Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:35, 19 September 2007 view sourceRedvers (talk \| contribs)29,889 edits →Copyvio: Warning by Irishguy seems to have worked← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:35, 19 September 2007 view source MiszaBot II (talk \| contribs)259,776 editsm Archiving 10 thread(s) (older than 24h) to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive299.Next edit →
Line 17:		Line 17:
	<!-- Vandalism reports should go to ], not here. -->		<!-- Vandalism reports should go to ], not here. -->
	<!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -->		<!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -->

	== Ethnic war brewing, and abuse of ] ==

	Ethnic edit war brewing after disruptive edits by ] at article ]:

	* For nationality, he replaces ] (sovereign nation, U.N. member, passport) with ] (neither of them) every day . To me that's not content dispute, but unencyclopedic.
	* Conceals all his changes under abuse of ] tag.

	Since those ethnic conflicts degenerate so quick, an external opinion is wished from someone who can enforces Misplaced Pages's rules about encyclopedic (i.e. sovereign nations, not provinces or sub-states). — ] <sup>]</sup> @ 18:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

	:My view is that it is acceptable to use Scottish as a nationality; I also feel that that is preferable. Therefore it's more of a content dispute than unencyclopedic, IMO. I don't feel the abuse of the minor edit checkbox is deliberate, perhaps just contact him saying 1) instead of waring, it could be taken to the talk page, and 2) since the content is disputed, it is no longer apropriate to use the minor edit checkbox when changing it, with a guiding link to ] would be more apropriate. ] <sup>] ]</sup> 18:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

	:: '''Comment''': My opinion is that the above commentator should have either self-disclosed that he is from Scotland and a member of Wikiproject Scotland (cf. his user page), or abstained from a conflict of interest. And as far as I remember Misplaced Pages doesn't recognize or endorse non-sovereign nations, an encyclopedia is descriptive. Is there a new policy that says we now should use "Scot" or "Quebécois" or "Flemish" or "Texan" or "Basque" or "Breton" as nationalities? I would like to see the references or archive of the debate that legifered that. — ] <sup>]</sup> @ 19:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

	:::: Point of order: Possible POV pushing should not be labeled COI. Please don't use COI allegations to intimidate another editor. Thanks. - ] <sup>]</sup> 16:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

	::::: Please clarify:
	::::: * ] defines it as contributing "in order to promote the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups" -- Scots are an ethnic group, and this user has identified as a Scot on his user page.
	::::: * ] also defines it as " articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area", and he's a member of WikiProject Scotland.
	::::: So IMO both are conflict of interest, yet he didn't self-disclose it. Especially since he's advocating something that's never done in any dictionary or encyclopedia I've ever seen, that is replacing "British" with "Scottish" for the nationality field. How am I trying "to intimidate another editor" when I'm adding this information he concealed? And how come he gets a free pass on not disclosing this in the first place? — ] <sup>]</sup> @ 13:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

	:::::: Simple POV pushing should not be labeled COI. POV pushing is also wrong and can be dealt with by referring to ]. COI requires some sort of duty that is incompatible with the goals of Misplaced Pages. The goals of Misplaced Pages WikiProjects are always compatible with the goals of Misplaced Pages because WikiProjects are part of Misplaced Pages. Overstating your case may hurt the effectiveness of your arguments. - ] <sup>]</sup> 13:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

	::: I don't see the problem with using Scotland as country of birth, etc., but the nationality of anyone born in the UK is British, and should be stated as such. <b>]</b> 19:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

	:::It depends on the situation. I think most people would describe ] as Scottish (and he self-identifies as such as well), for example, so that's why we have him described as such in the lead. ] 19:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

	::::I really don't think the fact that I am a member of the project makes any difference when I have disclsed the more important point, that I am biased because I belive that it should state he is Scottish (as apposed to the fact that my nationality/project affinity merely ''suggests'' this to be the case). Anyway, the fact that we have disagreement between us still points to a content dispute. My stance remains that this is mainly an unfortunate misunderstanding of good-faith edits, and that it can be sorted out on the talk page of the article in question. ] <sup>] ]</sup> 19:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

	::* Sean Connery would give his nationality as Scottish, I'm sure. I don't believe Graeme Garden does. He is not prominently identified with nationalist causes, and is not strongly identified with Scottishness. I'd wager that a decent proportion of his fan base are not really aware he's a Scot, since his accent is not at all strong. Apart from the Hamish and Dougal bit, of course, but then Barry Cryer is from Yorkshire... <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

	'''Important additional note''': I forgot to mention that in that sort of cases, I'm always careful to have both the infobox say "Nationality: British (Scottish)" and the lead section say "John Doe is a British something from Scotland", thus there is both the encyclopedic sovereign nation, and the accurate sub-nation. But this is never enough for ethnic warriors, that simply delete all instances of "British" or "UK", such as the case above -- to me this is unencyclopedic and not a content dispute. And it seems to be the same everywhere. Our article about ] is a laughingstock because "British" and "United Kingdom" are systematically erased from it. Surely we have a policy about that in 2007? — ] <sup>]</sup> @ 19:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

	I don't see any discussion of this at ]. ] says it is a ] and a ] of the United Kingdom. ] 19:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

	:* Scotland isn't a sovereign nation. Readers of an encyclopedia expect "Nationality" to give them the sovereign nation, the U.N. member, the passport -- which is UK/British. There is no Scotland at the U.N., and no Scot passport. This is unencyclopedic, and playing on words, the UK's internal affairs and diplomatic choice of words isn't Misplaced Pages's concern. And the original "Nationality: British (Scottish)" had it covered anyway for full information, so the reader is even free to decide. Doing otherwise would be as unencyclopedic as writing "Nationality: Texan". Not all readers are from the UK or the U.S.
	:* There is nothing on the talk page because the incriminated user first changed it without edit summary and concealed as a minor edit , then after I changed it back with full rationales he simply reverted again as minor edit without any counter-rationale, thus displaying contempt for the point made and showing that he's not in for discussion but for ethnic warring. For centuries people have been ready to die for a piece of fabric, today they're ready to be banned for a word on Misplaced Pages, ''nihil nove sub sole''.
	:* And sorry for asking another, but I would really like to know what are our policies or guidelines or arbitration cases about this topic? When I posted this, I only expected an admin to brandish a WP:SOMETHING that would lay down the law on the matter -- not a POV discussion about whether someone's fans would considerer him this or that. Is this an encyclopedia or a fanzine?
	: — ] <sup>]</sup> @ 20:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

	::* We should go with their self-description. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
	:Of course Scotland is a nation (especially as far as international sports bodies are concerned) and a historical kingdom - the United Kingdom originally being those of England and Scotland. Also, there are sufficient cultural, legal and educational differences to establish separate identities. However, forget individuals and consider (for instance) cities. Are ] and ] simply cities in the United Kingdom, or are they areas of England and Scotland (and more to the point, does Scotland help fix the area in the readers mind)? ] 21:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

	Seems fairly straightforward to me as there is clearly a British identify, all be it there are Scottish and Welsh etc. subcultural identies. But many Scottish/Irish/Welsh/English people identify primarily as British - in fact most probably do, and culture is largely shared.]] 21:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

	:Scotland maintains a distinct national identity. That it's part of a bigger thing doesn't negate that it's a nation. It's article says it's a nation. It calls itself a nation, and maintains a national archives distinct from that of the UK archives and distinct of English Archives. Demanding such changes would mean a massive overhaul of all Irish, Welsh and Scottish articles about people living in the last 300 years, and woud eliminate a lot of clear information by obscuring it behind the broad term 'United Kingdom'. The history of scotland is clear at its' article, and the ssame goes for UK. Readers want to know Connery's Scottish, not 'A citizen of the United Kingdom, being born in the subservient nation-state of Scotland' "Sean Connery is a scottish actor'. bam, done. Be CLEAR. Misplaced Pages is not censored for political correctness like that. Observing self-description in the text, and the British(Scottish) in the infobox is enough. ] 21:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

	:: True, but not truly relevant. British (Scottish) is OK, if a bit weaselly, but I've never heard Garden identify himself as Scottish and the only time I met him his accent was barely discernible. (aside: TBT is much shorter than he looks on the radio). <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

	:::I am unimpressed that I have been specifically named here as causing an 'Ethnic war abuse incident' because I commented that Graeme Garden was born in Scotland (he was, after all, born in Scotland!).

	:::Scotland is still a country within its own right (]' son, ] was also '''James VI of Scotland'''). It was when James VI of Scotland also became James I of England that England and Scotland were united under a single monarchy (i.e. under the one crown). The other three countries which make up the ] are ], ] and ]).

	:::To be honest, I can't really see what the problem is. After all, ] and ] both have their country listed as ]. In the same way, ] and ] have their country listed in their infoboxes as ] — while ], ], ] and ] all have their country listed in their infoboxes as ]. ] 07:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

	::::Many people's primary identification is with the UK, not with a constituent nation. You are wrong to presume that someone who was born in Scotland is Scottish. Billy Connolly is known as a Scottish comedian, Ronnie Corbett is not, nor is Graeme Garden. Putting people into an ethnic box is POV. Many editors could tell you this - I was born in England but I'm not English (but I am British). I know of others who were born in England but are strongly Welsh. Unless you know how people self-identify you cannot say. ] 07:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

	:::::Well said - there are real issues over how to treat nationality in articles, but Misplaced Pages is riddled with "ethnic labelling" of very divisive kinds. It attracts race-haters and gives them far more of a platform than they have outside of the encyclopedia. We should not be providing any such platform, even in those cases where we think we're reflecting genuine differences. This is a problem that will get worse as en-WP attracts more and more members of minorities - some of their grievances will undoubtedly be genuine - but others will simply be malicious. Articles don't need it - objecting to "] is the biggest lake in the ]" is idiotic. Pandering to it in the encyclopedia encourages bitterness and violence. (On this last example I've had another look - consensus in Talk is for use of "British Isles" but nobody is prepared to confront the angry and stop them damaging articles). ] 08:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

	In response to the following comment by ], ''"I commented that '''Graeme Garden was born in Scotland''' (he was, after all, born in Scotland!)."'' well, when someone accused ] of being Irish because he was born in Ireland, he famously replied ''"Jesus was born in a stable, but it doesn't mean he was a horse!"'' Where someone is born does not identify their nationality. Scotland does definitely have a national identity within the UK, but many English people identify with Scottish national/cultural symbols like tartans, kilts and bagpipes etc, without themselves actually being Scottish, and vice versa many Scottish people identify with English cultural symbols. Its like calling George Bush a Connecticutur rather than an American. While its true he is both, the latter is more appropriate for an encyclopedic article. While Scotland is a nation, it is not a sovereign nation, there is a significant difference. Bottom line is someone born in the UK is British. Consider as well that many people born in Scotland/Ireland/Wales and England will at one time or another live part of their life in another constituent country of the UK, so what sub-nationality one identifies with is really down to their own personal choice. You could argue its not their choice and its determined by the location of their birth, but i'm sure General Wellington would have disagreed, ;) ]] 09:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

	:How the country of birth should be represented in an infobox should have been taken to the ] for discussion there in a civilized manner, instead of being taken to this incidents section of the noticeboard on this page.

	:Also, it is supposed to be against ] to make personal attacks on another editor. ] has personally attacked me by his public discussion of me in both this forum and in his edit summary of his reversal of my edit on Graeme Garden's article.

	:Misplaced Pages is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a venue for nitpicking and slurs. ] 11:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

	:: Misplaced Pages is an encylopedia, surely it is therefore a venue for nitpicking? Its being discussed here as this is where it has arisen for various reasons, there is no need to take it to the village pump because its really quite an open and shut case. Scotland is not a sovereign nation. While it may have its own national identity saying someone is scottish is ethnic not national. Scots are a race like aryans or kurds are a race. Likwise the english are a race, does living in england make someone english? of course not. Likewise for scotland. The nationality of the english, welsh, scots and n.irish is British, as it is for any other UK citizen. By all means add to the article he was born in scotland but its not his nationality. His nationality is british like every UK citizen.]] 16:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

	:::I don't see any personal attacks. I see some contentious editong during a content dispute, and an editor who brought the issue up for wider discussion, but at the wrong place. Not everything you don't like on here is a PA. ] 17:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

	:::: Personally I think this has been brought up in the right place. The user who brought it to our attention skipped the usual process of actually getting an edit war underway by bringing the matter up before it got that far, but it would have ended up as an edit war without some kind of intervention (and consequently would have ended up here) eventually, one way or another. ]] 18:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

	:::::I regret to tell you that the earlier quotation from Wellington (''"born in a stable doesn't make me a horse"'') is a favorite of race-haters - and appears to be false. It underlines what I commented earlier - race-hatred is a real problem, and Misplaced Pages will incite still more of it, unless we are ruthless about keeping it out. We'd never accept "The Jews are viewed with suspicion by XXXXX because of accusations of XXXXX" except in an article that makes clear how very nasty this stuff is. We should similarly steer well clear of allowing accusatory/discriminatory statements about other "groups" to appear. In fact, we should avoid labeling anyone as belonging a group. Or not belonging to a group, as we do when we allow the race-haters to imply that being Scottish is an alternative to being British. In this example, the "problem" is tiny - but it's still important to deny these race-haters a platform. And the principle of not labeling people (unless it is really, really necessary) holds good always. (Sorry if the above really belongs at some policy-discussing page, but reminding people is necessary at pages like this as well). ] 09:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

	Various comments and answers:
	* First, I need to apologize for how this turned into a long debate: as explained above, I honestly believed that in 2007 we had a WP:SOMETHING policy or guideline or arbitration precedent about such a simple encyclopedic topic as nationality fields, and I thus believed that WP:ANI was a good place for asking quick enforcement of such a policy. So it looks like we have no actual policy or guideline after all... I'll try to propose one in RFC or Pump/Policy, Misplaced Pages is becoming a total mess and a laughingstock with respect to nationalities, apparently everybody is too scared of ethnic terrorists to move, but we need something on that topic. It's not just the British thing, have a look from the Categories to articles about Canadian people (lots of "Canadian" deleted in favor of just "Quebec" or "Quebecois"), or Belgian people (most of them have erased "Belgian" and replaced it with "Flemish" or "Walloon", the two subnations that hate each other). I haven't even looked into Basque, Breton, Corsican, and the like...
	* To ThuranX: I think that having a lead section say that "Sean Connery is a British actor from Scotland" is hardly the pejorative apocalypse you're writing about; the "clear information" you ask is precisely both terms, not a single one; the objective facts of British passport, U.N. representation, or UK embassies aren't addressed; and if you invoke Readers, the NPOV is to give them both "British" and "Scotland" and let them decide which piece or pieces of information is useful to them, since both are true.
	* To JzG/Guy: about "British (Scottish) is OK, if a bit weaselly", I believe that no peace will come if we just try to impose the sovereign citizenship only, and also that it's often accurate and useful to mention subnationalities or local ethnies that have their own identity or a history of separatism. As long as it's sourced, I wouldn't be bothered by some infoboxes telling "British (Scottish)", "Canadian (Quebec)", "Belgian (Flemish)", or even "Spanish (Basque)". We just need to keep it to actual territories and forbid racial/ancestry things such as "German (Turkish)" or "French (Jewish)".
	* To Figaro: you can't rewrite the article's edit history, you didn't "commented that Graeme Garden was born in Scotland", you deleted thrice the word British in "Nationality: British (Scottish)". And the fact that most Misplaced Pages articles are currently owned by ethnic warriors (such as our international laughingstock "] is an English actor" where they delete the word "British" on sight everytime it's inserted) doesn't make it right nor a point; for instance, if all our articles about Muslim subjects were dated using the Muslim calendar, that still wouldn't make it right or encyclopedic, just massively needed to be changed (and how far is it before such madness happens, if we let it slip?). It just means we need a policy so as to be able to clean the nationality fields of those unencyclopedic articles, and ban the ethnic warriors who'd revert again. Also, the difference between "Nationality: British" and "Nationality: Scottish" isn't what you call "nitpicking". No dictionary or encyclopedia use your "Nationality: Scottish"; this point, too, is never addressed.
	* For the record, the edit war has continued after this discussion: Figaro reverted again so as to delete "British" (and also delete the infobox and replace it with a made-up table) – so I have restored the article, then tried compromise #1 by adding the additional info he wanted but this time inside the regular infobox, then compromise #2 by removing the Flagicon from the infobox's "Nationality: British (Scottish)" (assuming that the UK flag was a needless additional divisiveness with an ethnic warrior). I am however afraid that such compromises may be seen as weaknesses, as warriors are wont to do, so maybe it'll get worse...
	— ] <sup>]</sup> @ 13:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

	: I'm 100% behind your view on this ], I feel that the nationality is clearly British - certianly not scottish, I wouldn't even mention scottish in brackets myself but if it keeps people happy its an acceptable compromise I think. The problem is the scottish are (like the english, welsh and irish) an ethnic group not essentially a nationality. So its like saying ] is American (African) and ] is American (Northern European). Its true sort of, but not really appropriate for nationality, as being black/white doesn't affect their nationality. Saying British (Scottish) almost implies there is a multi-layered system within the UK where not all british people are the same, wbich isn't the case. English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Indian or Klingon, it doesn't matter, - if you have a UK passport your British end of! ]] 19:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
	:WP, your describing Scottish, Welsh or Irish as "an ethnic group and not a nationality" is both insulting and wrong. Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland are countries, making up one sovereign kingdom. Ireland is not even ''in'' the UK, which shows how poorly informed you are (the Republic of Ireland is a sovereign nation). It is entirely acceptable to describe nationality as "Scottish", "Northern Irish", etc. Scottish/Welsh/English/Northern Irish people are all, also, British. ] ] 10:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

	It seems to me that the problem could be resolved and clarified by changing the template for the info box to include separate lines for ], which is a legal relationship to a state, and one for ] which might include ethnic/cultural descent/preference. The latter is a little harder to define or label, and to do without causing offense, and should be based on how the individual thinks of themself. ] 12:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

	: I don't feel we should compromise on this as its very straight forward. Someones nationality is that of the sovereign nation which issues their passport. In this case British as scotland a region/constituant country of the UK. This is essentially an ethno-nationalist POV arguement with little ground. To put scottish becomes confussing to, say someone is born to two scottish parents in the USA and has a a US passport... are the scottish, or are they american? It becomes tough to decide because what your suggesting we do is make their ethnicity (scottish) into their nationality (american). Realistically they are an American of scottish descent. Lets keep it simple, nationality is the UK. I really don't see how one can come up with a solid argument otherwise. I think that for us to compromise on this is sacraficing ground to capitulate something just to avoid discussing it? Why change the template when its perfectly clear what nationality is. Its simple, someone from the UK is British regardless of their parents ancestory or their locale of birth. ]] 12:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

	:: So your passport determines it? What about people without passports? They Have no nation, they have no home!!! Oh Crap!... come on. How about what nation issued their birth certificate? What about immigrants? Are they the nationality of birth, or of current Citizenship? And for holders of multiple citizenship, entitled to multiple passports? Passports is a lousy, unstable and 20th century-limited means of solving this. ] 23:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

	A few comments:
	* To WikipedianProlific: but the problem, and one good reason to keep the "British (Scottish)" thing, is that Scotland and the others HAVE been nations, before being assimilated/merged into the UK. As for undesirable ethnicization, the examples I gave are based on territory and local sub-groups or sub-nations, such as Scotland in the UK or Quebec in Canada. Having "Barrack Obama is American (African)" was excluded from the start in my counter-examples because Africa isn't a subterritory of the U.S. On the other hand, I wouldn't have a big problem if editors of an article got a consensus for listing Obama as "U.S. (Hawaii)", or Bush as "U.S. (Connecticut)", even though is those cases it really looks silly or redundant with the Birth field.
	* To Neil: It is not "entirely acceptable to describe nationality as 'Scottish'", at least not esxclusively, which is why no dictionary or encyclopedia does it. Misplaced Pages would actually be rather progressive in having "British (Scottish)" and "British from Scotland" instead of just "British" like every other reference.
	* To Derek Andrews: I don't think that adding another field is useful or desirable, especially since the optional parenthesed addition fulfills the same goal with less effort or changes. And it wouldn't solve anything because ethnic warriors do not accept even "British (Scottish)" and want just "Scottish" so they would delete the field "<TT>citizenship=</TT>" and use only the field "<TT>nationality=</TT>", back to square one.
	* To ThuranX: a few possible freak cases don't change the rule of thumb for 99.9% of biography subject, else it would be like removing stairs from every building because there exists a few people in wheelchair. All people have a citizenship (even when unaware of it, such as some tribes in the Amazon Forest who are "citizens" of the country their territory belongs to), it's an objective and sourceable fact. Whether they have a passport or not, people are citizen of the sovereign nation they were born in (and/or the sovereign nation of their parents for expat births), nationality laws define all this clearly -- whether actual or virtual, the passport is one good criterion to look at, because even if he doesn't have a passport, a UK citizen could get a British passport, but not a Scottish one which doesn't exist. Same for embassies, there are no Scottish embassies. Immigrants retain of course their original nationality, unless they get naturalized, then they get dual citizenship and two lines in the infobox, such as ]. That's basic and obvious stuff, the system is clear and written in laws, most dictionaries and encyclopedias in the world use it. On such basic things, Misplaced Pages isn't there for "solving this" but for using the same standards than regular encyclopedias and scholar papers do. The rest seems to me like trying to abuse Misplaced Pages's open nature for pushing an ethnic-POV/COI. IMO, the eventual backlash down the road will be the official banning of even "British (Scottish)" in favor of a mandatory "British", and you'll have had it coming.

	— ] <sup>]</sup> @ 08:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

	== Legal threat ] ==		== Legal threat ] ==
Line 200:		Line 101:

	:::Let's try to keep the flare-ups to a minimum. SqueakBox may be a difficult editor to work with, but so am I, and as we know like forces repel and opposite forces attract. I proposed on SqueakBox's talk page that we put a reference (not a source, as you will see) after the word "feelings", &c. &c. but you can read it there and I'm not going to copy+paste the whole thing here. — ] 17:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)		:::Let's try to keep the flare-ups to a minimum. SqueakBox may be a difficult editor to work with, but so am I, and as we know like forces repel and opposite forces attract. I proposed on SqueakBox's talk page that we put a reference (not a source, as you will see) after the word "feelings", &c. &c. but you can read it there and I'm not going to copy+paste the whole thing here. — ] 17:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

	== Hoponpop69 is exhibiting troll like behaviour ==

	] has vandalized the glam punk page claiming that it doesn't have correct citations. Meaning that because he thinks that the citations are not right that the article should be deleted. He has deleted the majority of the article several times without any discussion on the glam punk talk page.

	Also, ] has put over SIXTY citation notices in the deathrock page, claiming that he can delete the article if he wants if people don't cite everything he wants cited. This has also been done without discussion on his part in the talk section of that page. If he had discussed why he put the citation notices on the page then I wouldn't have a problem, however he has not. He just keeps saying that nobody can delete his citation notices, and that he can delete artciles if he wishes if they don't conform to what HE thinks should be cited. I edited the citations because he put the requests up to SIX times in one sentence, which was over-kill to say the least. Now he tells me that if I don't like the way that he has done things that I should report him, which is why I am posting all of this here.

	He has been suspended several times in the past for the same behaviour, and he should not be allowed to behave in such a manner. I thought that Wiki was all about discussing changes in articles, not about wholesale deletion of them.] 19:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

	:FWIW, he's so has no power to delete articles altogether<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ] ]</font> 19:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

	*"He just keeps saying that nobody can delete his citation notices, and that he can delete artciles if he wishes if they don't conform to what HE thinks should be cited."

	I never said I could delete articles that don't conform to what I think. I said that I can delete content that is unsourced. Which I have the right to do per .
	] 19:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
	:You said QUOTE:'I could just remove all this content if I wanted to, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, and giving a chance for people to find sources.' . You are basically stating that you could remove the entire article if you wish, which you do not have the right to do.] 19:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
	::Pardon me for intruding, but he actually can delete any unsourced information per ], as mentioned above. All users have the right to remove unsourced comment and nominate poorly-sourced articles for deletion. There's no violation here on that part. Now, looking at the page, it is apparent that he was excessive. Hoponpop69, just because you have the right to doesn't mean that you should agonize everyone about it. True, the article needs sourcing, but putting a ''citation needed'' message after every other phrase is disruptive at the very least. Are you perhaps trying to make a ] about something? '']]]'' 19:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

	::I'm not trying to make any point, I'm doing this because a.) I don't want false information or original research on wikipedia, and b.) I have seen other articles get cleaned up this way. This is the ] article before I deleted what became unsourced content. Compare that to the current state of the article in which every single fact is sourced.
	::] 20:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::That article has a factual dispute tag so that is not a very good example.] 20:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::Okay. I still think that your citation messages were a bit excessive on ], however. They don't need to go after every word if nearby facts lacking citations are related in some way. For example:
	:::<blockquote>'''Deathrock''' (also spelled '''death rock''') is a term used to identify a ] of ]{{Fact\|date=September 2007}} and ]{{Fact\|date=September 2007}} which incorporates elements of horror and spooky atmospheres{{Fact\|date=September 2007}} within a Goth-Punk style{{Fact\|date=September 2007}} and first emerged most prominently in the ]{{Fact\|date=September 2007}} and ]{{Fact\|date=September 2007}} during the late ] and early ].{{Fact\|date=September 2007}}</blockquote>
	:::...can probably be simplified to:
	:::<blockquote>'''Deathrock''' (also spelled '''death rock''') is a term used to identify a ] of ] and ]{{Fact\|date=September 2007}} which incorporates elements of horror and spooky atmospheres within a Goth-Punk style{{Fact\|date=September 2007}} and first emerged most prominently in the ] and ] during the late ] and early ].{{Fact\|date=September 2007}}</blockquote>
	:::Perhaps that amount of citation tags can be reduced further; to be honest, I've never seen more than two citation tags in a single sentence before. This becomes especially noteworthy when you come to sentences such as:
	:::<blockquote>Other rock and ] bands who influenced many early goth/deathrock artists include ]{{Fact\|date=September 2007}}, ]{{Fact\|date=September 2007}}, ]{{Fact\|date=September 2007}}, ]{{Fact\|date=September 2007}}, ]{{Fact\|date=September 2007}}, ]{{Fact\|date=September 2007}}, ]{{Fact\|date=September 2007}}, ]{{Fact\|date=September 2007}}, ]{{Fact\|date=September 2007}}, and ]{{Fact\|date=September 2007}}. </blockquote>
	:::...which can be simplified to:
	:::<blockquote>Other rock and ] bands who influenced many early goth/deathrock artists include ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ].{{Fact\|date=September 2007}}</blockquote>
	:::That one flag should make it obvious to editors that the entire list of things need citations and also makes it possible for an editor to cite all of them with a single reference if necessary. '']]]'' 20:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
	Yes I meant exactly what I said, that I could remove all the uncited content if I wanted to (which is backed up by a wikipolicy). You are making huge inferences by stating that I said I could delete the article.
	] 19:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
	:Normally people discuss the removal of unsourced material. Why are you refusing to do this, and why are you being hostile towards compromising? Before you started this deathrock page 'cite' war you had even edited the article, so I don't understand why you are so wrapped up in it.] 19:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

	Sorry, I've never seen a discusion over the removal of unsourced material, as far as I know it's fair game ot remove (again I'm basing this on wikipolicy). I'm wrapped up in this because I like articles that don't have original research or false information.
	] 20:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

	Ha has now made THREE of the same edits to the deathrock page in a 24 hour period. One more time and he should be suspended.] 20:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


	I am going to convert the citation tags to the end of the sentence. Hoponpop, please feel free to list areas on the talk page you wish to have cited. 3+ citation tags for each sentence is a bit much, however I see why you felt the need to do it. I cleaned up alot of the tagging. Someone please point Hoponpop to how to use sectional requests for citations. I know there is a tempalte that requests tags for entire sections, that would prevent the over tagging.--] 20:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

	:As stated below, Hoponpop69 is trolling several articles in this manner; before he blanked 9/10ths of articles (including ones which 7+ sources as shown below) without instead adding citation tags, now hes overkilling citation tags for non contentious material on the ] article (such as putting around ten tags in each sentence) because he is bored and can't think of anything useful to contribute. He just seems to be antagonising Crescentia without any reason at all. - ] 00:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

	:I previously cleaned up the tagging but he reverted all of it back again. Hopefully he will listen to you.] 02:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

	=== Crescentia refuses to follow policies, continues to delete citation requests, and restore uncited information ===

	] is refusing to follow wikipedia policies. When I remove uncited information, this user just adds it back up. I point out that ] states:
	"Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor." But he ignores this. When I add citation requests this user removes them. He then states an unwritten law that I can't have more than one request per sentence, but when asked to prove such a thing can not. I tell him that according to ], any editor has the right to challenge unsourced material by opening a discussion on the talk page or by tagging it, and he ignores this. All I have been doing is following wikipedia policies, while he is blatantly ignoring them.
	] 19:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

	Also based on the section he filled out above this, you can add false accusation of vandalism to the charges.] 19:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

	:When you find yourself adding literally dozens of {{fact}} tags to a given section, it's time to consider a {{tl\|sources}} tag instead. --] 19:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

	The sources tag says "Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed." so that would just bring it back to square one of challenging the material.
	] 19:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

	:Generally, when you remove content, and, someone else puts it back, that's a STRONG hint, that you need to discuss it. ] is not a license to edit war. ]<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 20:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

	So he's not even getting a slap on the wrist for restoring uncited content? Give me a break.
	] 23:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
	:I could complain about you not getting in trouble also, but I am more adult than that. Hopefully you have learned something after all of this.] 02:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
	:Hoponpop69 has been on a trolling spree, blanking 9/10ths of numerous articles, including parts which have sources. Look at for example, (he removed most of the article and 7 sources) its not the only one either. He seems to think Misplaced Pages is a toy or something. - ] 00:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
	*What credence do you have? You've been blocked 26 times. I'm getting sick and tired of you calling me a troll when based on ] that is not a case. In fact if anyone is at fault here is is you for stalking me.] 02:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
	:How is he stalking you? He has run into the same problem with you as I have so he feels the need to speak up about it.] 02:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

	And another thing, I'm pretty angry about you taking edits out of content to make it look like I am a vandal. If you look at the glam punk articles history page, you can see in my edit summaries that any sources that are removed are because they did not relate to what was in the article.
	] 02:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
	:You removed sections that had citations, and you didn't explain on the talk page why you did so. That is vandalism. If you would actually take the time to talk to people on talk pages then most of the problems that you are having at the moment wouldn't be occuring.] 02:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

	Like I just said, I explained the edit in the edit summary, you can find the reasoning there. In the future I will use both the talk page and edit summary since it seems most people just read one or the other.
	] 02:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

	And I'll man up and apologize for the give me a break comment.
	] 02:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


	::Some words of wisdom:
	:::"In general, I find the {{tl\|fact}} tagging to be overdone in Misplaced Pages. A better option is to nuke the unsourced material. Sometimes {{tl\|fact}} is warranted, I don't mean that it is always a bad idea. But it is overdone." <br>        -- ''']'''<sup> <span class="plainlinks"> </span></sup>
	::'''Or''' just source it. Seems like trivial info which can be easily sourced.
	::--<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 12:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

	== Borderline BLP question at ] ==

	*{{Userlinks\|68.164.150.65}}
	*{{Userlinks\|68.164.234.82}}
	*{{Userlinks\|68.164.237.250}}
	*{{Userlinks\|69.3.133.80}}
	There's a long-running dispute on who invented the ]. An IP editor (who may be Fernandez) claims credit for it, citing a document dated years after the fact. He accuses the currently-credited inventor Kelley (three sources, not very reliable) of plagiarising his invention, and provides no sources to back that claim.

	The article itself is semi-protected after a recent ANI incident (edit-warring over this same issue) so the only problem is what's on the Talk page.

	I don't know if this is strong enough to be a BLP issue but having I thought it was better to play it safe and remove the material. With this , the anon editor restores multiple accusations of plagiarism. I have reverted once, but don't want to edit war. Admin advice or assistance would be appreciated.

	<font color="006622">]</font><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 21:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

	:It's not a borderline ] violation, it is a definate ] violation. The anonymous 'contributor' was given more than enough time and chances to come up with reliable sources for the accusations in question, and the only results amounted to abuse and further (or rehashed) unfounded accusations. I closed the RFC as soon as I had full confirmation that the editor wasn't attempting to address the issue - either he had trouble understanding what was asked or he was trolling, and the unacceptable material doesn't belong in either case. --] 00:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

	::It's not trolling; but he really does believe that the proof he has provided (the link to the Xerox Disclosure Journal) is all the proof that we could possibly need to '''know''' that he invented the mousepad (and yes, that is Armando 'Manny' Fernandez; he has said as much in the last year of IP edits, has had a username with Manny in it, and almost any place on the web that states Kelley invented it soon gets a visit from someone with the username Manny telling them they are incorrect). I've been watching the page for 6 months now - I found it on RC patrol, and Dicklyon, who has been watching it for a year at this point, was getting so visibly burnt out that I stayed. From time to time editors pop up on the page and think this is a temporary issue, or just an IP problem, but this is an ongoing problem with a tireless and obsessed editor on a ADSL line with an IP that changes daily. I'm not even going to address the ongoing personal attacks; the ones against me, at least, don't bother me much, because anyone who sees the context will realize that in fact, I'm doing a good job.

	::I have said it repeatedly; the only way this perisistent issue will be ended is with a long-term semi-protect on that page. 3 to 6 months would not be out of line when you consider this IP editor has spent over a year trying to push his POV into this article, more than daily, with almost no other IP edits happening (some, I know, but very, very few. I won't argue that this is the ideal solution; the ideal solution would be the IP editor in question getting a clue or a cite). --] 06:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

	:::You might want to take a look at the suggestion to report him to his ISP, here: ]. I don't know how to go about that. ] (]) 08:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
	::::The Sunnyvale Patent Library used to have paper copies of the Xerox Disclosure Journal and the ], but that library closed in 2006, since nobody looks up patents on paper and microfiche any more. No idea if they still have those documents. The USPTO library in Alexandria, Virginia should have a full set. Those publications are hard to find; I think only ten copies of IBM's bulletin were published. The has many of them on line, but full-text retrieval isn't free. But that information is findable, and a proper citation should be provided. --] 17:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

	== Editor on blanking spree on multiple pages ==

	Can someone look into this?
	] is blanking whole bunch of paragraphs, sections, links claiming WP:OR, WP:NOT and WP:SOAPBOX
	: and in ] page and
	: and in ] page
	: and and in ] page ] 21:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
	::So far, everything I have seen looks legit. is clearly a removal of POV. definitely looks like removal of soapboxing/POV. I did not further investigate the allegations of "fake references" mentioned in some edit summaries, but nothing I have seen would make me assume they are anything but good faith constructive editing. Sometimes the best and fastest way to fix an article is just wholesale removal of policy violating content. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 21:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
	:I have to agree with Mr.Z-man. This appears to be a case of a user stringently following/enforcing the rules. I really don't see a problem with that. If proper sources can be found for some of the claims, the removed material is easily found in the edit history of the page for reference. ] 23:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
	::The first appears to be fairly legit; putting in a giant disclaimer that says "your religion is wrong" seems a bit wrongheaded. The second, I'm not so sure - unless it really ''was'' a faux reference. The third is too long for me to care about - that's your issue. I would say this is no more than an edit war, though, at the moment. ] 00:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
	* See also ] on this page. — ] ] 09:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

	== Hack job? ==

	] was recently idnef. blocked for page move vandalism. However, looking back into his contribs, he made good edits before today. He was apparently inactive for quite a bit. I suspect a hacker in the works. <font color="Blue"><span style="font-family: Arial"> '''''Cheers,]]] (])</span>'''''</font> 23:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
	:Maybe someone could contact them at this wiki? Appears to be the same user, check the history of ]. ]<small> (]·])</small> 00:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
	::Alternatively, this could be a wiki-suicide. Not terribly uncommon, these days, I am afraid.... -- <strong>]</strong>] 07:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

	== Daddy Kindsoul has violated his revert parole ==		== Daddy Kindsoul has violated his revert parole ==
Line 387:		Line 164:

	* JD2718: Thank you for bringing NathanLee's trolling to our attention, we will review his other comments and see if there is a pattern that needs addressing. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)		* JD2718: Thank you for bringing NathanLee's trolling to our attention, we will review his other comments and see if there is a pattern that needs addressing. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

	== Need help undoing the move ] -> ] ==

	A new user moved the disambig page ] to ] and then redirected ] somewhere else. I think the disambig page should be reinstated. This requires an Admin to look into and undo the move to preserve the edit history. Thanks, --] 05:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
	:Page up for speedy. User warned. Problem fixed. ''']</font><sup>]</sup>''' 05:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
	::For the time being, I've repasted the contents of ''This page...'' onto ]. It's effectively the same; the only difference is now the page history. '']]]'' 05:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::{{resolved}} ] ] 05:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
	It should be noted that was the version of the page he wanted deleted. ] 07:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

	== User Anwar saadat and TMMK article ==

	* <u>User</u>: {{userlinks\|Anwar saadat}}
	* <u>Article</u>: {{La\|Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham}}

	The user's edits to the article have repeatedly:
	* added many inline external links to the tmmk website
	* added a lengthy ‘Organisational structure’ section with several subsections of tables of tmmk ‘wings’ with red linked names of over two dozen tmmk ‘officers’
	* removed tags (e.g. <small>{{tl\|fact}} {{tl\|newsrelease}} {{tl\|primarysources}} {{tl\|POV-check-section}} {{tl\|wikify}}</small> etc.)
	* removed citations
	* removed the references section

	He has continued this disruptive pattern of editing (now with ) in spite of requests to stop. Several editors have invited discussion on the article talk page and have asked him, in edit summaries and on his user talk page, to discuss his changes. He removed such requests from his talk page, and has not discussed any issues on the article talk page since June.

	A ] on ] cleanup issues, listed ten days ago, has so far yielded no additional input in the RFC section on the article talk page.

	Because only one editor has been persistently adding non-neutral content and removing references, this is not a ]. — ] ] 09:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

	== {{User\|White Cat}} ==

	{{archive top}}
	I appologise in advance because this is petty, but ]'s been having a few issues with his signature again. His signature links to ], which is a redirect to ] so is completely pointless. He's refused to do anything about it, and from previous experience with White Cat and his sigs, I am positive that he is doing it ] and see what reaction he can get. I'd like to see the redirect deleted outright, or White Cat blocked until he agrees to change it, thought it best I put it to the jury. ] 10:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
	:So she's basically link her sig to the userpage, through a redirection? Weird... --] <sup>]</sup> 10:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
	::As I said, he's doing it to be disruptive in my opinion, there's no need whatsoever to it. ] 10:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::For the record, I think it's a "she" according to IRC conversation.... Well, I've asked for an explanation so there isn't much that can be done till then... --] <sup>]</sup> 10:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

	:From your description, it seems that you are having issues with White Cat's perfectly acceptable signature. It appears that he wants Whatlinkshere's to his userpage to be sorted in a per-year fashion, a completely understandable and useful practice. There is no issue to be resolved here unless somebody starts doing something disruptive (like deleting the redirect or blocking White Cat). ] (]) 10:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
	::I strongly disagree, White Cat's doing this to make a point, not so he can sort out his contributions. White Cat likes people kicking up a fuss over his signatures. ] 10:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::If that is what you think, you should ]. That he has a redirect in his signature is essentially harmless. The issue seems to be more "White Cat has a long history of being annoying", but that is a poor reason to block him over an acceptable signature. ] (]) 10:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::: Seconded. I'm afraid that WhiteCat is seeking attention (as usual). The less discussion of his harmless antics on this noticeboard, the better for him and the community in general. --]<sup>]</sup> 10:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::: Ditto. Regardless of whether WhiteCat is engaging in a "completely understandable and useful practice" for link sorting or hoping to see "people kicking up a fuss" over a harmless triviality... the proper response is to say, 'oh, ok... that's different' and move on. --] 11:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
	:: Oh... Cute, really cute... I have been signing with a "redirect" for months now. It didn't bother you until now, why did it start bothering you suddenly? Talk about lag...<br>Many other people sign in a same way, but when I do it bothers people (as I am doing it). <sarcasm>There should be no rest for me, people should always complain about the most trivial thing I do and seek all avenues just to bother me. I should not be given 10 seconds of peace and quiet because I '''''must'' always''' be plotting something with each edit.</sarcasm><br>On the contrary my dear people, I find this whole thing disruptive, unproductive, and annoying. I neither enjoy nor like ''attention.'' It is indeed a very interesting misconception that I ''like/enjoy/want'' seeking attention as I have been complaining against "]" from some users all along. One such user was blocked indefinitely by the community sanction board after undergoing two arbitration hearings. The amount of time this had taken (nearly 2 freaking years) was simply jawdropping. No one else was given a fraction of that courtesy on wikipedia to date. So please... At the very least get your grasp over facts a bit more carefully.<br>Even when I am doing nothing (aside from signing?) I am not given most basic courtesies and thats all there is to it. Please stop '''''blaming''''' me for things that are neither disruptive nor controversial. I am not making a point, you are. What the heck is the point I am trying to illustrate? Oh and where is the actual disruption?<br>...Next thing you know people would complain that I am signing with UTC time rather than local time!<br>--<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 12:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::UTC time? You evil bastard! UTC time is also known as ] time. This is all some afro-centric conspiracy! Admit it! :] --] 13:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
	::::Itabise! Itabise! (only zulu word I recall meaning celebrate :P) --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 13:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
	What are you talking about? A user has every right to have any internal link in the signature. (The only obljectionable link, off the top of my head, would be a deceptive link to another user's page.) A link to own user page, even via redirect, is perfectly acceptable. ] 13:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
	::I'm going to have to agree that the signature needs to be changed, as it's throwing ] off, and we don't need all of White Cat's edits double-signed. <font face="Trebuchet MS">]<small> (]) (]) (])</small></font> 14:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::Would not fixing the bot be a better alternative? You can't expect people to change their behaviour just so it suits a bots code. And I want to be very careful with this statement. I like SineBot. I really do. It is doing wikipedia a great service and it's code merely needs some minor adjustments as this is a minor bug.<br>Seriously why is it that people do not want to give me the basic courtesy they are even willing to give bots?<br>--<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 14:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
	::::SineBot already has an opt-out feature that should work to prevent further confusion. White Cat, could you please follow instructions at ] to prevent SineBot from annoying the hell out of people whenever it double-signs your edits? ] (]) 14:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::::I have done as you asked. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 15:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::The signature is fine. It is the bots problem if it does not know how to handle it, and <s>DarkFalls</s> <ins>Ryan Postlethwaite</ins>(oops, wrong name) is not truly effected by this. (] ? (]) 14:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}

	== GFDL Revocation ==		== GFDL Revocation ==
Line 524:		Line 251:

	::::The article on ''The Age of Reason'' (a work composed of three parts, not two) is written in accordance with ], ], ], ], etc. It is based on the work of major Paine scholars. Any major scholarship that is missing should obviously be included and any inaccurate representations of that scholarship should obviously be fixed. I would gladly work with Pitythafoo to fix those. However, they have not provided any sources for their claims. All of this is explained in detail at the article's ]. Thanks. ] \| ] 22:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)		::::The article on ''The Age of Reason'' (a work composed of three parts, not two) is written in accordance with ], ], ], ], etc. It is based on the work of major Paine scholars. Any major scholarship that is missing should obviously be included and any inaccurate representations of that scholarship should obviously be fixed. I would gladly work with Pitythafoo to fix those. However, they have not provided any sources for their claims. All of this is explained in detail at the article's ]. Thanks. ] \| ] 22:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	Negative rumors from facebook are being repeatedly input into the ] article by single-purpose-editor ]. He has been warned that he will be blocked, but has ignored those warnings to do it again. --] 11:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
	: Blocked 24 hours for 3RR violations. - ] 15:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	Not sure where to put this but here we go.

	On New Page patrol, this one came across the wire. A quick google showed this to be a cut and paste job from ]. ] has tried to pass this off as his own. I can't even find a reference to him at all anywehre. I am pretty stunned that someone would cut and paste someone elses resume/cv and try to pass it off as their own. I am not sure if it is actionable or not but it definitely is copyvio. I guess I should not be stunned as I am seeing what people try to put on Misplaced Pages but this one moved me enough to post here. ] 14:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

	== Revert warring on ] ==		== Revert warring on ] ==
Line 994:		Line 710:

	== Undid revision ... by User:X per User:Y ==		== Undid revision ... by User:X per User:Y ==

	"Undid revision ... by User:X per User:Y" is the edit summary of many of ]'s reverts. What makes at least a set of such reverts unacceptable is that this user has made zero contributions to the talk pages of those articles. In the following, I have selected some of his reverts from Sep and late Aug that have such edit summaries & are made to the articles that he has had ''no'' activity on their talk pages. That is, I have excluded reverts that either include some explanation, or are made to the articles that Karl has at least one edit to their talk pages.		"Undid revision ... by User:X per User:Y" is the edit summary of many of ]'s reverts. What makes at least a set of such reverts unacceptable is that this user has made zero contributions to the talk pages of those articles. In the following, I have selected some of his reverts from Sep and late Aug that have such edit summaries & are made to the articles that he has had ''no'' activity on their talk pages. That is, I have excluded reverts that either include some explanation, or are made to the articles that Karl has at least one edit to their talk pages.

Line 1,024:		Line 741:

	== Check user ==		== Check user ==

	{{resolved}}		{{resolved}}
	Sorry if this is a bad place for this... Could someone check a user's contributions? I'm at work right now and saw that ] changed the image on the Silvia Saint article. I didn't need to scroll down much to see that the image shouldn't be on the page. But I'd like to see that it gets deleted since it's obviously going to be a copyvio. I'd edit the image description page myself but as I said, I'm at work. I'd rather not have that up if the wrong person walks by... See ]. Thanks, <span style="font-family:monospace;">]</span>\|] 09:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)		Sorry if this is a bad place for this... Could someone check a user's contributions? I'm at work right now and saw that ] changed the image on the Silvia Saint article. I didn't need to scroll down much to see that the image shouldn't be on the page. But I'd like to see that it gets deleted since it's obviously going to be a copyvio. I'd edit the image description page myself but as I said, I'm at work. I'd rather not have that up if the wrong person walks by... See ]. Thanks, <span style="font-family:monospace;">]</span>\|] 09:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Line 1,069:		Line 787:

	== IP 212.127.96.230 single use for spam linking a vanity OR site ==		== IP 212.127.96.230 single use for spam linking a vanity OR site ==

	{{resolved}}		{{resolved}}
	Not the most problematic editor in the world, but 212.127.96.230 seems to be weekly spamming to link a site which lacks notability. e.g. and . Seems to be almost a single use account for this purpose. Has had a couple of warnings on the talk page. As not a contributor, perhaps it is time for a block? ] 13:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)		Not the most problematic editor in the world, but 212.127.96.230 seems to be weekly spamming to link a site which lacks notability. e.g. and . Seems to be almost a single use account for this purpose. Has had a couple of warnings on the talk page. As not a contributor, perhaps it is time for a block? ] 13:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Line 1,082:		Line 801:
	* Hmmm. Donn seems a bit single-minded about this subject, and I think we cite his reviews in some places don't we? Is there a potential COI here? I don't know, it may be completely kosher, but it does look a bit odd. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)		* Hmmm. Donn seems a bit single-minded about this subject, and I think we cite his reviews in some places don't we? Is there a potential COI here? I don't know, it may be completely kosher, but it does look a bit odd. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

	==]==		== ] ==

	Would somebody else please speak to this admin. I'm giving up. (He has me in his ). Aside from his tendency to revert other admin's actions without attempting to contact them, he's shockingly uncivil. I get the sense he feels the rules are for others. Thanks. --'''<span style="background:Black;color:White"> ]\|]\|] </span>''' 16:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)		Would somebody else please speak to this admin. I'm giving up. (He has me in his ). Aside from his tendency to revert other admin's actions without attempting to contact them, he's shockingly uncivil. I get the sense he feels the rules are for others. Thanks. --'''<span style="background:Black;color:White"> ]\|]\|] </span>''' 16:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
	* Mikka is a grumpy old bastard, just like me, but I find him OK. What did you do to get killfiled? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)		* Mikka is a grumpy old bastard, just like me, but I find him OK. What did you do to get killfiled? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Line 1,103:		Line 823:

	== ] ==		== ] ==

	Not so much an incident, as the VoABot II bot reverting my removal of around 10k from the article as vandalism. Here's the dif: ]. Any help is appreciated. Thanks! ] 17:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)		Not so much an incident, as the VoABot II bot reverting my removal of around 10k from the article as vandalism. Here's the dif: ]. Any help is appreciated. Thanks! ] 17:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Line 1,120:		Line 841:

	== Socking on ] ==		== Socking on ] ==

	{{resolved\|] got 'im. ➔ This is ''']''' 18:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)}}		{{resolved\|] got 'im. ➔ This is ''']''' 18:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)}}
	] is a new account who has made no other edits except to the above named article, and has made the today as the indef-banned ] did back in July. Could an admin block him? ] 18:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)		] is a new account who has made no other edits except to the above named article, and has made the today as the indef-banned ] did back in July. Could an admin block him? ] 18:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:35, 19 September 2007

Purge the cache to refresh this page

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Shortcuts

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.

You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

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)

Start a new discussion Centralized discussion

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358
359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368
Incidents (archives, search)
1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165
1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337
338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346	347
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Legal threat User:Real77

Contentious and difficult user is making legal threats. It's not clear from WP:Legal what I do now, tag it, what? KP Botany 06:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I found the template to tag the user, but other than that, what, if anything. Is there a notice board for this? "If Wikpedia is not going to play ball with 3rd aprty verifable issues then this shall be referred to lawyers as an individual has the right to control his or her reptutation and,name and likeness through themselves or third parties." KP Botany 06:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This be the place. There's no NLT noticeboard, thankfully! Keep us posted on his response. El_C 06:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

User has been blocked indefinitely (or until they agree to not make any more legal threats). Someone should probably go over Anna Wilding and cleanup any unsourced statements, as this is the article the user appears to have a problem with (though from what I can tell, they want to add content, not remove). --- RockMFR 07:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

More eyes on the article could not hurt, however there are a group of excellent Misplaced Pages editors who are already attempting to clean up the article. Real77 claims to be working for Anna Wilding but is doing nothing but trashing the article's talk page and making the article as ugly as possible. My concern at this point is that because he claims to be working for Ms. Wilding, he is making her look awful with his edits, particularly his talk page ranting which is largely incomprehensible. This sounds reasonable, though, blocking until a user agrees to not make any more legal threats. Thanks. KP Botany 07:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no response from the user. However, another editor quit editing because of nasty and potentially threatening (legal) comments to him. Without Real77 around a small handful of those who have weathered the nastiness have removed the poofunery, the bad grammar, the horrid punctuation, the fluff, and the poor English, so the article looks halfway decent. In light of what has happened, most of the article has been tagged for fact checking and all sources will be individually verified. Thanks. KP Botany 21:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat by Anna Wilding's representatives

It appears that Ms. Wilding has attempted to pressure others into publishing her resume and self-publicity. She filed some complaint against the New Zealand Press Council for failing to publish her photos and press release. At this point I ask that administrators consider reblocking both User:Real77 and User:Tonyx123 who are both working for Ms. Wilding, from editing Misplaced Pages. Real77 issued a legal threat, was blocked, agreed not to issue any more, so his block was removed--as seemed appropriate. However, in light of the fact that it appears Ms. Wilding filed a formal complaint against another entity for failing to do what she is attempting to manipulate Misplaced Pages into doing, namely publish her publicity materials and resume, I think blocking these users might be appropriate. Deleting the article about her might be appropriate also. KP Botany 03:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

PS, In spite of saying he would not issue any more legal threats Real77 calls an editor's edits to the Anna Wilding article defamatory. I don't think that his behaviour is something ordinary Misplaced Pages editors should be dealing with. KP Botany 03:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

My bad, he wasn't unblocked, I forget he can edit his own user page while blocked. Sorry! I suggest he not be unblocked, then. KP Botany 03:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The legal threats have really gotten out of hand. I have also received numerous harassing e-mails and phone calls from Anna Wilding herself. I originally suggested to her that to shore up some of the lack of credible sources I do an interview with her for Wikinews; this offer to help her has suddenly become, in her mind that I am trying to "blackmail" (her words) an interview out of her. I have barely edited the article. I only came across it because I photographed her at the Spiderman 3 premiere. I have sent her my own "cease and desist" letter and copied her attorney on it. They are completely in the wrong here, both Misplaced Pages-wise and legally; I'm not sure how to proceed from here, but days ago I removed myself from assisting Anna Wilding and the article in any way. --David Shankbone 14:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Do they realize they are more likely to get her article deleted as a not notable actress then to get her preferred version out there? --Rocksanddirt 20:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we get this sock puppet of Real77 blocked? User:66.65.119.19 I don't feel threatened, but it's boring. KP Botany 02:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. --Alvestrand 02:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. KP Botany 03:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And this one, please. 121.72.12.98 KP Botany 14:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That one isn't a sockpuppet, that IP is from New Zealand. Given the single edit, I don't think it needs blocking unless and until it becomes a problem. — Timotab 17:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Timothy has the time to check, thanks. KP Botany 03:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked troll

I blocked Hexadecimale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I am sure this is an alternate account being used for trolling - if not a banned user then an inappropriate sock. I don't think it's a coincidence that his edits consist largely of asking what the problem could possibly be with antisocialmedia.net Guy (Help!) 21:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. Alarm bells, quacking, etc as Guy suggests. Not Good. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 21:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ditto Concerniokw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). More eyes on that arbitration case, please, it's clearly always going to be a troll magnet. Guy (Help!) 17:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Um. Placing indefinite blocks prior to either account doing anything significantly wrong doesn't seem quite kosher to me. Do they look vaguely 'sockish'? Sure. And? We don't block all alternate accounts indefinitely. Only those of users who are banned or which are being used in disruptive ways. Asking questions you don't like is not disruptive. The Concerniokw account, quite frankly, made a good point about the fact that we have an article on Misplaced Pages Watch which links to that site despite it clearly falling under any of the definitions of unlinkable 'attack site' being pushed. Your removal of that point from the ArbCom case and indefinite blocking of him hardly seems equitable given your obvious partisanship on the subject. As an involved party you should have gotten someone else to place the blocks - if any justification for such could be found in the WP:BLOCK policy. --CBD 18:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with CBD. Removing comments and blocking users for "trolling" when they simply raise valid points in a debate seems like an improper thing to do, particularly when the admin who does it is one involved in the same debate in a partisan manner. However, those accounts do look suspicious, given that they came out of nowhere to comment in a contentious RFAr case; this, however, is not automatically wrongdoing. Given that at least one person has already suggested that I be banned for my comments in that debate, I could easily understand why an active, non-banned editor might want to contribute to that discussion using a hard-to-trace sockpuppet account rather than his/her main Misplaced Pages identity. *Dan T.* 18:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So can I. And if I were to do so I would either email the arbs or make a note that it's an alternate account on the user page. Which neither of these did. As it happens they turn out to be parts of a sock farm - which is hardly a surprise. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. Checks out to be the same person as several other previous sockpuppets, probably by a banned user. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Not surprised, thanks for checking, though. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, under these circumstances I think the block was clearly appropriate. We don't need these particular waters muddied further by obvious socks with axes to grind. – Quadell 22:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. Concur with Matthew Brown on this one. User is definitely sockpuppeteer. Cary Bass 22:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. Agree with sockpuppeteer finding. I have replied to CBD's comments on user_talk:Concerniokw to say that no admin should unblock this account without consulting with a CU first (preferably Morven, Cary, or myself since we investigated). CBD, I'd suggest you consider removing your comments completely at this point, unless you already have. It would help the situation and I'd greatly appreciate it. ++Lar: t/c 04:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll add a comment based on the new information, but I'm not sure why you ask me to remove the previous statements. I said it, I'll stand by it rather than hide it away... nor do I think I was wrong. As I said above, it always seemed plausible that these were sockpuppets... but in the absence of any actual wrongdoing or checkuser to confirm past disruption the blocks were (at that time) inappropriate. We should never be indefinitely blocking people on suspicion alone. Also, I note that all of the above refer to 'the user' (singular) and 'Concerniokw'. Has the 'Hexadecimale' account also been found to have engaged in past disruption by checkuser? He claims to be an innocent new user who is willing to just leave the discussion - and you haven't posted the same warning to admins on his page as you did the Concerniokw page. This may just be an oversight and there is certainly reason to suspect sockpuppetry there as well, but again... without checkuser confirmation it is just suspicion and no reason to block. --CBD 11:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Genuinely new users do not make their first edits to contentious arbitration casdesm, and certainly not in support of assertions which are made only by those attempting to create mischief. Guy (Help!) 11:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"...in support of assertions which are made only by those attempting to create mischief." See... that's what sets my bias meter going. Other than Concerniokw that 'assertion', that Misplaced Pages Watch contains a link to the site, has been made in the arbitration case by AnonEMouse, Alecmconroy, and Dtobias. I see no reason to believe that any of them did so "to create mischief". They did so because it is a highly significant point. We link to a relevant web page, despite it clearly being an 'attack site', because we're an encyclopedia... not the morality police. There has been an over-abundance of assumption of bad faith, as in your statement above, against those who oppose the BADSITES philosophy... which further illustrates why blocks based on suspicion are bad practice. Wait for the evidence and then block with that as the stated grounds. --CBD 13:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The assertion regarding Misplaced Pages Watch has been repeatedly made by people pressing for links to and an article on Misplaced Pages Review. And as far as I can tell these are pretty much the only people making this argument. Coupled with the first edits being to an RFAr, and we have a sockpuppet. People who want to submit evidence anonymously or privately can do so by email; in a debate such as this I think we have a need to know who is making a given argument because of the number of trolls hanging around the margins of the attack sites and the number of banned users posting to them. Guy (Help!) 17:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

A concern about potential ageism

SqueakBox (talk · contribs) removed the word "feelings" on the Child sexuality article, stating that "rm feelings as unsourced and because children precisely do not have the emotional maturity to have sexual feelings". I reverted it, asking how he knows this (as he is not a child himself). He then reverted me and while I don't have a problem with someone reverting an edit I made that for example violated Misplaced Pages policy, I don't think it is right when he says "dont are-add unsouirced material go source it otherwise yopur edit is unaccept" . The word "feelings" does not need a reference, and I said so, and to say that children cannot feel sexual feelings is ageistic. I don't want to add my own POV to this, but I should say that as a person, I know this, because it has not even been so much as three years since I have been legally a child. I don't want to pit my POV against his; all I want is a solution that makes as many people happy as possible. — $PЯINGεrαgђ 03:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This strikes me as a content issue that can be addressed in the ordinary editing process. Detail your views and concerns on the talkpage and look for input from other editors to achieve consensus on agreeable NPOV language. I don't see anything requiring admin action at this time (although you've certainly drawn attention to the issue), and I don't think a question of ageism really is involved. Newyorkbrad 03:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the talk page sounds good enough, except that he used it in the only way I don't like to see it used, that is, as a substitute for talking to me on my page. Also, I would agree with you about ageism being or not being involved, but it seems that by persisting SqueakBox has come across as that way. I'm not saying he is, but he has seemed to be. — $PЯINGεrαgђ 03:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The tips in WP:DR might be helpful as well. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What is it that you'd like an admin to do, specifically? El_C 04:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to note that SqueakBox can be a difficult editor to work with. He is convinced that he is fighting the good fight on Misplaced Pages by carefully monitoring pedophilia-related articles. Undoubtedly, that monitoring has to be done and it certainly isn't an easy task. SB is very passionate about it. That being said, he frequently fails to assume good faith, escalates conflict into edit wars, routinely reverts with unnecessary "rv trolling" edit summaries, is prone, as in the present case, to impose his point of view on an article. More troubling, he's very quick to label people disagreeing with him as supporters of pro-pedophile activists (see or User_talk:SqueakBox/history for an extensive list of examples). He has been warned (and blocked) repeatedly for personal attacks and revert warring without much change in his behavior. Of course, he's been here for a while and has done a lot of good work but there's an ongoing pattern here that needs to be addressed and probably would have been addressed a long time ago were admins less wary of getting the "oh so you are against protecting the wiki from pedophiles?". Pascal.Tesson 05:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually to claim children are capable of sexual maturity is simply (a) not true and (b) has nothing to do with ageism, not quite sure what Pascal's outbusrt is about but there si nothing wrong with this eduit summary whereas it was Springer's insistence on re-adding unosurced material that was the problem here, and anyway alleged ageism isnt like rascism etc esp with young people as they just have to be patient. And assuming good faith in articles plagued by months of proven sock-pupopetry actually is not required by our policies ansd perhaps admins would do better to attend to that rathert han the god faith activities of myself. What needs addressing is a pro-pedophile clique,. not my behaviour in battling them though that has nothing to do with this case either. I gave a reasonable edit summary, Sproiinger didnt like being told he had to source so came here and Pascal, for reasons that are baffling, decided to attack me here. Nothing for admins to see here, SqueakBox 14:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You are in fact demonstrating what I'm concerned about. First of all, you should stay cool and assume good faith even when dealing with articles that are plagued by problems. Yes, there are many socks on these articles but Springeragh is not one of them as far as I know and he deserves respect. Secondly, your edit summary was "rm feelings as unsourced and because children precisely do not have the emotional maturity to have sexual feelings" which, ironically, indicates classical POV editing. Clearly, child sexuality as a scholarly subject tries to understand sexuality in children in the widest possible sense and the study of sexual feelings in children is part of that subject though I am sure there's debate as to what should be considered sexual feeling in children. But here you are saying: "children are capable of sexual maturity is simply not true". This is a) your point of view and b) has nothing to do whatsoever with the inclusion of the word "feelings". You are once again rewriting the article so that it fits your views on child sexuality and, in the face of criticism, deflecting the discussion to a purported pro-pedophile clique. Your fight against that clique does not give you special rights here. Pascal.Tesson 16:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This debate does not belong here. WP:ANI is not dispute resolution. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - Squeakbox overreacted but this is a simple editing dispute. WilyD 16:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

When I made the comment Springer wasnt involved and what I did was to remove unsourced material which is clearly allowed by policy and then expressed my opinion as to why, which is exactly what I should have done. Springer then created a spurious ageism complaint. I never made any statements about Springer being a sock nor implied them. You may disagree with me, Pascal, but do not criticise me for removing disputed, unsourced material, your implication that that is wrong shows a poor understanding of policy and policy implementation for an admin, SqueakBox 17:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, Pascal.Tesson, I appreciate it. SqueakBox—I know that you never said I was a sock; why do you bring that up? Also it is not exactly, um, good faith (sorry) to say that Pascal.Tesson has or shows a poor understanding of policy. It could border on a personal attack depending on who reads it although I do not consider it one myself. J.smith, I'm sorry I worded it so as to sound like a request for dispute resolution; I did not intend for it to not fit here. — $PЯINGεrαgђ 01:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It wasnt me who brought up the sock issue. I wasnt commenting on Pascal but on his comments re our policies and his apparent thinking you cant remove unsourced material (a belief of his I have come up against before when he opposed my removal of unourced living people from the now deleted rape category). We are duty bounmd to remove unsourced material wherever we find it in the main psace and policy backs that so its odd to see an admin here saying exactly the opposite. If there is dispute resolution needed I would guess it would be between Pascal and I, SqueakBox 01:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Squeak, do you even believe what you're writing? You know full well what I told you about that category and it has nothing to do with the removal of unsourced material. Stop dragging me through the mud and maybe just maybe consider that you may be wrong to claim that the lead sentence of the article Child sexuality which was "Child sexuality refers to sexual feelings, behavior and development in children" has to be sourced. Pascal.Tesson 01:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course I believe what I am writing, and I take RS very seriously, it says when a fact is in doubt it needs sourcing. I am not trying to drag you throught he mud, indeed was under the impression you were doing so with me. The conflict between Springer and I re this is now resoved, SqueakBox 19:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to keep the flare-ups to a minimum. SqueakBox may be a difficult editor to work with, but so am I, and as we know like forces repel and opposite forces attract. I proposed on SqueakBox's talk page that we put a reference (not a source, as you will see) after the word "feelings", &c. &c. but you can read it there and I'm not going to copy+paste the whole thing here. — $PЯINGεrαgђ 17:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Daddy Kindsoul has violated his revert parole

Under Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker User: Daddy Kindsoul was limited to one revert per day, 2 per week and 3 per month per article. In the past week (September 10-17) he has reverted the NOFX page three times. Hoponpop69 02:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at this. The three reverts above are just over one week. However, it appears that if you look at the 8th to the 11th, there's three clear reverts. That he is still reverting on the 17th shows that this is an ongoing problem. He's well past his fifth block so I am blocking for one year. --Yamla 02:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm ... I'm not 100% sure about this. The user certainly has a very troubling record, but some of these reverts seem to be replacing removals of allegedly sourced information, so I can understand why the user might have thought they were acceptable (see also the discussion of Hoponpop's editing higher on this page). I'd also be interested in whether this user's edits in areas other than rock music have been problematic; if not, a topic ban might be better for the encyclopedia than a full-fledged one-year block (although I recognize the arbitration enforcement provision is not formulated that way). Newyorkbrad 03:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The reverts that appear to be replacing removals of allegedly sourced content, was either reverts to what had already been sourced, or were sources that had nothing to do with what they were supposed to compliment. Here's an example:

"The band is known as one of the most popular in the skate punk genre and has influenced much of the Warped Tour Californian pop punk scene of the 1990s and early 2000s."

If you follow that source it links to a page which makes no mention of the Warped Tour or the Californian pop punk scene. Hoponpop69 03:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Daddy Kindsoul (talk · contribs) claims that his revert patrol was for one year only. I can find no reference to any such limit and he has previously been informed of that. He also repeatedly violated his restrictions during the year and has received numerous prior blocks under his earlier account name. However, if ARBCOM did intend for this to be one year and if that has now expired, my one year block would clearly be excessive and should be lifted. I can find no evidence that this is true. Apart from that, I have nothing really to add to what Hoponpop69 wrote above. --Yamla 13:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Deathrocker has previously used the "it was only for one year" argument, which is without foundation. He gets into these disputes over subjective characterization of bands; is one band "mallcore" or "heavy metal", is another band "punk" or "skate punk." He seems incapable of using even rudimentary forms of content dispute resolution such as RFC or third opinion, and reverts to his own opinion of the band's subgenre, sometimes replacing someone else's sources with his own, sometimes replacing sources with assertions. There are additional reports about him in the archives of WP:AE. He can sometimes go for a long time without breaking parole and he does not seem to be rude or uncivil about it, so I'm not sure he should be driven off entirely. Thatcher131 14:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention a persistent habit of calling content disputes "vandalism." Thatcher131 14:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And his persistant habit of labeling anyone in a dispute with him as trolls. Hoponpop69 15:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have requested clarification on whether the arbcom sanction has already expired in this case. See here. Additionally, I listed the specific violation of revert parole on the user's talk page. --Yamla 15:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've posted some comments on User talk:Daddy Kindsoul. Thatcher's input is helpful and confirms my supposition that a topic ban might be as useful as an all-out block in this case. Newyorkbrad 21:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to a topic ban. --Yamla 14:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I enacted one of the blocks on the old Deathrocker account earlier this year. I was later concerned that the name change was a means of hiding the block log. I actually don't know how to access the Deathrocker block log, as it wasn't carried forward and it doesn't show up on the redirect. (A dev problem that really should be fixed.) In any case, even six odd months ago, this editor had a massive revert rapsheet and was on very thin ice. A topic ban may be little different than a full ban because I don't know that the person edits much outside of music. Or a topic ban may merely move the problem to some other area. Further, there's clearly deceptive behaviour at work, such as claiming the Arb case had an expiry date. When I dealt with him/her it was archiving warnings on talk and edit summaries wrongly labelled "vandalism" that were at issue.

Support full year ban. Marskell 14:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Deathrocker's block log Thatcher131 15:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

user:ElinorD reverting on SlimVirgin's talk page

I'm done with this before I get into trouble. Can someone take a look at this? user:ElinorD reverted, I restored, three times each, with not the nicest edit summaries. Seem's to me user:ElinorD is out of bounds, but I'll leave it to you. Jd2718 02:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell, ElinorD is removing a comment because she thinks SV would want it that way. I ask - why not just let SV do it? It doesn't appear to be blatant trolling, so maybe we should just let it be and SV can take care of it herself. The Behnam 02:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Just let it be. There's no need to keep that sort of aggressive talk page edit. It's clearly meant to be hurtful and it's not like Nathan has ever made a big secret of what he thought of SV. No good can come out of that message or revert wars about it. Pascal.Tesson 02:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be blunt, I believe you are the one out of line, in this instance. You are enabling harassment (that is, unwanted contact), in my opinion. SlimVirgin specifically and clearly indicated she did not want that user to post on her talk page. At the least, it would be simply polite to respect her wishes, and those enforcing them, in this regard. Vassyana 02:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Deus ex machina :-) Tintin 02:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I personally thought your message was quite trollish given the circumstances and I think it would be best if you simply left Slim Virgin alone. Your edit warring over restoring the message only adds to the appearance of trolling. Please just leave Slim Virgin alone. I'm sure if she's interested in your (or Nathan's) opinions about her, she will contact you herself. Sarah 02:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, by restoring someone's message 3 times, you're effectively engaging in 3RR by proxy. Slim Virgin has made is clear that she doesn't want that person posting on her talk page, please accept that. Your edit warring is really inappropriate behaviour and unnecessary disruption. Sarah 03:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well she removed it herself, but for more general trends, should it be possible to 'ban' a user from a talk page like that? As talk pages are important to communication between users, and oftentimes communication such as concerns and constructive criticism is the most important type of communication (since it seeks to address a perceived problem), I don't think that there should be any semi-formal 'ban' such as the type ElinorD was acting upon. Sure, SV can plug her ears and scream so as to not hear criticism, but let's not make talk page censorship a legitimate and justified duty of other editors. The Behnam 03:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

ElinorD is not out of bounds. Sometimes people need to separate their Misplaced Pages lives from their real ones--SV is not a currently active editor, provoking her to force her to have to edit unappreciated trolls on her talk page is not necessary. If ElinorD thinks she is being forced to do this out of duty, I'm sure she can complain for herself. In fact, I know she can. KP Botany 03:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec)If a person is posting trollish, taunting and unnecessary messages, I have no problems with an editor asking that person not to post on their talk page unless it is relating to article content. I myself have asked an editor not to post on my talk page under similar circumstances and I know of someone else who has as well. I have no problems whatsoever with what Elinor has been doing given the circumstances. Further, I know Elinor very well and I am certain she would not be doing that if she were not certain that she was abiding by Slim's wishes. Sarah 03:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm just concerned about this 'banning' becoming a legitimate practice. I know that recently I was attempting to contact an editor constructively about problems I was seeing with his conduct, and every message (all different ones, mind you) were removed. Of course, he is free to do that, but he had also declared that I 'no longer contact him', but I could see no other way of attempting to address the issues without attempting to discuss with him. There are higher DR processes, but they aren't designed to be the 'next step up' when a user just doesn't want to address his misconduct. Yet, if I am not 'allowed' to contact at the talk page (meaning that I am treated like a wrong-doer for trying after he declares a 'ban'), it becomes impossible for me to address the misconduct further, effectively killing any path of action that would resolve the conduct issues (as I don't consider ignoring the problem to be a solution when it comes to misconduct). The Behnam 03:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

We cannot "force" users to listen to you. If they're intent on removing talk page messages, as is their due, without any response and tell you to desist, then you should respect their wishes. Edit warring over someone's talk page is pointless, especially since they've made it clear they don't want your comments, and will remove them when they see it. Continuing to edit pages under such circumstances accomplishes nothing, and it simply provocative. --Haemo 03:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about 'edit warring', as in restoring the same message or warning over again. Rather, different messages. The other guy should be free to remove whatever, but the declaration of a 'ban' should not be made to affect the poster. The Behnam 03:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If a user reacts badly to you and you see genuine problems with their behaviour, perhaps you should ask someone else to intervene? Perhaps an admin? Sometimes people just react badly to someone for no obviously apparent reason and it is more constructive to leave the intervention to someone otherwise uninvolved. Sarah 03:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that's a possibility, but what I am trying to address is whether declared user page 'bans' can be treated as legitimate (as in 'actionable') such that any further attempt to communicate is actually seen as misconduct on the poster's part. Note that I don't refer to edit warring the same message - that's well-established obnoxiousness. What I don't see is why an editor should be made immune from communication because he doesn't like it, so he declares a 'ban' and whines if the other user doesn't consider the 'ban' legitimate or reasonable at all. Should it be required that such a 'ban' be respected? If so, then there should be a more accessible DR process to move to if the problem is indeed legitimate, so as to prevent such a 'ban' from effectively silencing any attempt to address the misconduct. The Behnam 03:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I would generally say use some sense and address it on a case-by-case basis. I don't think it's a controversial notion that if someone asks you to leave them alone, you should. What good is going to be achieved by continuing to post to a user who has expressed the desire to be left alone by you? Regardless of whether your posts on their talk page have merit or not, continuing to post will only serve to rile them up and inflame the situation. If a user is behaving in a problematic fashion, it's not very difficult to ask another editor or a sysop to have a word with them. I think you're blowing the possibilities way out of proportion here. Vassyana 04:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Benham, I don't think the self-declared "bans" are legitimate in terms of policy, I just think that if a person gets upset and asks a specific editor to stop posting on their talk page, we should simply be nice people and respect that. I cannot think of any circumstances where one particular editor is the only editor on this project who can address an issue with an editor and surely if the editor reacts unfavorably to someone they've had bad interaction with, someone else, possibly an administrator, should be asked to take over. I don't think this should be a big deal. Obviously, if the person begins declaring every person who posts on their talk page is unwelcome, we shouldn't have to abide by it but that's where common sense comes in. In terms of the original message, Slim has asked that person not to comment on her talk page, he ignores this and continues, his messages are repeatedly restored while Slim is busy off-project and ElinorD, who is in regular contact with Slim and fully aware of her wishes, steps in and removes them. I don't a see a problem with this. The OP refused to accept this and revert warred to the point of 3RR, forcing Slim to return to remove the messages herself. This I see a problem with. There's nothing wrong with being nice to each other and showing some basic respect for people's wishes. Sarah 04:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed...sure would be nice if people who have a beef with someone wouldn't post snide commentary on talkpages, especially after they have been asked to not do so.--MONGO 04:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I often throw temper tantrums and request users to stay the fuck away from my talk page. It's the one thing no administrator has yet had a beef with me about. SlimVirgin should be accorded at least the same courtesy as I have been accorded. KP Botany 05:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I fully endorse Elinor's reverts of the provocative and taunting comments. It is deplorable that my good-natured edit on Slim's talk page precipitated the crapfest. If I had been able to foresee these developments, I would have probably expressed my sympathy with Slim's predicament by e-mail rather than drawing unwelcome attention to her talk page. --Ghirla 10:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, it can be against policy, if you keep it up; if someone asks you to stop bothering them, and you continue to do so, you are harassing them - and that is against policy, as is edit warring. Find something to do besides bother SV. Category:All pages needing cleanup could probably keep you busy and get your mind off of whatever you want to pester Slim with. KillerChihuahua 10:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

In these sorts of situations, many people repeat statement like "No one owns their talk page" or "No one has a right to prevent a certain person from commenting on their talk page". And that's true, so far as it goes -- but it's beside the point. If someone asks me not to comment on their talk page, I don't do it, simply because I don't want to violate WP:DICK. Nobody owns Slim's talk page -- not Elinor, not Jd, not Nathan, and not even Slim -- but Elinor was being kind, Nathan was being trollish, and Jd was, well, mistaken. Think: if you're going to revert someone, do you really want it to be to reinsert rudeness? Lets use our edits to make this a more friendly and welcoming place. All the best, – Quadell 12:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Quadell. I thought I was right, but saw it was going in a bad direction. Your comments are helpful. Jd2718 21:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

JD2718: Thank you for bringing NathanLee's trolling to our attention, we will review his other comments and see if there is a pattern that needs addressing. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

GFDL Revocation

Something to keep an eye on. Origins and architecture of the Taj Mahal. Navou 10:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As I've explained to Navou - I'm happy to have the article userfied if he prefers - the article is overlong, verbose, still missing various sections and diagrams, contains errors and I won't be around to maintain it for the forseable future. I don't want to revoke GFDL, but I don't want to leave it in mainspace in its current condition. --Joopercoopers 10:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You can't revoke the GFDL, by editing here, you agree that all your contributions will be released under the GFDL, so once you release something, then that is that I am affraid. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the article is notable, verifiable, and does not merit deletion in the CSD criteria. If you are worried about the article, remember other editors can help and no article is perfect. GFDL makes the article free to everyone. --D_arkF_alls 10:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Joopercoopers for a 3RR violation on the page for continuously readding the speedy tag. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Joopercoopers promised to cease revert warring and engage in productive discussion. I'm all for giving him a chance to explain his position. --Ghirla 10:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You cannot revert a user and then block him for 3RR violation. Please do not use your administrative powers in a manner that drives people away from the project. From what I see on the article, Joopercoopers did a great job. Please unblock him immediately. Trying to reason with him would have been a better course of action. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? I reverted his edit that broke the 3RR!!! He was acting disruptively so I blocked, he's promised not to revert again, so I unblocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(editconf) Calm down. Administrators are not supposed to use admin tools while being involve in disputes. Reverting another user amounts to getting oneself "involved". Joopers seemed easy to convince, didn't he? This is exactly how new and established users get disenchanted with the project. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, I commented above, for that I appologise. Still, the revert was based on the 3RR being broken, nothing to do with the substance of Joopers edit. As DF says below, it's all sorted now anyway. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The incident is finished and done, so let's not fret over past actions please? --D_arkF_alls 11:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm unblocked, thanks Ryan, I'd lost count, hands up, no hard feelings, a warning might have been nice though I'm no troll etc. I was in the middle of trying to get an explanation here, I just wanted a few questions answering. I'm not trying to revoke GFDL or anything of the sort

If I can't have the page deleted because, as ryan contends, this means I'm not the sole author, why can't I move it to userspace?
What is the purpose of CSD7, if not to empower me to make this kind of decision?
I had a number of pages deleted yesterday, in userspace and also in the userspace of my legit sock mcginnly, with no problems; they were all in various states of completion, but nobody batted an eyelid - this article is admittedly a little more complete, but where's the line, is there a line, isn't GFDL applicable to articles in all states of completion and namespaces?--Joopercoopers 11:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Joopers appealed to me to delete the article under criterion G7, so I did. WP:SPEEDY is official policy, and I just reread it. Check. Bishonen | talk 11:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC).

Yes, please read the policy. G7 specifically states "page's only substantial content was added by its author." That's absolutely the case here. CSD is official policy. Nowhere does it say he has to be the "sole author" of the article. We must respect the author's wish here. I don't know why anyone has a problem with this. Bishonen was correct in deleting this. --Aude (talk) 11:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read it again. The speedy criterion G7 does not apply to encyclopedic articles with extensive references. Once author posts content on a page, he releases his text into GFDL, which is irrevocable. Please undo your deletion. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) It's always been my impression that G7 allowed deletion on user request, not that it made it mandatory. If other editors find a page useful, it will typically be kept. Following a user's request on G7, unless in cases where a page is obvious crap anyway, is entirely a matter on courtesy. Whenever editors who wanted to leave the project have tried to get their work deleted, we've always told them they can't, as far as I'm aware. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely! I have undeleted the page. Glory to GFDL! — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPEEDY and G7 says nothing about encyclopedic content or extensive references. Please quote where exactly the page says that. --Aude (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Good luck when the inaccuracies break out like a rash in the "Times of India", I was thinking about the credibility of the project. I'll leave it in admin hands for a decision. --Joopercoopers 11:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Retaining good editors seems to be an increasing problem. I know that Joopercoopers is annoyed with the bickering that goes on here. Sorry to say, but this incident exemplifies that. WP:COMMON should apply here and being courteous to each other. G7 is a courtesy, which we should respect. --Aude (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wheel warring me, are you, Nick? :-( Criterion G7 for speedy deletion reads in full: "Author requests deletion, if requested in good faith, and provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request." What is it you're asking me to read besides that? Maybe you're the one who needs to re-read the policy. This is not an author leaving the project in dudgeon and trying to take back his contribution. His request is in good faith because he's aware of inaccuracies and other problems in the article. Sure it looks good; but he's in a position to know it's not (or not yet). Nick, you shouldn't have done that without discussing it with me first (just how urgent was it?) in the sense of giving me a realistic chance to respond and explain before you threw an inappropriate application of GFDL in my face and ignored the speedy policy. Undo your undeletion, please. Bishonen | talk 12:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC).

Nick - please quote where exactly on WP:SPEEDY it says G7 "does not apply to encyclopedic articles with extensive references." Bishonen is correct here. The page needs to be deleted. G7 is official policy and must be respected here. --Aude (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(EC)I believe that we have a serious precedent here, and two apparently conflicting policies. I do acknowledge that CSD G7, as stated, does give Bishonen the mandate to delete the page, but it's quite arguable whether an admin is obliged to obey G7, and further arguable that it was the intended spirit of the rule. I don't recall that we had an encyclopedic and valuable contents deleted under G7. As a compromise, can we have this discussion moved elsewhere, possibly to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review (in which case, {{drv}} can be placed on the page to preserve the underlying history, at least temporarily), and/or further to Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion? Duja ► 12:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And, to wikilawyer a bit, WP:CSD states that "Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead." I'd certainly count good-faith concerns of Nick, Fut. Perf, Ryan and myself under "reasonable doubt". Duja ► 12:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe I was out of line when I deleted the page History of Banff National Park, which I had worked on. It was a subarticle of a topic/article I was working on, had references. But, I felt it no longer fit, wouldn't take care of it, didn't want to work on it further at the time, etc. I stuck a prod tag on it, no one objected, and then it was deleted. Nonetheless, it was encyclopedic and had references. I suppose, I could have just speedied it or put a speedy tag on it. It's important to be able to delete stuff like that. --Aude (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's his article, not mine. If the author is unsatisfied and wishes to later repost the article after having improved it in userspace, there is no problem with this. Joopercoopers is fine editor, and I'm a great fan of editorial discretion. Moreschi 12:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've sent the issue to deletion review. Regards, Navou 12:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(EC)Except that he stated that he's leaving, and probably will not work on it anymore. We normaly userfy substandard articles to let them reach the the minimum, not generally good articles which have flaws. If it becomes userfied in that manner, no one will ever improve it. There is an ethical and political question indeed, but so far we did not allow anyone who left to revoke and undo his contributions; this case is different only because it conflicts with G7. Duja ► 12:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen was following G7 to the letter. The policy does not draw a line between userspace and mainspace deletions. If people are unhappy about this, they are welcome to suggest changes to the policy, but, until there is consensus to adjust the wording, the page needs to be deleted. --Ghirla 12:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The policy may not be able to draw these lines, but folks coupled with ignore all rules can most definitely draw the line where policy fails to make the distinction. Regards, Navou 13:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

IAR is there to improve the encyclopedia. Will it really harm us to have the improved version after a (hopefully brief) wait, as Joopercoopers has promised? On the contrary, I view this as a benefit. Moreschi 13:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:IAR allows use to be flexible with rules, so as to be courteous to our fellow editors. In this case, WP:SPEEDY is clear, and IAR is not needed. --Aude (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleting an article under G7 when the text is good is somewhat futile, because any other person can use the same text (with attribution) to start the article again. The text is GFDL whether or not the article is deleted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: The wording of G7 used to state, "Author requests deletion. Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author and was mistakenly created. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request. Note: Please check the page history to make sure there is only a single author."

This is likely the reason for the beliefs stated by some that it was meant to apply only to things with a "single author" and only to things which were "mistakenly created". That said... way too much focus on the letter of the 'rules'. In terms of general principles it would seem courteous to accept Joopercoopers' desire that his incomplete work not be displayed... but equally it would seem that anyone who wished to continue that work should be allowed to do so. GFDL does apply... even to the deleted content. If Joopercoopers returns and wants to continue his work or if anyone else wishes to do so it should be undeleted and go on its merry way. G7 exists as an easy way of getting rid of material which no one wants to keep. If that isn't the case then undeletion and further edits are perfectly appropriate. --CBD 13:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Future Perfect that just because we can speedily delete a page does not mean that we should delete it. As near as I can tell, the encyclopedia has a lot worse articles than this one; while it's incomplete, it will be fixed eventually. I'd say it's a loss for wikipedia to remove it, and I'd suggest that if the article in question were taken to AFD, it would result in a strong consensus to "keep". >Radiant< 13:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Good luck on your FAC thing at the mo Radiant, I fully endorse any attempt to improve content over 'style'. Similarly, I'd appreciate a decision in favour of 'editor' over 'content'. Give a man a fish, he eats for a day etc......--Joopercoopers 13:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

DRV closed, valid CSD G7. ^demon 14:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that a bad move, ^demon, because there is an ongoing discussion and it is far from clear that policy requires deletion as opposed to merely allowing it. I hope we can avoid a wheel war on this page. Sam Blacketer 14:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Please do not extend wheel wars by cutting discussion short. The DRV had been started after several rounds of deletions and undeletions, and clearly was the appropriate venue for the discussion. Kusma (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy the article was undeleted. It looks like a superior quality article even without the edits that Joopercoopers was planning on making. I look forward to seeing the improved version. -- Samir 00:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Pitythafoo - allegedly disruptive and insulting

I am not sure if I am reporting this to the right place - please tell me if I am. A most unforunate incident has occurred between User:Pitythafoo and myself. Pity began their editing career at The Age of Reason by removing some material on Michael Moore. As I spend most of my time at this article reverting removals of this material by vandals, I assumed Pitythafoo was a vandal as well. I may have been in error. Pitythafoo kept on editing. When I realized they might not be a vandal, I left a message on their talk page, asking them to cease making substantial edits to the page so that we could agree on the changes needed. When this did not deter them and I saw some very questionable edits being made - edits that dramatically changed the meaning of sentences to their opposites and edits that would render the citations meaningless - I started posting warnings on Pitythafoo's user page. I also posted a message on the article's talk page. I also requested semi-protection for the page until the problem could be resolved (it has been granted). Pitythafoo has finally started engaging in conversation (after the final block warning was left on their talk page - it was inexplicably deleted by a later editor). However, they do not seem interested in editing the article productively and keep attacking myself (the primary editor of the article) and accusing the article of being POV. They have not provided any specifics on this front, however. Moreover, they have changed editors' comments on the talk page, even the GA review, even after being told that we don't do that at wikipedia. Please temporarily ban Pitythafoo - I think that is what is appropriate, right? (Pitythafoo also seems to have started contributing under the IP address ). I am not faultless in this mess, but I do feel that Pitythafoo is not attempting to learn the ways of wikipedia or consensus-building. (I have never done anything like this before. Please inform me of any beaucratic lapses.) Thanks. Awadewit | talk 10:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems like it's a simple content dispute. The article is protected, and conversation is ongoing on the talk page. A block now would seem punitive. --Onorem♠Dil 11:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no real content dispute going on. Pitythafoo is not providing any constructive criticism or examples of problems with the article. Awadewit | talk 11:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a simple content dispute as Onorem describes it. Awadewit monitors the page extremely closely and refuses to allow any edits to it. This is evident in Awadewits strongly worded threats to me that took place over the 30 minutes I spent making small edits to the page. The page is not neutral and has an undertone (that is obvious to anyone who has read The Age of Reason) that is subversive and underhanded in its attempt to overlook very important major facets of the book and associate it with completely unrelated extremely controversial figures.

Awadewit has been completely dishonest and misleading about this situation. Awadewit has has made harsh threats then deleted them. Awadewit has very inappropriately and vengefully publicly listed my IP address (on this page, which i have deleted)despite the fact that I started signed all my postings afters it was explained to my that I should do so and how to do it. Please ban Awadewit for inappropriately listing my IP address. Awadewit has lied about me changing comments/GA edits after being asked no to do so--I simply changed a neutrality rating to "nay", because of my naivety in this process. I simply was under the impression that the neutrality rating was an open forum for anyone to adjust. After it was brought to my attention that this was not appropriate I apologized and have not done it since. Awadewit is clearly slandering me in an attempt to protect his/her article and prevent me from ever making any edits to it. This is extremely inappropriate, and unethical. Please ban Awadewit from making further slanderous and dishonest postings about me.Pitythafoo 18:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As it is clear that Awadewit calls any and all edits that he/she deems unfavorable, "vandalism", please block Awadewit from editing this article and reinstate my editing ability on the article.Pitythafoo 19:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This article on the The Age of Reason is based on the work of major Paine scholars, such as historian Eric Foner. As I have repeatedly told Pitythafoo, I am willing to listen to criticisms regarding the failings of the article in terms of WP:V, WP:ATT, etc. Where does this article not represent the main lines of Paine scholarship?

Pitythafoo did not make innocuous changes to the page (there is a list on Talk:The Age of Reason of their changes linked to the diffs - they deleted entire sections and changed the meaning of sentences so as to make the citations meaningless and the intended meanings completely different. Also, they deleted Paine's own words.

Pitythafoo simply keeps reiterating that this article is "subversive" and "underhanded" but they have not demonstrated how - that is why this is not a content dispute.

The focus of the article is not to associate the AR with Michael Moore as Pitythefoo seems to be asserting - there is one sentence regarding him at the end of of the lead and the end of the article. Another editor who became involved yesterday asked for more sources - I provided them. I also removed Moore's picture. That issue has been resolved.

I began leaving calm messages and only escalated when Pitythafoo did not respond and kept making substantial changes. I have never lied and never deleted anything. Pitythafoo does not quite understand how wikipedia works - which is fine - but they do not seem interested in learning. Also, anyone can see their IP address when it is added by the program (I saw it on the talk page to the article and the editing history). I was simply trying to identify them to administrators. Pitythafoo - anyone can see your IP address in the page history - despite your attempts to erase it.

Exactly--Awdewit saw my IP in the editing history because I edited my comments while, unknowingly, logged out. I IMMEDIATELY logged in within minutes and added my signature. Awadewit had to go into the history to find my IP address which Awadewit then posted here. It is obvoius that Awadewit has malicious intentions. Please ban Awadewit from deleting other user's edits of the "The Age of Reason" article and from attempting to slander and/or publicly post my IP address.Pitythafoo 21:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Pitythafoo, you don't seem to quite understand. When you were logged off and signed your post on the talk page or the bot signed for you, it signed with your IP address. Anyone can see that. Also, anyone can read the history page. I was not slandering you - I was pointing out to the administrators that that IP address was the same person as User:Pitythafoo. Identifying posters is not malicious - it is informational. Awadewit | talk 22:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Pitythafoo did indeed change the GA review of another editor - see this diff. I did not realize they thought it was an "open forum" and I am not trying to slander them. To me, it looked like they were changing the review of another editor. Awadewit | talk 19:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The Age of Reason consists of two parts--the first, written without access to a bible for reference and the second, which is a revision of the first edition. Paine rewrote The Age of Reason specifically for the purpose of citing specific passages in the bible which contain verifiable fallacies and extreme incongruence. 93% of the second version is spent outlining such problems with the bible. 93% ! This can be verified by merely looking at a copy of the book. I tried to add information pertaining to this to the Wiki article and Awadewit repeatedly deleted it, calling it, "the minutiae of Paine's Biblical analysis" and claiming that it is irrelevant! Shouldn't a Wiki article include a neutral description of what accounts for 93% of Paine's own writings?!Pitythafoo 21:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The article on The Age of Reason (a work composed of three parts, not two) is written in accordance with WP:V, WP:ATT, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, etc. It is based on the work of major Paine scholars. Any major scholarship that is missing should obviously be included and any inaccurate representations of that scholarship should obviously be fixed. I would gladly work with Pitythafoo to fix those. However, they have not provided any sources for their claims. All of this is explained in detail at the article's talk page. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 22:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Revert warring on Philip Bradbourn

Ground Potato (talk · contribs), a SPA continues to violate the 3RR rule on Philip Bradbourn after he has been advised and warned accordingly. --Tikiwont 15:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ray gillespie (talk · contribs) has right now also reached the fence, and I've warned him. --Tikiwont 15:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Ground Potato (talk · contribs) for 24 hours. My impression is that his edit can be reverted without incurring any three revert rule problems under WP:BLP. Sam Blacketer 16:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree with respect to Gound Potato's latest edits and for users in general. Ray gillespie, however, has expanded this otherwise unsourced article vastly and happily with his own text from a party website and some of his reverts amount rather to establishing his preferred version of an incident where each party selectively reported as fact one of two reported quotes mentioned in the source. . So i would not want to establish anything here that may be understood as an 'entitlement' to revert per WP:BLP to a WP:COI version. --Tikiwont 11:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Radiant!'s editing behaviour

Over the course of the last two weeks a great deal of sound and fury (most of it signifying nothing) has occurred at the WP:MOS. The proximate issue has been the inclusion of a gender-neutral advisement and the ultimate discussion is over the relative weight accorded the MoS itself.

OK, that's only meant for background; I'm here to talk about neither gender neutral language nor the MoS. Rather, there are serious issues with User:Radiant!'s behaviour that I think deserve scrutiny. So let's just imagine we're talking about Spoo, and not get lost in em dash diversions:

The reverting. Over the course of a week Radiant! has been repeatedly removing the GNL section, over the heads of multiple editors, including at least two other admins. After ringing up three in 24 over 17th/18th, he appears to have backed off. "...wherein indeed various people including me could be viewed as disruptive" is a touch misleading because it was basically lone gun reverting on his part.
Moving the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style to Misplaced Pages:Style without discussion on the corresponding talk page. Truly weird. Having been told by people that it was rude and poor form, Radiant is still insisting: "Sam - I fail to see how renaming a single page can be considered disruptive by any stretch of the word." This is an editor into his third year and a long time admin—I find the attitude frankly worrisome. (I thought we had move protect for a reason) When I pointed out that the page has had the title for approximately six years he called my response "shrubbery."
Lastly (and this is the one that ultimately prompts my posting here) Radiant has taken to a) placing archive tags around comments he doesn't like and b) refactoring talk pages to suit his weight in a dispute. After I reverted the refactoring in last link, he did it again. The archive tags are just childish but refactoring a talk page to alter meaning is just not on. More importantly, Radiant ought to know that. Now, he might say "well, I wanted to compartmentalize that response" but it's still deceptive.

As a last point, practically every criticism presented to Radiant is greeted with a mention of WP:KETTLE or WP:NPA. Real show-stoppers. Taken individually, perhaps these behaviours could be ignored. Taken in sum, I see a very troublesome pattern. Marskell 15:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There's always a healthy level of sparring at the WP:MOS, but since Radiant! has arrived the quality of discussion has really deteriorated. I'm not saying that was his intent, but that's definitely been the result. I actually agree with Radiant! on most of the issues in question, but his attitude and behavior have made compromise nearly impossible. I've tried to appeal to Radiant!'s calmer side, as have many other editors. But edits like this are incredibly unhelpful, and only exacerbate the situation, and nobody on the other side is doing anything comparable to this. Everyone seems willing to work on these issues, but Radiant!'s disruptive and unilateral behavior is making the compromise I'd like to see slip further and further away. When moving the MOS (which seemed like a deliberate provocation to me, going behind people's backs to "get a clueful response," implying the participants at MOS lacked "clue") Radiant! also reformatted Template:Style-guideline to remove language referencing the MOS. This was never mentioned at the MOS talk page and caused all sorts of templature errors. Even though the errors were mentioned, and objections to the move raised, Radiant! reverted to the broken version of the template. --JayHenry 16:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Radiant! has been discussing issues outside of the fora where they should be discussed rather consistently now. The latest example is this page move of WP:MOS with no discussion at the talk page of MOS, rather at WP:AN, and in spite of no consensus at AN. These are not admin noticeboard issues. On the one hand, Radiant! has expressed that the "clueful" responses are from admins (discounting the need to discuss with other editors on relevant talk pages), but reviewing User talk:Radiant!, it doesn't appear that Radiant! is heeding other admins or engaging in talk with them either. With Radiant! spreading the fire around and refactoring talk pages, it's hard to get to the bottom of Radiant!'s concern about something as trivial as dashes or resolve these issues on talk. It's strange that Radiant! asked other admins to watch the page move, while never mentioning or discussing the move on the relevant talk page. The appearance is that Radiant! believes non-admins have no input of relevance. On a personal level, I'm worried: Radiant! has always been regarded as a good editor. It's painful to watch this sort of conduct unfold since my first response to what I thought was an innocent query on my talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I let User:Radiant! know about this thread. -- Flyguy649 _contribs 17:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I could charaterise Radiant!'s actions as having any sort of bad intent, but they are highly confusing, and in many cases (such as lone-wolf edit warring over the GNL section, or the refactoring of talk pages) impolite. I'm just thrown by the whole series of unfortunate events. SamBC(talk) 17:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of this being here on the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? Is this a Request for Comment? What administrative action do you wish to see performed? If you are raising general behavioral problems, then a Request for Comment might suit you better, and lessen the amount of grousing needed in this section. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I had thought of that. As the above indicates, there's clearly behaviour worth talking about but user conduct RfCs are cumbersome and can be awfully drawn out. I consider AN/I a step you might take before an RfC. Advice to user: consider your behaviour. If that can be achieved amicably and quickly, this is the better forum. Marskell 18:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The name of the Manual of Style violates the Manual of Style; it also encourages the deplorable tendency to treat that insufficiently thought-out mass of whims as though it descended from heaven. Radiant! was bold, after significant discussion at WP:AN; she was reverted; the thing to do now is to discuss, not waste ANI's time on this groundless complaint. (Mass of whims? Yes. One major stylistic decision is now being defended on the grounds that "my liberal arts electives insisted on one method at college; so I'll get back at them by insisting that Wikipedians use the other one." (This is a paraphrase of a much longer rant; but it's all in the diff.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the previous discussion was indeed largely favorable to Radiant's suggestions; the opposition consisting largely of somewhat heated complaints by Marskell himself. I last saw this tone in those who claimed that Esperanza was indispensible to WP. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Diversion. (An expected one.) We're not talking about Manual of Style v. Style (perhaps it's good, perhaps bad—not the point). We're talking about: disruptive reverts; refactoring talk pages; the really weird decision to insert archive tags into active discussions; flaming header insertions; and moving long-established titles without discussion on the talk page in question. In short, we're talking about admin Radiant's editing behaviour—the page in question isn't the fundamental issue. Marskell 20:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's see. Responding to your first complaint is now a diversion? Then please strike it. As for the rest of this:

Radiant reverted an addition which she profoundly disagrees, denying it has consensus; this resulted in altering the language to remove a sentence which she reads as a mandate for GNL. That's how consensus-building is supposed to work.
Radiant put a divbox about personal attacks by Tony, and comments on editor's actions by Sandy (and called them, arguably, a flame-war). So what? Some editors would have removed them.
And your last complaint is the move, again. Radiant was bold, and was reverted. Your complaint is an appeal to a non-existent, bureaucratic, proceedural issue; there is no requirement to go to WP:RM if there appears to be consensus for a move. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, there is no consensus for this move anywhere. Titoxd 22:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Whoah, where did the mention of WP:RM come from? I think the talk page in question was WT:MOS, the talk page for the actual page that was moved. Elsewhise, your first point is fine, apart from the fact that she kept removing the version that no-one seemed to actually raise objection to on talk, whilst relabelling a supplementary document a proposal when no-one was suggesting that it should become a policy or guideline. This appears to have been resolved, but took more time and effort than it should have done to do so. No explanation was given as to the reason for the archive-boxes, and there does not appear to be any general agreement that they were personal attacks. I think that covers your points. SamBC(talk) 22:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

- Actually she did object to the version she removed, quite strongly; so did I, until some concessions were made. As for the divboxed comments, look at the diffs. All of them contain personal comments (a couple with a small amount of other material); some are personal attacks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:BOLD: "Although it is generally fine to be bold in updating articles, it is easier to cause problems in other namespaces by editing without due care. The admonition "but do not be reckless" is especially important in other namespaces. Being bold in updating or creating categories and templates can have far reaching consequences. This is because category changes – and even more so template changes – can affect a large number of pages with a single edit." This has changed since I last read it, but the general point has been there for some time. Sorry, we're not passing this off with a nod to BOLD.

And placing the archive tag around postings that were minutes old is childish and insulting. I mean really Pma, it's fine to defend your friend, but you look silly arguing in favour of silly practices. There were no personal attacks from Tony to speak of, incidentally.

But this isn't accomplishing much. I'd just like some indication from Radiant that these editing behaviours won't continue. Marskell 09:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have some comments to make, but not here. This should be an RFC. Carcharoth 09:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Radiant! hasn't edited since the thread started, so we can wait. Marskell 09:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

From a sysop, such as Radiant, editors expect an ability and willingness to calm tempers, settle disputes, ensure that normal procedures are observed, and be a good citizen as a model to all. But she has displayed the very opposite of these behaviours in the past several weeks; as a result, WP has become a struggle and a drain on time and energy. I'm sorry if I've not handled her with greater diplomacy during this time; however, I do note that when I offered an olive branch, it was rebuffed as ingenuous. I'm willing to believe that she's a respected WPian, and hope that things will settle so that we can all contribute in the relatively calm environment that pertained before things came off the rails. Tony (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Radiant is waging a good-faith campaign to roll back instruction creep, generally to good effect. The result is a lot of disgruntled process wonks and a few genuinely confused people (because the disputes seem to spread everywhere). I'd suggest a WikiProject:Processcruft, but that would be processcruft... Guy (Help!) 17:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

What to do about DominvsVobiscvm?

DominvsVobiscvm (talk · contribs) seems to be an inveterate revert-warrior. Last month it was at Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami, but since that page has been protected, he's moved to Roman Catholic sex abuse cases. I tried protecting the page for three days, but in that time he never discussed the situation on the talk page; he merely pointed out an unrelated mistake an editor on the other side of the revert war had made in a comment. The other people involved (there are about three or four editors of the page who agree that Dom's additions to the article are inappropriate) have explained in great detail on the talk page why they consider his additions inappropriate, and why they're removing them, but he just reverts. Since keeping the page protected wasn't achieving any discussion, I unprotected it again, and the revert warring started back up. I blocked him for 24 hours for 3RR, but he was silent during his block, and when it expired he just came back and starting reverting again. I'm tempted to block him again, but I'm starting to think the only thing that will stop him revert-warring is to block him permanently. Ideas/suggestions? —An gr 15:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you explain to me why it's okay for everyone else to revert my edits, but I can't do likewise. Either you block everyone from editing, or you let me do it as much as anyone.DominvsVobiscvm 16:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Because when there are four or five people active on an article, and all but one of them agree on what belongs there, that's CONSENSUS. When the one person who disagrees stubbornly reverts to his preferred version, and refuses to even discuss it on the talk page, it's unacceptable and disruptive. —An gr 16:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

<Morbo>WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!</Morbo> If you're being told by four editors that your edits are unwelcome and they are backed by a sound reasoning, drop the shovel and get out of the hole you've already dug. Continuing like this usually ends in a block. -Jéské 20:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

He is stuck in his POV and unable to reliquish it. What gets me is I'm pretty sure that not only is the meterial he is trying to insert unverifiable, I am now pretty sure that what the detractors are saying is not correct either, which is different. That is, even if unverifiable, they could still be accurate. I doubt that their claims are. They are just too ridiculous. Ironically, the material is perhaps an embarrassment to the writers of the RC sex abuse cases who may actually have a POV (hate Catholics), but are relatively careful about getting documentation. It spoils their article, I think because the claims are preposterous on their face. Dominvs is unable to perceive this. I do understand why Misplaced Pages is reluctant to block anyone permanently, but unless Dominvs can be physically/software restricted to non-Catholic articles he will need to be permanently blocked. I had hoped to avoid this, but I see no alternative. He is not a child that is going to "grow/mature" out of the rut that he is in.

Another idea: how about a "bot" to track him and revert his edits automatically to certain, or maybe all, Catholic articles. And, no, I don't know how to write a bot! :) Anyway, this would allow him to continue editing, should he care to, other Misplaced Pages articles. It would avoid having to block him completely. Student7 20:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Admins, I am a newcomer to editing Misplaced Pages. I think Misplaced Pages has good policies but if those policies are not enforced, it makes the entire project and everyone's hard work go down the drain. Please enforce your policies and do whatever it is that admins do to remove the factually incorrect and Wikipolicy violating material that is locked on the page Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami under the section entitled Church Scandals that was submitted by DominvsVobiscvm (talk · contribs). This material has been locked on that page for over a month. We have engaged in discussion at length. Please do something to stop DominvsVobiscvm (talk · contribs) from adding this material that a clear consensus of editors has rejected on every page he is trying to add it. We are trying to make the pages factually correct and reliable sources of information, DominvsVobiscvm (talk · contribs) is trying to make them propaganda for a cruel purpose. NancyHeise 01:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I am in agreement with the other editors regarding removal of material submitted by DominvsVobiscvm (talk · contribs). I have dissected his submission and given reasons why it should not be on Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami, or Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami, or John Favalora. My dissection and rejection of his submission can be found on the discussion pages of all three of these sites and I give references to bolster my reasons for rejection. DominvsVobiscvm (talk · contribs) did not respond to my talk but it was agreed to by other editors with no rejections. He continued reverting the article even though consensus showed no support for his submission. Editors are not able to build good articles on these three sites because we have all spent all of our time and energy fighting DominvsVobiscvm. Please block his material or he himself. We can not do our job until admins enforce the rules. Thanks, StacyyW 13:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with the comments above about the inappropriate material being inserted by DominvsVobiscvm (talk · contribs). The fundamental problem is that his entries tend to be a combination of POV, unsupported, unreferenced, irrelevant edits and presented in a why that mischaracterizes. The equally frustrating problem is that he disregards other editors' comments, ignores consensus, and prefers to engage in edit wars that have resulted in numerous warnings and blocks. Looking at the edit histories, other editors have been quite patient and reasonable, asking for comments, inviting discussion, imploring adherence to wiki policiy, etc. The inevitable conlcusion that many have now come to is that DominvsVobiscvm has an agenda he is trying to promote, and wants to do as much damage as he can before he is stopped. --Anietor 14:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Reneeholle

user has removed the tag requested for opinion of other user's also has removed a request for citation for Hindi meaning of a word, citation is not as per WP:RS Sahaj without useing talk page Rushmi 16:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Rushmi posted an RFC tag in the wrong place (second time he's done this -- here's the diff of the first, which an admin fixed).

One other editor corrected Rushmi's editing here and I added a reference here per WP:SPS. I noted both on the talk page, here and here.

--Renee 17:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are you asking administrators to do? This sounds like something that requires dispute resolution, which this noticeboard is not a part of. Natalie 13:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Bot shutdown required

SmackBot is inserting references sections in the portal namespace. In most cases, this is undesirable, and SmackBot does not respect reversions of its actions, but persists in making the change, see . Maintainer Rich Farmborough has put a msg at the top of his talk page to say that he will be away for weeks or months, and the shutoff button can only be operated by admins. Separa 17:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

See log here. Separa 17:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that it's undesirable? Without the bot's edits, there are footnote links that don't link anywhere; the footnotes should probably be removed. --ais523 17:22, 18 September 2007 (U T C)

I agree - why add references, if you don't want them displaying? — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The note doesn't say that at all. It says I will be away over the coming weeks and months - I will not be running the bot when I am away. The shut-off can be operated by anyone apart from IP's and new users. Ais523 is correct the footnote should be removed, along with the new insertion, if required, there should not be footnote links that go nowhere.Rich Farmbrough, 17:30 18 September 2007 (GMT).

I've re-added the reflist. Having references / footnotes without any way to display them can be very confusing, especially to new users. I'm not sure why, but, I've seen this in a couple cases, for some reason, a few people out there, like having articles with no way to display the references... (BTW: There were almost 17,000 such articles earlier this month, before Rich put time into getting SmackBot to work my list...) SQL 19:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What I do in cases like this is to consider whether footnotes are needed. If it is a talk page, for example, I just put tags around the reference. Makes it much easier to activate it again if needed, and better than removing them. Carcharoth 10:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue has apparently been resolved; however, I'll add one more comment here because people seem to have misconceptions about what portals are. The portals are essentially subject-specific versions of the front page. They are updated less often, but they follow more or less the same format. The rest is really quite straightforward:

the community has decided not to include references on the front page; instead, they are included in the articles themselves, whereof the front page merely presents summaries; this is a sound decision on the part of the community - the front page is intended as a taster to encourage people to delve deeper into topics if they wish
if there were references remaining on the front page, they would be removed; certainly, nobody in their right mind would insert a reference *section*
the same applies without limitation to all portals I have ever seen, which includes most featured portals (yes, we have a lot of portals, some on obscure topics, and many quite poorly maintained...)

I hope we can all agree on these points and continue improving Misplaced Pages.

Separa 14:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I know what a portal is; the question remains of why there were <ref> tags in the portal in the first place. References may look bad in a summary designed for a portal, but having reference numbers that don't do anything is equally useless, and they should probably be removed from the portals. Maybe the bot should have been configured to remove the references rather than create a section for them, but if it's being given obviously incorrect data, you can't expect it to act in a sensible way. --ais523 14:26, 19 September 2007 (U T C)

Nazism

In the article Nazism, the User:EliasAlucard, for example here and the User:Mitsos, for example here repeatedly make an edit which results in a) the insertion of a direct (that is, in the form of a primary source) Hitler-quote b) the insertion of a direct (primary source) Goebbels-quote. In my, and other editors opinion, unmediated direct quotes, in which criminals explain their world-view, should not be used as a primary source. Since EliasAlucard and Mitsos don't respond to this argument on Talk:Nazism#Sentence_about_Sparta_removed, I request either to fully protect Nazism (in a version without the quotes) for a certain time (say some weeks), or to ban EliasAlucard and Mitsos from editing the article. --Schwalker 18:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have successfully protected The Wrong Version for a period of 1 week, or until you can achieve some kind of consensus on the talk page. I'm a long period of edit warring, by multiple editors. And, no, I'm not getting involved in your content dispute — I'll protect the page in the state its found. --Haemo 18:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I see EliasAlucard replying to you three times on the talkpage you mention. This looks like a simple content dispute to me - IMO, brief quotes from leading members of a political party are perfectly valid in an article about that party's ideology (there are multiple quotes from Dick Cheney et al on Neoconservatism). Whether it belongs in the main article, or the separate Nazi eugenics article, seems to be the matter under debate. Personally, I agree with you as otherwise it's a content fork, but there are at least valid arguments for having it on the main page, and agree with protecting it to stop you all revert-warring over this.

I don't think there's any merit at all in the "Please don't give nazis a stage by quoting them" argument, incidentally; Misplaced Pages is not censored, and primary sources are perfectly legitimate when they're a simple statement of fact along the lines of "X believed this; here's a quote of him saying so". — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what Schwalker's problem is, but he seems to have NPOV-issues as far as this topic goes. He removed the quote becase he thought the website was some kind of anonymous blog. I subsequently provided two other websites, one of which is a governmental one, where the quote is listed, which to me, complies with WP:RS. Why Schwalker wants the quote removed, is totally beyond me, but banning me from editing the article when I've done nothing wrong, seems like a very severe approach. Look, it's a Hitler quote, all right? If you can disprove this quote's validity, then it has nothing to do in the article (perhaps it should be in Adolf Hitler's Wikiquote misquoted section). However, so far, you haven't proven jackshit (excuse my French) as far as this quote being false goes. Why are you opposed to include this quote in the article? I just don't get it. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:55 18 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Hallo iridescent,

Dick Cheney is not a racist as far as I know. There seems to be only one quote of him in the arcticle Neoconservatism#1990s, which isn't sourced at all. Thus, since it steems from neither a primary nor a secondary nor a tertiary source, in my opinion the Cheney quote it is no good precedent for the Nazism article.

No, whether to put the H.quote on Nazism or Nazi eugenics is not the main matter of debate I had tried to discuss on Talk:Nazism#Sentence_about_Sparta_removed.

The process by which the now blocked version of Nazism has been created seems to be as follows: Hitler writes a book in 1928, which is kept secret, and first (incidentially illegaly) published in 1961 in an obscure translation, which in turn is cited by some anonymous blogger on wikipedia (to support an anachronist interpretation of Sparta, as user:Tazmaniacs has pointed out). Or, G. writes a booklet, which is published in 1932, which is translated into English by some anonymous, this translation is cited by some anonymous blogger on Misplaced Pages. As a result, since there is no critical historian or renowned instance with a real world name in between, Misplaced Pages is written by G. and H without any critical control. On the other hand, the victims of the racist and eugenics policy don't get an equal chance to spread their opinion about nazism. We can't expect that this process will result in a NPOV article.

--Schwalker 11:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not exist to spread anyone's opinion about anything, merely to report on it. We have an article about Adolph Hitler not because anyone wants to spread his opinion or spread hating Hitler or anything - we have an article on Hitler because he is notable. Similarly, we have articles on many victims of racist and eugencist policies, but again, not because we are intending to spread any kind of message. We have articles on Elie Wiesel, Anne Frank, Carrie Buck, ad inifinitum, because these people are notable. The victims of racism and eugenics don't get to spread their opinion because no one gets to spread their opinion. This is an encyclopedia, not an inspirational tract. Natalie 13:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Apart of the problems arising from the indiscriminate use of primary sources (see WP:PSTS), User:Elias has not respected the standard way of citing sources: "Say where you got it" and please do not modify it. The "source" advanced by Elias was not "Hitler, Adolf (1961). Hitler's Secret Book (1961)", as he claimed, but Dónal P O'Mathúna in "Human dignity in the Nazi era: implications for contemporary bioethics", published in BMC Med Ethics 2006; on-line on March 14, 2006), who cites Hitler. Mathúna's citation does not say that Hitler said that Sparta was the first National-Socialist State, but: "Sparta must be regarded as the first völkisch state." Finally, there is an undue weight problem arising from the insertion of this quote in this small subsection. Tazmaniacs 13:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me for pointing this out but of all the things you could fight about on that talk page this is the best you could do? Seriously, this is not a major issue. The Sparta thing is not at all an important part of Nazism as an ideology (which I presume we can agree is the actual topic of the article). To fight about this to the point where protection is needed is just way out of proportion with the actual dispute here. EconomicsGuy 14:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Violetriga use of admin tools in a dispute

There is a dispute at Misplaced Pages:Article message boxes over the redesign of these boxes. I placed a disputed policy tag on the project page. Other users then edit warred over it, so the page was protected by AzaToth. User:Violetriga has been heavily involved in the dispute, but unprotected the project page, in agreement with those on her side of the dispute. I pointed out to Violetriga that this was an inappropriate use of admin tools and asked her to revert. She didn't but responded, "That's a bit silly really." There is still a dispute over the guideline, and there is still a dispute over the disputed tag, which has been removed again and which I have restored. Violetriga has agreed the guideline is disputed. I would be grateful if the week-long protection could be restored. It would be a good thing to have a pause for discussion and wider editor involvement at this point. Also Violetriga should be cautioned not to use admin tools when she is an involved editor. Tyrenius 19:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Though I'm marginally involved in this "dispute," it's my opinion that Violetriga acted in good faith and didn't intend to abuse his / her admin tools, s/he simply wanted to allow editing to the article with the agreement that the disputed tag would remain. --MZMcBride 19:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Give it a rest, man. This really isn't a dispute at all. From what I see, people are getting along and we're discussing even more great ideas on how to format these templates. There's no fire here, not anymore. -- Ned Scott 19:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any dispute. I see a discussion. --Haemo 19:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Was Violet an edit warrior in the dispute? FunPika 19:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I see lots of dispute. But the {{disputed}} tag means there's a dispute over whether or not the page should be a guideline. Disputes over how to change the page don't warrant a disputed tag, or else nearly every guideline and policy in Misplaced Pages would have one. Equazcion • argue/contribs • 19:54, 09/18/2007

The dispute is about the content and the recent changes, basically over most of what is on the page. Tyrenius 20:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As a participant in discussion on Misplaced Pages:Article message boxes, I concur with MZMcBride that Violetriga acted in good faith. What I wonder is, what would she have to gain from the page being unprotected? "Don't use your admin tools in a dispute you're involved with" doesn't mean you can never use your buttons on any page you happen to edit regularly. I think she unprotected because (a) it was a short and silly edit war that (b) was unlikely to repeat itself, and (c) because of the many changes involved in the article message box standardization project, it's more beneficial to open the page to editing than to leave it protected. szyslak 19:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see the point in trying to make trouble in this way. You seem to ignore the fact that I agreed that the tag should remain and specifically said so when I unprotected the page. violet/riga (t) 20:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Try as I might, I'm really struggling to see anything that be even faintly construed as a potentially dubious use of any sort of buttons. Moreoever "ZOMG Violetriga is evil sysop" threads at ANI are getting just a tad tiresome. Moreschi 20:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm tired of "ZOMG is an sysop" threads in general. In fact, your comment has inspired a new WP:RAUL law: "In any discussion on WP:AN or WP:ANI about how someone is an evil/abusive/corrupt/immoral sysop, the odds that the admin in question is indeed evil, abusive, corrupt or immoral are about 1 in 100,000." szyslak 20:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid strawman arguments. There is no mention of evil. Then presumably you have no objection if I reprotect the page as an involved editor. Tyrenius 20:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course I do, that would be wheel warring! No, not seriously. Actually, I think we should all wheel war a bit more and talk a bit less. Not enough actually gets done on this wiki. Moreschi 20:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That was not a straw man argument. This indeed began as a "Violetriga is a bad sysop" thread, whether one uses the word "evil" or not. szyslak 20:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It did not. It merely addressed one action. Tyrenius 00:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My first accusation of being a rouge/evil/abusive admin was six months before I was given the admin bit. For a month or so earlier this year (I was doing image deletions, natch) my day wasn't complete without at least one shrieking mental pointing out how I was rouge/evil/abusive and should be hung/drawn/quartered forthwith. Therefore, when I see thread like this here, I'm sorry, but my first thought is not "OMG!!!!!!! ROUGE ADMIN!! STOP EVERYTHING!". It's "oh, another mentalist, perhaps his/her contribs need to be examined more closely". I doubt I'm alone in this (well, perhaps the language, but not the sentiment) and I think we might need a note somewhere to say to the specials who pitch up here "Administrators will examine the edits of all who are involved and your own edits may therefore be considered". ➔ This is REDVEЯS 20:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You are heavily involved and not in a position to make an objective judgement. That should be left to an univolved admin. As it happens, as soon as the page was unprotected, the dispute tag was removed again. Tyrenius 20:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I was not involved in the presence (or lack thereof) of the tag, which is the main thing here. Please go and try and come up with something constructive in our discussions rather than going on about this nothingness. violet/riga (t) 20:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Given the fact that the tag wasn't removed again until more than fourteen hours after the page was unprotected, I can no longer assume that you're acting in good faith. —David Levy 23:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Violetriga did not remove the dispute tag. He/she just unprotected the page so we could continue to improve it. So Tyrenius, you are pointing fingers in the wrong direction. Personally I was very surprised that AzaToth protected the page after the dispute tag had only been removed twice. It wasn't like the page was heavily vandalised or something. The one who have done several strange things as an admin in this case is AzaToth, but that is another story. And previous to that I was also surprised that the box at the top of the page was changed from "how-to guide" to "guideline" this early. Don't we have a box for "suggested guideline" or so? And of course, if some say they dispute the guide then of course it is disputed. Although it seems to be a very small but very vocal group who do the disputing. So though I was/am involved in formulating and implementing this guide I agree that for the time being it should have the dispute box on top but that the page should be unprotected. (Even thought I was pretty satisfied with that version so the protection was more beneficial to us who is for this guide than the disputers I think.) By the way, the dispute box itself doesn't hinder our work so it really doesn't disturb.

--David Göthberg 20:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

{{proposed}}, yes. That probably would've been a better way to go. Equazcion • argue/contribs • 20:51, 09/18/2007

In fact, it was tagged as {{proposed}} until just a few days ago. But the changes have been implemented without mass edit warring on the templates between supporters and opponents of the change, so I don't think it's still "proposed". szyslak 20:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Outside Opinion: Well I am not involved in this dispute at all nor have I edited the page. IMHO I do not see gross abuse of the tools here. Though I'm not in favor of undoing protections without some discussion with the protecting admin (especially when a page has been protected so recently)...I still do not see how the unprotection is going to be drastically harmful at this point? The only significant dispute to date is the actual use of the dispute tag on the page. Its not like the entire guideline is being worked around or hacked away by multiple editors. The visual design is just being discussed and tweaked. <humor>Its not like we are having editors warring over whether a circle instead of a box should be used for the tags</humor>. All that there is to this matters is that it might have been more considerate for Violetriga to propose the unprotection first.¤~Persian Poet Gal 20:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Just as a point of information, some discussion did take place here: Wikipedia_talk:Article_message_boxes#Protection.3F before the unprotection. -Chunky Rice 21:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

To Szyslak: In order for something to become a guideline, consensus needs to be explicitly shown on its talk page; not inferred from a mere lack of opposition to its effects elsewhere. Equazcion • argue/contribs • 01:04, 09/19/2007

Quoth Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines, "a guideline is any page that: (1) recommends actions that editors should either take or avoid; and (2) reflects consensus." There is no requirement that said consensus be established via a particular forum. —David Levy 01:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That's some good quothing. You're right in a policy sense. But in a practical sense, for this particular case, I really don't think a lack of opposition should have signified a consensus. Besides which, there is now a fair amount of opposition, so maybe this should be kicked back to a proposal until the talk page settles down. It's a bit insane right now. Equazcion • argue/contribs • 01:52, 09/19/2007

I wasn't addressing the issue of whether or not consensus exists in this case. I was addressing the claim that "in order for something to become a guideline, consensus needs to be explicitly shown on its talk page."

I will, however, note that I'm not seeing opposition from all that many users. I'm seeing a small number of extremely vocal opponents. —David Levy 03:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Basically, {{ambox}} is not gonna disappear anymore. People will probably fight forever over the designs, but what else is new. I saw proper discussion on the talk page, and no movement in the large to undo all the work. When i removed the disputed tag, i did this with the editsummary: Even Reinis said: "Please note that what's being disputed is the design, not the standardization as such.") Reinis being one of the most vocal anti-AMB people. Really i don't see why this is a disputed guideline. It's a guideline under active discussion at most. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Violetriga and I have not always seen eye-to-eye, but I'm utterly disgusted by Tyrenius' absurd accusation of impropriety. At this point, I'm convinced that Tyrenius is not interested in actually discussing the relevant issues in good faith (and instead seeks to wear down opponents by making as much noise and stirring up as much trouble as possible). —David Levy 23:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The undesirable tendency of dedicated member of this project to OWN it and adopt a tactic of attacking any critics has been pointed out more than once on the project talk page. There are valid concerns about the nature of this design and the the haste of its implementation, which will have an effect throughout the whole of wikipedia. Tyrenius 00:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

How does that pertain to your unfounded accusation against Violetriga? —David Levy 01:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It pertains to your comment immediately preceding it, as I'm sure you realise. You might like to check this out. Tyrenius 01:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My comment pertained to your accusation of impropriety on the part of Violetriga. I obviously don't expect you to agree with my assessment that it's unfounded, but your reply has absolutely nothing to do Violetriga's unprotection of the page. The alleged haste with which the change was carried out and rudeness of its proponents are not germane to the discussion.

Incidentally, I'm waiting for you to explain why you claimed that the dispute tag was removed "as soon as the page was unprotected." —David Levy 03:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Your comment obviously extended beyond this thread to the project, where you have made similar negative comments about editors who question the change, as has Violetriga. However, it does serve to illuminate the background to my complaint. It was a 7 day protection, and the template was removed 14 hours after unprotection. Tyrenius 04:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm not a member of the project. I discovered its existence and briefly commented shortly before the new design was implemented. I am, however, satisfied with the overall result, and I believe that much of your conduct has been ridiculous. I say this not because you've questioned the change, but because you've been discourteous, disruptive and even dishonest.

2. Please quote the "similar negative comments" that I've made about other editors.

3. Yes, the tag was removed more than fourteen hours after the protection was lifted. So why did you claim that it was removed "as soon as the page was unprotected"?

As for the seven-day duration, I certainly hope that you aren't suggesting that this was set in stone (even if the dispute that led to the protection was seemingly resolved). —David Levy 07:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Internet Coffee Phone -- concerted attack

Earlier this afternoon, User:Eskimoscott posted an article called Internet Coffee Phone, which was a call for vandalism -- the article urged users to insert the phrase "Internet Coffee Phone" into random articles. Although I immediately deleted the article, there have been at least 2 users conducting such vandalism since then: User:220.239.145.179 and User:Junaide. All of these users are now blocked, but keep an eye out for this and immediately block any other user who does this. Thanks, NawlinWiki 19:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User:152.33.66.64 - I'm not an admin, can someone do the honours? — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User:71.99.154.98 was another. Already blocked though. --Onorem♠Dil 19:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Also User:Chadrod123 - and someone needs to keep a close eye on the ICP Campaign article, which probably needs to be reverted to the legit version & protected — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Internet Coffee Phone.jpg, too — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Another one. WATP • _(contribs) 19:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Mr.Z-man 19:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've semiprotected ICP Campaign. -- Flyguy649 _contribs 19:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Note -- the four anon IPs so far are totally unrelated (they are from Australia, England, New Port Richey FL, and Elon College in North Carolina. NawlinWiki 19:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- A tribute to the global brotherhood Misplaced Pages brings... — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User:24.231.74.76 - 4 times, all reverted — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User:152.42.162.112 - this is starting to get tedious... — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently this was started at 4chan. See this unreliable source. NawlinWiki 21:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added the word to Lupin's bad word list. Can anyone check to make sure I did so correctly?¤~Persian Poet Gal 21:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Groan. More 4chan shit. While we're at it, could you add "So I Herd You Liek Mudkips" to that list? Mudskipper and List of Pokémon (241-260) have also been under constant 4chan attack because of this meme, and both are semi'd currently (right after a two-week full-prot). -Jéské 22:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"udkip" in regex speak, I think. Will 22:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Since Lupin's tool is case insensitive, I've added "you li(ke|ek) mudkip(s|z)", which should cover it. Confusing Manifestation 23:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Throw in User:68.40.24.68, though only once. --Calton | Talk 23:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

24 hours; I'm not taking chances with this meme. --Haemo 23:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Being as a fair number of the concerted attacks on wikipedia appear to be coming from 4chan, why are they allowed to have an article here? I mean yeah, okay 'Encyclopedia of everything' and all that, but it kind of strikes me as ironic that they can cause chaos like this and we still have an article on them. HalfShadow 23:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not like removing someone's article is a form of punishment. 4chan is a notable website, and so it warrants a virtual encyclopedia page. Keeping 4chan's article would just mean that they are notable/encyclopedic/???, not that they aren't troublesome. You Can 't Review Me!!! 23:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The main reason 4chan is notable is because of all the controversies surrounding it and some of its unruly users (thankfully they still mainly edit Misplaced Pages with IPs). We have articles on Misplaced Pages critics, too, IIRC. -Jéské 23:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Completely useless sidenote: We're ranked way higher than 4chan on the so-called unreliable source above. You Can 't Review Me!!! 00:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Hgielyakk, two edits. I reverted both. —Burn Down Babylon 23:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, isn't that why we don't have an article on ED? StaticElectric 07:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope. ED just dosn't pass notability guidelines. Attention was brought to it by a campaign of harassment from a few ED members however. We can't just delete articles on subjects we don't like... else we wouldn't have an article on hitler and homework. :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 08:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, this is an ongoing thing... I just removed 5 by User:74.97.159.164. SQL 08:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh-oh. I've found this phrase in about 100 articles so far :( working on it.... SQL 08:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned out almost 100 articles. here's a good way to find them. SQL 08:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox

Can something please be done about User:SqueakBox? He's deleted sourced information from articles before based solely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Now he's made another edit to Axl Rose (previously he had deleted information from the article as 'unsourced', blithely ignoring text with footnotes and checkable online sources) with a very threatening edit summary, claiming that the editors who work on the page are "abusive," threatening "mediation and RfC" if anyone reverts his edit, etc. Frankly this user's behavior is on the verge of abusive, seems to violate both WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and is disruptive, and I don't think he should be allowed to try to strong-arm other editors this way. DanielEng 21:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox is a reasonable guy, he is pretty hot on WP:BLP but undoubtedly not averse to a civil discussion about things. Bold, revert, discuss - try the third of these now. Especially since it looks to me as if he's right, the category is not for the purpose for which it's apparently being used. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with Squeakbox that the cat appeared to be inappropriate to the article, so I don't have a problem with its deletion at all. I do' have a problem with threats and personal attacks against other editors as he made in his edit summary. In my past dealings with him I have found him to be stubborn, unreasonable and capable of disruptive edits...a while back he was trying to tweak admin guidelines to suit his purposes. DanielEng 21:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit over the top, but mediation or an RfC would be a reasonable dispute resolution path for this conflict. -Chunky Rice 21:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I should point out that there was no edit war going on here. If there had been, mediation might be an option. Threatening it when one makes their first edit to specific content is completely out of line. DanielEng 21:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The child abuse victim category that was disputed is now deleted and thius re-insertion of a wrong category was not acceptable. This is the second time in 2 days I have been reported here for things that dont require admin intervention. Why? I notice Dan making generalisations about me that are basically a PA, and without diffs to back himself up, SqueakBox 21:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

My name is Daniel. Not Dan. As I said on my comment to you on your Talk Page, deleting the cat would have been fine. When the previously debated cat was removed by consensus, that was cool and nobody questioned it. Pointing out the cat was being used out of context would have been fine, since the editors tending to the page (including myself) obviously hadn't caught it. Leaving a threatening edit summary saying "My edit! Revert and I'm RfCing you!" was not. I should point out that there was no edit war happening; this was the first time he came in and deleted that cat, and nobody had objected. As to my "generalizations," exhibit A, Squeakbox deleting stuff from a Wiki-wide admin guideline page based solely on his personal opinion: exhibit B, Squeakbox claiming material is "unsourced and not in text," when in fact it was cited and in the first paragraph, he just couldn't be bothered to read it? DanielEng 21:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Put down the Spider-Man suit and step away from the Reichstag. This does not require admin intervention, and it can probably be solved by stopping the huffing and puffing and actually engaging in discussion. I've blocked SqueakBox before now for other things, but he has consistently impressed me with his self-awareness and philosophical attitude. Try actually being nice about things, and I'm sure it will pay dividends. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm generally very nice, but I've dealt with Squeakbox before, and he tends to tune out whatever is said to him if he doesn't agree with it. I'm going to take your advice here on leaving the Reichstag behind (LOL) and stay as far away from this editor as I can, but really...I'm not the first editor who has brought Squeakbox up to ANI. IMHO ignoring this sort of behavior just lets him think it's acceptable to continue to carry on this way.DanielEng 04:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well there was nothing wrong with being bold on the deletion guide for admin page, that is why we have an edit button, if I had edit warred over that point it would have been different thought he policy clearly is a violation of one of our pillars, do no harm. Axl stating he belioeved he was sexually molested by his father is not enough reason to include him in the cat (now deleted as inappropriate for obvious reasons) and indeed without firm evidence shopuld be removed as outing his father based on hearsay so again your claim that I hadnt read the Rose article is another mistaken allegation on your part. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about me which concerns me, and because of my attempting to impose BLP policy and thus do no harm, and that concerns me more. Your claim that admins have specail editing priovileges shows a popor understanding of how things work here, it doesnt work like that. So what exactly do you want tdone about me, Daniel? SqueakBox 21:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Except that a) the admin guideline page very clearly stated that any changes made should be done with consensus. In addition, if you recall, you told me yourself you had read the Rose article and "couldn't find" the information, so you are changing your story here. Not to mention that if you had read the source given, you would have noticed that Rose's father is DEAD, so there is no BLP vio involved. DanielEng 21:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And pray what adnmin intervention is needed here? If Rose's father ids dead or alo=ibve makes no difference to our duty to respect thim and not publish gossip allegations about him that are unproven. And indeed I did read the article and could find no relaible source that he had suffered child sexual abuse. Consensus is suggested but an edit button does leave one free to edit and I was using my judgenment based on consdiderable experience of both lif and wikipedia, and no one even reverted for 3 days. it appears you are greasping for straws with which to attack me because you feel angry but please do not use me as a scapegoat for your anger. thanks, SqueakBox 21:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't know me, and I'm not angry, I'm annoyed. So now we don't believe survivors of abuse when they say they've been abused? It's not gossip, it's from the man's mouth, and it's clearly said in the article "Rose stated..." ie, it's presented as his belief and not fact. Seeing as he's gone public in the interviews, in songs, onstage and elsewhere, and other abuse Rose suffered has been corroborated by outside sources (again, if you read the RS article you WOULD have seen that), it's obviously something true to him. In addition, you never brought any of this up when you deleted the cat, did you? No, you just said "unsourced" (which wasn't true, since there were citations there) and "not in text" (which it was, and I notice you've conveniently ignored the diff where you said you couldn't find it and had to be handheld to find the lines in the text). In addition, in regards to the Admin Guidelines, you know as well as I do that it was not a regular Wiki article. When a page explicitly says that you are to have to have consensus to make changes, but you don't have consensus and you edit on your own opinion, you're out of line. You're not an expert "on life and experience" any more than anyone else on Wiki.DanielEng 03:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is a content dispute. --Haemo 22:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually it isnt even that as Daniel agrees the cat should have been removed, SqueakBox 22:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait, so SqueakBox's edit is agreeable, but the edit summary is not ... ok. I'm a bit confused. SqueakBox may have had a "threatening" edit summary, but it is a threat of action within Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution processes. That is a perfectly acceptable threat. Then an RfC would come, and we would all comment, and you and SqueakBox would know what the consensus of the community is. Isn't that a good thing? If there were even a content dispute in the first place... --Iamunknown 22:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I am saying. The edit summary was not even a threat against me, because I didn't add the cat. It was a blanket strong-arm tactic and threat leveled against anyone who would be editing the page, and it was added, again, on his first edit of that cat, not after an edit war. I don't think Squeakbox or any other editor has the right to come onto a page and say "if you don't do it my way, you're being abusive and I'm RfCing you," especially when nobody had disagreed with him, nobody'd said anything on the Talk Page for the article, nothing.

RfC and mediation are wonderful tools, but shouldn't they be the last resort step in an edit conflict, not a preliminary measure taken by an editor who just wants to make sure things go his way? DanielEng 03:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I think that SqueakBox is not "a reasonable guy undoubtedly not averse to a civil discussion". He was on personal attack parole for a year, got blocked twice in the process, was blocked repeatedly for 3RR violations, routinely accuses people standing in his way of having a pedophile agenda , of being trolls , he routinely uses the "I know Misplaced Pages better than you so please shut up now" argument . Pascal.Tesson 22:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Assuming I am not reasonable is a PA, and from you who has launched so many PA's against me this is becoming totally unacceptable. You should strikle your statement as you have no evidence to back it. people who have been subject to arbcom rulings are not exempt from our NPA policy and your following me arounfd harrassing me is utterly unaceptable, and based on your obvious anger that your beloeved rape victims category got deleted. please either modify your behaviour or seek dispute resultion, ie mediation because IMO your own behaviour re me has been appalling for some time now. Just because you are an admin does not give you the right to claim that I am not a good faith user, especailly when nobody agrees with you, SqueakBox 00:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it strikes me that having seen your complaint rejected here you that are raking any old mud to besmirch my character because you have taken a personal dislike to me and this is not acceptable, SqueakBox 00:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My beloved rape victims category? I got a chuckle out of that one... I stand by the statement I made above and as you may have noticed it is full of very recent diffs showing that you're prone to wild accusations and there are many more in your talk history. I can't say I'm really surprised that you would try and write me off as some kind of rape-loving pervert or whatever it is you had in mind when you wrote the above. Please, look at the diffs I provided. They are mine, not yours. Ask yourself: "would I consider this acceptable editing if it was someone else's work?" Ask yourself, why are editors constantly bringing me to the 3RR noticeboard and to ANI? Why did a number of admins warn be about unacceptable behavior? Why did Morven ask me once again to tone it down and stop labeling everyone a crypto-pedophile? Why did he ask me to stop insinuating I have the ArbCom's support? Go back in your archives and look at what I told you about the rape victims category. I said "send it to AfD, don't depopulate it out of process" and added "I understand (though I probably don't quite share) your concerns about how appropriate this category is but in any case, this is something that should be properly debated". In other words, I said respect your fellow editors or don't expect respect from them. Pascal.Tesson 04:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. DanielEng 04:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Pascal, SqueakBox has strong feelings and can be provoked. Same here. But as I say, it has been my invariable experience with him that reason is met with reason. He's open about his biases and views, at least. Guy (Help!) 17:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

205.202.240.144 (shared) vandalizing

IP 205.202.240.144 (shared IP) has been vandalizing pages for almost a year, and has been blocked more than once. The IP vandalized the page on Ernie Chambers three times, even after being warned since January 2006 at User talk:205.202.240.144, and blocked on and off since March 2007. Needless to say, this IP needs to be blocked. --Piroteknix 21:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a fairly broad range of pages that have been vandalised. Semi-protection won't help. Sheffield Steel_stalk 21:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it's a middle school computer lab or library or what, but the vandal(s) don't seem very mature, saying Chambers was born to alien parents and Lois and Peter Griffin, and that he was born on 23/23/2323. --Piroteknix 23:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User Calton

Why does this behavior continue to be allowed? I was blocked for harassing Calton a few days ago, and I freely admit that I was, but I am just so frustrated at the way he is continually allowed to abuse editors, and administrators, on occasion. Why isn't he at least reprimanded, or told to be civil? 66.35.127.0 21:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

He didn't abuse you, he told you what Misplaced Pages's policies are. He wasn't overly nice to you, but as you freely admit you don't deserve the kindness of Misplaced Pages's volunteer contributors, who are actually spending their free time writing an encyclopedia rather than harassing others and filing bogus complaints. If you can't handle frank and sometimes rough talk then frankly you should be contributing to the Tellytubbies Wikia. 81.86.235.169 21:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That link didn't take you to any type of abuse that Calton gave to me. It takes you to an example (one of many) of Calton abusing someone who has been a long-time, productive editor at Misplaced Pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.35.127.0 (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not that bad. It's barely even incivil. If you have a problem with his behavior, then I suggest you discuss it with him, or file a request for comment. This oblique "look at this edit" nonsense is totally unproductive. --Haemo 22:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, I've never made a link before, I didn't give you as much information as I intended. How about this So if he only breaks the rules a "little" bit, that is ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.35.127.0 (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on anyone's conduct, I second Haemo's recommendation that concerned editors engage Calton in discussion or file a request for comment. The messages regularly left here pointing administrators to a single edit by Calton are, at best unhelpful, as nothing has ever come of them and, at worst, disruptive, whether intentionally or not. ("Disruptive" is not a characterisation of any individual editors, but a general comment on the effect these types of messages have to this noticeboard.) --Iamunknown 22:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to see here, move along now. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not my intention to be disruptive, so I will make one more comment in this particular discussion then quiet down for the moment. It would seem to me that if messages are being regularly left here about Calton's behavior, that should be a red flag. But if your point is that people are reporting them only one at a time, then I will solve that problem. Here..., , , , , , , , . That's only going back to September 5th. Several of these were to users who were confused about something and were just looking for help and/or clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.35.127.0 (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with any of those, as far as I can see. Carcharoth 09:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing there that requires admin action. --Fredrick day 09:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

User evading block

A user recently admitted he was a sockpuppet of an indef. blocked user . Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 22:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Mhgraham77

Would somebody please block Mhgraham77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for repeated BLP violations at Cecil O. Samuelson? Several editors have explained to him/her why their repeated assertions that their college president is a fascist and making comparisons to Hitler are not correct, but he/she keeps re-adding them. I posted this at WP:AIV but it's still sitting there. Corvus cornix 22:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Continued personal attack after return from block

Per this ANI complaint, User:Iwazaki was warned by admin Lexicon and subsequently based on this personal attack was blocked for 48 hours. The block was upheld by admin Haemo. After the return from his block he accuses me of being a Sock of Wikrama who is User:Wikramadithya. (see here).

In his edit summary he wrote

(reply to wikrama).

His older accusation that I am user Wikramadithya is here. Hence this is continuation of his Harassment of me. Thanks Taprobanus 22:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, but there is a request for comment currently open on Lexicon for the block outlined in this discussion. --Haemo

It was closed. Thanks Taprobanus 22:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Anyways, as an outside user who knows nothing about the whole underlying editorial issue here, it's clear that User:Iwazaki's problem is that he doesn't appear to understand, or care, that making accusations about another editor is productive, and can be incivil. The above charge of sockpuppetry is one example, but when I reviewed the previous block, it was clear that not only did he see nothing wrong about making claims that another users has "racist" off-Wiki affiliations, but that he was indeed correct to do so. This is not an isolated incident on his part. He perhaps best puts his views in this edit or this exchange, where he explains that since he believes his accusations of bias in other people, both on and off-Wiki, are accurate that he is free to make them. Now, I could really care less about his views of an author, but the same opinion he routinely extends to other editors. It's incivil, and disruptive. He doesn't appear to have learned anything from his block, and will probably continue attacking other users until something serious happens. --Haemo 23:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

10-year old gives real name

A new user, Mgeller234 (talk · contribs), has just written his autobiography on Misplaced Pages. I moved it to his userspace, but after doing that, I noticed that he claims to be 10 years old, and gives out what appears to be his real name and his probable city of residence. Please advise on what to do. Should his userpage be deleted? A ecis 00:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Two things, delete the page and the restore all but the diff in which he hadds the personal information. Then email oversight and tell them about it. at WP:OVERSIGHT. --JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 00:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this needs to be deleted and oversighted ASAP. --Haemo 00:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand the concern, but what is the policy basis for this? And where is the line? If a 15 year old puts personal information on their user page, is that allowable? 17? 18? Just curious. -Chunky Rice 00:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Such measures are based on Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy#Final_decision. A ecis 00:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have, out of precaution, edited out the personal information, but I will delete and contact oversight. Thanks for the quick response. A ecis 00:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely support the decision to delete the material per privacy concerns. User pages have no robot restrictions and are prone to be archived in a flash, even by convention-abiding robots. — xDanielx /_C 05:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Blaxthos

The user Blaxthos inserted this threat into my talk page without any context. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AArzel&diff=158790970&oldid=157720709

I am getting quite tired of his personal threats against me, and ask for some assistance in dealing with this individual. Arzel 00:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You didn't get a personal threat, you got a generic warning. Judging from Blaxthos' edit history, the warning was related to your comment on Talk:Fox News Channel, specifically the bit about "Anyphil, who appears to disagree out of spite." I can see how this is taken to constitute a personal attack. A ecis 00:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It may be in response to that, but where does he get off making veiled threats against me for supposedly "policy shopping" and Andyphil accusing me of "Spurious attempts to remove information" when I had made no comments for over a week in an attempt to reasses the situation. I tried to respond civily, and was instantly threatened, and that was no generic warning from him to me. His essay on Policy Shopping was written specifically in response to me. Arzel 00:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you could work on trying harder at being civil. If the best you can do is saying someone "appears to disagree out of spite", then I don't think you're sufficiently cool to be walking back into a heated situation. --Haemo 02:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the situation at the Foxnews talk page has reached a point where everyone has seemingly forgot to assume good faith. There is entirely too much comments on contributors and their motives, and not enough discussion of the arguments being raised, and the responses to these arguments. Everyone could use some work on keeping cool. Ramsquire 17:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Image adding question

User:156.34.60.230 is adding pictures (like this edit here ) of actors, in tiny versions, to film articles cast lists (muchlike IMDb has been doing for awhile). I am bringing this here so that admins can decide whether this is okay or not. If it is okay then no problem, but, if it isn't then I know that it is easier for you to rollback multiple edits then it is for me. Also, I am not sure what warning one would give in this situation. Thanks ahead of time for your attention to this situation. MarnetteD | Talk 00:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest not doing that. For one reason, the pictures he included are actually non-free pictures which should be used sparingly. Second, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of the images we do have are not going to shrink very well. Third, I can't even begin the imagine the excess server load for something so meaningless in the end. Maybe a simple note on their talk page, telling them at least the non-free images part (they need to be used sparingly). However, (and I hope to speak for everyone) new ideas are always welcome. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Legal Action for editing a post

Hello.

My concern is involving the article...

http://en.wikipedia.org/Ballymena_Academy

I was advised to come to come here regarding my problem. An edit in the article has threatened legal action for those that edit the page. The edit was made by a user called "Firsfron". The reason I want to edit the page was because I believe the article is biased. But I am afraid that if I edit, I might have "legal action" against me. A statement in the article said...

I do not belief this is fair and I think it's a "bully tactic" by certain people to get the article the way they want it. I suspect that it may have been added by the school as a way of making itself sound better, or as a way of deterring vandalism. Either way, I would like help with this issue and thank you in advance.

RPGary 01:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, that was added by an editor who was not logged in, not Firsfron. (See diff.) At any rate, I have removed it. Feel free to edit the article constructively. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has a strict no legal threats policy. If you are ever threatened on Misplaced Pages by another user for legal reasons (or about any threat for that matter) please report it here. Mr.Z-man 02:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Further, the claim that It should be noted that any edits of this page can and will be traced to the user's IP address. Prompt legal action will be taken would come under the rubric of "horseshit". -- Hoary 02:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. There are several other types of shit it could be. HalfShadow 02:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that it was 91.125.121.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who made the legal threat, not Firsfron. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 04:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My thanks to Bbatsell for clearing up who made the legal threat (it was an IP) and to Nwwaew for notifying me of this discussion, which I had missed. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

User:JJJ999

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 18#World Public Speaking Championship

This user has referred to a comment I made with the response, "Stronger delete recommended for lying". I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, suggesting that he might be intimating that the article was a hoax. His reponse was ""The Author"? No, we're talking about you. Did you or did you not post the misleading/false number of 148,000 hits for this page? And if so, why should your vote be taken seriously, it appears to be blatantly false..." When I admonished him against that type of attack, his response was "I stand by my question. And you may refer it to the mods. Your response also indicates you are attempting the "shout loudly" variety or rebuttal. If you don't answer it'll be me asking the Mods about conduct for lying anyway, so feel free to draw it to their attention. Now, you claim here the following: "Notable in the world of college and high school debating. It's found more often under "Toastmasters", where the championship returns 148,000+ ghits Mandsford 12:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC) " I observe, upon 3 google searches of the relevant terms that it produces 278, 1 and 200 hits accordingly, and ask you where you got the 148,000 from, and if you either made it up, or lied. Unless my google is broken these seem to be the 2 possibilities. If either is true, it seems like we shouldn't take your vote seriously, and I will put that to the mods too.JJJ999 00:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)"

Now, I recognize that we sometimes get carried away in a debate, but I've never seen anyone get called a liar. I don't appreciate that type of attack. Mandsford 01:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

what a comical complaint. You flat out posted a number which you have not, despite several requests from me, ever explained how you came up with this number (I'd take a link to the google search if you're wondering), and you refused to back down from it. Your latest claim, that you used different terms, still only comes up with 2170 hits. So, what to we have? A guy who initially posted false numbers, was asked were he got them, and told he was wrong or lying, spent a while dodging and refusing to admit the numbers were wrong, and who has once again posted clearly inaccurate information in his subsequent "explanation" of his conduct. Have fun with that. JJJ999 01:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- While you're actually overstating the number of hits (you need to go to the last page to get the number of Ghits), IMO you need to assume good faith - everyone makes mistakes. A search without the quote marks brings up what at first glance looks like 132,000 hits (albeit actually 772), which is much closer to the number claimed — iridescent (talk to me!) 01:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- (ec) ***Querying without any quotes gives me 133,000 results which is relatively close to his stated results. It seems more logical that he queried without quotes (and perhaps some slight variation on wording) which is a common mistake. You need to review WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Your initial post failed in both regards. It is fine to question someone's comments, but immediately calling them a liar is not. -- JLaTondre 01:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be something very odd going on here and a possible COI - User:JJJ999's first edit was to create an article on a debating society, and virtually all the rest of their edit history has been to prod/AfD articles on other debating societies & their members, sometimes in a way bordering on a personal attack - see this for example — iridescent (talk to me!) 01:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and posting to AfD debates under a false name yesterday. Something is definitely going on here — iridescent (talk to me!) 01:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No, he changed his name from Jembot99 to JJJ999. However, he has engaged in canvassing with multiple requests to people who had recommended deletion on a previous nomination (just a couple of the many examples: & ). -- JLaTondre 02:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone may also want to look through Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Christopher_Erskine and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Erik Eastaugh (2nd nomination) for potentially escalating heated discussions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(4 Edit conflicts...)Canvassing also appears to be going on a lot SQL 02:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

- - The irony of being accused of bad faith while warning someone about AGF. Gold. The accusation of "canvassing" in a forum designed for it is also amusing. I have no claim on those people, asking them to give their opinion on my recent deletion noms sounds fine, some even went against me on one (Erskine) but for (Eastaugh). I invited everyone on the former to the latter too, and vice versa. It is also silly to assume other people don't ask others their opinions. You can call it bad faith, but I have yet to hear one satisfactory explanation of why his conduct was not deceptive, and I don't believe a poster with his record of edits would have made such a mistake innocently, certainly not the 2nd or 3rd time down the road. I can't prove his intention, but then one could never call anyone a liar... also dispute my edits are all debating, but even if they were it'd make sense to focus on something I knew a bit about.JJJ999 02:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It may "sound fine", but it is against Misplaced Pages's guidelines, for many reasons. You can read more at the appropriate page. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

And what "canvassing" it was... it included exhortations like "I have renominated this for deletion. I notice you voted against last time. If you have any views one way or another, please post them. It appears like it will be a clear deletion anyway. Cheers." and "Notice you voted for deletion last time, I have renominated it. If you have any comments of this deletion, or any of the other debating ones I have made, please feel free to give input on them. JJJ999 03:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)" and "so if you could ask objective people to look this over and give their thoughts, this page can be decided on sooner rather than later". Man, can you feel the push voting? On the other hand I'm certain some of the people voting keep to some of the gratuitous articles I have mentioned are undoubtably friends, but hey, as long as it's done by e-mail, rather than an open request for objective assessment from someone...JJJ999 02:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Google

Slightly off-topic, but we need some good instruction somewhere on how to use and interpret a Google search, including

use quotes in your search
don't be deceived by a low number of Ghits at the end of the search: it gives the number of distinct pages from the first 1,000 hits only, not the actual number of distinct pages, and so can only be used with searches which have only less than (or slightly more than) 1,000 results to begin with
do not look at what national version of Google someone uses (google.com, google.be, google.de, ...), since they all give basically the same results (excluding China perhaps). Almost everytime Google hits are discussed, people make errors in interpretation (including myself, probably).
Do not quiblle about slight changes in numbers returned, Google searches are rarely identical on different tries (althouygh the numbers should obviously be close to one another). Fram 09:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

As to point 3, looking at national versions of Google and checking off "pages from country" can skew the results greatly. Try and search for NRL in Google Canada and Google Australia and the results are similiar. But check off "pages from country" gives (Google Canada and Google Australia) very different results. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

True, but I thought that was obvious. All my comments were about a standard Google search. Google news can also give completely different results depending on your country. Fram 14:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could follow WP:GHITS and step away from using the Google test altogether, instead focusing on the contents of search results. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, if Google returned 3 results, all of them reliable sources that's more important than a million GHits. --Haemo 18:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack

ILike2BAnonymous called me Idiotic here, I request that an admin give this user an appropriate blocking for violating WP:NPA.Cholga 03:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you a "that?" It seems that he was referring to your comment, and while I'd suggest that he be a tad more civil about it from now on, a block is not needed here. The Behnam 03:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

He called me ignorant too, and said i was obsessed with feces, and he also called me idiotic on another page, how about that?Cholga 05:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm no admin but you'll probably need to post diffs for those last couple of claims there too. Equazcion • argue/contribs • 05:14, 09/19/2007

Yes... diffs please. Don't expect other people to go fishing for you. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on Liberty University

Two of our experienced users have decided that it would be funny to include an "article" from Radar (magazine) on the Liberty University article in which Radar calls Liberty the "worst Christian university". The same Radar "article" also has categories for "Worst Party School" and "Worst Trust-Fund-Baby College". The article is obviously not serious, yet two experienced users feel that this article should be right alongside reporting of the Barron's Educational Series and U.S. News & World Report rankings of Liberty. Strangely, nobody feels it is worth including this "article" in Michigan State University, Bennington College, Cornell University, Virginia Military Institute, Texas Woman's University, or any of the other schools mentioned. Because one of the involved users is an administrator, I'm bringing it here. This behavior is unacceptable. --B 05:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

To be frank, what Nascentatheist is doing on the article is disruptive. Radar is a satirical magazine that should not be taken seriously, and the inclusion of such a link on the section titled "Academics and rankings" is downright misleading and sets a negative view of the University. --D_arkF_alls 09:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly not vandalism. If I were interested enough to be editing the article, I think I'd agree with you rather than with Nascentatheist and FeloniousMonk that it doesn't belong in the article. But I don't see the need for any admin intervention. Felonious hasn't used his tools: he's just there at that article as an ordinary editor, disagreeing with another ordinary editor. ElinorD (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, after my restoration of the reference was most recently removed, and not being one to argue incessantly about these things - having no interest in an edit war - I simply put my last commentary on the talk page and have decided to leave it to those who want to argue. I did not restore the link again. I've stated the facts as I understand them here, and I'm done with the article and the "controversy." When a Christian admin wants to turn the issue into "us vs. them" or "Christians vs. unbelievers" or "haters" of things Christian, I'm done with the discussion and the subject. I have already moved on. The only reason I'm bothering to respond here is due to a notice put on "my" Misplaced Pages user talk page. I believe that the link is valid for the reasons I've stated; but I'm also not interested in arguing or winning arguments. I have better things to do and more important things to worry about. I would hope that's true for all of us. Thank you. - Nascentatheist 10:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as an uninvolved admin, there certainly seems to be a lot of POV editing going on from both sides, and I think that both the Christians and atheists editing the article need to take a step back and evaluate, in objective terms, whether the source belongs in the article. (Possibly it would be better suited to an "in popular culture" section than in the formal rankings paragraph, but that's just a suggestion.) However, looking at the article history, neither side has violated 3RR and there has been no deliberate disruption, so I don't see that any outside administrative action is necessary at this time. I recommend a request for comment to get broader input into this dispute, or alternatively informal mediation. Walton 11:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Walton offers good advice. I am concerned however that an admin would add that into an article in the first place. No need to argue about whether its vandalism or not but it shouldn't have been placed there. --JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 11:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

3RR violations, personal attacks and block evasion

User Jun kaneko was blocked today for a 3RR violation at Visual kei. He has previously broken the rule several times, once at the same article and at least twice at Skin (Japanese band). These edits were still IP based, but are consistent in agenda, MO and origin (Adelaide, South Australia, according to WHOIS). The user's editing is characterized by a general disregard of consensus and his talk page conduct by a severe lack of civility, with personal attacks reaching four-letter-word level. Jun kaneko is currently evading his 3RR block via IP based edits at Talk:Visual kei, including further personal attacks. - Cyrus XIII 07:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Undid revision ... by User:X per User:Y

"Undid revision ... by User:X per User:Y" is the edit summary of many of User: Karl Meier's reverts. What makes at least a set of such reverts unacceptable is that this user has made zero contributions to the talk pages of those articles. In the following, I have selected some of his reverts from Sep and late Aug that have such edit summaries & are made to the articles that he has had no activity on their talk pages. That is, I have excluded reverts that either include some explanation, or are made to the articles that Karl has at least one edit to their talk pages.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

I'd like to see Karl joining the discussions on the disputes he decides to involve himself through reverting. --Aminz 09:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The above mean that I agree with the comments that has already been made on the discussion page and/or in edit summaries, and there is nothing wrong with that, especially when things has been explained to you over and over again by other editors. Your endless circle discussions that is meant to simply make people become tried and give up is well-known, and so your harassments on various noticeboards. I find it interesting that Aminz is posting this behind my back, and without notifying me. -- Karl Meier 10:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

And what admin intervention is required here? Natalie 13:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

What Aminz would like to see if of course that an Admin somehow warn me not to oppose his and his opinionated friends biased editing or support the efforts of anyone else that does. Biased editing works best without opposition. -- Karl Meier 15:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Karl, AGF. But really, perhaps the two of you would benefit from some from dispute resolution, which is down the hall. Natalie 15:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree, but here those reverts look to me to be sound, within the limits of my knowledge of the subject. Someone appears to be trying to advance an agenda. Guy (Help!) 17:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Check user

Resolved

Sorry if this is a bad place for this... Could someone check a user's contributions? I'm at work right now and saw that User:Manlover changed the image on the Silvia Saint article. I didn't need to scroll down much to see that the image shouldn't be on the page. But I'd like to see that it gets deleted since it's obviously going to be a copyvio. I'd edit the image description page myself but as I said, I'm at work. I'd rather not have that up if the wrong person walks by... See Special:Contributions/Manlover. Thanks, Dismas| 09:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Urrrgghhh... The image has been deleted, and I'm considering a block or severe reprimand for the user. Misplaced Pages is not censored, I know... but this is too far. --D_arkF_alls 10:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Warned for uploading disruptive images --D_arkF_alls 10:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that and thanks to whoever did delete it. Dismas| 10:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Marking this as resolved... --D_arkF_alls 10:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Mikerussell and interactions with other users including User:Lar

User:Lar and I agree that there should be an entry on this incident on this Admin Incident board. I will keep it short. I post now, before the article AfD ends so it doesn't seem I am a poor loser. User:Lar wrote on my user page a comment in regards to my manner of approaching the Afd for the above article on Monday . I responded politely, but honestly on his Talk page. I have never had any contact with him before this comment. I responded and explained why I removed the comment from my Talk page here- . Immediatly upon reading my response he threatens with blocking or other type of punitive action here -. I then responded finally here ]. This admin now has additional material on his Talk page that may provide info but I have no idea why he includes sinebot reverts when I date and sign all my posts anyway, and that day my Sign button was sticking for some reason, so reverting these things have nothing to do with the debate. Moreover, he seems to be saying my actions led to User:Loodog quitting wikipedia which is just factually wrong, since he had his User page unchanged prior to the issue. Obviously when a heated AfD is started and the nominator User:Will Beback states in his first paragraph that the contributor and not the content is the reason the article should be deleted, and I am the editor he refers to, heated personalizing of issues is likely to result. But I really find the above named admin is flaming the fires, choosing sides, if you will, taking personal shots by "not naming names" on the AfD itself and in general trying to label me as a problem contributor based solely on this one issue/debate. Personally adminship to me means you are not allowed to use the position to inforce personal policing. --Mikerussell 11:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

For reference: Lar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Mikerussell (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) ... It is my considered view that the behaviour of Mikerussell in the AfD Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tourism in metropolitan Detroit was disruptive, and continued to be disruptive even after being counseled about it. (I can provide diffs if necessary, but I recommend just reading the AfD, just about every post he made has at least one issue with it) Note that as of yet, Mikerussell has not actually been blocked. Rather, he has been counseled by several users that his approach in this deletion discussion is at best, not effective. The series of diffs on my user talk page demonstrate that he has repeatedly removed that counsel in a dismissive way (characterising a neutral notice of an AfD as "unpleasant" is not collegial in my view). Users are always welcome to do just that, to remove things from their own talk pages, but after some number of warnings that do not result in a change in disruptive behaviour, further action may be justified. Pointing that out, which is what I did, is not a threat. I never threaten, and I don't think my pointing things out is in any way shape or form out of line. I think there are a lot of mischaracterisations by Mikerussell in the above about the sequence of events, about whether his responses are polite, about who did what in this AfD, etc, and in particular about why the AfD is heated... the heat there is coming entirely, or almost entirely, from Mikerussell and Thomas Paine1776 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), who seem to be exhibiting some WP:OWN at best. Note that I have changed the title of this section as I think the focus ought to be on Mikerussell's interaction pattern (he introduced nothing about my interaction with any other users) in this matter. I don't necessarily see him as a problem contributor, overall, (although his contribution history suggests past minor dustups), just that he may have lost perspective about this particular thing, and would benefit from some outside voices commenting about it. This is not a major deal, and I don't think any blocks are warranted at this point if Mikerussell gets the point that his approach needs changing and the disruption needs to stop. As always I encourage and welcome review of my actions, which is why I encouraged Mike to bring this here. Sorry for the longwindedness :) ++Lar: t/c 15:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(after ec)I'm not sure I understand fully what is going on but from the diffs I looked at, Lar seemed to be trying to give you some reasonable advice and warnings and you were being repeatedly snarky. In my personal experience, Lar is not a person known for "flaming the fires" or "choosing sides", so perhaps you could provide some evidence supporting those allegations. Sarah 15:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds to me as if Mike got a bit carried away with advocacy for a pet article. He's been around for over two years, I'm surprised he fell into this trap. Maybe he doesn't go near the cesspit of AfD often, I don't know. Anyway, if Mike is content to live and learn (especially about canvassing) and he and Lar can shake hands and agree to differ I don't see why this would be a lasting problem. Guy (Help!) 17:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time now to go into details, but I believe the canvassing in this matter was done by another editor, user:Thomas Paine1776. What I got from Mikerussell were wild accusatians and negative personal remarks (the worst of which he had the good sense to go back and refactor). To the extent that AfD is a cesspit, it is due to reactions like his. In any case, the editor has made valuable contributions and this does seem out of character, so if there's no future repetition then we needn't worry about it further. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Continuous accusations of bad faith

I happened to notice article Moderated nuclear explosion, and as anonymous editor on talk page claimed it's possibly WP:HOAX as the term results in 0 google hits and claiming he is an expert on the area and that the article is factually incorrect. He/she tried to mark it for speedy deletion, but this was found inappropriate and AFD was recommended instead. As far as I know anonymous editors cannot start AFD process (can't create pages), I decided to help him/her out and started AFD myself. Because of my quite unclear connection with ongoing conflict surrounding Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren. I am being continuously accused of nominating the article in bad faith.

My nomination was done in good faith:

The article subject has only one reference which is NOT connected to the topic being discussed. Thus failing WP:V.
The title of article does not produce any google hits, is not mentioned in any nuclear science journals, etc. Thus failing WP:NN or WP:OR.
Several suggestions of (googleable) terms in form of "(some word with similar meaning to moderated) nuclear explosion" have been made, but so far none of the results match with the topic discussed in article.
The article is probably factually incorrect.

This behaviour is disruptive to wikipedia where real consensus needs to be found about the fate of the article by leading attention away from the article itself to the possible conflict between editors. User:Suva User_talk:Suva 12:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what are you asking administrators to do? --ElKevbo 12:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure, I am not an administrator, so I don't know what or if they can do anything. I am just tired of personal attacks and my faith being doubted every time I accidentally meet with one of the people related to the named RFAR case. User:Suva User_talk:Suva 12:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

How about a block, indefinite but to be lifted immediately upon display of remorse, to prevent further violations of WP:CIV? Baseless accusations are, after all, grossly uncivil. User:Digwuren_{User talk:Digwuren} 13:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Digwuren and Suva, please stop trolling, at least pending the arbitration. If you need to attract attention to your umpteenth attack on pages authored by User:Petri Krohn, I suggest you use appropriate venues for this activity. WP:ANI is hardly the place. Either you leave Petri alone, or the adminsitrators may wish to review the history of your interactions with this editor in terms of WP:STALK. It is remarkable that you don't "happen to notice" and nominate for deletion articles by editors other than your long-standing opponent. I also find your new signatures highly annoying. Let me remind you that they may be refactored by any editor who finds them deliberately misleading or disruptive. --User:Ghirlandajo 14:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not true. I have nominated several articles for deletion. Many more for speedy deletion and I have instructed many people how to nominate articles for deletion on IRC. User:Suva User_talk:Suva 15:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring non-Latin sigs. Requests for comments is thataway. Digwuren and Suva, kindly explain the purpose of hiding behind such sigs, and of bringing this non-admin issue here. Don't fuck with ANI or you'll be pagebanned from it. Bishonen | talk 16:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC).

There is no rule against non-Latin in sigs. Their sigs link to their userpages, and your reaction (both here and in edit summaries) was highly uncivil. You also missed another one (User:Ghirlandajo, odd that you complained when you yourself use cyrillic characters in your own sig) --Random832 17:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

In fact, let's refrain from expressing ourselves at all in our sigs. On second thought, that a mistake. But still... Random832 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what's wrong with my signature. I am not hiding anywhere. As my signature has my name in it, although with cyrillic letters. The fact that I preferred to write my name in cyrillic letters doesn't mean I should be stalked and harrassed when I am trying to build an encyclopedia. Владимир И. Сува Чего? 18:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

IP 212.127.96.230 single use for spam linking a vanity OR site

Resolved

Not the most problematic editor in the world, but 212.127.96.230 seems to be weekly spamming to link a site which lacks notability. e.g. and . Seems to be almost a single use account for this purpose. Has had a couple of warnings on the talk page. As not a contributor, perhaps it is time for a block? Spenny 13:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've given him 3 weeks off and a talk page message explaining that he can request unblocking when he's read the block message. Given the, uh, spaced-out nature of his edits, three weeks ought to catch the next one and provide a cluestick tap. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 18:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

User:DonnEdwards and defrag utilities AfDs

This user DonnEdwards (talk · contribs) "cunningly" deletes AfD messages on pages with ongoing AfD discussions by commenting the message out, as here and here . I have warned him, but should be watched out. 131.111.8.104 15:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: He appears to have stopped now. – Quadell 17:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Donn seems a bit single-minded about this subject, and I think we cite his reviews in some places don't we? Is there a potential COI here? I don't know, it may be completely kosher, but it does look a bit odd. Guy (Help!) 17:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Mikkalai

Would somebody else please speak to this admin. I'm giving up. (He has me in his "killfile"). Aside from his tendency to revert other admin's actions without attempting to contact them, he's shockingly uncivil. I get the sense he feels the rules are for others. Thanks. -- But|seriously|folks 16:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Mikka is a grumpy old bastard, just like me, but I find him OK. What did you do to get killfiled? Guy (Help!) 17:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Tried to settle him down after the first F Bomb, cited above. -- But|seriously|folks 17:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

User:BigGunn22

Resolved

User:BigGunn22 has moved article, University of Florida multiple times to unrelated titles. Could an admin please take a look and deal with it accordingly. Thanks. Tbo (talk) (review) 16:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Have fun fixing the redirects and deleting all of the nonsense. Corvus cornix 16:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Tbo (talk) (review) 16:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Eurominuteman

User:Eurominuteman has violated the 3RR, he has posted copyrighted material, and engaged in edit warring. Numerous editors have, in good faith, tried to engage with User:Eurominuteman on issues of content, but he/she has only responded with disruptive behavior. A previous block for threatening another editor with legal action was lifted when he/she retracted the threat, but it is now clear that he/she only retracted the statement in order to get back to disruptive editing on the translation page. Thanks for looking into this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxschmelling (talk • contribs) 17:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I left a message warning him. Being difficult to work with isn't the same as personal attacks, and I didn't see anything obviously block-worthy there. Report and 3RR violations to WP:AN/3RR. – Quadell 17:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Turkey

Not so much an incident, as the VoABot II bot reverting my removal of around 10k from the article as vandalism. Here's the dif: ]. Any help is appreciated. Thanks! Hiberniantears 17:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it doesn't seem the bot is malfunctioning. However, you removed quite a bit. Was this mostly an uncontroversial removal? I'm searching the talk page and I can't find a post yet about considered to removing 10k's worth or reducing (has it been discussed in the past?). But if its all peachy keen, I'll see if I can help!¤~Persian Poet Gal 17:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I used the admin rollback button on it ... we can see if that keeps. I assume/hope it knows better than to revert admins. ;) --B 17:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok ... it reverted me ... I'll protect the page, revert it, then unprotect. --B 17:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow I guess the bot is being naughty.¤~Persian Poet Gal 17:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad Robot!! -- Flyguy649 _contribs 17:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. My edits are on the level, but the page tends to be the source of a lot of controversy. I removed some images, and consolidated the history section, leaving in place links to the articles that discuss the removed sections (i.e. all pre-Ottoman history, and most of the Ottoman materials as well). This was only to make the page load faster, as it had grown rather large with images, and redundant text. Hiberniantears 17:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I protected it at pretty much the same time Flyguy649 re-re-reverted the bot. I let it sit for a couple of minutes and then unprotected. It should be fine now. --B 17:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism against a vandal-fighter

I've been doing a lot of vandalism-fighting recently - undoing, warning on user talk pages, then posting to WP:AIV if appropriate. Now it seems to have provoked a reaction by some vandal. He vandalized my own talk page. I treated it just like any other vandalism - undid, then put a uw-vandalism2 warning on the vandal's talk page. My question is should I do anything else in a case like this? Sbowers3 18:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No, for vandalism like this, that is sufficient, though we do have {{uw-tpv}} warnings if you wish to be specific. If the vandalism contained personal attacks, you would want to give a stronger warning or report directly to AIV for extremely serious attacks. Its somewhat expected that you will anger some people when you revert their vandalism. If it becomes a serious problem, you can request protection of your user/talk pages at WP:RFPP. Mr.Z-man 18:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Socking on Plastic pressure pipe systems

Resolved – MastCell got 'im. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 18:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Sandhurstman is a new account who has made no other edits except to the above named article, and has made the same edit today as the indef-banned Grumpyrob did here back in July. Could an admin block him? MSJapan 18:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

What is it about this article that brings out the socks? Pipes! PVC pipes! -- Flyguy649 _contribs 18:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio

Hi, 67.168.217.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) continues adding material taken from IMDB to the Departed article (Here is one diff, check his contribs for more ). I warned him about it on his talkpage, but he continues adding it. Could an admin look into this? Sasha Callahan 18:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Blunt and effective final warning by Irishguy appears to have worked - 15 minutes of silence so far. Shout if the IP comes back again. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 18:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Rhapsody.com - Top Skate Punk Bands

Category:

Misplaced Pages noticeboards