Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Black Kite (talk | contribs) at 12:57, 25 April 2010 (→User:MidnightBlueMan reverting articles without putting forward reasons, and reverting even after discussion: res). 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

User:Abductive long term disruption

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

Concise diffs

• Last summer it was noted that Abductive used multiple accounts to mass-prod a bunch of articles Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive196#Wikihounding, by bunch over 150. They were all contested. AN/I shot the messenger because he was a sock, but it doesn't change what abductive did. Disruptive socking. At that time it was also noted that he refused to disclose old accounts and if you follow this discussion he ducks the question every time, but his user page indicates he's been here 2.5 years longer than his account.
• Around the same time, he got in a dispute with an editor here . Not a 3RR violation, but he was going back and forth without discussion.
• In october 2009 he was involved in another edit war that was stopped with page protection before he could technically violate 3RR Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive573#User:Abductive_Uncalled_for_Behavior It was also noted he was uncivil making a personal attack.
• Last month in March he violated 3RR , , , the page was locked shortly there after. His violation was missed.
• just recently he was blocked on Asian fetish for violating 3RR. After being unblocked he made a contribution to the consensus building discussion we were having , but followed that up with trying to push his version back into the article twice. Before being blocked he insinuated with evidence that I had some kind of COI when he wasn't getting his way . this was an assumption of bad faith and I consider it a personal attack.
• During the discussion he brought up the point that there were no articles which had researchers names in them with the study. I provided a couple google links showing plenty, his response was to start making disputed, WP:POINT and WP:BATTLEGROUND edits to multiple articles. , , . See contribs, he's done this to 7 or 8 articles. He knew his position was disputed but reverted any opposition and carried on with other articles.
• After I reverted a couple of this indicating there was no consensus to remove these names, he accused me of wikihounding and reverted again. Ignorinig WP:BRD. , .
• He's repeatedly claimed consensus yet each time he's asked for it he refuses to provide the link because he doesn't want to look for it or claims I'll just wikilawyer it.
• Knowing that there is no consensus for his assertion and that it is disputed and still failing to provided evidence of his consensus he just tried to push it on a featured article . Basically anything that gets mentioned as support he will try to edit out.
• While a discussion is on-going on one page that shows that users don't support his POV , he uses mis-leading edit summaries on other articles to push it .

Maybe a few more shortly.--Crossmr (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I should also note that his edit war last month, this month and his pointy and battleground edits all seem to center around academics he thinks are not notable. Couple with his statement here about "juniour professors" . It would seem like its a hot button issue for him.--Crossmr (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Quick point to Abductive about "consensus" regarding the names of authors; look at Court of Chancery. That's an FA; one of our highest-quality articles. That's an article which has been peer reviewed, and the idea that it is high-quality and does not violate policy has reached consensus. You'll notice authors' names are mentioned when they've opined. Ironholds (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• I have made an example edit (reverted by Ironholds using automation and the single word No) with a concise explanation of my reasoning on the talk page to the Court of Chancery article, which is easier to wade through than the mess in Asian fetish. Ironholds may not agree, but I think my reasons are sound. Abductive (reasoning) 18:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• The fact that your behaviour is at ANI and the (admittedly small) consensus at the talkpage says you're wrong may make you want to think twice about your quote unquote "sound" reasons. Ironholds (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oh I think twice often. For example, the phrase "according to academics" occurs in only 4 Misplaced Pages articles. "According to Professor" occurs in only 347 of Misplaced Pages's 3 million articles. In my discussion with you in Court of Chancery, I suspect that your opinion is colored by the way this stylistic concern was brought to your attention, and you might have reacted differently if I had just made the edit de novo. Abductive (reasoning) 19:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• As mentioned above, judging some form of WP natural law from statistics doesn't work. And no, I'm pretty much the same all the time. Again, have you considered that since nobody is agreeing with you, you might be wrong? Ironholds (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Before User:Crossmr went on his fishing expedition, the talk page was tied 2:2, with Hippo43 taking the same position as I did. Also, if you look through the article history of Asian fetish, Hippo43 has been struggling with many POV editors and socks, alongside Crossmr. Questions were raised about the appropriateness of including a study of racial preferences in dating in an article on sexual fetishization of Asian women, concerns which Crossmr shouts down. The treatment of this study has been given steadily more prominence in the article, to the point that it is the majority of the text, and that's when I started to try to trim it back a bit, per WP:UNDUE. This issue revolves around WP:UNDUE. I say that using the names of researchers inline lends a certain weight to the statement that may or may not be justified. In spite of the fact that WP:OWN is a policy, many people own articles and cannot see that there may be legitmate concerns. Abductive (reasoning) 01:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• The fishing expedition which is showing you don't have the consensus you claimed you did and refuse to cite? The issue revolves around what appears to be your personal bias. Your two latest edit wars, your combative edits this time around, your casual comment about juniour professors on the talk page all show some kind of contempt for academics you don't deem worthy. Even knowing there was opposition to your position you just went and tried to change a featured article to push your point of view. you've been trying to dance around this for awhile now and providing all kinds of ludicrous and borderline disruptive answers as part of your reasoning. Claiming that you can't find a certain sentence pattern in some required imaginary number of articles as consensus that it shouldn't exist in any article is akin to saying your position is right because you're wearing blue pants. Your latest argument centered around the fact that somehow a notability guideline for article creation meant that we couldn't name a studies author in the article text. Naming the authors and/or universities involved in a study has absolutely nothing to do with WP:UNDUE and everything to do with presenting a clear picture to the reader.--Crossmr (talk) 04:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
• As further evidence of your doing whatever you want regardless of what other users say: after two users explained to you that it is perfectly normal and correct to identify who it is that is making statements, claims, etc and that it is not a problem with WP:WEASEL, you went and gutted one article changing several statements from being attributed to a particular person or sources point of view to blanket facts. . While he did remove a couple "some people say" kind of references, the vast majority of the ones he removed were named sources. He's basically providing false edit summaries. Claiming to be removing "according to's" per WEASEL, when in fact WEASEL only says you should remove the ones that are unattributed and unclear. Named sources don't fall under that.--Crossmr (talk) 07:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• So are the two studies on the GA Theodore Kaczynski.--Crossmr (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see any WP:UNDUE weighting in the Theodore Kaczynski article. Abductive (reasoning) 18:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

A few thoughts about the diffs above. I don't have a stake in this issue nor do I want to engage in a blow-by-blow regarding the below. I'll make a few specific points though. The two ANI's up there don't bother me. In fact, aside from an isolated uncivil comment (it really wasn't that uncivil either), they're entirely appropriate. It's not 3RR to keep removing vandalism or spam. Similarly the List of University of Toronto people edits are essentially an IP (that changes) attempting to add inappropriate redlinks to a list page, something that had previously been discussed a lot by Abductive and others on the Talk page. In that case he RVed 2 times, then sent the IP to the page. I don't see why that's a problem. Similarly, the "mass prodding" was to a whole set of address pages that a sock puppet account then had issue with. I don't think anyone else called it disruptive.

The James R. Davila stuff is a little pushy, and should have been discussed somewhere other than in edit summaries. The proper move would have been for Abductive to have undone Avraham's RV with a note to go to the talk page. If Avraham continued to remove it after that, then take appropriate action. Neither of those are model behavior, but nor are either of those fatal. That incident was almost a year ago too.

What is inappropriate are the edits that got him blocked, and the similar ones removing researcher names. I agree with Ironholds on some of those details, but that's not the point of discussion here. There is a tendency to be a little pointy about some of these recent edits. My conclusion is that there are some legitimate complaints regarding this recent trend (especially in the 3R situation, which after the first change was explained there was ongoing discussion), but Crossmr's claims regarding the past edits are either without merit, or minor problems.

I think Abductive should cool down on these "Professor X says..." edits for a while. If they're going to be made across a bunch of articles, there should be a central debate about it somewhere. As for the SPI stuff, you should put that over at SPI and leave this other stuff out of it (or else I pity the clerk who has to wade through all of that). Shadowjams (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a couple notes, the admin who protected the page last October specifically said "but also got carried away in his response to reinsertions of the kind that got the article deleted in the first place". The reinsertions might not have been appropriate but the admin felt that Abductive got carried away anyway. This is more about his response to challenges to his editing. At the toronto article only the first 2 edits were explicitly over redlinks with the IP, the next two were reverts of Wisdompower. To me it shows that he doesn't handle opposition to his POV well, which is what is happening again now. While I don't find those two events to be huge problems, I just find them to be indicative of a on-going trend that with this account.--Crossmr (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• And the WP:TLDR award goes to... You guys! Serioisly, have you noticed that everyone else seems to have tuned out a while back here? Dare I suggest you do the same and just try to avoid one another for a while... Beeblebrox (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• That's not particularly helpful and since the addition of the concise diffs section we've been getting some helpful feedback.--Crossmr (talk) 05:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Beeblebrox is right but so are you. The frustration here though is that the disagreements appear to be largely personal. It's not long til someone says "this isn't an administrator issue", which is mostly true at this point. We'd all appreciate any remaining issues be boiled down to some core contingency and those be funneled to the right place.

Look, you're both good editors, but even the best of us make mistakes from time to time. The question is if Abductive, takes this to heart, and similarly if Crossmr does too. This isn't blame... and someone else may still do something about it too. But notwithstanding that, I'd hope you both try to discuss things a little bit more. You two know enough to be incredibly productive, or incredibly disruptive. Not that I think either of you are doing the latter, but you know the game, so please understand that if the rules are applied somewhat more rigorously to this issue, it's because of that. Shadowjams (talk) 09:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing personal here. I've rarely ever edited the same article as abductive . 1 of those few articles we've both edited was like 4 years apart. I brought this here because I saw an editor who repeatedly edited against consensus, and refused to properly discuss issues before hitting the revert button. Since I brought this here you've seen him continue the disputed edits knowing they're disputed and even doing so on a FA. You've suggested he should cut that out unless he's going to start a central discussion to get consensus on it. Continually pushing POV without properly seeking consensus when you know your edits are disputed is an administrator issue. It is why I brought it here. If he's going to cut that out and engage in proper consensus building discussions and adhere to WP:BRD I've got no issues dropping it. But if he's going to just blindly revert any opposition to his POV we're just going to be back here tomorrow.--Crossmr (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for administrative actions

Which as I expected brings us right back here. Yet again Abductive is doing whatever he wants regardless of who speaks out against him . As I pointed out yesterday Abductive ignored the opinions of experienced editors and used misleading edit summaries to change another article. After an IP (which he assumed was me and was wrong, reverted him for legitimate reasons) instead of WP:BRD he just reverted and made bad faith accusations. The blind reversion and bad faith accusations need to stop.--Crossmr (talk) 04:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Shadowjams suggested above that these edits were not a good idea and that he should stop until a central discussion was held on the issue. After trying to push the change on an FA, he was told there was no problem with the researchers name being inline by two different editors., . It is clear Abductive has no consensus to make these changes. So he went off to several other articles and made those changes.

• Here he claims to be removing entries per WEASEL, but WEASEL addresses using words like "according to some" he only removed 2 of those and removed 4 instances where those statements were attributed to individuals. This was just explained to him that it was okay and that he shouldn't make these edits
• he does it again
• and a third one here
• An IP (which he assumes bad faith and assumes its me, feel free to run a CU) comes along and reverts him with explanation. , , ,
• Ignoring WP:BRD Abductive continues his WP:BATTLEGROUND edits, assumes bad faith and insinuates the IP is me, threatens the IP on his talk page for reverting him, and then reverts all of the articles. , ,

I said I'd let it drop if was willing to edit inline with policies and guidelines but its apparent he isn't. So far, he's violated:

• WP:POINT
• WP:CONSENSUS
• WP:BATTLEGROUND
• WP:AGF
• WP:BRD
• WP:3RR in the last week.

This has to stop.--Crossmr (talk) 05:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• How did I insinuate that an IP was you? This claim is bogus. Abductive (reasoning) 03:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• By slapping him with the same bad faith warning and using the same verbiage to dismiss his edits?--Crossmr (talk) 04:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hardly evidence that I was saying it was you. Abductive (reasoning) 04:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• But plenty of evidence to support you are acting in bad faith and ignoring WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS.--Crossmr (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Lionel Hutz: "Well, Your Honor. We've plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence." Abductive (reasoning) 05:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Your edits are right there where you accuse him of wikihounding you and threaten him on the talk page. Are you telling us you didn't make those edits? Was someone else using your account? Another lost password? How about the fact that you went out and made those first edits in the face of growing opposition to your point of view which you still can't cite a consensus on? You're right people should read your edits, because it is clear as day that you have no regard for other people's point of view and feel entitled to revert any page to your preferred version regardless of discussion and in violation of the policies and guidelines of wikipedia. While there was only small connected evidence before this began, you've shown since its started that you zero regard for any kind of opposition to your POV.--Crossmr (talk) 05:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• If I decided to remove instances of "not uncommon" from every article it which the phrase appeared, would that be a blockable offence? No, because the phrase fits WP:WEASEL. Similarly, removing a few instances of "according to" is both a minor change and consistent with the MoS. Abductive (reasoning) 03:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• You were just told by multiple editors not to remove that and that it was not consistent with MoS. Removing according tos, when they're attached to words like "some people" or "some academics" is appropriate. Removing according tos when they're attached to "John Smith" or "Professor X" are not appropriate. It is clear attribution of an opinion. This was explained to you. You ignored repeatedly. Which is why we are here and people are supporting your block.--Crossmr (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, those edits predate Shadowjams suggestion at 23:29, 20 April 2010 that I "cool it" with those sorts of edits. If people take a look at the edits, and the edits summaries, I think some will not see any problems at all. Abductive (reasoning) 04:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Your reversions of the IP who disagreed with you do not predate that suggestion. They also don't predate being told on the talk page of the FA that the names are appropriate . Nor does it excuse you using misleading edit summaries to cover up the changes you make.--Crossmr (talk) 04:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• So I continued to edit articles I already edited? My edit summaries were not misleading. I strongly recommend that all editors reading this look at the edits. Abductive (reasoning) 04:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Editing an article once doesn't give you license to revert any opposition to your edits. That is specifically spelled out on WP:BRD (which has to be well over a dozen times I've linked you to it which you seem to have great issue reading). You were bold, you were reverted, and instead of discussing it you reverted again with bad faith assumptions and accusations. You were also bold at a time where there was not. WP:WEASEL specifically addresses removal of "according tos" that don't go to a specific source, you removed 4 such entries that did go to specific sources. That is a misleading edit summary.--Crossmr (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• In each of the follow-on edits I made, I carefully considered what the IP said, and made new edits that were either different from the first, or explained why I felt I was correct. At present, are any of the articles worse than when I started? Abductive (reasoning) 05:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• 2 of the 4 were blind reverts were you accused him of wikihounding then threatened him on his talk page. None of the removals were appropriate at that point because multiple editors had said it was inappropriate. The status of the articles is immaterial because you clearly knew these kinds of edits were disputed but you persisted in pushing your point of view without having the discussion that was recommended to you.--Crossmr (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• I disagree with everything you just said, except to note that now we're down to 2 out of 4 articles. Abductive (reasoning) 05:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• I never said the other 2 were okay. At that point it was still suggested you stop making those edits. Its only in 2 of them you made direct bad faith accusations and blindly reverted the articles. The other two you still removed the names without consensus. When you reverted those articles Shadowjams had recommended you stop and 2 editors on the FA had told you that the names were appropriate. You had no support for your edits yet pushed away.--Crossmr (talk) 05:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• I disagree. The edits were consistent with the Manual of Style, and 2 or 4 edits hardly constitutes any kind of mass action. Again, I note that the articles are better now than they were before. This is how editing gets done on Misplaced Pages; there may be some opposition, but given that the IP hasn't complained or reverted, perhaps s/he doesn't perceive a problem. Abductive (reasoning) 05:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• No, they weren't. You were told that already. you were told to stop making them. The IP could just be busy and hasn't come back to the article. Their absence isn't evidence that they support you. I know you like to use that a lot as argument, but it doesn't fly. The problem is you ignore other users, and revert pages rather than discuss. It is what got you blocked before, and the exact behaviour you've continuing since then. You've intentionally gone to articles and made edits you know were disputed. I haven't reverted all of them yet because I'm waiting for a clear consensus which is starting to form. If you want to continue these edits you need to make a proposal at the village pump that they should be removed and see how the community feels. Everything else disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 05:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• You know what? I think that you need to get the last word in. You and I repeat the same arguments over and over, with you making sweeping statements about consensus forming, when in fact the general consensus is that this is not important. It is an editing dispute, with some people even agreeing with me. Abductive (reasoning) 05:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support block This is a long list of violated policies. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support block Abductive's WP:POINT violations concern me the most. If he wants to have inline attributions of studies to their researchers removed, he should have gone to the village pump, rather than just removing them all himself, without prior discussion. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 18:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I agree that this is a real problem. Disruption, socking, fait accompli mass edits, wikilawyering about 3RR (there is no 3 revert entitlement). Talks like an academic and edit wars at asian fetish? Give me a break. Overall attitude could be viewed as an ownership issue towards the whole encyclopedia. 66.127.53.162 (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• There is no socking. Abductive (reasoning) 03:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Then why don't you tell us who the previous accounts? You were asked by an adminstrator last year to name your accounts and refused.--Crossmr (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• I refused correctly. There is a difference between sockpuppeting and legit alternate accounts, and there is no problem at all if the accounts don't overlap in time and articles. I tell you what, though; if you can guess any of my alternate accounts, I'll admit them. You can have 1000 guesses, just ask at my talk page. Abductive (reasoning) 04:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• How would anyone know since you won't disclose it? I'm certainly not going to take your word on it at this point. The very least you can do is e-mail the list to arbcom.--Crossmr (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'll tell the truth. After all, if in the future any admin or member of arbcom ever did take an interest in this non-issue, my lying would be perceived quite negatively. So, if there is any account that has ever aroused your suspicion, just ask on my talk page. Abductive (reasoning) 05:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• If you want to come clean with your past accounts you can do so here or you can e-mail the list to arbcom. No reason to tuck it away on your talk page. Last year you claimed that they would only show more of the same (Which tells us a lot) but that there wasn't anything untoward, so why not just list them unless you got blocks or bans to hide?--Crossmr (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Opposed. Who said academics can't have fetishes? Seriously, this seems a pretty wp:lame conflict, people should just back off from gouging each others eye's over stuff like this. I don't see significant issues with Abductive's latest incriminated edit . Removing some verbiage is always good. It makes sense to repeatedly use "According to ..." only if the statements are contentious, and some alternative interpretation is provided, like "According to X, A1 happened, but according to Y, A2 happened." Just repeatedly using "According to X", where X is not even the same across occurrences, and the there are no disputed issues, just induces the impression that there may be a different interpretation when none is provided, so it should be a construct to wp:avoid just like "claims". Pcap ping 00:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Except he's been told by multiple users he shouldn't do it without getting consensus first. There are multiple problems here. 1) that he's making WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:POINT edits he knows are currently disputed and 2) any reversion of those edits is met with assumptions of bad faith and reversions rather than discussions per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD. it was suggested above that he not continue these edits without a central discussion on it, and after he tried to push it on an FA he was told by 2 users there that there was no problem with the edits. Someone ignoring consensus and edit warring their pov into an article isn't lame. It's a problem. The problem at Hephthalite was several, 1) disputed edit, 2) misleading edit summary, 3) assumption of bad faith, 4) consensus and BRD. He managed 4 violations in 2 edits. and we already know that Abductive is removing this names not because the claims aren't disputed but because he feels these individuals are "non-notable" academics, and that naming them is some kind of vanity, spam, or whatever other story he's concocted today.--Crossmr (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, Ironholds has warmed a bit to my point of view. The way you have characterized my edits is not consistent with the, well, truth. Abductive (reasoning) 04:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• "I'll take a look" doesn't mean, I agree with your point and you're free to remove researchers names from countless articles.--Crossmr (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Listen carefully; I am not advocating removing researchers from articles; what I want is their names down in the footnoted references--not inline--unless there is a good reason. Abductive (reasoning) 05:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Listen carefully; there is opposition to your moving names down to the references from in-line. You were told to stop it, both here and on article talk pages. You continued. More people opposed you. You reverted and made bad faith accusations. You are being disruptive, see no problem with your edits, and have no regard for consensus.--Crossmr (talk) 05:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I disagree. The consensus you claim is actually people wishing that this ANI discussion would die out, or people who came quite late to this discussion and clearly are mislead by you. Earlier, Ironholds, one other user and I had a discussion on a talk page, with results amenable to all. An IP and you are the only ones intrested in following my contribs and finding fault, and I made an effort to take everybody's concerns into account, and the IP has not edited the articles further. Are you saying that I cannot edit? Abductive (reasoning) 05:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• No, the consensus I claim is Shadowjam who told you to get consensus, ironholds and the other person on the FA talk page, the IP, and even Radman above specifically states that you should have gone to the village pump to get consensus first, as well as a second IP. If you made an effort to take everyone's concerns into account, you wouldn't have run out to change every article that was provided as evidence to dispute your false claims. You're free to edit, but you shouldn't be moving researchers names out of the inline text until you have consensus to do so. Several users have told you that. You've ignored it repeatedly and made bad faith accusations and ignored WP:BRD to push your point of view.--Crossmr (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Again, you make sweeping claims that I changed "every article", was going to remove "all" of something, and that I am reverting when the edits are not reversions, and that I am not following suggestions when in fact I am. I'm also engaging in normal editing practices to the best of my ability. Go ahead, put in the last word. Abductive (reasoning) 05:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Crossmr, I don't see a good reason to invoke the source of some science in text by default. You haven't provided any. Just because you and some other editors disagree with Abductive on this issue, it doesn't make you (or them) any holier than him. I do use similar constructs occasionally, but when I have a good reason to do so. For instance, I used something like that in the capacitor plague article "The failed capacitors analyzed by two University of Maryland researchers..." to emphasize that the guys that did the analysis are reasonably independent of the hardware manufacturers. Another case is when someone pioneers a new technique etc. But in general, I don't see a reason to give the names in text for routine science, especially when they don't have wikibios here. Can you argue for one? Pcap ping 09:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Holier no, but knowingly going out and repeatedly making edits you know are disputed is disruptive. Especially when counselled to start a consensus discussion. It is completely contrary to WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD. Individual articles have to be addressed individually, but anyone who has disagreed with his edits finds their work undone. This is the problem. Other than the featured article, every other article has him constantly putting his preferred version, without names back in. He probably knows that edit warring on a featured article would get him far more attention than some fringe article so that is why its the only one he chose not to to instantly undo the opposition to his edits. You have to remember the whole reason this started was because of his false claim in defense of his edits on Asan fetish was that no article on wikipedia had this language in it. As soon as he was confronted with a list of tons of them, he started changing them.--Crossmr (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support block. I am disappointed that after the improvements Abductive showed in his editing at WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators after receiving a dressing down from several regulars at that page and changing his name from Joey the Mango to Abductive he has edited disruptively and against consensus in other articles. It seems that he edits subjects of which he has limited knowledge in a domineering and recalcitrant manner and is unwilling to accommodate the views of others. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC).

• The more I see the more its clear there is some personal bias against academics he thinks are non-notable and is out to remove every mention of them from wikipedia regardless of how others feel.--Crossmr (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Again, this characterization is untrue. User:Crossmr uses the word scare word "remove" to describe either my desire to see the names of researchers mentioned in footnotes rather than given undue prominence, or a legitimate process called AfD. Seizing upon an AfD nomination I made when I was rusty upon returning to editing, he makes sweeping, untrue claims. Abductive (reasoning) 15:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Barbara Ramsay Shaw was an interesting if unfunny read, but that was almost a year ago. Towards the end of that Abductive gave the impression he learned something from that AfD. Are you suggesting that Abductive has some hidden agenda to diminish the presence of academics on Misplaced Pages by removing "According to ..." verbiage? I see Crossmsr thinks so, but I want to hear it from you. Pcap ping 01:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, it was a year go. Hence why I titled this long term disruption. Older incidents are quite relevant because it shows that this is an on-going problem which shows no real indication of changing. He gave the impression he learned something, but obviously he didn't. All his edit summaries belie his intent. Instead of indication that he's trying to improve the articles he's telling us he's removing their names from the inline text because they're "non-notable" he was nominating academics without properly checking them. He was referring to Fisman and Iyengar as non-notable academics at Asian Fetish when a quick Gnews/Books/Scholar check shows they meet WP:PROF and their inclusion in the article as "vanity" or "stealth spam" , coupled with that statement and the fact that He's twice violated 3RR fighting over what he considers non-notable academics it paints a very clear picture.--Crossmr (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• He was asking Xxanthippe. Twice violated 3RR? What was the second time? And referring to an AfD that occurred a year ago is plainly ridiculous. I have nominated dozens of articles for deletion since then, partipated in over 1000 AfDs, and have prevailed in quite a few. Crossmr continues to cherry-pick, characterizing my normal editing behavior, and a few mistakes, as evidence of some sort of plot to ruin Misplaced Pages. In fact, none of my actions are particularly unusual, and all are attempts on my part to improve the encylopedia. Abductive (reasoning) 01:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• What is it that is being asked?--Xxanthippe (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Pcap wanted to know if you think Abductive has some agenda against academics.--Crossmr (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• I have no views on that matter. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC).

• A month ago, look up, its already been linked to twice. Last month in March he violated 3RR , , , the page was locked shortly there after. His violation was missed. You undid another editors work 4 times in 24 hours. It got lost in the shuffle of all of the edit warring that was going on there. I don't need to cherry pick anything. I just simply need to point out the times you were opposed and how you reacted to it. A year ago is perfectly relevant since the point being made is long-term disruption. That would require old incidents too. Which really aren't that old since you apparently started editing 2.5 years before that but refuse to name your previous accounts.--Crossmr (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Truly, the way you characterize things is Machiavellian (or Orwellian) and a bold-faced lie. Editing after two different IPs and a named account, with edits that weren't the same, is not 3RR. I think it is you that is violating WP:BATTLEGROUND. Abductive (reasoning) 05:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Undoing another user's edits 4 times in 24 hours is a 3RR violation, it doesn't matter if its a named account or an IP. unless those edits are one of the few excepted edits (blatant vandalism, copyvios, etc) then it counts. Opposing Abductive's point of view isn't one of the excepted edits. Can you demonstrate that any of the things you removed and undid was an excepted edit under WP:3RR? And if you don't refuse to name your previous accounts, then put the list right here. So unless you can show how some of the things you removed met those requirements or are willing to put the list of accounts here the characterization is apt.--Crossmr (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Given that what turned out to be one other user was editing against the talk page consensus on an article with BLP issues, I don't think that 3RR applies. Nobody but you cares about the non-issue of my prior accounts, and my offer still stands for you to guess at them. Abductive (reasoning) 16:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

May I ask why this user is still, after this much disruption, a rollbacker. I do not feel that any user who has engaged in disruptive editing should possess this tool, and would support revoking rollback rights and then possibly blocking. Immunize (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry champ, that isn't one of the excepted edits you get to go over 3RR for. 3RR isn't for content disputes, and if you think it is then it tells us you really haven't learned anything from this or prior situations.--Crossmr (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the prior accounts are an issue since concerns are being raised about them, and I think Abductive is showing a long term pattern of non-collegial editing, and ongoing wikilawyering (I haven't checked if that's also a long term pattern). Abductive, have you disclosed your past accounts to arbcom-l and/or are you willing to do so? While the sock policy doesn't formally require that, it is strongly recommended there, and if you won't do it, I think that diminishes the amount of AGF that should be extended to you in this discussion. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban needs tweaking

Frankly, I don't like interaction/topic bans very much. I think they generally create more problems than they solve, and one particularly flawed one has come to my attention. There is a ban listed here that came out of a discussion here at ANI last month that restricts three users, Mbz1, Gilisa, and Factomancer from interacting with one another. In the right hand column a huge loophole is detailed. These three are to ignore each other except if they think one of the others needs to get in trouble, then there is a complex set of procedures they have to follow to report one of the other two. I think the community made a mistake in adding these provisions. The ban is supposed to prevent these users from stirring up trouble with one another, but this loophole actually encourages them to look for opportunities to create more drama. I propose that this "reporting mechanism" be removed from the ban and that the users be instructed to ignore one another, period, full stop, no exceptions. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the rules are silly, and IMO the ban is not working as it should. The ban was supposed to prevent the community from the disruption by constant fights at AN/I, but as the events of the last few days have shown, the effect is just the opposite. Although I have never violated neither the ban itself nor the rules, I feel myself like an informer in the worst meaning of that word, and I'm ashamed of myself for following those rules and doing that. I am asking the community that the ban is lifted from all three of us. I promise voluntarily to stay away from the user no matter what the user does to me, and not under any circumstances report the user to AN/I (I have never done anyway). I was reported to AN/I quite a few times. I promise to do my best that it will not happen again, or at least happen much more seldom :) I mean I promise never again to write "Drork was right" in my edit summary :) Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

*It's worth noting that I have now blocked Mbz1 for violating the ban yet again with this edit . The restriction clearly prohibits commenting on one another's talk pages. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC) actually I misread it, ignore that. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

At first, Beeblebrox's idea seemed strange to me, but now I see the logic of it. We would literally be preventing all complaints by these users about one another, per any channel. If they consider this poses a handicap to their participation in Misplaced Pages, they have the option of not editing here. Of course, if they can choose articles to work on that are unlikely to be visited by any of the others, then they should not be inconvenienced by this restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Just to make things easier here, here are the details of the reporting mechanism: "If any of the parties feel that the other party has violated this ban or other Misplaced Pages policy, and no uninvolved administrator responds to the violation within a reasonable amount of time, they may notify 1 uninvolved administrator of the incident on that administrators' talk page 12 hours after the original perceived infraction, and if that first administrator does not respond by at least acknowledging seeing the report within 24 hrs they may notify a second uninvolved administrator in the same manner, but in no case more than 2 notifications on-wiki. Repeated spurious reports to administrators using this mechanism shall be grounds for blocking for disruption." I've never seen such an elaborate scheme in an interaction ban before. The main text of the ban says it's to be "broadly interpreted" and this provision seems to directly contradict that, and to actually encourage stalking and wiki-lawyering. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That language was written by me; it's a close or direct copy of an interaction ban from mid last year-ish that I wrote, after discussion on ANI and elsewhere, for other users. Let's see... the Koalorka / Theserialcomma interaction ban from Aug 22 2009 and on - . It seemed to be well liked at that time as a reasonable balance. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I read the discussion, and indeed at the time there was support for this, and I'm sure it was done with the best of intentions, it just hasn't worked out very well. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, the next appropriate step IMHO would probably be indeffing people, not changing the restriction; but that's up to the community. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem to be blocked indf if I violate the terms of the ban. But I do have problems with totaly erroneous enforcment. And the talks about the ban "spirit" replacing the ban "letters" are actually an open door to block without a case.--Gilisa (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- Yes, this makes eminent sense. I have watched this interaction ban work out horribly, just become an attempt at "gotcha!" while it creates more and more drama. Beeblebrox is right-on. Stellarkid (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Expand Actually perhaps lifting the ban altogether would be best per Mbz1. I think both users have learned their lesson here. Mbz1 has made a commitment, now if Factomancer would make a similar commitment I think this thing will go away. Stellarkid (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I would be willing to make nearly any commitment to make this distracting ban go away, but I doubt that is going to happen. Factomancer (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Anything that reduces the WikiDrama in this editing area is a Good Thing. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 19:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Otherwise, one of them may violate seriously and get away with it, with the others unable to point it out without being sanctioned themselves. If the users can't abide by the terms as written, the next logical step is an outright ban, rather than removing their ability to point out violations. The intermediate step is asymmetrically unfair. I agree the situation is approaching or at the next step level, but this proposal isn't the right next step. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
• oppose considering the problems already existing with the enforcment of this ban (which to me seem as bad idea from the begining)removing the reporting mechanism will only make it just worse, of course. --Gilisa (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support in that it would stop any encouragement for one party to follow the other around looking for violations. --SGGH 20:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment to SGGH: And you assume that reports of violations from other editors who are not banned will not come?--Gilisa (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The point of an interaction ban is to reduce drama, clearly that goal has not been achieved. Most of us can see for ourselves when it is in everyone's best interest to walk away from a user or a situation, but you three don't seem to be able to do that on your own, hence this restriction. This is the central point here, and I know you're sick of me but I'm going to try one more time to clarify this. You should just ignore Factomancer, and they should ignore the two of you. Try and follow the spirit of the ban as opposed to the letter of it, and everyone, including you, will be happier on the long run. If one of you is doing something that is really so bad as to merit blocking, it will be noticed by somebody. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Makes sense. The reporting mechanism was a very bad idea to begin with, given that it encouraged each party to inform on each other. Factomancer (talk) 04:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support, per Factomancer (with the word "apparently" in front of "encouraged"). --Avenue (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support, as I have stated earlier about this interaction ban: "the way I understood it (silly me); was that an interaction ban should force people to move on...it wasn´t meant to give people a cause, or inspiration, for spending day after day, collecting diff after diff, posting on admin after admin, ..for a block." And, IMO, one should also consider applying such a full interaction ban on more editors in the I/P-area. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 09:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Plan B

Maybe George is right, and it's time to up the ante. What if we leave the ban conditions as they are now, but instead of a slowly escalating series of blocks, any of the three who can be shown to have violated the ban gets an indef block. If this thing actually had some teeth it would have a better chance of curbing the problem. The first user to violate it would essentially solve the issue be eliminating themselves from the equation. In the interest of keeping this conversation on point I will go on record right now in recusing myself from any further blocks based on these conditions. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Along these lines - the whole point of this was really to point out to those involved that the community has communally run out of patience with all of this mess, both sides of it. In general it would seem like the message was not received.

We can only warn so many times. The question is zero more warnings, one more warning, or N (very small) more warnings. Beeblebrox is proposing zero more; I agree that that's within reason given the situation. Perhaps two more and a six month block is the least strict next step I think I'd agree is reasonable. Some solution bounded by those two limits seems about right. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Zero more warnings - It really is time to try to put a stop to all this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No more warnings - Agree with BMK. Burpelson AFB (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Ugh, I didn't want to be drawn into this discussion, and I'm supposed to be on a Wiki-break, but this proposal would mean one of us would be indeffed for sure. Given that we are active in similar topic areas, it's very, very easy to accidentally trigger the interaction ban without thinking, particularly considering that the ban is to be "construed broadly" and one of the ban conditions is reverting an edit with no time-limit, which essentially means that we have to check the origin of all material in an article before editing it to be 100% sure that we aren't violating the ban; even the writer of the ban has admitted that that condition is an onerous burden.

"The first user to violate it would essentially solve the issue"? Only if it's me. Is that the assumption here? Because I don't really feel I deserve to be indeffed quite yet. And if not, then let's be honest and discuss that.

To be frank, I think this ban has been a disaster and has encouraged interaction, of the "informing" nature, not discouraged it. A simple ban on reporting parties to noticeboards would have had a much better outcome because that was 99% of the original problem. Factomancer (talk) 04:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, we agree that the ban has been a disaster, that's something. It wouldn't have to be you that would get the indef, I only meant that the first one of you to violate again would get the banhammer, although I suppose it's possible that one of the other two would get it and then one or the other of the remaining users would be foolish enough to follow suit. Of course the more desirable result would be for the three of you to take this seriously and just follow the ban to the letter and not make any edit that even comes close to maybe possibly violating the ban, ending the need for any more blocks or other drama. Simply ending this cycle of drama is my only concern here. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

In all honesty I have taken this ban seriously; unfortunately I assumed the ban was supposed to prevent actual interaction not incidental, accidental mentions of the other party or editing material they may have also once edited. As I explained, I am still concerned about the indefinite nature of the revert prohibition. Given that Misplaced Pages doesn't have a "blame" feature, in my opinion the ban still places an undue burden on us. Factomancer (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Give plan A a chance to work first, at least. --Avenue (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Support zero warnings toward me only--Mbz1 (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

'Oppose Plan A and B and also Mbz fetish for getting the third degree, though I might understand wanting to get forced to take a break. The interaction ban was interesting, but simply detracting from editing the encyclopedia. I would suggest a simple extended topic ban on all and hope the time off does it's usual work. --Shuki (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• As one of the admins who has had the slightly traumatic experience of trying to enforce the ban, I agree that it has not really worked, mostly because the three editors have a penchant for excessive drama (to perhaps varying degrees) and attract a peanut gallery of equally unhelpful supporters in each instance of conflict. I tend to agree with Beeblebrox and Georgewilliamherbert above.  Sandstein  21:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Plan Z

Every successful person has a plan Z. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This issue has wasted too much time. I propose a completely novel solution. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The trouble with trying to be fair is that people can push to the edge and then pull back when they get some kick back - the incentive is always to try and game the system. I propose a solution from Drama theory. This is not supposed to be fair. The punishment is random, and its scale may not fit the crime. Bigger crimes are more likely to have bigger punishments though. Thus while there is a slim chance a participant may get away with a major provocation, there is also a chance that even a mild infraction would be met by a response completely out of proportion to the crime. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

People who continue with undesirable behaviour will inevitably at some point be met with sudden death, completely out of the blue. In this case, this would be a ban, but several other punishments may be meted out with higher probability, such as long blocks. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The participants either behave, or the random throw of the dice will remove them at some point from the situation - leaving the remaining participants to contemplate the corpse and the value of life before deciding their next course of action. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I have a set of dice with all 6's on them.

And another with "Live" on half the faces and "Die" on the other half. And one die with "Die" on all 6 sides.

Plan Z, however, is obviously the Zombie solution, which is not satisfactory. This situation must not live on and on and on in a warped half-alive state. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

(In an effort to lessen the tension), not Zombies GWH, but Nazis.--White Shadows 21:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I truely like this solution, but the problem is that the one who should enforce the ban is always an admin-i.e., assumably human, and therfore, it's very hard to assume (maybe impossible) that the choice he/she made is realy random and totaly unbiased. If there is any on line application that allow to both editor and administrator to see a set of dice and then the result after they were thrown-and lets say that 2=no sanction needed...3=48 hours blocked, 4=72 hours blocked.. 7=one month topic ban 12=indf block-then it could work. But it's all not even realy hypothetical.--Gilisa (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Zombies is Plan 9, surely? Guy (Help!) 09:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Plan "B" for ban me alone

Okay, here's the deal.

I am the subject of three months broadly constructed topic ban (not to be mistaken with indefinite broadly constructed interaction ban :) )
I propose

1. To lift the interaction ban altogether from everybody involved or leave it in effect only for me. I have never violated the interaction ban, and I have no difficulties in complying with the ban in the feature,
2. Change the time span of my broadly constructed topic ban from three months to indefinite without the right to appeal. This will successfully illuminate almost every possibility of my interaction with others, who are editing in the area that falls under my topic ban.

Few words why I am proposing that change:

1. Gilisa got into that interaction ban by a pure accident, and ever since the editor was blocked two times for nothing. I feel myself responsible for those blocks.
2. Following the rules of the interaction ban turned me into an informer. I'd rather to be informed about than to be an informer myself.
3. I'm tired of being discussed on AN/I over and over again. Hopefully with the new measure it will not happen again.

@Shuki, my proposal has nothing to do with "fetish". I would hate to be forced to take a break. I am just tired. I called an anti-Semite "anti-Semite" at an article's discussion page, and was blocked for "BLP violation" without any warning. I wrote a first article about Robert Kennedy, and was dragged into fishing SPI. I was not allowed to remove the accusations of me using a sock neither from the article's discussion page nor from the article deletion request even after SPI came out as "unrelated". I was also falsely accused in being a racist. I wrote a second article about 800 years old synagogue, and was falsely accused in "demonizing Muslims in every paragraph". I filed my first ever AE request about the admin, who misused his tools, and was topic banned. I exercised my right to appeal the ban, and few admins suggested that I should be punished harsher and harsher for doing just that "As such, I oppose any slippage in the current ban on Mbz1, and in fact encourage it being tightened" and "I recommend that further appeals, complaints, and other nonsense from Mbz1 should result in escalating blocks.". I was wikihounded on its worst, and not just by one, but by few users (I guess I am an easy target). So, no, Shuki, my proposal has nothing to do with "fetish". I am tired, and I guess everybody is tired of me. Now, after two blocks for the "violation" of my topic ban, and declined request to add some reference to my old article, I understand how broadly constructed my topic ban is, and I will be fine in avoiding being trapped and blocked for violating it. After everything that happened to me I am no longer interested in the editing I/P related articles. I am a coward, I would not like to end up with an indefinite block issued by admins, who are simply too busy, and/or cannot care less to try to get to the bottom of the problem.

So, please adopt my proposal ASAP, and archive the thread. Please, everybody, accept my apology for the time I took. From now on I will try to do my best to remain in the corner I was put into. Sorry for the long post, hopefully the very last one on that board.

@Sandstein, I might have violated my "broadly constructed" topic ban with that post. I am sorry about that. It will be great, if you could forgive me this hopefully very last violation, and do not block me, but I sure, will understand, if you do block me. I guess my next block for the violation of my topic ban is a week now. Anyway....

--Mbz1 (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• I really don't think disruptive users should be allowed to propose the conditions of their own bans. We went through months and months of rigmarole with Grundle2600, haggling over which of the parameters (originally of his own devising) of the topic ban he was or was not skirting at a given time. I don't even like the idea of interaction bans, as they just create needless drama and red tape for the rest of us to deal with. We aren't equipped to deal with what amounts to a wiki-restraining order. How about users are simply held to the standards of conduct that we already have in place? If User A does something against User B that is sanctionable...personal attacks, incivility, or whatever...then simply sanction User A for that action right then and there. Tarc (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes that would be nice, wouldn't it? The problem is that before this interaction ban, User A would repeatedly do something sanctionable against User B and admins would refuse to take any action simply because there was so much drama that they would rather stay uninvolved instead of do their job. That's how this idiotic interaction ban came to be. Now it has evolved into the same thing. After a while of strict enforcement, it has reached the point where admins are refusing to take action on clear violations of the interaction ban simply because they don't want a spotlight on themselves. Breein1007 (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

@Tarc, I do not know the user you are talking about, but apparently the user was asking to reduce the sanctions not to make them harsher. The only reason I asked for that is to stop taking time and causing the disruptions. I would not like my proposal to be a cause of a new lengthy discussion. I said what I had to say. I believe the project will benefit from my proposal. Let's just adopt it by a sole admin's action (I was topic banned by a sole admin action anyway). Please. Okay I said it all, and now I am taking that board off my watch list.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, I have no problem with any editor making any proposal. I don't think, and you probably agree with me, that editors in conflict with the sanctioned editor are in principle always a better source for amking proposals about him or her. All we have to weight is the rationale of the suggestion. No one is asking for pity or even second chance here. We only ask reason to play a role here again. As Mbz said, I was blocked for nothing twice, and I found this interaction ban to be totaly superfluous and much more distrupting than anything that preceded it. And I do believe that there was too much drama about the drama. Lifting this interaction ban would be more beneficial.--Gilisa (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Breein seems to feel that anyone who won't make a block based on their recommendation is some sort of coward. At least that's what was strongly implied in my case. The point, which I have tried again and again to make to this group, is that interaction bans are supposed to be a mechanism for reducing drama, and just because we could block somebody for a technical violation does not mean we must. Conversely, if a user engages in behavior that is contrary to the point of the ban without technically violating its specific conditions, they can still be blocked. Unlike content editing, admin work consists of making numerous judgement calls as opposed to rigid adherence to rules. At least you are all pissed off at me now instead of continuing to go after each other, that's something. I think in the end the best course is to do what was mentioned above, to strengthen the severity of the consequences of violating the terms, and to strongly recommend to all the users involved in this matter to try and simply avoid each other as much as possible instead of looking for reasons to get someone blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Huh? I thought Plan A (prohibiting the banned users from reporting other banned users) clearly had more support from admins/uninvolved users than Plan B (strengthening the severity of the ban). Factomancer (talk) 05:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, give me a break-you had no reason to block me and that's clear. Maybe I will submit soon a request for amendment in the AE. If you suggest that all of these proposals will be enforced the same way you blocked me, then I oppose them all from obvious reasons. --Gilisa (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Do whatever you feel you must. As I have said again and again, my only interest is in putting an end to this drama. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for caring.--Gilisa (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Moving forward

We need to bring this thing to a close and decide what action, if any, is to be taken.The whole "random" Plan Z is more or less a joke, and the idea of a one-way interaction ban does not make a lot of sense. Then there is my initial idea of removing the reporting mechanism, but I think GWH makes a valid point that it was done in good faith and failed, and now it's time to move on. That leaves increasing the penalties for violating the ban in a last-ditch effort to get these users to simply stop interacting and ignore one another. Of the options presented I think this is the simplest and most likely to have the desired effect. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you not hear me the first time? Plan A was much more supported than Plan B. You can't just ignore consensus because you want to. And GWH wrote the failed ban. Why should he have input into new ban conditions? Factomancer (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I get the feeling nobody is listening to me. I have posted again and again on the undue burden placed on us by the unlimited revert prohibition, whereby we have to go through the entire contribution history of an article to ensure we do not accidentally edit material inserted by the other party. Increasing the severity of the penalties of this ban would ensure that we would get indeffed for not exhaustively checking an articles history. This is ridiculous. The ban conditions need to be changed. Simply increasing the penalties won't solve anything; although it makes for good politics. Factomancer (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't get to demand the ban conditions to be changed. The ban was imposed on you. It is up to the community to discuss the ban. I find it pretty rich that you, the person who was sanctioned, is questioning someone else's (more specifically, an admin's) right to comment here. Breein1007 (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Show me the policy or guideline that says that users can't ask for their own ban conditions to be changed and participate in the community process.

And nowhere in this discussion have I ever questioned an admin's right to comment.

0/2 facts correct, Breein1007. Since you seem less than competent at correctly identifying violations of policy you should leave it to the admins or other users to do it.Factomancer (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to be baited by your incivility. There is a difference between "ask for their own ban conditions to be changed and participat in the community process" and what you are doing. You have not asked. You have said "This is ridiculous. The ban conditions need to be changed." Very interesting interpretation. Breein1007 (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Obituarist

I don't know if Obituarist (talk · contribs) is some kind of bot, but their only edits are to add a link to The Daily Telegraph's obituary to the articles of recently deceased people. They appear to have been warned several times, but continue regardless. Dancarney (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You forgot to notify the user of this discussion as required, but I went ahead and did it for you. Jauerback/_dude. 13:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks. Dancarney (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Clearly not a bot, but a single purpose spam account, who will add an obituary link regardless of its use to the article. They follow the usual MO of spam accounts in that they never respond to concerns, so I suggest a block.--Atlan (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Telegraph obituaries are generally pretty good and useful to readers and editors. DuncanHill (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

True, but it looks like at least at some point (from the user's talk) that they were adding obits for people to articles on companies that didn't appear to have any connection to the deceased. In general, I think we'd prefer to incorporate information from the obituary into the article if possible rather than single-mindedly running around and adding external links. Syrthiss (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Different people have different skill and interests in editing. I am not a fan of the "do it this way or not at all" approach. Obit links make information available to readers and editors, to do with as they will. DuncanHill (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Looks like a good faith editor who's been template bombed, then we wonder why he has an attitude problem and won't bow down to our Level Four Templates. It appears only one person has actually had a conversation with him (User:Wine Guy, in February), and as far as I can tell, Obituarist hasn't added an obit to a non-biographical article since then. I don't think this is spamming, so there's no need to try to browbeat the guy. Just to see what would happen, perhaps drop by his talk page and politely engage him in a conversation of whether there's a better way. I have no opinion on whether as a general rule obits should be in the external links section, but they are certainly appropriate at least sometimes. This place is supposed to work collaboratively and incrementally, right? What's wrong with one person adding an obit in the EL's, and whenever another editor comes along who wants to incorporate the info into the article, they can, and then remove the link? --Floquensock (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I second that. We throw AGF and BITE around all the time on this board, and yet we're all too ready to whack the block button when it comes to it. The edits, from what I can see don't appear to be disruptive and engaging somebody in conversation rather than templating them can do wonders and has been known to turn determined vandals into productive editors. Now of course, if the edits become disruptive, we can start thinking about blocks, but let's put our money where our mouths are and enact AGF and BITE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
    • And I third it. There's no reason to assume this editor is a "single purpose spam account". Note also that they have responded to concerns, although not necessarily agreeing with them. See this. All the articles listed were very rich in information, and do not indicate bad faith. Nor were they in such a quantity to be disruptive. Many times I'm come across good faith and potentially valuable editors who honestly thought the links would be helpful, and they are treated like criminals. One of the worst cases was the archivist of the New York Philharmonic who was threatened with blocking for adding links to their archives, which hold a wealth of information. Whatever happens, I hope trigger-happy spam fighters don't blacklist the links to the newspapers themselves. See also my arguments re the Prince of Austrurias Foundation here Voceditenore (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No reason to assume it's a single purpose spam account? They're called "obituarist" and all they do is add links to obituaries. Assuming they're a single purpose account is hardly a stretch. Yes, I was too quick to suggest a block as I see they actually have addressed concerns, but I hardly agree with you comparing that to treating them like a criminal.--Atlan (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It may be single-purpose, but it's not a "spam" account by any stretch of the imagination. And by "treated like criminals", I was referring to the way the New York Philharmonic archivist was treated and cautioning against doing it here. Voceditenore (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Not just the New York Phil we've treated badly, you can add Gresham College, the American Institute of Physics and the Encyclopedia of Alabama to the list. DuncanHill (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Unsure why someone would be warned for linking to an obituary. The Daily Telegraph is generally considered to be a reliable source, and certainly not spam. That the editor added it to multiple bios isn't a problem at all. We can just gently suggest they use a bot, if the edits are fast and numerous enough. Aiken ♫ 17:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The number of links is excessive (close to 500 of them it looks like) but templating the user is obnoxious. Can we delete all those damn templates? There should be a new policy, "write in English" when trying to resolve a problem peacefully. Don't template someone unless you're about to block them. But there should certainly be a dialog with the user about COI and the EL guideline. In general the standard for adding an extlink to an article is much higher than that the linked content might contain useful info. It's ok to add the link to the talk page for a reason like that, as I did last night at talk:pair-instability supernova. If I work up the energy for it I might leave a note for the user, and I'm also inclined to move the links from the articles to the talk pages. 66.127.53.162 (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Aiken, using a bot to add extlinks to 100's of articles is the last thing we want. Using a bot to remove the extlinks is more appropriate. 66.127.53.162 (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Please don't go mass moving the links to the talk pages. They are far more beneficial to readers and editors on the subject pages. DuncanHill (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Support for this, I have already found a couple of the links that he added beneficial to the article, one of them confirmed a disputed date of birth.It is a bit excessive but it is also beneficial, he will likely slow down or stop as there are only so many obituaries. IMO his edits are beneficial. Off2riorob (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a directory of links. Whether a link belongs in an article is an editorial matter that should be evaluated on a case by case basis per WP:EL. There's a substantial question here of whether a suitably neutral evaluation took place before adding the links we're discussing. I might move a few of them to talk pages and ask for discussion, and use the results to form a proposal about what to do with the rest of them. I might also ask for advice at WT:WPSPAM, and might remove some links based on spot checks if I review them under WP:EL and find they don't meet the standard (but I don't have the energy to do that for 100's of links). Let me know how this sounds. I agree that a unilateral mass move would be disruptive and I won't do that without prior agreement. Note: merely "beneficial to the article" is not the standard for adding a link. We add beneficial material to articles by writing the material ourselves, not by linking to it outside of conditions discussed in the guideline. 66.127.53.162 (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

And this editor is not turning Misplaced Pages into a directory of links. I am well aware that the WPSPAM police do not like any links to e.g. reputable newspapers, encyclopaedias, expert institutions or anything else that might make Misplaced Pages better for the reader, or easier for the editor. There is no need to do anything about the links. DuncanHill (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, let's shut down the blacklists and let the every article have a link to UniverseDaily and 700 YouTube copyvios. Why didn't I think of that? ;-) Guy (Help!) 21:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah! The old slippery slope argument! Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really. The vast majority of people whose actions on Misplaced Pages are restricted to adding external links to a single site, are unambiguously spammers. In fact, this is the first case I can recall where there is even a small amount of doubt, and even here the fact is that adding many links to a single newspaper can quite legitimately be interpreted as spamming. A Wikipedian adds content, this person has just been adding links and all to a single newspaper (and there is no such thing as a politically and socially neutral newspaper, so that may be a problem). The "spam police" perform a necessary function, and the examples I gave are examples of widespread and ongoing abuse. If the "spam police" were shut down, Misplaced Pages would become a link farm. Parts of it already are. The idea is that we are selective about external links, they are mainly there as sources or to provide additional information beyond the scope of the project. I don't like it when people erect barriers just to place others on the outside of them, which is what this talk of "spam police" does. The spam project is no different from vandalism patrollers or any other controller of abuse. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

No one is suggesting "shutting down blacklists". We are suggesting that those responsible for them exercise thought and care and make a proper evaluation of the benefit of the links to Misplaced Pages's editors and to our readers. To equate articles in one of the UK's leading newspapers, the archives of the New York Philharmonic, an encyclopedia of the Alabama state history, edited by a team of professors, etc. etc. with YouTube copyvios and UniverseDaily is absurd. We are also suggesting that every editor who adds links to multiple articles not be thoughtlessly template-bombed, branded as a "spammer", and threatened with blocking. Assume a little good faith, and you might even attract a few more expert editors. Voceditenore (talk) 09:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This is apparently a good faith contributor using a single purpose account to link to an external site for obituaries. The intentions may be good, but I inherently have concerns anytime anyone edits here primarily to add external links to a single external site. It may be a reliable source, but Misplaced Pages is not a repository for obituary links. jæs (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The obits are potentially reliable sources but they're not cited by anything in the article, so as presently used, they're not sources at all, much less reliable sources. "Making a proper evaluation of the links" is precisely the issue here, since it doesn't look like anybody has made such an evaluation of most of these links (that means review the obit per the WP:EL guideline). If the purported benefit of the link is that the linked obit contains info relevant to the article for readers, the answer is {{Sofixit}} by adding the relevant info to the article, citing the obit as appropriate. And if the purported benefit is to editors for use in further article development, that's what the talk page is for, hence the proposal to move the links to the talk pages. And if someone involved in writing an article extlinks a marginally relevant obit, I'd probably leave it alone as a matter of respecting the person's editorial judgement; if they do it in five or ten articles they're not involved in, I'd probably revert and leave them a talk message; adding links to 500 articles with no involvement = spam campaign or at least fait accompli mass edit which is inappropriate. We are not a marketing engine for UK's leading newspapers or anyone else. We're writing an encyclopedia and all relevant encyclopedic info should be in the articles, not in extlinks. There is another site devoted to finding extlinks connected to a topic, and people who want that site know where to find it. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC) (Oops: 66.127.53.162 is also me.)

The Monkees

Would someone please go over to The Monkees and work with the guy there that's just made me too pissed off to assume good faith? (I really don't like being called a Nazi.) --jpgordon 03:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Has the user been informed yet? NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 04:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to leave a nice, friendly message on his user talk page. Let's see how he reacts. –MuZemike 04:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I must be blind, but where's the personal attack you refer to? --SGGH 14:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't see any 'nazi' attack either (although it might be hidden in the history). I removed his email from the page. Phrases like:

R u serious here ? LOL ...I said SAME thing, the orig. was awkward & 'illogical' Captain' ...in fact there was a sentence fragment,, my edit there was merely grammar. 'an agreement must be breached, c'mon take INtro to LAw 101 bro Luv ya

seem to suggest this editor needs a little attention though. Panyd 15:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The "nazi" comment is here. --jpgordon 15:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The nature of that guy's updates remind me of Hanlon's razor, and that along with subsequent attempts to correct his changes, lead me to think it would be best to revert the article (again) to where it was before that "bro" got started with it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, now he's starting to do the same crap on other Monkees-related articles. Could someone he hasn't infuriated please try to straighten him out? --jpgordon 15:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

user:Draganparis intentional and habitual misconduct

Draganparis (talk · contribs)

For weeks now, user Draganparis makes constant accusations and slanders certain users he deems as his archenemies in Misplaced Pages. In the course of a few months he was banned once for disruptive editing and once for sockpuppetry and has 3 confirmed socks. Two of them were discovered after my complaint and were confirmed here . Since then, he has been roaming Macedonia related pages intentionally and blatantly slandering my name and this of other editors. He also initiated a sockpuppetry case against user Athenian, accusing me and two other editors of being his puppets, which produced unconfirmed results only. It proved that 3 of us operate from northern Greece, but that was all . Since then, user Draganparis is constantly making improper and slandering comments in a personal battle against me and other users making customized "technical notes", posting them around and threatening people (even admins!!!!) not to remove them!!!

Evidence:
,

,

Here he is warning another user to not remove his "technical note"...
Here he is warning an admin to not remove his "technical note"...
Here I warn him to stop propagating slanders...
He of course goes on...
..and on..
..and on..

...

Anybody who will look into this matter will easily see that throughout this time, I tried to refrain from discussion with user Draganparis and most if not all of his comments were made in irrelevant instances and with me (and the other users he mentions) absent from the discussion. This clearly shows his intention to slander. It will be very interesting for any admin to occupy himself with this case to look into the edits of all concerned editors, mine, Draganparis' as well as any other's Draganparis constantly abuses. Since day 1, he has not made A SINGLE constructive edit in any article. He is a man of single purpose and is only active in discussions to disrupt and propagate his personal beliefs. I could go on and on about how he has behaved to other editors and admins, but in this complaint, I only refer to his conduct towards me in the last weeks.

Please, look into this matter and rule out something... GK (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a heap of irritating disruption in that long message of his, and I agree it does not belong on a talk page. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has removed it three times now - and since April 9 it has not come back. It's a bit late to leave him warnings about that unless he does it again. I have notified the editor for you. --SGGH 14:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, my informing the community that we "might" have kind of collaborative editing is not accusatory. I think it is now well known, and if there is no collaboration, there is certainly a need to reduce edits of bare support of the opinions of the other editors from the "group" and STOP permanently insulting the opposing editors. Producing evidence (this is a history page!) is needed instead. I would appreciate if the Administrator would inform the mentioned "group" about the rules of decency on Misplaced Pages.Draganparis (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So, here you have it... He "informs" the community that some users "might" have some kind of collaborative editing... And then he again talks about the mentioned "group" which "might" exist and "might" collaborate and "might" be socks as he propagates... I think that user Draganparis' words here clearly show the extent of his misconduct... He propagates his suspicions, no matter where or why and blatantly attacks me and other users. He does not seem to understand that accusing somebody once, during a heated discussion, of something that according to his opinion "might" be true is not the same thing as continuously and methodically propagate such accusations. GK (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's look at what Draganparis considers a "discovery":

ATTENTION: The user GK1973 changed his name to GK. (May be to hide his being GK1973 and a "member" of the group that I call "Greek neighbors".)Draganparis (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone please link "conspiracy theorist" and "there is no cabal" stuff...

Seriously though, it's not only that he accused some editors of being socks, he got his investigation which didn't prove his accusation, but then he goes on to keep insisting that the investigation was wrong and he is still right and he no less than SPAMS the same thing over and over and OVER again. This is not proper behaviour and I wonder why admins have not blocked him again. It's not like he was a perfect example so far, he's been blocked for trolling and sock-puppeting already! And he disputes those investigations too and claims we blocked him and not uninvolved admins. He slanders YOU too! Instead of focusing on borderline cases of unproven incivility (my pet peeve), how about you do something about a clear cut case such as this? Simanos (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• It is rather surprising that this is still going for months. Inaction can cause trivialities to grow into real problems. Then again, admin involvement is a thankless task, when there is a real or perceived ethnic dispute (here it is only perceived as such by one user).

• For instance, I have no dispute with Draganparis, and not the slightest knowledge of his edits concerning Cyril and Methodius (I had only filed his first confirmed SPI case in January  ; then, nothing more, zero interaction, despite being called a nazi on that case page etc). His latest posts only came to my attention now, because I was inactive since March, being busy IRL, and therefore not willing to address any kind of provocations, or sloppy actions (see below). Nevertheless, it is disappointing that I come to discover my username continuously and repeatedly included, with no justification whatsoever, in a series of "warnings" or "notices" posted all over the place (from what I gather, in irrelevant pages) about belonging to some conspiracy or group or whatever entity of users (no matter who those users are). In fact, such posts in article talk pages, and unconcerned third user pages, would be disruptive, under any circumstances, even if they had been proved to be true. Even more so, when there is no basis for them, as is the case here.

• Moreover, let me add, that the SPI case mentioned (against Athenean, myself et al.) was opened and closed in a much too hasty, even sloppy way. And to make it clearer: 1. there was no behavioral evidence justifying a checkuser privacy intrusion; 2. the conclusion as presented is unhelpful (and probably the investigation was too shallow; for example, I had been travelling a lot those days/weeks that there could be no coincidence of my location with any other users, except maybe at one given time... not to mention that I started my itinerary in the opposite part of the world). In this situation, I can guess the best intentions of those that acted, after hearing "scary" words like Macedonia, but the point of an SPI is not to get rid of it quickly, but rather to resolve it in a way that helps move on with encyclopedic work. Anyway, I hope concerned users don't take offence on this comment of mine; I refrained from commenting on this till now, but I see it as one of the sources of the current problem, and a clarification or intervention might be needed to finally move on... Antipastor (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Nineteen Nightmares, continued incivility and personal attacks

This user seems unhappy about the arguments being presented in the deletion discussion of Valley Entertainment Monthly. The user has engaged in personal attacks and incivility.

• The user called users "panty wastes" , "wikinazis" and said some of us have "small minds"
• The user was warned to be careful with personal attacks and incivility, but did not cease.
• The user has also accused us of a conspiracy to delete the article in question.
• An examination of the user's talk page history will show that many other editors tried to engage the user and help explain WP policy. The user blanked many such comments.

P. D. Cook 15:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I am the "user" in question and I have one thing to say: if the article you were working on from day one was mercilessly attacked by a group of editors who it has been discovered regularly gangs up on other users, you would be upset, too. I was given NO CHANCE to succeed, with these ------ scouring the entire article (at least four of you!) for anything wrong, the best I could do was try and answer these descrepencies rather than work on the article. And EVERYTHING was answered sufficiently. Now they are going on about notability. You could claim notability issues with half the stuff on Wiki, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a place here.

Someone said previous that I wouldn't say those things to these "editors" in person, but that is a load of horse dung. I would have A LOT more to say to these people in person and it would not be the least bit censored. In fact, I have been unusually reserved on this site because I realize we are trying to create something academic and important here and I did not come here to fight. The people complaining about me are reminded that Misplaced Pages is not their fiefdom. They should stop acting like it is. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

The argument that "other stuff exists" is not a logical one on Misplaced Pages, I'm afraid. Likewise, outlining "what you would do" face to face with a user is, well, dumb. You should be careful not to mistake a group of experienced and policy/notability-knowledgeable users commenting on content for a group of conspiracy-ninjas. A group of users who say the same thing ought to show you that there are issues with the articles in question, not that they are ganging up on you. the "fiefdom" you refer to is in fact a group of well thought-out policies being utilized by experienced users who know what they are talking about. Misplaced Pages is not important enough to get this upset about things, and an AfD discussion is no place to get bogged down in the nitty gritty arguments. If enough experienced users say there are issues with the content, then I'm afraid it is likely that there are issues with the content. Users would be much more inclined to listen to your points if you didn't resort to these attacks. --SGGH 17:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

My gut response is that this user has only been editing a few days, and we should cut him/her a little slack rather than running to ANI. They'll get the hang of how things work here with a bit more experience, hopefully. Equazcion 17:25, 23 Apr 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Unfortunately you are in the minority of reasonable thinkers here, but I thank you for some semblance of sanity amongst all this nonsense. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

(ec) Nineteen Nightmares has been given an extraordinary amount of tolerance over violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, as well as explanations that reliable sources are necessary to verify article content. Actually, I think he will find that editors were scouring the entire article for anything right, and attempting to find sources for it. There seem to be none online, and Nineteen Nightmares has not responded to requests to provide relevant material from print sources. He has been pointed to wikipedia policy and guideline requirements, but seems unable to accept that these should apply. He said on my talk page, "I see that Modernist, you, PD Cook, and JNW have other articles you work on together, so obviously the others were "brought in" by JNW to sink it." The person who "brought me in" was Nineteen Nightmares, when I read his post on JNW's talk page (which I have watchlisted). I had no contact or request from JNW about this. Ty 17:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This user's only interest seems to be in this article on Valley Entertainment Monthly. The user has been given a lot of slack, but remains unrelenting, because he sees the editors he is interacting with as being a gang against him. It would therefore be useful here for other non-involved editors to review the matter and give their input. Ty 17:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is he doing that couldn't be solved with just dropping it, ie. discontinuing any response to them? Are they unrelentingly disrupting a Misplaced Pages process or venue? Exactly what administrative action would you like to see imposed? Equazcion 17:56, 23 Apr 2010 (UTC)

I agree that just dropping it would be a fine solution. However, I essentially did this myself, but the user continued being uncivil to me. As for me "running to ANI": I don't come here often and I don't take lightly the posting of this thread. I agree new users should be cut slack, but this user continually behaved sarcastically, was uncivil and engaged in personal attacks after being warned. I hope that after the close of the AfD we can move on and Nineteen Nightmares can continue to contribute to Misplaced Pages, but with a little more respect for other editors. As for what administrative action would I like? I believe the user has been disrupting (with insults) my talk page and the AfD page. If Nineteen Nightmares stops this behavior, then I suppose no admin action is needed. If it continues, a block seems fitting to give the user some time to again review the salient policies. P. D. Cook 18:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The AfD stuff may need to stop, true. I haven't given that a thorough look. As for "dropping it" on your talk page: WP:JDI means doing your best to end the exchange. Getting the last insult in, and then complaining when you get two new responses, is far from dropping it. Let the other guy get the last word and then archive the discussion, and then I'll agree that you did what you could. Equazcion 18:34, 23 Apr 2010 (UTC)

I'm really not (nor ever was) interested in a fight. I was trying to tone the debate down and offer some help, but I'd hardly call my comments "insults." P. D. Cook 18:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say you were looking for a fight, only that you perpetuated it. This is not the way to end a fight. It's asking for more. "Small minds" is an insult as far as I'm concerned. Equazcion 18:44, 23 Apr 2010 (UTC)

I think you are misreading my intentions there. I was indicating what from this post I believed to be a personal attack (the statement at the end of that diff where NN says "Small minds produce small results"). I was in no way intending an insult. P. D. Cook 18:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I know why Tyrenius has suggested that, but I do believe that 19nightmares is mistaking a group of informed, clue-up-on-policy editors for being a "gang". He will have to accept that this is incorrect. I would say that the AfD is the suitable venue for "non-involved" editors to establish consensus n the article. When that has run out, we will have our answer. Obviously 19nightmares needs to be told, in no uncertain terms, that we can discuss but not shout/disrupt the AfD process. --SGGH 17:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't bring the issue here. I presume Pdcook was implying that, as 19nightmares has been warned over his conduct, and continued the abuse, he should be blocked. His behaviour is disruptive. I was suggesting some advice from others not in the "gang" he imagines to exist might be better at this stage. Ty 18:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I'm imagining nothing. Go look at the talk pages of the users in question and you will see they work together and bring other editors in to bolster their positions against other articles/users. How about if you just submitted an AfD and then waited for the response from other editors you don't know personally on the site that are likely to back you no matter what the content? That would be too level a playing field, right? You must think me a fool to not see straight through your gig like saran wrap. And yeah I'm upset about it. There is nothing wrong with that. I will do my best to not call anyone "simple minded" if that really bothers you. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

The article has no notability and the User:Nineteen Nightmares appears to be clueless about wikipedia. Initially I saw his attack on JNW's talk page and I advised him against personal attacks: - I was the first editor to warn him and I was surprised when he deleted it. He is a newbie - he has been cut alot of slack; no one here is a gang people here are volunteers writing an historical project and this fellow is a disruption by virtue of his own actions. He posts an article about an utterly obscure local short-lived publication with no particular political, sociological, religious, economic or philosophical uniqueness - that has absolutely no google hits or valid sources; his article is on AfD aand he is freaking out on everybody else - with no sense of what we are doing here; and he trashes the work people do here and the place itself. I think an uninvolved administrator needs to deal with this fellow...Modernist (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Yeah, that would be nice. Let's get someone objective in here to review the article. You are biased, jaded and working with others to sink this article, that's a blatant fact. You are not innocent as you proclaim but are quite obviously part of a club of juvenile editors that get their yah-yahs out of harrassing people who clearly are still learning to work the site. Thankfully, I have learned quite a lot quickly and it will not be so easy to hoodwink and confuse anymore as in the beginning. Here's an example because I know you will call for one if I don't provide it: one of you nominated my article photos (of the VEM that I took myself this week) because he didn't feel it had the correct template. If he had been anything near altruistic or even the slightest bit helpful, he would have let me know what was wrong and given me time to correct it. Instead, I get a notice that it is being nominated for deletion without a word.

  It should also be pointed out that by virtue of the fact you guys are continuing to go back and forth on this like we are saving the world, you prove your agenda. The notability is really questionable as a means of deleting the article and you are all stretching it way out of proportion with your ridiculous arguments about notability. Did any of you bother to read the article objectively? Did you see the famous people interviewed or involved with the publication, including among many others, Stan Lee, Ronnie Montrose and Quiet Riot? Again, I ask because no one responds to my legitimate points of defense of the article, how is that "non-notable?"

  Trying to delete this article over non-notability is insane. You have run out of other things to complain about because I fixed them (with virtually no one's help) even though I am very new to editing on Wiki. (Been a reader for many years now, love it). Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

I am very sympathetic to your situation, because I would prefer that the article be kept, but two things are unfortuanately indisputable: (1) You have provided no citations from reliable sources which indicate the notability of the newspaper, and (2) You have behaved quite badly here and on the AfD discussion.

Here's the thing, your article is going to be deleted, because of (1). If you want to save it, stop getting people annoyed at you (which is not going to help in any way whatsoever) and go out and find reliable sources to support the notability of your subject. There's clearly not anything online, so head for a good library and do some research. I would suggest that you move the article to your userspace while you do that, and not return it to mainspace until it clearly meets WP:N requirements. I fully understand that it's easier and more emotionally satisfying to rant and rave to the gods about how supid Misplaced Pages's policies are and how "biased and jaded" everyone is and so on, but they are nevertheless going to prevail, so you might as well go with the flow and save your article (Which really is the point, isn't it?) Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Even though I disagree with User:Nineteen Nightmares about the notability of Valley Entertainment Monthly, I would prefer to close this discussion with no action being taken against them. I think we would all be better off if we went back to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Valley Entertainment Monthly and discussed only the validity of the article, and not what we think of other editors or their attitudes. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that action is no longer necessary at this point. NN seems to be working calmly and productively with other editors now. I hope this continues. P. D. Cook 02:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, things have calmed down. Let's move on for now. Ty 02:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope he begins to realize that this work is a collaborative project...Modernist (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I am aware this is a collaborative project, but honestly, you and JNW should just stay off it. Every editor involved in this, even the ones who initially put me into a state of shock, have been helpful in one way or another, with the exception of you two. Both of you have done nothing but cause trouble and point out what is wrong with the piece, JNW even going so far as to nominate it for deletion on THE DAY AFTER IT WAS CREATED and then walk away. It has also been noted from the talk pages that you go running to Ty whenever you need a big stick. However, I am very glad that Ty came along because he has been VERY HELPFUL. Gonna stay civil, here, but the continued presence of either of you will not be the least bit helpful, and in fact, knowing myself as I do, will probably result in more pointless bickering. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

• For the record, JNW and Modernist are both invaluable contributors to the project without whom much excellent material would not exist on Misplaced Pages. Nineteen Nightmares seems to have mistaken some standard Misplaced Pages conduct addressing content concerns for personal malevolence. The latter is not the case. Ty 21:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Moving the article to userspace?

Request - Nineteen Nightmares is interested in withdrawing the article from Mainspace and working on it in userspace. Can he simply move it to an address in his space, or does the fact of it being under AfD mean that an admin needs to do it for him? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest copying it to a userspace if the AfD is still in effect, then he can work on it all he likes as a sandbox? My two cents. SGGH 14:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The AfD will have concluded its initial 7 day run tomorrow, so we could just wait that out and close it as userfy. I've already changed my !vote to userfy. P. D. Cook 15:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, I've !voted to userfy it as well, with hope that the closer will see the wheat in all the chaff. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

As the one who nominated the article for deletion, I fully support the request to close the AFD page after its week is done, and move to userfy. JNW (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Ha ha! Thanks, guys. Sorry for the reactionary responses. I think I'm understanding WIKI and its polices a little better now. Thanks to all who have helped me in any way! Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

User:SharkJumper: Legal threat regarding image

Resolved – NLT indeffed, move along

SharkJumper (talk · contribs) made a legal threat on my talk page regarding the infobox image at Don Murphy. The derivative image, File:Don Murphy (cropped).jpg, and the original image, File:Don Murphy.jpg, were released under CC licensing. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The name is particularly ironic, given the impropriety of his response. --King Öomie 16:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NLT followed, awaiting retraction of threat. --SGGH 16:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

this is also interesting... "restart the war"?? --SGGH 16:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

See -- zzuuzz 16:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Closed this, nothing else to do here. The image appears to be properly licensed, so there's little to be done. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I saw the edit and tried to call him off, but I guess there's quite a bit of history behind all this. One thing though, the image is rather unflattering, catching the subject in some sort of mid-goofy facial expression. I'd rather see the article have no image than to keep that one, regardless of sourcing. Tarc (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I have re-opened the discussion. The image has been removed, apparently on the grounds of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Woogee (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

the user has had an explosion of silliness on his userpage and has been blocked indef with talk page disabled. SGGH 20:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, there is some real-life outing of User:Erik on Murphy's forum page on his website. Woogee (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The website should be removed from the person's article, both as a reference as an external link, and perhaps blacklisted. It's been the launchpad for off-wiki harassment of various editors on Misplaced Pages. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Woogee, please reread the forum page. I'm Erik Kraft, I'm not wikipedia user Erik. I know this is confusing, but to clarify: this is a different person than the person who posted directly above this comment. Not that it would excuse Don's behavior, but at the core of this nightmare for me is that I'm not the person Don thinks I am and there's no convincing him otherwise. Erik.kraft (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that this section should be merged with the other one down a few sections. Anyone else agree? Also, I looked at the website and I agree with Woogee and Erik about it. NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 20:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've merged them, and relabeled the top section with the blocked user's name. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

And, yes, I agree: remove the guy's website as an EL and a ref. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

New threats by blocked user, and off-wiki stalking

SharkJumper (talk · contribs) was blocked for legal threats (see above thread). The user is now continuing those threats on his user talk page, and posting a link to a forum where there's a request to expose all information available on the person to whom the threat was made. Could use some more eyes on this, and blocking the user's ability to edit his own user page would be beneficial, although given the past incidents I've read, sockpuppets and meatpuppets are likely to appear. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

TP access revoked, I also blocked email just in case. Tim Song (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

One wierd thing about this, if Don Murphy objects to the photo, why not simply release a photo that he prefers? A good quality image, presenting the subject in a better way than the current one, released under a CC license, would solve the problem, wouldn 't it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not about the photo.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter anymore. We had a drama-free discussion on the talk page, and editors consider the image too lousy for inclusion. Hard to tell how much it has to do with editors being afraid of him; no one is going to complain about the image at Charles Roven, also from Flickr. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That one is kinda meh as well, but not in the same ballpark as the Murphy one. For the record, I've never heard of this guy and have little idea of what the beef with Misplaced Pages is all about. Tarc (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't want to know. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Judging from his website and forum, "beef with Misplaced Pages" doesn't even begin to describe it. Jauerback/_dude. 19:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

A bit Daniel Brandt-ish it seems, yes. I'm wondering just how much being a producer is really all that notable for an encyclopedia. He's not exactly in JJ Abrams territory. Other than some alleged tiff with Tarantino, the sources are more about the work of his Angry Films outfit than the man himself. Tarc (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

He's definitely notable. See 1, 2, 3, and 4. Every time someone tries to edit the article, though, even with an image apparently, stuff hits the fan. Feel free to expand and see what happens. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• We should put the image back, just to piss him off. Murphy's funny when he's all worked up. HalfShadow 02:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The forum posts in respect to Erik are comedy gold. Rehevkor ✉ 03:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not that funny to be outed, guys... in any case, I will be working on his article. If someone like Tarc does not see Murphy's notability in his article, then the producer has successfully exerted control over it. First off, I removed his website, which is an attack site. To re-cite his background, I found this, which further solidifies Murphy's notability. I am not sure if I will be further harassed, so I hope admins will keep an eye on the article as I bring my expertise to it. Erik (talk | contribs) 10:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Erik, this is Erik Kraft. Can you explain what you mean by "outed"? Because as far as I can tell it was me who was "outed" and you are still anonymous. You used the same language on your now-deleted Talk page and this was part of the reason why Don was convinced I was you. I feel like I'm through the looking glass here. Erik.kraft (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, I find this all rather shocking. If there's the one thing the Daniel Brandt saga should have taught people here it is that waging war on BLP subjects, who have not chosen to play by in-house rules or etiquette standards, is self-defeating and pathetic. I make no apologies for saying that people who don't want biographies shouldn't have them inflicted upon them, but even those wikipedians who disagree with me and want to insist we should keep dispassionate BLPs regardless of the subject's wishes, should surely find comments like "We should put the image back, just to piss him off" unacceptable. Frankly, the user who made that comment should be banned from wikipedia - it is exactly the wrong attitude here - anyone who can't see that should not be allowed to participate in a project that writes about living people. If an article on Mr Murphy must be kept, it much be constructed by people who are completely objective. Erik should certainly not be working on it - he's quite clearly not going to be dispassionate. Indeed, placing that image on an article, which we know the subject is unhappy with, was clearly not the level of care of our subjects we expect here. Vendettas with living people are quite unacceptable. Nothing but courtesy and care must be shown - regardless of whether annoyed subjects reciprocate that courtesy or not.--Scott Mac 18:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Scott, I admit I was heated under the collar because of this situation. I do not like being intimidated, and I like it even less to see the wrong person being intimidated. I basically responded in my area of expertise, to provide cited, neutral background about a person who pretends that he is not notable. I started a discussion on the talk page requesting input about my expansion, so please review the article and make any observations about the matter. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think those taking the piss out of Murphy should be blocked for at least a week. This is an utter disgrace; whatever Murphy does is absolutely no excuse for this behaviour & what is worse is a few kids mucking about reflects so badly on the project. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I see Half Shadow has already been blocked for a week. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

What behavior are you speaking of exactly? Halfshadow has already been blocked. User:Erik's reinsertion of the image was reasonable at the time (before all of this happened). What other behavior has there been? Silverseren 20:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of ROLLBACK tool

Forgotten password attack

Some goober clicked on the "forgot password" link to my Misplaced Pages account. I got the notice - and the offender's IP address - via e-mail to my Misplaced Pages registered account. The e-mail header shows it's authentic. Both my e-mail account and my Misplaced Pages account passwords are uber-strong, so I'm not worried about a compromised account (unless Misplaced Pages's temporary password generating algorithm has been cracked). My main question is this - since I've got the offender's IP address (via the e-mail), I can hard-block the account, but is this advisable? Rklawton (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Check the thread above from above about this. If it is in the 65 range, there might be a serial cracker or someone who wants to just mess with us. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Given your username is a bit more specific than the earlier case (which was User:DC), I guess it's possible, but I really don't think a hardblock should be our first instinct, since it could be a good faith contributor just trying to figure out whether they've already registered. Of course, ignore everything I've just said if it turns out one IP is responsible for attempting to reset the passwords of multiple accounts. (Although, I'd hope MediaWiki might have some protection built in against this...) jæs (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks all. It's not persistent, nor is it the IP above, so I'll ignore it. Rklawton (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I received a "forgotten password" reminder today (around 2038 UTC Friday), but this was from someone in the 64 range. I myself have received reminders for other WMF projects (Wikinews, Wikibooks, Commons, etc) in the past few weeks, but this was the first reminder regarding English Misplaced Pages. Willking1979 (talk) 02:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

As this is the second (maybe third) statement about password cracking, perhaps someone with links to the wiki-technical community should send and email with some details. The 64, 65 address spaces are class A and huge, so more specific IP information would be useful to them. Shadowjams (talk) 10:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

If you're on irc, you could ask the devs on #wikimedia-tech. But this is actually a fairly low number of reports, i.e. it sounds like some idiot clicking around, rather than a more serious attack. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Greg Tseng and disruptive editing

• Greg Tseng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of spammers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• UnnotableWorldFigure (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Luitgard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Greg Tseng is a marginally notable businessman whose main source of independent coverage is that two separate companies run by him have gotten in trouble with the FTC for using deceptive bulk-emailing practices (that is, "spam"). This assertion is well sourced in both of the articles linked above, so it's not a matter of poorly sourced negative material. Luitgard and UnnotableWorldFigure are two editors with a very substantial interest in Mr. Tseng.

Luitgard has tended to edit with a view toward increasing Mr. Tseng's prominence on Misplaced Pages, which necessarily makes the coverage of his spamming more visible (e.g. ; note the preceding edit summary by UnnotableWorldFigure as well). While he may (or may not) be angling to injure Mr. Tseng's reputation, to the best of my knowledge he hasn't violated Misplaced Pages's editorial policies in doing so; at the very least, he has not done so blatantly - before today. Today he has unfortunately made a very large number of reverts (larger than, say, three) on Greg Tseng as a part of an edit war.

UnnotableWorldFigure, on the other hand, has tended to edit to decrease Greg Tseng's profile on Misplaced Pages, and to remove assertions that he has been involved in spamming. He has repeatedly reverted to remove a link to List of spammers from Greg Tseng, and he has also been the other party in today's edit war there. My major concern - the only reason I am involved in this at all - is that he has also been removing well-referenced content from List of spammers, replacing Greg Tseng's name with the name of one of his companies, on the grounds that the references only mention that company spamming. In these same edits, he removes two references specifically referring to the other company (e.g., ). Needless to say, if you remove all mention of something, it will no longer be mentioned. He has repeatedly reverted on that page as well.

In my opinion, Luitgard deserves one hell of a slap on the wrist for getting involved in today's edit war. UnnotableWorldFigure, on the other hand, needs to be forcibly separated from his current editing pattern in some appropriate manner. If he has concerns about the way we cover Mr. Tseng, then he needs to address this in a collegial and collaborative manner. For that matter, we could stand to have more eyes on the Greg Tseng BLP as well. Here's hoping this wasn't a case of TL;DR; I made it as short as I could. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Deepest apologies to all concerned for the editing war. I didn't know about the 3r rule. I though I was just undoing precipitous editing for which no consensus had been reached. I was also afraid UnnotableWorldFigure (UWF) would bury the article in capricious edits that would be hard to recover from. I now see that the content versions can be safely rolled back if need be, so my fear was unfounded. I will read about proper procedures over the weekend. I think the record will show that I really did try very hard to reason with UWF in a "collegial and collaborative" fashion. I conceded in the editing war to stop it as soon as I could get UWFs attention. I also immediately and urgently asked other more experienced editors for help, and will continue to do so in a more measure fashion in the future as their patience allows :( I was at something of a loss as I'd never seen such relentless and uncompromising behavior on Misplaced Pages before and wasn't really sure how to deal with it. Again, apologies to all and best regards. Luitgard (talk) 04:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Luitgard) Pending a review by an administrator, the edit warring issue seems to have been resolved at AN3; see this thread. On the content issue, there's more to be said and I'd be happy to elaborate should the need arise. Adrian J. Hunter 04:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Adrian, I'd be interested in any info on the content question. If this is not the place for it, please post it on my page or elsewhere. Regards, Luitgard (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for not being aware of the separate discussion at AN3, but it looks like that is only discussing Greg Tseng. As I've mentioned, I'm personally most concerned about the disruption at List of spammers, which doesn't look like it's been addressed there. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Gavia is actually understating the matter. There were 3 references that mentioned two of Tseng's companies, two of which also mentioned Tseng by name. UnnotableWorldFigure would delete the refs that mentioned Tseng by name and then say that the remaining one didn't mention Tseng, only his company, and then remove Tseng from the list of spammers because he was not mentioned in the remaining reference. Requests to discuss the matter were apparently ignored. Gavia would have a better count of how often this cycle or a similar one was repeated as I came across the process when it was on going.Luitgard (talk) 05:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

For the most part I agree with Gavia's summary and wish that Gavia's discussion of the "List of Spammers" page had been as coherent as the above writings. What is missing from this discussion is the fact that the latest round of edits initiated when somebody else marked the Greg Tseng article as an orphan and Luitgard reverted that and subsequently began scrambling to justify it, primarily by adding his name to a bunch of random lists to justify the claim that the Greg Tseng article is not an orphan. The fact of the matter is that if you take away this spurious lists ("Entrepreneurs", "Spammers", "Thomas Jefferson 'famous' alumni") there is only one article linking in, and that is the Tagged article. Given that Tseng's accomplishments outside of Tagged are impressive but comparable to thousands of other people not famous enough to have their own articles, it would be wholly appropriate to do what we would do if this were, say, a contestant on Survivor season 18, and just have his name redirect to Tagged. Can anyone make a coherent argument that this should not be done? I strongly contend that Luitgard's only motivation for not doing this is a desire to damage Mr. Tseng's reputation, and if anyone needs evidence to back up this claim, just do a 5 minute google search for combinations of Greg Tseng and Luitgard, and then spend 10 minutes reading the content of all the contribs from User:Luitgard with emphasis on her contribs to other people's talk pages. UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) 09:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Gavia – no worries, you weren't to know of the other thread. Although it concerns a different article, it concerns the same two contributors. Both are relatively inexperienced and I believe both were simply unaware of Misplaced Pages's rules about edit warring. Ttonyb has brought this to their attention on their user talk pages and made some very sensible suggestions at Talk:Greg Tseng (). I think the content issues can be sorted out at the appropriate talk pages (or if not, WP:DRR). So I'd suggest marking this thread and the AN3 thread resolved, though I feel too involved to do so myself. (Struck per below). Adrian J. Hunter 08:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

As it happens, I am not unaware of Misplaced Pages's rules about edit warring, as this was the 3rd time I've reported someone for 3RR. Luitgard repeatedly tried to get up her version of the article and say "can we stop and discuss this on the talk page", where the implication of "stop now" was "leave the most damaging version up for Google to see". That was simply not acceptable to me, and ultimately we stopped with the less damaging version visible to Google. I have no regrets about my actions.UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) 08:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

As some of you know, the suggested 24 hour cooling off period was not observed by all parties. The article was unilaterally reverted to a prior edit by UnnotableWorldFigure without consultation or consensus. I have proposed restoration of the word spammer to the intro of the article on the Greg Tseng talk page and will solicit UnnotableWorldFigure's comments on that proposal before proceeding further. As always, any guidance is appreciated. Regards, Luitgard (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

UnnotableWorldFigure, your self-incriminating post to AN3, your comments here, and your continued edit-warring at Greg Tseng – even reverting the very contributor that tried to advise you – indicate that you have not understood Misplaced Pages's expectations about edit warring. It would be in your own best interests to revise WP:EW and reconsider your comments here.

Folks, administrators have no special authority in content disputes and this isn't the place to discuss them. Let's keep content matters to the appropriate talk pages and use WP:DRR if necessary. Adrian J. Hunter 15:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Adrian I understand Misplaced Pages's expectations just fine, and if meeting those expectations means leaving unreasonable content up on the top Google listing for an individual then I will not meet those expectations. You can view that as incriminating if you like, but I don't live my life under the jurisdiction of Misplaced Pages. And besides, if I remember correctly you were the person who defended my stance that WP:BLP supercedes WP:3RR -- forgive me if I have misremembered. UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC) (ETA: Sorry, I guess I mixed up the chronology. I saw your message above for the first time just now, but it appears to be 2.5 hours older than the message I am referencing in my rebuttal. You can ignore this) UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) 03:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

UnnotableWorldFigure is now back to revert-warring on List of spammers ( ). Is nobody willing to enforce our rules against edit warring? — Gavia immer (talk) 03:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Pot, meet kettle. I made a good faith edit (do you know the difference between an edit and a revert?) to fix the accuracy of a new sentence that was added yesterday, and you reverted it with the commentary "Stop that". Are you planning to punish yourself for edit warring, or is it ok as long as you're the one who started it? Right now the number of reverts today is tied 2-2 between you and me. UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) 03:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This edit (the first one you included in parentheses above) is a perfectly reasonable edit and was not a revert to any version previously in existence. It also more closely matches the facts as they are laid out in the source document. It is against Misplaced Pages policy for you to revert this without visiting the talk page first. UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

70.240.215.243

Not sure to whom or what this could be related, however User:70.240.215.243 left this edit on my talk page, then made this edit to User talk:75.99.184.58 requesting their assistance in having my account hacked. However, the IP user has only made those two edits plus one reversion to their own talk page.

Hate to stir the pot, but I was wondering if someone can determine if this is a sock of another user or simply a vandal. Thanks. Sottolacqua (talk) 04:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this a WP:NLT or am I being a bit too sensitive today? SGGH 13:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Marysville, Ohio banner

I really hope that I'm in the right place here; I've never used this forum before. I don't think it fits it any of those categories up there (BLP, 3RR, vandalism, etc.), so hopefully this is the place.

User:Wiki Historian N OH is an editor with a rather virulent case of WP:OWN, regarding Marysville, Ohio. The primary manifestation of this has been his insistence on the placement of this banner at the very top of the article:

A number of other editors have taken note of this banner and have removed it, noting in their edit summaries that this was not standard Misplaced Pages practice, and that it may violate (albeit unintentionally) WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. . Some have attempted to engage in discussion on the talk page, but Wiki Historian N OH generally ignores their points; s/he has arguments that seem to boil down to the following:

• This is a rare honor bestowed on American cities, warranting the special recognition through the banner.
• The visual has an impact in drawing attention and curiosity to the whole page. It also makes it more fun, like pictures.

S/he actually tries to make some other points, but many of them are very confusing, such as the following (which here are taken out of context, but make no more sense within context):

• The political existence of this city is attached to the political designation it received.
• As the guidelines state, no one owns an article, therefore lacking any definitive authority to remove something rivals vandalism and compromises the integrity of Misplaced Pages.
• The only weight the banner places in the article is the weight of the entire article itself, not just one aspect of it lacking an attachment to everything else.
• Ultimately, if the Wiki folks don't like it, hardly can one object, but they've yet to.

Actually, the single best point that WHNO has brought up, albeit indirectly, via rhetorical question, is to compare his banner creation to the infobox heading for places on the National Register of Historic Places. I made the mistake (in the interest of prompting some civil back-and-forth discussion), of acknowledging that this was an interesting and relevant comparison, but that an infobox was not really the same thing. Well, WHNO took my opening and ran with it, declaring, 98.82.23.93 has conceded their position has failed on the merits.

And while I have repeatedly attempted to find an opening for a polite discussion, s/he has ignored others' arguments and even accused those who have clearly been making honest attempts to work things out of committing vandalism (that dif was his response to a first-time editor of this article). But the key point is, throughout this whole matter, not one editor has indicated one iota of concurrence with User:Wiki Historian N OH, yet s/he continues to revert everyone's removals of the banner, usually without the courtesy of an edit summary or explanation on the talk page (unlike those who have explained their removals).

I do recognize that the future of the project is not endangered by this issue. But I don't see that WHNO has given me any real choice (other than to ignore the matter, which is I suspect how s/he has been operating so far--waiting until others get bored and just go away). And if I am told by objective persons here that I am wrong, I will drop the matter. But please read the patient arguments that I and others have advanced, the courtesy that I and others have extended, and the genuine good faith efforts that were attempted at great length before this venue was approached. Thanks. 98.82.23.93 (talk) 04:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

98.82.23.93 left me an ANI notification. How am I involved here? Marysville isn't on my watchlist, and the last time I edited the article was in July. I've never edited the talk page at all. Nyttend (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn't something that belongs on a page, whether it be at the top or the bottom, but the top is never the place for anything but the facts. A category would be better for this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Fully protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. At minimum, this month-long edit war needs to stop. Both parties need to carry on a civil discussion at the article talk page regarding this issue. The back and forth edit war needs to stop first. Now, everyone can get on to discussing the issues in a civil manner. --Jayron32 05:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  • With all due respect to fellow administrator Jayron, I doubt this is the best response. This seems to me to be taking the principle of admin-non-involvement to the absurd extreme of total content agnosticism. This is not a situation where more discussion is needed to establish consensus. Consensus and policy already exist, everything seems to have been said that needs to be said, and there is a single obviously disruptive element editing against this consensus. Sometimes, there is a "right" and "wrong", even on Misplaced Pages. Let's not burden our constructive editors with an obligation to keep "discussing" this with somebody who evidently doesn't wish to listen; let's keep this article open for normal editing, and just block the disruptive element if they persist. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
    • If I'm understaning FPAS correctly, I believe I agree. The banner serves no useful encyclopedic purpose, only a promotional one regarding the town, which is not our concern. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Good idea protecting the page. I think User:Wiki Historian N OH should be warned that banners like these should never be placed on any page in mainspace. User:Wiki Historian N OH should also be warned about WP:OWN as there is a clear case of it from what I have seen. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I have also taken a look at the Marysville, Ohio article and several pictures need to be removed. The ones of Al Gore, Laura Bush, George and Barbara Bush, William Henry Harrison, among a couple others need to be removed as completely unnecessary to the page and the ones of Gore and the Bushs appear not to be taken in that town. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
    • If you see a need for such changes – and you may well have a point there – then that's just one more reason not to lock the page down for a full month. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
      • After looking into this more, this section seems to be written with a political slant and in violation of NPOV. I would recommend an editor or two from WP:CITIES give the page a once-over to see if there are anymore NPOV statements. I am also seeing alot of weasel words like "Marysville is blessed" and "Marysville would be changed forever". Just two I seen in two sections. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Sorry for the continued posts, but I need to raise further concerns, like with User:Wiki Historian N OH changing of LGBT to alternative lifestyle in this post. Like the use of clearly not reliable sources in the following links: 1, 2, 3, 4. Plus, continued use of pictures not meant for use in town pages (this one was about a model). These are just going back a couple days. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

NeutralHomer raises some good style points, and I too think this full protection was an inappropriate measure. Unless a strong case can be made for keeping it protected, I'll unprotect in a little while so actual work can be done whilst there are eyes on the article. If WikiHistorian continues to reinsert the banner against the fairly clear consensus against its placement, he will be blocked like any other combative editor. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't care less about the place, but... on my watchlist now. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

??? > As a matter-of-principle question: Is this article now reserved for administrators-only edits for the next month? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Nevermind Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Per my above post, I've unprotected the article. I agree, Choy, that wasn't a good edit to make...only highly uncontroversial edits should be made by admins while full protection exists. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree the protection wasn't appropriate given just one editor is causing trouble in the article. Sometimes it's possible to use sweet reason and convince such editors to switch to articles in subjects they're less invested in. Good luck ;) 69.228.170.24 (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I just did some cleanup myself there. I just counted thirty six images on the page and I was wondering if anyone else thought most of them should go since they really aren't adding much besides promotion. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with the pictures. While having them is a good thing, sometimes having too many can clutter the page and this page looks VERY cluttered with pictures. Some are there just to show where a business is (like the Scotts plant in the town)....not needed. I think the page should go up for peer review where people who work on nothing but Geography pages, can take a look and evaluate the page and see what needs to be done. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think these discussions about article content can now be safely taken back to the article talk page. Let this be sorted out through normal editing (and thanks to all who volunteered to look into the cleanup issues); "Wiki Historian" has been warned not to disrupt further consensus editing and can be blocked if he obstructs the process. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Question Could somebody interpret "Will accept assignments from those looking for article creation or editing" (along with an email address) (from User:Wiki Historian N OH) for me? That sounds to me like we're dealing with a spammer for hire. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 10:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Yeah, that looks like "Wikipedian for Hire". I think that isn't allowed. For reference, the post the anon is commenting on is here and was made back in October of 2009.- NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Happy launch day, Hubble!

Google is featuring the Hubble Space Telescope today - a few extra eyes on the article might not go amiss. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I have seen a bit of a flurry on there. Admittedly it's only 20 or so for today but then, it's only 10:00. I've slapped a 24 hour semi-protect just to curb it and allow vandal fighters time to do other things. SGGH 14:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Advice for dealing with a user who won't communicate

Hi there. Over at WikiProject Comics we are experiencing a situation where several of us disagree with the changes an editor NickLenz19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly making. We discussed the issue on this thread on the WikiProject's talk page, and then one of us invited him to join in. However, this user never seems to respond to anything on his talk page, and did not respond to us either.

The user's contributions seem to consist mostly of adding and maintaining "Bibliography" (which he calls "Biography") sections to numerous comic book character articles, which simply consist of a list of every single comic issue that character has appeared in - for especially long running characters, these lists can sprawl quite a bit (just imagine fifty pages of "Spider-Man appeared in these comics"). Those of us at the WikiProject concluded that these lists are basically useless, and that a prose "Publication history" section is preferrable by far. I don't know that what this user is doing actually violates any policies, but by not even talking to us I feel he is ingoring consensus, and runs the risk of ultimately being disruptive in regards to the Manual of Style.

Not sure what else to do with this one, and would like some advice. I'm sure this user means well, but being totally unresponsive means it's kind of hard to know what he really is thinking. Blocking the user for being disruptive has been discussed, but I'd prefer not to go that route if we can find a better alternative. BOZ (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

A couple of things first, this is really an ANI matter and you should have notified NickLenz19 of this discussion. To the meat of the matter, if a consensus is established then willfully ignoring it, and the advices and requests to discuss the issue also, being disruptive. I shall enact a 48 hour block to focus their attention on the concerns raised (you will need to be available to discuss them on their talkpage). If they resume their editing modus upon block expiry then I - or some other admin - can block indefinitely, an option I will note when providing the block notice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize I should have brought this up at AN/I, I just figured to get some advice. I can block him if he continues without discussion, if that is appropriate. BOZ (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked him, per my comments, for 48 hours. If you can keep an eye on his talkpage, in case he feels the need to comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LessHeard vanU (talk • contribs) 16:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Will do. User:Tenebrae, who has really taken the lead on this issue, will keep an eye out as well. Thanks. My offer of blocking was intended as a future measure in case this one doesn't have any effect. BOZ (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Moved from AN. –xeno 16:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

We need a canned message for "You are adding too much fancruft to Misplaced Pages. While Misplaced Pages discourages this, the commercial Wikia encourages it. We encourage you to contribute to the ... wiki on Wikia." Since we have a slush pile available, we may as well use it. --John Nagle (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

User:FreedomforIran

I have suspicions that this new account may be a sock of one-year blocked User:Amir.Hossein.7055, for uploading copyvios. The uploader has uploaded File:M.Mirdamadi.jpg, under CC by SA 3.0, without evidence of permission (alike most of Amir.Hossein's uploads), and has removed a missing evidence of permission tag to an upload by Amir.Hossein. Looks a bit fishy. Thoughts? Connormah (talk | contribs) 17:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You should have notified the editor (which I've done), but yes, this looks very much like a sock. One of the images has, the editor claims, an OTRS number which wasn't showing on the template. Is there anyone around who can now check this OTRS number? . Thanks. You can make an SPI report if no one else decides that the contribution history is enough evidence. Dougweller (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a valid OTRS ticket for the number given, that asserts that the person responding is authorized to represent Mr. Mehdi Karroubi and that the images here are released under GFDL. The respondent given is "Pujan Ziaie/Virtual Campaign Committee/Mehdi Karroubi's Campaign" from a campaign88.ir email address. Given my lack of knowledge about the subjects and contents, I really can't dispute validity or not. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, yes, I should have notified. This user, though however has to learn to not to remove the missing permission tags from image description pages. Connormah (talk | contribs) 20:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat (above) now real harassment

I'm just a random onlooker in all of this, but I am definitely worried for all parties involved. Regarding an earlier ANI discussion, the problem with the image on the Don Murphy article is dealt with. But it seems that User:Erik unwittingly opened a can of worms.

Don Murphy, on his personal website, began a witch hunt with his cadre of minions to find personal information about User Erik. Well...they found information on a Erik. Unfortunately, Don Murphy and his minions don't seem to be very adept hackers, as they located a random guy named Erik. They were able to pull up his address and his phone number and have been leaving him threatening messages and who knows what else. Luckily, Don has since been deleting a lot of posts on the thread, so the post with Erik's info is gone now, but not before a number of his minions saw it and recorded it and they could still continue to do things to this poor guy.

You can find out more information at the section on Erik's talk page. The guy named Erik has gone to the police and, hopefully, that will pan out well for him. It shouldn't be that hard, since they know who they're going after (Don Murphy).

Now, i'm not blaming User Erik for this or anything like that. I'm just saying that those involved should take at least a modicum of responsibility for this mess. And, thus, I am asking if there is anything that Misplaced Pages and its users can do to help fix this? Is there anything, perhaps deleting some page histories to get rid of information or stuff like that, that we can do to help in even the slightest bit, as we're the ones that got this guy involved?

Thank you for you time. I'm just worried about this Erik guy. Silverseren 18:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's an idea: how about letting people opt out of having a biography? NotDonMurhy (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a better one, how about acting like a grownup instead of a 4chan user if there is an issue with a biography? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

We generally don't allow that for multiple reasons. Primarily because we are here to show encyclopedia content and notable people are represented regardless. If your page was negative toward you, then there could be an effort to get it changed or rewritten, but it isn't. It is entirely complimentary, which is why i'm confused about why you want it down in the first place.

And I don't think you are in any position, Don Murphy, to make any requests of us at this point. Your actions have made it so we are not going to listen to you whatsoever, as Misplaced Pages does not abide by legal threats and it also our policy to not feed the trolls. And you, my good sir, are most definitely a troll. I am hopeful that the police that Erik has contacted are able to bring legal action against you. And we shall gladly put the news articles that will surely erupt from that onto your article page. Have a nice day.Silverseren 18:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yea, well, legal threats and trolls and all that is all well and good to quote, but it does little good to toss our acronym soup in the face of someone who, honestly, really doesn't give two shits. Know what my preferred wiki-acronym for this is? WP:BEAR. Why on earth some users thought it would be a good idea to dredge up an image and put it on an article of someone with a history of antagonism and behavior such as this is baffling. Tarc (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's only asking for trouble. I hardly think one phone call is grounds for legal action either (nor is posting an image to a Misplaced Pages article). Aiken ♫ 18:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Please block NotDonMurhy (talk · contribs) as either a sockpuppet of ColScott or someone editing by proxy for him. Perhaps the IP behind it as well? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict x3) I'm not sure if User Erik knew about this antagonistic approach Don Murphy has toward Misplaced Pages, but, regardless, the guy named Erik had no reason to be involved until they pulled him in. So, like my question asks, is there anything we can do for him? Silverseren 19:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The account has only made one edit and asked a fair question. Off2riorob (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It's clearly an impersonator, or Don Murphy himself (who is banned). Please block. Aiken ♫ 19:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

@Silver seren: no, there isn't, other than offering the advice to stay away. Nothing illegal has actually happened yet, so it's best to walk away now. Aiken ♫ 19:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I was a really awful picture, this is a good reminder that our articles about living people do have a big impact on the subjects and great care should be taken to report and portray them fairly. Off2riorob (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the picture has nothing to do with this. Yes, the picture was awful, but Murphy has been doing this heckling off and on regardless. He has done it to people that have been improving his article in a good way. So, the picture really had no impact on him whatsoever. Silverseren 19:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not a forum to discuss your opinions about somebody who is not able to defend themselves. Please stop. Aiken ♫ 19:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for that. I have removed the last line I wrote because it was unnecessary and provocative. I'm just really annoyed about this situation, but I need to make sure I don't step out of line. My personal opinion shouldn't be on Misplaced Pages. Silverseren 19:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

http://www.haltabuse.org/resources/laws/california.shtml What Murphy did was illegal IMO. He encouraged people to look this guy up forthe sole purpose of "calling" him. That's harassmentif the guy doesn't want to be called.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.121.157.16 (talk • contribs) 15:15, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

I have messaged Jimmy Wales, who knows about Murphy's disruptive behavior, about this ANI thread. I am pretty sure that Mr. Wales has had a phone conversation with Murphy. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the Erik Kraft who got pulled into this nightmare tonight. I wanted to thank everyone for trying to help me sort this out. I'm not a regular wikipedia editor so it's been extremely confusing trying to figure out how, if at all, I should contribute to this. Any help would be appreciated, especially information about whether Don's behavior has ever resulted in physical harm to his victims. That is my main concern now, I have no idea what his followers might do.

I guess I should retract my earlier comment about 4chan. They at least identify the right person before they start harassing them... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I know I'm pissing in the wind by saying this, but I generally want to delete any biographies that the subject has a strong opinion about, whether favorable or unfavorable, on the grounds that its neutrality is likely compromised by the subject's involvement. We should only retain the biographies that the subjects are basically indifferent to, and possibly those for major public figures about whom there is a huge amount of documentation from which neutrality can be established. So we should get rid of this article. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

HalfShadow blocked for BLP violations on Don Murphy

HalfShadow (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

I have blocked the above user for seven days for trolling a living person. If wikipedia is really going to insist that it will write about living people against their will, then it must ensure its editors do so in a courteous and respectful way, even if the subject doesn't respond in kind. Remember we trod on their toe, and insist that we can because we are simply recording facts.

I went to have words with HalfShaddow about this unacceptable edit "We should put the image back, just to piss him off. Murphy's funny when he's all worked up" only to find he'd acted on his threat and uploaded another unflattering image of the subject File:DonMurphy.jpg and edit warred to keep it in the article.

Is wikipedia to be trusted with writing about people who don't want written about? If it claims it is, then vendettas, trolling, responding in kind, must be deemed absolutely unacceptable.--Scott Mac 19:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Like I noted above, if the article is perfectly courteous and just describes what the person has done, we have no reason to abide by a request to remove it. It does the person no harm for it to be there and, I would think, actually brings them some amount of more fame. However, you are right, we should not (and do not) allow vendettas, trolling, or anything of that nature. I am hoping that this will be dealt with swiftly. Silverseren 19:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I was discussing blocks for BLP vios earlier with another editor. Vandalism on BLPs should be treated with an instant block, and for other issues (such as mocking the subject) the perpetrator should be subjected to a warning, and then a block if the behavior continues. I am disturbed by the comments left by HalfShadow on the AN/I discussion, who seems to be treating it as a game rather than a serious project. A block is spot-on, especially as there were issues such as edit warring over the image. Aiken ♫ 19:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree, perfectly good block, HalfShadow deliberately inflamed an already unpleasant situation because they thought it would be funny. Now they have a week to laugh about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

He is asking for an unblock on his talk page if people wish to comment.--Scott Mac 19:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Just for context the fallout from poking Murphy with a stick is absolutely not restricted to those doing the poking. Any person on Misplaced Pages with any past dealings with this article or any of the users of Murphy's forum is likely to be considered "fair game" for retaliation. Deliberate provocation is not just stupid, it is likely to lead to active harassment of others. We should never troll article subjects, ever, but Murphy is just about the worst choice of target. I endorse this block. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

That photo is unsuitable for a formal biography, especially a contested one. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• I've declined the unblock request, but I would imagine he'll keep trying. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Support the block, for what was a deliberate attempt to further annoy an upset BLP subject by uploading what was likely a copyrighted image. Off2riorob (talk)

I am interested in why you are defending him so much, when he has made legal threats and harassed numerous people in real life, threateningly so. Silverseren 19:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thats one of the things that I am interested in, the protection of living people related to our articles. Off2riorob (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant. We don't allow wikipedia to be used as a revenge platform. The only possible defense of keeping an unwanted BLP is that we aare fair and dispassionate about the subject.--Scott Mac 19:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I never said otherwise and I do believe that the image should not be in the article whatsoever. I'm just concerned about Off2riorob's comments both here and on the above ANI discussion, as he is defending Don Murphy a lot. It seems kind of...strange... Silverseren 19:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Good block. The fact that the article subject has behaved atrociously does not give us license to respond in kind. HalfShadow's actions, at best, demonstrate very poor judgement. At worst, his behaviour will encourage further harrassment of an innocent third party. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

A quick correction: There was no edit warring going on, HalfShaddow uploaded a new image and put it in the article, once, and that's it. Just for the record. --Conti|✉ 19:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

For what that may be, his comment in the previous ANI discussion makes it clear that he put it back for a vindictive reason. Silverseren 19:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that. The image seemed to be taken from a quick Google search as well, without any regard for licensing or copyright issues. --Conti|✉ 20:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Unblock declined and block endorsed for copyvio alone; "the whole copyright status thing defies me" is not an appropriate reaction to an inquiry about the copyright status of content one contributes.  Sandstein  20:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

AGF about the copyright stuff (newbie mistakes with image uploads and copyright are extremely common), but the person's approach to biographies is no good. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, he knows enough about image copyvio to tag it when he sees it (admins only, sorry). I support the block, but would think it might be appropriate to shorten it if there's some plausible sign that he gets why this was all a bad idea...unless there's a history of this kind of thing of which I'm unaware. --Moonriddengirl 20:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl, there sure is a history of him trying to piss people off. Trust me. I support a block per the above reasons.--White Shadows 20:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

On the pure face of it (i.e. not knowing or taking into account the background White Shadows refers to), shortening or lifting the block seems reasonable if HalfShadow agrees to stay away from BLP's for a while (until getting better attuned to the current editing culture around them) and be more careful about copyrighted images. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to oppose that. Just a look at the guy's block log shows that he has not learned anything from trolling like acts. If you want more evidense from me just ask.--White Shadows 21:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The user is currently venting which will result in nothing positive at all, so for now i think it is best if the block stays in place. This is the fourth block, with a previous block on the same grounds 5 months ago. That one was cut short so therefor i think that this one should run its week-long course, after which the talk page should be unprotected to see if Shadow wishes to come back. If he can file a reasonable request then i support unblocking. I could accept the rationale that he wished a better image, but seeing his comment and the strange comment on copyvio's i find it hard to believe. Excirial 22:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

And now, "Like I even care anymore. Die in a fire, the lot of you.". Aiken ♫ 21:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Let that go, it's just venting. Not a reason to lengthen anything. (but certainly not evidence of a need to shorten yet, either)... ++Lar: t/c 21:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Too late, Sandstein did the deed. (Not that I'm bothered by the comment, as you say, he's just venting, but still, evidence he's not at all ready for a shortened block). Aiken ♫ 21:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

In view also of his previous blocks for disruptive incivility, I have indefinitely blocked the editor for this. It's simply inexcusable.  Sandstein  21:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I cannot endorse that extension at this time. He's venting. Let him/her vent. The week off should let calm return. I am not going to undo unilaterally but I would ask that you reconsider. (I do endorse the original week and see nothing meriting reduction of it at this time) ++Lar: t/c 21:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Quick compromise? Keep it indef and review in week to see if there is any indication that the editor has reconsidered their stance? If not, then indef stays until they do. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be a good solution.   Will Beback  talk  21:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I was going to suggest revoking the user's talk page access for a week, then warning the user that his next disruptive act would definitely result in an indef-block. But I'm willing to endorse the above idea. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Concur, FWIW. Tiderolls 21:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

As do I. --Moonriddengirl 22:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Previous block was cut short, so let this one run its course and see what happens (Anyone else taking a note to unblock the page after a week?). Excirial 22:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

No comment on a shorter block, but I think an indefinite block is excessive. Everyking (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Lar: it is generally understood that we do not lengthen blocks (and certainly not jump them up to indefinite) for individuals sounding off on their talk page after being blocked. Let's also not forget that there was some poking going on after the block was placed. I'm not sure what value there is in 'letting the indef stand and seeing how he responds'; I think the week should be re-instated (perhaps with talk page privileges revoked) –xeno 11:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

"Unflattering" photos?

Since when has a picture being "flattering" or not had anything to do with anything? If you want to argue licensing, that's one thing. But a photo being "unflattering" shouldn't even be on the table unless there's a better one available that's not being used. Consider this one File:Tara Leigh Patrick cropped.jpg of Carmen Electra, which around 3 years ago was the main photo on her page until something better came along, and even then this one was retained in the article for awhile, despite the fact she looks like a witch, or at least "something the cat dragged in" as Mom would say. Why? Because it was free, and that trumps "unflattering". Or so I was told at the time. What has changed since then? Are we now concerned with getting not only free but also "flattering" user snapshots? If so, we had best wipe out about half the living-person photos on this website. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue here is deliberate baiting. It looks like he knew it would bug (er, bother :)) the guy and set out to do so as quickly as possible, without even caring about the copyright problem he created. We don't have to use only subject-approved images, but such behavior (if that's what it was) certainly doesn't cast Misplaced Pages in a good light. It's kind of not in the spirit of WP:BLP to deliberately enrage subjects. --Moonriddengirl 22:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to know how this photo File:Don Murphy (cropped).jpg is so much worse than the Carmen Electra photo, noted above, which was considered perfectly acceptable somehow. I can understand, somewhat, the argument for a block, although it seems there's a bit of double standard here, considering how long it can take to banish editors that are 50 or 100 times more disruptive. But the argument about "flattering" is invalid, and even the claim that the photo is "unflattering" is a matter of opinion. Copyright is really the only issue that should be on the table here. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Like was stated in the beginning of this section, this edit shows that he knew exactly what he was doing when he put the image back in. This block has nothing to do with the image itself, per se, but the intent behind it when it had already been made clear that it shouldn't be added to the article. Silverseren 22:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to us what the picture looks like (though the subject took offense). The only thing being considered now is its copyright, no one is saying that unflattering is the reason why it should be removed. Silverseren 22:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Then if any admin labeled the photo "unflattering", he should strike that comment, as it is absolutely misleading and irrelevant to the discussion. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Bugs: What has changed since then? We are more sensitive to BLP issues now, and the off-wiki effects of our content. We can't rely on eventualism in this sort of article any more. Are we now concerned with getting not only free but also "flattering" user snapshots? Our photos should adhere to the neutral point of view policy just like everything else in the encyclopedia. That means if we are writing a formal biography of someone, we should use photos representative of the kind you'd expect to see in a mainstream formal biography, especially if the article or photo is contested. If so, we had best wipe out about half the living-person photos on this website. Yes maybe. Perhaps a lot of the articles too. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the issue of the photograph being flattering or unflattering is a side issue. The subject clearly knew he was being photographed, so it's not as if he was caught in a private moment picking his nose or something like that. He's simply smiling for a camera.   Will Beback  talk  23:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. And the IP is dead wrong about any need to use "flattering" photos. If it's free, and it's not horrible or obscene or gross, it's fair game. Until wikipedia expands its "fair use" policy to square with the 21st century, we are stuck with these amateurish photos, and "unflattering" is an irrelevant argument. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

No we're not stuck with amateurish or any other kind of photos. Just like any other sourcing, if a photo is not up to our standards, we discard it. We're not stuck with it. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

We're all amateurs here. There is no practical way that we can depend solely on professional, free-licensed photos. The only policy I'm aware of that's applicable is WP:BLP#Images, which says: Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. There is a significant difference between "disparaging" and "unflattering", and I wouldn't even say the photo in question is unflattering. Not everyone looks like Brad Pitt.   Will Beback  talk  00:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Not all of us move in exalted circles such that we can hob-nob with notable people, and therefore it tends to the result that "amateur" photos tend not to be particularly well-composed, well-lit, or even have the consent of the subject; however, in a public venue, copyright, and as far as I'm concerned, all other rights, rest with the photographer and not the subject. That is one limitation we have here, and if notable subjects of articles are unhappy with their images, they are quite at liberty to make available to us a copyright-free image. Rodhullandemu 00:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs and Rodhullandemu seem to think it's a catastrophe if we have an article that doesn't contain a photo, and that we should use inappropriate photos if we can't find appropriate ones. I don't see it that way. We are fine having articles without photos. I don't think that the policy Will Beback quoted is the right one to apply to this situation, and it may flat-out need revision so that the photos (especially the ones presented as main biographical portraits in the article, maybe less so in a thumbnail gallery at the bottom of the article) in our biographies are up to neutral mainstream standards. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

"Inappropriate" according to whom? Here is a professional, "mainstream" photo of the subject, taken at a movie opening, where he presumably would know photographers would be present. It doesn't appear any more flattering than the photo in question. Both show the subject's appearance without putting him in a "false or disparaging light". Again, I don't think the quality of the photo is a significant issue in this dispute.   Will Beback  talk  00:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

My name is Gaston Dominguez, I own Meltdown Comics a big shop in Los Angeles. Don Murphy is one of my best friends. The photo you are referring to was taken at my shop, not at a movie premiere. It was a party for the comic book Y THE LAST MAN which features a monkey in it. The photo was paid for by Meltdown. The photographer had no right to post it anywhere, much less to allow it to be edited. I discussed this with Don's lawyers on Friday and have tried to track down the lady who took the photos of the event for us to have the photo removed. I emailed the author who posted the photo, Erik Kraft and asked him to removed it. His reply was "Murphy has to learn." Thank you for listening to me.BassandAle (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

BassandAle, this is Erik Kraft. Let me reiterate: I am not the wikipedia user "Erik" and I want nothing to do with this insanity. Also, I have received no emails from you. If I had, I would have told you I have no idea what you are talking about. If you want to email me, I'm at krrraft@gmail.com. If you want to call me, Don has my number--he called me 2 times yesterday. This is completely insane. Leave me out of it, I'm not this "Erik" you're after.

We have several separate issues going on here. The photo was hosted by Wikicommons. I'm not an admin there, but it looks it's been deleted. If not, someone should finds a connection there to deal with the copyright issue. Aside from the issue of a hired photographer posting free version, the issue of taking pictures which are "defamatory" might be part of his or her responsibility.

There is also the issue of the legal and telephone harassment of "Erik Kraft". It really needs to stop. If a photographer hired for the event by the hosts of the party posted those pictures with a free license, then no one who reuses those photos according to that license is at fault.

Finally there's the issue of WP:BLP and how it should handle people like this subject. That's a discussion better held on the relevant policy talk page.   Will Beback  talk  08:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Wiil, about the previous pic, you commented, He's simply smiling for a camera. but that photo is not just him smiling for the camera, it is cropped and it is actually a kind of comedy picture, so cropping it is a bit deceptive, here is the picture pre crop, http://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Don_Murphy.jpg Off2riorob (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

So? He's smiling for the camera, which is what I wrote. The photo isn't disparaging and I don't think the quality of the photo represents any kind of policy violation. Let's avoid this distraction from the actual issues.   WillBeback  talk  00:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's not the actual issue. I was just saying that smile for the camera is saying to me, hey, I am shaking hands with a monkey type comedy smile. I don't think it really actually violates any policy although I have seen BLP used to remove pics that are poor representations of the subject In this case we have additional issues with the subject but usually a discussion and consensus on the talkpage would have sorted it out. We had a huge multiple discussion about the climate change denier Mr Monkton and a poor representation of him that some editors wanted to add and others did not and in the end the subject sent a better one. I am of the position that nowadays we should not add poor representations of living people just because of a desire to add a pic, any pic. Off2riorob (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If you recall, I'm the editor who started that Monckton photo discussion because I thought the photo portrayed the subject in a false light. Briefly, it made him look bug-eyed while other photos taken at the same time and place, by the same photographer, did not. However I don't think this Murphy photo has the same problems. It isn't distorted and he looks more or less the same in other photos. I think we should use the best available photos that don't portray subjects in a false or disparaging light. The problem here isn't with the policy.   Will Beback  talk  01:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, this is not anywhere near as poor a representation as Mr Monktons was. Looking at a few pictures of the subject they are all pretty much of a similar appearance, without the subjects involvment there may well have been a consensus to include the picture. Off2riorob (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent something I haven't said. My preference is that this encyclopedia should be informative, and images are useful in relieving blocks of text and for recognitional purposes. If there is no free image available to illustrate an article, so be it, and we lose out on those purposes. It might be unfortunate, but not catastrophic. That's all. Rodhullandemu 00:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think "false or disparaging light" or "knew photographers would be present" are relevant standards for something like this. The Life Magazine photo Will Beback linked to is also inappropriate for a neutral biography portrait (it might be ok as part of a mood piece in Life Magazine, but that's not what a Misplaced Pages biography is supposed to be). I know that we're sloppier about this in some articles than others (I just edited Robert Harper (computer scientist), which has a terrible photo), but in a disputed article where we're being super-strict about sourcing, that includes being strict about neutrality of the photo. The article covers a lot of events related to the subject's notability, so the photo should not create undue weight in the article for what could be called an informal point of view that emphasizes a particular instant. That's why formal portraits (as found in, say, our articles about politicians) look the way they do. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Using only flattering photos would not be neutral. You don't seem happy with either amateur or professional photos, so apparently the only standard you'll accept are formal, retouched portraits. Your views of the community standards would have more weight if you'd edit using your existing account, or get one. While IPs are welcome to comment, folks who've only been editing for 24 hours can't be assumed to know what they're talking about.   Will Beback  talk  00:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think I write like someone who's only been around here for 24 hours? I'm on a dynamic address and it reset several times in the past few days because of network issues (I noted an earlier address in the Obituarist thread). Anyway, I agree that flattering photos are also not neutral. We should not use a photo (even a professional quality one) of Murphy in a tuxedo triumphantly receiving a filmmaking award as the main biography photo, for example, if it doesn't representatively summarize the entirety of notable events documented in the article. It would be ok to use the photo further down in the article in connection with well-sourced and properly weighted text about the event. So yes, for main portraits of formal biographies (which is what this is), formal portraits are what we want. WT:BLP or WT:NPOV are probably better places to discuss this though, now that we've drifted from the ANI report topic. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said, your opinions on what "we allow" would have more weight if other editors knew your history with Misplaced Pages. I don't think that a policy requiring that photos be neither flattering nor unflattering will work as that is such a subjective standard. A requirement that only authorized, formal portraits may be used in infoboxes is also likely to be unworkable. (Aren't formal portraits usually as flattering as possible?). The problem isn't with the existing policy or with the photo used. It's with the way a couple of editors and a difficult subject have interacted.   Will Beback  talk  01:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

We're using the terms flattering/unflattering with multiple meanings causing confusion. The neutral point of view (NPOV) means one that represents the aggregate of all sources related to a subject, and the photo should be neither flattering nor unflattering compared with the NPOV. In some cases, the aggregate of sources may itself be unflattering in the other ("external") meaning of the term--for example, our article about Osama bin Laden is quite negative, which reflects the NPOV because the aggregate of sources about him are the same way. Formal portraits generally try to make the subject look good, but despite that, they are what one normally expects to find in a neutral biography, so in that way they reflect the NPOV. They are not as flattering as possible--imagine what opponents of Barack Obama would say if someone tried to replace the formal portrait currently in his article, with one of him receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. No we shouldn't eliminate every non-formal portrait from every infobox, any more than we should delete every unsourced but uncontroversial fact from every article. But, in disputed BLP's, we sometimes have to resort to a style where we really do attempt to source every single fact (you might remember the one about Daniel Brandt that someone mentioned). In those kinds of articles (which, again, is what this is), choices of photos also come under heightened scrutiny. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 01:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I search for free images quite often to improve celebrity articles. When I first started, I did upload some "unflattering" photos, mainly because authors didn't know that much about Misplaced Pages and didn't want their quality images to be included here. However, as I got more and more permissions, the quality of images continued to improve. I don't think that we need to remove an image that doesn't have great quality just because we don't like it. Some of the images I received permission for the subject of the article didn't like. Instead of doing what Murphy did, they issued an image under a free license (for example, File:RobertGouletMay07.jpg was recently replaced with File:Robert Goulet photo.jpg from the late actor's wife; File:LeilaniDowdingSept02.jpg was replaced after Dowding's request to instead use File:Leilani Dowding publicity shot.jpg; and several images uploaded for Wiig's article resulted in Wiig having her agent add File:Kristen Wiig - Pink shirt, portrait.JPG). Just recently we had a poor image of Stanley Tucci, but after pursuing a better one, a new image has replaced it of much higher quality. If an image is free and does not have the person in a compromising or inappropriate position, then we are better off including it in the off chance that someone can replace it with a better one, even if it is the subject. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It's unreasonable (in fact it comes across as extortion) to demand something like that from a subject who wants the article about himself deleted completely. He has no duty to improve the article. I'm more sympathetic to your argument if the person wants the article kept but wants the picture removed. As another angle about neutrality and why I don't like that party photo of Murphy: it has nothing to do with anything documented in the article as making Murphy notable. Compare that with the famous picture of Albert Einstein writing equations on a blackboard, capturing his notability by depicting him as a theoretical scientist. So I could live with a photo of Murphy in a director's chair or something like that, depicting him as a movie producer, conveying his notable aspects even if it wasn't a formal portrait. I guess the theater opening picture from Life Magazine is a little bit better than the party picture in that regard. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 02:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Added: the black-and-white photo of Stanley Tucci is interesting. I wonder if we could improve some other articles by converting color photos to black-and-white like that. I could make the case that this improves neutrality by decreasing the visual weight assigned to the picture in the context of the article. And as Paul Simon said in Kodachrome, "everything looks better in black and white". Maybe I'll try that with the picture of Harper. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

There are certainly unresolved issues with how to handle subjects who don't want to have their biographies on Misplaced Pages. But I don't think that changing the wording on photographs will really address them.   Will Beback  talk  02:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not about changing the wording on a photograph, it's about removing the photo (or possibly de-emphasizing it by moving it elsewhere) unless we can rigorously justify its prominence on fundamental editing principles of BLP and neutrality. I don't think your analysis stands up under the hawkish interpretation of BLP and NPOV that I favor. I agree with you that my interpretation would result in our getting rid of a lot of photos. I'm simply not bothered by that. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I mean changing the wording of the policy governing photographs in BLPs. This dispute isn't due to the photograph, it's due to antagonism over the existence of the biography, and they way that is expressed.   Will Beback  talk  04:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Our moral defense for the rude act of publishing a biography of someone who doesn't want to be a subject, is that we go to great lengths to ensure that the article meets the highest standards of sourcing and neutrality and that we present the topic in a respectful and formal professional style. If the photo is a crappy snapshot, that defense is weakened considerably, at least to me. So yes, IMO the policy wording should reflect that. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 04:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The photo is not so bad, and it's cropped probably because there are non-notable people in the photo, which is a frequent approach to these kinds of photos. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll accept that there are certainly worse ones. I remember the bruhaha about the mug shots of Lisa Nowak that were in her biography for a while. I changed the word formal to professional above. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 05:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not about photographs. This is about Don Murphy not wanting anything about him on Misplaced Pages, prose or image.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, we really shouldn't be antagonizing him further by using the most unflattering photograph we can find, and, frankly, this isn't really a new issue. Someone's just spoken up about it, and I think that's within the spirit of WP:BLP. If there's some reasonable argument that the photograph is unflattering, and there is, then it really ought to go. Our goal is a reliably sourced encyclopedic biography. The photograph is not core to that in almost all cases, so until (or unless) we can get a free one that is more neutral in appearance, we really ought to stick to the prose. jæs (talk) 08:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

He can always provide an image if he cares that much. A free image is a free image. Of course one of him doing something terrible o looking super drunk might be suspect but him hanging out with a smile shouldn't hurt anyone's feelings. I was expecting much worse from reading the comments. It seems fine and if it isn't he can go through the OTRS process. The only argument I see against inclusion is the poorer quality (not him just the background and lighting) or personality rights (I don;t know enough about that sort of thing to know if it is a problem). Cptnono (talk) 08:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

People outside the project shouldn't be required to go through OTRS to force us to get it right. There are a lot of editors here who are saying this photograph is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. It may not be unanimous, but, frankly, it need not be per WP:BLP: if editors reasonably believe there to be a problem with the content of the article (in this case, a photograph) — and here there are a number of editors of that opinion — then the photograph should be replaced with a more neutral one. If one is not currently available, we can remove the problematic one and wait for a neutral replacement. There is no deadline. jæs (talk) 09:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Brolling?

If we're handing out blocks for trolling/baiting, then this isn't nice from admin DragonflySixtyseven, posting "We should keep him blocked, just to piss him off. HalfShadow's funny when he's all worked up" on HalfShadow's talk page, whether his edit summary of "obviously I'm not serious" is true or not. MickMacNee (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It's clear, due to the quotes, that he was joking. But, still, it's a rather inappropriate comment. :/ Silverseren 22:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Then 67 should either strike it or he should be blocked for it. It was perfectly clear to me that HalfShadow was being funny himself. He probably should have been asked to strike that comment, or at least put a smiley on it, and if he refused, then maybe blocked for a week or whatever. But indefing him, for that comment, is absurdly over the top. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

If he was just being funny, then he would have taken no action. It is clear that he was not just being funny because he did put the photo back in, which means that he was trying to make Murphy even more angry, as his comment stated. No, I don't believe there is any confusion at all about whether HalfShadow did this on purpose, it is clear that he did. As for 67, I believe he should remove the comment and be chastised for it, but not blocked. Making a comment is not a blockable offense. Making a comment and then having actions that reinforce the comment and make things worse are. Silverseren 22:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think someone else has wisely removed 67's comment. HalfShadow was initially blocked for a week and then when he responded angrily he was indefed, which is really a double standard. I can think of other editors that ranted and raved, with all kinds of vile comments and accusations far worse than anything HalfShadow said, and were told, "OK, we'll unblock you this time. Again." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Without defending DragonFly's comments, which are indeed unnecessary. There's a huge difference between inappropriate banter among wikipedians refering to wikipedians and comments/provocation of living people, who have not chosen to participate in this project. Incivility, baiting and trolling other wikipedians breaches inhouse rules and may disrupt the project, but using wikipedia as a platform to attack, insult, provoke or annoy private individuals may be considered harassment, and certainly serves to bring the project into public disrepute. Our only possible defence for keeping articles on people that don't want them is that we strive to keep them neutral, factual and fair (even if we often fail) - and we strive to do this regardless of our personal or political attitudes to the subject. That defence becomes laughable if we don't slap very hard any wikipedian who steps out of line. How we treat living subjects is not comparable to how we treat pseudonymous volunteers.--Scott Mac 23:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with much of what Scott says, but I don't think we can call someone who has created dozens and dozens of accounts people "who have not chosen to participate in this project". The subject has chosen to participate quite often, and has even edited Misplaced Pages to promote the projects of himself and his family.   Will Beback  talk  02:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Is that the subject of this thread? Tiderolls 23:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The subject of this "thread" is HalfShadow, so...yes? Silverseren 23:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I just think an indef for this is unjustified. But indef is not infinite, so he could come back in a week or so and post a low-key unblock request. However, if any admin called that image "unflattering", they should strike that, as it's got nothing to do with any wikipedia policy that I'm aware of. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

A photo is either flattering, unflattering, or neutral. A reasonable interpretation of the NPOV spirit is that we can only use the neutral ones. The photo in question was unsuitable from that perspective. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 23:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Just because one, two, or even twenty people believe something to be unflattering does not magically make it so. Truth does not obey mere democracy, and determining an objective "truth" in inherently emotional, right-brained, artistic judgement-call sorta intrinsic-quality-sort-of-a-thing sorta stuff like is so subjective as to be practically beyond our collective reach. To put it another way, a movie is either thoughtful, complete bullocks, or boring. I find Transformers to be somewhere between #2 and #3, but I'm not so naive as to believe that this is in any way an inarguable, irrefutable fact. You seem to believe that your equivalent opinion regarding the flatteringness, or lack thereof, of this picture constitutes an unimpeachable fact of some sort. Your belief in absolutes is quaint, but I find it slightly offensive that you don't even question whether you truly speak for everyone when you preach from your soapbox. Badger Drink (talk) 09:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, Silver seren. I should've posted "sub-heading". I will retire from this discussion as I've become over-invested. Regards Tiderolls 23:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

HalfShadow continues to be harassed by characters like this sarcastic IP: How about someone semi-protect his page and keep some of the riff-raff away from it? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Because some admins like seeing people baiting HalfShadow - they know it'll wind him up and he'll say something they can use as justification to keep him blocked. Love to know which logged-out editor was doing the baiting, and what user-rights they've got. DuncanHill (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Well we know its knot Bugs. Since he is currently logged in and here defending his clone. 68.28.104.229 (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The page has since been semi'd, so the riffraff are finding other methods to harass the blocked user. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that an anonymous user tried to post an unblock request at HalfShadow's user talk page on behalf of HalfShadow; evidently, it was an unauthorized unblock request, since HalfShadow promptly removed it on sight. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 02:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing the block in a week sounds good. If there's consensus to do that, someone should mention it on HalfShadow's usertalk so that s/he knows. I can't get as worked up as Scott did about someone making a wisecrack about a person on a noindexed project page if it's an isolated incident; others have mentioned though that there is further history to take into account. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Suicidal?

Following advice given at Misplaced Pages:Responding to threats of harm. 213.130.252.119posted a message on Talk:Suicide methods. Though I know humor when I see it i'm treating this seriously. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother, if you look at the afd links and the talk page archives, there has been an interment strem of users, usually anon ips, who think this article should be deleted as a "suicide how-to" as if nobody would ever kill themselves if there wasn't a list of methods here. As if nobody ever killed themselves before Misplaced Pages. As if removing this article would prevent future suicides. In short, it's just run of the mill trolling and not worth further attention. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

User:MidnightBlueMan reverting articles without putting forward reasons, and reverting even after discussion

This editor has been warned in the past about this exact behaviour, and has been blocked. Admin User:Ryan Postlethwaite appears to not be around, so I think I should post here. He has been blocked very recently here initially, and then warned and blocked for an extended period again here. From the comments he left at the original blocking editor Talk page here, my concern is that this editor intends to continue in this vein and doesn't see any problem. Not sure if it's a coincidence, but Ryan is away and this editor is back to the same disruptive behaviour with reverts to articles without giving reasons or discussions. For example, since his last block we've had:

• Settlement of Iceland where one of the reasons he gives on the Talk page is by editors whose primary objective is to remove the phrase "British Isles".
• Language school with no reason given as to why the original edit was incorrect
• List of most common surnames in Europe - no reason given for the revert
• Weisse Frauen - no reason given for the revert
• The Manor House Bishop Bridge - no reason given for the revert

These articles were discussed at this page and even where an opportunity to put forward a case why the edits were incorrect, none were put forward. Yesterday when I tried restoring the articles, after the discussion indicated that the edits were not incorrect, MidnightBlueMan has engaged in tendentious reverting, again with reasons. This editor is deliberately gaming the system, and despite being warned and blocked several times in the past, which his Talk page is a testament to, he still just thumbs his nose at the community and refuses to comply with behaviour guidelines and policies. --HighKing (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Since there is background here with which I'm unfamiliar, I'm going to notify an admin who seems to be more aware of the situation on British Isles articles. (I see he has left a note about reversion restrictions on MidnightBlueMan's page before.) --Moonriddengirl 12:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I've taken this to Misplaced Pages talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion Uighur house

I placed a speedy deletion tag on Uighur house a redirect that has been directly linked to Al-Qaeda safe house. The speedy deletion was rejected by one administrator. I ask than on the articles talk page for references that could justify to link "Uighur houses" to Al-Qaeda but no joy so far. This is an exceptional claim that needs executional sources we usually would find references all over the place what is not the case here.

The Uighurs are an ethnic group living in Eastern and Central Asia and "Uighur house" is a basic search term in connection with this ethnic group. Our redirection is now number one in Google search results for this term. That means anybody who is looking for basic information of this ethnic group or their houses gets redirected to al-Qaeda.

I request again the speedy deletion of this page as this misinformation is an unjustified discrimination against the Uighur people and i do think this needs additional administrator attention now. IQinn (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the above request is reasonable, as Uighur is unrelated to al-Qaeda and redirects to Uyghur, the more common spelling - thus seeking information on dwellings relating to this culture and people sends people to a completely different topic. Unless there are good references for the term "Uighur house" relating to al-Qaeda then this seems an obvious delete/re-redirection. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the very first time I have seen the spelling Uyghur - Uighur is more common. DuncanHill (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree and was about to send it to WP:RFD, unless someone wants to just kill it first. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI. I changed the redirect to instead point to Uyghur people. Since linking the "Uighurs" to "al-Qaeda" seems, prima facie, to be an extreme violation of WP:NPOV, this is a more neutral choice. Justin W Smith /_stalk 21:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe in addition to "BLP", we now need BLE ("... living ethnicities"). This is nuts. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 22:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This was apparently created as a good-faith redirect in the course of User:Geo Swan's extensive work on Guantanamo detainees, in connection with a series of articles dealing with the concept of alleged Al Qaida safe houses, among them Al Qaida guest houses, Kabul. But I agree this particular redirect doesn't seem to make much sense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

fwiw, I was the admin who declined it, on the grounds that it needed discussion--not on the grounds that I thought it was a good redirect, for I did not think that, and I informed Geo accordingly. I'm glad it has been changed for the better. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Quick WP:CSD#G4 assessment request

Could another administrator please take a look at this article, compare with the old version as well as the issues raised in the AfD and decide whether deletion as a repost is appropriate. The creator keeps removing the CSD tag and, as I contributed to the AfD, I'm not uninvolved. Thanks, – Toon 22:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Mass canvassing

Jerzeykydd had engaged in an edit war twice(1,2,3,4,5,6) the las 6 weeks on the article Public image of Barack Obama, in which he was warned, but evidently not blocked for. After finally taking the issue up on the talk page, but not getting the results desired, the user is now mass canvassing other editorsto get the results the editor wants(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12). And that's half of the 24 messages(so far) the user has sent. DD2K (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• I am not canvassing. It was nonpartisan and unbiased. I'm trying to get a Misplaced Pages:Third opinion. Nothing biased, just trying to get more opinions. That edit war was a long time ago. I'm trying to get the conversation started again to get this issue resolved.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we ever have a discussion without having someone come on here and complain? --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the canvassing guidelines(particularly the "Votestacking" and "Excessive cross-posting" portions. It wouldn't hurt to read WP:Third Opinion either, since your mass messages have nothing to do with what it states in that section.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DD2K (talk • contribs) 00:01, 25 April 2005

• • I'd like to know if the users canvassed would be likely to support one pov over another or whether they are a fair cross section of those contributing to this area. I'd particularly like to hear Jerzeykydd's explaination of why he chose those editors to canvass. Spartaz 08:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Front Page/Featured Article

• moved here per request. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Threat to shut us down

Made here, article Katyn massacre. I have not notified this user. --CliffC (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Crum375 (talk) 03:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

And reduced to two weeks since its an IP. The threat is laughable anyway, two weeks is probably overkill--Jac16888 03:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Forgot password, email address changed

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

I haven't used my account in a very long time (several years), and in that time, I have forgotten my password. Worse, my school changed its email system around, so my old email address is no longer valid. The email username is the same, but the domain is different (@eng.usf.edu becomes @mail.usf.edu). I was wondering if I can just change the domain on the WP account to the new one. If any administrators can help, I would appreciate it; I will check this space for what I would have to do. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.68.100 (talk • contribs)

Just a note, the above post is from a Road Runner (TimeWarner Cable) account per this and not registered to the University of South Florida. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I moved off-campus 3 or 4 years ago. A call to the school's IT department should confirm the switchover I described. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.68.100 (talk • contribs)

I know I read this exact same request recently on some board somewhere but I can't place where, pretty sure it was explained that there's nothing we can do--Jac16888 04:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. If you don't have your password and the e-mail you provided is non-functioning, the account is not usable. You'll have to register for a new account, unless your old account qualifies for usurpation (which I'm sorry to say seems unlikely). --Moonriddengirl 12:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Since there's nothing we can do, and this is the wrong venue for such a query anyway, I'm closing this thread. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 12:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Radiopathy

• Radiopathy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)

This user has been to the noticeboards many times, more often than not, as the person being reported. Recently, they were caught red handed socking to evade their indef 1rr restriction, and their abuse of twinkle, which got them added to the twinkle blacklist.

Currently, the sock is blocked indef, and the main account blocked a week. I personally don't think that's enough, so I'm asking for other's opinions here.— Dædαlus 03:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

User notified.— Dædαlus 04:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Disappointing If he wants to retire, he can retire. If he wants to abide by the rules, he can abide by the rules. But if he's going to keep on editing in contravention of the rules, he has to be blocked or banned. I've had numerous bad interactions with this user and I believe that he edits in bad faith when interacting with other users. He has made it clear that he will lie to manipulate the community on Misplaced Pages and has resorted to not-so-subtle threats against me to try to get me blocked or banned for spurious reasons. I am not an admin, but I would like to voice my support for an extended block or outright ban as this user is unwilling or unable to abide by any community standard. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Addendum I would like to point out that Radiopathy can be a very useful editor, frequently improving articles and even—ironically—reporting sockpuppets. It would be unfortunate for him to be banned outright, but I still think that a serious block might send the message that he cannot simply evade community sanctions with impunity. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• I see in his block log that he has been blocked before for violating 1RR restrictions: on 10 December 2009 (1 week) and on 21 February 2010 (1 week). While this is his first effort at socking, it is his third effort to avoid 1RR restrictions, and he has effectively been blocked for it for the same length of time. But he hasn't been using his primary account since 2 April; it seems that this sock was some kind of WP:CLEANSTART effort, which he can't do while under sanctions. Lengthening the block of the primary account isn't likely to make a difference, given its inactivity. Are you thinking about a ban? --Moonriddengirl 12:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Backlogged, just so you know.--219.89.70.109 (talk) 05:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Legal Threat

I wasn't sure what to make of this and thought to bring it here, just to be on the safe side. Although "...I am in the process of contacting the FBI in a cyber-stalking case..." seems a little too clear. Outback the koala (talk) 08:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think with something like this, it's a question of the spirit of WP:NLT. I don't see this individual using legal threats to quash the Misplaced Pages process. (For those who haven't followed: He's responding to a procedural AfD listing that was purportedly opened on his request, explaining that the person who made the request is an impostor and that he did not request the AfD.) I think this one is probably okay. --Moonriddengirl 12:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Moonriddengirl. No legal threat, really. TNXMan 12:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards