Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JBsupreme (talk | contribs) at 07:40, 3 February 2010. 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

Sockpuppet

{{resolved|He'd better stop shooting himself in the leg, or he'll have no leg left. –MuZemike 02:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)}}

Unresolving, please see below,— Dædαlus 05:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

After User:Silverlife was blocked indefinitely, he used his account before that one (per his user page) which is User:RegularBreaker. Joe Chill (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Mike he is on to us. Five Ton Sockpuppet (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Im not an admin, but a better place for this thread would be at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations. Although taking a quick look at the edits of both usernames, I don't see any evidence that the accounts were used wrongly. I didn't see any over lapping edits on any articles. Other than what Silverlife had typed on his page, which isn't evidence enough for my taste, I don't see how they are linked at all.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

From an earlier edit on his user page: "Silverlife is RegularBreaker: Reloaded." He even admitted that RegularBreaker was his previous account in an ANI topic. He attacked me on my talk page, two zodiac groups on his user page, a bunch of editors on the ANI thread, he attacked Hell in a Bucket, and he used an IP to re-add the personal attacks about zodiac groups. It doesn't matter if he's going by the rules now because he is going against his indefinite block which is against the rules. Joe Chill (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Just like you did with Lulu when you called him a dick? Five Ton Sockpuppet (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, sockpuppet. There is actually WP:DICK and Lulu did keep on attacking me in AfD when all that I did was have different opinions than him. Joe Chill (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Joe Chill. Anyways I filed an SPI case like Jojhutton suggested for you. Five Ton Sockpuppet (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thats the best way to deal with it. Most likely it is the same account, but I urge you all to remember, that its real easy for someone to say that they are someone else. All they have to do is type it and click save. Its real easy. I saw a thread here a few weeks ago, where that happened. the two accounts were completly unrelated, but a long time and respected user was accused of sockpuppetry, simply becausethe new account claimed to be the other. It was a real mess for that user, but it was all worked out in the end. All I am saying is that we must not assume that two accounts are related, until it is proven.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise!! –MuZemike 02:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not do anything matter to you or your life. So please stop (mess with me). You're not welcomed to type about me in every corner.

Reason: I don't want to mess with you, because... (If I say anything related-to-you, you'll say that I "personally attack". And I'm truly really tired, I won't say)

Thank you so much, Joe Chill, if you can do. Take a time and enjoy your life. R•B_talk 05:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What? Joe Chill (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Who knows? I'd not worry about it. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 11:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Matter at hand

I was aware that Silverlife was blocked indef for continued personal attacks and evasion to continue those attacks. He is obviously evading his block. Sure, PBML did interfere, but he was not the main subject of this report. SL was, and as he is obviously evading his block, he needs to be blocked. If he wishes to edit again, he may request an unblock request at his other account's talk page.— Dædαlus 05:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked him. It's about as clear a case of WP:DUCK as I've ever seen. Let's go over the quacks here:

• RegularBreaker stops editing in early July 2009.
• A couple of weeks after the editing stops, Silverlife is created. His first action is to declare himself to be RegularBreaker.
• Silverlife is also idle, until January of this year, where he starts editing the same kinds of articles as RegularBreaker, and communicating in the same way.
• Silverlife gets blocked for continual disruption.
• RegularBreaker comes back a few days later, after being idle for 6 months. His first action is to blank out his user page, in an attempt to undo his self-outing. He denies being Silverlife so that he can evade his block. (Correction: I don't actually see where he "denied" his identity, his only responses to accusations of block evasion are requests to leave him alone.)

Really, does anyone actually need a checkuser to confirm this? I don't, and neither did the SPI clerk (MuZemike) who questioned why the investigation was necessary. Just RBI and get on with things. -- Atama頭 22:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the block. I would have blocked also, but I wasn't sure as to why the user wasn't blocked earlier. (He disclosed this username back in July of last year.) I thought there was something else going on here in which I wasn't aware of. Perhaps I was a bit hesitant because I already got sandbagged earlier when I blocked a user with absolutely nobody telling me that there was already a discussion to unblock said user in which I knew nothing about. –MuZemike 19:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

MarshalN20

I'm here again with this hounding case which doesn't seem to stop. Toddst1 was in charge I believe but he's on a wikibreak.

On the past September I noticed MarshalN20 and Unknown Lupus were making offensive comments on the Diablada talk page such as this: , , .

I asked them to stop but MarshalN20 reacted against me in a disproportionate aggressive manner. That led to a Mediation Cabal which now is on formal mediation and also to a RfC on MarshalN20's conduct, nothing helped to solve the situation.

On the formal mediation the mediator is supposed to be Ryan Postlethwaite but I think he perhaps forgot to watchlist the page or he was too busy so he didn't mention anything else after our opening statements. So I wrote him to check where he was and yes I was offended by the attitude MarshalN20 had in his opening statement so I pointed that out. I dedicated to edit other articles meanwhile and having a workshop prepared for the mediation, which I consider is a legitimate civil way to deal with the situation. MarshalN20, was spying on me and got upset about that (regardless he also had not only one but 1, 2 , 3 sandboxes for purposes like this) and went to complain on Ryan's talk page which I consider was disrespectful so I asked him to stop , then I tried to reason with this person on his talk page where I repeatedly asked him to avoid conflict till Ryan gets some time, but he then started gaming to collect material against me, so even though the only comment I ever made after months of dealing with this user was saying that he was acting like a dog marking his territory on articles and biting others, for which I said twice that if that offended him I apologize, now he's inflating all this and using diffs that doesn't show or prove anything at all with this RfC against me, RfCs are not meant to be used as personal attacks or harassment besides the case against him is already on formal mediation. I had to stand this person humiliating me, insulting me for my nationality for months and he threatened me to continue doing such things :

I can and will keep using whatever wording pleases me whenever I do my writing.

I really consider this is a very serious case of harassment which needs to be solved immediately, for MarshalN20 and Unknown Lupus, and of course I'd be willing to be subject of evaluation if I ever acted wrong, but I consider that in Marshaln20's case it has been a long path of misconduct, observe his attitude from 2008 , he also he threatened to physically hurt other users , he recurred to outing, he canvassed to fight against me and I seriously think this needs to be addressed by the administrators soon. Erebedhel - Talk 01:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I forgot to place the ANI notice before, now I did it. Erebedhel - Talk 05:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hmm, it seems that posting this on Saturday night wasn't such a good idea, nobody seems on. But anyway, I suppose that Marshal will read the notice and post a reply here, I'd advise to check carefully the diffs provided by both of us. Perhaps today I'll have a hectic day so I'm not sure if I can follow the debate here (but I'll try to check whenever I can). But I think this has a simple solution as I asked Marshal which is just try to avoid any more confrontation till we get any response from the mediation, I already asked there and I hope Ryan can have some more time. We don't have the same interests so I don't think there is any need to seek unnecessary confrontation. Can anybody just help me to make Marshal understand that at this point making more problem won't get anywhere, and keep an eye so we keep our word? I honestly don't want to have any more interaction with him till mediation starts but I don't consider I've ever done anything wrong to be virtually banned from Misplaced Pages just because Marshal's attitude towards me. Erebedhel - Talk 10:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment

• 1. So, I make an RfC in order to discuss your conduct in such a way that we can work out our problems (Because that's what an RfC is for: so that we can establish that there exists a problem with your attitude and that you should work in improving that problem); and in retaliation you poast an ANI?
• 2. I have not set anything in motion to "virtually ban" you from Misplaced Pages. An RfC is just to discuss your conduct, not to ban you.
• 3. Thus far, you're still proving that you have conduct problems. You take the slightest issue and turn it into an atomic bomb. I attempt to find a solution with you by creating an RfC in order to discuss your attitude, and yet you continue to mud-sling and keep accusing me of things that were done several months ago.
• 4. You simply do not know what happened between "EP" and "Selecciones de la Vida." You were not there. The final outcome of that case was that everyone had done something wrong. In other words, the situation didn't "punish" me because, as it was shown, everybody had been insulting and bothering each other.
• 5. I have never threatened to hurt another Wikipedian. All I said in that statement was that I don't like the lad and that I wouldn't like to see him in person. You're once again demonstrating that:
  • You make up things in your mind that are not there.
  • You like to create flashy arguments when people are trying to help work out a solution with you.
  • Instead of understanding why other Wikipedians are having problems with you, you solely focus on blaming us for the situation.
• 6. You called me a dog, you tell me I bite, and you tell me that I "mark my territory." All because I moved a bibliography section above the references. I don't need to "inflate" this because it already is bad.
• 7. I have sandboxes of my other works in progress. How is that bad? I'm working on the Diablada, translating the Pachacutec article into English, and attempting to summarize the Land Campaign of the War of the Pacific. Seriously, how is that bad? You're again demonstrating those 3 points I just made.
• 8. Everything you post in Misplaced Pages is available to the viewing of all users. I'm not "spying" on you. This is not a James Bond movie, and I don't have an agent number. However, that would be rather cool. Obviously, I'm interested in what you are doing in regards to the Diablada article. Nothing more.
• 9. I asked Ryan, our mediator, to evaluate what you were proposing to add into the article. Obviously, you don't have that material in your workshop in order to keep Misplaced Pages warm and cozy.
• 10. Finally: With everything Erebedhel keeps showing, particularly his demonstration of my "past bad actions," it demonstrates that this user is hounding me. I feel deeply harrassed by such actions which have no other intention but to disrupt my enjoyment of editing.--MarshalN20 | 14:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll just answer some points which I consider important to clarify:

1. RfCs are meant to be used as an early step to solve a problem, the RfC on MarshalN20 already lead to Mediation now starting again one in retaliation to "make me look bad" is a highly uncivil act and worst if it's after a long conversation where I asked repeatedly to calm things down. Besides no matter how much "dirt" MarshalN20 tried dig on me, most of the diffs he provided are WP:PLAX, he apparently believes that any diff will suffice as long as he make an elaborated description to make it look "evil" e.g. here he labels it as: Presenting evidence for Original Research in the Diablada article but when we open the diff is a section that MarshalN20 opens in the talk page mocking about my name and offending me, my response to that is listed as "evidence of failing" labeled as Editor becomes aggressive after my presentation of Original Research in the article, again when we open the diff I say clearly that I'll ignore his personal remarks and provided the links that prove that what I did wasn't original research and it was backed with the very same source he was using before. Also all the "evidence to try to resolve the dispute" were my initiatives, it's evident that this isn't a RfC to solve any kind of dispute as I already tried it before, is actually being used as a personal attack and is mocking the system.

2. I do feel virtually banned because MarshalN20 is following me to seek problems and humiliate me for my nationality, I think that's enough. I couldn't work peacefully on Misplaced Pages since I asked him to please stop insulting my country, he attacked me since them no stop and I exhausted all the means to solve the situation yet MarshalN20 don't seem to stop. I just want to avoid more confrontation till mediation starts.

3. For me insulting other countries for over 5 months is not a light thing people who use Misplaced Pages to spread hatred propaganda against another country does not belong here. And I'll not tolerate any more of MarshalN20's comments about Bolivia.

4. MarshalN20 said clearly: "I can't stand the lad. If I ever see him in person, well, let's just say he better hope to never wander into my sight. lol." on .

5. It was a WQA, WQAs don't end in banning, but MarshalN20's attitude through the whole debate was completly uncivil. And nobody other than him and his buddy ever had problems with me and it's clear that is more a matter of racism and hatred than anything I ever done which is highly unacceptable here, everywhere else my works has been greatly appreciated and respected.

6. I explained perfectly well why I made that observation, because he isn't interested in an article yet if he has a problem with someone he fights to the end then marks his territory to show he won every now and then, MarshalN20 is playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

7. I never said it was a bad thing to have sandboxes I clearly said it was a perfectly civil way to deal with the situation, what I did say was that it offended me that MarshalN20 made such a big deal for me having one while he had 3.

8. Well that's the concept of "spying". i didn't say it was wrong, that's why there is a link in my user page and a big warning sign saying it's a temporary job.

9. "warm and cozy"? So calling the entire population of a country "ignorant" and "brainwashed" keeps the environment "warm and cozy"? I highly doubt that anyone visiting my workshop would consider it "offensive" while anyone reading MarshalN20's comments on many talk pages would be easily offended.

10. I find it completely ironical that this person after months of harassing me and humiliating me now pretends to play the victim. So I ask please, this situation has to stop and has to stop now. Erebedhel - Talk 19:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I like this discussing with numbered points. It really helps out. Thanks for following along.

1. I wasn't mocking you. I simply confused your name with Ethelred the Unready, which sounds like "Erebedhel" (Notice that it took me a series of months to get your username correctly remembered). Some people used to refer to me as "Marshall." I didn't feel insulted. Why would I feel insulted? You just keep demonstrating that you take the most minor of things way too personally. And you were using original research.

2. I made an RfC not to put "dirt" on you. I made the RfC in order to focus on your attitude. Why don't you want to accept that you have attitude problems?

3. By using some simple psychology, it shows that the RfC you made about me was meant to put "dirt" on me. I am truly disgusted by such actions and intentions. However, my RfC is sincere and wishes to seek a true solution to this situation.

4. I'm not following you. I was simply going to talk to Ryan, our mediator, and then saw that you had made a comment about me in his talk page. I went on to your talk page in order to see if he had replied to you, and then found your "workshop." Hence I began to read it because it was in regards to the Diablada. Afterwards I decided to ask Ryan to read your workshop and evaluate what you were going to be proposing. That is when you began to personally attack me.

4a. I didn't say that I was going to physically hurt him. My point was that I can't stand him and wouldn't want to see him in person because I don't like him. You are accusing me of things and I feel deeply insulted by these claims of yours.

5. You are the one who is following me. Not only that, but you are also looking at my history. Here you suggest Ryan to hound me. You are the one who keeps hounding me!

6. I'm no longer insulting Bolivia at all. I admit that in the past I did, and administrator BozMo gave me a warning. I promised administrator BozMo that I was going to stop, and so I have. You are the one that keeps seeking me out.

7. No. It's not correct to personally insult other Wikipedians. Instead of accepting you did something wrong, you keep trying to justify yourself.

8. You weren't in the WQA discussion, you weren't involved in that at all. I don't know how you can so openly speak about this as if you had been involved.

9. I didn't make a "big deal" about it. I simply asked Ryan to evaluate it. Ryan could have simply said: No. However, it was you the one who began to attack me.

10. What are you talking about? I'm not saying that calling people ignorant is "warm and cozy." Why are you making up things in your mind?

11. I'm not harrassing you and much less am I humiliating you. I don't understand what your problem is. Perhaps you need a break?--MarshalN20 | 00:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This has to end

I'll finish this because in the top it says "Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion" I find it disappointing that nobody cared to look at this, In my history on Misplaced Pages I never addressed in a disrespectful manner or infringed any policy, this person is gaming the system in order to keep me out of the project, I tried all the procedures to solve this situation and after months I still can't find a solution. It's evident just by looking at MarshalN20's talk page and the Diablada talk page that I was the one being humiliated by these two individuals. I'm deeply offended and disappointed, I did nothing wrong I worked in an entire academical way and I'm proud of the way I contributed to this project. It's sad that a person with no education or manners can destroy all that and even feel proud of it, it's a shame. Erebedhel - Talk 02:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't want you out of the project. All I'm asking you is to please be neutral in your information. Yet now you insult my education, again, state that I have no manners (despite you just personally attacked me), and claim that I am some sort of destructor (once again attacking me). Thus far, you are the one who is showing no respect, you keep humiliating me in ANI, and yet you try to tell people that I am the one who is being "evil." You're confusing me quite a bit sir.--MarshalN20 | 05:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Get away from me, I asked you to please let's don't have any more interaction till mediation start. why is it so difficult to understand I don't wnat you following me and calling me "ignorant and brainwashed" just because of my nationality, you said it at least 5 times during the weekend yet you want to play the victim. Saying that Peru overlaps Bolivian culture is by no means "neutral", banning a 10 years and 107 pages study by the UNESCO isn't "neutral", presenting rants of a person who didn't even finished school as the basis of an article isn't "neutral", you're not the holder of the truth that's why we are on mediation because of your attitude against a country that have never done any harm to you, I'm tired of your attitude, I'm tired of your pettifogging, I'm tired of your gaming and I'm above all I'm tired of your irrational hatred, you won't come here to play the victim here after what you have done to me. Can anyone please close this thread? I'm exhausted. Erebedhel - Talk 05:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Peru does overlap Bolivian culture, much in the same way that Bolivian culture overlaps Peruvian, Chilean, and even Argentinean culture; because all cultures in the region overlap each other: hence why the term "Andean culture." You're being nationalist towards Bolivia and highly xenophobic of Peru. You keep personally attacking me without any actual proof, and such things are not going to be tolerated in Misplaced Pages. If you're exahusted, please take a WP:BREAK.--MarshalN20 | 13:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not what you said, besides this isn't going anywhere. Erebedhel - Talk 18:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

End this

Fellows, I just need to know the following:

1. What do you want administrators to do?
2. If this has a mediation going, then can you not resolve this in mediation?

Please provide some short answers to we can either get some resolution to this issue, or at least point you to the right place. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 03:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The mediator only opened the case and we wrote our opening statements here on December since then he hasn't been active, I wrote Ryan (the mediator) to check if he forgot about it. After I had problems with Unknown Lupus, MarshalN20 came to "defend his friend" and has been harassing me I asked him to please let's ignore each others till the mediator starts the case but MarshalN20 doesn't want to stop. So I'm asking an administrator to avoid us having more conflicts till mediaton starts. I promised not to edit the mediated article but MarshalN20 has been following me around to other articles where I work to fish for diffs for his RfC on me which is highly upsetting. Erebedhel - Talk 03:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

All right. So what do you want administrators to do? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 04:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well for me as I told before is a case of hounding I feel they are trying to drive me crazy till I lose my patience and then collect diffs, I won't take the bait but I don't find it nice either. I don't know what administrators do in these cases, but I suppose a warning for the 3 of us to keep us away from each others till mediation starts would suffice, and if anyone goes to seek troubles and gets uncivil then banning. Erebedhel - Talk 04:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Besides I'm reporting MarshalN20 for incivility, he has been referring to Bolivians as "ignorant" and "brainwashed" several times, according to him since he's insulting Bolivians in general is not a "personal attack". Once BozMo asked him to lower the tone but he continues with it and after that he threatened Xavexgoem and me to continue doing it. Erebedhel - Talk 05:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There have been insults flying about on both sides. You have also used incivil language, to the point of comparing MarshalN20 to a dog marking his territory. That's pretty insulting.

Here's what I propose: both of you cease the insulting language, with no more suggestions about the character of the other. Both of you cease with the RFCs and wait for mediation. Both of you need to stop sending messages to one another.

I think that this is a pretty intractable situation, mediation is definitely needed. However, as neither of you seem to be able to get along and things are rapidly escalating, you both need to stay apart. Marshal and Erebedhel, will you both agree to this? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 08:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry for that, I apologized for it before but I do it again. I have no intention to continue interacting with MarshalN20 till mediation starts but I'd greatly appreciate if we could agree to not comment on each others anymore. Besides I'll abstain to participate on the RfC as I believe it'll only create more stress. I really hope that the mediation can start anytime soon. Thank you for your time Tbsdy. Erebedhel - Talk 09:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

All right, that's fine. As Marshal is not here to comment, I'm going to say that we put restrictions on Marshal and Erebedhel from interacting with each other on their respective user talk pages until mediation officially starts. What do other admins say? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 09:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, of course I wasn't here to comment; I can't be in WP 24/7. I agree with you Tbsdy, I should not discuss anything with the other editor. However, this other editor keeps lying about my actions and I dislike the idea that you could be believing such claims. Firstly, I already explained why I sent a message to Ryan (also my mediator); I wasn't trying to "defend" Unknown Lupus. Next, I have not been hounding this editor at all; the RfC I made is solely made up of his behavior in regards to the material we have been discussing (Nonetheless, I also found out he had previously made an ANI in which he was talking bad about me and once again found that in Ryan's talk page he was refering to me as a "Patroll" that did bad edits). Finally, I have not called Bolivians "brainwashed" and "ignorant" since I talked to admin Bozmo; what you show in terms of Xav is my response in regards to him telling me not to mention "POV edits" or "Biased edits" (Which was an irrational claim from his part since that was the whole purpose of the discussion), and what you show about yourself is simply me stating that I will not restrict my language to solely words you like. To make matters even more ironic, on the next paragraph I explain that using "brainwashed" was inappropiate and that "ignorant" is not so much as an insult in comparisson to other words of similar use. However, I think the most important thing to understand is that it wasn't me the one who contacted Erebedhel, he was the one who began the argument again. Having said that, I don't want to discuss anything else with him either (despite I made an RfC with the intention to discuss his conduct and help him improve it).--MarshalN20 | 12:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I phrased that badly - I really meant that I had a proposal to the wider group of admins. Sorry to imply anything negative about you being away, that was not my intent. I'll be honest here and say that I've not really looked into matters very closely, and to be frank the large wall of claim and counter-claim made my eyes glaze over so I've no idea what either of you are truly fighting about :-) I thought that I'd leave that for the mediator to sought out...

Given that I won't be the only one here to have done this (and I do suspect that's why I'm the only admin to really comment in this whole thread), would it be worthwhile for both of you to forget past wrongs, apologise to each other for any misunderstandings that have occured and then discuss the issues you have in the article in an adult fashion? If you could do that, I don't think you would need mediation, and which would certainly free up Ryan's time.

What do you both say? Can you metaphorically shake hands and forget the whole business? It's not easy, certainly I always find it hard, but in this case it might be the best way. The only thing here is that you must both be willing to do so. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 14:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, I'm willing to leave all this behind and move on, if I offended MarshalN20 I'm sorry. I recognize that for anyone would represent a very difficult task to read all over the talk pages our comments and check the sources used, and I highly doubt anyone would have the time or patience to look deep into it. My proposal since the beginning was to avoid commenting about each others, I would work on my workshop, MarshalN20 on his and then clean the talk page on the Diablada article as it only presents insults, and start over based on our proposals debate on how to organize the information in the main article in a ordered way just talking about the content and avoid making personal remarks. That's how I conceive the solution to this. Erebedhel - Talk 23:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't mind setting an end to this problem. I only have 2 requests (just 2):

1. I'd just like for Erebedhel to please stop blowing up things and being so "touchy." He seems to constantly see my "tone" as angry.

2. Could Erebedhel please come up with a shorter way to refer to him? I'm afraid to call him in a shorter term because he constantly takes my statements as insults. "Ereb" would be a simple nickname.--MarshalN20 | 00:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both, this sounds like an excellent way forward.

• Erebedhel: Firstly, thank you for being willing to apologise for any unintended offense, this is certainly helpful. Let's do as you say and wait for the moderator to make an appearance - if Ryan hasn't responded in a few days send me a message and I'll see if there is anything I can do. Would you be offended if Marshal and others shortened your username to Ereb? Sometimes it can be difficult to type out, my own username is Tbsdy lives, which was originally Ta bu shi da yu, which is an absolute pain to type out so everyone shortens it to tbsdy (and some even type it out wrongly as tbsy)... it's just a convenience thing.
• MarshalN20: thank you for agreeing to help end this issue. With regards to Erebedhel's touchiness, I think this can be a difficult thing to change, and everyone feels annoyed at times. The main thing here is to find ways to deescalate the situation, which is what I think is happening here between the two of you. Thank you for your part in this. With regards to shortening the username to Ereb, see above as I've asked him if that is OK. If it isn't, then I hope you will give him some understanding and honour the request to type it in full as a matter of respect.

If both of you can agree to these things, then I think we can mark this thread as resolved. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 01:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I woulnd't mind being referred as Ereb, actually MarshalN20 called me that way before and I didn't get offended for that. I'll continue with my plan and wait till Ryan makes his appearance for some days, if not I'll send you a message to see what can we do. Meanwhile I hope each one can work peacefuly on our projects. Thank you Tbsdy for your time and congratulations for the new baby. Erebedhel - Talk 03:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

So that's that then. Thanks Tbsdy. I really hope this agreement works well. And thank you Ereb for agreeing to ending the problem.--MarshalN20 | 05:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

John254 strikes again?

I encourage everyone to speak in my defence. Andrew the Assasin (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sock needs looking into?

Would someone mind peeping at the above and Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(proposals)#Purposal_to_tag_for_sock_puppetry_in_AfD? I know that the user in question has been listed on WP:SPI, but I'm not sure of the evidence connecting them to that particular sockmaster, so I've listed here for a more general look-over. I'll notify the editor. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 16:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I will cooperate fully and carefully during this SPI case. However if your uneasy about the problem, you can always block me until the case proves my innocence. Andrew the Assasin (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

..or as a vandalism-only account. Rodhullandemu 16:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to put a spanner in the works but... but is Andrew the Assasins really a vandal only account? This edit looks pretty competent if you ask me, I know there has been a investigation already but if a potential editior is at stake perhaps it's worth looking at. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

His other edits were vandalism, and that one proves that he's a sockpuppet. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 18:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok TreasuryTag, maybe I got it wrong. But, don't accuse me of being a sock, I'm only finding my feet as a wikipeidan by editing in and around the community portal. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Also TreasuryTag, John254 had a 20 day hatus before he allegedly edited in the form of andrew the assasins, I however have not edited until the 18th. Perhaps you should consider logic before you acuse fellow wikipedians as sockpuppets/vandals etc. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What are you going on about? TreasuryTag never called you a sockpuppet. Joe Chill (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I never suggested that you were a sockpuppet. I suggest that you "consider logic before you acuse fellow wikipedians as " of false labelling! ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 20:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Have a piece of fried chicken hey! Spread the wikilove. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What is ANI without some drama? Find a link to John254's latest member of the family to Pickbothmanlol's family. I will assure you that you will find a connection weather you like it or not. P-B-M-L-254 (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

From this being your first edit, you appear to be a sockpuppet. Joe Chill (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I should nominate you for adminship. P-B-M-L-254 (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey I'm not a sockpuppet. Oh was the 'competent' link proof that Andrew the Assasin is a sock puppet? Sorry I'm not good with wiki jargon, I don't speak the wikipeida lingo. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Good one P-B-M-L-254! Oh drat. Please do nominate me for adminship! I am competent... Jack Quinn UK (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This discussion I fear is becoming out of control. Should Andrew the Assasin be unblocked? Yes or no? Jack Quinn UK (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

What would you recommend, bearing in mind his last few edit summariess, and particularly the last one before he was blocked? Rodhullandemu 17:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Clearly no. Woogee (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I would recomend giving him some tasks to prove he is competent and blocking him for a set amount of time(e.g 24 hours) however the general consensus is a no and if he did want to be a part of wikipeida he would have requested to be unblocked or something along those lines. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:MickMacNee

I've been dealing with a incredibly rude user called MickMacNee over the past day and his behavior has escalated to the point where it necessitates greater community attention at this point.

My interaction with this user began when I removed an expansion tag that had been there for over two years, figuring that no one wanted to expand it given that time frame and someone could expand it if they wanted to in any case without the tag.

The user reverted me, stating it was a valid section for the article. I reverted him, since I thought my first edit summary may not have been as indepth as it should have been and it may have been a misunderstanding. However, apparently it was not a misunderstanding and the user was interested in an edit war.

So, to avoid escalating things into a true edit war, I decided to try and work out a way to make the article better in tandem with the user, which ended with the user telling me to "get fucked".

Regardless of disagreements, this user's behavior is unacceptable, considering that this seems to be a recurring behavioral pattern, and i'm not sure other methods that the user could be made to follow proper standards of Wikipedian etiquette. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"I see no need to prove it to you." - if anybody thinks you aren't anything other than a wind up merchant (and I note this user only registered in September 2009), I would be truly be amazed. MickMacNee (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

See what i'm talking about? I am at a loss towards this user's poor behavior, so I leave it to you, and hope the user can stop this confrontational behavior. I'll check back at the article in a few days and i'll check back here in awhile in case i'm needed for any more input. I hope the user can rehabilitate their behavior and become a more constructive editor. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have blocked MickMacNee for a week for that edit. Way over the line and wholly unacceptable. Spartaz 17:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Only a week? I've come across this editor before. Very confrontational, especially when a discussion is occurring where editors do not express a point of view that MMN agrees with (example). Had I come across this I would have indeffed. MMN needs to learn to calm down a lot, and remember that other editors are allowed to have a different point of view to his. This is just the latest in a long line of blocks. Suggest that any future recurrence of this is dealt with by a long block. Mjroots (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

usually I escalate blocks in circumstances like this but I took into account the fact that their last block was 4 months ago. Spartaz 18:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, Spartaz. I'm not about to go over you and extend the block on MMN. However, we could impose a civility restriction under WP:RESTRICT if there is consensus to do so.

Never saw a civility probation that worked but I suppose there could be a first time for everything.... Spartaz 18:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well if I ever see anything like that again the block will be indefinite, so civility probation will not be required. Prodego 20:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually forget it, I'm making it indefinite now. Prodego 20:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if perhaps a Civility Restriction would be a better alternative. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No, civility restrictions just end up being abusive to the user (who is then baited at every turn) and to the community (who is now told to accept the user's faults since he is under restriction). In six months I'd be willing to listen to him if he wanted to come back. MBisanz 20:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I've dealt with MickMacNee in many different situations since I joined WP over 2 years ago and have found his behavior to consistently exceed that which is permitted of editors. I endorse Spartaz's initial block and Prodego's extension. MBisanz 20:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I endorse any solution that brings a specific result: an end to the user's uncivil behavior. An indef block may just encourage them to create sockpuppets that engage in the same behavior, but if the user doesn't change their behavior, that may be necessary. I am biased since I am involved in this dispute, so please take my comment with a grain of salt, but I hope this user can be rehabilitated if that is at all possible. Doc Quintana (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the fact that this sort of thing has happened with the user countless times, and the user had made it clear that blocks are not going to change his behavior then I endorse the indefinite block. I believe it should be reviewed after 6 months or so has passed. Chillum 21:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of blocks being dished out for breaches of WP:CIVIL. Too many times I've been on the receiving end (and 99% of those times, absolutely nothing happens...) And I've bumped into MickMacNee on occasion and even seen many breaches of WP:CIVIL. But. I would say that saying "Get Fucked" on his own Talk page is not deserving of an indef block. The guidelines say to avoid profane language. It doesn't say it's taboo or deserving of a block. Also, the reason given - that the editor's attitude not compatible with this project - is not in any policies that I can find unless I'm missing WP:ATTITUDE. Perhaps the admin is using their own moral compass and was offended by the word "Fuck". But that's no reason to hand out a block - just cos they feel like it. Any chance we could be enlightened and instead return to the more precise and exact method of blocking for breaches of policy, pointing out the policy, and pointing out the breach. --HighKing (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

As an addition to the comment above which Chillum responded to regarding a pattern of behaviour. As is often the case (to my dismay), there is also no evidence presented of "an ongoing pattern of such behavior". If there was, I would have expected to see warnings posted on his Talk page. Also, indef means that this editor may never be unblocked too - hardly fair and since he is not a vandal, will only end up hurting the project. I would fully support proper enforcement of WP:CIVIL, but this turn the knob All the way to eleven block is wrong.

There's plenty of evidence if you only care to look. December 2008 (my first encounter with MMN), December 2009 (still no change), plus the AfD I linked to earlier. Mjroots (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this block is that it seems to me that we're being led along to come up with our own reasons. It seems that the evidence has *not* been presented - we're just being told to look around ourselves. That's funny. Tragic too. Is that really how things are supposed to be done around here? It's *that* easy to hand out an indef block? Just wave your hands around and hope there's enough evidence if you only care to look? --HighKing (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, "yes". If only you care to look, which you choose not to do and instead act like everyone's making an insane mistake simply because you're too damn lazy to go look. The rest of us here are either a) familiar enough with this user to not have to go looking for past warnings, or b) industrious enough to familiarize ourselves with the situation before making comments about how things are tragic and funny. Either look around for it, or quit commenting about the lack of it. No one here wants to hold your hand. Tan | 39 00:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks which is a policy and says Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages. MickMacNee made a personal attack on "his own talk page" which is actually "anywhere in Misplaced Pages". Rapido (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Good indef block, should probably have happened sooner in view of that block log. Unhelpful unblock request declined.  Sandstein  23:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Indef block is very harsh and heavy handed considering the guy does make valuable contributions to the project despite his often confrontational attitude. It seems to me that he has not been in as much trouble of late so slapping an unexplained indeterminate sentence on him will probably give him the impression that it's some kind of vendetta against him. I thought the original block of a week seemed fair punishment for intemperate language. It is out of order that there was no justification for the block escelation on his talkpage, just a 4 word notification. People should not be indef blocked on a whim. I think he should be unblocked after a reasonable amount of time (a week) on condition that he gives a formal agreement to avoid profane language on Misplaced Pages. King of the North East 23:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose indef block. Presumably opposing The Cabal and posting after this issue has been so swiftly "resolved" will earn me a block too... However I feel that I must speak up on User:MickMacNee's behalf here. This indef block is disproportionate and unjustified. It is a harmful action to the encyclopedia as a whole if editors who make positive contributions like this are excluded. We have a seemingly infinite patience with vandals, but see a failure to suffer fools gladly as far worse than being the fools in question. This is wrong.

I don't understand why Mick's attitude is so regularly combative, and why he can't see that taking part here requires a certain attitude that he might not accept, but is required to comply with - because the overall project just works better that way. For that reason I've not opposed blocks before, nor would oppose this one week block now. As Mick has himself said before, such a block is an opportunity to work on research or authoring off-line, something that he has frequently used before to produce good and valued content (and sometimes it must be said, good content that was anything but valued by other editors who felt somehow diminished by another's contributions).

An "indef block" is indeed not a definite block, but it is a definite and endless change of status. It makes the blocked editor a non-person, someone who forever more will first be assumed guilty, no matter what the facts of the matter. Look at our past track-record here as a community: it's far from impressive. I cannot support such a measure to an editor who has frequently been far from civil, but to whom we are all still required to assume their underlying good faith, something of which I've yet seen nothing to dissuade me. Yet supposedly we don't support punitive blocking, only protective blocking...

I oppose this block, and I oppose the haste with which it was applied. I don't expect my word to count for anything, I'm not after all An Admin, but I'd like Mick to know that his efforts were appreciated and that at least some editors didn't go along with it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Indefinite can be very short. If Mick gave a convincing promise to not be abusive towards other editors in content disputes then I imagine he would be given that chance without delay. The problem with a fixed duration is that it is blind, instead of checking if the user is ready it simply flips the switch. Indefinite only means that there is no automatic unblock and that a human has to decide to unblock. So far Mick has responded to this by blaming others, lets wait and see if he can acknowledge the problem and take an effort to address it. Chillum 23:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The casual manner in which the block was upgraded to indef. was guaranteed to create drama – it was ill-judged and unnecessary. Maybe if these decisions were taken with a little less haste and without getting cocks out on the table (Mo Mowlem just said it to Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness) more effective decisions would result. Leaky Caldron 00:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

My point is this this is not an "upgrade". A convincing endeavor from Mick to not repeat this sort of thing like he has so many times in the past and the block can be over today. Indef is not a greater or lesser block than 1 week, it means that a human decides when it ends and not a timer. Chillum 00:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I am somewhat puzzled. Here we have a block, if we're to believe Spartaz's comment here, for writing "Get fucked" rather than a presumably acceptable equivalent such as "Get lost" or "Go away". Déjà vu all over again. Didn't we have this same problem with something Malleus wrote recently? Profanity doesn't make a comment abusive. Anyone who parses the imprecation "Get fucked" as anything other than an inelegant variation upon the theme "Please leave my talk page forthwith, and never return, thank you" is trying rather too hard to be offended. An apology for the edit-warring and combativeness, fair enough, but anyone who things MMN should apologise for writing "Get fucked" needs to work on their perspective. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"Get lost", "Go away", or even "Please leave my talk page forthwith, and never return, thank you" would also not be appropriate responses, "Get fucked" is far more blatantly unacceptable than either however. Prodego 01:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think there is ample evidence which shows that many editors, administrators too, use exactly the same theme in their dealings with others. Comments such as this are not uncommon. And that includes a bonus feature which you won't find in a simple two-word response, a comment on a contributor which some policy somewhere says to avoid. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to think with this comment that WP:AGF is an inexhaustible well of goodwill that overrides everything else; even given WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, there comes a time when goodwill is exhausted, and ArbCom have recognised this in the past. We are all volunteers, and we are all human. None of this, to my mind, implies that we should not, when circumstances demand, call a spade a spade. That's plainly unrealistic, whatever model of courtesy Jimbo proclaims in interviews; he isn't at the coalface, and we are. Rodhullandemu 01:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I kind of touched on this on Mick's talk page already, but it seems to me that there is a bit of a double standard here. I don't want to appear to be making excuses since I generally agree with HighKing about Civil not being applied often enough, but I want to point out that Mick's recent content conflict behavior (in reverting changes to a certain Misplaced Pages space page) was simply echoing the behavior that several admins made acceptable recently. The language used/temperament clearly displays that Mick needs a break anyway, but it at least appears that what is OK behavior for admins may not be OK for non-admins, which doesn't seem like the way we should be headed. (To be clear, I'm not referring to the deletions, but the petition which was a precursor to all of that. Mick has been involved in both areas for weeks though, just for your information)
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 00:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Good Blocks, especially the {{indef}} one. Mick's been a major contributor to teh toxic environment — we're better off without his contributions. Someone please mark this {{resolved}}. Happy editing, Jack Merridew 00:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Editor has admitted fault and apologised

See MickMacNee's second unblock request. The editor seems sincere and recognises his faults. Given that this indefinite block was of the straw-that-broke-the-camels-back variety, and in light of the willingness to reform, I propose that the block be returned to Spartaz' original weeklong period so that Mick has the chance to get a handle of whatever external circumstances he cites as contributory to his poor behaviour and reflect on his future participation in the project. In the meantime, I suggest the rest of us take up on his suggestion and initiate a user conduct RfC to flesh out the concerns raised above. In a week's time, we can regroup, see where things stand, and re-assess the issue from a calmer perspective.  Skomorokh  02:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur and said as much on MickMackNee's talk page. Tan | 39 02:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

With the apology in mind, I have made it so. 1-week block. Anyone refactoring (down or up) may go ahead without saying so much as "boo" to me. GJC 04:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, i have asked this editor to calm down a little, to no avail, but an indefinite ban seems particularly harsh. Ikip 06:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone suggested a ban. This is an example of an "indef" block doing exactly what it should, the user is making an effort to improve and now "indefinite" duration has become a "definite" duration. People all to often confuse an indef block with a ban or forever block. After reading his latest unblock request I agree with 1 week as reasonable. Chillum 15:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to say in Mick's defence that he wished me well on the birth of my child. I think that Mick can sometimes get pretty close to things and, like many of us, feels passionate about the project. I understand MB's stance, but I do not think that an indefinite block is warranted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 05:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - indef block is way excessive. This is a user who for as long as he is on Misplaced Pages (I hope a long time) will likely express his views forcefully and not to everyone's liking, but is a net positive for the project who simply believes a lot in what he says and does. Whether I'm arguing with him or agreeing with him, he has a forthrightness and honesty that means you always know where he stands on an issue. I hope he can change the way he expresses to more match community expectations without losing that forthrightness. Orderinchaos 14:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked User Evading block

User: 190fordhouse was blocked for 2 weeks concerning sockpuppeting and making controversial edits, but I believe that the user is using this IP address to make edits http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/67.85.175.159. I thought that editing while blocked isn't legal.Carmaker1 (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I propose that this investgatied before the IP adress is blocked. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

At a glance I don't see it. If you're really convinced, go to WP:SPI and ask for a WP:CHECKUSER. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I would pray that Beeblebrox is correct. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, at first glance I see nothing either. They haven't even edited any of the same articles, and the IP seems to be enditing English music articles, whereas fordhouse seemed to be editing Spanish ones at the time of their block. In addition, the IP was editing at the same time as fordhouse, while the latter was unblocked. Carmaker, is there any specific edits you feel are particularly ducky? Throwaway85 (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Drama over then? Jack Quinn UK (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The drama might not be over. I left this comment on the blocking admin's talk page, User talk:MuZemike with no response and just noticed this thread:

"I think we might have a new sockpuppet on our hands, Hammond1993. This user just started editing on the 29th, just days after the sockpuppets were blocked and editing some of the same articles that 190fordhouse, Statmo1921, SonnywithaChancefan, and 67.85.172.6 also edited with some of the same date changing on albums and singles, such as Shedrack Anderson "III", Brandi Williams, Blaque, Blaque Out, Waiting for Tonight, Natina Reed, Where My Girls At?, Get Along with You, Caught out There, Blaque (album), I'm Good (Blaque song) and Jackson family."

And since that message Runaway (Janet Jackson song), (You Drive Me) Crazy, Ghetto Love (Da Brat song) and Sittin' on Top of the World (Da Brat song) could be added to that list. Aspects (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Launch a investigation. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It is the same person. I'm 100% sure. I.P.'s starting with 67.85.17 should be monitored closely, as most of the I.P.'s starting with that made such edits. User: Hammond1993 is a creation of User: 190fordhouse. They need to be reported for that reason. I am very thankful that User: Throwaway85 and User: Aspects have noticed this new profile and I won't need to do this alone. However, I would appreciate it if some users would not approach this matter in such a sarcastic manner, as if we feel that there is a problem we should be able to contact administrators without feeling like a bother. That is better, than us personally going against guidelines to blast a troublesome user. Other than that, thank you all who have been helpful.Carmaker1 (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding meaningless comments to Talk: page threads to stop the bot from archiving

I've run into an odd situation on an article talk page. I've noticed that some articles have extremely (really nonsensically) long archive intervals for threads; up to 365 days in some cases. In my view, when a thread hasn't been commented on in a reasonable period of time (say 3 months), then the discussion is effectively over: the likelihood of the original person coming back to respond is by then low, and in any event, the issue, whatever it might have been, has effectively been resolved by the passage of time.

On one article, after I adjusted the bot settings from 200 days to 100, I was reverted, with the claim that there was a "consensus" that 200 days was better. In addition, User:Canadian Paul added a bunch of comments to threads, mostly meaningless, in a deliberate attempt to stop threads from being archived. I removed the purely meaningless comments - i.e. the ones that said "Commenting to prevent archiving", which I felt were simply disruptive, and commented to that effect on the article talk page. In turn, Canadian Paul reverted me, insisting that he had only added his comments to "on-going discussions" - this, despite the fact that the he had to deliberately make comments in those threads to avoid bot archiving precisely because there was no "on-going discussion" in them. In fact, in one thread he's been adding "Commenting to prevent archiving" comments since May 2009! He also stated that it was my actions that were, in fact, disruptive.

While this is a specific issue regarding one article Talk: page, it also has broader implications regarding archive bot settings, and whether one can add meaningless statements to a thread simply for the purpose of thwarting a bot archive. I've seen this done on other article talk pages; where editors make comments at lengthy intervals, just to ensure a particular thread they are interested in doesn't get archived by a bot, and in the hopes that they can wear down those who disagree with them through attrition. Thus, I've brought the issue here. Jayjg 20:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Canadian Paul notified. Equazcion 20:40, 31 Jan 2010 (UTC)

User:Canadian Paul told not to do that. Prodego 20:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. After looking at that talk page, his behavior seems pretty nonsensical. Equazcion 20:43, 31 Jan 2010 (UTC)

After looking again, I can see the need in this kind of article to maintain a list of people who are imminently going to need to be added to the article. Perhaps the list of potential candidates should be consolidated into one section, or a subpage. Equazcion 20:55, 31 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Subpage seems a good idea. Could transclude it, keeping the main page cleaner, and the lists easier to manage. Prodego 21:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You know, I like some of the changes that User:Equazcion has done and I think if these had been discussed beforehand, with a chance for the very few regular visitors to the talk page to comment, this whole silly mess could have been avoided. If some time has been taken beforehand to look at the page and understand why I made those comments, this didn't have to go all the way to WP:ANI. Furthermore, I find it entirely inappropriate for anyone's comments to be removed from a talk page (unless of course they're obviously violating a policy such as WP:BLP), and there's no excuse for someone who has been an admin for over five years not to know that. I added those comments in good faith... as Equazcion has shown, there was a better way to achieve my goal, but why couldn't User:Jayjg have simply commented on the talk page and discussed the issue rather than just flat out reverting? As for the issue itself, I don't really mind the changes, I think they work, and I think the comment recently left on the talk page is worth looking at. It says anything else I have to say on the issue right now. Cheers, CP 21:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Canadian Paul, it's quite rare that on talk pages with "very few regular visitors" people object to autoarchive settings, so that they must be "discussed beforehand". As for why I couldn't have discussed it on the talk page instead of flat out reverting, um, huh? I made the edit, and you "flat out reverted" me:, without discussing on the Talk: page! You have the cart before the horse. Jayjg 02:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I too jumped to a conclusion pretty quickly, at first, without really looking into why you made those comments. Sorry for that. For the record, I do now think CP's actions were warranted. As he alludes to above, I've condensed the discussions that are necessary to remain on the page into a single section that's now transcluded from a subpage. Without any actual dated signatures on the main talk page, the section shouldn't get auto-archived, so no further "bump" comments should be necessary. Equazcion 21:23, 31 Jan 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if modifying a signature to say 21:23, 31 Jan 2050 (UTC) would fool the bot into thinking the section has "recently" had a comment. Chillum 00:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:BEANS. Pcap ping 00:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Pcap, the bots work for us. We are allowed to disobey, circumvent, or even poke them with a stick. Chillum 15:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it would anyway. It would be easier to program a bot to look at the edit history than to dig through the comments themselves. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually MiszaBot does work by checking signatures. Parsing a bunch of text that's all in one place is easier than checking through the history, and since comments can be moved between sections/deleted altogether/etc, that would make the history method pretty hard. Putting in a future date probably would fool it, I think. Equazcion 05:07, 1 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Modifying the signature works. I placed a 30 day RfC, but the talkpage had an archival period of only 7 days, so I had to add a month to my signature to fool the bot. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

How about just letting MiszaBot recognize a <noarchive/> tag, or some such? --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Misza13 (talk · contribs) doesn't really have the cycles to update the MiszaBot code these days. Fake timestamp works fine. See User:DoNotArchiveUntil for a more elegant way to do this. –xeno 16:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I would have offered to fix it myself then, but the solution you provide looks elegant enough. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You might still want to offer your services to Misza, I know there has been several requests for fixes or enhancements over the last little while they he was unable to act on. –xeno 16:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Abusive IP Addresses

About a 10 days ago, I've been involved with a number of changing IPs (of presumably the same person) vandalizing a specific pages (see: Premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty, Jean Chretien, Dan McTeague, Terri McGuinty, and the usertalk pages of users who have reverted him), and making various unacceptable, offensive personal attacks. Although this thread is a bit late, I'm still curious as to knowing where this is coming from (or if it's a sock of a banned user). Below is a list of a couple IPs:

1. 172.162.230.29
2. 172.165.22.153
3. 172.162.99.87
4. 172.129.120.152
5. 172.162.178.215
6. 172.129.59.23
7. 172.163.124.213
8. 172.162.104.24
9. 172.130.54.30
10. 172.163.87.138
11. 172.129.47.169
12. 172.129.111.44
13. 172.162.78.47
14. 172.162.178.113
15. 172.162.112.90
16. 172.131.44.221
17. 172.130.68.183
18. 172.165.157.118
19. 172.130.36.131

The contribs of the IPs above are comepletely unacceptable, and I think we should take action before a now IP appears. (last appeared 03:28, 29 January 2010) Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 22:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

This vandal has been going for more than three years, sometimes called the 172 vandal. Blocks should be for six hours with talk page disabled; pages semi-protected when he or she has latched onto them. Good luck with the AOL abuse report. -- zzuuzz 22:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there any possible action we can take, other than what we've already done, to prevent further damage? Does anyone know if it's multiple people, or a single person? Connormah (talk | contribs) 22:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a single person with an obsession with certain Canadian political activists. If you look carefully at the early edits you can see there's probably something personal going on. -- zzuuzz 22:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Since he seems to be targeting specific pages, the only real option would probably be SP; there's no way to block a range like that except one by one. HalfShadow 22:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this single person a banned/indef blocked user, by any chance? Connormah (talk | contribs) 22:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

They are who they are. I think I've personally blocked them over 100 times. Banned? Yes. -- zzuuzz 22:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, if those are proxy IPs, they can be banned permanently, which would make life a bit more difficult for other sockpuppets... HalfShadow 22:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

More IPs used by this guy can be seen at the history page of Justin Trudeau, and July 2008 sections of Pierre Trudeau's page history.Connormah (talk | contribs) 22:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's one of the earlier edits. He or she comes and goes. Semi-protection is the best solution IMO. -- zzuuzz 22:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think semi protection is the way to go, though. After a series of semi protections, then it usually gets elevated to indefinite semi-protection . I dislike indef semi-protection, some IPs may have something useful to contribute to the articles that this person has vandalized. Connormah (talk | contribs) 22:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I meant semi-protection is probably the only option, unless someone can make an abuse report stick. We could try an abuse filter, but the edits are probably too varied and sporadic, and the vandal just moves onto other topics like Canadian Tire or Microscope. -- zzuuzz 22:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to hear some more comments from other admins about this situation. The problematic editing of this user is just inexcusable. Connormah (talk | contribs) 22:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you also solicit opinions from User:CJCurrie, User:JForget, User:CambridgeBayWeather, and some of the other admins who deal with user regularly. -- zzuuzz 23:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I reviewed the diffs provided in hopes of being able to create a filter. I see nothing to latch on to to enable the creation of an abuse filter, unfortunately. The edits are far too varied and any attempt to lock something down would likely cause him to try something else. I see no potential implementation for a good filter, unfortunately. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

While I am not an admin, I have had quite a few run ins with this IP and was asked to comment here. It seems the only way to deal with this issue is semi protection, as far as I can tell. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Go check out WP:ABUSE. It should work if they use the proper contribution log format and not expect AOL to click links to pages on Misplaced Pages in order to view logs. I'd be happy to help, but I'd be hung if I got involved at WP:ABUSE or filed abuse reports at this time. Good luck. PCHS-NJROTC 02:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Revert, block and if necessary semi-protect, but for no more than two or three days. There's too much good work by IPs to semi-protect for long. something lame from CBW 04:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but once the pages are unprotected, the said vandal returns, then the protection usually gets raised to indef. (see Justin Trudeau). Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC for 172

Given that 172 has been vandalising for such a long time, can we start a user RFC on them? At the end of the day, if AOL abuse doesn't want to get involved, then we might need to do a range block on all AOL IPs, but allow editors logging in from this range to create and edit from their accounts. What do people think? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 05:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

RFCs are entirely useless anyway, and completely redundant in a case like this. Long-term abuse of this nature is self-evidently bad for the project, is self-evidently known as such to the abuser, and should simply be dealt with minus the usual Wikipedian hand-wringing and endless useless discussion. Rangeblock as possible, keep an eye out for more abuse, see if someone smart can write an abuse filter. AOL is singularly unresponsive to abuse of their TOS, so you're on a hiding to nothing there. → ROUX ₪ 16:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, I think the IPs change every so often, and I have seen a 172 IP actually make a good faith edit. We can't let this go on for much longer, this guy just wastes our time, and is just plain disruptive. Connormah (talk | contribs) 23:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I rather think that if we blocked the entirety of AOL for anonymous editing are referred them to their helpdesk they might respond to our abuse complaint. Misplaced Pages has a fair amount more muscle that it can flex these days :-) - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 04:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Lost my List

incivility, personal attacks

Curious account

Can anyone make any sense out of Санта Клаус's main user page? Seems to be implying he's setup specialized accounts. But is a contributor to ar.wikipedia... is it possible they allow this sort of thing and there is a misunderstanding? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 07:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Weird. Do you think he's saying he has 5 or 6 accts, one specifically for defending another accts edits, and one specifically for promoting/defending the sunni point of view? If so, boy needs some serious talkin' to. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Completely unacceptable. Basically admits that he has a stalking account and an harassment account. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Notified Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

At least 2 of the accts named are actual user accts, User:Tarawneh and User:Petra, but no User:Osama or User:Azddy. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Out of mild curiosity, his username is "Santa Klaus" in Russian/Serbian Cyrillic. Orderinchaos 15:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Might be worth a mention to meta and whatever wikis he's actually editing (in particular Arabic). I don't know but I'd assume most wikis have similar rules against that sort of thing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Did any of you bother to read the history on that page? That content wasn't even placed there by him.. not only that it looks like an IP tried to have teh content removed as not created by the account holder..--Crossmr (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

not to mention Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Azdpetratarawsanata have a look at his writing there. Far more coherent than what is on that page.--Crossmr (talk) 12:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The history shows that he's never edited that page. However, he's been granted rollback rights? Why would someone who never edits their own user page to remove pernicious vandalism be granted rollback rights? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 12:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this your first day? He asked for it to be deleted. The account isn't active anymore. This is someone trolling him. Reverting the IP was the wrong move and it may be the actual account holder.--Crossmr (talk) 12:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That attitude is completely uncalled for, Crossmr. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 12:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, it's not. I've been here for several years. The reason you are able to use this noticeboard is because I started the original. Now back to the issue at hand - if they were granted rollback rights in 2008, and they have only just now decided to have their page deleted, and the account is also dormant, does this indicate that they should have been granted rollback rights? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 12:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

pwned.  GARDEN  12:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the EC with that utterly useless comment. This took me all of 30 seconds with a couple of ganders at a couple of page histories and a contrib history to note that this is an inactive account previously targeted by socks, with a note not created by the account (which he seemed to miss) and to note that the user previously had his page deleted (which he seemed to miss).--Crossmr (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't the content of your discourse that was the problem, it was the manner in which you delivered it. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 12:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

*sigh*.. go look at the logs again. He was granted rollback in April 2008. He had his user page initially deleted in December 2008. His last group of real edits was in August 2008, after he was given rollback. he made one edit in February 2009 and nothing since then. If you look at his talk page history you'll see he was targeted by socks a few times. He was granted rollback, used it for a few months then left the project. Months after leaving the project he had his user page deleted. In May, a few months after his last edit a brand new sock showed up and added that to his user page. Obviously since he wasn't editing anymore he didn't see it. Perhaps for some reason he happened to check his old account and noticed some sock had put something there and marked it for speedy. Maybe he doesn't have his password anymore. Either way, the claim of sockpuppetry was put there by an account with no other edits on an inactive users page almost 1 year ago who was previous target of socks..--Crossmr (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. That makes sense. I have indefinitely blocked NOPV (probably bolting the door after the horse is bolted... but why keep an attack account open?) and deleted the user page. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 12:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

While we're on the subject

PeterXaver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - appears to be one of these. Anyone familiar with this particular sock family wish to take a look? I don't want to start a SSP report or engage the editor (e.g. by notifying them) per WP:BEANS and WP:DFTT... sooner or later they're going to stop giving themselves away and would hope they grow bored of socking before they become more serious at it. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked per WP:DUCK. —DoRD (?) (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

User:BKLisenbee using User: 64.128.245.110 evading topic ban and editing pages under mediation?

Possible topic ban user making mass edits to pages in mediation.

Re edits by User:64.128.245.110 See range of edits which fall under User:BKLisenbee topic ban and recent edits conform to the users past editing POV and style.

User:BKLisenbee who is topic banned from a wide range of pages is likely the editor using a Florida Ip to make edits on a series of pages .User talk:FayssalF has been emailed regarding this but seems less active. Perhaps an admin could protect the pages until he has a chance to review. Edits on violate WP:BLP, all the edits made seem to violate WP:NPOV.

Mediation was ongoing on User:FayssalF/JK however User: BKLisenbee ceased participation. All these recent edits bear the same character and tags in edit summery as User BK:Lisenbee see Users edits prior to 27 July 2008 and note similer language.

The anon User is also removing links to secondary sources hereand elsewhere, reference links to secondary sources see Tangier and useful external links to travel articles.

This user was banned permanently from Misplaced Pages see but was allowed back to in order to participate in mediation. However obviously noting User FayssalIF being less active appears to now have returned as an anon Ip to continue POV editing , mass external link deletions and major page editing of pages under mediation. Perhaps the IP might need blocking also for the moment.Catapla (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Note left on both users talk pages with link to this discussion. Catapla (talk) 12:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Note left for User talk:FayssalF Catapla (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ip blocked 48 hours for ban evasion per WP:DUCK, giving FayssalF time to review. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: FayssalF has long dealt with this issue (involving edit warring and serious conflicts of interest) and would seem to be a bottomless well of patience. In July 2008, FayssalF proposed a topic ban for the two users involved in the dispute (link). By that time, FayssalF was the only admin willing or able to regularly deal with the situation (I and some others have occasionally intervened). As of August 2008, the topic ban had already been violated, and I indefinitely blocked BKLisenbee and another account (link). In my opinion, neither of the editors should have had any further involvement with Misplaced Pages. FayssalF, however, reasoned that as the two editors made over 90% of the edits to the articles in question, that topic bans blocks, etc., were ultimately not going to prevent the involve parties from editing the articles, and it was clear that the users would find a way around any sanctions placed upon them. Thus he unblocked BKLisenbee (link). I have never thought it was fair for FayssalF to shoulder the burden of dealing with the two parties. He has previously appealed to the community for assistance although admittedly I, for one, have had little time or motivation to deal with the issue. But I think the community is going to have to find some other means of handling this, instead of depending on FayssalF. My $0.02. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I should clarify that the other party to this dispute has agreed to engage in the mediation process following the topic ban. My concerns remain, however, about WP:COI on both sides of the dispute. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

A completely justifiable concern and topic bans can never be lifted. The issues re WP:BLP are of concern . re recent edits. User talk:FayssalF or other editors he approves are the only people who should be editing any of these pages while he sought a/ mediation re content and b/ as there have been literally 100,000 words splashed on talk pages over the years, indeed that might be a low estimate.He did good work re secondary sources of which there is a vast amount. However having made decisions re points several points the mediation continued with one party absenting themselves from it.Recent edits have hidden weasel words, NPOV and contra BLP edits behind previous footnotes to secondary sources etc. and eliminated sources from external links. The volume of correspodence is also ridiculas and Misplaced Pages is merely one of many sites that one side in this issue have bombarded with complai nt and unsourced assertions. There are ample secondary sources that can be used reference to this controvsey from news media and specialist magazines that is voluminous so that is something that is 100% verifiable.I.e. there is a controversy discussed in reputable media that must referenced in any article. That is an inescapable fact.Catapla (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Rashaibrahim

I'm not sure if this is the right place, but I'm sure someone here will know where to point me or how to help me all the same. While I was checking out some things this morning, I ran across User:Rashaibrahim/Interstate 69, an archived version of an article posted in the User namespace. It doesn't have its categories commented out like most draft pages in User namespace. When I went to post a comment on this user's talk page, I noticed that someone commented about this same issue with other "drafts" back on December 13, 2009 and again on January 11, 2010. Checking the user's contribution list, he has several articles this way, many of which show no signs of activity beyond being re-created in the User namespace. If he were actively editing articles in his user space for inclusion in mainspace, they'd show editing of some sort, so this looks like a violation of user page policy to me. In fact the only edits to the histories of these articles is to remove interwiki linking or comment out the categories, all by other editors. Imzadi1979 (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• User:Rashaibrahim/Alfred Hitchcock
• User:Rashaibrahim/Alfred Nobel
• User:Rashaibrahim/argentina
• User:Rashaibrahim/Ciara
• User:Rashaibrahim/Black Eyed Peas†‡
• User:Rashaibrahim/Flax†
• User:Rashaibrahim/SWAT
• User:Rashaibrahim/BMW M5†
• User:Rashaibrahim/porphyria†
• User:Rashaibrahim/divya bharti†
• User:Rashaibrahim/Nissan GT-R†
• User:Rashaibrahim/list of social networking websites
• User:Rashaibrahim/List of cities in Canada
• User:Rashaibrahim/Charice Pempengco
• User:Rashaibrahim/Little Women
• User:Rashaibrahim/Interstate 69
• User:Rashaibrahim/Cradle of Filth
• User:Rashaibrahim/Pseudomonas
• User:Rashaibrahim/zucchini
• User:Rashaibrahim/hyphen†
• User:Rashaibrahim/torrie wilson†
• User:Rashaibrahim/LL Cool J
• User:Rashaibrahim/competition*
• User:Rashaibrahim/Joe Satriani
• User:Rashaibrahim/Derivative (finance)
• User:Rashaibrahim/Battlestar Galactica
• User:Rashaibrahim/Quality of service‎
• User:Rashaibrahim/Thermostat†
• User:Rashaibrahim/delta force
• User:Rashaibrahim/David Blaine
• User:Rashaibrahim/Trance music
• User:Rashaibrahim/Model United Nations‎

† Page blanked ‡ Page recreated again * Twice blanked the mainspace article, both times immediately reverted

This fellow's only article-space edits were to blank a page twice, and he has no WP-space or talk page edits. Why is he here? Mangoe (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be no reason for those pages to be hear. Even at best they're making his user pages appear in mainspace categories so at least should have the categories deleted from them. Canterbury Tail talk 17:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. These should all be sent to MFD. GlassCobra 17:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I wasn't exactly sure where to go with what I found, but I was pretty sure it needed deletion, which has been done now. Thanks again, Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, can someone also take a look at

• User:Rashaibrahim/alfred and
• User:Rashaibrahim/algorithm

--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Stormfront

68.118.202.49 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) Could someone have a look at what this editor is doing at this article. I really haven't got time for intricate policy arguments right now. I'll just briefly say that I don't think he's doing the article any good and probably never will. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

A quick look at his block log and edit history (posting autofellatio images on user talk pages) should be instructive. I know IPs can change, but this one doesn't seem to have. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That (the autofellatio) could be from another person. But yeah, it's starting to look like that this person is intent on edit-warring. –MuZemike 17:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• The IP is behaving badly, but I think he actually has a somewhat valid point about the neutrality of the SPLC. I commented in more detail on the talk page. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Note this IP has been reported to ANI before, here on January 9. -- Soap /_{Contributions} 17:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

While it's theoretically possible that the IP has shifted to another person since the last round of trouble, the edits coming from it are of a piece with the previous disruption and have followed hard upon the expiration of the most recent block. Since he seems quiet for now, I won't make any further fuss, but I think we all know we're going to be discussing him again. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

First I do not think that it is appropriate for Steven Anderson to post a complaint here about my in-good faith editing of "Stormfront" to remove POV bias from that article. Misplaced Pages articles are supposed to state the facts, not advance a political / social agenda. Including quotes from ADL and SPLC or referencing these organizations as more trustworthy than the subject of the article itself is clearly POV editing. It would be like using quotes or assertions from Rush Limbaugh in the article on the Democratic Party. We should stick to ostensibly neutral sources like the news media or government agencies when writing articles. We should not jump to follow the conclusions of non-neutral sources when characterizing the nature of an organization. Stormfront does not describe itself as a "hate site," so why should Misplaced Pages characterize it as such and cite anti-Stormfront organizations to back up this opinion. I encourage editors to browse Stormfront themselves to see what it is about. Surely then they will not be so hastily prejudicial against it. LastI know nothing about the autofellatio images listed above. This is a dynamic IP address and changes frequently.

--68.118.202.49 (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Please, if you're going to discuss this, be honest. You've removed sourced items that were properly presented and injected your own POV characterization over and over. You've tried inserting non-reliable sources. Now I grant you that the SPLC and ADL may have neutrality issues, but as was discussed on the talk page, if the material is clearly shown as their opinion and not stated as fact, that is reasonably neutral. A review of your edit history shows a strong case for agenda pushing and "white washing" of Misplaced Pages. And I'm going to plant a BS flag on your claim of "my IP changes frequently so it wasn't me". Looking at the edits made before the autofellation edits and the ones after all look like you. So you expect me to believe that your IP changed for a few minutes during those edits, then back to you? Not buying it.Niteshift36 (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And he's still doing it. His talk page history is riddled with warnings about this crap. He has a huge one at the top telling him that more of this will result in a longer block. And he's now way past WP:3RR. Will an administrator please step in? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The material he was attributing to the SPLC and the ADL was actually supported by 18 reliable sources, already on the page. Jayjg 01:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed the contentious section of the article. Where have I attempted to inject my POV? I can not prove a negative with regards to the IP address. Cheers.--68.118.202.49 (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Just as a friendly reminder, with editors like this one, we need to start putting warnings on his talk page about the 3RR before he gets to revert #10. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, what we need to do with editors like this one is issue a lengthy block as soon as they re-show their faces instead of letting them disrupt the project for 6 and a half hours. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• True, but there's not always an alery admin around. AIV wouldn't be a help without some warnings. I'm just saying. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but he was so obviously a returning racist vandal, clearly violating a number of different policies, for which he'd been repeatedly warned and blocked, I didn't see what possible use there could be in another warning. Still, it was six and a half hours from the time this was posted until admin action happened. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've blocked this IP for three months, and requested oversight of their last, egregious edit. Jehochman 22:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

  This was User:Trollskar, by the way. --jpgordon 22:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:REVDEL, criteria 2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material against a person, group or organisation. Just do it yourself, there is no actual content in the edit that needs to be removed, just the edit summary. nableezy - 22:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I wish I could. The feature doesn't seem to be enabled yet on this Wiki. Jehochman 23:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Uh, just a quibble about the original report. There are two possible articles that could be referred to as "Stormfront": one is a redirect, the other is an infamous website. The link above points to the redirect, & if this individual was edit warring over a redirect.... -- llywrch (talk) 05:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, my bad. I meant the article about the website. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:SuaveArt indef'ed.

