misplaced Pages. That was the most entertaining userpage I've read in months. DuncanHill (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This was his eighth edit: . Nothing has changed since then. He has never been anything other than a political activist bringing his battles to Misplaced Pages, and I'm astounded he lasted this long. Guy (Help!) 20:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Funny I feel the same way about you Guy. RMHED. 20:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What, that I'm a political activist bringing external battles to Misplaced Pages? You might have a hard time proving that, since I have been accused of bias by both left- and right-wing POV-pushers. Do tell, though - what external battles am I bringing here? I'd love to know. Guy (Help!) 21:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I suspect it was the "astounded he lasted this long" bit he was referring to. DuncanHill (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. When I was at school I was absolutely convinced I would be dead by the age of thirty, to find myself still here aged 45 is a constant source of amazement. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Great. Now, instead of just ignoring someone we have fulfilled their prophesies about wikipedia banning people for their views. The easiest way to avoid granting credence to these folks is to avoid making them martyrs. Protonk (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Eventually he's just going to get unblocked and be all kinds of obnoxious about this. TastyCakes (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The very act of pursuing a case against him proves what he stated in his rant. Sweet, sweet irony. --Nik (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• To repeat what I said on my talk page just now, it's not that he's outspoken and surly (I am both), the problem is that his content edits are polemical, and his interactions with others appear to be those of the picket line. His eighth edit was to add Category:Misplaced Pages culture to Kangaroo court, , and that seems to be representative of his behaviour consistently from there on; and his content edits are of similarly confrontational nature, for example, Rand was a psychopath, scarcely calculated to ease tensions on a particularly contentious article. Do we really need rock-hurling activists? Hence no expiry: I don't think a short period will fix the issue. I consider adding polemic to articles to be a serious problem, much more so than polemic directed against users. I think I explained this in the block message. But, Nik, iof you can have a word with him and get him to make some sort of comment indicating that he recognises that Misplaced Pages is not Usenet, then I am sure it will be no problem. We can't, however, follow a policy of not blocking people who have a martyr complex on the grounds that we will prove them right. Oh, by the way, I'm off for a while now. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a name problem, it sounds like any number of 'down with the dysfunctional US .gov' names we hear from young idealistic zealots. Big deal. It might, otoh, be an album he really likes. The Rand was a psychopath, although clearly provocative, did have citation, and looks to me like one of those 'out to change the world by higher consciousness type edits that the same youthful idealistic zealots make. I don't agree with this block. We can instead watch him. If I'm proved wrong, I'll take a public trouting, and apologize for an over abundance of (rare) pateince and goodwill. ThuranX (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather uncertain about the block myself, but until the editor provides more of a comment than this, I'm personally not going to press for unblocking. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm somewhat baffled by a system that allows "rather uncertain" blocks, and then demands the person being blocked explain themselves. Meanwhile, the person who did the blocking casually mentions "Oh, by the way, I'm off for a while now." Doesn't anyone else feel like they're watching a strange farce take place? --Nik (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Not particularly. I'm one admin, and I feel that StS has in fact left a bad taste with many of his edits; I'd like to have the editor provide some information on his intentions going forward, and whether he's going to edit productively or continue to act as a local champion; I have no intention of undoing the block myself, but am looking for further information so that other admins can act how they see fit. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I support unblocking Smash the State. The commment on Ayn Rand is actually based on the writing of Albert Ellis, a well-known critic of Rand's philosophies: . The editor has no previous block history and the admin's opinion of "odd behaviour" is no reason to support blocking an editor. As it stands, it is difficult to support the indefinite blocking of this editor and the subsequent efforts to have his User Page and his two-year-old article on Solidarity unionism deleted. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought Guy's behaviour had improved after the RfC and Arbcom case, but this block and deletion nomination shew that the old Guy is still with us. DuncanHill (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not quite a block and run, with 2 hours from block being noticed here to his departure, we do have real lives after all. Guy will likely check on this thread before bed or in the AM, depending on his location, and will follow up. I'm not concerned by that part. That said, I'd like the community to hear from STS, as to whether he really is more interested in editing cooperatively or in staging some grand revolution. I'm not thrilled with the block, but he's not lily-white in this either. ThuranX (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems like Guy immediately after he blocked SmashTheState, sent one of his articles to AfD. This just smells of incredibly bad faith especially when the AFD is heading towards a snow-y keep. D.M.N. (talk) 09:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone tried, you know, talking with him before you hit the block button? --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Absolutely no bad faith whatsoever. The article is for a term with very few ghits, and those mainly in reference to the Starbucks union dispute; the creation fo the article coincided with several polemical edits to content by the user. There is no bad faith whatsoever in reviewing the content edits of an obviously biased user. Incidentally, if anything I share his political leanings, though I am more soft left than hard left. By US standards I am practically a Communist. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Guy, it's not about your politics or people's perceptions of them, it's about they way you deliberately set about hitting a man when he's down, and goading him with invitations to participate in an AfD when you yourself have prevented him from doing so. DuncanHill (talk) 12:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
    • If so many agree that the block stinks, why is the block still in place? --Nik (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No clue, let's get it off, and let him at least present his side of the situation. ThuranX (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked. I'll leave a note on his talk page, and on Guy's as well. I'm open for disagreements and any admin who thinks this was a horrendously lousy decision may reblock with no hard feelings from me whatsoever. GJC 15:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Username is misleading, user wants a sprawling, central planning meta-state, which is what most countries (along with the US and UK) already have. Either way though, the username is harmless, though the soapboxing is a worry. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You have any evidence for your assertion about what he wants? Or did you just make that up? DuncanHill (talk) 15:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

He says he belongs to an org which advocates putting more or less anyone who works for a living into a single labour union, with no wages. That's a form of world collectivism, which to pull off, would in itself need to become a meta state (world government). However, I was only hinting at the irony carried in his username, if you don't agree with my take on it, no worries, I think the username is ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that that's an accurate take on the Wobblie's aims - or rather, it is a gross oversimplification which tends to mislead. DuncanHill (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

We disagree, have fun, I'm bored, all the best to you. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The remaining question that concerns WP rather than society in general, is whether JzG's actions were unduly provocative and unbecoming an administrator--using his position for what seems to be a concerted attack on a user and his work here. DGG (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, but that is the most irredeemable nonsense. I may well be wrong about this, I am the very last person to claim to be infallible, but the assertion that this is in some way malicious or vindictive simply does not bear any kind of inspection. I had never seen this user ever before this thread, and the only reason I bocked him was that a review of his contributions showed WP:SOAPboxing from day one, consistently through his editing career, in both content and interaction with others. He comes across as manning a picket-line, bringing his battles to Misplaced Pages. This is not usually fixed by a 24 hour block, it requires dialogue with the editor, so no expiry time. Or do you think edits with summaries like "rand was a psychopath" are indicative of WP:NPOV? I don't. Wat is it that I am supposed to have against this user, other than that which I identified here and elsewhere - that is, polemical edits to the content of the encyclopaedia? Guy (Help!) 16:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• "never seen this user ever before this thread" eh? Guy, if you are going to lie have a problem with your memory, try not to do it when the evidence is right at the top of the editor's talk page. . DuncanHill (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• And here is a deletion review in which you both participated. DuncanHill (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• Here is the second deletion review a couple of weeks later, in which you say you have never heard of the subject of the article (i.e. User:SmashTheState), even though you had participated in the previous review. DuncanHill (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yup, I had completely forgotten all that, and that's not really a big surprise since it was over two years ago. Hard though this may be for you to believe, some of us do not actually harbour grudges for years on end. Nor can we be expected to remember every single inappropriate edit which we revert and comment on, or every single participant in every debate in which we take part. This is, after all, just a hobby. Any time you want to stop shit-stirring is good. Oh, and that second DRV? SmashTheState wasn't there. I had to check the first DRV to even work out what the connection was; that's almost an outing there, please be a bit more careful :-) Guy (Help!) 22:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• I had thought that you might actually have looked at his talkpage when you were deciding to block him indefinately. outing? If you had read his userpage at any point in your decision making process, you would know that he himself says he was the subject of the deleted article. DuncanHill (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• I thought I had made it clear that my problem was with his polemical edits to content. I never did give a toss who he is, and I cannot remember the title of every article whose deletion I have advocated, opposed or enacted. Life is too short for that kind of crap. I wish I was perfect like you, but not everybody is. Bye. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• I've never claimed to be perfect - but I can spot my own signature at the very top of a talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

End of

Thanks, Gladys, for unblocking (I was about to). Seems the editor's actions are not as far over the line as I perceive them to be. Fair enough, that's the consensus, I still think that they are provocative and the edit summaries doubly so, and it affects content, which is a big deal for me.

A couple of notes:

• Someone accused me of being "vindictive" in nominating the article on Solidarity unionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for deletion. Naturally before blocking I reviewed SmashTheState's edit history, this one leapt out at me. I did check it out, especting to find some connection to the Polish trade union Solidarity, but found instead a one-para article founded on the teapot tempest of the Starbucks dispute. Google showed few sources, mostly polemical and self-published. If I did not think SmashTheState was writing biased content, I would not have blocked him; it is not really terribly surprising that I thought this article he created was biased.
• DuncanHill accused me of being "dishonest" in posting a message to the talk page of a blocked user about a deletion debate. This claim is risible. Twinkle does it automatically, I heve never even looked for a way to turn it off. The irony of accusing me of acting bad faith, based on ana assumpotion of bad faith based on past grudges, is not lost on me.
• According to those wonderful people at Misplaced Pages Review, whose grumblings are brought here with such alacrity by some of their number, this is politically motivated. I'll take that offline on my talk page, since actually I don't know enough about Ayn Rand to even understand how my personal political opinions might intersect with the views of the subject. Rand is not typically studied in the history courses I took at school thirty years ago, I have never read any of Rand's books, had to look up the subject's gender having got it wrong once, and a cursory inspection would indicate that Rand is if anything a right-wing figure - you might want to ask the fans of Free Republic whether I am sympathetic to their cause. I am a lapsed member of the Liberal Democrats, if anyone would like to tell me how the views might overlap.

And now I will go and work on my model railway for a bit. Guy (Help!) 17:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Using Twinkle to issue templates which you know to be incorrect or inappropriate is misuse of the tool and not permitted - and it is dishonest. You made no effort to correct the misleading template that you issued. That is why I believe that you were acting in bad faith. Good faith admins check their edits and correct their mistakes. DuncanHill (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Since I didn't do that, your comment above is as pointless as the original insult. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Are you saying that you didn;t know what Twinkle would do? DuncanHill (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• No, I am saying that the assertion that i was issuing templates which I "know to be incorrect" is not only false but a deliberate and calculated assumption of bad faith in furtherance of your long-standing grudge against me for something which was of mind-numbing triviality at the time. Incidentally, dince you apparently have nothing better to do than trolling at the moment, how about fixing up an article dear to your new best friend's heart? Ottawa Panhandlers' Union has serious problems. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is there so much wikidrama? Listen, it's kinda obvious that Guy made a mistake. He nominated it for deletion and instinctively warned the user about it. Although he didn't check it, I really don't think he put the template there to laugh at the user, because he was blocked. My 2 pennies. Simon 23:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• So you didn't know what the template would say when you issued it. If you had known, then you would have realized that it was incorrect. I will happily assume incompetence on your part, as it explains so much of your destructive behaviour. "new best friend"? No, just an editor who I have seen being treated badly. DuncanHill (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Duncan, I would like to know why you are assuming so much bad faith for a silly mistake? Wikibreak time? Simon 23:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• I assure you, now Guy has explained himself I am convinced that he is acting in good faith, he just doesn't have a clue what he is doing. DuncanHill (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• That's a bit unfair, because you can't think a user doesn't know what he is doing just because of one silly mistake. Simon 23:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Which one silly mistake are you are referring to? DuncanHill (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Sigh* I'm not going to go after this, anymore. It seems like it's going nowhere. Simon 23:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of large numbers of my edits by User:Pigsonthewing

Another contributor, User:Pigsonthewing has made good contributions to Misplaced Pages in the past and he often has good insights on problems. Although we have had frequent incidents of friction over matters of a fairly esoteric nature regarding microformats, I honestly value his opinion, and have responded to suggestions he has made. However, we have already had one requiring the intervention of an administrator on commons User:Swift. The most recent incident is today with a mass reversion of work I have been doing with Misplaced Pages support for extreme dates. One particular revision prevents me from demonstrating the benefits of a proposal I have made to the owners of the protected template {{Infobox_Former_Country}}. I am requesting assistance from a mediator who is willing to install a Firefox extension so they may understand the positions of the two parties. The user believes that this work constitutes "sandbox" work, whereas an examination of the templates {{start-date}} will reveal that they are robust, nontrivial, and can provide substantial benefit to users. The change has been discussed civilly at this page. So far only one user other than myself and Mr Mabbett have voiced an opinion. Mr. Mabbett believes that it is necessary to revert any use of the template rather than give me the opportunity to fix whatever he thinks is wrong. As far as I know, none of the "damage" he claims has been made is visible to Misplaced Pages users, so the remedy of mass reversions is difficult to understand. I have attempted to reach agreement with this user over some ground rules over settling these differences, but I have failed, and I am reaching out for your assistance. Thank you. -J JMesserly (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As I explained on your talk page and in the relevant edit sumamries before you came here, I reverted several of your edits, but by no means "a mass revert", because in each case the metadata you were emitting, and in some cases the on-screen text, was broken (for example a place-name of "Boeotia,country=Greece"; BC dates rendered as AD dates). I can supply screenshots if necessary. If you wish to test or demonstrate your work on templates, please do so in a sandbox, not in articles. Your proclamations about my supposed beliefs are fallacious, and fail to assume good faith. Where have you attempted an failed to reach "ground rules"? Besides, the Misplaced Pages ground rules are already established: Boldly edit; if Reverted; Discuss. In at least one case, you have simply re-reverted, to again emit faulty metadata. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There are many ways to emit microformats. You certainly have strong opinions on the subject as you have amply shown at the commons geocoding project, and that is good. You have given me instructions in the past as you have the geocoding group, and you have been proven to be correct as many times as are incorrect. I proposed that we mediate these disagreements on the microformats.org mailing list, but you have declined to participate in that process. As it was, it turned out that your advice was incorrect. I value the input though because I know there is an issue to investigate. However, I cannot presume that you are correct without evidence. I repeat my request for mediation. There are pages that exhibit new behavior (for example linking to map sites) that can be shown to no longer function due to Mr. Mabbett's belief in the rightness of his position. I ask for an unbiased observer to make a decision. I will happily comply with whatever ruling is made. I'd like to move on and get some work done. -J JMesserly (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There are indeed many ways to emit microformats, including many wrong ways, such as those you used which I reverted today; and cite above. I have given you advice and assistance, not instructions. You are wrong to imply that I am incorrect half of the time. Please provide evidence to support your assertion that "There are pages … that can be shown to no longer function" due to anything I have done. External mailing lists are not the place to resolve disagreements over Misplaced Pages templates. Please cite evidence of me declining to participate in any discussion. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is a pointer to the commons thread being discussed where Andy requested that I do things his way which was found to be incorrect by the experts at microformats.org. My Mabbett asserted that "There are no authorities in that community, and my answer is as authoritative as any you will get there." I am not sure why Andy asserts this. Last year's book on microformats Microformats: Empowering Your Markup for Web 2.0. cites Brian Suda, and Kevin Marks as internationally recognized experts on microformats. Their advice contradicted Mr. Mabbett's, and I chose to follow the guidance given by the microformats community. I meant no offense by not following Mr. Mabbett's opinions, but I cannot take his assertions at face value, so I go to authorities to settle these matters. That seems like a process that is workable, since this subject is fairly obscure at this point. I am not sure if there is some restriction on Mr. Mabbett contributing to the mailing list, because I know he was banned for 16 months from edits to their wiki. But I would certainly agree to post his arguments verbatim and ask for a ruling from them. Anyway, next year maybe this process will not be necessary, as many major browsers will be microformats aware. What I am asking is that until then that anyone asserting incorrectness to be concrete in their descriptions of what is incorrect with each others templates, and to show that what is being done is recognized by authorities to be incorrect. If any party cannot show this, and if there is no recognizable harm to Misplaced Pages, then it seems reasonable for WP administrators to take a wait and see position, and ask that each of the parties not interfere in the activities of the other. WP can defer consideration of such correctness debates until such time as there are sufficient contributors who understand and care about these differences in style. If there is some other proposal for common ground, I am open to any suggestions.-J JMesserly (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's generally worthless to come here without diffs to the problems you are complaining about. AnyPerson (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing which I proposed at Commons was found to be "incorrect" on the microformats mailing list, nor anywhere else. Indeed, I provided (on Commons) citations from that list to support my position, at the request of J JMesserly; he disregarded them Do we really have to rehash that debate here? I have already provided descriptions of the bugs produced by J JMesserly edits, and offered to provide screenshots if necessary. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Here is a side by side comparison of the kind of thing we are talking about. EG: My version of Battle of Chaeronea (338 BC) changed a single parameter to an infobox:

|place={{address|], ]|locality=Chaeronea|country=Greece}}
The original line read:
|place=], ] 

With my change, users with microformats aware browsers will see map buttons for (google, yahoo or mapquest) activated when they visit this page. Click on the google map button, and you can see where the battle occurred. Pretty cool. With Andy's change, this capability no longer works. This template talks in a way to the outside world that Andy thinks is wrong. It works, it delivers functionality, and it has no negative visual impact on anyone viewing the article- the article looks exactly the same as before. To see for yourself, add Firefox's free Operator toolbar, visit the page, and see for yourself, then compare to Pigs on wing "Fix". It will be clear that his "fix" actually removes functionality. -J JMesserly (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Case 2:Lamian War Here, Andy's summary edit reads: "rv - emt8s bogus metadata (323-321 AD)"

1. in operator, click options box. Click data formats, and check the debug box.
2. View the current version , you will see no events button highlighted.
3. View the edit from J JMesserly: . You will now see the events button.
4. You will see that once again functionality is present with my version. Now, let's look at this claim of "bogus data" that Andy is talking about. He claims the emitted dates are AD dates, not BC dates. Click on Events.Lamian War.Debug. you will see a dialog that gives the dates 323 and 321. Andy assumes these are AD dates. Now click on the source tab. If you can't search the dialog, copy paste it to a word processor and search for dtstart. You will see the value is -323Z. Now, no one sees any of this stuff and it really impacts zero applications, but Mr. Mabbett feels that this number is incorrectly formatted. That is what he is talking about. According to the docs I have, ISO8601 standard for BC says the year should be negative. It is.
5. Why will this matter? Well- one day, just as you can click on a google map, you will may be able to click to go to a scene that recreates a village in ancient greece, or with a video recreation of the battle. The other site needs to know what time period you want to go to. This data shows where. (A technical note on the second date, the end period of an event is always +1 unit, so if the event ends on friday, you have to give the date for saturday. This war ended on 322 BC, so the correct number is -321Z. This calculation is done by my template, and correctly does it whether the precision is hours, days, or months. (Respectively, +1 hour, +1 day, +1 month). Template editors can imagine that this is non trivial code, and puts in context Mr. Mabbett's edit summary suggestion "rv please do your testing in a sandbox". I do my testing in a sandbox, and move changes when they are stable. Sometimes errors happen, but the number of articles is fairly low, and I check my work.

Should folks doing this work be needing to go to the adminstrator's board to request arbitration on this sort of minutiae? I think not- Seems like we all have better things to do. If and when it turns out that these numbers could be formatted better, well what the heck- WP contributors will rise to the challenge and fix it. Until then, why should we have edit wars over this stuff. I'm just asking for a live and let live policy until we have more folks that understand these debates. -J JMesserly (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

In your first case, you were emitting a metadata 'locality' value of "Boeotia,country=Greece". There is no such locality, and the string "country=" should not have been included as data. The correct output would be a locality value of "Boeotia" and a 'country-name' value of "Greece". You again misrepresent me by claiming that I think something which in fact I do not. Please desist from doing so. I see that you have since fixed the problem, thereby acknowledging the initial fault. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

In your second case, I concede that the BC/AD date is indeed a parser bug and I have written to the author of Operator (with whom I am in regular contact) to request a fix. However, Your comments about end dates also shows a basic error; the need to increment by one does not apply to year values.

In another example, your metedtaa asserts that the Battle of Caer Caradoc took place at "Herefordshire Beacon, Herefordshire UK"; whereas the text in the infobox is "Location - Unknown. Possibly Herefordshire Beacon Herefordshire Beacon or Caer Caradoc Hill"

You clearly misunderstand several aspects of microformats and what you are doing with them; that's OK, because we all have to learn, but please do your learning in sandbox pages - not in live articles - and accept help. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Andy, whether or not you are the authority on microformats that you have portrayed yourself to be is immaterial. No one would contribute if they didn't think they knew something that others hadn't put in wikipedia yet. I really like the fact that you understand how revolutionary microformats are. Heck- my first published paper on the subject of encoding semantics of encyclopedic material in SGML is now 20 years old. Today, the world still doesn't appreciate the value. Microformats are revolutionary, and many admins reading this thread may have discounted this subject matter as yet another dispute about arcania of no consequence. We both know that this isn't the case. Of course the battlers always say that, but the point is that I really I view you as a brother in this cause. But as a brother, I ask that you give me a little more of the benefit of the doubt. Ok, in Battle of Chaeronea (338 BC)I left out a pipe character before country=. Ok regarding typos you got me there. But the template if given location information delivers great functionality to WP users. Admit it. It is cool to click on that "find with maps" feature of Operator and be plunked down where the battle occurred. Contributors can describe locations with ease that can be looked up with any of a variety of map sites. In some cases, you can just mention a Pub's name and a city, and the click will show you the satellite view of the roof of the establishment. That's wicked cool. And this has been done in a way that is simple for contributors to do- simply taking locations mentioned in the article and putting them in the template you removed from this page. No time consuming procedure of determining the exact latitude and longitude. Both on Commons in a previous dispute and here you have insisted on the correctness of your position when in fact you are as often incorrect on these matters as incorrect. Regardless which one of us is correct, it can be seen by independent observers that the effect of your actions is to remove functionality from Misplaced Pages articles based on mistakes you have made regarding microformat encoding. My actions have been portrayed as that of a neophyte, when in fact {{start-date}} handles end dates in the superior way as described above. So please, perhaps we can express a little more mutual respect and collaboration with each other?

I proposed a solution to handling arbitration of such microformat disputes. Will you please agree to mediation of this dispute by an impartial admin, and agree to follow the ruling whatever it is? -J JMesserly (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I have never portrayed myself as "the authority on microformats", though I undoubtedly have more experience of implementing them on Misplaced Pages than any other editor; please feel free to cite evidence if you disagree. This is not an academic debate about "encoding semantics of encyclopedic material in SGML", but a very practical consideration of the means of doing so to a specific set of standards, with the tools available in this medium; at which you do indeed appear to be a novice. I am happy to give you "the benefit of the doubt" where doubt exists, but in the cases under discussion the facts are indisputable. You are free to propound reasoned arguments otherwise, but don't seem to be doing so. I have removed no functionality from Misplaced Pages articles or templates; I have merely prevented them from emitting bogus metadata. I am quite happy to collaborate, an have already asked you to do so on your talk page here and in Commons. Your responses seemed to me to indicate a disinclination to do so, in both cases. If you wish to initiate a mediation process, this is not the forum, but I will not object if you do so properly; though it seems a very long-winded way of arriving at the point which we will reach anyway, if you desist in your current approach to adding microformats. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

And please stop edit warring, as you are on Augustus and other articles & templates, until these issues are resolved. WP:BRD refers; and you should be using sandbox ages for your testing. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I already have shown where you have claimed authority, in fact authority equivalent to recognized authorities at the microformats.org site. You chose to be dismissive of them. Who knows- maybe in the end you will be proven to be right. In any case, as I remarked, whether or not you are a authority doesn't matter. What matters is what benefits the visitors to Misplaced Pages most. You make the surprizing claim: "I have removed no functionality from Misplaced Pages articles". This is demonstrably false using the instructions above. The functionality removed can be verified by anyone using those steps and there is no point in denying it. Mr Mabbett reverted article Gojoseon with an edit summary of:"rv please do your testing in a sandbox". The purpose of the demo was announced on the talk page. With Mr. Mabbett's edits, the user cannot do map searches on the article as described. With the edits they can. Mr. Mabbett has removed functionality just as he did with {{Infobox Roman Royalty}}, Augustus, Battle of Caer Caradoc, Battle of Chaeronea (338 BC), Zagrepčanka... on the basis of arcane and controversial points of microformatting correctness. Misplaced Pages is not a testbed for research on microformats. We use what demonstrates benefits to users. Mr. Mabbett has not demonstrated any tangible harm caused due to this alleged "bogus" encoding. That in a nutshell is what I am requesting mediation on. To establish ground rules for dealing with this sort of dispute so that there will not be recurring instances of it burdening admins. There are multiple disputes Mr. Mabbett has had with multiple users over this very theme. It is not productive, and mediation is respectfully requested. -J JMesserly (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed no functionality from Misplaced Pages articles. You have not and cannot cannot demonstrate(d) that I have done so. The functionality is in microformat parsers, which I have not touched. They act on metadata emitted by out articles, I have removed metadata (and things causing metadata to be emitted) which was bad: bogus; malformed; erroneous; misleading and unhelpful. Bad metadata does not benefit our users; bad metadata is harmful. The fact that you mentioned your testing on a talk page does not mean that the article was the correct place to carry out your testing. Again: please use sandbox pages: why will you not do this? I have already told you, more than once, that Misplaced Pages already has ground rules; they are in WP:BRD. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) So exactly what admin intervention is requested here? Seems like you two can either discuss this on your talk pages or go to Misplaced Pages:Mediation without admin involvement.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Mabbett has not agreed to mediation. These disputes are unary- you either agree that a particular tag is permitted or it isn't. It is new terrain- there isn't a lot of published material to cite, so discussions quickly reach an impasse. This is a general class of problem that Mr. Mabbett has frequently been involved in with other contributors. This is nothing against Mr. Mabbett, and I freely admit that Mabbett may have been correct on the theoretical principles he has battled with other users and with other communities over. My point to him is that if there is no damage of any consequence to encoding it one way or the other, what does it matter that WP encodes it the "wrong" way for a year or so if there is no perceivable negative consequence to the "wrong" encoding? We can always correct it later if it turns out that some mistaken way of doing things was is in fact wrong. That is the beauty and perfectibility of wikipedia. We don't have to have immaculate conceptions in some pure form. We go with what works until some better way of doing things comes along. I propose a tie breaker metric that any admin can apply. The measure is, "What benefits Misplaced Pages?" I propose that if one party can't demonstrate harm to wikipedia, and the other party can demonstrate benefit of the change to an admin, that such microformat related edit wars be remedied with a block on the party that is basing reverts on unseen and unfelt harms. I agree that this should be a mechanism of last resort and that all parties must still agree to good faith efforts to reach compromise before this kind of escalation. -J JMesserly (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Big Dunc, blocked

Punishing this long term content editor editor (with an exemplory block log) in this fashion for an outburst of frustration is plainly ridiculous. Could someone please unblock, while things are still reasonably calm. Giano (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• I see, so insulting the dignity of the Admins is now a capital offence. Even to long standing content editors, in a moments of rare frustration, with unblemished block logs. The new rule is "Insult us and you will be banned for a week and forbidden to edit your own page" That appears to be the new diktat to Arb's clerks. I had hoped we had a new regime here, it seems I was mistaken, it's worse than ever it was. Giano (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The arbitration enforcement function is not part of the clerking function, although the two are often performed by the same administrators. No "diktats" have been given by the committee to the clerks or the admins active in enforcement or anyone else, beyond those contained in motions that have been openly posted on the site. I would appreciate input from other administrators on both the initial block here and the extension. Giano, please provide notice of this thread to the blocking and extending admins if you have not already done so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have better things to do with my time than inform Admins who have performed bad blocks that their conduct is being discussed. I am going to bed - I am not the blocking Admin - one asumes they have not already done so! Giano (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your having brought this forwards here, Giano, but intentionally not notifying the blocking admins in a case like this is assuming bad faith on their part, and a gross insult to them. It's an expected part of the usage and policy of this page, which you are aware of, to notify admins on review of their actions here. Please make it more of a priority in future reports. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the additional extended block violates the longstanding policy that we let blocked people vent a bit on their user talk page. While I am opposed to incivility, and this clearly was some grossly abusive incivility on BigDunc's part, blockees are not expected to be perfectly gracious about being blocked. The incivility was restricted to BigDunc's talk page and talk page edit summaries.

I'm going to leave an intent to unblock note on Tnzaki and Deacon's talk pages along with a pointer here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• I haven't reviewed the original block but I agree with GWH on reducing it to the 48 hrs. Being blocked is stressful. –xeno (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

  So is editing in an environment where people constantly chew at each other. You're frustrated go do something else. No one is forcing you to stay on wikipedia and vent your frustration here.--Crossmr (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

  Both of these views hold some merit.

"Im have better things to do with my time than notify admins of ANI posts" - Giano. It bears repeating, every time. MickMacNee (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Admims are supposed to post such blocks here. They did not - explain? Giano (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

...I think the complaint is that you come here, stir up a hornets nest and then depart, claiming that you don't have time to come here and stir up a hornets nest. Protonk (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Giano's narrative of the events is inaccurate. BigDunc was blocked by me, for 48 hours for violating a Arbitration enforcement related revert restriction. I was honestly not particularly pleased with the block, and would not have objected to another admin stepping up and coming up with a better idea - but no one did. BigDunc's unblock request was denied, I believe twice without my knowledge or involvement or even notification. After that his block was extended to a week for gross incivility by Deacon, and his talk page access was removed after a rather nasty message from BigDunc. This popped up on my watch list this morning and I restored BigDunc's access to his talk page, shortly afterwards BigDunc posted this which begins "Probably better if the page remains protected Tznkai." (I reverted this message, an action I now think was ill advised) This, as far as I am concerned was an invitation to restore Deacon's block extension and the remainder of the message confirmed that Dunc intended to continue cursing and railing and so on. I'm not sure when this longstanding policy of allowing venting started - I certainly havn't seen it written anywhere, but I'm not particularly worked up about this, I don't object to BigDunc's block being modified, shortened, lengthened or even overturned. For the record, Domer48 was also blocked for 48 hours, Mooretwin for 2 weeks, resulting from the same AE thread, and someone else is welcome to handle those blocks, modifying them, and otherwise handling the situation.

Giano has mentioned something important, BigDunc( and Domer48 ) are longstanding content editors, and they've created a decent amount of material - but they don't get in trouble for "insulting admins" - they get into trouble for edit warring, and POV problems related to the Troubles. My sincerest encouragement and thanks to anyone whos got the balls, creativity, and political capital to genuinely solve the situation. I'm unable to do it myself--Tznkai (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

TL;DR summary of above: read the history, but unblock away.--Tznkai (talk) 05:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, for all good will in the world, BigDunc continued such language even after the block was extended. He also sent me a nasty foul-mouthed email, which he subsequently apologised for in a mature way in another email an hour or so later. I agree with Giano that people might need to be given breaks in such circumstances. But it is situational and now isn't the time to review, esp. in the shadow of BigDunc's hot-headedness and the context of this AN/I thread. This would be bad for the respectability of rule enforcement if nothing else, and probably wouldn't do BigDunc any favors. The block was merited, and if a review is to happen it should be in a day or so. The AE block should definitely not be overturned (the other party got two weeks anyway); i.e. the original block by Tznkai should run its course. The additional 5 days can be looked at only after that ... if everyone's happy doing so. So leave it another day at least. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This is rather depressing to read and review. I think that the original block was justified, and a 24 to 48 hour duration was appropriate in the circumstances (note: if the original block was any greater than 48 hours, I would not have considered it appropriate). As for the block extension, while there is no longstanding policy on venting, I think insufficient consideration has been given to the fact that he was responding to a block that he felt was unjustified (although in reality, it was justified - despite his assertions). A block extension may have been appropriate (to echo in no uncertain terms that such incivility will not be tolerated), but the duration of the overall block was manifestly excessive. Either increasing it to 72 or 96 hours was enough; increasing it to 1 week is more of a punitive measure of bad faith. Had the conduct still gone out of control after this time, then you can always reblock.

Nevertheless, the block log now has an annotation of 1 week, so I propose the following way forward from here. If there's clearly signs that such misconduct will continue, leave the block as it is. If he makes an unblock request that is convincing and makes the right sort of assurances (with regards to civility), then unblock around the time the original block was set to expire (AGF; lapse in judgement). If there are no such assurances, but at the same time, no clear signs that the misconduct will continue, then unblock after 72 or 96 hours as time served; excessive extension. My view anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The AE thread launched by BigDunc resulted in the block of three users. The one whom BigDunc reported, who had committed exactly the same offense as BigDunc, got two weeks. Afterwards BigDunc went ballistic with abuse. It's papably absurd to declare then a five day extension "a punitive measure of bad faith". I don't even think that borders on reasonable. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I've been hanging low here due to my break, but Deacon, you're WAY off track here. Actually, Mooretwin got off QUITE easily with two weeks. He was told previously his next block would be for a MONTH, mininum. When you add in the fact he basically swore he'd keep doing it, if I had a say in it, it would be indefinite. Dunc.. Well, I guess I'm going to send him an email telling that swearing isn't going to make things better. I would support limiting it to the two days IF he made assurances that he wouldn't continue. SirFozzie (talk) 08:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I commented elsewhere, but to reinforce SirFozzie's point, we have a longstanding policy that it's unfair piling on and escalation by the administrators to punitively block after mild to moderate venting on talk pages after blocking.

While I agree that what BigDunc did is improper and antisocial, we have had users who did this sort of stuff for days and days and were allowed to wind themselves down into being reasonable again without further intervention or provocation, because everyone was pretty sure that they would be ok if left alone to vent for a bit and were not in fact basically bad guys / girls.

Admins have a lot of power. We also have to have a sufficiently thick skin that we can turn the other cheek and accept some abuse sometimes. What we have to do makes us a focus of some abuse. It's part of the job. If you aren't thick skinned enough to accept that then you're not doing the job right.

We don't expect admins to be perfect, and lord knows you were provoked, but it's situations where you're provoked where it's most important not to respond in kind.

I am going to reduce the block length now, to expire when the original 48 hrs would have. Deacon - I appreciate that he frustrated you. But you didn't give him enough patience here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Even 48 hours for affronting an Admin is ridiculous. I hope though Tzkai has learn that he cannot impose these Draconian sentences at a whim (even if he is the Arb's clerk) it does not make him a one instant justice dispenser. Furthermore why was this block not posted here, properly - rather than kept buried away? Giano (talk) 09:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

As I understand, BigDunc was not blocked for 48 hours for affronting an admin, but was blocked for violating a 1RR-remedy. Last year, a few editors were blocked for between 24 and 48 hours for the same type of violation in the same area. As such, Tznkai's action has received the support of those administrators who declined the unblock requests of BigDunc, as well as the support of other administrators and editors here. Finally, are you asking about the original block, or the block extension in the final line of your comment? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Deacon

My review covered the AE thread - yes, I'm aware that 3 users were blocked. You're wrong on the second point though; Domer was blocked for the same length as BigDunc for doing the same thing. But BigDunc reported Mooretwin, and Mooretwin was the one blocked for longer. I think the rationale for a longer block on Mooretwin was other circumstances; a greater number of reverts than other parties who violated revert-remedy, a block log that shows a clear, recent, and outstanding history of edit-warring, etc. This was worthy of a 2 week block.

And I don't think my characterisation is absurd or unreasonable. In fact, I think BigDunc's reaction was quite predictable to some extent. No experienced editor is incapable of criticizing without abuse; for some reason, he was unable to control his reaction and it was more abusive than anything else. I considered that this was the only evidence you had to justify 'block + unable to edit talk page'. However, that is not enough to justify the length of your block. Can you provide other diffs of him going "ballistic with abuse" in between the original block and your block? I can't find any. A reasonable person who assumes good faith would not expect him to send such an email to you.

I thought the email, like this, came after your block? And that he apologised (and hopefully made the assurance that it won't happen again)? If the answer to both questions is yes, then unless he sends such emails again in the future, he should not be prevented any further or it would end up being a punitive measure. As an administrator, a trusted member of the community, it is implicit in your duty to give due consideration for the personal hardship that may be caused by your actions, warranted or unwarranted. If you are unable to do so, then you shouldn't be adminning in that area, if at all. A decision to block isn't what I'm faulting; it's the length of the block where you were definitely wrong.

To conclude, I support Georgewilliamherbert's action to reverse your action, more-so in the light of BigDunc's wise decision. This was what I was getting at in my proposal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

this thread illustrates one of the problems with AE. As is usually the case with AE AN/I threads, the blocking admins (me and Tznkai) could have handled this easily on our/their own, and this talk shop overkill was quite superfluous. Almost nothing said here was necessary or useful (except for SirFozzie's comment) to resolving this matter, and most of what has occurred from it is damaging to the process. Another reason for reform. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

For goodness sakes. Lets make it clear, AN/I is for controversial blocks or blocks one assumes would result in drama (or for people to create drama - that does happen time to time). There was no reason to believe that blocking Dunc for 48 hours for violating an arbitration related remedy that specifies up to a week long block for the first offense. It was a naked violation of a revert restriction (read the AE thread). Civility was never a part of the equation (for that matter, neither was clerking) for the original block. It was as simple as that.

My reasons for first re-allowing Dunc's talk page access, and then re-disallowing them are stated above. Those are separate issues, and none of it has to do with insults to me or affronting capital-'a'-Admins.--Tznkai (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, no admin was affronted. I find it difficult to belief anyone would think any seasoned admin would be personally bothered by such language, even if it was directed at them. And the block extension was for blatant incivility cumulatively added to previous block reason. Georgewilliamherbert's claim in the log when he rushed to revert the block that it was against long-standing policy just underlies the amateurishness of how this was conducted. I really hope I don't have to see this again. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It is against longstanding policy to pile on recently blocked users. The original block was arguably not a mistake and hasn't been challenged other than by BigDunc and possibly Giano, though I'd have to reread the details of what he said everywhere again.

Turning off someone's talk page access is EXTREMELY UNUSUAL in a block. It's normally reserved for the worst repeat offenders or the worst threats or abusive behavior.

Again - I've been here for many years, I've been dealing with editor abuse issues for many years, and BigDunc's reaction was only moderate at worst. The response from you two was disproportionate and inappropriate. There are numerous RFC and Arbcom findings / statements that we let people vent without further punishing them.

Giano is not particularly my friend here, but his bringing this to ANI was appropriate, and the responses here have been pretty uniform. The two of you who blocked went too far. Please don't do it again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The disputed action is primarily yours Deacon, and let me put it bluntly; there is no consensus for your position or your rationale. It's problematic that you were not familiar with the relevant facts and circumstances (this is evidenced from your reply to me, and your subsequent lack of reply - alternatively, it's clear from here). However, what's more troubling is your apparent failure to appreciate, even now , how your action was problematic enough that it needed to be overturned. I echo what SirFozzie said earlier; you're way off track. I suggest your first priority is to reform your approach above anything else, if you value your tools/status anyway. There was no issue with Tznkai's original block, or giving BigDunc a chance to give a civil reply, so I'm not sure why you're addressing Tznkai in your reply, Georgewilliamherbert. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Continuation of edit warring by User:Arimareiji in Rachel Corrie

There was an edit war in progress over material in the lead of the Rachel Corrie article, so I moved the disputed material to the talk page until the dispute could be resolved. (These are the reverts by various editors of the same disputed content since Jan 31:)

Arimareiji has ignored the moving of the material to the talk page, and returned the disputed material to the article lead ; and thereby undoing the attempt to resolve the problem by discussion on the talk page. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've already made my reply at Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Misplaced Pages:Edit_war, but I'll repeat some of the salient points: Malcolm Schosha was not "removing disputed material," he was continuing to revert to one of two disputed versions. He was doing so after arguably having followed an editor to Rachel Corrie whom he had been repeatedly warned and blocked for edit-warring against. If there's consensus for removing that section of the lede altogether (rather than fighting over which version to use), that's quite possibly the best course. This is not what Malcolm Schosha was doing. arimareiji (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Arimareiji has accused me of "continuing to revert". I only made three edits to the article, and I am a marginal player in the edit warring on Rachel Corrie. One of my edits had nothing to do with the disputed content, and one edit was to move the disputed content to the article talk page. According to my understanding, moving disputed material to the talk page is not edit warring, but rather a way to stop editing warring. It was my intent to stop the edit warring that was already in progress when I made my first edit. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Three edits = three reverts in three hours, and two before saying anything at all on Talk. He had no prior involvement with the page whatsoever, much less familiarity. arimareiji (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

NO. It was two edits. The third edit was well explained on the talk page. Just what do you thing is wrong with three edits? You have far more reverts there than I do. I am the most marginal player in the ongoing edit war, which was not my doing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing against you making edits or reversions. I do, however, think it's highly inappropriate that you only made edits to this page after an editor you were repeatedly warned and blocked for edit-warring against did. Your first two edits at the page were reverts-by-proxy of him through PR and myself. You reverted him directly three hours later, and only after that did you come to the Talk page. This is exactly the same behavior as before, and 3RR is not an entitlement. arimareiji (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That is surmise, and is incorrect. I have an interest in articles involving the Israel/Palestine conflict, and have edited a number of such articles. That, and particularly the problem with the lead, is what got me involved in the article. I do not need your permission to edit. I was never warned not to edit articles with Untwirl, and the first I saw of Untwirl today was when he/she reverted my edit. Had he done any editing to the article before then? I have not looked.

You seem to think the issue is me. But it is you who has persisted in edit warring, and that is why I brought the issue here to AN/I. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The claim to innocently stumbling across Untwirl gets less and less credible. Now you're asserting you don't even know the contents of your own Talk page or the block log that documents the block you got because of it, one of several. You seemed proud of it then; I'm guessing you've changed your mind. arimareiji (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Arimareiji, the problem is that you (not me) were edit warring on the Rachel Corrie article. Will you, as I requested, move the disputed material back to the talk page so the dispute can be settled without further edit warring?

Every thing you have said here so far amounts to ad hominems against me, the ad hominem being the most famous logical fallacy. If you think I am a nice guy has nothing to do with the validity or truth of my argument. For instance, I have heard it argued by those who are against vegetarianism, the argument that Hitler was a vegetarian. But if a bad man happened to be vegetarian does not refute the premises of vegetarianism. Likewise Hitler wore clothes, and breathed air; but that does not stop even those who despise Hitler the most from wearing cloths (at least in public), nor do they they refuse air and hold their breath.

So, Arimareiji, once again, my question is: will you return the disputed material to the article talk page for discussion? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm Schosha - I would suggest that you read the talk page instead of only using it to make demands. You would see that I've been talking to editors on both sides and we've got consensus to remove both disputed versions from mainspace, rather than keep reverting to only one of them as you were doing. arimareiji (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Bravo! Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Arguably amusing, but the edit is not what you kept reverting to. I admit, however, that I got the idea from your false claim of "removing disputed material" - it made me realize that actually doing so would be a good idea. arimareiji (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

For the edification of anyone who cares - removal of both versions was proposed at Rachel Corrie Talk at 0221, with endorsement by IronDuke at 0223 and Untwirl at 0325. Malcolm's demand to restore his version was here at 1317. I leave it to your good judgment whether he was even aware of Talk discussion, let alone heroically "trying to stop an edit war." arimareiji (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I said the situation was better, and it is. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) To whom it may concern: Malcolm Schosha received this warning from DGG (who has since recused himself) two weeks ago. It was immediately subsequent to his receiving yet another block, this one for revert-warring against Untwirl (my bolds):

"And the only practical way you will be able to avoid violating 3rr again is to avoid reverting altogether. Discuss the matter on the talk page instead. I suggest further, that you not concentrate of the exact wording of specific points in controversial articles--such disputes are rarely productive. The best thing to do with a difficult article, is usually to find some additional indisputably good sources.

"You now have a choice: if you do mean to stop editing, you can stop. If you want to contribute peacefully, you can. Or, if you contribute in the manner you have been doing, you will receiver longer blocks, soon quite likely indefinite. IO won;t hesitate to do it myself."

In several different aspects, he's flagrantly disregarding this warning. He had no involvement with Rachel Corrie until Untwirl (the editor he just got blocked for edit-warring against) came to it, eight edits prior to his. His first edits were to twice revert (against Untwirl's perceived "side"), and revert again (Untwirl himself) three hours later, over "exact wording" in a "controversial article". Only after doing this did he come to the Talk page for the first time. His reverts were, in fact, to remove reliably-sourced wording and replace it with unsourced wording - not to find better wording based on sources.
Finally, please note that the warning admin above refers to Malcolm Schosha's claim to stop editing. You can still see this claim on his talk page. He did not do so; he came back and quickly resumed the same behavior. Please do not think this is a moot issue. An RFCU may also be appropriate, as one of his blocks (June 2008) was an indef for socking.

This will be my last post on this matter here. If an admin has questions, they can reach me at my talk page. arimareiji (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, then so be it ... decisions may be made against your liking in your absence. You're not compelled to be here, but while you're still a subject, it's likely a good idea to hang around. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason I did not block was that I saw this as a minimal violation. I'm aware of the problems with the article, though I haven't to be recollection worked on it. The material Malcolm removed from the lede was in my opinion clearly inappropriate for a lede, being contentious detail material not necessary to give a clear introduction to the article. It should almost certainly be used elsewhere in the article, but that wasn't the question. I doubt it was wise of him to get involved at all, but it wasn't heinous. Arimareji has repeatedly insisted on my talk page that I proceed to a block. My own view is that this should just die down, unless it becomes a pattern continued there or repeated elsewhere. But at this point I think it would be fairer if I left others to judge. DGG (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I brought this issue here in an attempt to resolve an edit war. I was not involved in the edit war, aside from in the most marginal way. If Arimareiji (or other users) think I am a wiki-creep, schmuck and/or liar, they are entitled to that viewpoint. But that has nothing to do with the issue I brought here. I think the attention the edit war got on AN/I did add enough pressure to motivate the necessary change. Despite a lot of surmise by Arimareji, that is all I wanted.

I have not been placed under any editing restrictions, and I think that my edits of the Rachel Corrie article were helpful, even if much resented by Arimareiji. It is not my intention to do more than occasional editing of WP. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I contradict myself to note that this is already a long-standing pattern, arguably wikistalking of an editor whom he'd been blocked for edit-warring against, and to note again that Malcolm was not removing characterization of the sides - he was reverting to one of two disputed characterizations. The actual removal which he alludes to is not what he was fighting to attain, as a quick comparison shows. Bwilkins - I will try to be quiet, but that doesn't mean I'm not present. I will be; I'm not walking out. arimareiji (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Arimareiji I only made three edits. One of those was to move the disputed material to the talk page, and another was not related to the edit war. On the other hand you were edit warring for days, as can be easily seen by anyone who takes a look at the the article's recent history. But despite that you want to insist that everything wrong with WP is my fault, that there is absolutely nothing at all is your fault, and that there is nothing wrong with your edit warring. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) (ec)

i also would like to stress that the disputed material was not removed by malcolm, only the part that he disagreed with. and this "moving disputed material to the talk page is a one way street for malcolm. he did the same thing at the article he was last blocked for edit warring on, yet when i attempted to follow his lead and 'moved disputed material to the talk page', he immediately reverted it.

malcolm, if you care to review the history you will see that you reverted 3 times in three hours. you did not "(request) to move the disputed material back to the talk page so the dispute can be settled without further edit warring" you edit warred to remove only the viewpoint that you disagreed with. those of us participating in fruitful discussion have agreed to remove all of the 'disputed' material' from the lead until a version both sides can agree on is found. my interpretation of arimareiji's posts to DGG's talk page is not a request to block, but a request for him to warn malcolm that he is repeating the same behavior for which he was recently blocked. his first participation on the talk page was after his third revert. whether DGG believes that the content removal was right or not seems to be beside the point, his methods clearly are disruptive. his first edit to the article was to revert me after he had been blocked for incivility and edit warring against me on a different page. DGG's continued defense of malcolm's disruptive behavior:edit warring, wikistalking and unwillingness to participate in discussion, especially after he was the one to unblock malcolm last time, shows poor admin judgment. regardless of dgg's personal views on the content, he should not defend tenditious editing practices.Untwirl (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

as i think I mentioned, I am simply saying I see no grounds for further action. Once I had said that, you were free to ask any other administrator. I certainly am not going to take further action once I am accused of being partisan in the matter--it would be totally wrong at this point for me to do so. DGG (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl, was there an edit war in progress before I made my first edit? Has the dispute now been settled? Just to answer for you, there was an edit war in progress, and the dispute is now settled. Perhaps you can explain why you think I made things worse even though the editing situation is obviously better? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

seeing how you didn't participate in the discussion or suggest the removal that has now occurred, only did drive by reverts to match your pov, i dont see how you can claim responsibility for those of us who actually have been discussing and working out a compromise.Untwirl (talk)

Untwirl, you did not answer my question. To repeat: can explain why you have accused me of making things worse even though the editing situation is obviously better?

By the way, WikiStalking is a rather serious accusation made by Untwirl and Arimareiji against me. I would appreciate it if any administrator, or other experienced user reading this, could point out if it actually appears that I have been harassing any user. If there is any suspicion that this is the case I will try to clarify -- or if it should be that I have done something I should not have without intending (because there has been no such intention on my part), I will apologize. But, since Untwirl edits only Israel/Palestine dispute articles (to the point of being a single purpose account), and since I also edit Israel/Palestine articles, an expectation that I will never edit the same articles as Untwirl seems an unfair, and irrational, demand. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

dgg - i beg to differ with you as well. your response to malcolms edit warring without participating in discussion was "I consider that the material he deleted has no place in the lede." that is a content dispute. you ignored his disruptive tactics and supported his (in your words) "good editing." this was after you had overturned his block and told gwen gale you thought she was involved in a test of wills. any neutral admin could see that reverting 3 times in 3 hours is disruptive and deserves a warning to participate in discussion. if you endorse the version malcolm was pushing for, you should come to the talk page and discuss it, not refuse to warn an editor that he shouldn't edit war. especially considering it was you who unblocked him a couple weeks ago, with the caveat that you wouldn't hesitate to call him out for edit warring. Untwirl (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

just in case anyone has been misled by the above comment, I have ever made any edits to the article, nor have i protected it or unprotected it, nor have I taken any other administrative action about it. The above comment seems to imply that I am in some way bound to take administrative action even when I think it will not help the situation. As anyone can see from my log, I very rarely do take any actual administrative action, other than deleting spam and blocking persistent spammers, because I think it very rarely does help situations. On the other hand, I say-- asked or unasked -- whatever comments I think appropriate about the quality of edits, and I usually do so without the least regard to whoever it might be who has made the edit. DGG (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

inserted

i apologize if i implied that you were "bound to take administrative action." of course you weren't. my comment was on the fact that you unblocked him after at least 3 other admins found him too uncivil and unrepentant to do so. (his 2nd unblock request included the phrase "(I) still feel that the article was gang raped"). your willingness to go against the decisions of 3 (actually there was a 4th one who expressed his approval of the block) admins to unblock him did make me think you were a forceful admin. the tone of your comments to malcolm about refraining from further reverts and participating in discussion was stern. when he started making multiple reverts, i expected that you would offer him another suggestion to avoid reverting and discuss. there was a content dispute, and reverts arent the way to solve that. does the fact that you agreed with his version mean that it would be okay for him to do one more revert and pass 3rr? i am new, and i may misunderstand the role of an admin in these type of complaints, but i didn't think that an admins personal opinion about content came into play in a case of 3rr unless it involved vandalism. i'm truly sorry if i'm coming across bitchy about this, but i dont understand that aspect of this situation. thanks for your patience. Untwirl (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm, please dont divide comments, my signature was lost from the above comment. did i say, "malcolm has made things worse?" i don't remember that. this is an example of your straw man arguing. i stated explicitly that it does not matter whether you (or dgg) think your edits reverts were "good," many people disagreed and were discussing it on the talk page, in which you did not participate. is it just a coincidence that the 7th page you edited after being unblocked for edit warring and incivility against me was a page you had never edited and you then engaged in multiple reverts without discussion against me and others who supported the same wording? if it is, then i apologize and retract my accusation. as to my being an spa, this is not an inherently bad thing, i am active in discussions and dont perform ninja reverts like you did here.Untwirl (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

(out) I believe the consensus at WikiProjectFilms, as reflected in WP:MOSFILM is:

So, it's not that "award-winning" or its equivalents should simply be removed from the first sentence, it's that it should be removed and replaced with a fuller mention of the subject's awards later on in the lede. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 20:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Just had it confirmed that this is it for the current socks in this case. rootology (C)(T) 01:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved – It seems that it takes so long to put these reports together that it was taken care of before I even saved my first message

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards