Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:08, 31 January 2007

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

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

Miltopia has decided it is in Misplaced Pages's best interests to welcome those who are here for disruption. Cplot harassment account OurAnthem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made four edits, the last being a test3 vandalism warning to my talk page, and at the same time, Miltopia decided to welcome him . I'd appreciate a neutral third party remind Miltopia that welcoming those who are here for disruption is disruptive.--MONGO 06:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

My experience with Miltopia on Encyclopedia Dramatica has been that he generally tries to tone down anti-Misplaced Pages activity. I have personally tried to create attack pages on ED and have been reverted by him. Look at this: <www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Miltopia>. He's actually getting on some of their nerves because of this. He also mediates disputes between users. I know that you don't like ED, MONGO, but Miltopia really isn't the person to go after here.--Desnm 06:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

None of what you posted has anything to do with the fact that he decided to welcome an obvious vandal after that vandal left a ridiculous warning on my talkpage. Please use your real account next time you post here if you want any credibility.--MONGO 07:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no other account I can use.--Desnm 07:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

So warned. Based on the times of the edits, I think it's unlikely that he posted the welcome at 03:22 after seeing the troll edit to your talk page, also at 03:22, but I'll bet he saw the earlier edits. Thatcher131 07:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, the vandal account made an edit at 22:22, Miltopia welcomed him at 22:22 and a User:PullToOpen tagged the account with a sock tag at 22:22. Miltopia simply has my talkpage watchlisted and decided to welcome the vandal soon as he saw the vandalism to my talkpage. The times are all in the same minute, but Mitopia was on line and had just made an edit a few minutes before.(22:22 CTZ in U.S., sorry about that)--MONGO 07:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly possible. Thatcher131 07:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It's also possible that I was watching WP:AN, having edited there recently and saw his comment, tried and failed to revert it (got beat to the punch, see below) and figured he was about to get banned anyway. Furthermore, it's also possible that I care so little for MONGO that he could go on a 3 month wikibreak and the only hint I would have of his departure is the lack of pointless threads on ANI about me. Milto LOL pia 10:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If, in fact, you do try to tone down the garbage on ED, any chance you can work with somebody to get that disgusting crap about Sceptre out of there? The kid is 15, for God's sake. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I may get lynched for saying it, but in the interests of Misplaced Pages, someone has to - whatever happened to assuming good faith? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 07:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

So, welcoming an vandal account is not disruptive?--MONGO 08:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. He was banned. The welcome had zero effect whatsoever. Milto LOL pia 10:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As much as I never thought I would ever say this, I'm with Miltopia on this one. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 10:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Whilst welcoming a blatant vandal isn't the most productive use of time, it will do no harm; it's certainly not disruptive, and this seems like a complaint with no grounds. Proto::► 12:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Posting a welcome message to a vandal account is certainly not disruptive. I often see someone vandalize, and give them a welcome message as a sort of "Hey, we can see you! Why not edit constructively?" wake-up call. It's sometimes more effective than a {{test1}}. I've certainly welcomed people, only to have my welcome message replaced in a mintue with {{indefblockeduser}} or whatever it's called, when someone else pegged them as a sock of some banned user. -GTBacchus 21:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The complaint wasn't that a welcome message was posted. The complaint was this particular user, with this particular history and with a recent ArbCom decision decided to welcome a troll that was harassing MONGO. Coincidence? Maybe the first time. Maybe even the second. But this is about the twentieth "coincidence." It iwll be a nice reference for the next coincidence. --Tbeatty 06:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't appreciated the context of the situation when I made my above comment. I was reacting to the idea that welcoming a vandal is automatically disruptive, but now I see that there's more going on than that, and I agree that this particular welcome message was a bad idea. I hope that Miltopia finds a way to contribute here without aggravating any situation around MONGO, and I hope that if he does find that way, the community is able to believe it, and accept his presence here. I hope we all are able to edit in ways that de-escalate conflicts and reduce drama. -GTBacchus 02:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Desnm created that account to defend Miltopia, first edit, sure knows a lot about me! It's also possible that Miltiopia could be indefinitely blocked from this website and it would be of nothing but benefit to this website...I see zero constructive edits. Peter Dodge and Proto shouldn't be defending disruptive behavior here as this isn't a playground.--MONGO 16:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I would very much appreciate it if you would explain how this disrupts anything significant. It was a waste of space and of time, certainly, and not a serious or wise action, to be sure, but the only disruption that it appears to have caused for users other than Miltopia is this very acerbic section. Is there need for such hostility here? Calling for community banning of a user, discounting the entirety of the user's contributions to Misplaced Pages, making insinuations regarding sock puppet abuse, admonishing users for having an opinion that differs from your own - are such actions really necessary over such a minor issue? Think for a moment about the situation - is all of this hostility warranted for putting a welcome template put on a vandal's talk page? --Philosophus 16:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no hostility on my part. I have done nothing wrong except inform the community that Miltopia is still being disruptive. The vandal account he welcomed was created by Cplot, who has created the largest sock army I have ever seen on wikipedia, and who has been vandalizing numerous pages for months now. Desnm creates an account and his/her first edit is here to defend Miltopia and knows a lot about me and you tell me that isn't a sock account of someone? Simply put, we don't aide and abet vandals by welcoming them on their talkpages. It's not like this is the first time Miltopia has been supportive of disrution, or been so himself.--MONGO 16:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

But again, how is this disruptive? I don't see how it aides and abets vandals, besides the possibility that it could be seen as a symbolic gesture. It's not like the welcome is "Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Here is a guide to vandalism and here are some pages that could be vandalised". --Philosophus 20:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, can you just drop it? No one has responded any of the times you or Hipocrite have tried to get me banned. I don't go around complaining about you, so why don't you just find something else to do? Milto LOL pia 20:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Can you please explain how posting {{welcome}} on a vandal account's page is disruptive? It's just a boilerplate welcome, not an endorsement of any particular misbehavior. —Dgies 07:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

WHOOPDEDOO

I had just tried to revert him on WP:AN and had been beaten to the punch by someone with rollback. I welcomed him as a joke, knowing he would be banned. Not particularly constructive, but nor was it destructive. It has nothing to do with MONGO. Everything Desnm said is true. Stop making a federal case out of nothing. Milto LOL pia 10:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• And that was smart in what way, exactly? Guy (Help!) 15:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The question is, who cares? And why? The answer is nobody except MONGO and... I don't know about the second one. Milto LOL pia 20:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• You seem to be under the mistaken impression that nobody but MONGO cares if you troll him and deliberately provoke drama. You may well be wrong in that. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• MONGO is irritated by my mere presence; there's nothing I can do about that. I don't care about MONGO at all, so I ignore him whenever possible and don't give any thought to walking around eggshells for him. I can't and don't care to change the fact that MONGO doesn't like my presence; only he can do that. Milto LOL pia 00:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strictly as a matter of fact, there are around a thousand of us who could, if you continue as at present, actually change that, by the simple mechanism of ensuring that MONGO no longer has to put up with your presence. Just so you know. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm kind of wondering why Milto hasn't been 'sploded yet, but I'm far too apathetic to bother beyond that. HalfShadow 23:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Can we not go there? I'd be happier if this were just dropped. Milto LOL pia 20:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Now really, I'm sorry, are you guys going to blame MONGO for saying that an editor shouldn't welcome a vandal, let alone an editor who has a long-time dispute with MONGO, whom the troll just happened to speak to right before the welcome? It is disruptive, and smacks to me of WP:POINT. Worse, he's making rude comments like it's also possible that I care so little for MONGO that he could go on a 3 month wikibreak and the only hint I would have of his departure is the lack of pointless threads on ANI about me. I have no idea why you guys are sticking up for him - he even admitted he knew the guy was a troll. Having never seen this conflict before, the suspicion of WP:POINT only gets worse when I hear that he's an ED editor, who, from what I understand, has a history of being a pain in the rear end on Misplaced Pages. Milotopia, if you would just say, "sorry, I won't do it again", would it be that hard? If it was just a joke and not a big deal, then why the need to argue back and make a scene (PS sorry for editing anonymously, I'm trying to take some time off, and this is the closest I could get myself to do). 146.186.44.199 22:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• No really. The second step of Dispute Resolution is to disengage. Please try that now. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

First point is that Miltopia, on being unblocked, was given the condition that he was to stay as far away from MONGO as possible. (His early edits were trolling and wiki-stalking MONGO.)

Second point is that Miltopia was involved in the pages relating to MONGO's RfAr, so he most certainly knows that MONGO has been very badly stalked and harassed by Cplot, even if Miltopia doesn't think that's a problem. (LOL, Loldongs, LULZ, Duh, Whoopeedoo, etc. Hope I got all those words right.)

Thirdly, anyone who is even remotely familiar with this case recognizes Cplot from his edit summaries, and knows that this is a troll engaged in very persistent harassment of another user, and that he is to be reverted and blocked on sight.

I'm not sure what Wizardry Dragon means by reminding people to assume good faith. If he agreed that Miltopia was being provocative, but that we shouldn't take it too seriously, and should just move on, I could understand that, though there has to be a limit to how much harassment of Wikipedians good users should be prepared to condone, and whether good users should be content to see someone in dispute with a harassment victim treating it as a joke. But if that's what he means, I fail to see where AGF comes into it. AGF would apply if we were to think that Miltopia was just checking the new user log, and sending random messages to people without checking their contributions, and had NO idea that this was someone who was trolling MONGO. Miltopia has admitted that he saw OurAnthem's edit, and was going to revert it himself, but was beaten to it. (For the record, I don't have a problem believing that.) In that case, it was in very bad taste. To treat harassment of your opponent as a joke is quite simply inappropriate.

I'm also puzzled by GTBacchus's post about how he himself has welcomed vandals. GTBacchus, you know Miltopia and MONGO have an rather stormy history. You have read that Miltopia saw the edit (and presumably realized who it was, since he has been following the case), and that he welcomed him as a joke. What you say about your own use of the welcome template may be valid, but it's completely irelevant in this context. Miltopia didn't welcome him in the hope that he'd become a good contributor. He welcomed him in order to make a joke about someone harassing MONGO.

Those who defend Miltopia here seem to be unaware that an action or utterance can change its meaning according to context — just as "Good afternoon" can be a friendly greeting or a sarcastic rebuke to someone who is late. As Tbeatty says, there are just too many of these coincidences. And those who think it didn't do any harm — of course it did. It caused ill feeling. Miltopia, instead of saying how uninterested you are in MONGO, and how little you care for what he thinks, perhaps you could try (for your own sake, not for his) to care enough to stop making jokes that you may think are just below what's necessary to get you blocked. Musical Linguist 00:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Musical Linguist, you need to take a look at all these little situations and see what all this nonsense is originating from. These is like, the sixth time I've had to stop what I'm doing and troop off to ANI to dispel general mischaracterization and/or paranoia from other users. It's alarming that I managed to brush off MONGO for over a month and avoid him completely, save for these truly boring threads, and you still think I'm the one with the personal vendetta here. I don't see anyone else being followed to articles, WP:AIV, and several other pages. And you dragging up old junk already looked at by arbcom is only prolonging this. Are you interested in seeing this nonsense die out, or in re-debating every edit of mine, over and over, until you get the desired result? Milto LOL pia 05:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oi vey, can everyone just stop the drama already? Just get a clue. No one is out to get me, you, MONGO, Miltopia, or anyone else for tha matter. This whole issue is a massive failure to assume good faith, and I'd ask all involved to do so. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 05:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no loss of good faith here. The question remains as to if Miltopia is here for purely constructive purposes. When editors knowingly welcome those that vandalize, this is not constructive. The best thing to do with repeat vandalism is to block and ignore, not welcome them. That you would see it otherwise is surprising. Miltopia has had to stop his work to come here over the last week three times I see, not just this time and not just because of my report alone. IF Miltopia was doing nothing but constructive edits, then there wouldn't be any complaints to the contrary. That is not the case, however. Furthermore, not sure what has happened since, but anti-Semitic nonsense may be the norm on ED, however threads such as this are not welcome here. Misplaced Pages does not tolerate bigotry or find puns on people's religion or ethnicity acceptable. If Miltopia can make adjustments to his contributions then there won't be any reason for him to have to respond here.--MONGO 06:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm replying to Musical Linguist's paragraph directed to me. I don't know who "Cplot" is and have no knowledge of that user's harassment of MONGO. When I commented, I was simply replying to the idea that welcoming a vandalizing or trolling editor is automatically disruptive. I disagree with that principle, and I said so. You say I had read that he posted the welcome message "as a joke", but in fact I hadn't scrolled down that far when I made my comment. I reacted to what I had just read. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I think "joke" welcome messages are a good idea. It's certainly not how I use the {{welcome}} template. If I knew that my comment was irrelevant, I wouldn't have made it, certainly.

  I would also reply to MONGO's comment above that Miltopia's noting of the {{Bruchim}} template is somehow antisemitic. Have you read the TfD? It's pretty clear to me that Miltopia saw the template, thought it was in absurdly bad taste, and showed it to his friend. The TfD agreed that it was absurd, and that's why it's deleted now. I'm not sure how you're seeing antisemitism there, but if you already think that someone is antisemitic, I guess you'll see what you look for. -GTBacchus 01:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You're only reading the part of that thread that you want to read. Miltopia posted a WikiProject logo that he noticed that is used to welcome editors who may be interested in the Judaism WikiProject on User:K37 talkpage. K37 responded "The hell? LOOOOOOOOOOOOL" LOL is laughing out loud of course. Miltopia then suggests K37 should post it to talk pages on persons who may be Jewish "Start using it on Jewish n00bs plz". K37 responds as to how he is supposed to know who is Jewish on the internets...read the thread. I am well aware that ED enjoys and supports lampooning all religions and ethnicities and was merely pointing out that since this is Misplaced Pages and not ED, the same kind of behavior here is much less likely to be seen as a playful pun. In fact, this kind of behavior certainly appears to be more akin to the disruption for which I myself and a number of editors associate Miltopia with. Thanks.--MONGO 04:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I read the whole thing. I know what LOL means, too. I didn't take Miltopia's suggestion at face value; I read it as pointing out how ridiculous the template was, and not a serious suggestion that K37 use the template on "Jewish n00bs" pages, because, as K37 pointed out, how would anyone know whether a "n00b" is jewish? That's why the template was absurd, and that's the observation they were sharing. Nobody was lampooning a religion. The template was, in fact, absurd. I laughed out loud when I saw it, too, and I wasn't laughing at Judaism or Jews. I was laughing at an absurd template. -GTBacchus 14:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You're still not looking at the entire thread. Miltopia posts the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Judaism welcome template on K37's talk page. K37 responds: The hell? LOOOOOOOOOOOOL, Miltopia then suggests he post on on other Jewish editors talkpages....etc. All I see is a suggestion, in all liklihood in jest, that K37 should start welcoming Jewish editors by inviting them to join the Judaism WikiProject, even though I see no reference that either one of them are Jewish and the fact that Jews are routinely mocked on the ED website, a website that he, K37 and you apparently, are involved in. Miltopia needs to wear his wiki hat when he is here and cease being disruptive.--MONGO 17:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh. I'm talking about the entire thread, and have been all along. The content of the jest was that it's ridiculous to have a special template for welcoming Jews when this is the Internet and you can't tell if someone's Jewish. Every line of dialogue that you cite was saying that. ED doesn't mock Jews; it mocks antisemitism, by caricaturing it and showing it to be absurd; many ED editors are Jewish. I agree that Miltopia shouldn't be disruptive here, and I've repeatedly given him advice to that effect; I don't think that pointing out absurdity to his friend on his friend's talk page is disruptive. -GTBacchus 19:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...if he is not being disruptive, then there wouldn't be a need for you to have to "repeatedly given him advice to that effect". Best wishes.--MONGO 19:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Recurring Personal Attacks, Admin Attention Requested

About User:Wobble:

• Reported to PAIN before for things like calling me racialist and then saying "The sort of out of date racialist thinking that normal people (that's 99% of us) think only nutters believe any more." or calling me racist and then saying "There was a cite to "racial reality", a racist nazi site as far as I can see, with the reliability and accuracy one would expect from a bunch of neonazi thickos (who ever met an intelligent racist? Not me).", etc...

• Calling me racist again

• "Your POV pushing and total lack of any understanding of science is getting boring."

• Calling me pathetic along with other accusations:

• "I think this has got nothing to do with using swear words and everything to do with you and Lukas's attempts to undermine the integrity of Misplaced Pages by introducing your nasty racist POV."
• He seems to call anything that he disagrees with, racist

• "You are such a massive hypocrite. You really are unbelievable. You constantly "report" people because you can't take criticism (you act like you are in a school playground, please miss he disagrees with me), but you are one of the most offensive people I have ever met."

Talking about accusations, 99% of what he says is INCORRECT. For ex, he accused me (as usual) of distorting biomedical research and I asked him to provide examples and he provided me with a link of an edit that WAS NOT mine. More such examples can be provided.

Now, some of these are recurring personal attacks and I think that requires admin attention, rather than RfC. He even admits that his behavior is wrong but blames all this on me by saying: "If you do not like people being nasty to you, then you could consider that they are only behaving towards you the same way you are behaving towards them." He was warned before about personal attacks (see the PAIN report link)

He also removed my option from RfC, so his behavior may be called harassment. Lukas19 00:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think a block might be needed here, but I'm not sure how long, as the user was not given any warnings for personal attacks (though there does appear to be a fairly long history of edit warring over race-related articles). --Coredesat 00:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean a warn by an admin? If not, His warns:

I don't see any rationale for an immediate block; some of these diffs are more than a week old, and the recent contribs certainly don't suggest any kind of rampage of nastiness. If more than one user is actually concerned about this user's behaviour and hasn't been able to work it out, take it to RfC. Our criteria for blocking shouldn't be lower than that of having a formal discussion. Jkelly 00:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

3 days is recent, right?

"Oh and by the way Thukas, don't fucking call me a vandal. This is hypocrisy of the highest order given the amount of times you have tried to compromise Misplaced Pages by claiming a source supported your racist POV when it does no such thing. I am a very experienced editor and do not do vandalism. Your constsnt claims that other editors that do not agree with your lies and racism are either "vandals" or are "personally attacking" you are pathetic. I suggest you learn to edit in a more mature manner. Learn that you need to compromise, you need to know that Misplaced Pages does not exist to promote your personal racist/Nordicist oppinions. Alun 17:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)"

Again, about incorrect accusations, I didnt called him a vandal, I just said "reverting vandalism" to one of his edits, and I dont have a racist POV, etc...Lukas19 01:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've warned both users to cool off and drop the argument, since their arguing is disrupting the community and it's clear that they can't seem to stop getting in each other's faces. However, Wobble seems to have left the project (at least temporarily), though he immediately blanked my warning. --Coredesat 06:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I think you'll find it was archived, not blanked. About as accurate and unbiased as all of your behaviour towards me. Alun 21:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Alun please calm down and try to follow wikipedia procedure. Itsokay

I've checked out Wobble's edit history and it's extremely counterproductive. All he seems to do is accuse other editors of racism and remove anything he disagrees with on the grounds that it's racist. Many articles have lost a lot of rich content because he wont allow view points he disagrees with to be included always using the excuse that something or other is racist. He contributes nothing to the encyclopedia. All he does is remove things so that only his view on things is seen Itsokay

Upon a second review of Lukas19's edit history, it seems he does have a history of persistent POV pushing on the White people article (as pointed out by various users on that article's talk page). This changes things. --Coredesat 04:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Left Lukas19 a final warning for POV pushing. --Coredesat 05:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You called me a POV pusher and gave this example . How come is this POV pushing? Also, note that, I copy & pasted this part from Genetic views on race so most of what was written in that edit WAS WRITTEN BY WOBBLE/ALUN. And the Race article already did have many counter arguments to my edition, including a whole section.

I also find it hugely unfair that you apologized from Wobble and gave me a "final warning" AFTER Wobble has called me "moron" , "pest, whiner, etc..." , "racist scum, etc..." . Even if you have felt sorry about him leaving, you shouldnt have encouraged his incivil behaviour/personal attacks, you should have encouraged him to stay AND be civil AND not make any personal attacks. But you have failed .

And why did you do this? Because of "...he does have a history of persistent POV pushing on the White people article (as pointed out by various users on that article's talk page)"? Which other users? LSLM? The one that was balocked three times because of things ranging from personal attacks to vandalism to violation or 3RR rule? Actually he was blocked once by you as well.

I also dont believe the claim that you went over my edit history twice because you said "...as detailed in your rejections of various compromises on the Mediation Cabal case..." because this never happened! Lukas19 20:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

So? Lukas19 04:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Seriously need a second opinion on this. I'm not entirely sure what to do here, and it's getting out of control. --Coredesat 23:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

bump Lukas19 06:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

bump Lukas19 02:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed sockpuppets of User:BryanFromPalatine via checkuser.

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/BryanFromPalatine Not sure how it ought to be dealt with, I will leave that up to admins. I will say that I am mighty suspicious of this pattern of behaviour and the ever-changing story that has been presented to explain and justify it. Is the current story the truth? It *might* be, but I am full of sincere doubts about this. I'd rather that people not evade blocks (in this case a PERMANENT block) by using sock accounts, and there is NO doubt that at least some of this activity was exactly that, and has been admitted to. Are the present ones socks? I will leave that up to y'all to decide. --BenBurch 22:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Before anyone goes off half-cocked, examine BenBurch's block log. He's just returned from a 24-hour block for incivility and "misrepresentation." Dino 23:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Which I apologized for. There is NO Stare Decisis on Misplaced Pages, my friend. And this is new data as requested for re-opening this matter. So please stop attacking me and explain these sock puppets one of which you just ADMITTED to below. --BenBurch 23:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Next, let's examine this. I will cut and paste the relevant sections for your review below.

This account was initially blocked for being a BryanFromPalistine sockpuppet. After investigations and substantial and very civil discussion with this user on unblock-en-l, our opinion is that this person is Bryan's brother and not actually a sockpuppet. Furthermore, although the edits looked like meatpuppetry, they were actually legitimate and good faith attempts to remove libel from Misplaced Pages articles. To avoid even the appearance of meatpuppetry, this user has agreed not to edit the article, Free Republic, directly but may still participate in that article's talk page and is specifically encouraged to report libel on that page at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard (assuming that is the right forum for the libel). Once again, this person showed nothing but civility during the investigation on unblock-en-l despite the time it took. He has our apologies for the block. Dean, please feel free to leave a brief note on the talk page for Free Republic referencing this message if you feel it appropriate. --Yamla 18:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Yamla's analysis. Dean: If posts to the Free Republic talk page aren't getting corrections done fast enough, please let me know, and I'll try to help transcribe stuff if there is clear consensus for it. Long term I'd like to see this self imposed restriction become liftable as long as we don't have any issues around the editing and content... ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Lar and Yamla are two of the most senior administrators at Misplaced Pages. They were joined in this unanimous Unblock-en-l decision, after an extensive, exhaustive and time-consuming review of the overwhelming evidence in my favor, by Luna Santin, another senior administrator.

In addition to the public evidence presented at Unblock-en-l, I also presented abundant evidence privately via e-mail to these administrators. Please consider the fact that they reached the decision to unblock me unanimously, less than 48 hours ago; and that I have carefully adhered to the very letter of the self-imposed restriction on my posting privileges, in order to avoid even the appearance of meatpuppetry.

The Friendly Ghost was created by another family member -- neither Bryan nor I -- to remove a violation of Misplaced Pages's privacy policy. The violation had been created using an open proxy, and was being used to harass my brother's family. After that, the account was used to "Wikify" an article and then nominate it for the "Did you know" feature on the Main Page. No disruptions, nothing abusive, purely defensive and then constructive. Any objections?

H4672600 was created to combat the rampant "mischaracterizations" of BenBurch. BenBurch actually engaged in edit wars to protect those "mischaracterizations."

Fensteren has been cleared. Dino 23:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so you're Bryan's brother. Can you call him and ask him to stop creating sockpuppets? Picaroon 23:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If checkuser is confirming that they have used the same IP, then they must live together or interact daily in some way. Note that Bryan was not unreasonable either, except for the puppets. Therefore, I suspect that all the accounts were created by the same person. But of course I do, I made the original block, with Mackensen's agreement (before the CheckUser). Prodego 23:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Dino - so H4672600 is your account too? Your admission of family members editing on your behalf is an admission of meatpuppetry, EXACTLY what the Admins on unblock L warned you about. Those emails are public, by the way. Any Wikipedian with a valid account can sign up to that list and read the archives, as I did, where I read the specfic, direct warning and instruction for you to NOT engage in meatpuppetry. Should I post it, or do you admit that they warned you about meatpuppetry? - Fairness & Accuracy For All 23:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I can make those into a web page and link that here if you like. I won't censor anything at all, leaving ALL of the content intact just in case somebody wants to accuse me of misrepresentation... --BenBurch 15:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

And this is new data as requested for re-opening this matter.

It is a rewind and replay of the original data that led to Prodego's premature block on my account. No inquiries, no investigation, no Check User. Just lock up Dino and throw away the key. Exactly the same IP address data, plus a wealth of additional data that I provided, led to my unblocking at Unblock-en-l less than 48 hours ago. Family members can innocently share IP addresses without being sockpuppets or meatpuppets, can't they?

... explain these sock puppets one of which you just ADMITTED to below.

This is another misrepresentation, identical to one of the misrepresentations that produced his just-concluded 24-hour block. Would anyone care to give BenBurch another 24-hour block for this misrepresentation? Dino 00:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"H4672600 was created to combat the rampant "mischaracterizations" of BenBurch. BenBurch actually engaged in edit wars to protect those "mischaracterizations." is what you said. This is an admission of an account found to be a sock puppet. It is not an attempt at mischaracterization! It is your own words, just typed here mere hours ago. Now, please stop with the un-civil attacks on my person and deal with how you have so many "family members" that you can have an unlimited supply of editors willing to make the same edits to the same article using the same terms and the same sources. I'm sorry, but this isn't right at all. Nothing about what I have seen here since User:BryanFromPalatine checked in is right, and that includes the notice on your user page that I cannot read as anything at all except a legal threat against Misplaced Pages. So, I am asking you; 1. How many family members are you going to trot out as editors here? Is there a limit? And how is that different from the Misplaced Pages term-of-art "meatpuppet"? 2. How is what is on your user page not a legal threat? How is it different from when some guy comes into your business and says; "Nice soda shop you have here... It would be a SHAME if something HAPPENED to it!" ??? Now, you can probably get somebody to block me for writing this. Maybe permanently. If you can, have at it. I won't sock puppet my way around it like I honestly believe you have, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna shut up when I see this sort of thing happening here. --BenBurch 05:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Lar, Yamla and Luna Santin have reviewed far more evidence than any Check User could ever provide. They unanimously agreed that I'm not a sock puppet, and that I could avoid even the appearance of meatpuppetry by refraining from making any edits to the Free Republic article. This I've done. No one denies it. Accept their honest review and their final judgment in this matter. Dino 00:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edits were identical to a user known to be using sockpuppets, and those were your only edits. I am sorry if I incorrectly blocked you, but there was sufficient evidence for me to feel comfortable doing so at the time. When you asked for an unblock, I directed you to unblock-en-l, because I was not willing to unblock. I am glad they could help you. Also, as you can tell, blocks are not permanent, so I hardly "threw away the key" ;-). Prodego 00:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Prodego, I accept your apology. Let's not allow any misunderstandings to get in the way of creating an NPOV article. What is your response to BenBurch's mischaracterization above? It is virtually identical to a previous mischaracterization that resulted in a 24-hour block. That 24-hour block expired just a couple of hours ago. Apparently he's learned nothing. Are you at all inclined to do anything about it? Dino 00:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this an admission of a sock account? "H4672600 was created to combat the rampant "mischaracterizations" of BenBurch. BenBurch actually engaged in edit wars to protect those "mischaracterizations." Fairness & Accuracy For All

Note : Dino wrote in unblock L : "Any skeptics among you can feel free to monitor my account after it is unblocked, and block me again at the slightest hint of abusive or disruptive behavior." On the FR talk page he writes, while 'claiming' BLP, even though he admits BLP might not apply: "Tbeatty, I encourage you to remove it aggressively per instructions by Jimbo Wales. As you can see from the boldfaced portions above, no need to worry about the 3RR rule." link - Fairness & Accuracy For All 00:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin Jossi, the article mediator, said that BLP doesn't apply

That's another misrepresentation. Jossi didn't say that BLP doesn't apply. He asked, "Why is it WP:BLP mentioned?" How can anyone get anything constructive done around here with all of these misrepresentations? Dino 00:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You've GOT to be kidding me. I suggest you read the Wiki article Rhetorical question - Fairness & Accuracy For All

Isn't this an admission of a sock account? "H4672600 was created to combat the rampant "mischaracterizations" of BenBurch. BenBurch actually engaged in edit wars to protect those "mischaracterizations." Fairness & Accuracy For All

You've GOT to be kidding me.

Did he, or did he not say "that BLP doesn't apply"?

Isn't this an admission of a sock account?

It isn't. I said that it was created. I did not say that I created it. I didn't identify the creator of that account at all, but I will spell it out for you in no uncertain terms right now, so that there are no misunderstandings: I did not create the H4672600 account, nor have I ever used it. I have never created or used any account except this one. Stop posting these misrepresentations. BenBurch was blocked for it, and may be blocked again just a couple of hours after the previous block expired. It is in the nature of presenting false testimony. Sanctions for such misconduct are appropriate. Dino 00:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: Dino claimed above: "Lar and Yamla are two of the most senior administrators at Misplaced Pages." Lar was adminned on May 08, 2006. That's not very 'senior'. Why would Dino make up a totally bogus false claim like this? Please see the claims here where Dino says that he spoke to noted author TJ Walker who he says denied writing one of his own articles BLP Noticeboard - and then the story changed - entirely. Meaning no disrespect, but IMHO from my close observations of this persons claims and actions, he will say and write anything. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 01:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There really isn't any seniority as far as being an admin goes. Prodego 01:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see the claims here where Dino says that he spoke to noted author TJ Walker who he says denied writing one of his own articles BLP Noticeboard - and then the story changed - entirely.

The fun just never stops. This is yet another misrepresentation. The story never changed. First I called TJ Walker's office, then I called Carolyn Doran's office. Evidently Carolyn then spoke with TJ Walker's office. That story has never changed, because it's the truth. When is an administrator going to do something about all of these misrepresentations on an evidence page? Dino 01:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Now, just a moment here - Are you claiming that Author TJ Walker claimed never to have written the article that archive.org puts on his web site in 1999, which at least one other site used here as an RS republished, that is still in the index of all of his articles on his web site, and which you are seemingly threatening suit over? Is that what you are claiming? And you are claiming it on the basis of an unverifiable telephone call? I think the fact that archive.org has the complete text of that article online and linked to its historical place on TJ Walker's web site is absolute proof that he did write it, did publish it, and that it did exist. The fact that it is not currently online anywhere does not mean that it is not a valid cite for any article here on Misplaced Pages. We can prove its content. We can prove it was published. archive.org does not make stuff up. We can also prove that the quotes used in that article absolutely were on Free Republic. I am going to stick my neck way out here and say that I very much doubt that you ever called author TJ Walker. And also say that if somebody claiming to be TJ Walker called Carolyn at Wikimedia Foundation, that was not likely to have really been TJ Walker. I see no proof of the truth of either event being proffered here. --BenBurch 05:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

YES - he did : Dino claimed on Jan. 15, 2007, that he PERSONALLY contacted noted author TJ Walker CBS News and that Walker PERSONALLY told him that he never wrote the particular article in question "I contacted TJ Walker and asked him whether he authored the article. He said, "Of course not." He contacted AmericanPolitics.com and asked them to remove the article from their website. They complied immediately" here

Note : That Dino is also editing as a numeric IP 209.221.240.193 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) the same corporate IP that Bryan (alleged to be his brother) and 5 (6? 7? - I've lost count!) confirmed sock puppets have edited from. My advice would be the block this whole IP netrange. Dino can edit from home if his editing privledges aren't revoked, but for him to be editing on the same IP as multiple banned sock puppet accounts just isn't right. Fairness & Accuracy For All

the same corporate IP that Bryan (alleged to be his brother) and 5 (6? 7? - I've lost count!) confirmed sock puppets have edited from.

Yet another mischaracterization. Bryan has been proven to be my brother. Apparently only one sockpuppet (ClemsonTiger) has been "proven" to have edited from the IP address 209.221.240.193, and Bryan disputed that finding. I have also edited from IP address 209.221.240.193 and it has been proven that I am NOT a sockpuppet. Dino 01:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

May I casually ask why, DeanHinnen, is there a seemingly legal notice on your userpage? --physicq (c) 01:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

After reading all of this, do you really have to ask? Dino 02:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because the notice on your userpage can be construed as a violation of WP:NLT, subtle though it may be. --physicq (c) 02:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean "misconstrued," don't you? May I cordially direct your attention to the big, bold, green lettering across the top of that page? Dino 02:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

And indeed I have read the big, bold, green lettering across the top of that page, and I thank your courtesy. I have also read in between the lines, and find that my use of "construed" is correct, as though the message is not worded as such, it can be considered, in my opinion, as a subtle violation of WP:NLT, semantics notwithstanding. --physicq (c) 05:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• I can address that, Physicq --- "Dean" here is a member of the legal team of Free Republic. He therefore represents Jim Robinson, the owner. On the talk page for Free Republic, "Dean" says, (prarphrasing here) 'I am just trying to keep Misplaced Pages from being sued as Jim Robinson is litigious.' - Well, as Jim Robinson is his client, this is just a lawyer saying Do as I say or my client will sue you. isn't it? It is absolutely a legal threat from a lawyer who WORKS FOR FREE REPUBLIC. And he works for them whether he has ever taken a dime from them or not as he has represented them and written briefs on their behalf, and bragged about it in the Free Republic talk page. Now I haven't gone over there and looked up exact quotes, but I am not attempting to "misrepresent" anything here, or being "uncivil" here. I am giving you my understanding of the actions of this person as expressed by what he has said in the past and applying logic to see what deductions arise. And my deduction is that he has directly threatened wikipedia with suit if material not to his liking is incorporated in the Free Republic article. If there is some other way to read this, I don't see it. Again, if you want to say I am misrepresenting anything, and block me forever, go right ahead, I am doing what I think is right in making this observation here. I also am going to make the observation that I do not believe for even one moment that these many usernames are not a single person trying as hard as he can to game the system here, but I will leave the determination on what to do that up to admins here and abide by whatever is decided. --BenBurch 03:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

BUT....WAIT ! It's 'Bryan' who claims he's a member of the FR Legal Eagles who flew out to L.A. to advise them on the L.A. Times v FR lawsuit 'in the summer of 2001" (when FR filed their final appeal April 2001) (my side aches) Bryan What's this claim about JimRob being 'litigious'. I can only find one lawsuit. (not counting LA T V FR that he LOST) Fred Phelps is litigious. JimRob? Yet another of Dino's unsubstantiated 'claims' Ouch. My side. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 04:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

NOTE : Subject: TJ Walker's 07/06/99 article :

Dino claimed on Jan. 15, 2007, that he contacted noted author TJ Walker CBS News personally and that Walker told him that he never wrote the particular article in question "I contacted TJ Walker and asked him whether he authored the article. He said, "Of course not." He contacted AmericanPolitics.com and asked them to remove the article from their website. They complied immediately" here

Dino claimed today on the BLP board "The purported "TJ Walker article"... Abruptly, and without explanation, American Politics.com pulled the article and blanked the page a few weeks ago. They did this because it was libelous, and they didn't want to get sued like the City of Fresno got sued." - Fairness & Accuracy For All 01:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

And this is significant because ... ????? Dino 02:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It shows a pattern, Dino. Just like you misrepresenting that Lar, who was made an Admin on May 06, is one of the 'most senior administrators on Wiki'. These things can be checked Dino, just as your claims can be checked - and your words can be checked, and are forever archived, even if you change them, in the edit histories. Like I'm fond of saying : "We didn't all just fall off the back of the turnip truck here on Misplaced Pages!" (especially not the Admins!) - Fairness & Accuracy For All 02:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Check all you like. But as Brenneman said, a few phone calls can't satisfy WP:V so neither can a few e-mails. If TJ Walker posts a notice on his website (or some other website that can relied upon to accurately represent him) by Tuesday, stating that he still stands behind the claims made in his July 1999 article, then you will satisfy your self-imposed deadline. If he doesn't, then I expect you to accept the constraints of the official WP:BLP policy, and remove the disputed material from the article. Thank you. Dino 02:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

BLP? LOL! BLP doesn't apply. Read what Jossi said one more time. Even if the article was retracted for being libelous, it can be cited as it's verifiable. Didn't you read WP:V like I suggested? Verifiability not truth - Fairness & Accuracy For All

• Okay, Dean, you say "I did not create the H4672600 account, nor have I ever used it. I have never created or used any account except this one. " - So, if you did not create it and all, how the heck do you know how and why exactly it was created? If I misread your statement as an admission, my apologies, but I could and can read it no other way. I see you admitting to this, and then denying it when called on it and then trying to get me blocked for reading your words at face value. Well, if you can get me blocked, do so. I read what I read. And I know the checkuser team is very careful when they say that users are socks of other users. And I wonder just how many family members you have editing this encyclopedia anyway? --BenBurch 05:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

NOTE : I would like to thank and compliment Dino for one thing. His unabating use of colored text is so inventive, light-hearted and cheery that I've adopted it! It really brightens things up! I think I'll start adding it to articles ! ;-) I'm dissapointed that I couldn't add blinking text through, I tried and Wiki doesn't allow it. <BLINK>Damn you Misplaced Pages !</BLINK> ;-) LOL! Fairness & Accuracy For All

The threat just posted to my talk page

You made the same accusation against me before, and an exhaustive investigation by Unblock-en-l proved that it was a false accusation. You made the same accusation against Fensteren, and a Check User proved that it was also a false accusation. Running around to every dispute resolution venue at Misplaced Pages and repeating these false accusations is only going to get you blocked again for misrepresentation. Please stop immediately. Dino 16:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Request to close and user-talk-page-ify

This discussion is not productive and not necessary to conduct on AN/I. It should be closed and archived and continue on people's talk pages, if at all.

All participants should take a day off and then re-read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and WP:AGF prior to interacting with each other again. Georgewilliamherbert 20:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd second that request. As I have counseled in various places already, work on the articles, not on trying to prove things about each other or on trying to get other users blocked. I've half a mind to block the whole lot of this bunch, guilty, innocent, all together, en masse, for a day to make Georgewilliamherbert's advice stick. Not this time, I guess, but don't tempt me, and please don't make me regret saying that I thought that this situation could be resolved amicably with good faith editing on everyone's part if Dino were given another chance. There isn't much that gets up my nose worse than being played (are you listening Courtney???) so please don't. ++Lar: t/c 04:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Third(ing) for all involved getting a 24 hour cool off, and then come back as positively-oriented editors. ThuranX 04:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I think GWH was suggesting an informal cooloff, not an actual block, and (except for perhaps inappropriate remarks lined out) so was I. For now anyway but if things don't improve, blocking may be required in my view. ++Lar: t/c 15:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

So, then all the confirmed sock puppets are A-OK?

I think this is a very bad precedent to set, but if that is what people think ought to be done, have at it. --BenBurch 14:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User deleting massive amounts of information from multiple articles

User:CyberAnth (contributions) has been deleting massive amounts of text from multiple articles on the basis that ANY uncited text in a Biography article must be removed or else it violates WP:BLP. I engaged him on his talk page and pointed out that WP:BLP requires the removal of controversial uncited items from a biography, but his reply was that since we have no way of knowing what items may be controversial to the subject, everything uncited must be removed. This deletion in particular is a good example. . The Frank Abegnale article (the guy portrayed in the movie Catch me if you can. He removed MOST of the stuff that the subject is known for. None of what he removed had {{citation}}: Empty citation (help) tags on it. He just deleted it all. Other articles he is simply stubbing, like this diff . This seems more like an example of WP:POINT than trying to improve the articles. Am I off base on this??? WP:BLP does not require that every statement of fact be cited. I really don't see how this is constructive and resisting the urge to start reverting as vandalism I wanted to get a second opinion. Can anyone advise me on this? Caper13 02:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support the first diff (Frank Abagnale). That is precisely what admins and other experienced users should be doing, aggressively, and blocking people who refuse to write appropriately. (Not blocking people just for doing it once or twice, mind you, we do still practice WikiLove, but people who refuse have to be blocked.). As for the 2nd diff, it seems a bit aggressive, but the article was pretty awful, so I see no major problem. Routine editing. :-) --Jimbo Wales 00:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The diff that you strongly support has been reverted by an administrator. The same administrator who blocked CyberAnth. Frise 01:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, WP:BLP says potentially controversial (and if it doesn't, it should). We shouldn't have things without a source, anyway, so the best way to solve this is just to find sources. It does not hurt Misplaced Pages to remove statements which may be untrue. -Amark moo! 02:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at his contribution list though. Rather than placing citation tags on items to encourage others to cite, he is just stubbing entire articles and deleting pretty benign information. This is an example of text deleted "- In the California State Senate, Dr. Aanestad's top priorities are preserving rural health care, protecting North State water, and serving the needs of the citizens of the 4th Senate District, which includes Butte, Colusa, Del Norte, Glenn, Nevada, Placer, Shasta, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity and Yuba counties." Caper13 02:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

...uncited, unreferenced claims, that could be pure bogus and therefore very controversial to someone, including the subject. CyberAnth 03:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Tags are cool. But for BLPs, no. CyberAnth 02:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

What was controversial about the passage above about the California State Senate that caused you to delete it? Caper13 02:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean about the living person said to be in the CA state senate. Said with uncited, unreferenced claims. For all I know the info was made up in school one day. It could therefore be controversial to someone somewhere, and libelous. CyberAnth 03:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The edit to the Frank Abagnale article you link to above was a good edit, and is mandated by WP:BLP. CyberAnth should be encouraged in removing any more entirely unsourced accusations of crime from biographies of living persons, even in the case of someone whose notability rests on criminal behaviour. Jkelly 02:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I get the criminal behavior thing on Abegnale. I still a better approach would be to put citation tags in rather than deleting in this case, but I cana see the point. I am not trying to be troublesome because I am still learning some of the rules, but in this latest edit He deleted all information about an Italian Conductor other than the fact that he is an italian conductor. This doesn't make sense to me. Caper13 02:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

For all I know, the stuff other than that he was an Italian conductor was made up in school one day. This is a living person we are speaking of, and none of the info beyond what I left was verifiable. The info does not stand WP:BLP. CyberAnth 03:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You left his birthday and his occupation. How do you know either of those were true. Neither were cited. and they are about as controversial as the information you did remove. You gutted an entire article which no one had previously questioned. Doesnt that seem a little extreme? Caper13 03:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I should not have left the B-Day info. CyberAnth 03:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I see you've removed it. WP:POINT. The fact that he is a conductor is uncited as well. Why don't you delete that. Then the entire article can consist of his name and no identification of who he is.

In the current drive to improve the site by fixing its highly unreferenced state I would agree with CyberAnth's removal of unsourced info. Any unsourced info on a BLP article is potentially controversial so it shouldn't be there. (Which, I suppose is counter to my original arguments about the same actions on the Ron Jeremy article, but we live and learn)-Localzuk 03:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ron Jeremy - that is a very well referenced article. :-) CyberAnth 03:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It is since it was blanked and dozens of editors stormed over there to fix it up :) It was a bit 'shock and awe' to blank it but it did the job well.-Localzuk 03:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It may just be me, but I completely fail to see how removing unsourced info is bad. I view WP:BLP as "in these cases, nobody may revert removals", not "this is the only reason to remove unsourced info". -Amark moo! 03:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

From WP:BLP (emphasis in original): "Editors must take particular care when writing biographies of living persons and/or including any material related to living persons. These require a degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to our content policies:

• Verifiability
• Neutral point of view (NPOV)
• No original research"

CyberAnth 03:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No doubt CyberAnth is acting in good faith here but this seems to me very close to breach of WP:POINT. Many of the articles stubbed contained no material that could conceivably be seen as controversial. WP:BLP does not require such extreme action for uncontraversial material. Articles can be tagged as unreferenced without danger. Better still, if CyberAnth has reason to doubt the truth of some of the information, contrary sources or discussion on talkpages might be appropriate. But blanket stubbings without controversy is unnecessarily disruptive. WJBscribe 04:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

For WP:POINT to apply, it must be deliberately disruptive, which you admit it is not, and it must prove a point, which it does not do. And while it is true that BLP does not require such action, that does not mean that unsourced material can't be deleted, only that it is not always mandated. -Amark moo! 04:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The intention may not be disruption but disruption is the result. It is incredibly disrespectful to other users' contributions. There are other ways to go about this without going on a wikilawyering crusade to have every article meet the strict letter of WP:BLP in one night. By all means delete contraversial material, but simple career information without comment is harmless. It can be tagged, or queries raised on talkpages. But blanket deletions of this nature are not helpful. WJBscribe 04:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, people who write BLPs without strictly citing their sources show a serious lack of respect for the subject, their readers, and other Wikipedians. The Burden of evidence is not on me to find sources for every article on Misplaced Pages. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article" (WP:V#Burden_of_evidence). This is especially so with BLPs. If something is potentially controversial to someone somewhere it is therefore controversial. For all I know, or someone else not knowledgable about the subject, the "basic career information" could have been made up in school one day. Cite the material per WP:CITE and you will have nothing to worry about. When editors get away with this sort of stuff it may seem disruptive, but it is for the better of the article, the subject, and this Project. CyberAnth 05:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This edit on Cyberanth's talk page suggests suggests that the disruption is intentional, and designed to provoke a response. that Hank Aaron was elected to the hall of fame" - I do not know hardly a thing about Aaron, so that can absolutely be a controversial statement, given that it is not verifiable. Cite it. That shows you care. CyberAnth 03:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC). Yes, Hank Aaron being elected to the hall of fame is SO controversial. Obviously, it is easily cited, but his actions here are disrespectful to the work of editors. The stubbing of this article removed completely neutral information from an article that only gets a couple of edits a month and probably doesnt have people watching it, so what is he expecting to accomplish here other than to destroy months of work by editors who had no other intention than to contribute to wikipedia. The information removed is not controversial in the least. Additionally when I pointed out that in his initial stubbing, he left nothing but the date of birth, he went back and deleted that as well WP:POINTCaper13 05:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You can try to divine my motives all you want. The content policies is what I am following. Of course, the solution to the birthdate issue is to cite it. For all I know, it is false and could be considered offensive by the subject if not true. CyberAnth 05:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That is patently ridiculous. You are trying to impose a new interpretation of BLP which says that EVERY statement should be deleted if it is not sourced. BLP has never been interpreted that strictly. Current BLP policy requires the citing of potentially controversial statements, but you are redefining EVERY statement as potentially controversial to force citing of every statement. It is a good goal to have well cited articles, but forcing this change overnight especially to little trafficked articles is WP:POINT Caper13 05:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

User:CyberAnth engaging in vandalism through misapplication of policy

I have just noticed that the above user has made a series of edits to over two dozen articles removing material he claims violates WP:BLP. I have not looked at every one of these edits, and some of them may well be valid, but to use just two examples he has removed from the Hank Aaron article the fact that Aaron was elected to the baseball Hall of Fame and removed from the article on golfer Tommy Aaron every bit of information in the article save for his name and profession, including his finishing places in various golf tournaments. WP:BLP exists to make sure that libel is not placed in wikipedia and specifically mandates that only controversial information should be deleted. None of the information presented above, and presumably most of the rest of the material removed, has been challenged by anyone or could fit into a rational definition of controversial. Furthermore, the user did not attempt to resolve what problems he claimed existed through dialogue on the talk page of the article or through use of tags. I posted about the issue on his talk page, and he was unapologetic. I reverted some of the changes and he immediately reverted me. Administrator action would appear to be required to end this user's disruption of wikipedia. Indrian 03:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There is already a thread here started on this issue at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_deleting_massive_amounts_of_information_from_multiple_articles

What would you like to do, dialog about allowing BLPs that do not adhere to WP policies?

That Hank Aaron is in the Hall of Fame may seem incontrovertible fact to you. But many people, like me, know hardly a thing about Aaron, so that can absolutely be a controversial statement, given that it is not verifiable. Cite it. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.

CyberAnth 04:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between "not verifiable" and "not verified". There's your verification. You may have a point with many of your edits. There is far too much unverified information on Misplaced Pages, but I'd still say you're mostly making a point this evening. --Onorem 04:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

So, is the Burden of evidence now on the reader? Per WP:V#Burden of evidence, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." The solution is cite it. CyberAnth 04:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You'll have a hard time convincing me that you actually believe that calling someone a Senator or stating that a baseball player is in the Hall of Fame would be considered libelous. These are statements that should have, at most, been moved to the talk page. --Onorem 04:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You must be referring to the litany of claims about a Senator...unsourced, uncited, unverifiable claims. The cite for the HoF is just above. Feel free to add it. CyberAnth 04:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If your intention was anything other than to prove a point, you could have added it yourself rather than deleting the work of others. Caper13 05:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The burden of evidence for every page on Misplaced Pages is not mine. Per WP:V#Burden of evidence, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." The solution is cite it. CyberAnth 05:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If it's a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, it is not vandalism. If it is an edit based on a misunderstanding of policy, it is not vandalism. In fact, I think CyberAnth understands BLP policy and is applying it mostly correctly. Tags are fine for Civil War generals, but potentially controversial material about living people has to be sourced when added. The burden of proof is on whoever wants to add the material. The solution is to cite it and add it, not to revert to the uncited version, with or without a tag. Tom Harrison 05:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You gotta be kidding me. CyberAnth, who has been here before about POINT violations, is REMOVING facts like "Hank Aaron is in the Baseball Hall of Fame" and whether so and so is a SENATOR... and that's a GOOD THING? If we required cites for every sentence, then the whole article would be unreadable. I strongly disagree. SirFozzie 05:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It may seem common knowledge to you that Aaron is in the HoF. For all many know, it could be false. Cite it. Pick any dozen of baseball figures. By golly, if an editor makes such an exceptional claim that they are in the HoF, it better be cited in a BLP. As for the Senator, you must be referring to the litany of claims about a Senator I removed...unsourced, uncited, unverifiable claims. CyberAnth 05:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

CyberAnth is continuing his process despite the fact that there is active conversation and discussion of his edits here at AN/I. Would it be worth it to request a temporary stop while the extent of WP:BOF and what is, is not, or might possibly be controversial is worked out? ThuranX 05:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The material being removed ranges from statements with legitimate potential for being defamatory, to easily-sourced, common knowledge, positive statements about the subject. The fact that CyberAnth doesn't appear to be able to tell the difference indicates that he doesn't understand the policy, and rather is going about removing uncited material from bios at random. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Suppose of every four edits CyberAnth removes three uncontroversial and sourcable but currently-unsourced statments and one instance of potentially libelous misinformation?

Jimbo Wales as quoted in WP:BLP, "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

Once again, life isn't a game (and I note CyberAnth's involvement in both threads.) Misplaced Pages must not do capricious harm to real-world individuals, however valid our inside-the-box concerns may be. Talk of wiki consensus and congenial editting is valid in itself, but in such situations is beside the point.

I'd be curious to learn what blocks, if any, have been imposed against editors who've added potentially libelous unsourced material to biographies of living persons.Proabivouac 11:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Alkivar's block of CyberAnth

User:Alkivar has blocked CyberAnth for one week. I have asked for a reconsideration of this block. Jkelly 06:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Some discussion of this block has happened at User talk:Alkivar, but I'd like to invite more admins to weigh in. Jkelly 06:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Reading the above discussion I'm fully in line with the block. CyberAnth is antagonistic to the point of POINT. Removing uncited, common knowledge and *refusing* to do any trivial research, or work *with* other editors is highly detrimental to our aims. Wjhonson 07:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say a block was necessary, but a one-week block probably too long. – Chacor 07:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is more of a case of WP:SPIDER than WP:POINT. CyberAnth is mixing in good removals of uncited material that violate BLP, but the removal of some thing such as that Hank Aaron is not in the Baseball Hall of Fame because there wasn't a cite next to the "claim" is not appropriate behavior, namely (edited) blanking sections. More diffs are readily availible in the contribution history. There are much better ways to conform biographies, and disruption is not a way. Preventative block. Teke 07:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with the block. As someone who was once blocked for WP:POINT - I know it when I see it, and boy did I see it in CyberAnths actions ! Thank you Alkivar - well done. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 08:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You are aware that User:Sandstein unblocked him about two hours ago, right? User:Zoe|(talk) 08:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That's... unfortunate. SirFozzie 08:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Was it done with reference to the blocking admin? That is a courtesy at least in a situation like this... Viridae 08:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just look on Alkivar's talk page and see? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah prob should have, I didnt see anything on sandsteins talk page so I didnt look any further. Viridae 10:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I am interested that the block was given as edit warring, while the unblock was "no evidence of 3rr" - they are different issues, edit warring is disruption (broad) whereas 3rr is violation of a specific policy. Viridae 11:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm getting deja-vu over this. There was a similar problem, as I mentioned above, with the Ron Jeremy article where the entire thing was blanked under WP:BLP as unsourced. The outcome of that was that the blanking was the right thing to do. I think this block is out of line and the editor is doing a good job in removing some of the large amount of unsourced information from the site.

Every article on this site has at least one editor who has worked on it. If another editor comes along and deletes info as unsourced and doesn't actively try and source it himself, instead of revert warring over it or violating WP:V by re-inserting it without a source, why don't we leave the community to re-add it with the citations? We have policies, why are we telling off and blocking an editor who is editing in good faith to enforce them? It just doesn't make any sense. If we do that then we are just going to drive editors who do controversial but good things away.

As CyberAnth states, the burden of evidence is on the editor who adds or restores the info and re-adding it without a source is against policy.-Localzuk 12:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Only properly sourced information should be added to an article, especially where living people are concerned. CyberAnth is correct in removing and challenging information that was added without a source. Frise 14:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Are we really changing the policy to one of 100% Citation at all times? That is patently Absurd. If that's done, it would kill the project, because it disregards WP:AGF and WP:CS entirely. to go back to the Hank Aaron example above, we should erase such things as Aaron being a baseball player, male, black, living(or dead), american, and so on. Looking at a number of the articles Cyberanth has blanked or reduced, they now are completely non-notable people, given the lack of WP:V information there. I think CyberAnth's next step it to recover his ground and nominate all such articles for deletion on teh grounds of unsubstantiated notability. I have always been under the impression that Verifiable and Controversial were two entirely different priniciples here. Instead, CyberAnth has taken the interpretation that anything NOT citation verified is by its very nature a Controversial statement. I think this is a bad direction for Misplaced Pages to go in, but I look forward to watching CyberAnth's behaviors spread. When Thousands of editors are marginalized by having any and all work they've done deleted, and quit, I think we'll see the folly of assuming that 'Hank Aaron was a baseball player.' is a good way to be.ThuranX 15:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've bashed heads with Cyberanth numerous times. I think he is often a very good editor. Cyberanth is sometimes a big problem though. The problem is not in erverting or removing a small bit of text in one article though. All editors do that from time to time. The problem is that he gets in a mode of deleting large chunks of material, in a a great many articles to the point of disrupting editing by other editors on those articles, and Misplaced Pages wide when we get into these long discussions. It is a variation of the same old deletionist argument, applied to the specific case. Cyberanth is a deletionist, for good or for bad, and spends mos of his time deleting other peoples work. In some cases, the work deleted is garbage and opinion that is not, or can not be sourced. In some cases, it is perfectly good material that has not yet been sourced, but would be, given time. If Cyberanth's method of operation was one based on consensus, discussing the faults of a given article in detail in cooperation with other working on the article, and eventually removing material that no one could, or was willing to source, then we would not be discussing his actions over and over and over. His method of operation is to blindside editors who have worked together for weeks or months on an article by swooping into an article and removing the bulk of an article, making it a stub. The editors of that article become angry that their efforts are swept aside by someone who has not bothered to even explain to them on the discussion page what the problems are. At best the edit summary gives a vague reference to Misplaced Pages policy on providing sources, often not even that. If Cyberanth removed material from articles where no one was contributing or editing, or after a discussion with editors, no one would be complaining.

To reiterate, the problem is not whether or not it is okay to remove unsourced material. The problem is the method of operation. Cyberanth is not interested in communication, negotiation, or working towards consensus with others. Cyberanth is entitled to work on Misplaced Pages however he pleases. But, when that method becomes dysfunctional, and creates more negatives than positives wikipedia wide, then it is necessary to take action, such as this block. The block is appropriate and necessary. Cyberanth may be insulted, but that is needed to get his attention. Eventually he will get that disrupting other editors on wikipedia is not acceptable, and that editing wikipedia cooperatively with others is necessary. Atom 15:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

While it might be argued that Cyberanth was a bit over the top here, I don't think too far so. I've really never understood the constant objection to sourcing "obvious" information. If it's so obvious, it's trivial to find sources! I've found tons with just a cursory Google search, and probably any given one could source 95%, if not 100%, of that disputed "obvious" information all on its own. If information really is obvious and widely known, then it's widely stated and widely sourced! If not, maybe it's not really so "obvious". Seraphimblade 15:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that is what the problem is. Cyberanth could have gone to baseballhalloffame.com and cited the claim in under 30 seconds. The user didn't do this, because they are being disruptive to make a point and if it hadn't been that particular "fact" in question, the user would have just choosen another article to go after. And that is where to no-no is. Teke 16:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The person who added the information in the first place should have taken the thirty seconds to properly source their addition. Frise 17:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that editor inserting has the burden of proof. We are discussing CyberAnth's actions and whether they were appropriate, disruptive, or both. It in my opinion that CyberAnth did not remove the unsourced material because it failed BLP; it was disruption to illustrate a point and had nothing to do with the original author's lapse in citing that Hank Aaron's a retired professional baseball player in the hall of fame. For crying out loud, the encyclopedia Britannica is not aswath with this footnotes and citations. Tertiary sources are not written in the same manner that academic research and Misplaced Pages should not adopt the standards of academia. The sort of research and reference found in journals and trade publications that cite every single statement is because it is technically original research]] and we don't allow that no matter how many citations we use. I agree with the statement below that the application of BLP is getting out of hand. What's next, I cite a source and then have to source to source to prove it exists? This is policy wonking to the extreme and is in no way productive. In fact, it is destructive. Teke 17:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Teke. Further, Frise, pleaes remember that many editors, especially newer ones, operate without the serious investment in time that learning the nuances of every wikipolicy takes. There are still dozens of policies and groups here at WP that I don't know, and I'm coming up on my first year anniversary(of membership), such as the OTRS remarked upon below. It is incumbent upon established editors and admins to HELP newer editors who edit in good faith whereever possible. Without going being WP:Just plain obtuse, no one could argue that an editor who adds Hank Aaron's Hall of Fame status isn't acting in Good Faith. Such an edit should be supported by other editors, who can, as demonstrated, fix this in 2 minutes or less. If CyberAnth had gone through all those articles, tagging them wih the top of page uncited template and then hitting the talk page with a simple 'Hey, Let's work this weekend to fix this article's citation needed tag', he'd probably be collecting barnstars, not criticisms this weekend. Instead, he's deliberately AVOIDED explanations on some of the pages he's edited. CyberAnth has demonstrated that he can understand Wikipolicy when he wants to, but chose to disregard the spirit of WP:BITE and WP:AGF here in a big way, in favor of WP:BLP. That picking and choosing bothers me greatly. I didn't see any controversies being debated at Hank Aaron, so the slower, measured style could've worked well there. Further, CyberAnth could've just picked an article and fixed it, then moved onto the next. Why didn't he do that? Finally, As I've mentioned before, CyberAnth has juxtaposed "Controversial" and "Uncited". There is NO controversy about the fact that Hank Aaron is a member of the HoF. The fact is, however, an uncited inclusion in the article. Not every uncited claim is by its nature controversial. Hank Aaron is male. That shouldn't need citation. Hank Aaron is alive. That shouldn't need citation. (and good luck getting a continuously current citation on that one.) There's WP:COMMON to consider here. Certain facts shouldn't be removed because they are uncited. At best, they need a cite tag, and others are just going to have to remain uncited.(standard disclaimer - I am not an admin, if this is inappropriately posted here, please delete.) ThuranX 17:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

BLP should not have been expanded

When the BLP policy was introduced it was originally for 'negative comments' and worked fine except for occasional disagreements about what was 'negative'. Then people suggested (correctly) that allowing unsourced 'positive comments' to remain could result in equally biased articles... just in the other direction. That was true, but IMO missing the point... nobody is going to sue Misplaced Pages for having unsourced positive comments about them. The BLP policy was changed so that any 'controversial comments' could be removed. Various people predicted that this would result in endless conflicts as there is always someone who will label any detail 'controversial' and then insist that they are allowed to edit war over it (free from 3RR violation no less). Sometimes the people restoring the comments are blocked, sometimes the people removing them are blocked, sometimes it turns into a massive mess like the above... but it is always disruptive and pointless. The BLP policy was enacted to protect Wikimedia from legal jeopardy. It allowed draconian reversion free from 3RR to achieve that aim. It should not have been expanded to cover things which do not place Wikimedia in legal jeopardy. We have long-standing procedures at the verifiability policy for handling unsourced claims in general... the special strictures of BLP should be restricted to claims which may be legally actionable. Not every fact someone decides to object to. Otherwise we will continue to have nonsense like the above over and over and over again. --CBD 15:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is denying that CyberAnth's edits should be subject to 3RR, except maybe herself (himself?). I know that I am not. That does not mean that the removal is bad, just that it isn't protected by BLP. -Amark moo! 16:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear, CBD. Teke 16:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

nobody is going to sue Misplaced Pages for having unsourced positive comments about them - that is a bit presumptuous of you. What if the comment was a claim that a person had won a nobel prize. OK, the person in question wouldn't be doing any suing but the Nobel Foundation may... Many things that are seemingly innocuous can actually be a problem to people other than the person in question if it is belittling to their own achievements. Anyway, what I'm saying is that anything that is unsourced could be actionable on a BLP by that person or someone related to that fact... The idea of removing unsourced information is not new - it is one of the aspects of WP:V and the problem is the re-adding of info and anyone who is engaging in revert warring over re-adding such info should be blocked and not someone removing it. I think that those who are saying that CyberAnth's actions were wrong are incorrect, his actions are zealous but not wrong. (and to amark, I would say that his actions are covered by BLP.)-Localzuk 17:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of the spirit of CBD's comments, but at the same time, positive vs. negative is not always so clearcut. Saying that a person is gay would be viewed as negative by someone who believes homosexuality is wrong, but wouldn't be viewed as negative by many other people. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There is another problem here. And that is with the fact that the authors of articles often object to 'non negative assertions'. And OTRS often has to pick this up. E.g a bio of Jean Smith says "she was once a director of firm xyz'. If Jean Smith contacts OTRS and says 'no I wasn't - and I object to being associated with them', The OTRS operative will remove the claim unless it is verified to the point that the complainant is obviously lying. In these cases putting on it will not do. If the subject, or anyone claiming to be the subject, e-mails OTRS, or even edits the article themselves, then the default position should be that any unverified information can be removed and should not be replaced without solid verification. This isn't just about who can sue us, this is also about real people who have a right not to have us hosting potentially misleading unverified information about them. I will remove any unverified information from a biography in response to any OTRS request, and I expect it to stay removed unless verified.--Doc 17:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's break it down then. There are some comments that almost everyone agrees are potentially negative/controversial/legally actionable (e.g. 'this person enjoys sacrificing puppies to Beelzebub', 'this person's parents hate them', 'this person has sex with <whoever/whatever>')... such comments should be covered by BLP. Then there are comments which seem innocuous to some and potentially controversial to others (e.g. 'this person is ## years old'). If we are contacted through OTRS or some other means and told that the person does object to some such statement then it falls under BLP and must be sourced for inclusion... any uncertainty has been removed by the person themself. However, extending BLP to cover seemingly innocuous statements that anyone objects to leads inevitably to continuous disputes like the above. We have a verifiability policy for that stuff. It still requires sources... it just doesn't give people a license to edit war over anything and everything. --CBD 18:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying that we should allow unsourced information, that might mean people complain to Misplaced Pages, to be left in articles? Surely that is completely backwards. We should be striving to only include well sourced or blatantly obvious information (ie. water is wet) and anyone who tries to re-add unsourced information to an article is violating WP:V and in this case WP:BLP as it could be seen as controversial (an example of something innocent - Jimbo recently posted regarding the date of birth on his article here saying that it was wrong and unsourced. Should we just slap an unsourced tag on it? No. We should remove it and only re-add it if it has a source).-Localzuk 18:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You say that 'water is wet' is uncontroversial... I say that 'Hank Aaron is in the baseball hall of fame' is uncontroversial... but we see above how that worked out. Yes, "we should be striving to only include well sourced or blatantly obvious information"... which is what WP:V is for. We should absolutely follow that policy. When Jimbo says, 'hey my birth date is wrong' we should absolutely put that under WP:BLP. However, putting everything under BLP... even things that the person has not objected to and which there is no significant reason to think they would object to is a great way to cause massive pointless disruption... and not much else. It effectively means that all un-sourced statements in biographies of living people, sentences which mention living people, and/or sentences which mention groups that livng people belong to can be removed at will without restriction by 3RR. Note, we aren't saying that all these things must be removed... presumably because if we did the database size would be cut in half, but we are giving anyone who wants it free license to edit war over any and all pages they like. WP:V is a perfectly sound and reasonable policy which has been used to deal with unsourced statements for years. It can continue doing so just fine. There is no reason to extend BLP to cover objections to claims that 'water is wet'. If someone needs a citation for that they can go through WP:V procedures to get it... rather than using BLP as an excuse to edit war about it. --CBD 21:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a big difference between that situation and this one. If someone tells you that a piece of information in their article is false, then you have good reason to distrust the claim. If any editor actually distrusts a claim in an article, and the claim is uncited, he should remove it. This doesn't characterize CyberAnth's actions, however, because he was removing (among his numerous edits) facts that no reasonable person would distrust. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Re-insertion of unsourced material using rollback

I see admin Jaranda has restored 20+ articles containing unsourced information in a little over one minute using the rollback tool. Frise 23:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This is out of line. It is a blatant violation of WP:V and should be undone as far as I'm concerned.-Localzuk 00:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not going to be undone, I saw blanking vandalism, many of the articles was created by trusted admins like User:Rebecca, not line of everything needs a citation, only conterversal stuff etc, if that ever happens, most users including me will quit Jaranda 03:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Again? Frise 03:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Applicable comment from Jimbo

From Talk:Ron_Jeremy#WP:BLP

I think that Frise has done the right thing here. Yes, it is entirely possible that he could have done more... by going through this thoroughly horrible article and trying to extract the tiny handful of facts which are properly sourced. I hope that he, or someone, will take the time to do so... fact-by-fact, very carefully.

But simply restoring the unsourced junk in this article and adding fact tags to it is not really enough. We must take quality very seriously, and this is precisely the intent of our ongoing efforts to raise quality standards.

The version I just blanked contained such gems as an unsourced claim that Mr. Jeremy is known as a "The Hedgehog", that he was but is no longer capable of autofellatio, that he was arrested on two occassions, that he has had unprotected sex with thousands of people, that he claims to have had sex with 5000 women, etc.

Are those claims true? Well, in the case of Mr. Jeremey who has admittedly led a colorful life, it seems likely that they are. But "it seems like something that could be true" must not be sufficient cause to re-introduce questionable material into Misplaced Pages, and if all that someone has time to do is nuke a bad article, the right response to those who want to restore it, is to restore it fact by fact, piece by piece, making absolutely certain that the quality is right.-- User:Jimbo Wales 07:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is the edit Jimbo made.

CyberAnth 00:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This seems to me quite compelling. He concedes that the information is "likely" to be true, yet still blanks it. By the standards put forth here, Jimbo should be blocked. What does Jimbo (like CyberAnth) understand that a substantial element of the community here doesn't?Proabivouac 00:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see Jimbo's further comment at the top of this main section, second from the top. CyberAnth 01:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jimbo, CyberAnth, CBD, Doc, and just about everyone else here as valid points have been raised from all sides about referencial information in BLPs. What I disagree with is the blanket application and methodology of the actions taken. I'd consider Ron Jeremy's nickname and other such "fact" to be trivial and unencyclopedic, even if it were sourced. Especially since it wasn't, kill it. But there is a huge, huge difference in some of the blankings. I would agree with 80% of them, but the ones that I do not I have a huge disagreement with, as in the much referenced Hank Aaron case.

As an example, last March there was a big hubub over at Talk:Neil Patrick Harris over whether or not the actor's speculated homosexuality warranted inclusion. I argued against inclusion, as there were no reliable sources or verification possible. If/when Harris "came out of the closet", it might merit inclusion then. The content was agreed to be removed, and when Harris declared his homosexuality publicly a month or so ago the information was reinserted, as now it met with BLP and WP:V. No one ever blanked the fact that he is an actor, as that is not what BLP is for. It simply is not. Removal of unreferenced, trivial, obscene, positive/negative, ORTS requests, etc is fine. Removal of the obvious to prove a point with a unilateral response of "It's policy that's what Jimbo says" is not working with the community and is not helping to resolve the issue at all. Jimbo is not our God, and policy is not law- certainly not strict interpretation. A unilateral approach that does not involve the OFFICE strangulates the goal of a shared effort. Teke 02:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to join me in going through Category:Living people. If one views the meta-information in the page here, one can see the category exists "per Jimbo Wales". Its purpose is "to help Misplaced Pages editors improve the quality of biographies of living persons by ensuring that the articles maintain a neutral point of view, maintain factual accuracy, and are properly sourced." If anyone wishes to team together in systematically going through each-an-every biography of a living person on WP, kindly leave a note on my talk page. That way, through non-duplication and coordination of efforts, we can make the effort more effective. CyberAnth 07:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of CyberAnth's edits that I'll be repeating

Lest CyberAnth's good work be overlooked in allegations of POINT, I thought I'd pick out a few edits that I'll be repeating (since they all seem to have been reverted).

This edit to Yakub Abahanov (an article about a Guantanamo detainee) is completely appropriate. The bulk of the article is not sourced, most astonishingly a list of allegations against Abahanov which are, in the language used, presented as fact. Moreover, at least one of the citations dsiguises original research (the paragraph about the FOI request). It's shocking that all of this material was restored. I've made more comments on the talk page.

This edit to Jarle Aase removes unsourced statements about Aase's sexual orientation and criminal record. I would have thought this would be a fairly obvious edit to make, but it was inexplicably rolled back by Jaranda.

This edit to 50 Cent removes much information which may well be true but was nevertheless uncited, and in that state cannot be distinguished from apocrypha. The material removed includes the statement that Fiddy's mother was "a bisexual crack dealer", that he had "a lengthy rap sheet", and so forth. To take an example from the article, 50 Cent's disputes with various other rappers are well known, but without sources then the statements about the exact cause and nature of the disputes can't be trusted. Details need sources, even if the broad outline is widely known enough to be common knowledge.

See also this edit to Jimmy Swaggart, not a case of removing unsourced information but of stubbing an article which consisted entirely of negative information about Swaggart, after a paltry attempt in the lead to provide some biographical information. See discussions on the talk page and here on ANI. Also, take a look at the history of Christian evangelist scandals.

Providing sources and maintaining neutrality in biographies of living persons is hard work, but it is necessary work. Anyone who has volunteered for OTRS can tell you that what Misplaced Pages has to say about living people can affect them, and does so on a regular basis. It is especially important not to be lax and let material that is 'good enough' or 'sounds true' to remain in articles. After all, it is the falsehoods that appear plausible to the uninformed eye that are the most dangerous of all.

We must get the article right, and if the price is having to work a little harder to find sources, or accidentally removing too much material once in a while, then that's a price I'm more than willing to pay. --bainer (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That is well said. Teke 04:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why we are still talking about it. It has been said over and over that the issue is in taking a legitimate policy, and pressing it to obscene ends to make a point, disrupting Misplaced Pages in the process. All of those changes could have been made in a graceful, cooperative, collaborative manner effectively, without upsetting anyone. That would have required more time, more patience, and more adept listening skills, but it would have been done according to the way we have all agreed to deal with each. How many more times will Cyberanth disrupt Misplaced Pages, step on a dozen or more editors toes, and get away with it while well meaning wikipedia look aside quoting wikipedia policy. Many of you keep turning your attention away from the poor communication, poor cooperation and disruption to explain how some small part of that process of disruption was beneficial. It doesn't matter whether 1% or 99% of the edits were legitimate, the intentional act of disrupting is the topic, not the method used to disrupt and insult other editors. Cyberanth should have been blocked two weeks ago when he disrupted wikipedia, and he should have been blocked again this time — not blocked for four hours, and then unblocked by another admin who disagreed with the previous admin. Atom 04:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I admit to having an uninformed eye about Hank Aaron. CyberAnth 04:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a start, CyberAnth, if not a bit seemingly tongue-in-cheek. The objections that Atom, others and I have both been making is that there is being bold, which is good, and making a point, which is bad. Mixing up the two, which happened here, causes conflict and controversy and devolves the discussion into vague arguments where we're all trying to win. Thebainer pointed out good diffs, as most of them were (I have no comment on the rollbacks used). But there are instances in removing content where you know from experience that an edit summary, vague or explicit, will not suffice. Drop a note on the talk page before/after you do something like the Hank Aaron situation to get opinions. Without communication, both process and policy fail. It is a social interaction that builds the encyclopedia. I supported the block as preventative, at this point I support the unblock so that you may reply here. Either way, I think that the situation is done and there really is nothing more to say. Any other <reporter>alleged</reporter> abuse of admin tools does not relate to this thread directly. The storm has passed, happy editing to all. Teke 05:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason people read encyclopedias is because they have an uninformed eye. The reason we have WP:V is because of this. And please, please, please everyone stop trying to divine my motives with this inane "POINT" insinuation. You wanna know my motive? Here it is: WP:BLP CyberAnth 06:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm not trying to be unfriendly, really. You aren't getting it still. No one is trying to divine your motivations, we are describing the results of your actions. The results of your actions (very strict interpretation/application of policy) was disruption (stepping on editors toes, breakdown in communication). Because this is the second time it has happened, and caused great disruption, and your continued argument is based on application of policy, it may give the appearance that you are trying to make a POINT. Regardless of whether that is true, and regardless of whether your intent is pure, or not, the result is the same. If you could please consider listening to a wide variety of people who offered advice here this time, here during the last brouhaha, and on your user page – to communicate with the editors on the talk page, and give them time to respond before applying policy in the manner you choose. This effort to work with others will take you more time, and slow the process, but the result will be the desired result (improvement of the article through additional citations, and removal of OR material) while at the same time using the consensus based approach that is the foundation of Misplaced Pages. I believe that most Misplaced Pages editors would say that an environment with more consensus and communication, at the cost of taking more time resolve loose ends in articles is preferred. Most of us vary somewhat from the median within a few standard deviations in how we communicate in working through issues. My opinion is that the result of your actions gives the appearance that you deviate substantially further than that. Enough so to outrage, upset and disrupt large numbers of otherwise reasonable and easy-going editors on multiple occasions. Moving from the bulldozer in the china shop to the bull in the china shop would be an improvement. As always, I wish you well. Atom 18:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Administrator's code of conduct?

I am the person who reverted CyberAnth's original edit to the Guantanamo captive. I disagree with User:bainer on the appropriateness of the original bold excision, and his or her repeat of that bold excision. I replied to his or her warning on the talk page. I tried my best to be civil in that reply. And I tried my best to be civil in a note I left on his or her talk page.

I found the tone of the warning bainer left on the talk page inflammatory. It puzzled me, because I don't believe we have ever encountered one another before. And when I looked into bainer's contribution history, I was alarmed. The use of scornful language, the warnings in bold —— was I at risk of a sudden sanction?

I don't know if you administrators have a code of conduct you all agree to.

• If you don't have one, I urge you to develop one.
• If you do have one, I urge you to make it more prominently known.

1. After some experience with grumpy or high-handed administrators I would urge you all to agree not to exercise your administrator privileges if you don't have the patience to attempt to make a civil answer to a civil question. If you don't have the time or energy to be patient to those who pose civil questions about your exercise of authority, then you don't have the time or energy to exercise your authority, and you should leave whatever raised your concern to other administrators who do have the time and energy to be civil.
2. Remember, if you leave scornful warnings the ordinary users to whom you addressed them have no way of knowing whether you might make a sudden rogue exercise of authority.
   1. It would probably be best if you refrained from making any warnings whatsoever, unless you really were considering using your administrator's authority.
   2. In that case you need to agree on the way in which you will inform the correspondent you are warning that you have administrator authority, and are considering using it..
   3. If you have already participated in a thread, particularly if you had made even a small lapse from civility, you should consider taking off your administrator hat, recusing yourself, and asking another administrator to take a look and see if they share your concern.

I spent some time, a day or two ago, looking at this particular thread, because material I had added was in one of the articles under discussion. I saw that this discussion grew heated. Now that I have returned to it, I have a theory as to why bainer used such inflammatory language while addressing me. My theory now is that bainer got heated after reading the heated exchange here, and unloaded some of that heat on in their warning to me.

Well, please don't do that gang. — Geo Swan 23:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Be Excellent to Each Other. Teke 02:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

An appeal for help

I've put an appeal for help fixing some of the artivles more seriously affected by Cyberanths actions here. I don;t really know where else to put it, but I feel that whether or notCyberAnths actions and motiations are good it seems reasonable this kind of thing should be flagged so that there's a chace for the articles to be improved rather than just truncated. Artw 18:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Hildanknight and User:Dev920

I don't know the history between these two, but the history of Dev920's talk page shows some major incivility going on. Looks like a concerted effort by Hildanknight to go on a personal crusade against Dev920 (see also Dev's recent RFA), and he's been warned. Admins should probably watch the situation and block if necessary. – Chacor 02:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Final warning left. --Coredesat 02:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, I just went to Hildanknight's userpage, and see that it has a semi-protected tag on it. I checked at WP:RFP and WP:PP, and did not see his

He blanked his talk page and said on his userpage that he lost all hope on Misplaced Pages. Terence Ong 09:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If he has lost faith in Misplaced Pages because he was warned for violating WP:CIV, WP:NPA and for removing an administrator's comments from somebody's talk page, then I would suggest he doesn't really understand policy and procedures here. Jeffpw 09:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, so be it. Its his decision to just throw in the towel. Terence Ong 09:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

To be honest with you, I had no idea of the history between me and Hildanknight, but I've done some digging and it seems he was a fervent Esperanzan who I've had some interaction with here - I said that the idea of a wikiorganisation's members giving up their right to determine consensus among themselves to an elected seven member council was "a fucking stupid idea" in response to something Ed said (who I am on good terms with). Hildanknight seems to have taken it as a personal attack on all Experanzans everywhere, and pursued me ever since wherever he finds me, saying that I value truth above civility, that I'm the most incivil person ever to have walked the wiki, and that I'm anti-Muslim, none of which are true. I didn't really think much of it until he started leaving mean comments on my talkpage, taunting me because my RfA failed. Which is outright nasty, as I'm sure you will agree. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Dev920, my use of the phrase "anti-Muslim comments" was commenting on the content, not the contributor. I did not say that you were anti-Muslim, and I certainly never said that you were "the most incivil person ever to have walked the wiki". I did make a comment that "Dev920 stated that civility is less important than truth" (I recall you saying something to that effect, but if I'm mistaken, I'll apologise). I did not "pursue ever since wherever " - I regularly lurk on RFA, but only vote if I know the candidate. I opposed because of your incivility (both the "f***ing stupid idea" comment and other examples others pointed out) and willingness to engage in people politics (nominating Esperanza for deletion and setting up the Conservatives project).

The "Whew! The Internet still doesn't suck." part of my comment on User talk:Dev920 was borderline incivil, but wasn't a personal attack. Hence, I don't think Dev920 should have removed the comments with an edit summary accusing me of "spewing bile", which Crazytales agreed was incivil, and I don't think Coredesat's "final warning" for personal attacks was warranted.

I've lost all hope in Misplaced Pages, not for the reasons Jeffpw provided, but because the community has become more hostile since Esperanza's deletion, and because my strongest pursuit - writing articles - is hindered by strict verifiability requirements (finding references on Singaporean topics is very difficult, due to systemic bias). --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you continue to defend unacceptable behaviour from you (or anyone!) says a lot. – Chacor 15:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that saying "Whew! The Internet still doesn't suck." after someone just had the disapointment of a unsuccesful RfA is more than "borderline incivil"; it is very uncivil, it is also exceedingly mean-spirited. "I've lost all hope in Misplaced Pages, not for the reasons Jeffpw provided, but because the community has become more hostile since Esperanza's deletion"...yes, Misplaced Pages has become more hostile. Your comments to Dev show that. Thε Halo 15:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comments to Dev said it all. Your unacceptable behaviour cannot be denied. Since when the community has become more hostile since ESP's deletion? Rubbing salt into the wound and making uncivil comments and personal attacks is not a good thing to do and its uncivil. Terence Ong 10:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... it looks like Hildanknight has filed an RFC on himself. I'm concerned, however, that he again hides behind WP:BITE by saying something along the lines of "don't bite me for messing up" - WP:BITE refers to uncivil comments against newcomers that may drive them away. – Chacor 14:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the WP:BITE remark was only for mistakes he might make in the RFC filing itself. He says this RFC is modeled after Kelly Martin's of last year. I would WP:AGF on this. I think he truly wants to improve himself here. Jeffpw 16:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Violation of NO LEGAL THREATS by User:DeanHinnen

I think though this is mentioned in another entry above, it deserves consideration on its own.

Attorney Dean Hinnen has the following legal threat on his user page;

"My entire purpose here is to protect Misplaced Pages from being sued for libel,

and Misplaced Pages administrators understand that. Free Republic has already successfully sued the City of Fresno for libel, winning a $60,000 out-of-court settlement and also costing the City of Fresno maybe $100,000 in attorney fees (maybe a lot more; lawyers in Southern California are expensive). So they're inclined to litigate.

The Free Republic article is being edited and "owned" by some very reckless partisans from a rival left-wing site named Democratic Underground. They don't care whether Misplaced Pages gets sued. What's important to them is making sure that the most derogatory material about Free Republic that exists anywhere on the Internet either becomes part of the article, or is linked to the article. They are defending it with a fanaticism that reminds me of Iwo Jima.

If Misplaced Pages gets sued, there will be a dozen administrators stripping every defamatory statement and reference out of the article and blocking the editors responsible, and I'll be saying, "I told you so." But by then it will be too late. If I can succeed in getting this material removed, I'll take your advice and start editing other articles. Thanks for looking out for me. But I'm looking out for Misplaced Pages. Cheers. Dino 14:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)}}"

This is a threat because he also appears to represent Free Republic in legal matters, and so is saying here (as I read this) 'do not put things I object to in the Free Republic article, or we will sue you.'

Now, he says it is no threat, and that he is here for reasons of pure altruism.

But I think it is more like when the mob sends people around to your place of business and says "Nice soda shop you have here. It would be a SHAME if something HAPPENED to it."

Now, he has threatened me with getting me blocked forever for mischaracterization. And maybe he will, though I am not attempting to mischaracterize anything at all. This is just how I read what I see here and how I react to this and his pattern of other statements and actions. If you want to make this into a mischaracterization and send me packing, fine. But I think this person is a danger to Misplaced Pages, and needs to be warned in the sternest of terms not to threaten and bully his way through content disputes. I wish I could let this matter drop, but my sense of duty demands that I try to do something about it. --BenBurch 17:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a legal threat to me.--MONGO 17:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Any chance of a source or other evidence for "he also appears to represent Free Republic in legal matters"? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I'd just hit the Edit tab to ask the same question. Where does that assertion come from? JDoorjam JDiscourse 17:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There was discussion of the Free Republic talk page by User:BryanFromPalatine whom checkuser recently (on Friday) said has a pattern of edits consistent with being a sock puppet of User:DeanHinnen about his filing legal briefs on their behalf in the Free Republic vs LA Times lawsuit. Now he claims that Bryan is is brother, so there is *some* doubt in this matter. But his edits and concerns have been exactly like those of his brother, Bryan, and so if they are not they same person they are acting in collusion. And so if Dean is not himself a lawyer for FR (though I asked him and he did not deny it) he is relaying a threat from his brother. At least that is how I read this issue. I'm trying to let you know every doubt I have here so he cannot say I am mischaracterizing it. --BenBurch 17:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Definitive proof of him being FR's lawyer posted from unblock-l - see below. --BenBurch 18:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You would think a lawyer would know that a lawsuit would be unlikely. Regardless, it seems to me an attempt to gain influence through legal intimidation. However I think a warning and an education on how we deal with dispute resolution would be more productive than a block. HighInBC 17:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

A stern warning is all I am asking for here. He, on the other hand, wants me blocked forever. --BenBurch 18:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If he's not a lawyer for FR, I'm not sure how it's a legal threat. Also, BenBurch and this user have been sparring for a little while (see this thread), and there's an undercurrent of political disagreement as well. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't deny that we have a history. So I am trying to be very careful here. His brother sockpuppeted his way around block here, and Dean was initially blocked as being Bryan's sock puppet. I think he still is, but people may disagree with me on that. --BenBurch 18:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree with the interpretation as a legal threat. I have looked at the Talk:Free Republic page, and do see a lot of tendentious editing. Ben in particular seems to make intemperate remarks there (I plan to totally ignore any comments here by User:DeanHinnen and in fact, to totally ignore his existence henceforth. He can say whatever he wishes to say about this article, but I will edit it as though he never had said a word. --BenBurch 17:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)). I am concerned that a content dispute is being carried over to WP:ANI. Jeffpw 18:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I said that. I was being uncivil and have apologized for it. (Which apology Dean accepted) --BenBurch 18:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

From Ublock en L

Luna lunasantin at xxx Sat Jan 20 22:27:15 UTC 2007

Previous message: Request to unblock Next message: Fwd: Please unblock my Misplaced Pages account Messages sorted by:

"Like Misplaced Pages, Free Republic is run by volunteers.I am one of those volunteers, Im part of the Free Republic legal team. I mentioned the TJ Walker article, however I most certainly did not impersonate him. I can only conclude that after I spoke with Carolyn the first time, she called TJ Walker herself and made a determination as to its authenticity and accuracy. Carolyn encouraged me to just open a Misplaced Pages account and remove the libelous material myself. I indicated to Carolyn, based on my review of the article and its Talk pages, that such an action would be like taking a stroll on the beach ... in Normandy on June 6, 1944. That remark has proven to be prophetic.

As I've done with other websites in similar circumstances, rather than edit the material myself (and be called a vandal), I encouraged Carolyn to enforce her own policies on her own website." Fairness & Accuracy For All 18:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware of that statement. OK. So he *is* FR's lawyer. --BenBurch 18:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

He 'claims' to be. I suppose someone could verify that with JimRob. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 18:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to accept his statement on its face because otherwise he would have lied to the people at the unlock list, and I know he would never have done that. --BenBurch 19:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not Free Republic's retained counsel; I'm just a volunteer. I receive nothing in return for my efforts except a measure of satisfaction now and then. BenBurch has chosen to engage in a campaign of misrepresentation, deliberately misconstruing my statement that I'm attempting to AVOID litigation, into a threat that I will CAUSE litigation. I don't know how I could state this with greater clarity: I am trying to protect Misplaced Pages. BenBurch and his ally, FAAFA, are being extremely reckless in pursuit of their partisan agenda: to smear Free Republic with libelous accusations that have already been withdrawn from publication by the original sources. Jim Robinson has proven to be litigious, winning $60,000 in a settlement of a libel suit against the City of Fresno.

Would someone here please get this individual off my back? Dino 19:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It matters not at all that you work Pro Bono you are still on the legal team. --BenBurch 19:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Tricky. He is a lawyer and seems to be restricting himself to Talk, other than two edits (one of which removed a citation and replaced it with {{fact}}, the other removed the entire para). Is there a problem needing fixing, disruption for example? Guy (Help!) 19:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Guy, I do think he is being quite disruptive. We were working hard on making the FR article a good NPOV article with RS-V sourcing and I was looking for POSITIVE things about FR to add to it prior to his return from his block. --BenBurch 19:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ben is correct. I recently researched, compiled, wrote and added significant a amounts of info that reflects only positively on FR - About Tony Snow being a member, the Dixie Chicks 'crediting' FR for the boycott against them ('speaking to their power and influence' is what I first wrote), and even how FR prevailed over Code Pink - running them off from Walter Reed hospital. Dino is mischaracterizing the siutation entirely. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 19:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Dino, regardless of your intentions, posting a comment stating that you are a part of the FR legal team and stating that you are here to prevent wikipedia getting sued, like someone else did, is what we class as a legal threat. It has the implication that if we don't do something then there will be a lawsuit brought against the site.

Stop threatening legal action. Also, I would advise looking at WP:COI with regards your involvement in the organisation. If there are legal issues you wish to discuss I would advise your organisation to contact the foundation directly. Any actions accompanied with what we see as threats are liable to get you blocked.-Localzuk 19:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to the topic (arbitrary section break)

Getting back to the topic without all the unnecessary bolding and blindingly colorful text, here was my original assessment of the message on DeanHinnen's userpage, from an above thread:

May I casually ask why, DeanHinnen, is there a seemingly legal notice on your userpage? --physicq (c) 01:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

After reading all of this, do you really have to ask? Dino 02:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because the notice on your userpage can be construed as a violation of WP:NLT, subtle though it may be. --physicq (c) 02:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean "misconstrued," don't you? May I cordially direct your attention to the big, bold, green lettering across the top of that page? Dino 02:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

And indeed I have read the big, bold, green lettering across the top of that page, and I thank your courtesy. I have also read in between the lines, and find that my use of "construed" is correct, as though the message is not worded as such, it can be considered, in my opinion, as a subtle violation of WP:NLT, semantics notwithstanding. --physicq (c) 05:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Construed, misconstrued, it should come down. I don't see it as a clear violation of NLT (which would more or less mandate a block), but it's too close for comfort, and frankly it comes across as hostile as well. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Derive your conclusions as necessary. And BenBurch and FAAFA, please get back on topic, and hold your fire for another, more pertinent, thread. Your comments seem to only distract attention from the necessary matter at hand; that is, that the message on DeanHinnen's userpage is a violation of WP:NLT, if I may rehash my comments repeatedly without losing context. --physicq (c) 19:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I plan to do JUST that, my friend. I have wasted enough of my limited time on this planet on this already. Thank you. --BenBurch 19:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, good then. I thank you for your self-control. --physicq (c) 19:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like Dino to document his claim that Jim Robinson is 'litigious'. I can find no cases other than Claridge suit and the Fresno 'hate group' settlement. Fred Phelps has filed 100's of cases. That's 'litigious'. Considering the things written about Free Republic, such as this article American Politics Journal (which is the same publication that Dino 'claims' he got to pull a 'libelous' article) I see no proof. (I'll bow out for a while too, This has become very time consuming - and I have laundry and cleaning to do) - Fairness & Accuracy For All 20:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like Dino to document his claim that Jim Robinson is 'litigious'. is exactly the sort of comment that doesn't belong on AN/I. It has nothing to do with the matter at hand and is not something that requires admin attention at all. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the statement on the page is very close to a legal threat even if it isn't one (and it reads to me like it is so close that it doesn't make a difference). This would be unacceptable even if the individual in question didn't identify as being part of their volunteer legal team. As it is, this is so over the line it isn't funny. The statement should be removed or the user blocked until he agrees to remove it. This is no --partial and unsigned comment by User:JoshuaZ

User:DeanHinnen has voluntarily removed the above statement Still on talk page.

That closes this matter. Thank you Dean for obeying our rules. --BenBurch 01:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• I see that this statement still exists on his talk page' - I have asked him nicely to remove it from there, too. --BenBurch 01:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

As has been said earlier, we can argue for a little while on whether or not there is an underlying legal threat with what's left on the user page but the fact is that it's too close for comfort. It reads like an appeal to (legal) authority, it's hostile and it's quite simply unnecessary. Please remove it and let's all move on. Pascal.Tesson 03:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he is reading this page. You might have to ask him directly. --BenBurch 18:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Another implication of legal action

Dino posted this to me today - after being warned about threatening legal action;

• "But by scouring the Internet until you found a cached copy and fighting tooth and nail to keep it linked here, you ensure that the libel is distributed by Misplaced Pages. Therefore you place Misplaced Pages at risk". Dino 12:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC) LINK

This is in reference to a claim that isn't even in the article anymore, hasn't been for days, and won't be again until the noted author who wrote it verifies that he stands behind it! (and maybe not even then) - Fairness & Accuracy For All 20:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Were you finally able to contact him? I thought of calling him up but I am SO reluctant to bother folks over online disputes like this. --BenBurch 21:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to the article in dispute - http://web.archive.org/web/20000303144134/http://tjwalker.com/7-6-99.htm --BenBurch 21:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

AND HERE (also TODAY)

• "Ken, please help us out

• "The people who "own" the article now are putting Misplaced Pages at serious risk of a libel lawsuit from Jim Robinson, who has already been proven to enjoy suing people and organizations that say bad things about Free Republic. " LINK (remember, he claims to be a member of Free Republic/Jim Robinson's legal team, in a pro bono capacity)- Fairness & Accuracy For All 20:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

My Head Hurts

I just want all this to be over with. I didn't ever want to do more with the FR article than keep people from deleting properly sourced stuff and remove un-sourced stuff, and it has now turned into a three month waste of my time that I could have been working on other things here. --BenBurch 20:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Threat still on his User Talk Page.

He has announced a Wikibreak and left the threat where it originally stood on his user talk page. (The version on the user page was created after the one on the talk page.) How should this be dealt with? Wait for him to come back and trust that he will remove it? I have asked him on that page twice now to please remove the comment. I should not be the one asking, though as I only seem to goad him when I say anything to him. Will somebody else please take up this matter so I can finally drop it? --BenBurch 00:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Irpen reverting my edits

Someone please examine this. Note that Irpen has not attempted to discuss this matter in any way, he is simply revert-warring. --Ideogram 18:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• As are you, now. Certainly there should be talk page discussion before either of you are saying stuff like, "discuss or get blocks"; yet I don't see any evidence that you've ever used the talk page at all. --jpgordon 18:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have opened discussion. I hope you will advise Irpen to discuss. --Ideogram 18:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

How exactly am I to have a rational discussion with someone bent on proving I am a troll and that I am engaged in WP:POINT? --Ideogram 19:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Tough one, isn't it? But it's not Irpen you need to convince; you need to establish a consensus for your change among the other editors of the article. --jpgordon 19:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I will wait for them to weigh in, then. --Ideogram 19:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Irpen is continuing to revert war while refusing to discuss. Please advise. --Ideogram 04:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I am really sorry about this, but I'm not going to give in to Irpen. I'm making my third revert. --Ideogram 06:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted you. Controversial edits to pages such as WP:TROLL should never be done unilaterally. They should get consensus first. Khoikhoi 06:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain why you are willing to revert but you are not willing to join the discussion to help build consensus? --Ideogram 06:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really feel like getting involved, as your edit didn't appear to be made in good faith anyways. As another user pointed out on the talk page, "This seems unnecessary and oddly specific to a situation you are currently dealing with." Khoikhoi 06:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think revert warring, in fact I think reverting without discussion, is not a good policy. There is no consensus for change on the page, clearly, so Ideogram ought not to have reinserted the same changes, but I think Irpen might have at least popped in to say that rather than just reverting. That said, Ideogram has been cautioned by many to cool it in several different areas. THAT said, I'm not sure I support Blnguyen's block log and support Aaron's unblock. Ideogram does need to reel back, a lot, though. Hope this is the right thread! ++Lar: t/c 11:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

To try and modify a policy just because it fits a situation you're currently dealing with is a pretty poor way to deal with policies. It is therefore not surprising that you're reverted. -- Grafikm 11:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with that and think that the proposed change, whatever the merits, isn't likely to stick now, consensus seems against it. What I'm saying though, is that I am not sure (I could be misreading the logs) that warning, then blocking without any intervening issues, will be be the best approach, which is why I support Aaron's unblock and ALSO think Ideogram has some thinking to do (see my talk page, i was asked to comment to Ideogram) and ALSO think that Irpen could have piped up on the talk page a little instead of just reverting. Hope that's clear. Sorry if not! ++Lar: t/c 15:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

See also User_talk:Ideogram#Bright_line_violations..._and_the_rest where this is also discussed ,Brenny explains why he unblocked and further cautions Ideogram on how to edit effectively. ++Lar: t/c 15:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I have made my point sufficiently elsewhere so I will not prolong this argument. I realize I have made mistakes and I can only ask all parties concerned to AGF. --Ideogram 01:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Shadowbot removing links to Flickr

• User:Shadowbot has been removing external links to Flickr (specifically from Vulcan statue and Heaviest Corner on Earth) and justifying its edits by referring to Misplaced Pages:External links. The guideline has nothing specific to say about linking to Flickr and therefore I think the decision to include or remove a link should be made by a human editor. The bot referred to a spam blacklist when it reverted my restoration of the deleted links. I have not found Flickr.com listed on any spam blacklist at wikimedia.org. I do not appreciate being called a spammer for trying to improve Misplaced Pages by preserving useful external links. --Dystopos 00:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If images on Flickr are useful, then they really should be uploaded to Commons, or locally here. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that whatever your opinion, the the current consensus is described at Misplaced Pages:External links. I believe that the links to Flickr satisfy criterion 3 of "what should be linked." ("Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Misplaced Pages article due to copyright issues, amount of detail...or other reasons") without violating any of the criteria of "links normally to be avoided." Should Shadowbot be enforcing a personal opinion, or the consensus guideline? And if a human editor with a long history of positive contributions reverses the automated and unsupported decision of a bot, how much patience should he show with having his considered changes reverted and being accused of spamming? --Dystopos 00:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The liscening that we allow for external links is much broader than that we would allow on commons or here which need to generally be GFDL or certain creative commons types. There is no policy related reason to remove these links as far as I can see. Unless there are concerns with the images regarding their copyright statuses (and neither image in question seems to have any obvious copyvio issues) there isn't a reason to remove the links. JoshuaZ 00:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, to respond to Dystopos, I am not the one that put that rule on the bot, just some guy with an opinion. Secondly to reply to JoshuaZ, it is my impression the Flickr is unmoderated and as such the copyright status of the pictures cannot be reliably ascertained. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion, however I do not see that it is germane to my complaint about the bot undermining the efforts of good editors, overstating a policy to justify itself, and accusing people of spamming. --Dystopos 00:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Even if the current revision WP:EL doesn't happen to strictly forbid something, we do still get to use common sense. Links to Flickr "photo pools" are just image galleries. As has been pointed out, we have our own media repository. There's no more reason to link to these than there would be to someone's personal photos hosted on their own website. As for the unrelated issue of the licensing status of Flickr images, please see commons:Commons:Flickr for how we currently deal with this. Jkelly 00:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and see no reason links to Flickr need to be allowed. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 00:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you really want to start the YouTube war again? Blanket statements like yours are the sort of thing which make it rather easy to assume bad faith. Argyriou (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Leaving that issue aside for a moment, it seems like Shadowbot could use a tweak on civility. Of course, it's hard for a bot to figure out what a good faith edit is but since it can't, shouldn't it avoid posting stern warnings like this which stop assuming good faith? Pascal.Tesson 03:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• If Flickr links shouldn't be allowed, I believe that matter should be taken up with the published guideline. It should not be a judgment call enforced by a bot in the face of human editors. To leave the situation unchanged is to assume bad faith by human editors and good faith by bots when a judgment call is made regarding linking policy. --Dystopos 04:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If thats the case, AntiVandalBot and VoABot II need a looking at too. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 04:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, the bottom line is that WP:EL doesn't support this and imposing policies by bot is not good. Second, even given the unmoderated nature of Flicker that's not a reason by itself to not link to it. The consensus on on WP:EL for some time has been not to link to obvious or likely copyvios. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't link to pages that don't have copyright info if they are likely to have copyright permission. There's no moral, ethical, policy or pragmatic reason to do so and there are obvious strong downsides. JoshuaZ 15:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion out of process

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

Steel359 (talk · contribs · count) has deleted Template:Afdclose. This template did not meet criteria for speedy deletion per WP:CSD. I am requesting undeletion (unless this action is wheel warring) or advice on recreation and a proper listing at TfD per WP:CSD. As I am unsure exactly how to proceed, any advice would be appreciated. Note: I am the original author of this template, they is the limit of the interest I hold. Regards, Navou 02:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of this template? —Centrx→talk • 02:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is another 'warning template' this time for throwing boilerplate at naughty admins who don't quite follow follow someone idea of 'process'. Feed it to the ducks!--Doc 02:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It was designed as a reminder template. Not a warning. Additionally -

• I think the discussion is going to follow a certain tone; perhaps this template was inappropiate. Learn something new everyday. Regards, Navou 02:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If Steel359 isn't going to reverse himself (and I'd hope he would), you can always go to deletion review. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Whenever I spot something where a closure might have been slightly wrong, or whatever, but a deletion review is not warranted, I tend to bring it up with the closing admin. Most times, they will happily admit they forgot to do something, or whatever, and will modify things accordingly. Personal interaction is better than template-spaghetti. Carcharoth 02:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I am in agreement. In retrospect; the template is not needed and perhaps inappropiate. Navou 02:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Closing thread Navou 02:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Please review my block

Dear fellows, following User:Biophys accuses and his reverting of the article on Boris Stomakhin I was arbitrarily blocked by English speaking user William Connolley who based his decision on the conclusion of Jkelly.. It is evident that they cannot validate statements of Biophys that I have violated BLP. Is the court sentence is enough reliable source? Official Court Sentence on Russian language dated 20.11.2006 This is now the most important matter in the dispute. By the way, if we would apply the same criteria to Stomakhin supporters statements they should be deleted too since they contradict to official materials, news articles and so on. Biophys wants only his sources to be in the article. It is evident he doesn't consent to any version made by Alex Bakharev, me or Mikka. User: Vlad fedorov.

The correct procedure here is to request an unblock, which you have done, and then e-mail the blocking admin. You are far more likely to get a favorable result that way. this could be considered block evasion and result in an extension of your block. MartinDK 09:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see. But the block itself is dubious. The reference for which I was blocked was inserted by other user, I have corrected the reference. I was practically blocked for other user who linked particular phrase in the article to other source which is disputed. Second thing, it is evident that administrator who blocked me just accepted the POV of one person and blocked me, because he can't actually evaluate Russian sources. He blocked me without evaluating any evidence of my wrongdoing which is contrary to blocking policy, he just relied on phrase of other - Jkelly - user, who also is incompetent in Russian. It is evident that both these individuals violated Blocking policy which requires administrators to review the causes before blocking. Vlad fedorov.

Here is the procedure from Misplaced Pages policy

Once you are convinced that a block is warranted, the recommended procedure for controversial blocks is:

1. Check the facts with care.

2. Reread appropriate parts of Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy.

3. Contact other administrators to sanity-check your reasoning, preferably on ANI.

4. After receiving feedback, place the block, wording the "reason" message with care and without jargon, and include a link to the user page of the user being blocked.

5. Place a notice of the block on the talk page of the affected user, with additional rationale, outlining the facts and the part of the blocking policy you feel applies.

6. Stay around to discuss the block with other Wikipedians.

7. If an act or acts of disruption do not warrant a 24-hour block, consider a warning or posting to ANI before issuing a short term block. (Someone may well block them longer than you would have!)

8. If in doubt, don't block.

The content dispute has already been debated here. Usually 24 hour blocks aren't brought here for review and especially not when they are being invoked as a result of a decision on AN/3RR. I agree though that this appears to be something that needs the attention of someone neutral who a capable of reading these documents. But that is a content matter and not something for ANI to discuss. MartinDK 10:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that neither Jkelly, or William Connolley have provided any explanations. I would like to know what action could be taken against them? Vlad fedorov

I would like to note that I was blocked allegedly 'for violation of living persons biography' and not for 3RR. Therefore it is appropriate place for me to complain see the talk page for User: Vlad fedorov. Vlad fedorov

In case there's confusion about the this, I declined to block User:Biophys here, after taking a look at edits like this which were being reverted. Saying of an article subject "He also criticized Russian government in defamatory and obscene statements." without source, as if this was Misplaced Pages's position on the matter, is both terrible editing and prohibited by our Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living people policy. As for User: Vlad fedorov's being blocked, I think that William Connolley showed good judgement in doing so. Mr. Fedorov clearly should not be editing that article; his feelings about the subject appear to be interfering with his ability to write a well-sourced, neutral article in collaboration. Finally, I don't know why Mr. Fedorov is complaining about the block, given that it clearly didn't stop him from editing the article, which is now currently in its BLP-violating version. Jkelly 18:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

...further comments here. Jkelly 18:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Further comments. User: Vlad fedorov continue violating LP policy, so I had to revert his changes. Main problem is a single citation taken from two unreliable sources and used for defamation of a living person. The source is unreliable because (a) the cited article is not dated (worse than blog); (b) the text of the article (Russian language) is clearly different when compared from two different unreliable sources; (c) the site has no any editorial oversight; (d) the cited text is ridiculous (someone asks Chechehn fighters to start nuclear war against Russian Federation). There are also other problems. None of other users (except Vlad Fedorov) ever disputed my arguments. See also Living persons notice board. Therefore, I ask you to block User: Vlad fedorov permanently from editing article Boris Stomakhin if he continue inserting this citation or other defamatory materials. Biophys 17:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Also see User_talk:William_M._Connolley#Block_of_User:Vlad_fedorov. Biophys 18:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcoming new users as vandals

Kok1989 (talk · contribs) is purposely welcoming all users with a vandal warning message. He's using a complex system by having his monobook.js replace {{subst:welcome}} with that message so he obviously knows what he's doing. It seems he's one of a few who have been doing this recently. I think a straight ban is in order. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 09:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Done. - Mgm| 09:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandal bot - Fake warnings, uses script to infect other account to do his job

As previously reported to the help desk, I think, this user is at it again. This time under the name Kok1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He uses scare tactics to get someone to copy his vandal script to their js-file. We should get one of the antivandal bots to recognize this (or have someone put a regexp. in VandalProof. Can someone help me cleanup his 'contributions'? - Mgm| 09:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Should be done. Titoxd 09:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Can someone think of an easy check to see if anyone actually did create the page as the vandal demanded. I already deleted one. - Mgm| 09:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There is also a brief discussion of this at WP:AN#False Welcome of New Users. FreplySpang 11:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I added a warning to MediaWiki:Clearyourcache(which shows on all .js and .css pages) so that should reduce the amount of people actually copying this or future worms using this method. A couple other admins tweaked it, and one copied it to commons. HighInBC 21:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the change to clearyourcache, and had to set it to display:none because the giant red type was so obnoxious. The more recent version with a grey background is better.

Here is a more helpful comment. It would be better if the warning gave users a place to inquire (maybe one of the reference desks) about whether the code they have been told to add is harmful. I think most people here view javascript as voodoo. CMummert · talk 02:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I am all for a place to inquire, not sure where an appropriate place would be. Javascript is voodoo, it can take over your browser on your account. I support any way you wish to improve the warning. HighInBC 13:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This is about as malicious as activity can get. The person in question should be checkusered and reported to their ISP or possibly relevant legal authorities in their jurisidiction. JoshuaZ 15:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Userpage

Looking through the inappropriate usernames noticeboard, I came across this. Does anyone disagree with blanking and warning? Not so much a soapbox as a lectern complete with microphone and big flags, IMHO. yandman 16:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Not I. I give a wide latitude on WP:USER, but this is a big old WP:SOAP from a user who doesn't have the community input here to have earned himself/herself a little leeway. Besides, the user basically admits to being a role account... ("...extended family may also be using this account").--Isotope23 16:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"from a user who doesn't have the community input here to have earned himself/herself a little leeway"?!?! This user has several hundred edits, sure nothing at all compared to some other people here but also at the same time nothing that you should turn your nose up at. Mathmo 02:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not turning my nose up at it, but sorry "several hundred edits" doesn't earn a free pass to bend the edges of WP:USER.--Isotope23 15:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a joke - the whole 'Official Dissowner' is just there to attack Muslims. Hut 8.5 18:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, i have agreed to change my username, and reform my userpage in a less provocative mannor, but could some wiki users please tell me specifically what i may/may not have on my page, by looking at my userpages history, rarther than just throwing guidelines at me which can be interprited in more than one way in a very aggressive manur. Please look at all of the items on a case by case basis, and note that some of them are CLEARLY intended to be jokes. --Boris Johnson VC 20:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Only some?! Nah, surely every one is, you playing Rome:Total War is just a joke right? Where is the verifiability of that you are a player of it?! Mathmo 02:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Joke or not, much of this in inappropriate. Page should remain blanked until user makes a more suitable one. pschemp | talk 03:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more.Proabivouac 03:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Intention is what matters, that is why we have WP:AGF. It is clear this is a joke which means the intention is not for this to be a serious matter to cause harm. Mathmo 04:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it is clear this is a joke. Boris Johnson VC may have intended it as such but what he sees as "tongue-in-cheek" may not appear that way to anyone else. ] I'll take him at his word that this was intended as a joke, but just looking at the page as it stood he may have very well been a WP:TROLL or POV pusher for all anyone knows. Besides, this isn't the Misplaced Pages comedy festival, we are trying to build an encyclopedia here and I don't see how his userpage was furthering that goal.--Isotope23 15:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing that out Mathmo, i certanly never intended to offend anybody, and i think this whole thing has been blown right out of proportion. Basically all i want to know is what stuff from my old user page i am allowed on my new userpage, as everybody seems to have different interpritations of the rules.

P.S. I have not user hate speach, or promoted nuclear war on Iran on the page, as some guy claimed. --Boris Johnson VC 15:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a good thing Boris that you are asking about what was innapropriate in there and willing to remove it. I am not sure if you've had a look at this yesterday but i am sure you already know about Misplaced Pages is not a blog, webspace provider, etc.... -- Szvest - 15:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

CSD backlog

I'm not sure if it's appropriate to post this here but I figured since administrators follow this area it would be. There's a pretty big backlog at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. The backlog would be much bigger except while all the time new pages are added, many people remove the CSD tags (from their own articles, instead of contesting the CSD) because no admin is quick enough to check the page that was marked for speedy deletion. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 17:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If someone is removing Speedy tags before an admin get to it, warn them... if they do it again report them. I'm working on CSD as quickly as possible while still making sure stuff isn't getting deleted because it is tagged wrong.--Isotope23 18:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

(currently zapping images) It'd be a lot smaller if we didn't let people upload images with unsuitable licences. What's the point when they are immediately autotagged for deletion under CSD I3? I ask you. Proto::► 18:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Because if they didn't have those I3 tags, they'd just upload them under an incorrect tag and create even more bloody work? 〈REDVEЯS〉 21:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You think it'd be more work? Who's to say the 'legit' images are all tagged correctly right now? Proto::► 23:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Take it up with Jimbo. Or write a new policy proposal. Grandmasterka 04:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User:GunnerMike89 acting as sock account for a friend

GunnerMike89 (talk · contribs) seems to be acting as a sock for a friend of his, or is himself that person, judging from , etc. The whole lot of them have been acting mildly disruptive in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Top gun mach 2. I'd probably opt for an immediate block, but should some sort of warning be issued first, considering that this may not be the same person? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the comments and blocked an IP that I know to belong to Claytonchilds89 unticking the box that sates "block anons only" if GunnerMike89 is editing from the same IP he won't be able to edit for a week. If not, well I told him to stop on his talk page and will block id he does it again or shows any moere interest in blocked accounts particpating in the AFD debate. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The precurser to this situation was discussed on a thread here on ANI last week arising from an indef block I gave to User:Claytonchilds89 (actually, I blocked him for authoring a series of what appeared to be vicious attack articles, although the subjects turned out to be fictional characters, "members" of the supposedly mythical but actually just hoaxical band that is the subject of the article). The AfD is headed to a foregone conclusion of delete and I considered speedying the article, but GunnerMike89 has indicated that if the article is deleted he's going to go away, plus when I saw this it was already days into the AfD and another user recommended that the process be completed to avoid drama, DRV, etc. Once the AfD is over I'd support (and issue) long-term blocks for any attempts at re-creating the hoax or any other nonsense. Newyorkbrad 02:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Primal Therapy

I had a lenghty (two weeks) discussion (only the Paris issue, the PubMed section was solved) with user User:GrahameKing at Talk:Primal therapy about a sourced (albeit sensitive) section introduced by me he blanked weeks ago.

After a lenghty discussion and a third party translation of the original source (in Spanish), we were unable to reach an agreement (I want the essential contents from that source to be present, he wants nothing from that source to be present), so I proposed a RfC. GrahameKing agreed .

Next , I propose him a text for the RfC ... and the next thing he does is to blank the whole two weeks discussion from the TalkPage invoking Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources.

I ask for an administrator to tell him/me what´s next.

I do not know if this is relevant: A message I received about User:GrahameKing

Randroide 18:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

UNATTENDED issue

The issue is still UNATTENDED. Plase remove this sub-section once you are going to attend it.Randroide 08:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Unblock Raspor

Raspor wants to come back to Misplaced Pages. Geo. 20:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

How's about a little foreplay first? —bbatsell ¿? 20:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey now. .V. 21:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Geo requested the same thing one week ago exactly on AN. The thread is here. Daniel.Bryant 21:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

He may do. I just think that we don't want Raspor here, and there are good reasons as to why. Moreschi 13:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That went nowhere. I have been in contact with Raspor and he is pretty desperate. He is willing to stay off ID and ID related articles, submit to mentorship, and probation. Worst case scenario, you get to laugh at stupid me. Geo. 01:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Goa Inquisition

User:Tango posted a few days ago asking for someone to take a look at Goa Inquisition. I'd like to second this. I don't think anyone's broken the 3RR, but there's a lot of revert warring. The general tone on the talk page is fairly uncivil. There's also the possibility of sockpuppetry--Xandar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appears to also be editing as 212.140.128.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and his main opponent in the revert war is Rumplestiltskin223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who was recently (and inconclusively?) said to be a sock of the banned user Hkelkar. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There's only one three hour block on Xandar's record and that wasn't very recent. So unless the IP was active during that time it would be difficult to establish a case for sockpuppetry. Try WP:SSP if you haven't been there already. The allegation of block evasion by Hkelkar is more substantial. Could you present a circumstantial case with specific evidence? Due to the time lapse checkuser isn't a likely option. The dispute at this article shouldn't have continued this long. Durova 23:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the contribs of Xandar and 212.140.128.142 clearly suggest they're the same person. The only edits these accounts have made in recent days are to Goa Inquisition, and both accounts share the same attitude towards the "hate speech" in the article. However, I don't think there's any policy violation, since he's avoided 3RR--so it would be hard to say there's abusive sockpuppetry going on. The problem is more that his (alleged) use of the IP contributes to the sniping and distrust on the page.

As for Rumple, I don't have an opinion myself whether he's evading a ban or not, but the matter was discussed previously here. There also seems to be a relevant thread below.

By the way, WP:SSP isn't very useful right now, in my opinion, because of the tremendous backlog. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Rumplestiltskin223 has been blocked, but it looks like other users are taking his place in the revert war: . Any suggestions for dealing with this dispute? --Akhilleus (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User Fadix (ix)

To the attention of administrators: for some time now, a few users have been comitting recurring attacks on my persona, with one, Fadix (ix), being particularly obsessed and persisting with daily insults both on my Talk page and on other Talk pages. What started of groundlessly accusing me and another user of sockpuppetry (an allegation which I welcomed the interference of administrators to disprove the false claim) has been escalated by (ix) to personal insults, even threatening using one of our real life affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting our views (myself, like some other targets of (ix), post under our real full names, unlike my courageous attacker), and threats or actions which expose such Misplaced Pages editors as myself to political, religious or other persecution by government, my employer or any others -- all of which contradicts Wiki policy of civility and no personal attacks . At the same time (ix) is a self-professed liar -- "Do you want to know why I ended up here; I have lied" (in bold, 03:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC))

Here are examples of Fadix's unfounded and irrelevant to Misplaced Pages accusations: "The interesting is that both Adil and Tabib work with Azerbaijani political parties"

"to have published your crap in his newspaper" (04:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC))

"Tabib who's think thank is related with political parties on Azerbaijan are involved" (04:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC))

"you have not credibility to lose, since you don't have any", "since people like both of you have the credibility so low", "you bring the same BS Atabek brought" (21:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"Pathetic, some biggots have toyed with the credibility of this title" (21:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC))

I request that for the repeated insults and harassment, Fadix (ix) be dealt with with full extent of the Misplaced Pages rules. --AdilBaguirov 22:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Was User:Fadix warned to cease his behavior? If so, please provide the relevant diff. Thank you. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 22:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he was repeatedly warned in the course of several days, and has been before, last year, when he and his friends first started it. See for example: 1) "Fadix, stop your insults and harrassment, as well as all those baseless allegations." by AdilBaguirov 16:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

2) "This is a new all-time low by Fadix. Stop harassment and attacks". --AdilBaguirov 22:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

3) "Fadix, don't overheat yourself in the hollow pursuit, your witch hunt against me (I'd be interested to find out which political party do I allegedly work for, among other weird allegations) is nothing new, and very typical of you." --AdilBaguirov 04:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC) AdilBaguirov 04:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, here's the "legacy" of user Fadix: AdilBaguirov 06:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Request assistance regarding User:Derex

Hello, the User talk:Derex page is being used by its user to conduct a rather bizarre personal smear campaign against myself. Whenever, I try to engage him in a discussion and respond to his accusations he deletes my posts and threatens me not to return to his talk page or else he'll have me banned. I would be happy to stay away from this individual as I very much dislike him, but he has conducted research into 6 and 7 year old posts I made on a previous website and posted them on his user page in some weird attempt to discredit my work here at Misplaced Pages. Frankly, I find this all rather disturbing. He is entitled to his opinions and I am entitled to mine, so long as we do not put our opinions into the articles we write. To do what he is doing smacks of McCarthism or a witch hunt and needs to be quickly knocked down and knocked down hard. Thank you for your time. --Jayzel 22:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a diff link to back up your accusations? His user page redirects to his talk page and has done so for quite a while. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know. It is on the bottom of his talk page. See under the heading "research notes. references collated by Jayzel68" --Jayzel 22:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

OK I don't follow. Why don't you want those links on his talk page? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, because I find it creepy that a man who refuses to rationally hold a discussion with me and threatens to have me banned for responding to his smears would create a personal file on me on his User talk page? Comment on the article, not the editor, remember? --Jayzel 22:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this mic on? Additionally, he has made numerous personal attacks against me. If you look at his talk page history you will find comments such as "(rm extended jayzel troll ... i fed him, i regret it)" when he deleted my replys to him. --Jayzel 23:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I notified Derex of this ANI case.. Let us wait to see how he responds to your allegations. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we have to wait to see how he responds. All I want is my name removed from his talk page. Since when did it become acceptable for Users to create files on each other? By the way, here is the beiginning of our debate --Jayzel 23:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It's only asking for trouble to remove the links at this stage. Please wait. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm wwell I don't know why he linked to articles that you wrote years ago but merely linking to those articles is surely not that threatening. Can't you just avoid his talk page if he creeps you out? I can see there is no love lost between you two, it seems to me better if you just avoid one another. I don't know the back story of all this. How long has it been going on? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I should just remind everyone of Misplaced Pages policy: Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks

• Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.

• Threats or actions which expose other Misplaced Pages editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others.

• Posting a link to an external source that fits the commonly accepted threshold for a personal attack, in a manner that incorporates the substance of that attack into Misplaced Pages discussion, including the suggestion that such a link applies to another editor, or that another editor needs to visit the external source containing the substance of the attack. --Jayzel 01:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• • And this had been going on for a while. Here is a comment from Derex back in October 2006:

Let's suffice it to say that the main author of this article posted a previous version of to FreeRepublic with the title "TREASON OF BIBLICAL DIMENSIONS!". It's absolutely filled with innuendo and leading phrases. See this edit I just made for a good example. I used to think the facts were ok, but just a little overly-spun. However, I started factchecking another article by this author, and in at least 5 cases the refs did not actually say what the article said. It also has very serious WP:OR problems; it's an embarassment this made it to the main page. I think this thing needs to go before a peer review or something. Derex 23:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Cricket, cricket, cricket --Jayzel 00:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

User Derex is now using a puppet to revert factual and well-referenced information in the 1996 United States campaign finance controversy article. --Jayzel 00:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

User:NuclearUmpf (formerly User:Zer0faults)

NuclearZer0 has a history of tendentious editing on articles involving the War on Terrorism. A prior Arbcom case against him found that he has "engaged in editwarring and other disruptive editing" and has "failed to negotiate in good faith, engaging in repetitive assertions and circular logic". Since being placed on probation, he has notheless been blocked repeatedly for violations of policy. Now NuclearZer0 again resumed disruptive edit-warring on Iraq War and related pages.

In doing so, he has also falsely-cited a "25-2" poll which he knows is the result of vote-stacking. Two different administrators have declared that poll to be entirely invalid. . To my thinking-- citing a poll you know to be the result of vote-stacking is just as bad as actually engaging in the practice. Worse, in fact, because he's been warned repeatedly the poll was invalid, but continues to cite it, saying the two admins' opinon that the poll was invalid does not override the opinions of the 25 users who voted in it.

(I have also posted about this matter at Arbitration Enforcment)

Anything that can be done to help stop these behaviors would be greatly appreciated. --Alecmconroy 23:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Concur - I've observed this as somebody who has NOT edited these articles. He's been a problem. --BenBurch 23:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes ben sure this has nothing to do with your favorite noticeboard biting the dust? Where did GabrielF Conspiracy Noticeboard go? Please stop acting uninvolved. Whats next Tom Harrison or Tbeatty and Morton? How many GabrielF noticeboard people are going to leave "outside views" of how horrible I am? --NuclearZer0 23:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

To summon one of us you have to say one name three times, not three different names one time each. Tom Harrison 01:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• I was not a participant there AT ALL. Where did you get that idea? (I did vote that it ought to be deleted though, and that Gabriel F should be blocked for a LONG TIME for having created it.) --BenBurch 00:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

See how easy that was? Who is next? Ryan? --NuclearZer0 12:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Larry Darby

The Larry Darby article was stubbed by Shanel due to BLP issues and an OTRS complaint (OTRS ticket 2007012210000336). Selket is trying to restore information to the article using Misplaced Pages diffs and old revisions as sources. He reverts my attempts to remove the information and will not accept that a Misplaced Pages article cannot be used as its own source. I recommend someone else have a word with him. Frise 23:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've had a little word with him. Very simple, in this case. WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:V, WP:RS. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to figure this page's situation out. It looks like LarryDarby began editing his own entry, including some edits WAY out of Wikipolicy here, and including a number of legal threats against wikipedia, and then used the OTRS system to get it all removed. Then he's monitored the page to remove anything which while entirely factual, such cited information as his former party association, he now feels 'disparages' his character? and we're punishing an editor who is working to restore as much fully cited information as possible? Isn't this more or less gaming the system? If I'm wrong here, or should shut up and go away, please let me know. I really am confused by what I'm seeing in the edit histories. I understand that the OFFICE takes precedence, but in this case, I'm really not getting the situation. ThuranX 00:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely pleased with Larry Darby himself, actually. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 01:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been attempting to help source and npov the article. However, Darby continued to whitewash and push his POV using the sockpuppet User:BopBeBop (confirmed by checkuser). I have therefore blocked the sockpuppet and left a note about this sort of behavior. Note that Darby and his sock have made repeated personal attacks and uncivil remarks. Additional admin assistance would be appreciated. JoshuaZ 20:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

banned user trolling through sock/meatpuppetry

I have evidence to suspect that banned user Hkelkar is trolling again through either sock or meatpuppetry. This defence forum shows a user trying to recruit meatpuppets to engage in edit wars. If you look at the forum he provides clear instructions of how to edit on wikipedia.

Why do I suspect Hkelkar? Simple:

• He calls genocities History of Pakistan a "hate site".This is the accusation Hkelkar threw at me for visiting that same "hate site" when he was here on wikipedia.

Now if you look at Rumpelstiltskin223 (talk · contribs)'s edit patterns,he already knew how to edit for a "newcomer" which gives me the impression that he followed the instructions provided on the forum. Not only that but his edit patterns resemble that of Hkelkar.

This member on the forum stated he wrote the christians in Pakistan article in "retaliation" of Pakistani users edits on the Christians in India article.

I have no doubt that Rumpelstilskin223 is either Hkelkar or a meatpuppet following his instructions and doing his work for him.

)

Rumpelstilskin223 is already suspected of being Hkelkar's sockpuppet as many admins and users have concluded with solid evidence.Rumpelstilskin223 even removed a suspected sockpuppet tag from his userpage to avoid suspicion if you look at the history of his userpage.What's more is that he "hasn't" launched many personal attacks as Hkelkar did,which is actually not true.He attacked user:Szhaider in Urdu.Nadirali نادرالی

Regarding this user Nadirali. See the following concerning his rather vain attempts to recruit meatpuppets of his own from hate sites, engage in repeated revert-wars, get blocked and troll his own talk page with ethnic slurs and other objectionable material against admins. Check his block log and his talk page for this. Rumpelstiltskin223 00:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I am not a newcomer but have been on wikipedia for months. Also these posts about Nadirali and his gang of Pakistani Islamic Fundamentalists is really quite revealing: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive186#Wikipedia_and_PakHub Rumpelstiltskin223 00:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't make ad hominem attacks; you are stating that Nadirali is a sockpuppet, without providing evidence you yourself are not. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 00:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Where did I say he is a sock? he is a meatpuppet of blocked User:Unre4L and has been recruiting other meatpuppets at http://www.pakhub.info. See the ANI archive post I linked to above please. Rumpelstiltskin223 00:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Do you have any evidence that's you're not a sockpuppet of this user? I have no problem blockign if needed.--Wizardman 00:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No I am not anyone's sock/Meatpuppet.Unre4L contacted me BEFORE I posted on Pakhub.I do confess I made a few inappropriate comments sometime ago,but I am nobody's sockpuppet.If you're not satsfied with my claims,then ask checkuser to investigate on me.I have edited under my username from to Ip's:

• my home
• my internet class at school.

If there is evidence of me being a "sockpuppet",I'll be happy to recive a block.Nadirali نادرالی

He is not a sockpuppet but a meatpuppet. He has been coordinating an attack on wikipedia with Unre4L on http://www.pakhub.info. He has recruited other users such as User:MinaretDk who, I suspect, is the pakhub user "Nishan-e-Haider". I will present some inferences below to show why this is so:

This post in which minearetDk addresses Nadirali with intent to coordinate a wikipedia attack If you look at Rama's Arrow's post in the link to the AIV archive above, Nishan-e-Haider on pakhub clearly said that he had a dormant account on wikipedia which he plans to use to attack wikipedia articles, which is precisely what MinaretDk has been doing since he started (and got blocked for it too, if you check his block log).Rumpelstiltskin223 00:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually my warning was in response to your talk page entries on Persecution of Hindus where you accused me of being an Islamic fundementalist, and another user of being anti-Hindu. You've been vandalizing pages by deleting large ammounts of sourced text, so I responded on your talk page. I can't help that you annoy many people at the same time. I'm a Bengali, not a Pakistani, btw. MinaretDk 00:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahem... I don't think the burden of proof is on Rumpelstiltskin223 (although he could be dancing in the woods somewhere singing "nobody knows I'm Hkelkar" :) - no disrespect). Besides, that discussion is being carred out in a more orderly form in a previous ANI post - right now only this anonymous (blocked) user, Rumpel and Nadirali are tossing around accusations. Rama's arrow 00:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Do a checkuser if you must. In fact, a checkuser was done and it was established that there was no sockpuppetry at all . Rumpelstiltskin223 00:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

the abuse continues, with MinaretDk and nadirali coordinating a personal attack spree in my home page with rhetoric that is very similar to that of Nishan-e-Haider on pakhub (spurious accusations of "Hindu bias", so on and so forth,basically rhetoric characteristic of Islamic Fundamentalism, just like there are fundamentalist elements of many other religions trolling wikipedia, except that these users are getting away with it). Rumpelstiltskin223 00:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is continuing. You're vandalizing two pages I'm editing on by deleting large amounts of text. You're also attacking users on those two talk pages. Persecution of Hindus and 2002 Gujarat Violence. You're verbally assaulting too many people at the same time, and garnering responses for them. And then you complain. MinaretDk 00:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not throw random accusasions.If you look through the Pakhub forums,you'll see that Unre4L and I condemned Nishan-e-Haider's comments.As for me "coordinating" to attack you,where is the evidence that I "coordinated" with this other user you speak of?

Nadirali نادرالی

Hopefully we can stop this for a little while, I blocked Rumpel for an unrelated offense. If you guys can make productive edits and not fight over everything, then things will work out for the better.--Wizardman 00:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As moderator of Pakhub,I have access to other users IP adress.Would you like me to provide Nishan-e-Haider's IP adress?We can then compare it with this other user's IP adress if you like.Nadirali نادرالی

Minaret nobody is deleting anything. The definition of deleting is not reinstating portions of text that deal with the killing of Hindus. I have reason to suspect at least one of these users is related to an Islamofascist ip troll from the 87.xx range in England somewhere.Bakaman 03:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I am another witness of Rumpelstiltskin223 (talk · contribs) vandalizing Islam-Hindu related articles with pure NPOV proganda against Islam and Muslims. Please check Rumpelstilskin223 history and all the pages he edited and see what he wrote. I have following Rumpelstilskin223 work for some time, he doesn't care about making good, balance articles, he cares about making Muslims look bad. Tarikur 19:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The abuse continues under his new user name New identity

Following on from yesterdays racial, sectareian personal abuse and which has just been archieved see here

The abuse and policy violation continues. He has started posting under his new account New identity today and continues to break with the mediators requests and violate policy.

1. On the Thomas Begley page he continually make reverts, such as this, this and this despite being asked by myself, Logoistic and Weggie not t oand to discuss the issue.
2. Continues to break with mediation (full details above) by replacing Volunteer with member here, here, here and here. In these edit he did not just break with mediation but also deleted referenced material.
3. His vandalism is probably most evident here and here here
4. In additon to the above his abuse and personal attacks have continued. You can see the

User:Rumpelstiltskin223 's Pattern of Removing Warnings from His Talkpage

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

User:Rumpelstiltskin223 removes any editing warnings from talk page at whim, and also removes warnings that this is not appropriate. See the following: ,,,,,,.

Yet Rumpelstiltskin was aware, long before these edits, that this behavior is uncalled for; see Lemongoat's talk page here .

Not only is this behavior very hypocritical and in violation of rules, but it seriously obstructs the record of his warnings and issues of criticism. This behavior should not be tolerated. I think, in light of numerous warnings against this behavior, and the fact that he knew that it is wrong to remove warnings, admin action against him is called for. The Behnam 01:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Since when was it wrong to remove warnings? --physicq (c) 01:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have never seen anything permitting a unilateral warning removal. Consider . Would not exist if it isn't an issue. Besides, Rumpel himself acknowledges that removal is not acceptable. The Behnam 01:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right, but late to the party :) Rumpel has been blocked for disruptive editing. Rama's arrow 01:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be tacked onto his block time, unless his current block was for this very reason. The Behnam 01:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The block was for 2 3RR violations and incivility, but 1 week is substantial time anyway. Blocks are not punitive and thus are not designed as count-for-count measures. Rama's arrow 01:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I suggested because I recall extensions being handed out, but come to think of it, that was probably due to block evasion. The Behnam 01:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

I am another witness of Rumpelstiltskin223 (talk · contribs) vandalizing Islam-Hindu related articles with pure NPOV proganda against Islam and Muslims. Please check Rumpelstilskin223 history and all the pages he edited and see what he wrote. I have following Rumpelstilskin223 work for some time, he doesn't care about making good, balance articles, he cares about making Muslims look bad. Tarikur 19:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat similar is a group of Muslim editors wishing to denigrate Hindus.Bakaman 02:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Problems with BoxingWear

I’ve been having trouble with BoxingWear for a couple of weeks, mainly centering on the Rocky Marciano page. He has continually reverted my edits with no explanation given except calling them “vandalism” or “terrorism” .

He also has a habit of leaving disparaging comments about me on others’ talk pages. For instance, one of his favorites is that I am using another IP address to make edits he does not like : “have evidence he was logging on under some other ip 58.8 and had some of his friends join in on the ‘fun’ He was warned not to revert many times in the past” or here : “he also uses 58.8 ip to get his point across, when he has no point, switches off and logs on thru his ip, the guy is totally out of line.” He even once said on my talk page that he had traced my IP : “above message 58 user is you, i traced the ip, ok, cool off, i will make sure you are blocked here, do you understand me?” All this is, of course, false. I only make edits under my MKil username and welcome any attempt to trace my IP to prove it.

Now today he has left messages with Kuru (“Hello, can you check ip 58.8 if it belongs to mkil, he may be using those, or may try to get others in trouble. If you go on rocky talk page, i explained in detail, also on my talk page, I am requesting more protection over rocky page, since mkil has his mind set on destroying it and adding his own wit to it, I believe current version is good, he will revert it claiming info is missing, it needs cleaning up, etc, etc, etc, all explained. I just do not want that guy to touch that site, because of him we had all this problems.”) and Virdae (“Well, watch out for mkil, he is in high gear again”) attacking me. He also left messages on pages of anonymous users claiming that they were me .

I asked for a third opinion on our Marciano disputes and Pulltoopen looked over both sides of our arguments and chastised BoxingWear for his behavior : “BoxingWear is unilateraly and arbitrarily reverting your edits, calling them vandalism; this is BAD. BoxingWear failed to assume good faith, and this time, it will cost him. Users who try to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia should never be accused of vandalism. His accusations of vandalism are also a violation of WP:POINT, . . .” BoxingWear then started attacking PTO .

I have tried talking to him about this but he keeps saying things like this on my talk page, “Do not leave me any messages, DO NOT TALK TO ME,…” and “DO NOT TALK TO ME, DO NOT CONTACT ME, I DO NOT WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU” and “It is you and I had enough of your stupidity and sophisticated vandalism.”

These are only a few of the instances of this type of behavior. Just check his talk page or his user contributions.

I am tired of him trashing my reputation here so I turn to you for help. MKil 02:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)MKil

I've protected the page again for a short duration due to some rapid edit reverts after the previous protect wore off, left a civility warning, and invited both parties back to the article's talk page for further discussion. The checkuser request seems spurious, but I've left him breadcrumbs to RFCU if he has some other claim. I really hate protecting articles on principle, so I would welcome other eyes. Kuru 04:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Protection is probably the right thing to do. BoxingWear is this editor. Look at the deleted history, and check the contributions of the enormous sockpuppet and anon list, and it will be perfectly obvious from his interests and editing style (comma-spliced invective, all lower-case rants, all upper-case rants, accusation of vandalism and corruption of admins, and so forth). As far as I know he has never been banned either by community or ArbCom (both are options for the future), and I've naively hoped for reform, but ... who knows. He's collided with a lot of editors in the last couple months. Any of them will likely recognize him from his peculiar syntax and confrontational style.

Here are some of his accounts prior to his switching to User:BoxingWear for boxing-related editing (he still uses anons for edits to articles on political figures in the Middle East):

• 66.99.1.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 66.99.2.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 66.99.0.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 64.107.2.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 64.107.0.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 66.99.0.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 66.99.2.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 66.99.2.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (start with this one, if it is not obvious yet)
• 64.107.1.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Hope this helps ... any suggestions on how to deal with this person appreciated. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Vintagekits

The above referenced user reverts good faith, accurate edits, which were made in response to his insertion of his political (pro-IRA) slant into almost every article he touches. I am the user formerly known as User:El chulito but I was forced to changed my username by an administrator because in Spanish it has more than one meaning, and at least one of these may be offensive.

I just discovered that User:Vintagekits created a Usertalk page for me, which I did not ask for or agree to. This is unacceptable (see http://en.wikipedia.org/User:New_identity).

Examples of his pro-IRA mindset, his boilerplate responses ("defying consensus", "abusing WP:CIVIL" and, of course, "POV", which is only POV when he/she doesn't agree.

Examples of his outrageous behaviour can be seen at the following sites:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:New_identity&action=history
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Vintagekits
• http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Vintagekits

See segment below regarding the murder of Sir Norman Stronge and his son, unarmed civilians, by the PIRA:

• I have reintroduced the material which was sourced to Sir Norman's article, as per your request. I have also clarified it for those who may not be aware of Sir Norman or the background surrounding his murder.--Couter-revolutionary 00:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sir Norman (as he should be referred to on Wiki.) was not "targetted", whatever upon earth that means, he was murdered and in reprisals to murderes had no connection to. A reader without prior knowledge may think he was implicated in those. Assassination is a factual word, whether you want it to be or not Wiki. guidelines allow it.--Couter-revolutionary 00:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Assisnation and murder are both POV. The article is completely POV and biased. God only know how it has lasted this long!--Vintagekits 00:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• When someone kills someone it is murder, when they are high-profile it is assassination. Why should this be PoV. You may not like the use of the term but it best illustrates what occured, it's not as if they passed away in their sleeps after some warm milk is it? The were murdered. --Couter-revolutionary 00:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest you educate yourself further on the terminology as you dont seem to have a full grasp of it at the moment.--Vintagekits 00:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• I do have weaknesses, but education isn't one of them. This is from wikipedia; "Assassination is the deliberate killing of an important person, usually a political figure or other strategically important individual". I think this applies here.--Couter-revolutionary 00:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm glad you found that page - three lines further down

Assassination itself, along with terms such as terrorist and freedom fighter, is often considered to be a loaded term - end of story. An apology and I will forget about it! --Vintagekits 01:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• It may well be considered "loaded", whatever that means, but it doesn't mean that it can't as fact. I suppose JFK just died? No, he was very much assassinated and so was Sir Norman. An apology you shan't have.--Couter-revolutionary 01:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• You dont have to wonder what it means - just click on loaded term and all shall be clear my dear boy--Vintagekits 01:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Wonderful, how very kind. To describe, however, the violent assassination of an elderly former politician, with no provacation, as a death (one has images of a fall down the stairs) in the article of a third party clearly shows either your detachment from relaity or your bias.--Couter-revolutionary 01:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, yeah, this is an encyclopedia not site to wax lyrical about the Tynan Dallas, sorry, Dynasty--Vintagekits 01:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, and nor is it a place to "wax lyrical" about appeasing a vicious murder from a republican perspective. I have made my position clear and am no longer willing to continue this discussion.--Couter-revolutionary 01:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Now, now - dont get yourself into trouble - please note WP:CIVIL--Vintagekits 01:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• On another matter, and these are my parting comments to you, it is also against wiki. policy to follow a particular editors contributions altering them. It is this which you seem to be doing. I shouldn't like to have to have you written up.--Couter-revolutionary 01:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Analysis: If this is not seen as evidence of his irrational, pro-PIRA agenda, I don't know what is. "Murder" and "assassination" are only POV when misapplied. Which goes to show User:Vintagekits' style -- argue and deny; insult ("you lack indepth knowledge"; "you dont seem to have a full grasp of it at the moment"; dear boy"); provide boilerplate nonsense as final excuse and then shows his contempt for anyone who opposes his agenda ("dear boy"; "now, now"). For example, he insists on putting "Óglach" (an IRA honorific meaning "Vounteer") into the Irish translations of English names for members of the PIRA. He claims that my actions are "against mediation"; I don't know what this means nor have I been informed of this issue being in mediation.

As I mentioned previously, under my old username (:User:El chulito, which I was forced to change by an administrator; although far more provocative and offensive ones continue unscathed), I observed his massive use of pro-IRA websites and news outlets as the source of his info; threaten the integrity of Misplaced Pages, and the millions of people who rely on it for information. This should be fixed before mirror sites (answers.com; information.com, etc.) pick it up.

He/she has been particularly active reshaping the bios (most of which are boilerplate and contain little information) of the eight PIRA men killed at Loughgall; as noted he adds "Óglach" as part of their birth names in Gaelic, when it is no such thing; it means "Volunteer" in Gaeilge; he also deletes categories he personally disagrees with such as Category:People convicted on terrorism charges b/c he/she does not personally view the IRA/PIRA as terrorist. Thus I suggest that all eight bios (which are basically the same except for names, schools, etc.) be redirected to The Troubles in Loughgall.

Respectfully submitted, New identity 00:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The above is just a poor attempt to throw mud and hope some sticks and admin just say "they must be as bad as each other - The above is simple one long personal attack, can you please substantiate any of your claims? Just us the link? - please read my entry on this page about him yesterday and again today and you will see what happened in relatively simple.--Vintagekits 01:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Vintagekits, please explain User:New identity's allegations. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 01:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yuser, I would like to draw your attention to this from yesterday and this from this.

1. His accusations are many but his evidence is zero.
2. He has thrown racial and sectarian abuse at me and here follows up with personal attacks and accusations of a "irrational, pro-PIRA agenda", of creating pages with "most of which are boilerplate and contain little information", and ignores the volley of abuse and personal attacks that he has engaged in since I have encountered him. We have opposing political views, that is fair enough but his actions and manner are against with policies, no one deserves the type of abuse the he delivers.--Vintagekits 01:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You are pulling up past discussions about User:New identity to defend yourself against User:New identity. What relevance has that to do with his present evidence against you? Please state why User:New identity's allegations are incorrect. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 01:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are you ignoring this from yesterday and this from this??

• What exactly are his allegations? --Vintagekits 01:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yuser, User:Vintagekits, User:New identity, and User:Astrotrain are POV-warriors on PIRA-related articles, with Vintagekits taking the pro-PIRA side, and the other two the anti-PIRA side. It appears that they're baiting each other into violations of WP:CIVIL. Argyriou (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Argyriou, I cant believe you said that, what have I said to bait anyone, I have been subject to a torrent of abuse for two days now and have not retaliated. Please please evidence that I have got involved in baiting, civility or personal attack issue. I knew this would happen and just because he throws mud please do not think that one is as bad as the other. We are allow to have opposing political views, that is fine however, it should not restore to the abuse that I have suffered. In the past 24 hours User:New identity and his former indentity have broken WP:3RR, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and broken with the agreement of the mediation cabal - what have I done? --Vintagekits 02:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Assisnation and murder are both POV. The article is completely POV and biased. God only know how it has lasted this long!--Vintagekits 00:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• I suggest you educate yourself further on the terminology as you dont seem to have a full grasp of it at the moment.--Vintagekits 00:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• You dont have to wonder what it means - just click on loaded term and all shall be clear my dear boy--Vintagekits 01:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weggie has the right to comment on any subject he deems fit. He is a good balance to republican propagandists on wiki. After all it is facts that rules that count not POV, so if Weggie has an issue with any article or section thereof then we either gotta back up what we say with proof or else shut it! Vintagekits 00:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• "Bud", calling the IRA "terrorist" is POV, and if you cant see that then that is possibly the most worrying thing.

From here, it looks like you're less of an offender than El Chulito/New identity and possibly (in terms of WP:CIVIL) than Astrotrain, but it's also pretty damn obvious that you are not blameless. Not to mention your continual POV-pushing and lack of sourcing. Tu quoque is not an excuse for violating WP:CIVIL. Argyriou (talk) 03:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

None of those comments even compare to the what was thrown at me, also non of those comment were directed at El Chulito/New identity or Astrotrain, I have been subject except for the last comment -

• *"Bud", calling the IRA "terrorist" is POV, and if you cant see that then that is possibly the most worrying thing. - terrorist is POV and I provided links for him to have a look at and other discussion also were it was shown to bew POV, as for the "Bud" in inverts, I did that as a reference to him refering to me as bud in the line previous.--Vintagekits 09:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • I wandered into this unknowingly at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Diarmuid O'Neill and there appear to be substantial failures to assume good faith, and to deal with the issues at hand rather than the editors involved. I think this is heading for an RfC. MLA 13:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring at Anesthesia

It appears that a number of IPs and single purpose accounts have been edit warring over this article for the last few days. Both sides are accusing each other of vandalism. I am at a loss to work out if either side is in the right (but doubt it) and how the article should actually read. Can someone look into the situation? WJBscribe 02:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the page, hopefully the parties will come to an agreement soon. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, though I'm a little concerned that the version protected is quite far away from the last stable version of the article (back on the 24th), as this dif illustrates. Quite a bit of good material seems to have been deleted during this dispute it would appear... WJBscribe 02:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible compromise of User:Zazzer

This was brought to my attention through this AfD discussion. "Zazzer" created the article in question, and I thought that this was rather strange because the article was an obvious hoax, but the user has a barnstar and is generally a good contributor. I concluded that the account had probably been compromised. What's the appropriate thing to do in this case? I didn't simply post on the talk page in case the compromiser was still using the account. --N Shar 03:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The article in question is Advanced Physcho-Neuroschlorosis. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, on his user page, he claims to be a 15-year-old engineer graduated from the Royal Military College. Not to suggest he is a troll, but there is quite a sense of humour demonstrated there. Risker 03:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User:64.136.173.16

Look at this user's talk page I really think this troll needs to be blocked permanently or at least given another block he/she's been given three "last warnings" since his/her last block. Quadzilla99 03:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's an IP address. IPs are not typically given indefinite blocks (excepting open proxies and exceptional circumstances), and there is no indication that this person is the same one who was warned for those edits. IP addresses can and often do change. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Userpage vandalism/harassment on User:Schuminweb by SPA socks

Schuminweb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sure is getting a lot of harassment recently on his user page and on his talk page. He tends to get a lot of it, but this has been quite frequent recently (since the 26th of this month). I suspect that these are all WP:SPA sockpuppets based on their edits to User:Schuminweb, User talk:Schuminweb, and Step by Step.

• LordOfSewers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NewAgeMooSick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Chocolate Peanutbutter Pie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Regards, Tuxide 04:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

New users

• There are a rather ludicrous amount of new users being created, to the point where the "Recent changes" page is mostly user creation logs. Something's rotten. JuJube 04:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A pattern seems to be replacing pages with '___ is a commodity'. It's happening with Misplaced Pages:Protection policy. Carson 04:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What was on the most recent Colbert Report episode? It seems to be Colbert-related. --physicq (c) 04:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

He encouraged editors to redefine reality to be 'reality is a commodity'. the page was protected, now they're going insane.ThuranX 04:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I just protected the protection policy for 24 hours. God, that's the last time I watch Colbert. Grandmasterka 04:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only person who does not find him very funny? JuJube 05:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

He's coming from the AOL proxy network, making him a nuisance to try to block. I don't suppose anyone can write a script to automatically roll back any edit that contains the word 'commodity'? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, it would have rolled back your comment above. I don't think such a script would be a good idea, if it were possible to make. -- tariqabjotu 05:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That's okay; if the script was already running, my comment would be redundant. :D I'd actually be happy with something that just flagged any editor who used the word so we'd know which contributions to review. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Relax, we have no worries. Zoe is gonna send him email saying that encouraging the vandalizing of Misplaced Pages is a federal offense, Jimbo is gonna fix it without telling us, we'll troll ourselves silly over who to block for one hour, the media will cause us to gain addition fame, the fame will result in a tripling of donations (or elephants) and wikipedia review will announce its all a clever plot. WAS 4.250 05:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking something along those lines myself. Excellent!! I'm looking forward to it. :-) Grandmasterka 05:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yay! I'm going to realize my dream of nearly ending up in the media and nearly attaining a nanosecond of fame! --physicq (c) 05:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I can just see Colbert flaunting the fact that his minions almost DOSed Misplaced Pages. PTO 05:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"encouraging the vandalizing of Misplaced Pages is a federal offense"- that can't be true, can it?Davind 06:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The crapflood seems to be slowing. Thank you to everyone who is on right now reverting, deleting, and blocking the Colberdiots. Antandrus (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Will never watch the show again. Ugh. I think the IRC feed is lagged about 15 minutes. Kuru 05:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that this calls for a horde of angry emails. :) PTO 05:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh man, not this again. I thought the elephants bit was bad - I saw tawker's blog post baout how hundreds of elephant-related pages had to be protected - but this again? Well, after seeing the WHCD's article featured on the front page (which was followed by a pic of the front page with the words WIKIPEDIA SURRENDERS on the Wikiality wiki), I'm not surprised... Hbdragon88 06:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Account creation is gearing up again. Carson 06:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup. The same show must have aired somewhere exactly an hour after the first. Antandrus (talk) 07:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Colbert Users and article creation

We are not done folks. The show re-airs at 1:30 am (EST,PST) 12:30 pm (EST, PST) and 6:30 (EST,PST). My current application is ignore all rules and shoot first, but be sure to ask questions later. Salting is fine and username blocking is fine, but be sure to follow-up on all contribution histories. Teke 06:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget about 11:30 PST. It still hasn't aired here even once. Dragons flight 06:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Meh, that's the past to me. And I love the past :) Teke 06:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted all the outstanding vandalism from the first wave after checking the contributions of the new users. Please protect the following pages pre-emptively:

• Reality, Real, Real number, Truth, Fact, Elephant, The Colbert Show, Misplaced Pages in popular culture, Misplaced Pages:Page protection, Misplaced Pages:Protection policy, Misplaced Pages:Semi-protection policy. Let's cross our fingers. --N Shar 07:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm going to program a little script that reads Special:Log/Newusers and lets me know when account creation rises above a certain limit, so I can report it here. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 07:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd add Virtual Reality to those. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 07:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I missed some good action while I was gone. Was it really that bad, huh? LOL on the Zoe/Jimbo bit above, btw. Part Deux 07:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone happen to know if a pleasant, civil letter has been written to Comedy Central or Viacom to ask that the Colbert Report writers stop doing this? While it does bring attention to Misplaced Pages, it is obviously also doing a lot of harm to it. --Takeel 14:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

One would certainly hope that the WMF would do something along these lines. Once (the elephants) might be vaguely funny (though not for those who cleaned it up), but twice is getting stupid. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up after Elephants isn't vaguely funny, even the first time. (jokes aside, Kudos to all who've busted their collective humps on this. After posting my explanation above, I pretty much went to bed. I have a job that requires I'm fully awake.) ThuranX 23:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys. I'm glad that you're on top of this (don't forget the next rerun at 8:30 EST), but I have one request to make. When you're blocking people, please be careful of what you write in as the reason. Writing in "colbert idiocy" or "colbert crapflooder" not only encourages them, it makes you look immature. Just write in "colbert vandalism" and move on. It's much more mature, and it makes us look a lot better.

Eh, politely disagree. Crapflooding is a precise term, has been around on Usenet for a good long time, and it's exactly the technique being used here by the Colbert fans. It sounds more disrespectful than it really is. I'll stop using it though for the next round (hopefully there won't be one). Antandrus (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please look at this

This User:Coelacan is in violation of Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Attacks editors of having a covert method to gripe . and adds user qoutes to his page mocking editors. that I've personally asked him to remove. This being consider his first warning. Than I gave a warning on his user page. --Janusvulcan 05:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note to admins: Please look at this diff, referenced on the talk page of Janusvulcan. --N Shar 05:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not reference this. I beleive User:CyberAnth said this on his page to myself in reference to recent edits by User:Coelacan. WTH this has to do the actions of Coelacan I have no idea! --Janusvulcan 19:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• This may make some sense of the "covert method to gripe" thing. Artw 06:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This was an essay that I put in the wrong spot. If by covert you were accusing me as being secretive... Honestly it dosent matter what was meant. It was obviously an attact on me and not the essay Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks!

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. That article certainly seemed to be a disguised method for complaining about some particular edits and needed to go. That is all. Also you might want to check WP:OWN. Artw 19:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say, but there is nothing wrong with either of Coelacan's edits. Sorry. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 06:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats your opinion. Read this Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. --Janusvulcan 19:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Coelacan's userpage is fine. So he has quotes on it. Some people quote politicians, some quote Mother Teresa, Coelacan quotes other Wikipedians. That the quote is something the Wikipedian might wish s/he had not originally written is beside the point. It certainly is not a violation of any rules. Janusvulcan would do well to spend his or her time making constructive edits, rather than monitoring other users' pages. By the way, Coelacan is one of the most hard working, supportive editors I have encountered here. If more people here were like him/her, Misplaced Pages would be a better place. Jeffpw 09:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

So says you. I've looked through your contribution also . You may have made the same mistakes Coelacan did. Just not against me. So I will leave that up 2 some other editor to deal with. --Janusvulcan 19:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's high time you start making specific points. Who are my sockpuppets? What, exactly, makes me a troll? If you can't make these accusations stick, then maybe you ought to re-read WP:NPA for yourself. — coelacan talk — 20:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

For your info regarding sock puppets, I went back to the older edit almost immediately after posting. I decided not to take that path. I would’ve conducted myself precisely like you if I had Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. As far as the Troll (Internet) read the first sentance. Posting messages that are inflammatory . That posting pissed me off. Last time I checked PISSED-OFF = INFLAMED. Your posting inflammatory messages attacking the editor and not the contribution. Also I have not brought this up before but quoting a living person Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons --Janusvulcan 21:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

. I would now like to also add this Incident to the notice board. Editors must take particular care when writing biographies of living persons and/or including any material related to living persons. These require a degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to our content policies: --Janusvulcan 21:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Are you suggesting that WP:BLP applies to talk pages? Artw 22:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Janusvulcan, this is neither the proper venue for such a discussion (you're looking for dispute resolution), nor are any of your complaints even remotely credible. I suggest you move on. —bbatsell ¿? 21:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Block of Nadirali and MinaretDk

Hi - I'm reporting the blocks of Nadirali (1 week; as a consequence of immediate disruptive behavior just hours after returning from a 2-week block) and MinaretDk (48 hours) for causing disruption through their conflict just a few hours ago with Rumpelstiltskin223 (currently blocked for 1 week]]. These gentlemen were engaged in edit-warring on 2002 Gujarat violence, Anti-Hinduism, Gun culture in Pakistan, Persecution of Hindus, User talk:Rumpelstiltskin223 (see editing histories). Their precise offenses were persistent incivility, disruptive editing, personal attacks and malicious accusations (not in WP:AGF or substantiated, but rather like personal attacks and defamation). The diffs in question are: , , , incivil edit summary, , , ,

Here are diffs of Nadirali interjecting diffs in MinaretDk's unblock request, which I see as an example of meatpuppetry and dishonesty (he could have provided those links separately): , . MinaretDk also proceeds to remove Rumpel's warnings from his own talkpage while warning Rumpel not to do the same: , , , . Some abusive edit summaries: , ,

Applicable policies

• WP:BP: A user may be blocked when their conduct severely disrupts the project — their conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. Disagreements over content or policy are not disruption, but rather part of the normal functioning of Misplaced Pages and should be handled through dispute resolution procedures. Blocks for disruption should only be placed when a user is in some way making it difficult for others to contribute to Misplaced Pages.
• INCIVILITY examples, both petty and serious
• WP:NPA: Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme. These examples are not inclusive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all. and to an extent, Posting a link to an external source that fits the commonly accepted threshold for a personal attack, in a manner that incorporates the substance of that attack into Misplaced Pages discussion, including the suggestion that such a link applies to another editor, or that another editor needs to visit the external source containing the substance of the attack.
• WP:DE

I request input and criticism from all. There were numerous attempts by me, user:Fowler&fowler, user:Nobleeagle to advise these users to keep calm and seek Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, but they chose to start a vicious cycle of accusations, revert-warring and serious incivility. Rama's arrow 05:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Meditation for Spiritual Unfoldment

This is beginning to get out of hand. With the exception of one, every person 'voting' to keep this article has registered with Misplaced Pages for the sole purpose of writing about this practice, or, in most cases, for the purpose of voting at the AfD. Moreover, many of these editors are 'voting' more than once, by prefacing their long, rambling comments with a 'not delete' in bold each time they write something, which is misleading and annoying. The AfD is becoming unworkable because of the endless semiliterate maunderings posted there, and the puppetry (of whatever description). Can someone take a look and see what needs doing? Thanks. Rosenkreuz 06:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a mess, but it's not a speedy close as the article at least contains some tenuous claims to notability through media reports, and there are now a number of apparent bona fide "keep" opinions. Just keep applying {{spa}} tags where necessary and the closing admin should discount those contributions. Sandstein 06:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Upcoming Colbert vandalism

Maybe someone can regulate new user creation? (limit to 1/5 seconds or something) --N Shar 07:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Just shoot first and ask questions later . Hbdragon88 07:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, any page with "reality" in the title is being hit. BV warnings. ARGH. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 07:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a good idea ... that's the way to discourage users from signing up Template:Emot. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 07:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

They aren't here for constructive business, we don't need these people around. – Chacor 09:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, misread that, I thought at first that Yuser's comment was in response to Kathryn. – Chacor 10:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of "shoot first, ask questions later" - do we actually need indefs? (I did a few myself this morning, but am having second thoughts.) Normally we consider one-time vandals to be reformable, don't we? Wouldn't the "commodity" prank go stale anyway within a day or two, so that there'd be little likelihood these guys would try it again later? What was the experience with the elephants? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The elephant thing lingered for a few weeks. --Coredesat 18:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

While Coredesat is right, the initial orgy of vandalism did die down after a few weeks, the African elephant article still gets Colbert'red pretty regularly. It had to be fully protected again today after the same old joke. My humble opinion is that we should take a fairly hard line against this kind of stuff. Is it too much to hope that if enough Colbert wannabees get indef blocked, they'll start realizing they're being manipulated and be angry at Comedy Central, not Misplaced Pages? (And no, I won't get offended if you call me "naive", although I prefer "unrealistically optimistic".) -- Satori Son 18:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Just as a quick note, the reason it was targeted yesterday and today is because Colbert mentioned it again last night. —bbatsell ¿? 19:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that. Very annoying. -- Satori Son 19:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you're naive, Satori. I think we need to take a hard line against this stuff. People who really want to contribute to Misplaced Pages can sign up and behave like human beings. While initial mistakes are normal while one learns the rules, I'm not for coddling the blatant vandals. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sign up? you need to read the front page a bit more closely. Not everyone who is an ip is a vandal - I was an IP for a looong time. --Fredrick day 21:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, believe me, I know it's current policy to allow IP edits. 90% of the vandalism I revert comes from them. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As do 90% of edits from testers who will one day create accounts and edit correctly... Milto LOL pia 21:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Lo, the poor IP editor - too noble and care free to take thirty seconds to acquire an account. - WeniWidiWiki 23:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, this was the clip in question. I saw that as it aired and immediately hit Misplaced Pages to see how long it took for the new article to be created, and for it to be locked. I was impressed. -- Kesh 02:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

User:WeTube

WeTube (talk · contribs) — is this a permitted username? Has made no contributions except to welcome himself through his talk page, and upload Image:Wetube567.jpg for his userpage. Carson 07:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please take this to the right place, WP:RFC/NAME--Asterion 08:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops, didn't know that even existed, thanks. Carson 08:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User:1B6

Seems to have gotten into a bit of incivility already with some administrators and myself (oddly enough, the incivility has come about as a conversation about his civility): "loathe you with a passion", "wanker" (granted, in reference to me referring to WP:DICK) etc. etc. etc., and has tried to get JDi desysopped for failing to block an IP he reported on AIV (the IP has only two edits, none reverted, and both were over a day old). This case really isn't that complex; not much to look into; asking for some sort of block for incivility. Part Deux 09:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind (for now); looks like it'll probably work out on its own. Don't want to pile on too much. Part Deux 09:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Final warning issued, however. Part Deux, it would be best if you don't leave any more messages on his talk page, as you seem to be provoking him. Proto::► 09:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry. Will stop. Hopefully he'll just go to class, and we can all forget it. Part Deux 09:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

About 1B6, I reverted this edit he made and left a notice on his talk page. He then left this message on my talk page. I reminded him of WP:POINT and WP:VAN, but I'm not sure if other action should be taken on this. Robotman 10:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hate to make a big issue out of this: anyway, I say, looks like he's done for the night. If he keeps on harassing, maybe a 24h block would do well (I hate to call for cool down blocks, but this one would certainly be protective to avoid community disruption). Part Deux 10:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I certainly don't feel harassed after my interaction with 1B6, but the admission of deliberate vandalism worries me. As far as that goes, I'm tempted to say let it drop, but I really don't know for sure. Robotman 10:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You seemed to give him a fairly sensible warning not to do it again; if he does, then let an admin know (via this board or whatever). As it is, I think barring any more tantrums, we don't need to block anyone. Proto::► 11:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's easy. If he shows any further signs of vandalism, block him. Admitting you're trying to vandalize doesn't make it a punative block, it's one to protect the 'pedia. - Mgm| 11:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Quick report

Jxokix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - only contribution is an attack page Wikideletion - seems an odd place to start on the encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos78 10:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted it and posted to their talk page. - Mgm| 11:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Self-linking in dispute by a scholar

I have been recommended by Khoikhoi (talk · contribs) to post about this here so I hope it is the right place.

The problem is that Jona Lendering (talk · contribs) uses his personal website (or is it a company?) as a reference to his edits as also pointed out by another user as well as agreed by Khoikhoi . I believe in one case, at least for the Cyrus Cylinder (which is also section part of Cyrus the Great article), he has been conducting his own research and posting it on Misplaced Pages, with links to his website as references. This has been used in number of articles and also number of times even in disputes for the Cyrus Cylinder article .

I first discussed this by saying his articles on his websites are not academic and are only merely his own opinions (the articles are hardly use any referencing). When I tried to remind him that he is breaking number of policies also including Misplaced Pages:No original research, he claimed on my talk page that since he is "the only one capable of actually reading the text." (referring to the Old Persian presumably) and expert on the topic, his edits are valid. This validates the fact that he is, in a way, claiming the article as his own (WP:OOA), and he keeps rolling back to his own version for his own research which he believes is scholarly accepted.

The problem is that when a scholar has already made up his own mind as for this article (Cyrus Cylinder), he chooses certain references over others just to back up his own theory (not a generally accepted one). Jona in this case has gone as far as using a book on completely different matter (Zoroastrianism) to argue that the religions of Iranian people were not monotheistic at the time, therefore this effects how tolerant Cyrus may have been to the people of his empire! .

This shows how an expert may treat an article as an essay full of his ideas. I think it is very important for admins to decide whether its fine for a scholar to do this on Misplaced Pages and decide on what to do in this case. Not to forget, this is also self promotion in this case as he keeps using his personal website as reference. Thanks! --Rayis 11:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that Jona shouldn't have used his own website as a source (it isn't true that he is reverting at the moment - I have done it once, though). However, as far as I can see, he has mostly cited other scholars and documents and not his own research. The fact that Zoroastrianism was hardly monotheist was certainly relevant for the article. I would also like to point out that Rayis and Surena have an obvious nationalistic bias, as Iranians who regard themselves as the descendants of Cyrus and consequently want to promote their patriotic view of history (hence it's somewhat strange that *they* are the ones talking about self-aggrandizing). I don't know abouth Khoikhoi, but he does seem to be involved in Iranian-related issues as well, so his opinion might not be neutral either. Unsurpisingly, Rayis and Surena have shown absolutely no proof (in terms of citations) that their point of view is the "mainstream academic" one and that Jona's view is the "odd" one. --194.145.161.226 18:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith, you are generalizing anyone who may be Iranian or has anything to do with Iranian articles on Misplaced Pages is "not neutral"? I have never stated anywhere that I believe I am a descendant of Cyrus, or I am patriotic, or in fact that I am Iranian. Therefore this is all your assumptions. What I have stated above is my point of view of things with little or no assumptions about Jona, for all I know he is a well respectable scholar as I have stated many times before. --Rayis 18:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh please. All of you guys are not patriotic? Your interest in Cyrus' cylinder is purely theoretical? Let's be frank for a frigging second. And as for what your assumptions about Jona have been: after Surena declared to Jona that "you have some against Iranians, which all your angers and hatreds have been projected into that article" , thus basically accusing him of being some kind of a pathological hater of Iranians (LOL), you echoed "Exactly, I agree" . Also, you have somewhat misrepresented Jona's behaviour even in the above post, as anyone who reads the linked posts should see, but I am leaving this to anyone who wants to investigate the issue. (There has been no response so far, presumably for a good reason.) To start with, you don't mention that he has basically yielded the article to you, as he has stated on its talk page (I quote: "I have sort of agreed with Rayis that he would revise the article, and I will leave it at this."), and he has been silent since then. As for me, I quit, or else I risk spending evening after evening arguing with you people (I tend to spend too much time on such "discussions", once I've let it go, and it's bad for my health). --194.145.161.226 19:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting, because I think you have taken this matter much more personal than anyone has in this issue, and whoever you are, you are editing under an anonymous IP with only a couple of edits. You have announced both below and on your talk page that you spend a lot of time talking to "nationalists" from different nationalities "I am sick of all this hypocrisy, talking to Croatian nationalists, Russian nationalists, Serbian nationalists, Greek nationalists, my own freaking Bulgarian nationalists, and always assuming what obviously can't be assumed" .

I would like to ask you to stop making this a nationalist matter which it is not about. I clearly had an assumption about this matter and I thought it might be against the Misplaced Pages policy. Only after discussing it with an administrator (Khoikhoi) and seeing Surena's comments on the talk page, I felt I should post about it here. If you believe it is grounded in false assumptions, that is fine, you have expressed your opinions, but I think it is fair to say let others comment now and for god knows how many times, stop your uncivil comments calling editors nationalists. I am sure Jona would be professional enough not to see this as a personal matter and understand our concerns, in any case its up to admins to decide what to do about this --Rayis 22:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Self-Promotion

Re: Jona Lendering (talk · contribs) - Her/His Userpage, reads as: "webmaster of Livius.Org, and am employed by Livius Onderwijs". He is using his own website and articles (WP:OOA) as a point of reference, which is POV and considered as self-promotion. Examples: Battle of Gaugamela, Cyrus cylinder, Zopyrus, Persian Gates, Ariobarzan, etc. -- Surena 17:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

See above for my view of these accusations.--194.145.161.226 18:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, these are not "accusations" Jona has edited these articles, and has used his website as reference for his edits as it can be seen in the links provided above and as it can be seen in the history of these articles. --Rayis 18:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but citing one's website does not automatically amount to "self-promotion" (read the article about it), and claiming that it does in this case is an accusation - especially in the context of the above-mentioned claims that Jona had "angers and hatreds for Iranians" or something like that on the talk page of Cyrus cylinder. Now, the *relevant* section in our case is Citing oneself, which is NOT always forbidden. Whether and to what extent it is appropriate in this particular case can be debated upon, and as I stated, I think he had better avoid it, as the relevant info can be based on other sources. However, your interpretation of his edits as self-promotion, as well as your use of the admin noticeboard in this case, are pure aggression and I have tried to explain the motivation behind that aggression here. While the lack of understanding of WP:NOR etc., also on the part of experts, is a serious problem, I also think that preventing nationalist bias is a higher-level priority. And this is my last post about this, because otherwise I am going to end up giving endless speeches.--194.145.161.226 19:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Cut and paste move needs sorting out

I think I need an administrator to sort this out (if not, I'd appreciate a pointer on how I can do it). A user has made a cut and paste move of Persian rug to Persian carpet, including the talk pages, losing the history in the process. I don't object to the move, but believe the Persian carpet article will need deleting so the Persian rug article can be moved properly. Thanks -- Siobhan Hansa 11:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged Persian carpet for history-merge; there's a {{db-histmerge|source of move}} tag for use in this case. You're right in that sorting out the move does require an admin. --ais523 11:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, a tag! Good to know. Thanks! --Siobhan Hansa 11:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if it looked different from a normal speedy-delete tag, though. I've just had to reply to the user who carried out the move after they placed {{hangon}} on the page in response... --ais523 12:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• User:Pgk fixed it. - Mgm| 13:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Misleading new username used with apparent intention to deceive

This refer to the Passive smoking article. Recently, user BlowingSmoke has been making several POV changes to this article, going as far as falsifying a quotation to support his change. Suddenly, today, the passage BlowingSmoke was challenging has been completely deleted by "Moderation". The impression given by the choice of this name is that the change originates with some official wikipedia moderator. Actually, this is a newly created user, whose only action so far has been to remove the passage which challenged by BlowingSmoke. I suspect BlowingSmoke and Moderation may be one and the same user, or may be closely related, and the Moderation trick is yet another attempt by BlowingSmoke to force his POV text into the article, or, failing to do so, to have the whole passage removed altogether. This needs to be stopped, but I am at a loss of knowing how to deal with BlowingSmoke attacks against the article, which do not appear to be based on good faith, to say the least. Dessources 12:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've informed Moderation of Misplaced Pages:Summary style and how it supports the inclusion of the passage. - Mgm| 13:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. Hope it produces the desired effect. I'll get back to you in case it doesn't. For the potential ambiguity created by the choice of name, Moderation has clearly acknowledged that he has no link to wikipedia, so this sorts out that part of my concern. Still, this name may mislead a number of newcomers to wikipedia, and this will remain an issue.

Dessources 13:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Vertex

Vertex has been vandalized.. Someone revert it please!

• Apparently 202.49.72.33 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) fixed it. - Mgm| 13:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Block review

I'll keep this short and sweet:

• I removed some content from a page, DLX (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) reverted with edit summary saying it was vandalism, I warned him not to say that, he persisted I blocked him. Medium-length chat on his talk, he calls my mental state into question, I block for another 48 hours.
• User:Sandstein has sugested that since I'm in a content dispute at The Inquirer with this user, I should not have blocked... but the "dispute" was one reversion on my part, and the article was in the other user's preferred version when I blocked. Oh, and still is, I should add.
  

Let the bollocking begin.
brenneman 13:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The first block was unfair - you are engaged in a content dispute, neither of you particularly covering yourself in glory, but you're the one with the block button so you block him. No, that's not right. And the extension - accusing you of being paranoid is rude, and warrants a warning, but not a further 48 hour unblock. I am going to unblock in a few minutes unless I see a really good reason not to (or you choose to unblock first). Proto::► 13:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll partially endorse why he was blocked, but you probably shouldn't have blocked him yourself. It was clear-cut enough, such that a request for any other admin to take a look could still have resulted in a block. However, I will not endorse any immediate unblock without input from more admins - that just makes it look like wheel-warring. – Chacor 13:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Pedantically, wheel warring would be if Brenneman then re-blocked. I'll refrain from unblocking but really do think he ought to be. I don't even think what he did particularly justified a 48 hour block, given the aggressive tone of Aaron's initial message on DLX's talk page. I do note that DLX described the edit as vandalism and it had no explanation (when it had), but Aaron applying the block feels hinky. Proto::► 13:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Recommend unblock It appears there may the perception of a conflict of interest givin the content dispute. Navou 13:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand at all the suggestion that I was in a content dispute with this user. Even causal reading of the histories would put lie to that:

• 00:35, 29 January 2007 Aaron Brenneman (Talk | contribs | block) (→Nicknames and terminology - removed section - this list is unsourced an unencyclopedic, too high a level of detail, plus contains links tht violate WP:EL)
• 06:31, 29 January 2007 DLX (Talk | contribs | block) m (revrted changes by brenneman. Deleting big portions of the article without discussion is vandalism.)
• 06:34, 29 January 2007 Aaron Brenneman (Talk | contribs | block) (rolled back massive (and totally blind) revert that included such gems as re-adding a redirect to this very article under "see also." Please try and _edit_ any sections that you have problems with.)
• 07:47, 29 January 2007 DLX (Talk | contribs | block) (Reordered, restored "Nicknames and terminology"- relevant and sourced. "Writers" are now in alphabetical order by last name.Cleaned up a bit. Did not have time to do that before, planned to do it now.)
• 12:07, 29 January 2007 Aaron Brenneman (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "DLX (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (continued personal attacks after warning)

I reverted once over a clearly blind reversion, took it to talk, the user made the change back to his preferred version. The block was four hours after the user edited the page, and I didn't edit the article after that. Yes of course "Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited" but that didn't happen here.
brenneman 13:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

He did not like your change, you did not like his, then he did not like yours again. It appears disputed. Apoligies if I have misunderstood the situation. However, that is my impartial review as a courtesy to you. Whethere or not a content dispute, or COI is the case, this is the appearance and perception. I could be wrong. Regards, Navou 13:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you're probably right... No one can be sure that I'm unfussed over the reversion, can they? I mean, I know I'm not, but it's the Seize-Her's wife dictum, isn't it? By the way, I don't expect my admin actions to be sancrosect, so if anyone wants to unblock don't feel the need to pass it by me. I'd only note that I have already put on this user's talk that "I' lift the block if you'll recant the attacks and demonstrate some understanding of why there is a problem here." and I still believe that would be a positive outcome. But it's late and I'm off like prawns in the sun...
brenneman 13:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This strikes me as a problematic block of a long-term productive user to begin with, and in any event it appears the blocked user accepts that his comments should have been more moderate, so I would endorse immediate unblocking. I also think it might have been appropriate for the blocking admin to bring the matter to the noticeboard before extending the block. Newyorkbrad 16:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked him. Folks, the clear solution to this kind of situation is to confer with another admin--there's no reason not to. I feel like Aaron has said this himself in the past. Chick Bowen 16:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Diarmuid O'Neill

I thought I would draw to the attention of admin the breach of WP:CANVAS on the above page. The AfD was initiated by User:Astrotrain, however, when the vote was not going his way (eight straight Keep votes) the canvassing began.

• User:Astrotrain, who has unsuccessfully nominated a number of similar pages for AfD, such as James McDade, , , then contacted a number of editors who had previously vote to delete those pages in the assumption that they would vote in a similar fashion on with regards this vote he was right!). So he then sent messages to Kittybrewter, Soltak, Weggie and Dhartung.
• User:Kittybrewster, then after voting for a delete, Kittybrewster in turn contacted a number of editors who she is in constant contact with on pages relating to the British Royal family and the monarchy, such as David Lauder, Chelsea Tory, Major Bonkers, Proteus, Laura1822. A number of them along with another close associate went and voted 'delete, but it did not stop there.
• User:David Lauder, then contacted User:Danbarnesdavies who is another editor who contributes mainly to British Royal Family pages.

the result of this was that the first delete votes came in on this topic.

• User:Astrotrain, obviously noted the "success" his breach of WP:CANVAS had and then sent them here, with similar effect!. Can admin please take the appropriate action as this is making a mockery of the whole system. --Vintagekits 14:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have placed a notice on Astrotrain (talk · contribs · count)'s talk page directing him to the discussion underway here. Navou 14:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have also put a notice on the AfD page itself. thank you--Vintagekits 14:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits, an administrator is likely to review your canvassing issue here, however, I do not believe they will speedy close the afd. Not to worry, the closing admin will review the afd and take into account any single purpose accounts if any, and users with a single purpose. Regards, Navou 14:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the update, its just that it is getting out of hand a bit now and spilling over onto others AfD's that User:Astrotrain has started.--Vintagekits 15:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the editors that User:Astrotrain contacted, so it is hard to say if this is a WP:CANVAS situation, though if I were closing this AfD I'd say that numerous editors who show up to a debate after a message on their talkpage and opine "Delete per nom" carry less weight in the discussion than other editors who have rendered opinions. I don't think this should be speedy closed, but I imagine the closing admin will weigh this when he goes through the AfD.--Isotope23 15:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

From the links I have provided you should be able to see that the people he contacted had already vote delete on other recent AfD's that he has nominated so the attempt to contact editor whom he knows will support him should be evident. I know the closing admin will take this into account however someone needs to warning the editors involved in canvassing that it is unacceptable, especially as it is now effecting other AfD's that User:Astrotrain has started and is skewing the vote of those also - it is making a mockery of the process.--Vintagekits 15:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

See: Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Vintagekits.--Major Bonkers 15:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Address the case in question; ad hominem arguments score no points. Trebor 16:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please Assume Good Faith on Vintagekits' part. I was the one who added the canvassing template to the AfD, after seeing that User:Astrotrain had been canvassing for his POV that all IRA terrorists are inherently non-notable. After observing his behavior, I believe that all AfD nominations by Astrotrain of IRA members are bad-faith nominations in support of his POV-warring with Vintagekits. Argyriou (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that AFD is not a vote- and the editors in question have left perfectly good and reasoned comments on the deletion discussions expressing why they beleive these articles should be deleted. It should also be noted that Vintagekits has a terrible habbit of harrassing other users and admins with whom he disagrees with, and was formally warned about this recently. I would advise him to accept the consensus developing on these pages- namely that Misplaced Pages is not the place to idol worship fallen IRA members. Astrotrain 16:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A consensus like the one at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Martin McGartland and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/James McDade? Argyriou (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

(in response to Astrotrain) If someone had pointed to reasonable precedents, then the "Delete" arguments would have held more weight. At the moment, all arguments seem to be "not-notable" without elaboration, or a variation on WP:IDONTLIKEIT with regards to IRA members. It's not a vote, so a bunch of people turning up and saying the same fallacious things shouldn't (I hope) contribute to the decision of the closing admin. Trebor 16:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Right... I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here, but which delete opinions contain "perfectly good and reasoned comments"? The ones that say "per nom" or the ones that say "seems like" and are predicated on WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasoning and claims that Misplaced Pages is somehow becoming a IRA memorial? These would carry more weight if the people leaving them would actually take the time to form an argument.--Isotope23 17:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Trebor: To draw attention to Vintagekits's previous naughtiness is not to make an ad hominem point, it's to question his credibility. Isotope23: What don't you understand regarding the argument of IRA memorialising? As I write on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Diarmuid O'Neill, there seem to be a large number of articles about minor IRA personalites, citing POV sources and with a latent republicanism/ anglophobic leaning. As far as I can see, the argument is quite clear.--Major Bonkers 17:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that your argument isn't a deletion rationale... we don't do conferred notability (or non-notability) and the status or existance of other articles is no rationale for deleting or keeping this article. Either the subject meets WP:BIO or he does not and right now I don't really see any credible argument being made that he doesn't meet it. Furthermore, POV isn't a deletion reason either; it is a reason to cleanup and NPOV an article.--Isotope23 17:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, Vintagekits has promised to do a clean-up over-night, so we'll wait and see what turns up. I understood your previous posting to be that you did not understand the argument of memorialisation, not that it was not a good cause for deletion. I suggest that the problem that Misplaced Pages faces is this: that there are a series of linked articles, all of which display slight but significant bias, and which are set up and maintained by persons prepared to devote the considerable amount of time necessary to this task. I do not agree that this individual merits a dedicated page; the only significant aspect of his life was his accidental shooting by the Police, and there is nothing to stop the manner of his death being reported in a suitable article.--Major Bonkers 20:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Normally articles like this would be nominated for speedy delete (nn-bio). It should also be noted that Administrators recently had to speedy delete and blank a page about an alledged IRA member after Vintagekits added unsourced allegations about murder and terrorism. There is a clear danger to the integrity of Misplaced Pages about creating articles on minor IRA members where there are no reliable sources to back up the information provided. Astrotrain 17:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Diarmuid O'Neill satisfies WP:BIO, with two non-trivial stories linked right there at the article's bottom and the link to the Amnesty campgain. The various arguments about Misplaced Pages not memorializing or glorifying terrorists don't follow any policy or guideline I know of. {{nn-bio}} would not have been appropriate, and if I ever saw a user who was tagging articles nn-bio because of POV reasons, I'd consider a block for abuse of the speedy deletion process. As for the AfD, I !voted, so I can't do this, but it should be closed as a "speedy keep" (already running about 2:1 in favor of keeping even if we count all canvassed !votes, and possible bad-faith nom). | Mr. Darcy talk 17:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The first version of Diarmuid O'Neill is sourced by The Telegraph, how were there no reliable sources? I wouldn't consider the initial version of the article to be a candidate for speedy deletion. One Night In Hackney 17:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

(to Major Bonkers) Yes, it is ad hominem, because you're questioning his credibility by citing a previous and fairly unrelated matter, while in this case numerous editors agree with him. I don't see what relevance you linking that page has to this discussion. Trebor 17:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Trebor, it isn't an ad hominem remark, because all that I have done is write 'See:' and provide a link. I have not made any comment whatsoever; it's up to any other interested party to click on the link and draw their own conclusions. I, unlike you, have made no comment and I have had the grace not to impugn either your bona fides or those of Vintagekits.--Major Bonkers 19:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then the obvious question is why you did that. What relevance did it have? What did you hope to accomplish? Assuming good faith, I'll give you a chance to explain. Trebor 19:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The obvious answer is that those contributing to this discussion should have the opportunity to see a full picture of a User's behaviour and be in a position to draw their own conclusions.--Major Bonkers 20:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And that means it is ad hominem. Rather than arguing the merits of the case at hand, you're commenting on the person who brought about the AfD. You can say you didn't put across a point-of-view but, being realistic, a link to a CheckUser can't be seen in a positive light. So my original comment stands: you are bringing into question the user, not the AfD. Trebor 20:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Its relevant for users to understand that Vintagekits has been proven to use sockpuppets to canvas support for his attempt to add yet more IRA propoganda. Astrotrain 20:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And how is that relevant? I am not a sockpuppet; I support keeping the article. The fact he may or may not have canvassed in the past does not justify canvassing this time. Trebor 20:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

DownDaRoad is my account, I have NEVER denied it, there is a difference between acceptable and unacceptable canvassing

 *                    Scale         Message            Audience 

• Accepted Limited posting AND Neutral AND Bipartisan
• Not accepted Mass posting OR Partisan OR Partisan

• Term Internal spamming Campaigning Votestacking

I rest my case.--Vintagekits 21:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have already explained to you, Trebor, that I have made no comments at all on either Vintagekits or his previous conduct. I am happy to let his record speak for itself (as he should be) and for others to draw their own conclusions.--Major Bonkers 22:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone else here troubled by Astrotrain's nominations of all of these articles on IRA terrorists for deletion, with obviously spurious claims of non-notability? These strike me as bad-faith nominations, and I'm perturbed to see that someone might be using AfD in furtherance of a political or personal agenda. Thoughts? | Mr. Darcy talk 21:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly since a large amount of people have agreed that this person and the others are not notable- this is not obviously the case. Please don't attack the nominator- and put your arguments in the debate page instead. Astrotrain 21:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, that's just wrong. Two of your noms were already kept, handily. The one in question here is headed for a keep and clearly meets WP:BIO, per two articles in the Telegraph. The question here is whether you're trying to use AfD to push a POV - and in my opinion, based on your comments here and your actions on those AfD pages, is that you are. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to back up my statements with facts:

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Martin McGartland - closed with one delete !vote vs nine keeps.
• Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/James_McDade - no delete !votes, thirteen keeps.

And the subject of this thread is snowballing to keep right now, 17 to 7, and most of the delete !votes have nothing to do with notability. Don't use AfD to push your own agenda. If you see articles that are too POV, clean them up. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to my comments on the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Diarmuid O'Neill page. There are a series of articles about minor members of the IRA that, frankly, are being used to memorialise those individuals and promote their editors' own partisan views. Astrotrain finds that objectionable and while it could be argued that the articles need substantial revision instead of deletion, it is also arguable that such articles could be merged or revised under different article headings.--Major Bonkers 22:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

But that's not Astrotrain's argument. He's claiming that these subjects aren't notable, which appears to be false. If Astrotrain objects to the use of such articles to promote partisan views, then he should work on the articles - not file AfD noms with questionable claims of non-notability. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is part of the same argument. These individuals are not sufficiently notable as to warrant an article in their own right; the existing articles should be merged.--Major Bonkers 22:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree- he could be mentioned in a list of People killed by the British police or something- but is not notable enough to have an article in his own right. Its not even clear if he was even in the IRA- the Telegraph says he was an IRA suspect, and there is no evidence from a reliable source if this was confirmed. The only source for being in the IRA are unrelaible Republican forums. These articles are dangerous to the credibility of Misplaced Pages- we've arealdy had to delete a similar article after libelous information was added by Vintagekits. Astrotrain 23:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Tirghra state the he was a Volunteer on page p.365 and Gerry Kelly confirms it. As for claiming that I added "libelous information" - you know that I was the one that was proven correct in the end - would you like me to prove it?--Vintagekits 23:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think Astrotrain is making bad-faith nominations, too. Argyriou (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly a substantial number of people think in a similar way to Astrotrain and it is wikipolicy to assume good faith except where shown otherwise. - Kittybrewster 23:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Astrotrain has clearly demonstrated bad faith by his comments in the AfD discussions. I'm not going to be convinced otherwise by one of his meatpuppets. Argyriou (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

User:PopeofPeru

User:PopeofPeru earned himself the sad fame of "winning" last night's Colbert vandalism competition. He was immediately indef-blocked, but I let him off the hook because in his case it seemed to be a one-off occurrence and he had some constructive earlier edits. But now we have the problem that people keep congratulating him on his achievements, there's now a userpage full of such congratulations, glorifying the vandalism. And some people even revert that page when I try to at least blank it. The guy himself hasn't been online since the block/unblock, apparently. What do people feel, is it worth taking admin action over? The guy's lucky blocks aren't punitive, because otherwise I'd reblock him to scare off the others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Since Colbert has done this more than once, why do you think this users actions are a one time thing? I think reblocking would be rather inconsistent at this point, but I think the user should have stayed blocked. Sure it is funny, but not so funny we can just let it happen. HighInBC 14:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the point is not whether Colbert or anybody else has done it before or is likely to do it again, but whether this particular user is likely to be doing it again. And I see no more evidence for that in this case than in the case of any random vandal who we let off with a first warning, rather less in fact. He's been seriously cautioned, and he's got a (modestly) positive record otherwise. Agree with the deletion, though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

At the very least his trophy userpage clearly does not serve Misplaced Pages, anyone else thing it should go? HighInBC 14:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I did, and it is now gone. Proto::► 14:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, I do support the unblocking, provided it's made clear that he shouldn't do it again. Proto::► 14:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did not read the indef part of the block, when I said the user should have stayed block, I had a 24-48 hours block in my mind. Indef would be a bit much. HighInBC 14:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A "good" user shouldn't be so easily swayed into vandalism. Also, if you look at his talk page, there's at least one other established user defending PoP's actions as "not harmful." I think PopeofPeru should be blocked for a short amount of time, but longer than the three hours for which he was actually blocked. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And this would be preventative how ... ? Proto::► 15:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any signs of remorse on that talk page, or a pledge that he wouldn't do it again. Did I miss that somewhere else? A possible secondary benefit is that it may deter other good users from going "bad" - even temporarily - in future Colbert contests. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Indefblocked user

Hmm, user:JKG123 just edited a user's talk page, posting something totally from nowhere. Before this, the last edit by this user, in November 2006, was to User:Icelandic Hurricane/Biography, where he removed "User:JG55/User:JKG123" from a "friends list". This would suggest he's User:JG55, who's indef-blocked for personal attacks on User:Deskana. Couple of things need to be settled here - should User:JKG123 be indefblocked, too? And, there's User talk:JG55, which contains just a link that has been lying around since October 2006. – Chacor 14:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Spamming at Talk:Oak Island

It may be that this is just a newbie who doesn't "get it" yet, but Keith Ranville (talk · contribs) has posted a long piece of spam on the Talk:Oak Island page . His only edits are to that talk page. I don't want to risk "biting the newbie", so figured maybe someone here could have a look, revert the edit and explain to Mr. Ranville that this isn't acceptable? TheQuandry 15:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. It was a

Please look into this multiple deletion

I don't want to get into a revert war, so if the appropriate admins could please look into this and the previous three diffs, before MyWikiBiz sues us for libel. --MuscleJaw SobSki 16:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This account has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of MyWikiBiz/JossBuckle Swami. Gwernol 16:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User:DaNewBreed

User:DaNewBreed has set up their userpage as an attack on the same person that they created an article that I tagged for speedy deletion yesterday, and for which I expressed the inappropriateness of the article on the user's talkpage. I'm not sure how userpages are covered for personal attacks so grateful for intervention. MLA 16:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Completely inappropriate to use a userpage like this. I've removed the offending content from the userpage and warned the user. If this user continues to use Misplaced Pages to launch attacks on other he should be blocked. Gwernol 16:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Given the only two revisions were adding the PA and then it being blanked, I deleted it fully. No need for that to be hanging round, even in the history (and because of the edit summary fill feature, the same PA was in there). Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 20:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Before my frustration goes into overdrive...

...can some uninvolved admins please look into this ongoing dispute regarding WP:N and the guidelines they point to - WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:WEB in particular? In December, a change was made without any discussion or consensus anywhere regarding what's viewed by some as the "central criterion" at WP:N, downgrading a bunch of long-standing criteria in the specific guidelines in the process. I've had limited time lately to pay attention to the minutiae on the actual project pages until this past week, when I noticed it, left a comment at the various talk pages, and ultimately reverted the changes, looking for further discussion on the talk pages. This has not gone well, with a few editors (most notably Radiant (talk · contribs), who's tendentious editing at WP-space pages has amped up as of late) putting the changes back, almost universally without talk page discussion or demonstration of consensus, and a number of people opposing the changes at the talk pages of the individual guidelines beyond myself - this isn't a one man crusade. This, especially Radiant's continued disruptive editing and accusations, is getting tiring, and when people start removing disputed section tags, all it's doing is escalating an already heated conflict. I don't care what side people take, but I'd like some uninvolved people to get involved before this goes completely over the top, which is close to the point I'm at. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps it would help if you stopped throwing spurious accusations around. I note that you are misstating the situation by implying this is a conflict between you and me - for instance, on Misplaced Pages:Notability (people), it is a conflict between you on the one side, and me, Recury, Satori Son, Ben Aveling, and W.Marsh on the other. It is quite beyond me how you can claim that this implies a consensus on your side, when you appear to be alone in your view. >Radiant< 16:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, most of the problem at this point is due to your tendentious editing. Others have actually made statements and discussion, you've simply disrupted things, not to mention your complete disregard for the facts regarding what's happening in the dispute. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Like Radiant!'s post, this disagreement seems like a Village pump issue, not an admin issue. If the problem is really "disruptive editing" and "accusations" instead of the underlying policy dispute, some diffs might help. TheronJ 16:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's much easier to point out the three pages in question, there's plenty of evidence there as opposed to me taking 5 minutes to load diffs into the window. It's become an administrative dispute because there's been plenty of discussion and it's mostly one person creating the issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• The one person being you, of course, and you try to drive off the people who disagree with you by calling them tendentious editors. How about you try consensus building and discussing things, instead of throwing personal attacks around? >Radiant< 17:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Jeff, this is an editing dispute, and referring to someone's edits as 'tendentious' are very much a personal attack. --InShaneee 17:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Why do you need admins to look at this? - sounds like you should persue some form of WP:DR - have it been posted on the village pump for wider community involvement? - if policy is to be changed it's not an admin consensus that's required, but a community consensus. --Joopercoopers 18:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps I should go through DR - I figured the tendentious editing would be reason enough for some higher-level intervention (and I'm merely using terminology we use here, I disagree strongly that it's a personal attack), but I made the mistake in allowing myself to be baited, so I'll seek out other options. I still hope people will take a look at the conflict regardless. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you have such a fetish for the word "tendentious"? --Milo H Minderbinder 18:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I typically don't. I just can't find a better word to use regarding this situation. Regardless, I've opened a MedCab request and posted notes about the dispute elsewhere, so hopefully this will be dealt with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• I want to be in the party too! Of course this does not belong here, but since it is, the primary notability criterion is the best statement we have to date of what constitutes an encyclopaedically notable subject; it also has the merit of being capable of being objectively interpreted (or at least more so than counting the number of people who say "WP:ILIKEIT" in a debate). More to the point, having a guideline that says foo means a subject is notable when an article can satisfy foo without having any independent sources, is a recipe for endless conflict. If we start from the premise that all articles need sources and move on from there to the things which are either additive (so we don't get a directory of whatever) or indicative of the likely existence of sources, then that's a consistent and reasonable approach, in a way that implying that a band is notable if it sets foot over a national border is not (I have toured internationally with my choir, we are not notable). Jeff, you hope this will be "dealt with" - it might well be, but not necessarily the way you would prefer. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Patrick Manning

This article, about the PM of Trinidad and Tobago, tends to attract a lot of crap, so it's pretty bad to begin with. Over the last few days it has attracted an onslaught of angry angry newbies. I am not willing to step into that mess, and (for a number f reasons) I should not be the one to step in. Since this has become a fairly high profile article (I have only skimmed the comments, but I get the impression that it was covered in the local press or something), something needs to be done...by someone with a thick skin. Ditto for Basdeo Panday and Ramesh Maharaj. Thanks. Guettarda 19:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV has a big backlog at the moment.

Please let me know if this isn't the place to list this. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 19:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Constant personal attacks as a revenge for reporting vandalism

A user who got blocked after I reported his vandalism called me "a notorious liar (see link), continous misinterprator and falsifier" and "a radical nationalist notorius liar". This is not the first time. I asked him in a very polite way to remove his previous personal attack ("You are agressive, hostile, and highly uncivil, and seemingly you have some personal vindictiveness or whatever childish thing against me.") as an admin suggested. Instead, VinceB has just added another comment, implying for example that I started an edit war. His rant was finally removed by another user with an edit summary "Remove frivolous and vengeful requests on established users". I hoped it was over, but the new attack shows it is not. The user has already been blocked for personal attacks before. Tankred 20:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As usual, I've cited all my words. Tons of difflinks are on those pages. I would expand Tankred's expanation with that, that T's report on me was also deleted under that "Remove frivolous and vengeful requests on established users" summary. But T doubled that report again, on here, this page, this time successfully. First three blocks were due content diputes. Or, can I call it a dispute, when T did nothing, but simply reverted my edits as "vandalism". Isn't it so familiar when a content dispute occurs? After 3rd block, I'd be intrested who could hold him/herself back, and keep the NPA policy? I wrote down my opinion abt T (can be read above), and several times again since that (also can be read above), and I still keep them, since I found,seen and brought a lot of evidents wich are strengthening it. T's books are unreachable, and in Slovak with some excepts. Mines are in English, and on line mainly. Maybe it's a bit hard to him to understand, that if greens are written in an article, deleting them are not vandalism, but the improvement of the article. I like to come here with the John Seigenthaler Sr. Misplaced Pages biography controversy as an example, and to help understanding some of my edits, that even a cited content can be false, if the citation are (in my case) usually marginal or unknown writers from different states. For my last block, since there was no discuss abt it: I thought and think, those refs are only for the "restricting the usage of the Slovak language" line, not all that paragraph, since all of them are right after the "language" word. See? Content dispute. Thankfully WP:PAIN and WP:RFI were deleted, but T can not stop, and now he uses this page for WP:Block my opponent in content dispute. And T's addicted to me, his contrib list clearly shows, that he's not intrsted in anything else, but reverting me and somehow forcing me out of en WP, in wich he partially succeeded. I don't have time for this crap day-by-day, and I edit much fewer than before, and those are all as logged out. Lots of difflins are here for my statements , (my last comment in ste VinceB section)

B: Denying pan-slavism and the national revivals as a serious (main) factor and blaiming only H's nat.revival is an awesomly common thing amongst serbian/slovak radicals, and commonly, blaiming H for everything. No, Pan-slavism caused serious ethnic tensions and lead to the magyarization policies, and ethnic clashes also. I've cited them many times before (english, online refs mainly, not Slovak books), but they were simply deleted as „vandalism”. As all my other edits. And I still can not understand, why do they think, that I deny magyarization or such things??? LOL no, but simply, it played one role, not the only, and not even the main one, but an important supporting act. Stating this means, that you're a radical natonalist blablabla... see my talkpage for the perfect expressions. archive (oh, now I reveaed, why did I gave the name of the archive "blabla" :-) ) But other roles are prohibited, "m" is the main and only, so history falsifing is flourishing here. (in fact most of the not so frequent themes are also usually in poor or acceptable condition - for example articles related to PR and communications, and marketing...pff..- , so no wonder, why these unintresting - or lowly intrested - topic like this where I edit can be in the hands op political expressions instead of reality.) And the biggest LOL is removing nonsense and far-right writers "opinions" are vandalism. Well OK, than David Irving or Ernst Zünder, orr other err..."notable historians"...should be used in the articles related to Jews or the Holocaust. LOL. And depressing in the same time. Hope CZ will be better, since WP is dead. --Vince 21:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand what you are talking about. My post here concerns your personal attacks against me and your unwillingness to remove them. As to all your previous blocks, you have never been blocked for engaging in a content dispute, but for sock puppetry, vandalism, personal attacks, disruptive edits, and edit warring. Your last block came after you vandalized a citation from an academic journal published in English, not in Slovak. Please, do not try to divert attention from the topic. As I wrote on your talk page, I would accept your apology if you remove your personal attacks. Since you are evidently not willing to do that, I am asking here for help. Tankred 00:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Blehgarga

This user has just created a bunch of redirects, some of them possibly attacks, all to Christian Potenza. It seems that there are too many of them for a non-admin such as me to deal with at this time, so can someone (preferably an admin) check this out? Scobell302 20:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

All gone. 〈REDVEЯS〉 20:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And permablocked the user. Enough rope, etc. 〈REDVEЯS〉 21:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of Blocking/Banning by Chris Griswold; and other actions

I'm saddened to list this rather sordid set of activities by admin ChrisGriswold (talk · contribs · logs), a usually diligent and forthright admin.

Over the past week Chris had taken it upon himself to run off an individual who used the apparently fictitious username, Dr._Stephen_J._Krune_III (talk · contribs · logs), under a variety of pretenses -- eventually unilaterally banning and blocking him. Chris has claimed, among other things that the username was an imposter of a real, notable person -- it isn't -- and made this the basis of his perma-block. He later unilaterally claimed this user to be banned -- although as had no basis for such an action either, nor did he have "widespread community support" for such a ban, as required by WP:BAN: "Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users." Further, he did not bother to post his activity to the Noticeboard for review.

All of his actions are contrary to explicit policy requirements, and were pointed out as such. He has aimed to eliminate any "evidence" by blanking the Talk page of the user, where discussions about the individual and his activities were held, and selectively removing the extensive comments from his own talk page, without archiving:

• "rm" (14:35, 24 January 2007)
• "Doing as the Cybermen do" (18:59, 29 January 2007)

Finally, he has supported, and effectively misled, recent editor Acalamari (talk · contribs · logs) in committing sweeping talk page vandalism -- prompting her to delete dozens of legitimate comments from numerous talk pages and archives, under the pretext that these were comments left by the IP of "Krune":

• "Yes, good idea. It's all either pointless, insulting, or disinformative. Carry on. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 00:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)" (Removed Trolling from Chris Griswold's User Talk)

Now I agree that the "Krune" persona was unusual and some of his various Talk page comments verged on trollery; however he was not a vandal, and leaving an odd comment or two in Talk is not a banning offense. In this matter, Chris's use of the admin powers has stepped over the line into pure censorship; and his actions have caused at least one new user to have a grave misunderstanding about how Misplaced Pages works. The Krune talk page needs to be un-blanked and unprotected; and the account "unbanned", until such time that the actual process for banning is followed, if it is deemed appropriate. --Leflyman 20:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC) -

I would agree; Krune was trolling, and a read over his talk page made that fairly obvious (he was here to have fun; not contribute), but it was Chris' actions were excessive. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 21:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Prior to trolling and wasting a number of editors' time, Krune vandalized and trolled Misplaced Pages for one year as 64.81.118.101 (talk · contribs) None of his talk page edits that I have seen were legitimate. They were either insults or disinformation and intentional gossip. None of that belongs on talk pages. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• A specious claim. A sampling of the comments left by the IP, which Chris sweepingly claims to be vandalism/trolling:

• Talk:Entourage (TV series) (1 January 2006, noting overemphasis by some editors to mentions of Kevin Smith)
• Talk:Elizabeth (07:38, 4 September 2006, discussing accuracy of the portayal)
• Talk:Anime (11 July 2006, listing criticism of Anime style)

Additionally, the account made appropriate edits to articles to add actual content, clean up grammar and other problems:

• Hannibal Rising (21:08, 12 December 2006)
• Cannibalism (2 November 2006)
• Mystery Science Theater 3000 (12:25, 20 October 2006)
• Adam Carolla (10:18, 22 February 2006)
• Terrence Malick (extensive improvements on 14 January 2006)

It's clear that the account made some inappropriate comments, but on the whole did make positive contributions. Yet even still, there's been nothing to demonstrate that these are connected to Krune. --Leflyman 21:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

64.81.118.101/Krune add disinformation to Facts of Life talk page. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I object to some of those edits that Leflyman is talking about. I did not revert any edits he did to articles: they had already been reverted. I wasn't going to waste time reverting information that had already been reveted. I only edited the talk pages, though I did add some "citation needed" tags to Adam Carolla. Acalamari 22:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

One more thing: The user was claiming to be this notable individual, even taking the charade to to the unblock mailing list. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I am the user who actually removed the messages. I've read everything that he wrote using that IP. Insults to other users, racist and sexist comments, questioning the gender of real people, and also rudeness about an article's subject do not belong on talk pages. On top of that, in the history of his IP's talk page, I read that he threatened to sue Misplaced Pages and its users if he continued to receive warnings about trolling and vandalism. Also, he vandalized a user page with that IP, calling that user he vandalized a jerk. Acalamari 21:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Dr._Stephen_J._Krune_III (talk · contribs · logs) was basically an unapologetic troll who made no worthwhile edits to Misplaced Pages either as an account or an IP. The only beef I have here is the "ban" with no apparent discussion. I think the ban tags should be replaced with indef blocked tags for now, because (unless I missed something here) Krune isn't banned. The indef block probably should have been listed on WP:AN too for community review. Bear in mind, based on the fact that the editor's only contributions were a series of smarmy comments on talk page, I probably would have supported an indef, but Chris probably should not have done this unilaterally. None of us have the authority to ban on our own.--Isotope23 22:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Isotope. I will do this in the future. This block seemed self-evident to me; do I do this for all blocks? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, the distinction between a block and a ban has never been clear to me. Can you help me? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know exactly. Maybe the difference is that a block is temporary, as is an indefinite block (an indefinite block means a block that is not definite), while a ban is a block that won't ever be lifted. That's my understanding anyway. Acalamari 22:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocks and bans are different. A block is a technical means of stopping a single account from editing Misplaced Pages. A ban is a community initiative to stop a person from editing Misplaced Pages under any account. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• As I pointed out on Chris's talk page (and he subsequently deleted), a ban is a social construct -- and enforced through a block. A ban can only be placed by action of Jimbo, ArbCom or widespread community support. Chris is confused that he does not have authority to enact a ban on his own, and the failure to recognize this limitation is the heart of the matter. He likely doesn't have support to enact a perma-block, either. --Leflyman 22:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't understand what a ban was, and I used an inappropriate template. I have no doubt the the block was correct, though. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for acknowledging your misunderstanding. Perhaps you'll also realize that, as pointed out at WP:BLOCK that you should not be enacting a block as a punitive measure -- which is what you appear to have done. You have yet to provide a valid policy basis for a permanent block of the IP; you claimed "Username is name of Webspace CEO; pending confirmation" was your reasoning -- which has been demonstrated to be incorrect. Please note, under Disruption: "Blocks for general incivility are controversial; "cool-down" blocks are very controversial. Consider whether a 1-hour block will result in 2 months' drama"; it would be also helpful to look at Controversial Blocks to understand why I'm bring up my concerns.

The matter of what to do about Acalamari's wholesale deletion of comments, as supported by Chris, has not been dealt with. I'm concerned that among the ones excised were perfectly legitimate comments by other users, such as was just revealed at Talk:Elizabeth (film) and was only reverted after I pointed it out.--Leflyman 23:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have corrected that mistake: you know that. I know that trolling messages on talk pages are to be deleted, because if they remain, they take up space, and are unhelpful. Please don't make it sound like I deleted them because I thought it would be funny. Acalamari 23:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course I admitted that I made a mistake. All it took was an explanation rather than an accusation. Consider how you approach people. I'll leave the validity of the block up to the other editors.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 00:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Exactly what are we going to do next? We can't leave this unresolved. Acalamari 02:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

en.wikipedia.org/Battle_of_the_Kasserine_Pass

The instructions here are useless for the simple user. I do not wish to be an editor or administrator.

The page http://en.wikipedia.org/Battle_of_the_Kasserine_Pass , section Background and perhaps other areas have been maliciously modified.

Firstly my apologies if the instructions are not clear. We do try our best, but it's clearly not good enough :-( Anyway thanks for reporting the vandalism. It has actually already been fixed, so if you refresh the page it should be gone. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Haddyrikabi34 vandalism & cleanup

Can someone please cleanup after Haddyrikabi34's vandalism? He or she has moved pages and when I tried to move one back either I hosed something up or he or she had already done something else. I am stepping away from these edits lest I hose up anything else. --ElKevbo 21:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User is blocked indefinitely, and I think Malo (talk · contribs) and I fixed up everything. Nishkid64 22:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --ElKevbo 22:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

a porn star race car driver The story is told in the book of Genesis....

Someone wrote this on the page for Adam. http://en.wikipedia.org/Adam

Just thought i would mention it.

Stuff like that is added to Misplaced Pages every second. -Lapinmies 22:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Rouge admin needed

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/BenBurch is a cesspit waiting to happen. It's an RfC filed by a user with an openly admitted conflict of interest, "certified" by his brother, indef-blocked User:BryanFromPalatine, by proxy (needless to say I removed that); supported by another "brand new user" with one of his first half dozen edits (I blocked that one and struck it, WP:AGF does not mean we have to be wilfully obtuse), and now regrettably certified by an actual editor with a history, who I'd have hoped would know better, in response (of course) to canvassing, which is being engaged in by both sides. The substance of the dispute may be summarised as follows: We, the undersigned pots, feel that these, the named kettles, are unacceptably black. It has precisely no hope whatsoever of reaching a resolution of the problem, but stands a good chance of simply repeating all the same crap which is currently filling the talk pages of the various articles. Even if BenBurch were a problem, we're hardly likely to accept the judgement of someone claiming to be a member of the legal team of an opposing group. The very name Fairness And Accuracy For All positively screams the intent to engage in tendentious editing, but having a POV-warriors username does not in and of itself constitute a problem. These guys ate each other's guts, and that's never going to change as a result of an RfC.

Prize comment thus far: "A plague on both your houses". I couldn't agree more. Perhaps we could rustle up a cabal and simply close the thing as being utterly pointless. Failing that I might simply go back in a week and block all those who have added an inflammatory comment within the preceding 24 hours. WP:NOT needs an extra clause: Misplaced Pages is not Usenet. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, is that 'Rogue admin' you're after? Artw 22:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

psst... WP:ROUGE —bbatsell ¿? 22:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

wow - that is..well.. are they just spamming random people to comment ? (it appears that way before I gave up) --Fredrick day 22:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Pejman47 & Disruptive Editing

User:Pejman47 consistently reverts pages without discussing on the talk page, despite being told to join the discussion. The lack of communication has, unfortunately, made "disruptive" become the best description for his editing habits. Here are examples:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

• , was told not to .
• didn't discuss on talk page, hence .
• didn't discuss on talk page, hence .
• no discussion, reminded .
• Directly told .

Azerbaijan

• without responding to anything on talk page, hence .
• Directly told .
• still without discussing, hence .
• completely ignored reminder.

These are the instances that I have run into with this user. Note that, as of this post, he hasn't spoken about any of these changes on the talk pages and . In sum, I think there needs to be a consequence for this kind of disruptive and nonconstructive editing. The Behnam 23:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Inactive user editing as IP and gaming 3RR

I've got a problem on Obligations in Freemasonry. It was prodded almost 5 days ago, not edited for over a week before that, and today an IP editor rv'ed the article to a previous version (as his third edit, and first edit in over nine months), supposedly to remove the prod, but he misread the diffs in doing it. Given the tone and type of comments the IP editor made on the Talk page, I am certain it is the original author Frater Xyzzy (who is on wikibreak and inactive) editing as the IP 204.122.16.13. RFCU won't work, as he moved (thus the wikibreak notice) and if he reverts again he's gone for 3RR (which a user with <10 edits wouldn't know). Is there enough circumstantial evidence to get a temp block for a day for sockpuppeting? MSJapan 00:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Repeated replacement of prod tag in Obligations in Freemasonry

Somebody doesn't understand how prod works. Could someone please have a word with MSJapan, ALR and WegianWarrior about this? 204.122.16.13 00:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

AFD has now been opened. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Obligations in Freemasonry. Garion96 (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, there is no copyvio as claimed on the removed text. It is word for word from Duncan's Ritual on the Sacred Texts site and clearly in the public domain. Check it yourself. These guys are being deliberately misleading. 204.122.16.13 00:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:CSD#5 application on XfDs?

A sock of the banned User:Wik created this AfD while in the banned state. Doesn't WP:CSD#5 apply in such cases? Also can't edits by such a banned user using a sock be reverted per WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits? (→Netscott) 00:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Complex BLP issue

There have been multiple attempts to insert unsourced, probably untrue information at Francis Pym. The IPs 67.160.129.206 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 13.8.125.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and PyatPree (talk · contribs) have all added it within the past day and been reverted; PyatPree also removed a BLP warning message I left on his talk page. Both PyatPree and 13.8.125.11 have also been attempting to add a now-deleted picture of Princess Leia "enslaved by criminal Jabba the Hut" to the Slavery page, and both IP addresses have been trying to add a picture of Gimli to the Dwarfism page. PyatPree has also added unsourced, potentially libelous information at Christopher Soames, Baron Soames. Given that the first IP is a Comcast address in Oregon, and the second is the Xerox "uswest" web gateway (Xerox has a facility in Wilsonville, OR), I believe these are all the same person, and that this needs the attention of an administrator. Choess 00:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a continuing problem. Please see Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/SneakySoyMeat for earlier details. (And by the way, is wp:suspsock a graveyard now?) — coelacan talk — 01:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

PyatPree with the Leia picture, which got 13.8.125.11 blocked. The wp:suspsock report already lays out the case for 13.8.125.11 being indef blocked use SneakySoyMeat, so I won't reiterate that here. 67.160.129.206 making the Dwarfism edits, that got SneakySoyMeat blocked. I'll include all this in the suspsock report if that will help future editors; I'll wait for others' advice before I take the time, though. — coelacan talk — 01:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

EnglishEfternamn and WP:POINT

EnglishEfternamn has been disrupting the socialism article and its talk page for about the last two weeks in order to illustrate that British English should be the standard dialect for articles (as per his belief on his userpage that "English-speaking editors must be required to use a universal form of spelling, date format, and grammer " ), that "even the most basic facts require varifiability " , and that the article exhibits a right-wing bias. To illustrate these points, EnglishEfternamn has been repeatedly changing the article's spelling to conform with British English, has several times added {{fact}} tags to elementary facts, has insisted on inserting {{POV}} tags simply because of "failure to participate" in discussion , and has falsely accused those who disagree with him of making personal attacks or having a "right-wing bias" that invalidates their opinions.

172 has already requested relief from one administrator, but that administrator, Guinnog, has since gone on a break and is unable to enforce WP:POINT right now. In his request for assistance, 172 provided a succinct account of the beginnings of EnglishEfternamn's disruptions at the socialism article :

It has been brought to my attention that a user you blocked on 01:46, 28 December 2006 for "violation of wp:point" has been continuing to disrupt Misplaced Pages, despite your warning a couple of weeks ago. In a heavily trafficked article with the disclaimer "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject," this user has been disrupting the work of "'right wing' editors," whom he/she calls a 'problem at hand.' To make that point on the talk page, he/she has declared (1) "I will revert" the established version of the introduction ; and (2) plans for "large scale" reversions of the article. To make that point in the article, the user has been flagging scores of sentences with unnecessary 'citation needed' tags. WGee, a brilliant young student who prolificially edits many articles that fall in my range of expertise, promptly explained to him/her why elementary facts do not require citations. In response, this user accused WGee of vandalism, promoting WGee to direct him/her to 'WP:VANDAL and WP:AGF before accusing me of vandalism.' His/her continued reversions forced WGee to explain yet again why elementary facts do not require citations: "The article's content is so broad and uncontroversial that everything can be contained in the general references at the bottom of the page or from the internally linked articles." Still, the reversions continued, with the user declaring, "even the most basic facts require varifiability" .

Since then, several other users have admonished EnglishEfternamn, yet he has continued to disrupt the article, and with increased zeal:

• Revision as of 19:07, 16 January 2007 : adds {{fact}} tags to elementary facts; changes one word to British English spelling

• Revision as of 00:47, 20 January 2007 : adds {{fact}} tags to elementary facts; changes "-ize" spellings to "-ise" "to conform to neutrality standards and comply with the highest standards of grammer /linguistic arrangement"

• Revision as of 01:05, 23 January 2007 : re-inserted {{POV}} tag with no specific reasons

• Revision as of 18:07, 23 January 2007 : "Re-inserted template, no reason was given for its removal" (just before this, several editors explained that his insertion of the template without specific reasons was disruptive, serving no useful purpose

• Revision as of 19:11, 23 January 2007 : re-inserts {{POV}} tag, saying that he has not violated WP:POINT despite the consensus otherwise

• Revision as of 20:32, 23 January 2007 : re-inserts {{POV}} tag

• Revision as of 20:31, 27 January 2007 ; adds a {{fact}} tag to an elementary fact that is verified both in the linked article and in primary school textbooks

• Revision as of 23:27, 27 January 2007 : marked edit as minor despite that his insertion of {{fact}} tags has been hotly disputed in the past

• Revision as of 19:41, 28 January 2007 : re-inserts {{fact}} tag

• Revision as of 17:20, 30 January 2007 : re-inserts {{fact}} tag; changes several words to British English spelling

• Revision as of 21:08, 30 January 2007 : again changes American English spellings to British English spellings under the banner "Reworded for NPOV"

• Current revision (23:06, 30 January 2007) : changes entire article to British English; re-inserts a {{fact}} tag

• Current revision (23:16, 30 January 2007): again changes entire article to conform with British English spellings, saying "Rv, this is not a petty game, just a matter of angry users."

• Revision as of 01:40, 26 January 2007 : claims that "alling my text format 'not good' is un-neutral and a personal attack," prompting 172 to remind him that "Your 'text format' is not a person"

• After being explicitly directed to WP:NPA , EnglishEfternamn nevertheless maintains that these two comments (, ) are personal attacks. He also labels those who disagree with him as having a "right-wing bias" , apparently attempting to turn the discussion page into a political battleground

• In response to criticism, EnglishEfternamn says, "Thanks but no thanks, the changes needed will take place with or without your approval" . This prompts Lar to remind him, "If you do not get consensus for them first, they won't stick, and if you try to revert war for them, you'll be blocked" .

To quote WilliamThweatt:

Being disruptive, arguing off-topic on the talk pages, writing in all caps, adding and re-adding tags that everybody else says is inappropriate and ignoring consensus will accomplish nothing except dragging you into these long, drawn-out digressions that in the end accomplish nothing and you possibly developing the reputation of a disruptive troublemaker. If you had expeneded half as much effort in making your case for the changes you desire, you may have gotten somewhere by now.

Considering all the warnings EnglishEfternamn has received for his violations of WP:POINT—both from administrators and from involved editors, some in the form of blocks — and his persistent dismissal of them, I think that a ban in is order.

-- WGee 01:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough job. I was asked by Guinnog to keep an eye on this user. He's been warned by me on his talk 3 times now, warnings that have been removed (which is fine) with not very nice claims of vandalism (not so fine). I started reviewing his contribs and he's been making less than satisfactory edits elsewhere such as here. Blocked for 24 hours. I welcome review, as always. ++Lar: t/c 02:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Note, I think a indefinite block may be in order shortly if things don't change, but since it has been a month since his last 24 hour block, I only went with another 24 for now... the user does have some valuable contribs so it may be worth trying. I will monitor. ++Lar: t/c 03:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Buchanan-Hernet impersonating admin, Buchanan-Hermit

Buchanan-Hernet (talk · contribs) has been making edits to Gordon Campbell, which is strikingly similar to another editor and admin, Buchanan-Hermit (talk · contribs). It is suspected that The funky monkey (talk · contribs) is the same user too. Can administrator please step in? :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 01:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Constant vandalism of Gloucester RFC site

Hi there,

I represent the supporters of Gloucester RFC on the Misplaced Pages site. We have been having trouble with somebody (or some people) constantly vandalising the entry for our club, in particular the "Stadium" part of the site.

There have been comments put onto the site which are bordering on libellous. I have posted one of the tamer comments that have been posted on the site over the last week below.

"In January 2007, the club announced plans to redevelop part of Kingsholm (previously known as The Shed). This is to enable the stadium to become all-seating. A miniscule number of alledged supporters do not want to see this happen, and a stillborn campaign "Save Our Shed" or "SOS" was begun."

Is it possible for you to block the users who repeatedly change the site, or put a block on the page?

Many thanks,

Beddis 01:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Reality

Reality is a comodity

User:Arthur Ellis

Arthur_Ellis (talk · contribs) has recently used several sockpuppet accounts to evade a one-month ban. (Evidence: ) These sockpuppets have caused disruption on some of Ellis's most-frequented sites, including Warren Kinsella and Rachel Marsden. Some of the sockpuppet names have also been abusive to other Wikipedians, and/or to noted public figures.

Ellis's ban was imposed on 28 November but is now slated to run to 2 March, as the clock is reset with each sockpuppet violation.

It's obvious that Ellis isn't taking his ban seriously, and I believe it's time for the community to impose a more serious punishment on him. Given the staggering number of violations we're dealing with from the last two months alone, I think a community ban may be in order. CJCurrie 01:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support permanent ban. Jayjg 01:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Ban. This should have happened weeks ago. JoshuaZ 02:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Based on what I've seen of this user, endorse ban. --Coredesat 02:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

suspicious high-speed account creation

There seems to be some rapid-fire account creation activity going on right now. Something smells fishy to me. --Ixfd64 01:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#New users. Must be re-runs. Carson 01:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's the current Colbert show, which is just finishing airing. All hands on deck to help revert the crapflooding of "reality is a commodity" or whatever the heck it was. Antandrus (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I guess that's what happening. --Ixfd64 01:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Some heavy words towards me

I need some help from some admin willing to communicate with User:Sys Hax, as I believe it no would be productive for me to try it myself.

I tagged the image Image:Abigail brittney hensel twins.jpg as "replaceable fair use" (WP:CSD#i7) some days ago and left him (non-boilerplate) message explaining matter. Then, after the 7 days period, the image got ultimatelly deleted by admin Herostratus.

User:Sys Hax wasn't happy with this outcome and left me a harsh message, calling me a "jerk" (edit summary) and "self-appointed bowdlerizing luddite". As I get a lot of such attacks (and as I don't know what "bowdlerizing" means), I decided to ignore it at the time.

Later, User:Sys Hax took some time to contribute to an (already existing) RFC dedicated to my persona. There, he developed his thoughts on the image deletion issue and asked "WHY HAS WIKIPEDIA NOT BANNED THIS HOODLUM?". He also took the opportunity to define me as a "punk who would prefer to drive around at night and break off car antennas with a baseball bat". I decided to ignore that too. A good thing from this RFC is that people now has some place other than my talk page to attack me, and I got less "You have new messages" warnings (note that I don't want to imply that this is the sole reason people contributed to my RFC). (btw, I don't know what's a HOODLUM).

Later in the day, he left me another message explaining me I'm a "vandalizing punk who should be banned ", called me an "image vandal" in an article's edit summary, and voiced in this same article's talk page that I'm a "known image vandal" and a "punk who's deleted hundreds of images for fun, always giving a ridiculous, bogus rationale". Also according to him, I "would rather be driving around at night smashing off car antennas with a baseball bat".

After some more time, he decided he needed to left me one more message, calling me an "asshole" (at least an English word that I have already learned!) and explaing me again his theory about "smashing car antennas with a baseball bat". It's funny that in this same message he says that "Judging by the number of complaints filed against (me)", I "won't be an admin very much longer". Well, I'm not and had never been an admin. But anyway, based on this misguided assumption that I am an admin, he goes on to wonder how did I "get to be an admin anyway?", and offers alternatives: "Are you the "catcher" homosexual boyfriend of a real admin, or are you just a pimply high-school social reject who hacked into the wiki admin database with a kiddie-script?".

At this point, I decided he needs help. And that's what I came here to ask for.

Btw, he removed his last message on my talk page, according to his edit summary, to "take (his) concerns to wiki administration".

If someone here is willing to talk to this user about his behavior, I would really appreciate. Best regards, --Abu badali 01:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Mkil problem, I need protection against this individual asap

It's a good thing I noticed this. Go on my talk page, go on rocky marciano page, go under my history, I tried to reason to reason to reason with this man. He kept on putting words in my mouth, that's why I told him to watch out and not talk to me, in the beginning I never said those things. But he keeps on playing with all my articles, I can not possibly reply again over here, so go on my talk page, read it, go on rocky marciano talk page and my other history, you will know this guy is a sophisticated vandal. HE ERASES TONS AND TONS OF MESSAGES. I asked him not to talk to me in a kind way, how long and how much can somebody stand, I mean, he is driving me crazy, all of his accusations above, he is repeating time after time, in different rhetoric. I ASK FOR PROTECTION AGAINST THIS INDIVIDUAL, HE IS AFTER ME, AFTER MY EDITS. Every time he edits something, he says he cleans up things, sure he does, cleans up whole articles and case in point... recently (check my history) he was after my Nino Valdez article, he put the date of october 7 1955, the date baker fought valdez, which is not true, IT WAS DECEMBER 7, go on boxrec.com or on any archives, that was the dacy, what did he do, put oct 7, i mean, i am trying to correct mistakes, what is he doing, again, you have to follow my talk page, rocky page and things i left on talk page for others, also i do not check emails every day, so give me up to 5 days to reply. BUT I NEED PROTECTION AGAINST MKIL, NOT ONLY THAT, HE CHANCES STORY, PUTS WORDS INTO MY MOTH, HAS PEOPLE DOING HIS EDITS FOR HIM, GIVING HIM PRAISE ON HIS PAGE (AND IT MAY BE HIM, FROM DIFFERENT IP). I mean, the story goes on and on and on, again, HE MAKES MISTAKES, HE EDITS THINGS OUT, HE PUTS HIS OWN STORY, HE NEEDS EVIDENCE FOR EVERYTHING, MEANING, EVEN FOR BREATHING. I TRIED FOR A LONG, LONG TIME TO REASON WITH THIS MAN, BUT NOTHING, ALL TO NO AVAIL! This particular individual has time, TONS OF TIME ON HIS HANDS, I do not, i have to type fast, lucky thing I noticed this reply here. MKIL SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO TOUCH CERTAIN BIOGRAPHIES/ARTICLES, HE IS NOTHING BUT PROBLEM, he demands greatness link for Marciano, well in fact he is considered great by many, Check my page for link. (italian-american community e.g.). Then he puts some link under Marciano for some fake computer fight, i mean how can a computer call somebody great, we are talking here about historians. Whatever has been accepted as generally true in the world, part of correspondence of true, then it is true. He is challenging logic and common sense. I was asked by few people to watch over the rocky page back in november and december, i did not do it immediately, but I decided I will and people like mkil should not be allowed to destroy other people's good work. Not only that he destroys it but kills other people's time and effort and good will. And if I am out of line at times, he provoked me. He did not want to listen, he kept on leaving me dozens and dozens of messages on my talk page, putting words into my mouth and if something went astray gave me some wiki links and policy which have nothing to do with the situation or particular problem at hand. What else to say, read if you have time, mkil will waste your time too, BIG TIME! I did not want this situation to happen, go all the way over here, but what can I do. He simply wants things his way, that's all, i told others i do not want trouble, But I can not allow this to go on, i can not allow mkil to make so many mistakes, rewrite history!

User_talk: BoxingWear

Edits at Talk:Ustaše

Not sure how to handle the edits here. Refactor? Navou 02:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Request another admin to step in

Because of this posting to my talk page, I feel I need to withdraw for now from dealing with Escambia High School and Knowledgebase11 (talk · contribs). Could someone else look in on the situation. -- Donald Albury 02:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Non-talk pages automatically signed by HagermanBot