I've blocked this user indef (replacing SarekofVulcan's existing, iteratively escalated two-week block) because he simply cannot seem to leave another user alone. See the past archives of this page and his talk page for prior complaints, and User talk:SuaveArt/mentoring for my attempts to coach him out of his antagonistic and destructive behavior.

This post is a call for a community ban. Alternatively, if another administrator wants to pick up this user for mentoring in two weeks (once the original block for repeated personal attacks and harassment will have expired), I'll wash my hands of him and remand him to someone else's watchful eye and short leash.

• Endorse community ban, as mentor and proposer. Jclemens (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Non-admin endorsement. I've seen the previous ANI threads on this editor and a skim of his talk page shows that he's had plenty of warnings but has continued behaviour which, at best, could be perceived as aggravating an already inflamed situations and, at worst, are just plain wiki-stalking, harassment and trolling which cannot be tolerated. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 18:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Involved party endorsement I have encountered SA several times here. His bad faith nominations of Christian related UBX's along with his POV input in Christian articles shows that he has a personal agenda and is not editing in good faith. We already have enough POV pushers here but a POV pusher and a wiki-hounder is way too much.--Coldplay Expért 19:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment perhaps we should just put SA on editing restrictions. How about:

• Indef topic ban from any Christianity related articles.
• Indef 1RR per page per week.
• Indef no talking to User:Seregain.
• SuaveArt can get these restrictions removed by either appealing to Arbcom, the ANI or Jimbo.

--Coldplay Expért 19:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Given his past failures to adhere to similar, informal restrictions... do you really think this will be effective? Or will we just be back here again next month? Jclemens (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Non-admin and involved endorsement. I agree with Jclemens. The user has been give so many chances to change, but as soon as his block expired, he made more personal attacks against Seregain (and virtually all of his other edits have been rightfully reverted). Three blocks and dozens of warnings. I (non-admin) endorse an indefinite ban. American Eagle (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a formal ban would show SA that we mean business here. Can we at least give it a thought?--Coldplay Expért 19:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse ban unless another admin is willing to mentor. Pcap ping 19:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Uninvolved party endorsement His actions are unwarranted, and he obviously doesn't show that he cares. Dusti 20:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Ban When the mentor who has tried in good faith to help can't see any other way it makes a pretty compelling case. User's current unblock request is more "I didn't do it." Misplaced Pages is not a battleground, and we shouldn't hand-hold this user any more. Show them the door. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Ban I am one who normally opposes such, but his positions about other editors are beyond reason here. Where the mentor is the proposer, I am not one to demur. Collect (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Update: They've just blanked their userpage and replaced it with a retired template. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• I suggest this discussion be carried out. The user took a wikibreak a week ago, but came back right. It wouldn't be suprising it the user is retiring to avoid a ban, and plans to return editing in the future. (His wikibreak came right before a block as well.) I realize I'm somewhat WP:ABFing, but I'm bring up the worst-case. There is enough consensus to warrent a ban, regardless of a quick retirement. American Eagle (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse ban Clear-cut case of Wikihounding. There's no room for that kind of behavior here. Blueboy96 22:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - Could someone review the message SA left on his talk page? It strongly smacks of a parting shot and a call from him to another editor to continue targeting me. Seregain (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse ban - And recommend blanking the talk page with a template to remove attacks outlined by Seregain above. -- Atama頭 23:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse - I'm not a sysop but this seems like a prudent decision. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Endorsement from uninvolved editor - It's a problem when editors simply cannot disengage. I'm not impressed with the user's overall history, especially his block log. Indef block that no one is willing to undo = defacto ban = might as well make it a community ban. PCHS-NJROTC 00:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse as someone who has run into SuaveArt before and found him to be less than workwithable. His single-minded hounding of Seregain in the face of mentorship and a prior block seems like he isn't interested in playing nice. --Jayron32 03:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No point in dragging this one out - virtually unanimous with the exception of CE's counterproposal, which got no support. Ban enacted, marking resolved. Tan | 39 04:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Note:I also approved the ban. I just made another proposal as well. So it was unanimous.--Coldplay Expért 21:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Amerique

I would say vandalizing, dont know if thats the appropriate term but he deleted half of the information on the San Bernardino Valley article. I reverted him once and gave him a warning on the edit summary. He/she then reverted me again, I did not revert him a second time as I have an agreement with Wikiproject California, not to revert more than once. He knew about this and he "rubbed it on my face". The seound time he reverted me he wrote 1st revert on the edit summary. The article has a talk page and it does not say anything about removing the content. The article had a lot of information about the cities in the valley, the economy in the valley like does other valley articles of Southern California like the San Fernando Valley, the San Gabriel Valley, ect. I hope some admin can revert him and them block it for a while so amerique, me and an admin can discuss this. Thanks House1090 (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

He's been reverted, and I'll give him one more chance. If he insists, I'll take it to AIV- I'm far from an admin, but this is pretty blatant. Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much! House1090 (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm notifying him of this thread. I too have reverted him. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

On further investigation, they have both edited the article for over two years. The fact that Amerique was expanding it during that time, and suddenly reverts it makes me suspicious that he might be hijacked. It seems weird that he would just halve an article without discussion as well. House, please don't revert any more edits, or you will violate the WP:3RR rule. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I wont. And no Amerique was against the expanding of the article because he wanted to keep it based on geography, while I wanted to have both geography and economy (tourism, cities, transportation, ect). House1090 (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well it doesn't seem that he needs a blocking, so this is pretty much resolved. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth, you guys have been brought into a content conflict. The information I removed was pasted there by House over my objections months ago. There wasn't sufficient interest in the article for me to make an issue of it at the time, but after local editors TorriTorri and MissionInn.Jim voiced their concerns I decided to take action to reduce the boosterism and other cruft House had littered the article with. My concerns over House1090 have been most recently brought up here, the account's most recent examples of edit warring are located here:Los Angeles metropolitan area. Do what you want. Amerique 03:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I see little that would qualify as either "boosterism" or "cruft" in the article -- certainly nothing like the amount of material you removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed material that was imported from Inland Empire (California) and San Bernardino, California. Whether or not it was boosterism, it was cruft, and nothing was lost to human knowledge. Amerique 03:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Amerique that does not give you the right to do what you want, your not the owner. I did it to benefit the article, not to hurt it. House1090 (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This does go back a couple years, with Amerique and House1090 having had conflicts across numerous Southern California/Inland Empire pages, and involving various other editors and noticeboards at one point or another. The discussion at WikiProject California is here. Looking at the current talk discussion I'm seeing a general consensus from Amerique, MissionInn.Jim, and TorriTorri that San Bernardino Valley does not necessarily equal Greater San Bernardino, with House1090 being the lone dissenting opinion. As for the remainder of Amerique's edit, while there is no talk page discussion yet on the larger removal of material, the next logical step is to start one, which I think might have been more productive in the long run than bringing this here. In the past there has been a general concern expressed by multiple editors that while House1090 means well, his enthusiatic support of the area can lead to issues with neutrality, regional boosterism, advocacy, etc., so I don't feel like Amerique's edit are coming out of nowhere here. I agree that this is still a content dispute at this point, and the next logical step would be to discuss whether or not to remove the other material in Amerique's edit at the article talk page. I'm not seeing any reason for a block for anyone at this point, but protection might be useful here to force the talk page discussion. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Everytime I do something I get reverted by Amerique, I provide what 4 references and he still wants to remove the also known as Greater San Bernardino Area? I worked hard to add details to the SB Valley article, and it really hurts to see some one just wants it off for no reason. Amerique says tht he wants it to be about geography but none of the other SoCal valley articles are about just geography. The reader might want to know the highways in the SB Valley, or the airports. Thats all basics. Why can San Fernando Valley and San Gabriel Valley have this information but San Bernardino Valley can't. House1090 (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

← I've been asked to give some input in this matter. I honestly don't have the time to gather tons of diffs and whatnot, so I hope that everyone can trust what I have to say (difficult, I know). To be quite blunt, I am not sure that House can edit content related to Southern California without getting himself into trouble. The long dispute history he has had was recently brought up to WT:CAL and it was sort of agreed that House should probably limit himself to a 1 revert rule with regards to SoCal topics. In his own eyes he may have followed that, but I'm not so sure. In any case, his boosterism of SoCal related topics was discussed there. I don't know if House understands what is wrong with that, or perhaps he doesn't think his actions are trying to boost SoCal's and the Inland Empire related articles' "status" on Misplaced Pages. He might mean well (I tend to believe he actually does mean well) but regardless of intentions at this point it is just disruptive and hard for other people to work around him. I've never been in a spat or worked with him on content, so this is coming from a third party to this situation. Killiondude (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay before I was attacked because I did not add a source, I now go on and I add four source and I am getting my contributions removed. I have not passed over my 1 revert limit, but I do know that Amerique has taken advantage of this. He took off the info from the SB Valley, then I revert him since he had no explanation, the he reverts me telling me to remember my 1 revert agreement. This has not just happened once. I have been working stuff out at the talk pages this whole time, if I dont agree with you, I will let you know. I dont understand why Amerique just now went and reverted me again, saying it had to be removed, what about his 1 revert agreement? I feel every one attacks me and they dont see what my attackers are doing. Why is it that if I dont follow my agreement its wrong and I could get block or banned. But if amerique does not keep his word he gets away with it? He removed stuff that was unnessessary, now he goes reverting me with my 4 sources? House1090 (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It's only gone on as long as it has because until recently few other editors have shown any sustained interest in these articles. I have been the only one constantly reverting House1090 because, apart from User:Alanraywiki, I have been the only one steadily monitoring those pages for POV, vandalism, etc. To me, maintaining the quality of WP's content in this area would mean reverting most every edit House1090 makes. Obviously, I can't do that, so I've had to let the quality of the articles become degraded until enough people have shown up to more effectively counteract his POV. Amerique 06:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I did break my 1r restriction with House. I'll take a block over it;-) Amerique 06:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

House, while you feel you are being attacked, the majority of what myself and others have said here and other places is that we understand you mean well, and a lot of what we are saying is meant as constructive criticism aimed at both at you and the material we're looking at. While there are some instances where some hostile words are exchanged I don't feel it's been entirely one sided. In the long run it is in everyone's best interest to have more skilled editors developing quality edits articles. Now looking at this most recent incident, I see Amerique and two other editors who work on a lot of California related content forming a consensus that runs contrary to your opinion. Amerique was the one who made the edit, but there was still a consensus behind it coming from the article talk page.

Amerique, I understand your frustration. A lot of what I've been hoping for and working toward was to diffuse this issue among several editors so this doesn't stay as the House & Amerique show, which is why I was hoping WP:CAL would be a useful resource on this.

Since it's past midnight in California I don't think blocking at this hour would be useful, but if edit warring on San Bernardino Valley, Los Angeles metropolitan area, or any other page flares up again tomorrow afternoon or later on this week it might help. Some other solutions we could look at is to start using {{editsemiprotected}} on pages where a talk page consensus has formed so that neither of you directly make the edit/revert. Another possible solution is to maybe find someone interested in mentoring House on content work. I can still keep an eye on all of this, but I'd prefer to stay out of the content end of this things to stay a neutral arbiter. We could also add the 1RR restrictions as laid out previously to Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions which would remove the whole voluntarily part of it and to begin enforcing them more strictly. Do any of these sound interesting to either of you? What do you hope to get out of this AN/I thread? Do you feel any of the current restrictions have worked up till this point and why? What hasn't? -Optigan13 (talk) 08:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't answer all your questions, but I'd be cool with adding the agreement to Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions, so long as it were noted that this is voluntary on my part. House is the only person in my wiki-career that I have gotten into sustained edit-conflicts with. Also, I would encourage him to seek out a mentor. Amerique 18:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No the 1 RR has not worked for me because I feel I have taken advantage of, Amerique did not follow his 1RR he has reverted me more than twice, and when he reverts me his edit summary reads "1RR agreement House" or something similar. My thoughts are not even taken in consideration as in Talk:Los Angeles Metropolitan Area. Want I think would be better is if Amerique does not revert me for ever single thing and he can treat me with a little more respect, unlike how he did here. I dont think there is a need for Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions as long as Amerique can keep his word, I have kept it and will continue to do so. House1090 (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

As a frequent WP:CAL contributor who has had, I am troubled by two things about House: 1) the number of strikes he has gotten since he agreed to a "one-strike" rule, and 2) the almost ownership he asserts over anything Inland Empire Purplebackpack89 04:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What strikes? I do not take ownership for IE articles, but I get mad when users revert and dont use the talk page because I work hard on the IE articles with almost no help. Especialy when they have unappropriate edit summarys as with Amerique in the link above. House1090 (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I know, but I'm the bad guy for reverting him. Anyway, I don't revert House for every single thing, only the more POV edits. Sometimes he makes more than 1 a day so when that happens the 1r restriction hasn't been working out for me. Amerique 05:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The deal wasn't 1 revert per day. It was one revert only. Besides you are not obeying your civil agreement either amerique. So a voluntary er wont work for me, unless you actually mean it. House1090 (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that the edit summary provided by Amerique isn't helpful, I'm only seeing him making a single revert on that page. As both of you are interested in editing the same topic area there's going to be a significant overlap in the articles you two edit. Amerique acknowledged going over a single revert on San Bernardino Valley which is the initial article that brought us here, but as both of you had gone over a single revert at the same time on separate articles I don't feel blocking would have been useful. I'm also hearing from several users other than Amerique that you have issues with ownership and edit warring. In fact the latest incident (diffs below) where you went beyond a single revert didn't involve him at all. With that San Bernardino Valley revert, I see a consensus between TorriTorri, MissionInnJim, and Amerique. It's clear from both of you that the voluntary portion of the 1RR isn't working. House, of the suggestions I put forward are there any that seem interesting to you (adding to Editing restrictions, Mentors)? Once we see what everyone's interested in I can suggest some formalized wording again and have you two and the broader AN/I group chime in with supports/opposes. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

|}

(ec)::::Maybe it's just me, but the way I read your unblock, you could be blocked for a long period at the first sign of trouble. We've seen many signs of trouble. Honestly, House should be blocked for a long time Purplebackpack89 05:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

THF Incorrectly applying categories based on personal opinion and uncivil editing

THF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has been adding the category American Liberal Organizations to a variety of articles incorrectly. Longstanding consensus and practice has been that organizations must self-identify to be included in this category, otherwise it fails WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. In fact a number of similar categories (such as Liberal Websites and American Liberal Politicians) were deleted because there weren't enough self-identifying examples to justify a category which is otherwise completely subjective and arbitrary. I've explained this to THF but they continue to add this category based solely on their own POV rather than any objective criteria. Any attempt to correct this is reverted, usually with a personal attack in the edit summary.

Further, attempts at discussion have met with extremely nasty comments, immediate assumptions of bad faith and numerous other personal attacks. For example this is how a discussion was started on my talk page. I encourage anyone interested to read through this discussion and make their own judgements.

I'm not really sure how to proceed here. This is fairly disruptive behavior and clarification/intervention is needed. Thanks.--Loonymonkey (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Try dispute resolution. From a quick perusal of your talk page and the articles in question, there's no admin action warranted. Tan | 39 05:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that doesn't belong on ANI; indeed, Loonymonkey is violating WP:MULTI by raising a new thread here rather than letting it develop on WP:NPOV/N where I tried dispute resolution. For the record, Loonymonkey has made multiple unsuccessful attempts to delete categories, and, when he didn't get his way at CFD, just went ahead and indiscriminately deleted categories that were uncontroversial descriptions of the organizations in question. (For example, People for the American Way, which the New York Times and the article itself describes as liberal.) I viewed this as POV-pushing because in multiple articles, Loonymonkey would remove the adjective "liberal" (even when the organization self-describes), but apply a different standard for organizations in the center-right, and retain the adjective "conservative" (even when the organization doesn't self-describe). I tried to reason with him, perhaps clumsily, and he snapped at me and falsely accused me of personal attacks. I tried cleaning up after his disruptive edits, but he would just blindly revert me, often with an insult. Other editors have taken issue with Loony's edits, one calling it vandalism. I won't respond further here; this is just a further violation of WP:TEDIOUS by this editor. THF (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I know you're a lawyer and all, and I agree with your general gist, but you might consider toning down the rhetoric. Violating WP:MULTI and WP:TEDIOUS? Violating? One is a suggestion on a behavioral guideline page; the other is an essay. Your argument would be stronger without the hyperbole. Tan | 39 05:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Also for the record (and this will be my last post here) much of what THF says above is false. The issue is that THF has yet to provide a single cite for any of these organizations he claims self-identify as liberal yet reverts any removal of the categories (which are incorrect without self-identification). The fact is, they don't self identify, yet I've met with nothing but insults from this user when trying to discuss it. I'm baffled by the insistence that if I edit one of these article I must also edit a "conservative" article or I'm not neutral. And their case is not strengthened by linking to an example of someone else's false accusation of vandalism. I'll try dispute resolution, thanks. --Loonymonkey (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no queston whatsoever that PAW is a liberal organization. The question is what's the user's motive in that categorization? Is it for factual purposes, or is it just pejorative labeling? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

AFAICT, all the labels were applied in good faith to organizations which clearly fall into the categories, which are not pejorative categories. Emily's List had its "progressive" category removed even though EL uses the word "progressive" and the first line of the article has "progressive" in it. As the categories involved have been proposed for discussion (deletion), I worry about "intent to depopulate" categories as being worrisome. Collect (talk) 11:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"Progressive" and "Liberal" are two different things, particularly given that liberal is often used pejoratively. And many of these organizations are neither. The Sierra Club? Various civil liberties advocacy groups? Are civil liberties inherently liberal? I have many Republican friends that would disagree. And once again, no, the category was not depopulated. Dozens of articles were added to it and this was reverted. The article is in the same state it was a week ago (or at least was until THF added them back in). If anything, the category has been over-populated, not depopulated in the last few days. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ducks?

Shortly after 76.24.147.114 (talk · contribs) is blocked, Srwm4 (talk · contribs), who hasn't edited in like 3 years, turns up defending the IP. They also have a common interest in Massachusetts subjects, and the IP geolocates to Mass. I'll be posting this on Srwm4's page shortly in case he wants to defend himself. But it looks like "quacks" to me. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There are some 6,593,587 people living in Massachusetts. How many page views come from the Commonwealth each day? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srwm4 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Of those, you're the only one that turned up 4 minutes after the IP was blocked, to pick up where he left off. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

By that logic, it is safe, then, to assume that you are in fact User:Mike Searson? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srwm4 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If you've got concerns with the way Searson addressed that IP (and you might have a point), then you could take it to WP:WQA. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind pointing out the "common interest in Massachusetts subjects" that you alluded to in your initial complain, please? I do not seem to see any such history.

If you care to look, I live in Ohio, actually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srwm4 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What user ID have you been editing under during most of the last 3 years? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I have edited an article about Xavier University (Cincinnati) numerous times if you care to look, including substantial expansions of the article. Has Cincinnati been annexed to Massachusetts without my knowledge?

And as a point of fact, I do not frequent Misplaced Pages. I simply was on the Glock page because I had a question relation to .45GAP.Srwm4 (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, you can see that I made edits as recently as last year. I don't bother to edit much, because when I do it is often deleted. See my user page, and compare what I had worked hard to contribute to the Sloshball and US Energy Independence articles, and how I have wasted my time with each major revision. It's amazing how experiences like that (AND THIS!!!) will drive a user away, don't you think?Srwm4 (talk) 07:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, 4 edits, a year ago; the previous being June of 2007 (to the Mass Mutual article). There's only one way I can tell if you're from Ohio, though: You could log out and make an entry here. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I must be from Massachusetts because I corrected a typo on the page of a Fortune 100 financial company that happens to have that state in it's name! HA!Srwm4 (talk) 07:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The main point is that you showed up 4 minutes after an IP was blocked and picked up where he left off. Maybe it's an unhappy coincidence. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm obviously not going to be able to convince you of anything. And the fact is that it's 3am in Ohio/Massachusetts and I have class tomorrow at 8:30 am at Xavier University (Cincinnati), so I'm going to bed. Do what you will. I could honestly care less about a community that feels the need to attack others, and then attack their defenders!Srwm4 (talk) 08:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The stuff Searson said to the IP was uncivil. If you want to defend the IP, take Searson to WP:WQA. I'm beginning to think your taking up where he left off, 4 minutes later, might be just a coincidence. But it's also unusual to see someone get upset about someone else being abused if they don't "know" each other. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was uncivil, I'll admit it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 08:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The IP has been BANNED. That means (I think) that he can't make edits to pages like this to defend himself. And I'm not even defending him anymore! I'm defending myself!

That IP is only blocked, stop making stuff up.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 08:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I AM DONE WITH WIKIPEDIA. IF SOMEONE COULD COME TO MY TALK PAGE AND EXPLAIN WHAT I NEED TO DO TO EXERCISE THE RIGHT TO VANISH, I THINK WE'D BE ABLE TO MOVE ON HERE. I HOPE YOU ALL LEARN A LESSON FROM THIS AND STOP ATTACKING USERS WHO SIMPLY ARE TRYING TO DEFEND OTHERS. Srwm4 (talk) 08:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we have a match. Unless there is a direct copy-paste involved, it's pretty obvious that Srwm4 and the IP 76.24.147.114 are one in the same.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• So, um, does this mean that Cincinnati has moved to Massachussetts? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • He had mentioned something about editing the Xavier article, but that was 2 1/2 years ago. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
    • He has put me an Searson on an attack list on his page. Maybe an SPI is needed, to figure out who needs to apologize to who. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

So I get put on a hit list: and can now expect retribution, unless I withdraw the Sock complaint.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's as good a place as any I suppose

Duplicate discussion Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Mike_Searson Gerardw (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Mike Searson was attacking the above IP user 76.24.147.114 (talk · contribs) for an extended period of time, after the IP user updated some figures on Glock. Mike repeatedly resorted to name calling (verified by the Glock article's own history page, as well as the history pages of both users) and insults. There were repeated attempts to revert a legitimate edit by Mike, who apparently took umbrage to the IP user making what appears to be a light-hearted joke after reversing an Undo by Mike.

Insults directed by User:Mike Searson at the IP user include name calling on at least 3 occasions ("Fuckchop", "Douchebag", and "Barney Frank" - an openly homosexual member of the US Congress).

I believe User:Mike Searson should be disciplined for his actions. Srwm4 (talk) 07:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I reverted an edit by the IP over a week ago, which appeared to be vandalism and found a thinly veiled personal attack by it on my talk page this morning. I am a US Marine and have worked in the firearms industry/law enforcement/US Military all of my adult life. I took umbrage with this individual's insults as they were libelous, could impact my career and reverted her , realized the reversion was incorrect by 2 model numbers and gave back to it . Was it the best course of action, maybe not. My self and this IP address went back and forth over this nonsense all day. I had reliable third party sources to back my claim, this individual did not. I warned this individual to stop deleting sourced material. It refused, it was blocked for vandalism. Four minutes later, this other user shows up after an almost 3 year hiatus, and edits with the same pattern of behavior this other user was editing. Forgetting to sign his/her name, undoing my edit, etc. He/she had me feeling remorse for a second, but this was short-lived. I don't believe Wiki's policy is to delete sourced material based on another editor's "feelings": I did not revert back to the correct version, because I did not want this to escalate. The whole thing is ridiculous and now it appears this blocked IP Address is making a mockery of things by resuming his/her sockpuppet account. I probably should have ignored his/her personal attacks, but I wasn't raised to run from a bully. The only thing I did wrong was outright call this IP address a few four-letter words as opposed to making thinly-veiled childlike snarky attacks.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 08:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This section is duplicated at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Mike_Searson WQA Gerardw (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm confused...what was libelous and could impact your career? None of the diffs I looked at showed anything like that. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I was speaking of this one, saying I get my info from movies and such nonsense. I've been involved in this since before he was an itch in his daddy's pants, like I said somewhere else, I initially overreacted. but I took it as a personal attack, whether he was being a child or berating my knowledge, I have no idea. I said I reacted badly and should have just ignored it. So now I get attacked and delete his crap from my talk page repeatedly and am now on a "hit list" on his page.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed, this notion is absurd. Someone reverting your edit on Misplaced Pages directly leading to damage to your career? Your comments to this IP are FAR beyond the line. He was belligerent- you sprinted right past him into WP:NPA. --King Öomie 17:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry Mike, that isn't even close to libelous. Not even remotely close. And I'd have a very difficult time accepting that your career could be impacted by the comment of an anonymous person on here. Truthfully, if I were your employer, your reactions to him would be more of an issue than that very innocuous comment and that still wouldn't be an issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• If I understand the situation correctly, we've got one user who fully admits and has owned up to being uncivil to another user. So, no issue there because we don't "discipline" users, we only act to prevent further harm and Mike has made it clear he doesn't intend to make the same mistake again. We've got another user who is still apparently mad about it, but is also invoking the right to vanish, which means that they, the person, under any identity, will never edit Misplaced Pages ever again, so we're done there. And this whole post is a copy of a thread at WQA for some obscure reason. Are we done here? I don't see any need for admin action if one user acknowledges there mistake and the other is going away forever. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You're correct. I read too much into something the anon IP said to me and overreacted, I admit it. I have a fairly long history on wikipedia and have never been involved in something like this before. I had a bad day, I'm human and lost my temper. I was nothing but congenial to SWRM4, he was the one who bombarded me with personal attacks, threats, etc. I think that speaks volumes about his identity.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• We all have those kind of days from time to time. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The SPI needs to be carried out, so that we can see if we had that guy pegged correctly, or if we've done him an injustice. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Has an SPI even been filed? I don't see it. In any event, I think the main issue here is resolved, and a checkuser can figure the rest out if someone files a report. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought I did it here, as I normally don't mess with these things I suppose I could have done something wrong: srwm4 wants me to delete it and he'll remove me from his "hit list". That tells me there's more to it than he's letting on.-Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/srwm4. I don't know if it's "correctly" set up or not. Maybe Beeblebrox could review that for you? One thing I know is that you need a letter-code or they won't do anything with it. In general, the user might be innocent, but unfortunately his behavior fits the pattern of socks. I do think it was not appropriate to mention his name, however he owned up to it being his name - so I don't know if he's really a sock or just doesn't understand. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Jason Tyler

This is now straying off the topic. Benjiboi has now stated that he is not being paid to work on articles, I think if there are concerns otherwise then some firm evidence of this be provided by those who are making the assertion. Asking him to provide substantiated evidence is quite unreasonable, if he does this he effectively outs himself. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 05:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This BLP on a male performer in gay pornographic films was prodded, which I removed explaining - 2002 Grabby Awards winner, "Best group scene", 2003 Grabby winner, "Best group scene"; Deep South: The Big and the Easy from Falcon Studios thus meeting WP:Pornbio. I was going to add more sourcing including this information to the article when I started the next day but someone added a Speedy delete tag and it was deleted within hours. I asked for that admin to restore but they have yet to respond. Another article under the same name was started and also deleted, I don't believe the two people have any connected besides the name. Can someone restore the older Jason Tyler article so I can work on that? -- Banjeboi 07:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC) That article history is a nightmare to anyone concerned with BLP policy. My strong recommendation is that this does not get restored. Benjiboi, I suggest that you go to Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation with your revision. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 09:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC) That's a fairly reasonable request. Could you userfy the pornographic actor version from a week or so ago and I'll simply let the sources lead the way? -- Banjeboi 11:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I forgot about this (if im busy i see the new messages thing, look at the message and then sometimes forget it). The article version you request is completely unsourced, as are others before it, so nothing to work from. Because of GDFL you can't have the single revision only, and as Tbdsy says, the thing is a BLP nightmare so I strongly discourage restoring the lot. It will have to be done from scratch. Viridae 11:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Your involvement in this matter is duly noted. -- Banjeboi 12:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Benji -- are you involved in the gay porn industry in any way, shape or form? I remember your two autobiographies (the ones under pseudonyms) sort of indicated that you were. But i could be remembering wrong. Also, is your political activism related to changing societal views of sex involving "normalizing" porn? Just trying to gauge if you have a conflict of interest here that might explain why you fight so hard to prevent blp vios from being deleted in the porn corner of wikipedia.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC) And the assuming bad faith award complete with back-handed insults goes to ... . Your willingness to delete almost anything under the flag of BLP - no matter how illogical - is truly remarkable and a disservice to encyclopedic content. Correctly identifying someone as a pornographic actor when reliable sources clearly do so is not a BLP issue. Please find some other venue to promote this absurd logic, editor A adds sourcing to prevent content from being deleted ergo must be doing so to promote a novel agenda, etc etc. Please take your drama-mongering back offsite. -- Banjeboi 13:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC) You've dodged the question: Does your political activism and/or your involvement with the pornography industry present a conflict of interest with neutral editing at the gay porn articles? I think it does, but am willing to be convinced otherwise.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Well let me be more clear, you're being quite WP:Dickish and for all your harassment and bullying I see no reason to entertain your tin-hat theories and veiled accusations. If you'd like to reveal all your offsite activities that have anything to do with Misplaced Pages and it's editors then perhaps myself and others could follow your lead to being more transparent. Until then I see no reason that any editor has to justify working on pornography subject areas which you simultaneously disparage me for working in while demanding that someone (else) fix. Perhaps you could lead by example and work to source an unsourced BLP rather than simply disparage the subject area altogether. -- Banjeboi 13:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC) You're still dodging the question (and apparently misunderstanding it). Conflicts of interest, particularly when not acknowledged, are corrosive to the trust vital to a productive editing environment. While I could in theory have a few COIs on wikipedia, i studiously avoid those areas where i might so as to avoid even a suspicion of impropriety. If you think i do have a COI in one of my editing areas, i'm willing to listen. As for you, you wrote two BLPs about yourself that created the strong impression of a COI. That impression has yet to be dispelled.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC) On the surface that indeed sounds bad, there is more to it but I feel absolutely no need to out myself or the others involved in those four-year-old newbie mistakes. As you have such a compromised trust I'm not sure why you would accept my word but I'm already on record as neither being a paid editor or profiting in any way in this subject area. I guess I should feel complimented that you presume I have anything to do with the gay porn industry but if you need something to obsess about it. So be it. I'm sure Delicious carbuncle will be along shortly to try to throw muck on my name but that seems rather routine and increasingly, tired old news serving only to wikibully. -- Banjeboi 14:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Which of your many names would you like me to throw muck on, Benjiboi? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Just as a point of information: I believe you're "already on record as " asserting that you are "neither being a paid editor or profiting in any way in this subject area". Assertions are different than substantiated claims. It's interesting how reluctant you are to devise any means of proving your assertion, given the potential ramifications if the COI charge is actually true. But our policies prevent pressing you on the point, it seems. ++Lar: t/c 20:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC) RELATED: This seems like an opportunity to mention that there is an RfC currently underway about including redlinks in List of male performers in gay porn films. Without attempting to express my own view here, that would mean that Jason Tyler, lacking an article, would be included in the list. The relevant background can be seen on the talk page, any of the five previous AfDs for the article (including the most recent), and this thread at AN. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Actually it's not related but given your poor judgement in this area it's understandable you would confuse a request to undelete with an RfC to delete entries that likely are notable but don't yet have articles. As noted above Jason Tyler has won two major awards in this field thus his article - hypothetically at AfD - would indeed be kept. Like many articles in the area it was targeted and deleted because the right editor(s) didn't save it in time and the other editors concerned didn't bother to see if reliable sourcing did exist. But you can invent your own explanations and fill in hypothetical gay porn cabal tales and invent all sorts of ways to disparage me and out who you think I am, really, after several months one would hope you actually had something positive and collaborative to offer besides combatting other editors. I've only seen you attempt one dramatic episode after the next to delete information. It's quite disruptive and interfering with improving these articles. -- Banjeboi 14:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC) One more time - I have suggested several times now that properly sourced articles be created for any notable performers that are currently red links. That is expanding gay porn content, not deleting it. I do not know how you can so consistently fail to understand that this is not about you nor about the inclusion of gay porn performers in Misplaced Pages. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Your track record in this area contradict your assertions, every involvement of yours on that list has been to delete wikilinks and sourced content. It's quite disingenuous to pretend that you're trying to expand coverage when you insist that every entry without an article already built has to be removed. Luckliy other editors with less emotional investment seem to be weighing in. Luckily the article was also protected to help you avoid edit-warring. -- Banjeboi 14:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Benjiboi, I got tired of dealing with your distortions of my actions long ago, which is why I started this thread at WP:AN to explain myself. I think it also answers Bali ultimate's question. Feel free to have the last word. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC) And yet you interject in an off-topic discussion just to push more invective, just to repost more tin-hatted theories and just to take a few more digs. Whatever's going on in your imagination is clearly more interesting than reality. Please don't pretend you had any other goal here than to re-muck what is clearly a subject which you have lost rationale judgement and axe to grind. Whatever you do on the other websites is your business, but you constant harassment of others is well-documented in these boards; usually a couple at a time. I think the relative concept here is WP:Drama. -- Banjeboi 14:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC) I think the correct venue for this is Deletion Review. I suggest that only the article(s) not the editors , be discussed there. DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

GovDizzo

I have deleted User talk:GovDizzo for perpetuating a hoax. I believe this is the third deletion, so I have indefinitely blocked the editor from Misplaced Pages, and I've salted the page. As they cannot contest the block on their talk page, I am sending this here for review. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 09:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've heard the guano thing before, chummer, but I can't remember where. (I initially thought I read up on it on Snopes, but a search for guano there turns up nada.) I'm pretty certain it's a hoax. —Jeremy 09:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

problem with User:Thirteen squared issueing a warning for a comment posted on a talk page

i received a warning for my attempt to start any kind of a dialogue related to sasha cohen's anti semitism as being both hurtful and a major stumbling block to his status as observent Jew. this is not a new issue and has been considered by many people and groups among them the Anti Defamation League. what i did on a talk page is not out of order and i am fully within my rights according to the rules when making the statements that were removed. someone must hold either the editor or the encyclopedia accountable for refusing to acknowledge the hurtful anti semitism displayed by Cohen in his numerous acts. a talk page is where this kind of discussion supposedly happens. the decision to threaten me with a ban for something deemed a blatant attack (when the first reason given for removing my addition was that it was a source of discussion that shouldn't happen on a talk page (ludicrous)) is actually the moderator being derelict and abusive. there was no clarity in the reasons given for removing the addition i made the first time 13squared did so. as a result i altered the addition in a way that would seem less offensive in order to get an adequate response (this was a talk page not the article) 13squared ignored the 3RR rule and threated me with a ban after just one revert. i enjoy using wikipedia and hope people allow free speech to happen. i am requesting that the warning be removed and the discussion allowed to happen at any level.Grmike (talk) 09:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)grmike

Isn't this at AN right now? —Jeremy 09:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

i'm not familiar with the normal produre that's taken when a novice editor attempts to challenge a warning or ban handed down by someone else (not sure if they also are editors or moderators). i removed it from the other page after reading the notice at the top. is this where this kind of discussion happens ?Grmike (talk) 10:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)grmike

is there any real chance the warning for vandalism will be lifted ? i don't appreciate being accused of vandalism for raising a valid point and objecting to something directly related to the article on its talk page.Grmike (talk) 10:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)grmike +

- ::(cur) (prev) 18:42, 31 January 2010 Thirteen squared (talk | contribs) (36,317 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Grmike; This is NOT a forum to discuss any alleged antisemitism or his observance, previous sections were discussing the article, NOT him, this is just a rant. (TW)) (undo) + ==User:Buleboy96== - (cur) (prev) 07:29, 31 January 2010 Grmike (talk | contribs) (37,024 bytes) (this is just as relevent as the the previous heading and comments therein. more reason why he should never be considered an observant Jew.) (undo)Grmike (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)grmike

As it says at the top of this page, you are required to notify this contributor that you are discussing him here. Since you have not, I will do so after leaving my comment. The major issue here is our biographies of living persons policy (BLP), according to which the discussion cannot, as you request, "happen at any level." As BLP applies to every page on Misplaced Pages, we must be conservative in discussing living people; in talk pages, "contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted". Under that policy, your comment is inappropriate, as speculating that Nazi Germany would have embraced Cohen's act is not related or useful to making article content choices. If there are reliable sources discussing issues of anti-semitism in Cohen's act or actions, then the matter can certainly be discussed in terms of how best to represent that in the article with due emphasis. While Misplaced Pages is all about the exchange of information and ideas, there are limits to the free speech Misplaced Pages allows. These particular limits were designed both in sensitivity to the real-life potential of harm to living people and to the real-life potential of legal harm to the project. (A few other examples of limitations are the ability to insert personal commentary into articles and to discuss the subjects of articles, as distinguished from the improvement of articles.) I believe that the removal of the comments was appropriate under policy; the specific warning template he left you was not the proper one, however. I don't believe that your edits constituted vandalism, although something in the Template:Uw-biog1 hierarchy might have been appropriate. But you are free to remove that warning yourself. 3RR is unrelated to this situation; he hasn't accused you of edit warring, and so far no edit warring seems to have happened. --Moonriddengirl 13:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You've said it better than I could. Also, yes, I should have used a different template. I had clicked a different template, but upping it to a higher level flipped it back to vandalism, which I did not catch before I submitted it. Sorry about that. --13 14:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

the wikipedia article In My Country There Is Problem makes it clear that his anti semitic act was embraced by people who share a view of the Jews in a way that compared to those in nazi Germany. neo nazi's exist today and it is those kinds of people that Borat was trying to appeal to in his anti semitic sketches (many nazi's today hide their identity so they are part of the group of people Borat was trying to entertain, by appealing to them he allegedly exposed them). the objective of the anti semitism by Borat was to appeal to the worst kind of anti semitism as to bring it out of people for the world to see. how is it wrong or inapproprite to connect that to nazi Germany ?

"While we understand this scene was an attempt to show how easily a group of ordinary people can be encouraged to join in an anti-Semitic chorus, we are concerned that the irony may have been lost on some of your audience – or worse, that some of your viewers may have simply accepted Borat's statements about Jews at face value" statement by the ADL. how is it unreasonable to assume people with nazi views would embrance his act ? this i consider an effective comparison because people don't realize how subtle anti semitism among the people at that time became full blown very quickly. people know how the situation ended in the world war and many Jews who survived it vowed never to take it lightly ever again.Grmike (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)grmike

That specific statement was in relation to a specific song and it is properly sourced on the article the statement is attributed to. The statement is about the song, not Cohen, nor does it imply he is antisemitic, or that he spreads anti-semitism, or anything at all to do with Nazi Germany. You are making the jump from a simple statement that some people might not understand Cohen's intent to him being anti-semitic, which is a violation of WP:BLP. This is the same issue with the messages I previously removed and why you were warned by myself for it. --13 22:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sasha Baron Cohen wrote the song it has everything to do with him and an attitude that perpetuates the dangerous notion that anti semitism must be embraced, used in order to be defeated. Cohen agreed to play the part of someone inciting Pogrom. six million Jews were killed during the holocaust as a result of anti semitism. Cohen has full control of his chacters he's a writer and chose to play the part of an anti semitic man. as Sasha Baron Cohen and not Borat, he finds anti semitism funny. his passive approach to the issue even after displaying flagrant anti semitism.Grmike (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)grmike

This board is not for content disputes, but for situations that require administrator interventions. I have never seen anything involving Sasha Baron Cohen and have absolutely no opinion on whether or not his humor is anti-semitic. While others might, it doesn't belong here. The reasonableness of your conclusions about how Nazi Germany would have felt about him are completely immaterial, even if they should happen to be 100% true (and I have no idea). Either way, such speculation is outside the allowance of our policy...and that holds as true at ANI as it does at his article's talk page. If a previously published, reliable source has opined that "So-and-so's humor would have been right at home in Nazi Germany", such a comment might be appropriate for inclusion in his article, with full attribution as to who said so, if it does not reflect undue weight. Discussing whether or not such a comment is appropriate for inclusion, with full attribution, would be appropriate on the talk page. Stating that you think so yourself is not appropriate. We aren't here to air our views on anybody. We're here to create a document reflecting the balanced views of previously published, reliable sources. All that matters is what those sources say and determining how those sources may best be represented. --Moonriddengirl 22:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

As Bruno he thought it humorous to say "We have chosen your baby to be dressed as a Nazi Officer, pushing a wheelbarrow, with a Jewish baby, into an oven" http://www.entertonement.com/clips/pwdnhwsccn--36

As Bruno Sacha Baron Cohen makes several references to Nazism and Hitler. These references include a quick goose step, a stiff arm salute, and a nostalgic reference to the way Bruno's fellow Austrian was ultimately treated by the world.

this wasn't an attempt to "expose anti semitism" but an attempt at humour. why wouldn't that appeal to nazi Germany it suggests that what they did can be considered humorous. As the illinoistimes put it "While some may point out that Cohen is taking advantage of the ignorant and misinformed, that doesn’t make their behavior any less horrific".Grmike (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)grmike

I am not arguing with you over whether or not he would appeal to Nazi Germany. It doesn't matter whether you think he would; it doesn't matter if you convince me that he would. All that matters here is what reliable sources say. If you want to discuss Cohen's alleged anti-semitism, you must do it within the context of sourced and attributed commentary of reliable origin. You cannot publish unsourced views about him that may be libelous on any space in Misplaced Pages, including ANI. If you want to convince others that Cohen is anti-semitic and would appeal to Nazi Germany with your own logic, you can't do it on Misplaced Pages. Again, it doesn't matter if you're right. What matters is that we comply with the policies created at least in part to protect the project from lawsuits. --Moonriddengirl 23:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Whoops. Sorry I didn't catch your message before leaving mine with the edit summary of trying to get help from an admin. I totally didn't mean to do that. --13 23:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

He is a satirical comedian. Quit comparing him or his actions to Nazis or the Holocaust and stop making baseless accusations that he's promoting antisemitism. You have zero proof that he finds antisemitism funny or that he deliberately promotes it. This is flagrantly offensive and a severe violation of WP:BLP. This is, again, why I reverted and warned you. --13 22:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

does a comedien make jokes he doesn't find funny ? with every post comes another reason of why you 'warned me'. you could have told me to remove the reference to nazi Germany but allowed me to note where the article's deficiencies. instead you all but banned me from the article and its talk page. great job at stiffling freedom of speech. it's acts like these that lead to fewer members, edits, by making people discontented with the site. talk pages frequently include opinion mixed it with questions and facts pertaining to the article. my comment about Cohen being guilty of gross anti semitism was not unfounded considered the ample opinion pieces and journalistic articles pointing to the fine line between between it in his writings and acts. he has appealed to neo nazi's, i didn't realize nazi Germany was so much differentGrmike (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)grmike

Do not continue making references to Cohen "being guilty of anti-semitism", gross or otherwise, unless you include a reliable sources. If you do so again, here or elsewhere, you are liable to be blocked for violating our biographies of living persons policy. You may discuss sourced commentary about Cohen's behavior; you may not make potentially libelous statements about living persons here or anywhere else on the project. --Moonriddengirl 00:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/04/sacha-baron-cohen-bruno

" 'Throw the Jew Down the Well' was a very controversial sketch, and some members of the Jewish community thought that it was actually going to encourage anti-semitism" borat wrote and acted it out. you can find the same kind of reactions to his other acts not related to Borat but Bruno. not even the Anti Defemation League can say with certainty that he isn't promoting anti semitism. isn't promoting something essentially being guilty of it in some way ?Grmike (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)grmike

(edit conflict) With respect to the material that you had before you altered it, that's a content issue, which doesn't belong at ANI. You are welcome to discuss Cohen's comedy with properly sourced & attributed information at the article's talk page, where interested contributors will help determine how best to represent it in context and with proper weight. You may not draw your own conclusions or advance your own arguments about it. Focus on what others have said, and do not accuse people of "being guilty of anti-semitism" or appealing to Nazis of any stripe unless you are quoting (and citing) a reliable source.

With respect to the material you've just added, first, you would have to cite a source that the ADL has said that they cannot say with certainty that he isn't promoting anti-semitism. (Quoting Cohen talking about his fictional character isn't remotely the same thing.) Then you would have to quote somebody saying that his possibly promoting something is the same as being possibly being guilty of something. Otherwise, you're looking at synthesis, which is as bad as no source at all when it comes to WP:BLP. Your conversations about living people on Misplaced Pages should be as "verifiable" as your additions to articles about them should be. --Moonriddengirl 00:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Lord help us if Grmike comes across The Producers (1968 film) and its ditty Springtime for Hitler; or perhaps A Modest Proposal. We'll be here all night. Grmike, it is called satire. It's a dangerous thing often misunderstood by readers or viewers. But that's all beside the point. There is only one point here: you must provide reliable sources for assertions of the sort you are making. And there is a single corollary, which is that if you continue to make assertions in the absence of sources, you will be barred from the site. It is not a freedom of speech issue - we never had any interest in your speech, nor mine. We are interested in what reliable sources say. You have been given enough good advice in this thread. Now we're at the point where you either heed the advice, or you go away. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Producers is slightly different in that it mocks the perpetrators of genocide, not the victims (as Cohen's acts appear to do). It's a relevant discussion, but Misplaced Pages probably isn't the place for hypothesis of what Cohen's intentions are, and whether or not he is genuinely anti-Semitic. I am sure there are criticisms of Cohen which are well sourced and could be added to the article. I feel it's a bit harsh to threaten Grmike with a block, as he is obviously acting in good faith, and also personally incensed by Cohen's attempts at humour. Rapido (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

We'll have to differ as to what exactly is being mocked by Brooks or Swift. The point here is a repeated libellous assertion made as part of an argument, after good advice has been given that the assertion should not be made absent a compelling source. And very seriously, Grmike can either heed that advice, or take his/her assertions elsewhere. BLP is neither interested in good faith nor in personal motivation. It is interested in protecting the LP from exactly the sort of unfounded allegations being made by Grmike. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Blueboy96 STOP Him

It is alleged that Blueboy96 is deleting images out of process, using his tools to further an unique and unsupported interpretation of fair-use policy, he is also alleged for major vandalism on Shooting Range (video game) --4.248.56.122 (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Obviously User:SchoolcraftT from above, avoiding his block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was mistaken in removing the comment by 4.248.56.122 and referring to him as banned. I have blocked the IP for evading the original block. Evil saltine (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(sigh) And I just unraveled an obvious block-evading sock, SchoolcraftJT (talk · contribs). I should have expected he'd start socking it up--he is an IT professional. Now I know why I fired up my 'puter after work ... Blueboy96 13:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Like I said the last time, this isn't some grizzled mountain man who doesn't understand the internet. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban clarification: Grundle2600

Just to clarify, does Grundle2600 (talk · contribs)'s topic ban apply to articles of the highly-politized and controversial climate change issue, and if not, should it? Grsz 14:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Text of the relevant ban, from WP:RESTRICT: Grundle2600 is subject to an indefinite topic ban - he is prohibited from editing any pages relating to US politics or politicians. Climate change as a political issue worldwide, but I am not familiar with the editor so I am not sure how the ban should be interpreted. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I believe it was more about politicians. There was certainly a lot of soapboxing when I was dealing with them and they couldn't seem to let things go even after several folks intervened. If the content being propped up largely ties to associating politicians with varying sides of an issue likely they should desist lest the topic ban be more widely construed. Frankly they would do well to get many months of uncontested and uncontroversial editing in before going into areas that are a part of the culture wars. -- Banjeboi 15:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The topic ban is clearly about "US politics and politicians," not just the latter. In particular situations where debate around climate change is a political issue in the U.S., I would suggest that Grundle needs to avoid those articles. For example, the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident (while originating in the UK) has been a significant topic of debate in the U.S., and indeed a couple of months ago the White House press secretary formally responded to a question about it. Other prominent politicians like John Kerry have weighed in as well. There are aspects of the incident which do not relate directly to U.S. politics and it might be possible for Grundle to stick only to those, but better safe than sorry when it comes to a topic ban. On the other hand, if Grundle wanted to edit the article on Global warming that probably would not be a problem since it's a much more broad topic, and very little of the article relates to the political debate in the U.S. So I'd say this should be considered on a case-by-case basis, but in general Grundle should avoid any article that touches on political discussion about climate change in the U.S. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur with BTP here. I also find edits like this one rather concerning. This user needs to realize that he is on a last chance; he is not in a position to stir things up in this way. --John (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's clearly no good, also edits like this. Discussing American politicians on user talk pages, or suggesting that his woes are the result of political POV pushers (and encouraging other editors to take that same view), do not really violate the letter of his topic ban, but they certainly violate the spirit. Grundle is literally on his fourth or fifth chance here, so one would hope that our collective tolerance level will be low. An extraordinary amount of time has been wasted discussing him in the past. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I won't make edits like that on users' talk pages anymore. For the record, that particular user had no objection to my edit, and I thought that he, I, and Fox News all had something in common, in that liberals hate us for citing any negative information about our current President. That's why, just as Fox News was the only TV network to report that negative information about Obama, there are only a very small number of editors here who are willing to add negative info about Obama to his articles, but we have all been topic banned. Just as you can't rely on CBS, ABC, NBC, or CNN to find out that Obama's promises of "transparency" are bogus, you can't rely on wikipedia to find out this information either. Topic banning me, and removing my contributions from the Obama articles, has made the encyclopedia worse, not better. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I really wouldn't have to stretch far to see this last post as a violation of your topic ban. I suggest you talk about something else.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I was defending myself from an accusation that was made against me. All I ever did here was to add well sourced, relevant info to articles. Those who try to whitewash political articles ought to be ashamed of themselves. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I love to read a wide variety of news sources, about a wide variety of topics. Oftentimes while doing so, I'll see something that I think would be a good addition to wikipedia. So I add it. I have always cited my sources. I have always been civil and polite. The fact that I have been banned and blocked for making such additions says more about the people who ban and block me than it does about me. I really do believe that there is a deliberate attempt here to whitewash political articles. I obey my topic ban to the best of my ability, but sometimes there's a fine line between what is political and what isn't. The constant threats to block and ban me say more about the blockers and banners than they do about me. I just wish I could keep adding relevant, well sourced content to the encyclopedia, without having to suffer the frustration and time wasting of these ANI discussions, and without being restricted by any blocks or bans at all. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yea, well, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. Regurgitating the old and tired "all I ever did was..." Mr. Innocent shtick shows that you still do not have the slightest idea about basic editing policy here. Tarc (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, while I have read the various wikipedia editing policies, I agree with you that there are certain things about the policies that I am not familiar with. Unfortunately, the administrators here have refused to answer my questions concerning these matters. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the above comment a direct violation of Grundle's topic ban? I'm sure there was something somewhere abut his stopping asking those questions. Woogee (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I voluntarily agreed that I would not ask the questions anymore. But I wasn't asking them again - I was just agreeing with Tarc's claim that I was indeed ignorant of some wikipedia policies, and I was explaining that my ignorance was because the admins refused to answer my questions. Of course in the same section where I agreed not to ask the questions anymore, it was also agreed that I was allowed to talk about politics on the talk pages of editors who were willing to let me, which voids the entire reason why this particular ANI complaint was filed in the first place. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't edited Climategate in quite some time. My comments on those users' talk pages were not about suggesting changes to articles, and the users were OK with my comments. If any particular user tells me to avoid discussing any certain topic on their talk page, I will of course obey their wish. But to have a general conversation about politics, where I don't suggest any edits to articles, on the talk page of a user who is OK with it, doesn't go against my restrictions. I think each user should be allowed to decide what can or can't go on their talk page. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I think comments like this break the spirit as well as the letter of your restrictions and I am ready to enact a long block if I see more comments like this one. --John (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the warning. I will do what you so. I don't want to get blocked. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I changed the title of this section from "Grundle" to "Grundle2600" because there is another user named User:Grundle. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine with that. --John (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Grsz may be referring to some comments that I made (which you can read here) about some redirects which were about climate change. My concern there was with scientific openness and honesty, not politics. However, since I do not want to get blocked, I will add those to my ever growing list of things to keep away from. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Just replace "US politics and politicians" by whatever Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck etc. etc. talk about and the problem is solved. Count Iblis (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That's funny, but not accurate. I don't get my info from either of those two sources. And if you look at the userboxes on my userpage, you'll see that I'm libertarian, not conservative. When I added info about Obama stopping the federal raids on medical marijuana in states where its legal, and extending benefits to homosexual partners of gay federal employees, no one objected, and no one removed it. It's only when I add things that are critical of Obama, such as claims of his lack of transparency by the mainstream media, that people object and delete the info. Nothing positive about Obama that I have ever added to any of his articles has ever been deleted. It's only the negative stuff about him that I add that gets deleted. Misplaced Pages:NPOV requires that both the positive and the negative be included, but a lot of people here only want the positive to be included. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The accurate replacement terminology would be to ban me from adding any "criticism of liberal politicians." Grundle2600 (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Grundle, rather than causing a ruckus every month or so, can you please simply agree to stay away from political articles and avoid all of the drama that invariably accompanies your involvement in them? I don't want to lose you as an editor, but continuing to test the boundaries of what is and is not acceptable is likely to result in a long-term block, if not outright ban. Your contributions to controversial areas have been deemed unacceptable by the community. Could you please simply agree to not edit in those areas, so as to avoid further drama? Thanks, Throwaway85 (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

In this particular case, my edits were during discussions about science, not politics. But since there is sometimes a fine line between the two, I have agreed to stay away from those discussions. That being said, there was nothing controversial about my comments in those discussions. Also, the only time my political edits have ever been criticized or deleted was when I added negative info about liberal politicians. All of the positive info that I have ever added about liberal politicians is still there - none of it has never been deleted. So "controversial" really means "critical of liberal politicians." Grundle2600 (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

While it's sometimes debatable about which articles are political and which ones aren't, I don't think anyone has accused me of recently violating any specific policies. The only issue here is what constitutes political, and what doesn't. If a famous movie actor has two sentences about politics in their 10,000 word article, I wouldn't call the article itself political, but I would avoid editing those two sentences, or adding any new political info to the article. But the rest of the article is still something I can edit. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I personally am fine with anything that doesn't lead to us having this same discussion in March. Your self-imposed restrictions seem reasonable to me. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Man on a mission on a dynamic IP

For the past week (since 24 Jan, possibly earlier) an editor has been consistently re-adding POV content and BLP violations (accusations of "corruption" that are not supported by his references) to the following BLP's:

• Henry Paulson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• John J. Mack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lloyd Blankfein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

and the following articles on financial firms:

• Cheyne Capital Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (protected by me yesterday)
• Goldman Sachs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Morgan Stanley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As far as I can see, he's only tried using the talk pages once (Talk:Cheyne Capital Management), and that was to demand that his "neutral" version be reinstated after I protected the page (before "zOMG involved admin protecting pages they edit" comments pop up, note the timestamps; I started reverting the edits after I protected the page, when his other edits were brought to my attention). However, I've probably now become "involved" by reverting his edits, and don't want to court drama by protecting anything else myself.

The user has a new IP every few hours. In roughly reverse chronological order:

• 89.194.130.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 89.194.142.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 89.194.197.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 89.194.134.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 89.194.203.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 89.194.134.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 89.194.2.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 89.194.196.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 89.194.162.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It appears he is using Orange Mobile, so if I understand right, a rangeblock isn't feasible (although if there are rangeblock experts out there, please see if I'm wrong). So could an uninvolved admin please review, verify protection is better than rangeblocking, and semi-protect the articles? Thank you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC) (editor notified at latest IP talk page: .)

Ah, one of these. IP, you still need sources, even if something is "true". Also, "least biased version" does not mean "version I agree with most". Considering yourself to be unfailingly neutral is a form of megalomania. --King Öomie 15:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that guy's persistent. I'd say a short protection is probably better than a risky rangeblock and after that, if yu ignore him, maybe he'll go away? HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 15:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

A rangeblock is feasible here, but since the problems are limited to specific articles I think protection is much more appropriate. All articles (except the previously protected one) semi'd for two weeks. Tan | 39 16:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:DavidHuo

The executive summary: The user DavidHuo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a low edit count SPA who is here to add an unsourced POV opinion piece (which he calls "undisputed facts") to the Australian Labor Party article. He has threatened to edit war his proposed changes in and plays poorly with others. The article is fully protected for about another 20 hours, but it's clear I am no longer an uninvolved admin, so I'm asking that someone outside this situation come in and look and decide what to do.

Where this is likely coming from: there are two Labor ministers in Australia, one state (Michael Atkinson) and one federal (Stephen Conroy) who have been accused of proposing rather drastic censorship of the Internet of one form or another. They've both at one time or another for this and other reasons, also attracted the wrath of the gaming community and one of the rival parties, the Australian Greens. While you can go look at the edit histories of Atkinson and Conroy, I'll save you time and tell you they've been a right mess all year due to activists on one side and loyalists on the other, with the good faith editors (of whom there are sadly too few) trying to neutralise both.

This particular editor, though, seems to have been trying to bring the battle to the Australian Labor Party article with this edit which, apart from exhibiting WP:SYN problems and rather poor wording/spelling, is entirely unsourced (and somewhat of a joke towards the end). My own discussion with him, following from my granting a warning to him and protecting the article after he edit warred with another user, has hit a dead end - he refuses to acknowledge there is any problem with his edit, has a very poor understanding of Wiki policy (perhaps from a refusal to read it, as he's been linked enough times), and has become somewhat abusive (even using caps). His threats to edit war further, c.f. "If you do not put the information back in, I will be forced to make a the requested changes" and "The ALP will wear Atkinson on their brand, amongst others, and I will see that the information is not censored." .7 are of concern, but as I can't act further as an admin anyway as he has accused me of bias and I don't particularly want to be an involved editor, I'd be grateful if an uninvolved admin could have a look and decide where to go from here.

I personally think he should be given one more chance and then a block if he muffs that up, but that is the last word I plan to have on the matter. Orderinchaos 15:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a clear-cut case of a new user who has no idea of how wikipedia works and is making threats in attempts to WP:OWN articles. He needs careful monitoring. Timeshift (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

preventative block on Polaron

I request that an admin block User:Polaron for a time, in order to prevent growth of problem documented by me at User talk:Polaron#Canaan edits and edit restriction. I am not sure exactly but believe P's edits may be in violation of current 6 month edit restriction. I am sure they are in violation of P's agreement to abide by rulings of mutually-agreed mediator (and administrator) User:Acroterion. I've posted also at User talk:Acroterion and User talk:EdJohnston (another admin who has been involved in creating and enforcing the edit restriction on Polaron), but I don't know if they are around.

Currently P appears to be going on a deliberate spree to create many problematic redirects, in response to my pointing out problem with 2 that he had made and the possibility that they were not constructive and/or were in violation of edit restriction or agreements. Each new one created is going to create more mess, more administration in wp:RFD processes and otherwise.

So I ask for a temporary block, say 24 hours, to allow discussion at P's talk page by P and those involved in policing his editing. --doncram (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at Polaron's redirects: they don't violate his editing restriction in my opinion ("converting articles into redirects or vice versa"), but I think that he should be adding the relevant information to articles (with sources) first, then creating redirects to point to the sourced content, rather than creating a series of unsourced assertions via redirect that no reader will ever see or understand. I see this as a separate issue from his editing restriction, but as informal mediator in the dispute between Doncram and Polaron I've renounced administrative action, and in any case consider myself involved. This appears to be an issue of WP:RS/WP:V. Polaron is essentially making an assertion via redirect, which is fine as long as there's something in the target to back it up, but I find few examples in the latest redirects to substantiate them. Acroterion _(talk) 18:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, could an uninvolved administrator please impose the block? Administrator and mediator Acroterion has now replied at User talk:Acroterion#request a block that he feels too involved to take the administrative steps and has to recuse self (and now above). This is just a preventative block to force some discussion. Edit spree has in fact continued, and the user has not once replied. I myself don't have time for this now, would appreciate a block being imposed. I may or may not be able to reply here promptly, if there are further questions. This is a case of editing to disrupt the wikipedia, which will causing considerable work to cleanup, while alternatives are clear. Help! --doncram (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:JBsupreme "revenge" deletion and general belligerence

There has, sadly, been a rather bad editing pattern for a while by JBsupreme (talk · contribs · logs). He frequently places {prod} and AfD tags on articles without any edit comment, in the hope of "sneaking by" a deletion without any concerned editors becoming aware of it--and also generally to make it difficult for admins to follow the edit history of articles. Within AfD discuissions, JBsupreme is consistently belligerent to other editors, insulting anyone who believes a given article should be Kept, I suppose in an effort to bully through the deletion result. A large number of editors have complained of theses behaviors on his talk page, since long before I ever became aware of JBsupreme's existence, and several of them have brought the matter to ANI previously.

In response to these many complaints, the editor has not altered his behavior, since for whatever reason, s/he simply seems to want as many articles (but especially software-related articles) deleted as possible. In general, a large majority of this editor's edits have been deletion nominations; I am not sure if the editor has ever actually contributed to improvement of any article.

I recently placed another polite notice on the talk page of JBsupreme urging use of edit comments, and he promptly removed it with a personal attack in the edit summary (a rare use of the summaries by him, perhaps ironically):

• (Undid revision 341447627 by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk) troll elsewhere please)

Following that, JBsupreme decided to extend the "revenge" effort to trying to delete first the biography about me (under my outside name, of course) at:

• no edit summary, naturally (article: David Mertz)

And then to look around for articles I have created to slap a nomination on:

• no edit summary (article List of Python software)

I honestly don't know how to approach this particular brand of disruption, but it seems to be ongoing and getting worse. There are a number of hard-working editors who must simply spend all their attention on trying to fix the harms caused by JBsupreme, and that fact is highly destructive. LotLE×talk 19:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• An anon also noted on my talk page that JBsupreme was already prohibited from the belligerence in arbitration. LotLE×talk 20:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If you feel you have a case, a request for comment on user conduct is probably the best way to deal with this. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If the claims check out (I haven't had a chance to verify them yet), an RfC is an unnecessary waste of time. The editor could be banned from deletion work for some period, and restricted from further harassing LOTLE, or else warned to stop under threat of restriction, either by community consensus or administrator discretion. LotLE, you say that he he has nominated articles "such as" the one you list. Are there others? - Wikidemon (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was looking around at edit history while posting this. I have revised my wording to indicate that it is just the one software article currently "revenge nominated" LotLE×talk 19:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

NOTE --User JBsupreme has beeen informed of this matter -->User talk:JBsupreme#Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents...Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what "in the hope of "sneaking by" a deletion without any concerned editors becoming aware of it" means. Is it more likely to be seen in an edit summary that just happens to be racing by on Recent Changes than by people looking at the articles if they really care about them, and seeing the tags? 67.51.38.51 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The people who care about them will have the articles in their watchlist, and will see the edit summaries of the last N edits, rather than checking through every single article on a weekly basis. If there's nothing to catch their attention out of a large list of edits, that's what "sneaking by" would refer to. Also, you're supposed to notify the main contributors to an article on their talk page: I can't see him doing that for the last few days' batch of AfDs. Holly25 (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The afd template says Please consider notifying the author(s) by placing {{subst:adw|Guide to deletion}} ~~~~ on their talk page(s). If you believe the notification should be mandatory, take it up on the deletion policy pages, not here.Woogee (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:67.51.38.51: Unfortunately, JBsupreme has also done something to hide the TOC on his talk page, which makes linking to sections difficult. The following (quoted) gets at the gist of numerous complaints by editors:

27 Edit summaries for PROD nominations
Just a friendly reminder to use an edit summary when proposing deletion for an article. Edit summary usage is always good, but it is especially important that edit summaries are used when proposing deletion. The reason for this is that articles proposed for deletion that later have the {prod} tag removed should not be proposed for deletion again, but rather sent to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. The only easy way to check if an article was previously proposed for deletion is to look at the edit history and the edit summaries people have left before. Thanks! --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Or also:

37 Prods
Howdy. FYI, if an article is tagged with {prod} and it is then contested, you aren't supposed the tag the article with {prod} a 2nd time.--Rockfang (talk) 05:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, many AfD nominations are filed, but in a manner to try to hide notice of them from interested editors. Editors frequently complain about this to JBsupreme, such as:

30 AfD setups
Hi JB. I've mentioned this to you several times before, but I will remind you again. Please be sure to follow all the steps at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion when you nominate an article. I fixed this one for you. Thanks. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking through User talk:JBsupreme shows a large number of other similar complaints, many discussing previous ANIs on the matter. LotLE×talk 20:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has been trolling AN/I and elsewhere for quite some time now. He can keep on doing that if it suits him. There are edit summaries for the deletion nominations of both articles posted. I do admittedly slip up on occasion and forget to add a summary for a prod at times, but neither of these two are valid examples of that. Furthermore, it is not up to me to decide if the David Mertz article is notable, that is a community decision based on how WP:BLP, WP:BIO, WP:GNG, and any other relevant policies or guidelines are being interpreted at the time. JBsupreme (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: This seems to be retaliatory spiteful actions by JBsupreme (talk · contribs). This is a nom by JBsupreme (talk · contribs) of an article (admittedly by the subject on his userpage) which is a real-life bio page about the other editor in the dispute, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. This is a nom of a page created by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. These actions by JBsupreme (talk · contribs) are highly inappropriate, disruptive, and indeed seem to be retaliatory in nature. Seems like a clear-cut case of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Cirt (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) As a matter of assuming good faith, JBSupreme offers a fair explanation on the lack of edit summaries. LotLE hasn't provided any proof for the speculation that the incomplete AfD procedure reflects an intent to deceive people, although there's some evidence that it's a recurring pattern. (addressing JBSupreme) If you try to remember in the future, problem solved there. The name-calling is a problem, though, as is the apparent vendetta. Are you telling us that you just happened upon that article on your own, and decided out of the blue to re-nominate it barely three months after it survived its last deletion nomination? It would appear that your dispute with this editor carried you there. Back to the original complaint, I think it rests on an assumption of bad faith that others may not be so willing to make. The easiest solution, I think, is for the two of you to try to see the good in each other and make up, or failing that, just disengage. Yes, there was some hounding, but the damage can be undone easily enough. The nominations ought to be withdrawn, but both of those articles will likely survive AfD even if carried to its full term. Just my opinion. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with Wikidemon that the two AFD nominations should be withdrawn, and then the two editors should agree to disengage from each other in the future. Cirt (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

From a completely uninvolved point of view, this looks like a case of wikihounding which is in violation of an ArbCom ruling in which JBsupreme "is warned to refrain from incivility and personal attacks". It appears to me that some sort of action against JBsupreme may be warranted. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 20:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for pointing that out, I was unaware of that ArbCom ruling regarding JBsupreme. This certainly seems to merit administrative action. Cirt (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, JBsupreme has called me a "troll" and some other insults on some AfD pages (which I'm having trouble locating, however, in a quick search). That probably violates the arbitration ruling on WP:NPA. However, my concern really is not that my fragile feelings were hurt by being called a mean name... rather, I find his disruptive behavior around "delete by every means (including deception, bullying, etc)" to be the underlying issue. LotLE×talk 21:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I knew that name sounded familiar. This has been going on for quite some time. Kafziel 21:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I recently observed behaviour of JBsupreme which looked to me like deceiving and I filed an ANI thread about it a few days ago, which went basically uncommented and went to the archive. I just want to mention it again, in case it is part of a bigger picture and relevant here: . JBsupreme, please don't take this as a personal attack, I only mentioned it. --thommey (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• • With respect to the AfDs, an AfD on David Mertz could possibly be in good faith--a simultaneous one against Mertz' RL field of work-- List of Python software, after a unanimous first AfD, makes it seem otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 23:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
    • This editor strikes me as one who has difficulty letting things go when consensus is against him. Resolute 05:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC/U

It's unclear to me where this issue is best be debated, but there's also Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/JBsupreme, which seems already endorsed by two editors. Pcap ping 22:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't remotely look like it is endorsed by two editors.--Crossmr (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

True, one of them was a sock nailed above. Pcap ping 01:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

UnitAnode and BLP content deletions

Unitanode (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was recently asked here, and agreed, to stop adding WP:PROD tags to BLP articles for lack of citations, continues to delete verifiable uncontentious content from BLP articles simply for lack of sourcing. UnitAnode is stubbifying articles at a rate exceeds any single editor's ability to clean up after. No doubt that some of the information deleted is indeed contentious, or inaccurate, ur unverifiable, but plenty of it is good content. Just reviewing these deletions is a major time sink, much less improving the articles as fast as this one editor can mess them up. When the content is restored UnitAnode simply edit wars it back out. When asked to stop and wait for consensus UnitAnode announces that no consensus is necessary because BLP policy is on their side. As a content policy matter that is simply untrue - this specific issue has been considered and rejected at BLP. As a behavioral matter this is yet another case of edit warring mass deletions in support of either a misreading of, or a proposed change in, BLP policy. I've offered a truce, that we keep the status quo and file a content-focused RfC to decide this once and for all, but the editor has rejected the notion and tried to imply that I'm the one who is in trouble for adding unsourced content (see here). My only recourse, other than edit warring or allowing our content to suffer, is to ask for help convincing UnitAnode to stop until the community has spoken on the matter. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is more pointless drama-stirring by Wikidemon, simply because he doesn't seem to understand that removing unsourced information from BLPs is good, while readding such information is bad. I'm in the process of examining the efficacy of my PRODs, and at first blush, it appears they were very effective. Wikidemon needs to stop with the drama-stirring. UnitAnode 20:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Was the personal attack really necessary? How about taking it on face value when I say why I am concerned about this? - Wikidemon (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Unsourced content should be removed from WP:BLP articles. Was this not just recently settled by ArbCom? JBsupreme (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree here with JBsupreme (talk · contribs). Quite simply, unsourced content should be removed from WP:BLP articles. Cirt (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• All unsourced content is open to deletion under current policy, especially in BLPS. That's policy. If you'd like to expand/restore content an editor must, at minimum, source it (a source of some kind is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition of course). There is no such thing as good unsourced and unverified content. Good on ya unit.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't egg on an editor for edit warring. That's a respectable opinion, but in my opinion it is a mistaken one that would cause untold damage. More to the point it's not what policy says. BLP policy addresses "unsourced or poorly sourced contentius material" (emphasis added). The idea that it applies to uncontentious material was recently considered and rejected - see here. We can and should talk about this further at an RfC if people want to change policy, but meanwhile, the way to enact a policy change after the community rejects it is not by engaging in mass deletion campaigns, or resorting to edit warring and incivility when people object. I'm not asking to settle the issue here, just asking that we encourage UnitAnode to hold off until the community is clear. Reverting a bad deletion is not the same as endorsing content. There's nothing that requires bringing all restored content to featured status. Wikidemon (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

All of the above is just, like, your opinion, man. The policy is clear in the other direction.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What part of "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" clearly applies to uncontentious material? Is it your opinion that it is okay for one party to edit war to enforce a minority opinion about content policy? - Wikidemon (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Not only is it policy, but any such content removed can easily be retrieved from the edit history provided that it is useful. I'm not sure why we are still going around in circles on this subject. JBsupreme (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• All unsourced content is open to deletion under current policy, especially in WP:BLPS. That's policy. Arbcom did in fact recently reaffirm that. Wikidemon needs to internalize that and stop stirring things up. Or, better, work with Unitanode and others on how to effectively and efficiently improve articles instead of posting not very collegial stuff like User_talk:Unitanode#BLP_stubbification. This report is baseless and should be closed with no action. ++Lar: t/c 20:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

  Why isn't that reflected in the policy? –xeno 21:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

  He's made it clear that his goal is -- having failed to get me acquiesce to his demands at my talkpage -- to have an administrator force me to do so. UnitAnode 20:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Unsourced material has no place in BLP's Unitode is quite right to remove it. Viridae 20:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Closed, with no action taken. Cirt (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

After all of 25 minutes, by a party who sided with the named party? –xeno 20:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

unclosed. Ecx4! Rd232 20:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No objections to it being unclosed. :) Cirt (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people (currently paused; cf Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Phase II) Jclemens' view that "most BLPs, even those that are unreferenced are innocuous, provide useful material, and do no harm." was passed by a large majority. On this evidence the view of the community is that uncontentious content should not be deleted. More broadly a clear view emerging from the RFC is that deleting content faster than it can reasonably be reviewed is not acceptable, unless an argument specific to that content is made as to why it should be removed - and "unsourced" is not sufficient argument. It may be that the extreme deletionists who started the recent hooha jump in more quickly here; but they are not representative of the wider community. Rd232 20:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• It's not even "deleting" content, it's simply removing unsourced content. It's not a violation of any policy, and is done specifically in support of our WP:BLP policy. I'm not going to stop removing this unsourced content, so I don't see the point of continuing this thread. I've done nothing blockable, and further discussion is little more than navel-gazing. UnitAnode 21:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Unilateral declarations to ignore well-established community views in favour of personal interpretation of policy were quite clearly rejected by Arbcom, after initially seeming to endorse that. I won't do so (signing off now) but if you continue whilst this discussion is unresolved, someone should block you. Rd232 21:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It would not go well for you if you were to press the block button on me right now. I'm just imagining the block summary now, Blocked for removing unsourced information from BLPs ... UnitAnode 21:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

UnitAnode has made similar veiled threats against other administrators before. That's all I'm asking for, really, that UnitAnode stop until the community decides. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

e/c - There are many different opinions at that RFC page, it is not policy and it is not supported by the community to encourage having wholly unsourced material in BLPs. Cirt (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Does it really need to be explained that A not deleting unsourced content without specific reason and B "encourage having wholly unsourced material" are very different things? Rd232 21:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)You're conflating a few issues. Nobody is proposing that we drop our WP:RS guideline. The question, specifically, is whether it's okay to engage in mass editing campaigns and edit war against those who object. Even if the original deletion is allowable it's also allowable to revert it and then the consensus process applies. I very carefully and selectively reversed a couple of the deletions after checking to make sure there was no content that appeared unverifiable or contentious. This editor is deleting a lot of content without first making any attempt to improve it. It's pretty indiscriminate, because most BLP content is not adequately sourced, and I don't think the community wants to drop most of the encyclopedia's BLP content right now. In a few minutes one can carelessly destroy hours worth of work, which could have been brought up to standards in a few more minutes. Multiply that by the prospect of a dozen editors doing it ten times a day if it's allowed and you've got a major trashing of the encyclopedia. If the material stays deleted for long there will be intervening edits and it becomes harder and harder to restore, with or without sourcing. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Also worth noting (in view of JBsupreme's remark about Arbcom) is Sandstein's overwhelmingly approved view: "The arbcom motion is not to be understood as changing or superseding general deletion policy and process as applied to the biographies of living persons, and it should be considered void if and insofar as it might have been intended to have that effect. Instead, any policy change should be decided by community consensus, starting with this RfC." Rd232 21:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I second Wikidemon's comments. Its unfortunate that Unitanode is denuding articles instead of working to source them (and I've sourced a view of his prods recently so I have seen this, and I can't recall any iota of contentious untrue material being found). As rd232 notes, a majority of editors agree that "most BLPs, even those that are unreferenced are innocuous, provide useful material, and do no harm." I've gotten cross-wise with Unitanode recently so I should hold my tongue beyond that, but from my limited dealings with Unitanode and seeing some of the comments on his talk page, he has drawn ire from a number of editors recently.--Milowent (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed restriction

Proposal: UnitAnode be restricted temporarily from removing unsourced content from BLPs, unless that content can reasonably be construed as contentious. "reasonably construed as contentious" to be determined case-by-case on a consensus basis. This restriction shall run until the conclusion of the BLP RFC. Rd232 21:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per the comment by Lar (talk · contribs), above. Cirt (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If by that you're alluding to Arbcom, I refer you to the community-endorsed Sandstein view noted above. Rd232 21:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This. Cirt (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Other than showing that lar doesn't actualy know what our BLP policy is ( unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material) I fail to see the significance of said link.©Geni 21:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Since he was clearly referring to the opening lines of the Verifiability policy, you may wish to consider what is by shown by your own statement. CIreland (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The lead of WP:V does not support the indiscriminate high-volume removal of unsourced uncontentious material. Rd232 23:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Lar did not suggest that it did. "Indiscriminate" is your characterization. CIreland (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Per the comment by Lar (talk · contribs), above, more specifically "work with Unitanode and others on how to effectively and efficiently improve articles instead of posting not very collegial stuff." The limited time period of the proposal makes sense to give Unitanode time to do this, because the BLP RFC is working on developing a global solution.--Milowent (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support, if only to get him to slow down, stop edit warring, and wait for the community to catch up and come to a decision. –xeno 21:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • • Comment, not supporting this will create a position, supported at ANI that anyone can delete any content that is uncited from any BLP, also any comment that is about a living person in any article that is not a BLP. Off2riorob (talk)
• Oppose Websters explains that contentious means to be marked by contention or provoking or likely to provoke controversy. If an editor removes it, it means that it is provoking controversy. This is simple english and its policy. This end around on a huge ethical matter (we're up to 141 unsourced BLPs for Febraruary 2010 so far -- forgetting badly sourced/misleadingly sourced/vandalized blps. Those, who knows?) does not reflect well on people (who have no solutions of their own to offer except to sit on our hands and let the problem to continue to grow and not start setting some minimum standards so it doesn't keep happening again. And again. And again.)Bali ultimate (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

  Oh come on. Ridiculous semantics. –xeno 22:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

  • No, simple English. Simple English.

• What you describe would generaly fail the good faith test and would count as gameing the system which is per policy vandalism and blockable.©Geni 22:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Just you try it Geni. You won't get very far.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Even if a person is acting in good faith in the sense of sincerely believing they are right and improving the encyclopedia, there has to be a good faith belief that there is something wrong with material other than lack of sourcing, before removing it for lack of sourcing. But I wouldn't call it vandalism or blockable, just circular reasoning. We've dealt with this issue many times in different contexts over the years. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support It's not the removal that's the problem so much as the indiscriminate, mass reverting of content whether or not anyone knows that the content is negative or in some way contentious. Unless something is clearly harmful, the intent of policy has never been to remove content indiscriminately. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have no doubt in my mind that the Arbitration Committee as a whole and Jimbo Wales himself would endorse the actions being taken by UnitAnode. JBsupreme (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Neither of those make policy.©Geni 22:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom interprets policy. And has. ++Lar: t/c 22:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Current consensus says otherwise.©Geni 22:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think WP:BLP policy already supports the removal of unsourced material. We are now just arguing the semantics of "contentious", are we not? JBsupreme (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you wish to propose "Chan has a bachelor's degree in the social sciences from the University of Hong Kong and a master's degree in the social sciences from the Chinese University of Hong Kong." is contentious?©Geni 22:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Without knowing the full context of what you're referring to, absolutely YES. There are people adding fake credentials to WP:BLP articles without sources all the time. We've had some problems in the past with that specifically in fact. Unsourced credentials are just as contentious as any other unsourced claim to fame or infamy. JBsupreme (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Any unsourced fact might be contentious. We just don't know, absent the circumstances. In the example case, it might be something that is being used to falsely obtain some benefit or claim some expertise. ++Lar: t/c 22:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You've just implied that the credentials in question might be fake. Thats defamation and thus your responce is in breach of BLP. If you are going to rule lawyer have the decenecy to do it well.©Geni 22:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Are your arguments always this silly, Geni? I did in fact "imply that the credentials in question might be fake". That's true of every single unsourced statement in the entire project, it might not be backed up by sources... we just don't know one way or the other. Pointing that out is in no way a BLP violation. Your grasp of BLP needs work. Or this is some pathetic straw dog. Or both. ++Lar: t/c 00:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You might wish to read the post above yours. In any case you are the one arguing for an insanely broad and bady rule lawyered version of BLP. under those conditions claiming any given action doesnn't violate BLP is kinda questionable.©Geni 01:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I never would have believed that people would find removing unsourced info from BLPs disruptive. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia isn't it? Kevin (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if we try hard, it won't be one soon. I haven't been an active editor for that long (about six months), but I remember as a reader that wikipedia had few cited sources not that long ago. I agree that sourcing is to be much preferred and our goal, but random removing of unsourced non-contentious information at an alarming clip degrades the project.--Milowent (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• It's more the manner he's going about it. Earlier he was edit warring to remove a section outlining selected works of an author. Those very books can adequately serve as the source that she wrote them. (He eventually self-reverted after I pointed this out) –xeno 22:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support per Xeno and JohnWBarber, and please let's stop the circular wikilawyering around the word "contentious". --Cyclopia 22:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - per my previous comments. Also, if there was a proposal asking for a rate restriction, instead of a blanket prohibition, maybe. Or, better, if Wikidemon and other concerned editors approached Unitanode, you know, cooperatively and collegially, asking to work with him to make sure he's not working faster than they can handle, I bet he'd work with them. I'd lean on him if he doesn't. But the argumentative approach isn't going to work. ++Lar: t/c 22:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Anyone who likes can see what I'm actually doing, which is how I'm assuming that Wikidemon has found which unsourced material to attempt to insert back into the BLPs. UnitAnode 22:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. And block anybody who reinserts an unsourced statement to a BLP without providing a reliable source. nableezy - 22:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with this. Cirt (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There are sections of almost every BLP in Misplaced Pages which do not have a RS, or at least what I could cast some doubt on being an RS. Some of them are indeed contentious, and must be removed; some are unsourced opinion, and should be removed; some are routine bio facts, which are overwhelming likely to be true. It makes a certain amount of sense to concentrate on the actually problematic ones. DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Enough of this serial shitting on the thousands of people who bought into "anyone can edit" and contributed their labour here in the past. Removing "he murdered his wife three times", yeah absolutely, removing "he coached a boy's soccer team", nope. Misplaced Pages, the 💕 that anyone can edit, then a few people will take vast pleasure in destroying your work. Franamax (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. The edits pointed out, while occasionally adding some value, are overwhelmingly destructive rather than helpful. Unitanode seems sufficiently unaware of the purpose and spirit of WP:BLP and other policies that restricting this mass deletion behavior is the best approach. LotLE×talk 22:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Sanctioning people for doing exactly what policy tells them to seems like a bad idea, see WP:BLP, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" and "Remove any unsourced material to which an editor objects in good faith". If there are concerns about Unitanode making a point or gaming the system in some way, I don't see it in any diffs. He seems to be working in good faith to apply the letter and spirit of WP:BLP. --Jayron32 22:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen any "contentious" material rightfully removed that I can recall, having deprodded a number of Unitanode's prods. And in fact, he is frankly saying that he simply removes any unsourced material, that's his method.--Milowent (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - The fact that it is unsourced is what makes it contentious, that's the point here. There is no valid reason being given to prohibit this user from performing these edits, just a bunch of niggling IDon'tLikeIt inclusionist-at-all-costs types. Stop acting like the fucking sky is going to fall just because some reader is going to come across Beth (musician) and be deprived of an unsourced "I'd rather die than enter Eurovision" quote. Tarc (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Uphold. The ban is needful in view of the disrespectful manner in which the unsupported deletions are being undertaken. The deletion of patently uncontentious material is against policy. Deleting it at alarming and unsustainable rates is clearly counterproductive and unacceptable. — James F Kalmar 22:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Uphold" what? Your comment makes no sense at all. UnitAnode 23:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

  From what is said, I think it clearly means support sanctions. DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. We're a couple months shy of April. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Fighting to keep unsourced content in articles is far more damaging to the project than removing it. Mr.Z-man 23:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oooh thats completely false. The number of newbie editors we've pissed off by summeraly removing their content is one of the reasons why we are picking up fewer new editors and we have a lot of people who don't like us very much floating around the web.©Geni 23:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I would much rather have quality content than be more popular or have a bunch of editors who don't care about basic things like citing sources. If keeping a new user means putting up with a bunch of crappy articles that no one but them cares about, then that's too high a price. Mr.Z-man 23:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Keeping the new user means someone continues to care and can learn to write better articles.©Geni 23:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, I think the cost outweighs the benefit. If they're willing to leave in anger because we ask them to respect basic standards like sourcing, it may not be worth our time to educate. Mr.Z-man 23:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between asking and indeed showing compared to just ripping out content.©Geni 23:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• suggested solution Let him be restricted to removing content that is not present an immediate threat of harm, only after he has made a good faith demonstrated reasonable try to source it. That way everything he does will be beneficial to the encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Completely oppose unreferenced material can and should be removed from BLPs by everyone. Viridae 23:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support ignoring all of this/us. What we have here (with a few exceptions) is the same x-number of people saying entirely predictable things they've said 25 times already, dug firmly into their BLP foxholes and determined not to come out, but at times quite happy to lob rhetorical grenades at the other side. It's frankly pathetic—really pathetic. The problem of unsourced BLPs (a subset of a larger problem) is not going to be solved on ANI, nor it is going to be solved by individual editors who think they're on a mission from god and therefore sod the rest of you dummies. We'll deal with unsourced BLPs best if we work on it together, and people not interested in doing that, or more interested in scoring points against foes, threatening them directly or implicitly, or making over the top pronouncements (like this ridiculous thing I'm writing!) should seriously just stop talking. If these kind of discussions make you lash out at others, then don't participate in them. These support/oppose pissing matches could not be more disheartening, and it's precisely these kind of conversations that have in significant part led to BLPs being a problem for so long. It's the fault of all of us for often being more interested in fighting and/or sticking to our self-righteous guns than actually trying to work together to solve the problem. I'm not sure why this thread pushes me over the top to write a goddamn it! comment like this, but I'm pretty disgusted by the lot of us, which includes me for even sticking this stupid goddamn comment here. In the time we spend arguing about this and coming to no conclusion we could have probably dealt with about 100 of these articles (or at least collegially discussed a way to better expedite the cleanup process). But I guess that would also take away the fun of yelling about it. We have a very real "BLP problem" that affects real people, but we also have a "BLP problem" in that the very topic leads to huge e-fights that a lot of Wikipedians clearly get off on. If you think that's not you it might be good to think about it some more. That's what I'm a gonna do. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• The problem is that UnitAnode's actions make coperation effectively imposible.©Geni 01:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Well at least you've left some room for negotiation and further discussion! Oh wait. And don't get me wrong, I'm not endorsing how Unitanode has approached this, I'm just saying that when both sides say "we can't work with them, they don't get it" that pretty much becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. At least 60-70% of this discussion is based on personal and quasi-philosophical animus, and that's why it isn't going anywhere and hasn't in years. A lot of people who have perfectly good intentions are to blame for that because they started seeing other editors as very-bad-guys quite some time ago and now that's just about all they see when a BLP issue comes up (I plead guilty to doing that too). Somewhere between the polls of "Unitanode can do whatever they want and so can anyone else" and "Unitanode is totally banned from doing this one thing" is a perfectly acceptable solution that probably everyone could agree to if they could drop the sniping and the deep, deep assumptions of bad faith. The first step into changing the dynamic here is realizing that the current one is unacceptable, that it's not solving the problems we need to solve, and that to an extent we are responsible for the failure to work together to fix what needs fixing, which is at the core of how we (supposedly) do things on this project. Laying blame on Mr. X, or Ms. Z, or Category-of-Editor Y just perpetuates this depressing (and frankly selfish, on the part of all us collectively) bullshit. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Geni: Bull. I have found that UnitAnode is easy to work with, if you actually try. Have you tried to cooperate with him? Asked him to slow down a bit while you worked on items he marked as needing attention? No. Here are your recent user talk page contributions: ... the only time you were on Unitanode's page, was to start a rather belligerent thread entitled Okey_what_is_your_justification. Get a grip, Geni. If you want cooperation, you have to actually be cooperative. Not belligerent. Bigtimepeace is right. More cooperation might be a good place to start. Anyone who turns up at my talk page asking for help gets it. Anyone who turns up at my talk page asking for a fight gets that too. ++Lar: t/c 01:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Or, "Anyone who turns up at my talk page asking for a fight won't find one, because it would be a waste of time for both of us, and I'm only interested in constructive collaborative efforts." I guess that's more what I had in mind. I've already commented here three times more than I should have so I'm done now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. Anyone who seriously thinks that a well-known, good faith editor who is removing unsourced BLP information should be constrained for doing what is in the best interest of Misplaced Pages is themself not looking out for the best interest of Misplaced Pages. Woogee (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse the user's actions. –Juliancolton |  02:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose prevention of anyone from removing unsourced material from BLPs. If you think the material is correct, find a source and add it back. If you are not sure, or can't find the source, it should stay out. Anyone cleaning up the unsourced BLP mess should be commended. Crum375 (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I would support more strongly a topic ban on Unitanode from BLPs. He/she has not only shown no interest in improving articles by sourcing them, he/she has shown a clear antipathy to doing so and persists in purely destructive behavior against the consensus of other editors. This is not the sort of editing behavior that can be trusted in sensitive areas such as BLPs. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It is quite clear that there is nowhere near a consensus for this "proposed restriction", so I am proposing something different: collapse this section and point people to the RFC at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Content. JBsupreme (talk) 06:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it appears unlikely that a topic ban will gain consensus, although I note that there are strong opinions voiced on both sides. I would leave it open for perhaps a full day to make sure anyone who wants has a chance to weigh in. I haven't endorsed that myself, I would just hope for a more collaborative approach as Lar suggests. A clarification of policy based on an RfC is probably a more productive way to go about things, and anything else is just a stopgap. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC

I've opened up an RfC on the policy question here:Misplaced Pages:RFC/BLPContent. I'm not too familiar with RfCs so I could use some help regarding any notifications, templates, certification, etc. I hope we can minimize discussion here regarding what the policy is and shoud be. We can't set policy here. It should be pretty obvious that people disagree on what the policy is. The question I posed and hope to answer is whether we can allow UnitAnode to continue doing mass edits despite objections, while the discussion continues. I would think the answer is obvious but some people oboviously believe that the normal rules don't apply where BLP is concerned. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

CatNazi

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

Please see:

1. Special:Contributions/CatNazi
2. Special:DeletedContributions/CatNazi

Thoughts? Cirt (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems at least like a username violation if nothing else. --Smashville 22:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It is an obvious single purpose account. JBsupreme (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, now what? Cirt (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked; smells like PBML. —Jeremy 22:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Cirt (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This was confirmed as PBML here: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw. JBsupreme (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockfarm...DUCK alert

Having some trouble with User:Mistaknleytaken, User:ImaSteveWillfan, User:Havingfuneveryday and User:Anotherdaygoneby vandalizing page (and their AfDs) they created. Seems all are new accounts and both are making the same general edits. My Duck-o-Meter is off the charts with this one. Could someone do a CU and see if they are related? I will keep an eye on them. Thanks :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Havingfuneveryday‎ has been blocked by Floquenbeam‎ for Abusing multiple accounts: on SMP Studios Entertainment. Other three obvious socks remain unblocked. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

All blocked...marking resolved. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Haiduc

   * 967 - Pederasty
   * 809 - Historical_pederastic_relationships
   * 495 - Homosexuality
   * 269 - Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece
   * 207 - Pederastic_relationships_in_classical_antiquity
   * 198 - Anal_sex
   * 190 - Hoop_rolling
   * 148 - Mark_Foley_scandal
   * 142 - Harmodius_and_Aristogeiton
   * 129 - Pederasty_in_the_modern_world

Copyright Violation in MASM page

I am unable to revert or edit the MASM page due to conflict of interest issues and blocked Misplaced Pages access to web pages on my site as inappropriate to the topic. Editor sarekofvulcan has deliberately bypassed my control of ownership of this copyright material and relinked to archived copies of my copyright information. Would administration please resolve this issue as I have raised the issue on the talk page for MASM but cannot revert it myself because I have been an editor on this page previously while it is under dispute on varous matters. Hutch48 (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Not the proper venue. Discuss at the article talkpage or WP:CV. —DoRD (?) (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Block Evasion by blatant marketer.

Reporting User:Centralwashu, a blocked user, for creating User:Cwumarketingalum. See here for more Gosox(55)(55) 23:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing an IP ban would be the way to deal with this? Gosox(55)(55) 23:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Notified. Gosox(55)(55) 23:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The username block template, with autoblock disabled and account creation enabled, invites users to create a new account. It is not technically block evasion. -- zzuuzz 23:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm the admin who blocked Centralwashu. I only blocked the editor for username violations per WP:ORGNAME. The editor would not be evading a block by creating a new account; in fact, they are encouraged to create a new account that complies with our username policy. However, two things; Cwumarketingalum isn't much better (really, not any better at all) than the old user name. And I'm not convinced they are the same editor. The original editor seemed to be representing the university, the second editor is only claiming to have graduated from there (hence "alum"). Seeing as the second account hasn't made any edits I'm not tempted to actually do anything at this point. -- Atama頭 23:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

And I'm the editor who warned and eventually reported Centralwashu. I don't see a problem with the new username. I was concerned about the first one because it appears to be a role account. This new one - at least judging solely by its username - does not. There may be COI issues if he or she becomes heavily involved in articles related to his or her alma mater but that's a different kettle of fish. --ElKevbo (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This might be a difference between a single-purpose account called "BurgerKing" editing Burger King with promotional info, and an editor named "WhopperLover" who edits a variety of pages. And I'm also not sure they're the same person, but I agree that it seems coincidental that one appeared shortly after the other was blocked. -- Atama頭 00:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User "Dirtyjew,allahpraiser,biblebasher-lover" making disruptive edits

Really hard to AGF on this one. Considering the repeated edits to the creation myth page and related pages and the ongoing debate over using the term creation myth at various articles I'd recommend a Check User / Sockpuppet investigation of Dirtyjew,allahpraiser,biblebasher-lover.. Nefariousski (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

As a minimum, it is a serious WP:UAA issue. --Cyclopia 23:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked as such. It looks like a common vandal to me. -- zzuuzz 23:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to avoid going to WP:UAA right away because from recent patterns of vandalism on related pages regarding the "creation myth" controversy I thought it best that it was investigated as a sock first. Nefariousski (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe someone could add the blocked template to his page? Nefariousski (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

He'll know from the block message. Maybe we should just delete the talk page. -- zzuuzz 23:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for that suggestion Nefariousski (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Naming of Peterhof and Kronstadt

Ezhiki has changed the German name - place situates in Russia - from Peterhof/Петергоф to "Petergof" and is going to change Kronstadt/Кронштадт to "Kronshtadt". --WPK (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be only a disagreement about naming conventions -- and does not require administrative action. I see that you have already been engaged in a long long discussion with Ezhiki on their talk page about this same subject. Since the discussion is only between the two of you, you can seek out WP:3O for another opinion. Otherwise you may wish to use WP:RFC. — CactusWriter | 00:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Blackmagic2604/Abby_92

I want someone to check-user both Abby_92 and Blackmagic2604. Since Blackmagic2604 vandalized my User-Page and I know who did it since it seems she has a grudge against me

All the accounts she had were AngelofMadness, Abby 82, Queen kitten, RubyGloomFan, Kagome 77, Vitamininsultandbully, Nohappiness2009, Khate3798743493, AngelofFadness

I don't care what she says about this I already know it was her and she better stop with the immature behavior

And of course she will deny owning all of those accounts and claim she is being framed so she can get away with all the immature acts she does but oh well whatever.

Black Rose (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems to belong at WP:SPI. A very small percentage of admins are checkusers. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User:IMatthew

(I have been told by a few other people to wait untill this happens again but I'm not going to wait to be attacked again to bring this up. Sorry)

I the past few months and weeks (and even days) User:IMatthew has been, uncivil, bitey, rude, attacking and has even resorted to blackmail.

Because I spelled one word wrong....

The most recent inappropriate action by IMatthew has been is comments that he made on my talk page on February 1 of this year. (NOTE: this entire dscussion can be found on my talk pgae) You see, User:Abce2 and I were haveing a discussion and then IMatthew (again) injects himself into the conversation by telling me that I spelled a word wrong. (He has a habit of pointing out the mistakes that I make and makeing them public).. I replied and asked him kindly to please stop pointing out the obvious to me as he always does. His reply was along the lines of, "I'll stop when you stop messing up". His reply started to "tick me off" as I expected him to comply and back away. Rather, he continued so I said that I can spell anything that I want to wrong, but he needs to stop hounding me over this issue. title=User_talk:Coldplay_Expert&diff=next&oldid=341171534 Not only did he not back down, his reply was rude, nasty, a personal attack and totaly uncalled for. He stated that I was an "un-educated 1 year old". Once again, his attempts at provokeing me payed off and he got the reply that I belive he wanted to hear. I also pointed out that he past 8 contribs out of 13 have been to my talk page. Not only that but acording to an edit counter, IMatthew ranks 9th (behind myself) in the number of edits to my talk page with 33. He ignored the facts that I told him and said that he would take my talk page off of his watchlist and leave me alone. Yet he came back anyway, and said that I'll never go anywere on Misplaced Pages. After seeing the whole discussion, User:Ajraddatz reverted his toll-like comment. IMatthew just reverted it back.. He finally backed down when an admin came along and reverted his edit again. Yet, he came back later that same day asking for a diff on a PA. I gave him one but he denyed it. User:ZooFari tried to end the issue again but to no avail. I finally told him to go away but he fell back on his promis to unwatch this page and leave me alone by telling me to strick my own comments out and basically apologize. I told him again to go away. His reply was once again, provokeing in nature and his edit summary comfirms that. This continued on and on He finally left when I brought up last month's incident which I will now explain as well.

(False) Accusations of sockpuppetry by IMatthew

Rather than give you all another 20+ diffs, I'll just provide a history of the page before it was deleted. The sections of intrest are entitled "You have e-mail" and "Behave". I'll post the full text of his "e-mail" to me here.

He accused me of being the sockrunner of User:December21st2012Freak and said that if I do not give him any names of "my socks" then he will get me blocked.

Other evidense of IMatthew's intolerance of other editors includeing myself

• To User:Pedro after allegations of IMatthew spamiming
• To me after My defense of Pedro's comment. (Funny how he can say go away on his page but he will not follow it on my page)
• My kind reply to him.
• His mean reply to me.
• User:Thejadefalcon's reply to him in defense of me.
• IMatthew's repy to Jade (or lack there of. He reverted his edit and called him a "troll")
• Ensuing edit war.
• My reply to him over calling Jade a "troll".
• IMatthew's rude, and insulting removal of my comment and his mean and uncalled for edit summary "Coldplay, I don't have any race cars or legos and this talk page isn't a playground. Please use my talk page to discuss matters actually related to Misplaced Pages, or stay off of it."
• Another attempt at reason with IMatthew.

Conclusion

These 30+ diffs all show the same thing. Despite multiple attempts to talk to him, IMatthew is an uncivil rude and at sometimes, hounding editor who wishes to assert his own opinion(s) into other peoples conversations. This is only the tip of the iceberg. I am sure that others have had their own issues with this person in the past. I am asking that IMatthew cease his own "troll"-like comments to others and leave me alone. Thank you.--Coldplay Expért 03:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, you're just like me when I started here on WP back in 2008. Well, I've read your accusations and honestly, you're over-reacting. I will admit iMatthew can be kind of nit-picky but he tries to make people better editors. If anything, you're the one being rude. He's only here to help and you're acting as if WP is just another social website and you can attack back people you don't think treat you right. I don't mean to be rude or anything, I'm just letting you know, as I used to be the same way. Peace out. --SAVIOR_SELF.777 05:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Because this is obviously a civil attempt at helping out any situation.--Coldplay Expért 05:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've ceased useing it a social networking site a month ago. Malleus will support that statement as well. IMatthew has been a total jerk to me and several otrher people since october-november. I am not over-reacting at all. Im sick and tired of being treated like a piece of garbage by him. No offense but IMatthew would not know what an act of wiki-love/civility is if it hit him on his head.--Coldplay Expért 05:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that IMatthew thinks that I am the cause of all of this and that he is 100% in the right.--Coldplay Expért 05:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Coldplay has a valid grievance here. I don't see where he is going over to iMatthew's talk page and initiating this behavior. I could be wrong, maybe I'm missing something here. But from what I've seen on Coldplay's talk page, iMatthew has become an intrusive presence. It seems as if Coldplay can't even be comfortable on his own talk page. I don't know what remedies are available to Coldplay, but I believe he's being sincere in coming here and asking for help. When this began, it probably didn't rise to the level of requiring an administrator's attention. But iMatthew's behavior does seem persistently harassing. It appears iMatthew refuses to disengage when repeatedly asked to do so by Coldplay. I'm not suggesting banning someone from a talk page because the talk pages are for communication. But they are not intended for this.Malke2010 06:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Logged out bot?

Is 66.171.182.55 (talk · contribs) a logged-out bot? Woogee (talk) 03:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Looks like one of the AIV Helperbots. TNXMan 03:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyone know how to fix it? Frmatt (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the last few edits at UAA, it appears to be logged back in. Not sure about the how or why though. TNXMan 03:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I run one of these bots, hold on while I get some info. Chillum 04:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a bug in the older version of the bot and I have already made a change that should fix it here. I noticed that after releasing a new version announcement on the bot operator's mailing list the some of the bots where still editing while logged out. I sent out an e-mail to all of the bot operators asking which version they are running and from one IP. Only 1 operator responded and he was running the new version(with the fix) and his IP has not been editing logged out since the fix. I am assuming that those bot operators that did not respond are the one's editing while logged out due to not being upgraded.

If editing while logged out is disruptive the the heading on WP:UAA(or any other page it serves) can be adjusted to require version 2.0.21 which has the bug fixed(I hope). This will tell any bot below that version to not edit the page. If that is the consensus then I can make that change, there are at least 2 bots running the new version and they should be able to handle the load until the others are upgraded. Chillum 04:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Fox News Channel

Could someone please semi-protect this page. An ip hopper keeps removing cited information without consensus. Two ips have already been blocked this hour alone, but a third has just popped up. Could the page be semi-protected please?--Jojhutton (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFPP is that way.--Coldplay Expért 04:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. It looks like Jeske Couriano protected it indefinitely, but then undid the editing protection when he set the move protection. Not sure if was intentional or not, probably best to check with him. TNXMan 04:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The prot was in response to a 4chan raid thread and was removed once said thread 404'd. The move protection was already in place when I protted and unprotted the article. —Jeremy 06:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There is talk regarding whether the Poll is non-biased. Jojhutton shouldn't really talk because he's broke the 3R rule just as much as me.--69.214.14.0 (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you are evading a block, your edits are vandalism. And thats not covered under 3RR--Jojhutton (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks ThinkEnemies

ThinkEnemies has continued with personal attacks after being warned on his user page. Would appreciate some attention to this matter.

• first: first
• warning on user page: warning
• second: second Scribner (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I am here to answer all complaints. ThinkEnemies (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC) It's true. I've convinced myself that your nonsensical arguments are due to... Something I cannot pinpoint. ThinkEnemies (talk) 06:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Scribner has been engaging in edit warring on Sarah Palin. And he has also engaged in uncivil behavior on Sarah Palin talk page . He is now edit warring by placing the tag on the Sarah Palin article. Scribner has been blocked before for this exact type of behavior on Sarah Palin. ThinkEnemies was simply attempting to remove Scribner's POV pushing. Earlier, Scribner removed an edit there, without using the talk page, regarding Palin's book sales which was sourced. He then came back sometime later and put in the comment of the PAC buying copies of the book. It appears to be WP:SYN to imply that Palin's book sales were a product of her PAC buying the book. ThinkEnemies moved the section to the separate article and rendered the sentence left on the Palin article within WP:NPOV. Scribner does not come here with clean hands.Malke2010 06:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Tko96 and sock

May an admin please look at

• Tko96 (talk · contribs)
• 66truekillerobituaries99 (talk · contribs) (sock)

The userpage is inappropriate and linked to various articles. I have patiently warned the kid and undone the linking, but since they have now created a sock, and did not redact their page and instead copied it to their sock account and to mainspace (Musculion) and continued linking, it seems like time for administrative action. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Incident with User:Nothughthomas

User:Nothughthomas placed a speedy deletion tag on David Lewis Anderson (since deleted) requesting speedy deletion under the A7 criterion. The article, however, had assertions of importance and notability which made it not meet A7. I removed the tag, provided an explanation both in the edit summary and the talk page, suggesting AfD or PROD instead, then left a friendly message on Nothughthomas' talk page, suggesting the same. The user blanked their talk page and placed the db-person tag on the article again, with an edit summary saying they would "file a complaint" against me. I then noticed there had already been an AfD discussion on that article, so I replaced the tag with {{db-g4}} and wrote another message on the article's talk page explaining why that was the proper tag to be used in this situation. I then went and wrote another message on the user's talk page, explaining the same thing. They somehow took that as a threat and began to go off on me, accusing me of violating policies and making personal attacks both on their own talk page and on the article's - for the record, I did neither. The user edited a completely unrelated comment on my talk page and again accused me of vandalising their talk page and said they'd file a complaint about me, at which point I decided to simply not say anything to them anymore. Afterwards, I noticed that they left a note on their user page and the article's talk page saying they were quitting Misplaced Pages because of personal attacks from me (they don't directly say it, but they repeatedly accused me of calling them a "crazy old bat"). I feel bad for turning someone away from Misplaced Pages, and I do believe that the user, with some guidance, could be very useful to WP because of their expertise in certain fields. However, they have also been blocked three times for pretty much doing the exact same thing. I asked User:NuclearWarfare for assistance and they suggested I post this here. XXX antiuser 06:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have had serious run-ins with Nothugthomas previously. I refer everyone to the following talk page conversations:

• Talk:Art Bell#Obama vote
• Talk:Václav Klaus#I Ask Consensus for a Substantial Rewrite of this Article by a Native English Speaker
• Talk:BBC#Clarified the BBC's Status as Britain's Semi-Official State Broadcaster
• Talk:Dog#Carbon footprint

I would serious consider blocking this editor for making consistent personal attacks and completely derailing and discussions on articles they suddenly appear on. When the editor is asked directly on their talk page, they normally tell the other party they are attacking them, even if they are not and then demand they leave them alone. However, their behaviour continues.

I am also concerned with the bizarre behaviour exhibited on their user page, not to mention the decidedly ridiculous discussion on Talk:Dog, which seems to have been a disruption because of conflicts over Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. Furthermore, the whole BBC discussion only occured because of disputes at Fas News Agency.

As I have been involved with this editor in the past I will not be able to take any admin action. However, I recommend an indefinite block in this case as they are significantly disruptive. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 07:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

So I was trying to set up a new category

called Category:Hal Blaine Strikes Again - which I eventually did, but first I created one called Category:Hal Blaine Strike Again. No s on the end of "Strikes". It would be nice if someone with the appropriate skills would delete that category for me because I don't know how. The only civility problem here are the things I'm saying to myself. You don't want to know. Thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 07:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards