Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:18, 5 March 2008

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Long time abusing Misplaced Pages by Japanese editors from 2channel meat/sock puppets

I should've raised this issue as soon as I found out the above matter two weeks ago. I have reported several RFCU files on suspicious editors who vandalized Japanese-Korean related articles. Even before submitting RFCU files, I've been stalked by several Japanese editors such as Mochi (talk · contribs), Kusunose (talk · contribs), Amazonfire (talk · contribs) since last December.,, ,

Recently, editors set up for a poll for naming title of Sea of Japan. As the poll was getting stale, a lot of new users suddenly came to to vote for oppose after Feb. 14th. So I googled my name and found out the 2channel's plot for the poll. It is not one time project, it has been going on since 2004. ウィキペディア (Misplaced Pages)英語版に挑む 04/05/28

• Talk:Sea_of_Japan#Rename the Article
• Talk:Sea_of_Japan#2channel meatpuppets from 朝鮮人のMisplaced Pages（ｳｨｷﾍﾟﾃﾞｨｱ）捏造に対抗せよ 21
• User talk:LordAmeth#Need a guideline

http://academy6.2ch.net/test/read.cgi/english/1085704624/

On 2channnel, Japanese editors who involve in Wikipeida have posted and discussed which Korean editors to stalk, which admins to watch, which articles the Japanese need to watch and revert, which Japanese editors to support.

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Azukimonaka

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/KoreanShoriSenyou

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Yuan.C.Lee

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Saintjust

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Opp2

These are the RFCU files on some of them and I have also a list of 2channel's threads. I think to resolve Japan-Korean related issues and to prevent misconducts from meat/sock puppetry, more admimi's watch is appreciated for for long time. Thanks.--Appletrees (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, Endroit is trying to turn the issue from admins' attention with several blatant lies. That is sad. --Appletrees (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

How am I related to all of this? As I made it clear here, I do not condone canvassing by 2channel users, and I am not related to 2channel. Please cease your personal attacks, Appletrees.--Endroit (talk) 05:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make personal attack on me just like you have done so. Switching links and altering my comment is a big no no. Well, I saw your name mentioned at 2channel. And you're the one who makes series of bogus RFCUs per your history and accused me of being a socks of Appleby or others with just your assumption. --Appletrees (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Did not I ask you why you keep silence about the big meatpuppetry incidnet from Japanese 2channel unlike your past experience at ANI? I think I gave too many times to Japanese editors to stop disruptions.--Appletrees (talk) 06:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Template:JaChallenge to English Misplaced Pages (2004-05-28)

• Template:Ja Chosenjin's Misplaced Pages Fight against the fabrication 15translated by google

• Template:Ja Chosenjin's Misplaced Pages Fight against the fabrication 16translated by google (Liancourt rocks vote)

• Template:Ja Chosenjin's Misplaced Pages Fight against the fabrication 17translated by google
• Template:Ja Chosenjin's Misplaced Pages Fight against the fabrication 18translated by google
• Template:Ja Chosenjin's Misplaced Pages Fight against the fabrication 19translated by google
• Template:Ja Chosenjin's Misplaced Pages Fight against the fabrication 20translated by google
• Template:Ja Chosenjin's Misplaced Pages Fight against the fabrication 21translated by google
• Template:Ja Watch out on Chosenjin's fabrication part1translated by google

translated by google

These links are achieved and stored at 2channel which are only partial and as you see, the number in the title says about it is series of discussion for meatpuppetry plots. The 18th is for naming change of Liancourt Rocks. They said about a lot of admins, some of which is against Japanese side such as User:Nihonjoe. --Appletrees (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow. This is the first time I've been called biased against both the Japanese "side" and the Korean "side" by the same person. I guess I must be doing my job if both sides think I'm against them. (^_^) ···日本穣 06:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That's it? Got it -_-;; --Appletrees (talk) 05:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that Misplaced Pages is a major topic in 2ch . Considering people talked about Misplaced Pages article as meat puppet is nonsense.--Mochi (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

In your dictionary, stalking is a just fun and worthwhile job? You should change your book. At least have a shame on your misconduct.--Appletrees (talk) 05:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Nanshu's dubious behaviors

Although Nanshu and Endroit have strongly denied their relation with 2channel, famous Japanese bulletin board. However, Nanshu had not edit English or Japanese Misplaced Pages for 2 months, but suddenly came to warn User:LordAmeth of not listening to Korean's saying and ignoring 2channel meatpuppetry at Talk:Sea of Japan poll fraud which is very weird. He appears to be always on center of controversial disputes with questionable behaviors as well. To the contrary of Nanshu's argument, I identify Nanshu on the 2channel. His reports at the two place happened around 9 pm in Japanese time. See the green letters. (Japanese time is 9 hours faster than UTC) http://mobile.seisyun.net/cgi/read.cgi/society6/society6_korea_1198939173/

Engage31 (talk · contribs), a sock account, or friend of Endroit (talk · contribs) and Saintjust (talk · contribs)/Hermeneus (talk · contribs) from 2channel visited to User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's talk page with this obvious sock account. The sock wrote ex post facto rationalization which is rarely used by non native English speaker unless they are related to the area. Hermenus/Saintjust are very knowledgeable of political philosophy according to talk page info. I googled it and the only result I got is not surprisingly, Nanshu also did get involved in the dispute with Poo-T (talk · contribs) and Hermeneus.

If any checkuser looks into Engage31 and the possible "friends" at the same time, I think the possible relation of their meat or sockpuppetry can be confirmed. --Appletrees (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Chosenjin's Misplaced Pages : fight against the fabrication 20

I translated small part of one thread which has information about their blatant meatpuppetry and filled with personal attacks on any editors who are not pro-Japanese side. So look into the contents in the table.

This thread is likely going to the next archive page after a day per my ANI experience so far, but this is for the record and caution for Korean editors to prevent further abuses by 2channel and Japanese editors. Meat doll free Misplaced Pages. :D --Appletrees (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt that there is an organized effort from 2chan to disrupt Misplaced Pages by canvassing. If they come in two's and four's, which they already have, this can result in a vote fraud for hot topics like East Sea, Tokdo etc. However, I'm not sure if external activities can result in some decisive action. Admins should at least be cautioned. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This off-wiki activity, apparently by at least some of our editors, seems to be highly disruptive. Can we please get some attention to this? Badagnani (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this probably requires some action. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ownership and accusations of wikistalking

I've been dealing with a user, Rotational (talk · contribs) for some time now on his style preferences for the articles he creates. In the style dispute over WP:HEAD and {{botanist}} usage, I asked for a WP:3O (here) but got a rather weak reply that offered wise advice on compromise, but didn't really address any of the substance of the dispute. I know ANI can't resolve content disputes, but it has become a bit more than that now. This user, in my opinion, is now violating WP:OWN by continually reverting changes to his preferred style. diff, diff, diff, etc. This display of ownership also appeared in his other sockpuppets (see case) when asked to alter style or consider changes. Since it's become an ownership issue and because this editor has accused me of wikistalking (previous diffs), I'd appreciate others' thoughts on this. What to do when one is accused of wikistalking? Is this a clear case of ownership? I've since cooled it as I don't want to continue edit warring and was hoping the TO would be helpful. Appreciate any advice. Cheers, Rkitko 03:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It's the MOS. He needs to follow it; if he wants another style, he should argue for it and see if he can get consensus. Otherwise, I'll personally mercilessly edit the article to follow it. If not, someone else will. I've informed him of the discussion as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This user, in my opinion, is now violating WP:OWN by continually reverting changes to his preferred style I don't think that editing to conform to one's preferences shows ownership - that would make us all guilty - but Rkitko seems to forget that every edit of mine is countered by a revert on his part. He, of course, feels that his interpretation of the MoS is the only correct one, which puts him slightly below Jimbo Wales and God. Fact is that he does stalk the articles I work on and I resent being targeted by him, especially since I don't dog his footsteps making a nuisance of myself. I don't vandalise articles and I try to make useful contributions, which is sometimes difficult in the face of a vendetta. I've since cooled it is typical of Rkitko's doublespeak, since he immediately trots off and turns his dissatisfaction into an Administrators' noticeboard/Incident. His grievances go back to his accusations of sockpuppetry and his attempts to have me permanently blocked. When that failed, he made a special mission of watching my every move. It would be nice if he could get off my back. Rotational (talk) 08:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about the argument. Rotational, you are putting article with headings at level 5, and have been told about WP:HEAD. I understand the content you provide, but you have to know the formatting by now. Unless you read "primary headings are then ==H2==, followed by ===H3===, ====H4====, and so on" from WP:HEAD completely different than me, it's fairly clear. If you don't want to format articles, just put a {{cleanup}} notice and let somebody who's into that sort of thing take care of it. I've cleaned up some of your articles (and I'll just say that List of florilegia and botanical codices was a ton of useless work because you don't follow any of the structure here), and you should follow the style. It just makes more work for others. I don't understand the desire to put articles in your personal preference, as it will be edited out anyways. Also, Rotational, please provide diffs of reverts from him. The last 10 or so articles you have in your contributions have no edits from him, so he isn't reverting every edit of yours. He pointed to diffs, and it was clear what was going on. It's only fair to ask you to do the same. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'll note that this is first edit from Rkitko to this noticeboard since September. It looks to me like he asked you to not do that, he went to 3O, he got a 3O response, he came here, specifically about the stalking allegation, it seems. I really don't see him following your around, Rotational. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do admit to going through his contributions every once in a while, but that alone is not stalking. Rotational's articles sometimes show up on the User:AlexNewArtBot/PlantsSearchResult page, which leads me to see if any of his other contributions need a clean up. But there is no intent to harass. In posting this here I was seeking advice on how to work with a user that was involved in an edit war with me but refused to discuss the issue with me. Thanks for responding to my request for advice, Ricky. --Rkitko 14:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand that you "couldn't care less about the argument". The background and history of the affair is interesting, because it shows up both Rkitko's stalking and his hypocrisy. I agree with jossi that it is "amusing". This whole matter is a storm in a teacup, but it's a storm which Rkitko insists on blowing up. He's determined to have his way and not interested in reaching any compromise "I admit I'm a bit stubborn on this point, but there is no other acceptable position than to follow the MOS and to use the botanist template." and rejects the 3O advice of jossi. Rotational (talk) 06:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The long and short of it is that the Manual of Style exists for a reason, Rotational. If your edits aren't conforming to it, they're likely to be changed. As the Misplaced Pages edit page says, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly...do not submit it." --clpo13_(talk) 06:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Clpo13. It is the Manual of Style, though, and not the Manual Of Rules Never To Be Broken If You Value Your Life. It is a collection of guidelines, hints, rules, procedures, suggestions and advice, covering the entire spectrum. If there were no problems with its interpretation, then any forum for discussion, such as this one, would become superfluous. Thank heaven Misplaced Pages still leaves some things to human judgement! Rotational (talk) 05:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I doubt anyone wants to hear this, and it will certainly be ignored by many editors who insist on strictly following the MoS without question, but Rotational's layout looks better than the standard layout. This is because in a stub article or near-stub article without sections in the body of the article, the sections at the bottom ("source", "notes", "references", "external links" and so on) look very big and therefore out of place. For that reason, the smaller headings used by Rotational are a better, more visually balanced choice.

Of course, I've been known to champion non-standard layouts for other, similar reasons of visual impact, balance and ease of use, which I reckon will now be brought up to devalue my comment. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 21:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Mass/drive-by de-proddings by User:Pixelface

Today I noticed that an obscure article I had prodded due to a lack of reliable sources, Omega (1987 computer game), was de-prodded by a user indicating that "discussion on the talk page has indicated there might be some controversy over its deletion." Excited at the prospect that there might have been some discussion on the topic, I rushed over to the talk page only to find that, no, the only discussion was by me and by someone else who explicitly said they weren't challenging the prod.

I then looked at his contributions, and saw that he removed the prod template from about 20 other articles, most of which he has had no involvement in. I undid the edit and asked Pixelface to clarify what he meant. He then re-de-prodded, and said "Sorry, I misread, I'm contesting the prod" (with no indication of why).

Look. I know that the prod template says that anyone can "challenge" a prod, but it seems a bit WP:POINTY to do mass, drive-by de-proddings of articles that not only aren't you willing to contribute to, but you probably don't even know what they're about when you remove the template. That doesn't seem like good faith behavior to me. Am I off base here? Can I get some third-party input? Nandesuka (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The PROD system does rather leave itself open to this kind of abuse. For the moment I'd make an AFD for the article you wanted deleted (a discussion can't hurt, anyway) and hopefully an admin will come along to warn him against this kind of behaviour. Naerii (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitely POINT. I'd re-add the prods. Will 13:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring over the prods isn't a good idea. Let's wait until there's more discussion. Naerii (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Nandesuka, when I looked at Talk:Omega (1987 computer game), I glanced at "contesting at this time" and that's why I initally removed the {{prod}} tag. I can remove a {{prod}} tag for any reason. If there is really consensus to delete the article, that will be evident during the AFD process. Discussion never hurt anything. --Pixelface (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: you are contesting a prod because you misread the words "not contesting the PROD at this time" as "contesting the PROD at this time"? You're serious? This isn't a joke? Nandesuka (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Pixel, what is your reasoning for removing all those other prods? Naerii (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe I noted it in my edit summaries. --Pixelface (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Does this require any admin intervention? Take the article to AFD. --Pixelface (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you are abusing the PROD process does. Naerii (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not abusing the PROD process. If I think a deletion may be controversial, I'm allowed to remove the template. If the person who placed the prod tag wants the article deleted, they can list it for AFD. --Pixelface (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can removed prod tags from as many articles as they want for any reason and they are not required to provide that reason. If you still want it deleted, afd it. Viridae 13:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, that's not quite accurate. Bad-faith wholesale removal of PRODs has been successfully challenged at AN/I with reversal and warnings. I was involved in one such, as a matter of fact, when someone started going alphabetically through the PRODs and dePRODding them, hitting one I had placed. -- Michael Devore (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe pixelface was well within their rights to remove the prod from this article. There are reference on the article and discussion on the talk page. There is significant room to allow that the deletion of this article may be controversial. I reviewed the article and it's references and beleive the correct action is to take it to afd. Jeepday (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

My remark was meant to address the comment that PROD tags can be removed for any reason or no reason whatsoever. Taken too literally, the rule invites miscreants to game the system, or inhibits the less-experienced user from seeking relief for a bad-faith removal. In this instance, bad-faith does not apply, so AfD would be, as you say, the proper resolution. -- Michael Devore (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It is also important to note that on 18:27, 26 February 2008 this article was not a candidate for the Prod by Nandesuka Diff, as Nandesuka had removed a prod from the article in July 2007 Diff which per Misplaced Pages:Proposed deletion made WP:AFD the only avenue for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Pixelface's recent untaggings, they don't seem to have been unconsidered or random. He usually addresses the reason for detagging in his edit summary: "removed prod template, Misplaced Pages has articles on many upcoming films and the director's blog indicates it's in production", "removed prod template, the news article and entry at Gamespot are valid sources", "removed prod template, comments on the talk page indicate deletion may be controversial". This is good, thoughtful work, and not in any way bad editing. "Proposed deletion" is only for deletions that aren't at all controversial. Pixelface's removal of a prod template doesn't imply that the article mustn't be deleted, but that it is more appropriate to discuss before deleting. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue here isn't that specific article -- I think we can all agree that reasonable people can disagree on one article. I specifically have a problem with the drive-by nature of it. Some of Pixelface's objections indeed seem appropriate, and others do not. When I spot checked several of the "comments on the talk page indicate..." claims, I noticed that there were, in several cases, no such comments at all. In other cases, he indicated that deletion "may be controversial", and again there is no indication on the article talk pages or that edit summary that it is controversial. Any edit may be controversial. That's not an adequate rational to unprod in bulk, in my opinion. That's what concerns me here: unprodding for the sake of unprodding, rather than because of any good faith rationale. Nandesuka (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The way Prod was set up, it's enough that the person removing the tag thinks deletion may be controversial. Pixelface and I have occasionally (more often than that, truth to tell) had disagreements, but I don't think his honesty is in doubt. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit that when I first removed the prod from the Omega (1987 computer game) article, I hadn't had any sleep in quite a while. I had just removed a prod and used the edit summary "removed prod template, comments on the talk page indicate deletion may be controversial" and when I saw the talk page of the article (with Nandesuka saying the game was just as notable as another game, or maybe not?) and glancing at the word "contesting", I pasted in the edit summary I had just used. I was tired. I wasn't unprodding for the sake of unprodding. I unprod when I think the matter deserves wider discussion (or when a subject obviously has third-party sources like Sacred Underworld or Blinx 2: Masters of Time and Space). The {{prod}} template is only for deletions that would be totally uncontroversial, like for example How to write an APA Methods Section. --Pixelface (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• While myself and Pixelface don't agree on much, most of these de-proddings look reasonable to me; I have re-added one though, because the article is a duplicate of another. Black Kite 18:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've changed that one to a redirect. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• It can probably be deleted under CSD/R3 actually - no-one is going to type that in as a search term. Black Kite 20:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well, the actual article title is even less likely to be used as a search term... — Edokter • Talk • 20:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• That article has incoming links, though. The other is an orphan. Black Kite 20:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• The traffic stats suggests the other does get a few hits per day, makes no difference to me if it stays or goes. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• *shrug* leave it. Redirects are cheap. Black Kite 21:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we recognize this as the bad-faith harassment that it is? The Prod polioy page says quite plainly If anyone, including the article's creator, removes Template:Prod from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except if the removal was clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article, or removing the tag along with inserting blatant nonsense). If the edit is not obviously vandalism, do not restore tag, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. If you still believe the article needs to be deleted, list it on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. Nandesuka (who, not coincidentally has been on the other side of the TV episode/character controversy from Pixelface) violated that policy, and filed a phony charge against Pixelface. This sort of thing happens fairly regularly to people who argue convincingly against deletions, and certainly should raise sock/meatpuppetry questions.. VivianDarkbloom (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning "sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry questions" is getting into pretty serious territory...please be sure you can back that up before suggesting it. Jonneroo (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The prod take removals all seem to have had reasonable explanations at least in the edit summary. This ANI complaint against an established editor does rather reflect on the person placing the complaint. DGG (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that the PROD removal was reasonable, Nandesuka is an established editor who has been here since 2005. By accusing them of sock or meatpuppetry you merely make yourself look completely ridiculous. Black Kite 14:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like Pixelface has acted in good faith and correctly removed the prods. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 23:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Request sanity check

Misplaced Pages talk:Ignore all rules#Edit warrior. Am I going insane? Has wikipedia changed in some way, and have I managed to miss the memo?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a lot of attempts to add stuff - sanger's quote, extra formatting - and a consistent theme to keep it simple and direct, with other versions at most on a sub-page (which are the edits and reverts by multiple users you're seeing).

Any use? FT2  21:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There are many attempts to insert the "nervous and depressed" wording, or other newly-coined wordings, on the page, but consensus seems to favour the twelvewordversion, at this time. So, tends to be a lot of reverting. Situation normal, pretty much, nothing to be seen here. Newbyguesses - Talk 21:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that there might not be consensus, and that the perception is bent by edit warriors. Hence the sanity check. --Kim Bruning (talk)

I suspect that there is a pretty strong consensus, but I can sympathize if Kim feels that the principle is being given short shrift. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 07:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Point of order - is it really reasonable to describe the "nervous and depressed" version as "newly-coined"? —Random832 16:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that he meant 'or other wordings which are newly-coined'. I read it that way, at the least, and I'm inclined to question the sufficiency of the twelve word version. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Content dispute - no need for admin. action, then. Newbyguesses - Talk 22:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't a content dispute with edit warring result in full protection until said dispute is resolved? FunPika 22:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Which means the edit-warrior wins. We covered that ground sometime last month ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Does seem to be a catch-22. Either the version stays as is (purported consensus) or is locked down as is (forced status quo consensus version). Either way, no changes can be made. I actually liked the version with the the longer explanation below, because some editors really don't get 'IAR' means IAR only when it actually helps the project, and vandalism doesn't fall under IAR. I think such a version would be great. The notebook handwritten version is clever,because using a photo of a policy is ignorign the rules, so... it's spiralling in cleverly, but that doesn't avoid the very confusion i remarked on above, so it's not the kind of change we need. That said, there is an admin there with Draconian OWN problems. However, per the new admin standard, admins operate under continual IAR, so that's acceptable now. ThuranX (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well put. This is why I've stated that there's no difference between page protection and knee-jerk reverting to the same version - both have the same effect, that edits cannot be made without prior talk page discussion and consensus. And if you've seen that talk page recently, you'll understand how impossible that is. - Chardish (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure that i agree that there is any problem of OWNership, at Ignore all rules. Most edits, even if they seem interesting, do not take, and there are lots more than one editor who reverts back to the 12word version.

I like to look at these interesting proposals, but, if possibly dozens of editors are ready to revert to a stable version, that is in no way edit-warring, in my opinion. I see the page has been protected, yet again, but there is scant evidence of "recent" edit-warring. That is OK, I guess, but progress on the page was being achieved, and the discussion reasonably fruitful. There is also Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules/Workshop, where more radical experiments can be, and are being made.

I reckon the page protection could be lifted, safely. I do not know who requested it. Newbyguesses - Talk 03:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, I would lay most of the blame for the page being protected on a certain User who appears to want to WP:OWN the page, and that user's unsuitable edits being reverted, and then whined about on the discussion page, I think. Newbyguesses - Talk 04:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Newby - you're getting confused. Mishandling of content is routinely an admin issue. But only when there is an actual problem. That's what this thread is discussing - if there is one. It's arbitration that routinely does not handle "content disputes". As for this page... if there is a dispute then maybe a talk page "straw poll" (if that's not already been done) to see what kind of views come up and see what basis of concern exists? FT2  14:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The confusion might stem from advice to the contrary at the top of the page, as well as frequent admonitions that admins have no particular status in a content dispute and can typically intervene with an admin action only as a response to conduct. Avruch 17:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, i was confused, and still do not know what to do. Some fresh eyes at Ignore all rules would certainly help, at the moment the issue seems to be being avoided, basically two users, each of whom MAY have WP:OWN problems, but civility is getting in the way of addressing the problem, which actually stems back to at least July 2007. Newbyguesses - Talk 00:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Continuous incivility by User:Imbris

Constant & repeated incivility and semi-personal attacks from this user, despite warned repeatedly on his talk page.

• Here: "Now they have set their minds to a new adventure - creating exactly the same (design wise) flag for Montenegro's Crnojevic Family. Because they do not want to contribute encyclopeadical content, they want to stirr up troubles and fabricize history to meet their agenda. Please take this matter under consideration because this is a blatant hoax."
• Here: "Now they have set their minds to a new adventure - creating exactly the same (design wise) flag for Montenegro. Because they do not want to contribute encyclopeadical content, they want to stirr up troubles and fabricize history to meet their agenda."
• Where are your sources, in some medieval festivals perhaps. An for that matter unsupstaniated material is unencyclopaedical."
• Here: "Easy, isn't the flag yellow with red eagle or you are changing your mind very quickly. Today you say that it is red flag with a white eagle and tomorow you will realize that either hadn't even existed)"
• Here: "but cannot stand your clear fabricizations."
• here: "Stop your deliberate disinformation crusade,"
• Here: "to bad yours is so negative and greaterxxxxxxx".
• here: "Stop your POV pushing and greaterxxxx politics".

It has been very difficult to communicate with this user. After I cited sources for several facts he held questionable, he aggressively responded and accused me without basis that I am a falsifier of history. He demanded scanned pages of sources. After I indulged his demands and scanned them, uploading them to his talk page, he started to accuse the sources themselves for falsifying history, as he did here: "Is it some picture-book for 3rd graders. It is most clear that you and Nikola have different souces, his low-res part of that map looks very much different. Also the page you scanned looks not-clear and funny like it was manipulated. I am not accusing you but the author who clearly manipulated with the image." He also accused the even-uploaded books as irrelevant for being "3rd-grade alike" and complained that my scans were poor and barely viewable.

I don't want to seem wrong out of this - but I need a 3rd hand opinion. Am I doing anything wrong? How to stop this continuous impoliteness, incivility and lack of any constructiveness? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The entire ordeal came to be when Pax uploaded a file without sources on February 28 this year.

I found this to be somewhat strange because on commons user must fill the chart (a small table with sources and other data).

Then I decided to seak deletion and claimed OR and UE which were misinterpreted by Pax.

It is not sourcing when someone shows you a one detail that is unrecognizable. The source Pax provided is a very strange picture-book that offers no factography in a form of citations and quotes from documents and older publications.

Because we are dealing with a middle age topic and because one might say that even Flag of Denmark as the oldest if from a 1600s (legends from 1200s) but sources from 1600s. I have everyright to be suspicious.

What should I said to myself when Pax constantly changes every word that I contribute to his POV. Everyone has a POV. I offered him my collaboration and sources about the Constitional matter of passing the Law with simple majority.

Will write some more fact soon.

Imbris (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think it's a picture-book, and more why very strange? :) I am writing here about your personal insults and the opinion of others. Are you trying to justify incivility? Let me also remind you that here you have claimed: "Your tactics is to ask eveyone about the nationality and claim that have something against you personally." Could you please back up these claims? Thanks, --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

First I must say that in this discussion I am not neutral. Because of different thinking (and editing) PaxEquilibrium and I are having agreement that he will not edit Croatia related articles and I will not edit Serbia related articles so we are having only few points of dispute. One of this points is article Podgorica Assembly where Pax are deleting, reverting any version of article which is not saying that Montenegro is and has always been Serbian land.

Because Pax has used example to show Imbris in bad light I will show similar example from talk page of Podgorica Assembly:

My comment:"Book writen in reference (by Pax) is speaking about Serbian agents which are working on Montenegro territory for union between state from 1866. This is not allowed to be writen in article"

Answer from PaxEquilibrium:"The link is not necessary a reference, I myself put the external links to every single source"

My comment:"Similar to that books from reference in article are speaking how serbian military has not allowed return of members of Montenegro military and royal family before election has ended. This is not allowed to be writen in article"

Answer from PaxEquilibrium:"It may be written, however carefully because the statement itself is biased" (it is not writen)

My comment:"Writing in article that parliament has voted under serbian military "protection" is not allowed"

Answer from PaxEquilibrium:"What does that precisely mean?"

My comment:"About slaughter (of Montenegrins by Serbian forces) read you can read Tribune of 1 september 1919"

Answer from PaxEquilibrium:"That is a journalist article, normally far-fetched - but killings did occur, and they were indeed horrible. According to some (possible overestimates, but still), almost 3,000 Montenegrins died in the tiny civil war. But the Serbian Army itself, had little or none at all part in that conflict." (it is not in article)

Point of this example is to see that Pax is not neutral editor which is showing data from neutral books. It is not possible to trust his books when even he is not accepting data from his obscure books if they are having bad data for his line of thinking.--Rjecina (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate what you're trying to point out and what is the relevance of this post? If discussion regarding those precise posts is needed, I will be more than willing to start it. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a content dispute. --Haemo (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree because edits in this section are another example of PaxEquilibrium editorial style. He has moved my comments from section Continuous incivility by User:Imbris to another section so that 2 cases are seen separately but they are connected or better to say I have writen comments about Pax editorial style so that administrator can better understand situation between Pax and Imbris. Only possible mistake of user:Imbris is that he has lost nerve during "discussion" and provocations of User:PaxEquilibrium because of his insistance that only he know true history of Montenegro and only his "sources" are right sources.--Rjecina (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

..because I have no idea what this has to do with Imbris... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So, in other words it's a content dispute over which sources you guys can agree are acceptable. --Haemo (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No, we are discussing that - the problem is in Imbris' pick of choice and personal attacks. I have no problem in continuing the discussion with him at all and it will be useful to the Misplaced Pages, but only if he stops attacking other users. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

During last hour or something more I add Pax has been talking on talk page. In that difference between 2 of us has become clear. In looking historical events I look only legal arguments (I really try to do only that). He is looking all picture. My and Pax discusson in article Podgorica Assembly will end with RFC. I will win in similar way in which I have been "winner" in RFC if Jasenovac has been Holocaust extermination camp. With that discussion about article will be closed.

We are not having content dispute about sources because he is refusing even his sources if they are not showing right picture. Let say for example I am using like source this Chicago Tribune from 1919. Pax is saying this source is bad, but I am having books which are showing this event. After reading his books I start to add information from pages 50-52 in article. Answer on that from Pax is:"This part of book is not good source". This situation for me is frustrating because he is refusing even his sources. For me this is POV editing.--Rjecina (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

...and the relevance of that in here is..? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Relevance is that I can understand if user Imbris has lost nerve after PaxEquilibrium provocations. Because of provocations it is not possible to block Imbris and not block PaxEquilibrium. Now I will his edits of last few days which are in my thinking provocations. He has agreeded on my talk page that we look legal arguments about Podgorica assembly . After I have added on talk page legal arguments why Podgorica Assembly has been against law his answer has been in my personal thinking typical Greater Serbian bullshit . Best example of that are his words:

"But Rjecina, if that were true, the Kingdom of Montenegro would've been accepted into the League of Nations (which it wasn't), and not the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes."

Maybe I am reading this wrong because he is saying that only members of League of Nations are internationaly recognized states. In this logic Soviet Union, USA, Germany, Mexico, Ethiopia ... are not states in 1919 !!! If I do not understand that this is provocation like many other "younger" editors in response I will maybe write my real thinking about his edits.--Rjecina (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism

This article is not yet at an official "incident" stage, but it's headed that direction, and also raises some interesting questions: http://en.wikipedia.org/Anti-Americanism There is a small, potential edit-war starting over the warning tags on the page. I put a bunch of warning tags on the page, and someone keeps deleting half of them. His reasons for deleting them are variously that he doesn't agree with them, and (just recently) that they are redundant. What I find interesting about this is his idea that warning tags should undergo the same editing/consensus process as article content. It seems to me one of the purposes of warnings is to express a minority view. For example, several (but not a majority) of editors wanted the article deleted. So I put up a warning that says "An editor has expressed concern that this article is unencyclopedic and should be deleted." He keeps deleting the warning, on the grounds that people voted not to delete the article. It seems to me warning tags don't belong to the same consensus process as article content: the warning doesn't say "This article is unencyclopedic" it says that concern has been expressed. Am I supposed to work toward consensus on whether I (and others) actually have that concern? The Talk needs some clarification, before an edit war breaks out. Bsharvy (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You are always expected to work towards consensus. Adding tags does not usually require consensus, but they should not stay on against consensus, and they require reasonable explanation on talk. The tag about deletion should go after a failed AfD. No, tags are not there to express minority views. Relevant minority views should be integrated into the article. Fringe views deserve no representation at all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Not quite true that fringe views deserve no representation at all. A few fringe views are notable enough to be discussed, although that is rather unusual. Natalie (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but in that case do not report the fringe views ("The Earth is flat"), but on the fringe views ("George Bush believes the Earth is flat"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

A second editor has just deleted all the warning tags. I am not sure what to do. The standard mantra on Misplaced Pages is "There is no excuse for edit warring." but in my experience this is generally unaccompanied by any helpful alternative. The alternatives that do exist often are ignored, e.g RfC (when I request, nobody answers....). But even that doesn't really apply to warning tags. Warning tags are not encyclopedia content. The other editors working on the article seem to think that the placement of warning tags should follow the same procedure as editing content: if there is no consensus that the article has weasel words (for example), then the warning for weasel words should be deleted.... Bsharvy (talk) 04:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Are there any other "Anti-" articles, or is this the only one? Baseball Bugs 12:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of others. See Category:Anti-national sentiment - 52 Pickup (deal) 12:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. And all of it looks like a POV mine field. Baseball Bugs 12:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's an absolute POV minefield. Even this description, from Category:Anti-national sentiment is not so good: "This category contains articles about criticism of or unfavorable sentiment directed at a particular nationality" According to some usages, it also includes criticism of policy, not just "nationality." So anti-war protests are anti-Americanism. In theory, then, being pro-life is anti-American (hostility to American policy), but try writing that and people will scream. To some, the term denotes prejudice (like anti-semitism) to others it doesn't. There is no way to put all these different ideas in one article, which is why there are so many appropriate warnings regarding POV, neutrality, unencyclopedic content, etc. But, now, they being immediately deleted.... Anyway, I am going to restore them. Somebody will probably accuse me of edit-warring.... Bsharvy (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"POV minefield"? Is this a joke? Whether you want to admit it, there is definite feelings of hostility towards America around the world. Seriously... do a quick search. Here's a Gallup poll that shows three-out-of-five Lebanese have negative feelings towards the United States. Search "anti American" in the NY Times or Washington Post sites and you'll find hundreds of articles. It's definitely worth inclusion. The purpose of the article is to help understand where these ideas may come from. And it should be written in a manner that takes all sides into account, and it certainly doesn't benefit from Bsharvy's heavy-handedness. Njfuller (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So, are there any pro-American citations in the article. Baseball Bugs 00:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Find some pro-America sources that discuss anti-Americansim and include it. Look, I'm an American who recognizes that anti-Americanism exists in the world. There are many Americans who no doubt would like to learn more about anti-Americanism. Where does it come from? It it perceptual or genuine? Does it involve conflicting ideologies? Does it have a basis in reality? Is it part of foreign propaganda? Who knows. The point I was trying to make is that anti-Americanism is notable and that people may come to Misplaced Pages to learn more about it. Censorship doesn't solve the problem. Deletion of the page or cluttering it with unsightly warning templates, which Bsharvy has been doing, doesn't solve the problem. And it isn't constructive. There's a way to do it that doesn't make it POV -- it just involves being mature about it. Njfuller (talk) 03:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Now, all the warning templates are being blanked on a regular basis. No editor is allowed to express the opinion that the article is unbalanced or contains OR, etc. The fact that the article is not a work of consensus is being hidden. There really need to be some guidelines about how warning templates are supposed to work. At the moment, this is just an edit war. Bsharvy (talk) 10:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Igorberger

User Igorberger has been asked to remove certain information from his personal business websites and he refuses. A report will be filed with the foundation to advise them of this conflict of interest issue.--VS 21:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

During this MFD it has become clear that User:Igorberger has advertised in his private businesses that he is supported and authenticated by the Misplaced Pages.org. As I am involved in the MfD and have at times asked Igorbeger to stop spamming in other areas I bring this issue to ANI for further discussion. I note that he has listed those businesses as being his on his user page so there is no "outing" of new information in this ANI.

See here for examples:

1. His business IVB solutions IT states it is a consulting company providing solutions for the diverse IT market - including Wikepedia.org , and
2. His business PHSDL - Project Honeypot Spam Domains List - (which was his first creation on Misplaced Pages and is mentioned in the current MfD) states is has been authenticated per Misplaced Pages.org .

I realise of course that it is difficult for us to stop a non-wikipedia editor from making these type of "puffery" comments but I seek the community's view on what request we can gain or impose on user:Igorberger in relation these claims and the edits that he is making in these areas of interest? I close by noting that Igorberger has indicated (in the MfD) that if at ANI it is determined that my reference from PHSDL to Misplaced Pages is inapropreate I have no problems removing that reference (and I assume others of a similar nature).--VS 00:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note Igorberger has commented in relation to this ANI here and has been asked to post that comment here also.--VS 01:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this more of a Foundation problem than someone users can figure out? Leave it the lawyer, perhaps. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes perhaps posting it to attention of the foundation is a solution.--VS 06:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Igor has indicated that he will remove claims on his sites that suggest or imply some kind of relationship with Misplaced Pages that goes beyond a normal volunteer editor relationship. I think he ought to go ahead and do this. Otherwise this should referred to the office. Sarah 10:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not made any statements that I am employeed by Misplaced Pages, on my Websites.I just made reference to Misplaced Pages because I spend tons of hours here as a volunteer editor. Igor Berger (talk) 10:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Your site listed wikipedia under current project - I run my own consultancy business and when you list another company or legal entity you are saying something about the relationship that exists. No relationship exists between IVB solutions and wikipedia. A relationship exists between you and wikipedia but not the relationship where you claim the project as a "customer". --Fredrick day (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I nether meant to imply that there is some sort of a relationship between IVB and Misplaced Pages. I just wanted to say that I am participating in the project. I can add I am an editor at Misplaced Pages to clarify the relatioship. The whole Website is just one page and it just lists what I do. So if you think it is okay I will amend it. Igor Berger (talk) 10:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The site now reads "WikiPedia.org volunteer editor". If Igor is proud of his involvement here, let it be I say... no harm done, now. -- Longhair\ 10:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change so swiftly, it's much appreciated. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I did not want to make a big thing of this. I am volunteering here and I am proud of it. It actually looks better than before..:) Good Karma! Igor Berger (talk) 10:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• I also appreciate this change Igor and now no harm done there (as Longhair says) however could you please also adjust this other site of yours as it still says PHSDL has been authenticated per Misplaced Pages.org as notable ...--VS 12:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay give me a little time to think how to do it aesthetically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorberger (talk • contribs) 12:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks Igor - let me know if you need help. Would also appreciate you indicating here so that we can all close this thread off. Best wishes.--VS 12:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The second Website has been addressed here Igor Berger (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Argh, aesthetically? Is your page designed to be viewed in a 1997 time machine? ;-) Avruch 16:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not clame to be a web designer so it is not fancy. But PHSDL is a free service that I provide to users who have problems with Zlob Trojan Malware Spam on their forums and blogs. Igor Berger (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It still implies a corporate relationship here, as it reads as if IVB Solutions ("we") is involved in a volunteer capacity assisting WP, rather than an individual. This implies some sort of donation of services rendered, which is misleading and self serving for the company. Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - should this be taken to the wikipedia foundation office So that others are aware Igorberger has come to my talk page regarding this also. I appreciate Igor has attempted to remove the obvious or immediate concerns which as detailed above clearly linked his private companies to appear as if he was working in consultation; cooperation; or auspices of the wikipedia.org. That said Boodlesthecat's comment is well put and whilst I do not want to be the constant hammer at Igor's edits I intend to speak plainly here as follows:

1. Having thought about it I am of the opinion that Boodlestecat is correct - quite simply I can not see the ethical correctness of an editor linking his company to wikipedia as if it is the volunteer - clearly the volunteer is the individual and not the company - and therefore the link to wikipedia (not being to a personal page but to a company page) is still self-serving his business (as it was in the first instance).
2. I also have noted the change to this link which though better than before still states that Igor's Spam filter technology company PHSDL - supports Misplaced Pages.org To me this is also self-serving (unless of course wikipedia has authorise the statement. It especially looks that way when Igor has added the PHDSL link ] about 20 times in various edits in wikipedia. Further I would caution him that whilst he states that it is a "free service" it in fact details on the website that his software is part of a a non for profit project created, developed, and administered to fight Internet Spam and his company is seeking donations at this linked site.
3. Further I can not help but feel that Igor is scratching the back/s of various business colleagues who have supported his PHDSL project (as detailed here and here). These colleagues are detailed on his company websites as Andy Beard & David Naylor and another associate Michael Gray and for each Igor is in the process of creating user pages - at least one of which has been previously AfD'd.

To conclude therefore I remain concerned by the Conflict of Interest between Igor, his companies, his edits and the Misplaced Pages.org. I believe the comments made earlier by Ricky81682 probably should be taken at their face value and a report made to the foundation who would I feel deal with the legal aspects of this matter. In the meantime I think at the very least that Igor should be asked to absolutely declare his conflicts of interest in relation to his editing because unfortunately, at this time, whilst I would rather be doing other wiki business I continue to remain concerned by the mix between Igor's good work and what appears to be a complex form of gaming the system. I intend to file a report with the wikipedia org unless other editors can convince me that is not appropriate - or Igor can somehow convince us that we should not.--VS 10:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Those user-pages (which branch off his own) seem to be sand boxed articles (as long as he actually plans to move them to article space), so some clarification needs to be asserted about what he plans to do with them (having said that, a cursory glances suggests they would all be AFD'd as soon as they arrive in article space). On the wider issue, I'll have to re-examine the sites and see what he's still saying. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The article pages that you are referring to I have started with approval of User:Jehochman This pages are notable SEO's but it is alot of work to establish notability per Misplaced Pages. I have asked other editors to join me with helping to build these pages. Recently one editor familiar with the SEO industry has offered to help with editing the sandboxed articles. I declair I have no conflict of intrest with relationship to these people. I get no money from them for working on their articles. Honestly I just know them from the Internet by participating on their blogs. I have learned about them from being in SEO area and I have come to respect them for their work and dedication in the field. If you wish you can contact this people and have them confirm what I am saying about my relationship with them. Igor Berger (talk) 11:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• VirtualSteve, I have added the PHSDL related link to about 4 articles on Misplaced Pages that all have relevence to Zlob Trojan Malware. I do not get any money from PHSDL and have spent a year building the project with my own time. The people who you have mentioned do not pay me anything I give them advice for free. If the community feels that my links to Misplaced Pages are inappropriate I have no qualms with removing them, although this is an extreme request because many editors at Misplaced Pages who have Websites link to Misplaced Pages to show they are editors here. My actual intent of linking to Misplaced Pages is to promote the Misplaced Pages project not to promote PHSDL or my one man consulting firm I try to be a good ambassador for Misplaced Pages telling people outside of Misplaced Pages how important, relevent, and educational Misplaced Pages is. I try to help new editors who come to Misplaced Pages with the syntax and policy to make their user experience enjoyable and promote the wikilove so they will stay and become good editors. I came to Misplaced Pages because User:Durova and User:Jehochman posted an invetation for Internet aware people to come join Misplaced Pages. Igor Berger (talk) 10:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• As I said on your talk page Igor - I don't want to open up wounds but I have never seen any links like the ones you had and have now on your business pages - on other editor wikipages (where they own a business and putting the link up will equally help the editors business). I note that you are saying you don't make any money but that really isn't the issue - although your site does ask for donations and it does say it is not for profit. I am also not arguing against "wiki-love" I am asking the community whether you are breaching ethical guidelines and whether this should just go to the foundation for their people to contact your people. Can you show us/me some links similar to yours on other wikipedia websites (businesses not blogs or personal pages) because that would help us to determine this matter. --VS 11:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • VirtualSteve you need to read the donation page dontions for links I am asking that people donate a link to the PHSDL project to show their support for it. I am not asking for money! Igor Berger (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Igor I did read that page - and it asks to link to your other company http://www.travelinasia.net/ and that page clearly says Please donate to this Project Honeypot. We need all the help we can get! which to any reasonable person would suggest money $ - which in turn links to http://www.travelconnecxion.com/ which is either your company also and sells travel - or for which you are the webmaster.--VS 11:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Steve, travelinasia.net is a free forum It is actually a honeypot that collects the Spam domains and puts them on PHSDL list to act as a Spam filter. travelconnecxion.com I am a Website developer for. Igor Berger (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Steve, I am not asking for any money donations. I am asking for link to travelinasia.net forum and to PHSDL Website. Igor Berger (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Look Igor I don't want to upset you but I don't care what your business interests are - I don't even care if it is free (even if I seriously doubt the veracity of your comments on wikipedia and on your websites when your websites appear very much to be asking for monetary donations - which your comments about wikipedia appear to be written so as to give some grandeur to) - what is important is that you are using Misplaced Pages to further your private interests. Now it wouldn't matter if you were Greenpeace, Save the Whales, Amnesty International or the United Nations - you simply can't (a) say that wikipedia is linked to your organisation in the way that you are doing unless you have the foundations permission, and (b) you can't edit articles in the way that you are doing as it is a clear breach of conflict of interest. And so my only questions at this ANI thread is do we write a report to the foundation; and how do we deal with an editor like you who seems to wish to twist and turn constantly rather than just stopping all conflict of interest and moving on to some "fair dinkum" editing. I also want to take this moment to ask you what you are going to do with the three sandbox articles you have written which also have a clear conflict of interest issue because you say they are your friends on your website where they are linked and from where you are promoting their businesses at your other website called Igor the Troll http://www.igorthetroll.com/ ? And I want to remind you that you are not answering my other legitimate question - posed implicitly by your comments above which is - can you show me other editors with business websites that are using the name of wikipedia in the way that you are? So if you can answer these questions then please come and tell us- if not then please stop posting evasive returns.--VS 12:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Steve as per request of your question on your talk page, I have no idea who links how and which sites business or not business link to Misplaced Pages. I offered to remove the links if determined by consesus that it should be done. As far as the articles in my sandbox you can MfD them and follow the process as per any user page. As far as you asking me should you contact the Wikimedia foundation, that is entirely your rights as an individual. A wikipedia user. And I do not get any money for PHSDL from anyone. If I wasking for money donations I would have a PayPal button to accept donations, which I clearlty do not. There is no form on the Website for submit donations. Regards, Igor Berger (talk) 12:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If I had stumbled across Igor's page randomly, I would have concluded that he had some sort of special relationship with wikipedia. In reality, he's just another editor. One issue is, is a posting like that against wikipedia policy? I don't know, but I doubt it can be stopped, short of legal action. Another issue is, is his work in wikipedia a conflict of interest violation? Having just been through this on the Superman music page, I am convinced that wikipedia doesn't really care about conflicts of interest and that it's a waste of time to complain about it. But maybe they can prove me wrong in this case. Baseball Bugs 12:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, VirtualSteve asked me to come back and comment - which he might regret, based on my opinion:

• Misplaced Pages (the project) has no jurisdiction over the outside activities/websites of our editors unless they impact directly on other editors (and that, even, is a gray area). Igor's outside website doesn't present a conflict of interest problem - which interests are conflicting within Misplaced Pages?
• The only issue, and it is for Wikimedia to act on if they choose (which they never do, at this point), is whether he is making a commercial and inappropriate use of Wikimedia registered marks. Since he says he isn't being paid, I don't see how that would be the case here.
• Now, regarding posting links to his efforts in articles - that could be a problem, but unless he is spamming it the additions should be evaluated individually for appropriateness by the editors of those articles. Avruch 16:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• No regrets at all Avruch - thanks for you time and comments. Baseball Bugs makes a further excellent comment above also and Boodlesthecat adds valuable contribution at my talk page. The combination of the comments closes this case for me - I will request from Igor that he removes the references and if he doesn't wish to then I will lodge a written report with the foundation. Thank you for your time. Best wishes --VS 19:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• VirtualSteve went our of his way to WP:POINT and that is not WP:AGF. I made an offer in kidness to remove all links but he kept demanding something from me and keept pointing to WP:COI which I clearly do not have. This is not the first time VirtualSteve has tried to scrutinize me. He has been doing it on many ocassion, since day one that we have met. Am I his pet project? Is he my boss and suppervisor and when he says jump I need to jump because he is an admin? If he would have come to my talk page and asked me about my Websites I would have explained and made appropreate changes when and if necessary, but he started an inflamatory and predisposed titled thread. The title of it user Jehochman has changed as to not forecast an outcome. I do not believe I neeed to change any links on my Websites, or has there been a consensus built to support that. That is for Wikimedia foundation to determine. VirtualSteve is not Wikimedia foundation, so he should stick to editing Misplaced Pages as our peer not try to be its Boss and Lawyer. If he wants to contact WP that is his right. Igor Berger (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you - you have made your intention to not remove the wikipedia endorsement comments on your business sites clear to me and many others. In my view wikipedia does not need editors who ride on the coat-tails of its success in the way that you are doing and I will file my report for their intention.--VS 21:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

TiconderogaCCB

Keeps deleting opinions that are contrary to his opinion in an attempt to build a consensus. It can be seen here where this opinion was deleted "J.Delany agreed to this verions - I agree to this verion as well 63.113.199.109 (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)" his reason was vandalism and he says discussion was deleted when it was simply moved from the top to the bottom to go in chronological order(after he moved it). Also he asked for an opinion on which version is better to which i was notified and so was he . When the third opinion came in he simply ignored what the third opinion was and simply reverted the page . I thought we had a compromise and would listen to the 3rd opinion, but now i'm really starting to wonder if there can be any compromise with him. Uconnstud (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC) I could mention the fact that he has been going to articles thru my history and stalking me commenting after me when he was never ever ever in the previous listed article at all. Uconnstud (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the fourth time this issue has been posted here in the last few days (see 1, 2, 3, in the archives). Is there any administrative action required here, or is this something that can be handled by further dispute resolution? --jonny-mt 04:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Both editors have extensive modifications to the article in mind, and I think it's possible that there are good items in each version. I'll have a look at coming up with a third option that might serve as a compromise. The article is fully protected for a week, which I will extend if needs be. There is a third opinion, which appears to have been disregarded in favor of a renewed revert war - that third opinion is a starting point. I don't think the conduct issues here (on both sides) will be workable until the article is stable, so that's step one, I think. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 13:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

An editor using 150.210.176.81 IP address posted the following extremely offensive comments on my talk page and user page . These comments included, "you are one poor sarcastic sucker! have you ever gotten laid or have you always paid for it you sonnuva bitch!". This IP is part of Baruch College, the same source for IP's used by User:Uconnstud in past comments in which he did not use his user name, see User talk:150.210.176.218 & User talk:150.210.226.6. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That is pretty funny considering that the only thing that any of those IP address and I have in common is that we've edited on the St. John's page. You do know that Baruch College has about 15,000 students. St John's has about 15,000 too. I've always used my username. You on the other hand.. are famous for not using it . Its funny how we now see random IP address who are suddenly coming out of nowhere and agreeing with you. When they have no history of editing at all and . All supporting "option 1." Uconnstud (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• User:TiconderogaCCB can I ask you why you have User:Uconnstud so prominantly with a complaint against him displayed on your user page? Is it not a violation of WP:NPOV? And is baiting the user? You may or may not have a problem with this user but you should not be adverting your POV against the user on your user page. That is just asking for trouble and attack style comment from that user. If he did them or not has not be detrmined yet and it is not really relevent to my point. I would advice you to remove those proment acusation comments from your user page, and maybe then all your troubles will disappear. Next try to be cunstructive and communicative with any users on any article that you are working on. I know sometimes it may seem hard to do especially when someone may want to present their POV in a strong matter, but edit warring and grudges against each other is not productive for any one and detructs from Misplaced Pages projec as a whole. I hope my words will bring a bot of wisdom to the issue. Good luck, Igor Berger (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV certainly doesn't apply here. That's policy for articles, not for whatever you think of your fellow editors. Whether it is a good idea to air your grievances towards another editor on your user page, is another matter. I'd say the complaint on his user page is well withing civility and NPA bounds, but it's certainly not conducive to a good relationship between Ticonderoga and Uconnstud.--Atlan (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The only reason that notice is on my user page is because UConnstudd was reporting me to anyone who would listen and it became tedious to figure out which administrators he was trying petition to have me blocked. When this is all over, it will be removed. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible pointy moves by newer editor

Cooljuno411 (talk · contribs) seems to be a newer editor and has moved several articles effectively wiping out histories. I recall there being a splice help page for such concerns but would appreciate an outside editor's take on this and bringing up the issue as I have had previous dialog and I doubt much I present would be received well. Also any suggestions for restoring the lost histories would be nice. Benjiboi 03:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Cut and paste move repair holding pen; methinks there should really be a shorter title for these things. x42bn6 Talk Mess 04:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPLICE :P seicer | talk | contribs 06:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of Misplaced Pages:Requests for cut-and-paste repairs which is a whopping 3 characters shorter, or something.  :-/ x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, I've also added a link to the splice disamb page. Benjiboi 01:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Editor keeps adding to AfD

There's an AfD for Ase Card, which is here. User:Blazetrackz keeps adding more and more comments onto the page. There's no specific warning for this, and I guess he or she is allowed to keep adding, but isn't there some point where it's just redundant? Should anything be done? — HelloAnnyong 05:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah, don't worry about it. The closing editor should know how to weight the comments in the discussion. --ElKevbo (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider the number of comments by Blazetracks to be excessive. Some of them are replies to other comments. As the page now stands, there are I think five comments by Blazetracks, one of which is a primary comment, three of which are currently formatted as replies to that primary comment, and one of which is formatted as a reply to a comment by someone else. However, as I've noted on that page, I object to the deletion of one of Blazetracks' comments, calling it "vandalism", (although the comment was improperly formatted), and I object to the moving of one of Blazetracks' comments from where it appeared to be a reply to the comment immediately above it, to somewhere else on the page (although again it had been improperly formatted). --Coppertwig (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So I saw. I restored the comments. — HelloAnnyong 14:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The rule of thumb I use is that editors can comment, debate, and reply at their pleasure, so long as they do so in a manner and to a degree that does not prevent further debate. Replies, even multiple replies, are OK. Long, rambling diatribes, extraneous section headings, and comments about the nominator and not the merits of the nomination's claims are all removable - and, even then, they should go to the talk page of the AfD, unless clearly personal attacks or trolling. But, in many cases, it's a discretionary thing. If comments are unhelpful, but don't damage the debate, I'll see them kept more often than not - as noted above, the closing admin can discount such comments as needed. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 13:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I'll keep that in mind for next time. — HelloAnnyong 14:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You might like to welcome the new editor to Misplaced Pages, and gently point them to the five pillars etc. Dan Beale-Cocks 14:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems that he's simply engaging in discussion; it's natural that in a vote people make only one expression of opinion, whereas in a discussion they respond to others' points-of-view. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I figure that if someone considers a vote invalid for some reason, they usually indent it and put a comment underneath stating why it's invalid (e.g. sockpuppet). I don't think they should delete it except in extreme cases, and then probably a note should be left where the comment was, stating that something had been deleted. If comments are moved to the talk page because they're too long, irrelevant or whatever, I think a note should be placed where the comments were, stating that some comments have been moved there. If someone formats their comment inappropriately, I think it's OK to indent it to the right level or whatever; it's probably not necessary to write something on the page explaining that one has done that -- in that case probably the edit summary is enough. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Charles Stewart

User:Charles Stewart has been generally disruptive for a sustained period, so I thought I'd bring it up here to see if you think action needs to be taken. The user has been blocked before for these edits (, ), and recently did a similar thing here and here, suggesting the user has not learned from their block. User has also been warned for biting the newcomers, violating NPOV and attacking other editors (as seen here). User:Charles Stewart has also previously changed all instances of the word "Honour" to "Honor" on that article () and then made a WP:POINTy edit after being informed of Misplaced Pages's policies of regional variations of English (). Finally, today he posted four items to WP:ITN/C, which, having made several edits to that page before, he knows full well don't fulfil the criteria, and then proceeded to delete opposing edits by another user and then changed the same user's comments to make it appear as if they had supported the suggestion. Thanks for your attention. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Absolutely unacceptable abuse of other editors and manipulation of process. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have put the indif block template in his userpage. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

At what point did he think moving another user's userpage to "User:Gigantic Cunt Douche Faggot Bitch" would be acceptable? Deary me. Neıl ☎ 16:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• He may have started using the account Kate Flanagan (talk · contribs) given a recent pagemove by that account. JuJube (talk) 03:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

  Also indef blocked (doesn't even matter if it's a sock or not). Neıl ☎ 10:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Birth certificate

This issue has come up before, and although it is basically an edit war, it doesn't belong on the 3RR page as it is not only two users involved. It seems to be a community issue. On the article Birth certificate, there is an image of the alleged birth certificate of a Russian porn star. Although I have previously voiced my opinion on the matter, I have stayed out of the edit warring that has been going on over the last few weeks. The image is being constantly removed and then put back. In my opinion, it contributes very little to the article and is basically some free promotion for the said porn star. I request that an admin step in to end this edit warring. See discussion at talk page. Thank you. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I can't see how it qualifies as "free promotion". The caption does not even state whose birth certificate it is. That article hasn't been edited since the 29th. Seraphim♥ 17:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

But you can see that warring has been going on. There needs to be a final consensus as to whether or not the image is allowed, so that the image can be removed or left alone once and for all. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a content issue that needs to be discussed on the Birth certificate page, not here. Horologium (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It has been discussed. It appears that a general consensus has been reached, but is being ignored and is ineffective without admin intervention. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI: This is related to the entry Banning a persistent vandal/harasser above; see the IP list link provided by R. Baley. The person whose passport this was has been at the center of a controversy across several articles. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Basically, all I can see is a persistent IP agitating for the removal of the image, which I've no doubt is related to the edit-war on a different article. The image should stay unless a better free version is sourced; it's very difficult to get free images of birth certificates, for obvious reasons. Black Kite 18:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Black Kite's evaluation. I also don't see any talk page consensus which Rhythmnation2004 feels exists here. Metros (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the agitation is so transparent that I knew exactly which image was being fussed over by simple mention of "Birth Certificate". There is still no reason to remove that image. — Coren  22:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If the IP editor at the center of this is community-banned (although I'm not sure how that will be accomplished) this will be a non-issue. All of the edit-warring is the result of his bizarre crusade against the subject of the article. Horologium (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The talk page clearly shows the arguments against the image, and I agree. The article discusses nothing of Soviet birth certificates, so a picture of one surely has no place in the article. Furthermore, free images -are- available for birth certificates, which is why there already three existing images in the article. The Soviet birth certificate image is superfluous, unnecessary, and contributes very little, if anything, to the article. That alone justifies its permanent removal. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Costa_Rica_Real_Estate_Jack

Apparently a commercial user of no good intent, he repeatedly creates content on his user page, containing links to http://sceneryincostarica.blogspot.com and, then creates external links in Costa Rica to point to them. Kww (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The underlying IP is now getting in on the act. Probably the simple product of him not being logged in, but it might be worth keeping an eye on. --jonny-mt 18:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Incivility, trolling by User:Ireneshusband

Ireneshusband (talk · contribs) has recently been active in discussing name and content changes in 9/11-related articles. Without a doubt, these changes are being pushed by him to advance a pro-9/11 conspiracy agenda. Those who oppose ththis user's attempts to add conspiracy POV language to articles have been met with incivility and trolling on both article talk pages and user talk pages. Ireneshusband also started a MedCab case, which was full of assumptions of bad faith and incivility.

After these two edits, I gave Ireneshusband a warning for trolling., which he described as a "ridiculous threat" and suggested that I brush up on Misplaced Pages policy.

Shortly thereafter, Ireneshusband made this edit, which, to his credit, he refactored (although he should not have made a comment that he needed to refactor). However, today there has been more incivility and trolling. He has also posted to the talk page of a new user, encouraging him/her to not accept the "indignity" coming his/her way.

I, and I believe many other users, am tired of dealing with this user's constant incivility. Perhaps an involuntary vacation is appropriate here. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to concur with Ice Cold Beer's assessment of the situation. I am particularly disturbed by the message placed on my talk page (which several other users received one as well) warning that I misunderstood Misplaced Pages policies; moreover, having been warned, should I continue my arguments, I would be guilty of willfully misrepresenting policies. Combined with this user's assumptions of bad faith as documented above, I see this as an attempt to chill discussion of the topic. Disagreement on policy is one thing, but accusing users who disagree with you of dishonesty is quite another. I don't mean to be overly dramatic, but isn't that the reason we take such a hard line on legal threats? // Chris 21:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I shall respond to these charges in more detail when I get time. Suffice it to say for the moment that a number of editors, IceColdBeer included have been indulging in disgraceful tactics to prevent proper discussion of issues and to intimidate editors who threaten to undermine their authority. One of these tactics has been to knowingly misrepresent wikipedia policies over and over again in order to make a lot of irrelevant noise and thus make any intelligent debate impossible. I have not said this until now, but this behaviour is as bad as lying. It is plainly done with the same intent as lying. Haemo, who is an admin no less and therefore must be very well-versed in wikipedia policy, has been one of the worst offenders, which is why I left such a strongly worded message about it on his user talk. When he then repeated the offense, I left another message. Even though my wording was very strong, I made a point of not actually making a threat. At the same time I left a more mildly worded message for IceColdBeer (which he promptly deleted) because he had just committed the same offense as Haemo and all those other editors. It was just after that that he decided to leave his threatening message. His threat was marked "final warning" even though I had not received any warning before. That in itself shows an aggressive attitude. That his complaint was ostensibly about my message to Haemo, making no mention of the message I had left him that he had immediately deleted, was sneaky. He was pretending to be a third party standing up for the ill-used Haemo when he was actually pursuing a personal vendetta.

Basically there has been a culture of bullying, lying and and malicious wikilawyering that has been going on at 9/11 conspiracy theories and related pages at least since I first tried to get involved in editing the page at the end of 2006. My first experience of this was so horrible that afterwards I spent nearly a year without even logging into wikipedia. My message to the new user that IceColdBeer has brought up in evidence against me was for the sole purpose of making sure that he does not get bullied out of wikipedia the way I was and probably a good few others have been. I told him that he would not get the gentle introduction to editing that users get in other areas of wikipedia because that is a plain fact. I told him to get himself well versed in wikipedia policy because that is what I have had to do to survive the shamelessly devious wikilawyering of the group of editors I have been talking about. I did not advise him to be obnoxious. I simply advised him not to be naive. I certainly did not name names. However now that this complaint has been brought against me, it is time to name a lot of names. I am utterly sick of the way things are, as are many other editors, not to mention those who knows how many who have left wikipedia, disillusioned, and have never come back. Put simply, editors who endlessly cry WP:THIS and WP:THAT, often fraudulently and often in unison, but who absolutely refuse even to consider the significance of or the spirit behind policies and guidelines such as Misplaced Pages:Common sense or Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules, cannot be up to any good. Something must be done about such conduct. Such editors should certainly not be allowed to continue goading other editors whom they consider to be threats to their authority so that they can gather enough dirt to file a patently malicious complaint like the one that IceColdBeer has just filed against me. ireneshusband (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my statement that I originally made when these accusations against my character, and my editorial judgment were first leveled:

Again, you misunderstand my argument and instead focus your ill-conceived venom upon for the impertinence of disagreement. Your belief is based in the fact that you don't understand my argument, and have instead taken to a vain attempt to brow-beat me, and other editors who disagree with you, into submission. In short, until you cease this incivil and misplaced attempt to claim some kind of highground to which you are not entitled, and instead try to understand what the people who disagree with you are really saying — instead of what you want to believe they are saying — I have nothing more to say to you. --Haemo (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Suffice to say that I disagree with the accusations made against me, and against all other editors who have disagreed with ireneshusband on this issue. In my opinion, ireneshusband has spent nearly all of his time here pushing conspiracy theorist POV on a number of related articles. Repeated appeals to "commonsense" and "ignoring all rules" should set off the POV alerts in experienced editor's head as indicative of trying get around policies because they do not suit them. This is all well and good — Misplaced Pages puts up with POV editors on many subjects, and I don't expect the tolerance of this to stop.

What is not well and good are the continual personal attacks and incivility he has leveled against editors for disagreeing with him — charges of "bullying", "cabalism", "Wikilaywering", "lying", and "malicious" behavior are evident even on this very page. I have told him before, as have other editors, that it is not acceptable and not appropriate — these have fallen on deaf ears. Or, perhaps, ears that know the Truth™ and do not need to listen to others. I did not want to bring this here, because I am tired of this drama — but, as they say alea iacta est. Since I have been mentioned by name, I thought should at the very least offer my opinion and defend my name against accusations I hold to be totally invalid. I leave the actual actions to uninvolved admins. --Haemo (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

How is this complaint malicious? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

But what if editors are banding together and charges of "bullying", "cabalism", "Wikilaywering", "lying", and "malicious" behavior are accurate? My feeling is that those charges are accurate, and when someone comes forward with the courage to point it out despite the policy of assuming good faith, they are breaking laws and rules for a very good reason. The arguments presented by IrenesHusband have been very good, and indeed have made me think twice about whether the mainstream account is complete, or even accurate. Dscotese (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you point to any instances of bullying, cabalism, wikilawyering, lying, or malicious behavior by anyone other than Ireneshusband? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I read a number of the above listed "uncivil" arguments. Seems there's incivility on many fronts. That seems to be a tactic used to obscure facts. I appreciated IrenesHusband's message. I got one. There was nothing uncivil in it. Basically it said familiarize yourself with the policy, don't let me or Ice Cold Beer or anybody else familiarize you with what the policy means. Seems to me that's what Misplaced Pages policy is all about. In most of those snippets pointed out above, other than the bickering, I saw a lot of IrenesHusband trying to back up his points with references, trying to get them seen for people, not a person to judge. I think if anything, almost everyone mentioned was uncivil including the person who leveled the claim. Best thing would be for everyone involved to agree to be civil when it comes to discussing and editing this obviously touchy and heated topic. Seems to me if IrenesHusband were to be banned based on these claims, several others in these threads should be banned for the very same reason. I don't think anyone should though, I think the focus should be the article and not the people editing it. (Deminizer (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC))

This dispute, actually, has remained fairly civil on both sides, with the only exception being Ireneshusband. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Shaunwhim2

Besides having gotten his User and Talk pages in an absolute Page Move mess about a week ago, Shaunwhim2 (talk · contribs) keeps adding the fair use image Image:The Mouth of Sauron.jpg to his Talk page. I have removed it three times now. And now I see it's on his User page too...Corvus cornix_talk 18:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the headache here, CC, and thanks for the heads up. (Don't go all 3RR about it though:-) This particular user is on my watchlist now, and I'll be adding my own $.02 to his talkpage shortly. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales

Just a notification of an incident involving the article Jimmy Wales. I removed what seemed to me to be a clear violation of WP:UNDUE (if not indeed WP:BLP), only to be reverted several times by user RFerreira. This user either did not explain the reversions or tried to conceal them with other edits, or used specious reasoning and accusations. See the following sequence of edits: me, him, me, him, me, him. This user then left a comment on my talk page accusing me of vandalism. The article on Jimmy Wales has now been protected by user Doc glasgow, which seems like a justified solution at this stage, so the issue may be resolved in the short term. However I felt it still worth notifying this forum about the matter. The same issue may well arise at Rachel Marsden, and protection may be a good idea there also. BCST2001 (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

For all those who care, some background. Rachel Marsden was fully protected an hour ago. Woody (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was more like 10 minutes ago, here, but yes. I don't believe your link in the interests of "some background" really needed to be included here. BCST2001 (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I love my TARDIS. Nick (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Both are now protected. And I suggest they remain so until a genuine consensus can be reached on the talk pages of what if anything should be added that complies with BLP UNDUE RS etc.--Doc 19:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

BCST2001, Why did you edit war with the user, rather than starting a talk page discussion, or getting others to revert the user, thus demonstrating consensus? You win content disputes more easily that way, you know. Making the same edit repeatedly and helping to trigger protection is the hard way to get things done. -GTBacchus 19:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, this story is gaining traction in the mainstream media. --A. B. 00:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Rachel Marsden

Even though Rachel Marsden is now protected, user Nyttend added controversial material to the article with this edit here. It was then pointed out to him by another user that the article was protected and that he ought to self-revert (see here). Nyttend, however, indicated that he would not self-revert as he considered it censorship, but that he would not re-introduce the material if another editor removed his edit (see here). I therefore request that an administrator revert Nyttend's edit and restore the article to its protected version. BCST2001 (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see what's controversial about that edit; it states the facts succinctly and well-sourced without going into controversial details. krimpet✽ 02:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If you examine Talk:Rachel Marsden and Talk:Jimmy Wales, you will see that the material is controversial. Furthermore, it is not clear that the edit "states the facts succinctly": the use of the word "furor" seems pretty overblown to me. But more importantly, an administrator ought not add material to an article which has just been protected, and which was protected precisely to prevent problems which the material he has added has caused and is likely to continue to cause. BCST2001 (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree w/ BCST2001 (talk · contribs), specifically that the page was protected and this sort of change may or may not be appropriate, but it should first be discussed in a new section on the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This article was protected precisely due to edit warring over inclusion of material related to the controversy. And Nyttend is the second admin to try to add a plausible and underplayed sentence since the protection. The first sentence isn't there... because another admin took it out. Edit warring on protected pages is just poor form. Since this page is basically always protected, I think Nyttend didn't realize why the page was protected. Nyttend told me on my talk page that he doesn't intend to remove it himself, but also that he wouldn't edit war if someone else did. GRBerry 03:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• groans* Why is it that we always have some controversy around February or March? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

OMG, I think I'm in an edit war...

Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

...which is very much unlike me, but here goes. Over time, several individuals have added a section to the article Caillou about a supposed "controversy", which apparently manifests itself in an online petition stating that the show should be taken off the air because the main character is "whiny" and a "bad example". An IP has joined the debate recently, and seems determined to have this information included. At first the users included this info with no sources at all; this IP, at least, is sourcing (a fact which I acknowledged the first time I mentioned it on the userpage--at least they're TRYING) but the sources are user-posted reviews and blogs which don't, IMHO, meet WP:VER in any way. I tried to be polite , but the user is apparently outraged that I would demand such rigid sourcing--and is now accusing me of ad-hominem attacks, which I don't believe I've made. . Am I being unreasonable in saying that these sources don't meet WP:VER? Gladys J Cortez 19:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think WP:UNDUE applies here also. Evil saltine (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Because I'm striving for absolute clarity here, would you do me the favor of explaining exactly what you mean by that?? I'm trying to make sure I understand the relevant policies, and to be honest I'm not sure if I'm on the right side of WP:UNDUE--it's a minority viewpoint, but does that argue for or against its inclusion??? Thanks...Gladys J Cortez 19:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that no reliable sources exist supports exclusion, just like the example given where the Flat Earth viewpoint is not mentioned in the article Earth. Evil saltine (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that I'm tempted to semi-protect the page, this user is reverting explained policy based removal citing "vandalism", the only reason that is holding me back is the fact that I don't want to engage in a conflict of interest since I already removed the section twice. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 1 week. After that expires, let me (or ANI) know if the IP continues. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I was once the target of an uncivil editor who kept calling me more and names that were spelled the same and had different meanings. Yes, you guessed it... the dreaded Add Homonym attack. :( Baseball Bugs 03:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(cue the crickets)... :) Gladys J Cortez 16:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That'll be the day. :) Baseball Bugs 17:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone up for some WP:CSD#R3 deletions?

Special:Newpages was just flooded with a number of redirects created by Ted Ted (talk · contribs) linking to Mother insult (see recent article contributions). Some of these are useful, but a lot of them can be speedied under WP:CSD#R3 as implausible typos. So rather than go through them all trying to separate the wheat from the chaff, I thought it'd be best to post the whole bunch here in case anyone wants to get some speedy deletion practice in. I mean, redirects are cheap, but this is kind of going overboard.

I've already notified the user, and he seems to have given it a rest. I'll stop by and let them know about this thread as well. Thanks! --jonny-mt 21:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, wow, look at his contribs. I'm on the case! *Cop show music plays* Justin_(u) 21:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Go get 'em, sarge! --jonny-mt 21:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned, bar one or two that might be just about possible as valid redirects. Pedro :  Chat  21:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoo, I need a donut. Justin_(u) 22:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What about the 91 (if I counted correctly) redirects to Italian profanity he also created? —Travis 22:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they should be nuked as well. This is the English Misplaced Pages after all. — Edokter • Talk • 23:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap - I'd keep them. Neıl ☎ 11:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheap, but not free. These inflate article count unnecessarely, and are just not needed. — Edokter • Talk • 20:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

All cleaned up... incidentally, along with all spelling variations of "yo mamma" (yu momma, yoo mama... too many to list) redirecting to Mother insult. — Edokter • Talk • 22:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Locke Cole and fair use edit warring

Since February 20, User:Locke Cole has been engaged in a slow edit war with myself and BetacommandBot on Image:Buffy606.jpg. The image has repeatedly been tagged with {{dfu}} for having an insufficient fair use rationale per WP:NFCC #10c. LC has made five removals of the warning template without fixing the problem . LC has previously been sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee for edit warring , was placed on revert parole and knows not to do this. In an unrelated incident, he even warned another user about 3RR . He knows better. He seems to want to rant against our fair use policies (see ). Help, please. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked and I don't see the problem with the rationale. And as I said in my last revert, IF YOU SEE THE PROBLEM, WHY AREN'T YOU FIXING IT? Is Misplaced Pages getting collectively lazy or is it just me? BTW, nice poisoning the well there by dredging up my over a year old RFAR... —Locke Cole • t • c 22:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Burden of proof is on those wishing to include. Hammersoft has no obligation to add rationales. Will 22:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If he sees the problem and I do not, then he either needs to fix it (since apparently it's obvious to him) or he needs to stop reverting. End of story. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, not end of story. The person seeking to include the picture has the burden of making it compliant with all policies. If that person chooses not to, it can be deleted. Its that simple. Locke Cole is in danger of violating 3RR over this issue. The issue all goes away the second Locke Cole adds a valid fair-use rationale to the article that is compliant with policy. Then, its not a revert, but an improvement. However, if he simply reverts even one more time, he is likely to be blocked for edit-warring. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As a point of information, what is the problem with he image's fair use rationale? I took a look and it's not obvious to me. The burden of proof may well be on the uploader to provide an appropriate rationale, but if someone tags it as insufficient, then they certainly must have grounds for making that assessment, and it would seem only right to share those grounds. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 22:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's that the image does not fulfil fair-use as it's not referred to in the text of the article where it's used and appears to be being used merely for decoration and is therefore not a fair use, and the rationale does not address this. That's my take on it, anyway. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't obvious to me either what the problem was. And instead of helping resolve the issue as he should have (by taking it to the talk page, if he's so unwilling to fix it himself) he chose to revert war over it. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

(after multi-ec) No, this was a "10c" tag. The image page needs to have the name of the article(s) where the image is used. This doesn't need to be a wikilink, but it needs to be the exact name or a redirect to the exact name. Any listing in "File links" is dynamic and doesn't count. Gimmetrow 22:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, though he was under no obligation to do so, User:Sceptre (Will) has fixed the problem. However, that Will fixed this one does not excuse Locke Cole from cleaning up his own mess (see below) or from future edit warring over the FUR tags. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

LC has a number of other fair use images missing rationales entirely:

• Image:Dolby-Digital-Plus.svg
• Image:Dolby TrueHD.svg
• Image:Silk.stalkings.logo.svg
• Image:LaserDisc.svg
• Image:D-VHS.svg
• Image:S-VHS.svg
• Image:LD-mark.svg

--Hammersoft (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You'll notice that 90% of those images were uploaded before fair-use rationales were mandatory.. or maybe you won't notice. BTW, stop wikistalking me. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• The oldest of those images is from 26 February 2006. The policy at the time did require a fair use rationale . All of those images were uploaded out of compliance with our then policies. Sorry. As to wiki-stalking; hardly. You have a contributions log for a reason. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • My contribution log is not for you to go fishing looking for anything and everything you think I've ever done wrong. Whether or not it was policy back then, it certainly wasn't preached as being necessary like it is now. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry you think reviewing your contributions log constitutes stalking you. It isn't. Noting additional problems with your uploads does not constitute harassment. Fair use rationales were certainly required back then, and you've continued to make uploads that do not comply with that policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is pleasant. Cough. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have issued a 48 block on the grounds of WP:HARASS per the diff provided above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That seems inappropriate here. Gimmetrow 22:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

A 48 hour block for an act of incivility on one's own talk page? This looks to be out of proportion on both sides (though the incivility is more on one side than the other, obviously). I spent a few minutes and added use rationales to the first two logos and ms. pac man. Not much effort at all. We all know that the method of deleting and tagging old images that were uploaded before we enforced a use rationale requirement is controversial and has raised anger and stress. No need to get into a stand-off over it. Actually, there is a directive to fix images rather than delete them. That's a lot simpler than making a big deal of it.Wikidemo (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)In what way? The editor has a history of aggressively pursuing agenda's at odds with WP policy, targets individuals who apply said policy, had an ArbCom back in 2006 on similar grounds, is unrepentant over their conduct, and ironically provides other contributors with lots of work in trying to accommodate their POV. Please note that (AFAIAA) I have never encountered this editor previously, and only acquainted myself with their history from the links provided here. Naturally, I am content to be guided by consensus but I would like to know the grounds for differing opinions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The 2006 arbcom is old enough to be irrelevant. LC said he didn't see what the problem was, and Hammersoft failed to communicate it. Gimmetrow 23:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• The warning tag, which I referred to twice, clearly stated why the image failed WP:NFCC. You can see for yourself . --Hammersoft (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

And LC said he didn't understand. So one would naturally explain it to him, right? Gimmetrow 23:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec X 2)

I'm not questioning anybody's judgment, just commenting that it's easier to fix images than get into disputes over them. For (relatively) important articles like Ms. Pac Man, laserdisc, and Dolby Labs products, it's easiest to just add the rationales and be done with it. Those articles are for the benefit of the encyclopedia, not the image uploader, so it's in everyone's best interest to get them fixed. We have a finite number of noncompliant images left to go, and they'll all be either deleted or fixed within a month. For stuff like a particular episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer where the image won't comply even with a use rationale, maybe easiest to nominate it for deletion or simply delete it if the uploader had their 2 days' notice (they proved they got the notice by deleting it). Now, if the editor keeps uploading new images without rationales to make a point, or games/edit wars by removing valid image tags without fixing the images, that's an ongoing problem that has to be dealt with. Wikidemo (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Gimmetrow)I was not blocking on the basis of the 2006 ArbCom, I am noting that the issues under which I blocked are essentially the same as 2006. I find that the editor has not moved on from the stances or behaviours which led to that process and those findings. Not only is that unfortunate, but also an indication that opinion and discussion of itself is unlikely to alter their behaviour. To remove that point of disruption I felt I had no alternative but to issue a block. Will the block change the editors opinion? Unlikely. Will it persuade the editor to discuss their opinion in more civil terms? Possibly, at least in the short term. Will it persuade the editor to consider that others opinions have just as much right to be aired and considered? Well, that is the hope. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

So are we unblocking LC or not? Gimmetrow 23:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the block was a good call. It prevented further escalating disruption (what with the edit warring, the bad attitude and the increasing incivility). I have no history of this user before this event so as an outsider, it just looks like a culmination of mounting frustration at a process and behaviour that he disagrees with. It seems directed at specific editors as he engaged in very civil conversation with me. However, venting frustration in the manner he had been doing is unacceptable. Seraphim♥ 23:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool-down blocks are not a good idea. Gimmetrow 00:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't suggest it was a cool down block. I said it prevented further escalating disruption and I think prevention is the #1 on the list of reasons to block. Seraphim♥ 00:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen no evidence that stopping and explaining to LC would not have been successful. That's the #1 way to prevent problems. Gimmetrow 00:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Two points: 1) I endorse the block on civility and NPA grounds. He was getting quite ugly about it. 2) Yes, it is a noble act for any user who comes across an improperly used or labeled image to fix it so that the image page is compliant. Such users should be commended. However no one is under any obligation to do so and we should not hold anyone to that standard. It is still the responsibility of the person who added the image to an article to make sure that the image is compliant to all Misplaced Pages policies; if they don't understand the policies, they shouldn't be uploading images or adding them to articles. Its that simple. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to edit war to enforce policy, then you damn well better explain the policy to the person who doesn't understand it, or you're doing nothing to de-escalate the situation. I see Hammersoft has not notified LC of the disputed images, and in fact has never edited LC's talk page. Gimmetrow 00:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Locke Cole's talk page is filled with warnings and about mis-labeled images. He was given ample opportunity to responde to these warnings, and continued to act in willful ignorance of them. That Hammersoft did not specifically leave any of the warnings does not mean that Locke Cole had not been informed that his actions were in violation of policy. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see where he has been informed about certain specific images. I disagree with this block. Hammersoft aggravated the situation by continuing to edit war himself, and did not stop to explain to LC exactly what the problem was. Gimmetrow 00:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking through his talk page now, I see that there are NINE notices about inappropriate uplaods or incomplete fair use rationales. That doesn't include any he may have archived or deleted. Could Hammersoft have given him ANOTHER warning? Yes, perhaps. But given that he was warned NINE times already, what good would that have done? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

We'll never know, because it apparently wasn't tried. A human dialogue explaining the problem might have worked better than a bunch of bot messages, when it was becoming clear the bot messages weren't working. (BCB has 17 edits on LC's talk page.) Gimmetrow 00:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And it wouldn't matter because Locke Cole has indicated that this isn't about not understanding, its about someone not fixing it for him instead. Shell 00:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, if he doesn't know what to do, he can't do it. So you either explain it to him (as Saraphim has started doing), or fix it. Gimmetrow 00:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

All well and good, but if he doesn't know what he is doing, he shouldn't be encouraged to continue. Yes, good experienced editors should leave a nice, human written, explanation of what the problem is. However, even in absense of that, that he received 17 warnings (as noted above) shows that he had no desire to stop UNTIL he understood. I am not argueing, as you seem to imply, that people should have avoided or tried to NOT explain what the problem was. Of COURSE the best situation involves an editor being nice and explaining the situation. No editor should be forced to do so, however. He obviously knew he was doing something wrong in his image uploads, and yet he STILL continued to upload them. He doesn't have to know how to fix them to know that he should stop UNTIL he knows how to fix them... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Has LC uploaded any FU images since the first disputed FU warning? If so, I don't see it. His first BCB warning was 29 June 2007 for an orphan FU, but his first disputed FU was 26 October 2007, which is vague and doesn't mention 10c. LC has not uploaded any FU images since 16 October 2007 that I see, except for reverting one FU image with an unrelated policy issue. Gimmetrow 01:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the points raised by Jayron32, the response LC took was inappropriate. Not understanding the problem with the image didn't give him the right to act in the way he did. He could have taken it to the talk page or contacted Hammersoft and asked why the image was tagged. Seraphim♥ 00:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

So block them both. Not one. Gimmetrow 00:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hammersoft did not engage in the same behaviour that LC did. Seraphim♥ 00:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Lets make this clear here. Locke Cole was not blocked for the edit war or for the FU problem. He was blocked for incivility and personal attacks. Hammersoft has not once yet been incivil, and deserves no block. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hammersoft did not do exactly the same thing, but his actions certainly contributed. Normally, in such a simple dispute we would tell both parties to have a tea and discuss, and would forget about any minor incivility. Gimmetrow 00:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - block seems unsound and disproportionate. Support unblock. Orderinchaos 08:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Having noticed Locke Cole's name as a subsection index - he once reverted an edit I made, if you were wondering, so I was curious - I have come across this discussion. Would someone be willing to explain to me which part of WP:HARASS LessHeard vanU was referring to when he cited this

I've asked LHvU whether he would consider an unblock if Locke Cole would a) remove the statement as his first edit after unblocking and b) pledge not to make such a statement again. I think that would be reasonable - IMO a 48 hour block was harsh (ask him to remove it, first!). Neıl ☎ 11:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not particularly concerned about the block itself, I mean, he'll be okay, regardless of whether it was fair or unfair or rash or unrash. I'm curious about the citation of WP:HARASS with respect to what he said about BetacommandBot (talk · contribs) and Hammersoft (talk · contribs) in the edit to his user page linked to above by Hammersoft (talk · contribs). It was initially opaque to me, not being familiar with WP:HARASS, and the connection is still unclear. There's a reference to user space harassment, but the language indicates that editing of a user's own talk page was what was under consideration.

Just to be clear on motive, I'm not petitioning for his unblocking, and I'm not wanting to play gotchas with anyone. I'm saying that it isn't clear to me which aspect of the actual WP:HARASS document was being referred to (in providing a link to it as rationale for the block), and I was wondering if I had missed something, or if such references have become short form for "Okay, I see that Locke Cole is harassing people." 69.49.44.11 (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I'm deleting the image. It blatantly fails NFCC 8, "significant contribution to the article". It's clearly not being used for critical commentary or analysis, it's not referenced in the text, it hasn't even a recognisable relation to any particular plot element mentioned in the text. Its information value is zero. It just serves as a spot of color decorating the infobox. There is a myth among the pop-culture crowd that there is some sort of blanket allowance of one non-free image per episode page. There is not. Write something that is of encyclopedic value about the image, then and only then do you get to use one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In general, NFCC#8 deletions are subjective and require discussion, and thus should be done through something like WP:IfD. Having said that, I agree with you in this case. The trouble is, if you allow things to be done this way, you will then get people deleting lots of stuff under "fails NFCC#8" claims that are more dubious. The thin end of the wedge in reverse. Carcharoth (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. I agree there is a margin of subjectiveness, which may make some such deletions problematic. Nevertheless, the formal policy is quite clear: Failure to pass any of the NFCC, (including #8) is a speedy deletion criterion (WP:CSD I7), not an IfD issue. The image was already being discussed, here and elsewhere, the uploader was notified – though, I admit, not of this specific concern – so I believe I'm well within proper process here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion criteria have always had to be clear-cut, rather than subjective. How did the "any of the NFCC" wording get into the CSD page? Some of the NFCC are suitable for CSD, some aren't. Carcharoth (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Must have been in there for quite a while. Last time I6/I7 were slightly modified as in early September, when a sentence in I6 calling for the use of IfD (in some occasions, not all) was removed as self-contradictory. I7 itself seems to have kept the same wording for a good while longer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Bots edit-warring with humans

To throw a suggestion out here: Bots must not edit-war with humans. If a bot action is reverted by a human, there should be a presumption that the human was acting intentionally and in good faith. (The bot may be operated in good faith, but the bot itself is a dumb machine and does not itself have any intentions whatsoever, for good or for evil.)

If a bot and a human get into an edit war, the bot is at an unfair advantage: being a bot, it can neither become bored of the conflict, nor can it feel guilty for having gotten into an edit war. Edit warring is always bad, but unless there is a presumption that the human is right, the bot will always win. (Especially when a human who engages in edit-warring can be blocked, but there is so much agitation against blocking a bot that does the very same.)

So, here's a proposal: all bots should live under 0RR, or 1RR at most. A bot that repeatedly reverts against a human editor should be considered to be defective, and disabled until fixed. Instead, if a bot does something and a human reverts it, the bot must leave it alone, or possibly flag it for further human inspection.

Consider:

• Bot tags an article.
• Human A removes tag.
• Bot re-tags it. (This is revert 1.)
• Human A removes tag. (This is revert 1.)
• Bot notices it's tagged article twice, and does not revert.
• Human B looks at article and determines that tag is appropriate. Human B tags article.
• Human A and Human B can now discuss instead of edit-warring.

Putting a second human into the mix makes discussion possible. Without this, there is only a bot edit-warring with a human, and that's a battle no human can win. --FOo (talk) 07:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice idea, and one that assumes good faith on behalf of the human the bot is reverting. However, most of the editors who war with our bots are not editing in good faith - they're trying to get copyright decorative images into articles without doing the paperwork, or they are blanking pages or doing obvious vandalism, all stuff the bots pick up on. If a bot stops after 1RR, it would need to report the issue to somewhere/one. This would create instant backlogs and would be a backdoor way of stopping our slave bots from doing the very boring jobs we have them for. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 08:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - BCB's doing a job. Reverting its edits is violating a legal (not ethical) policy. Besides, it took me literally three seconds to fix that rationale. It takes longer to undo edits. Will 11:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, no need for this, but can we please stop waving the legal red flag? The non-free content policy is, as its name says, a content policy, not a legal policy. Our copyright policy is an example of a legal policy. Invalid claims of fair use are not copyright violations, they are invalid claims of fair use. To quote: "The need to minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content under strictly defined circumstances that are deliberately more restrictive than United States fair use law." Some of BCB's edits will help minimise this legal exposure, others won't. All BCB's edits will, of course, help improve compliance with the "name the article it is used in" part of WP:NFCC#10c (which is, remember, only a small part of the overall NFCC). Carcharoth (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree only in parts. Some of the non-free content issues, and particularly those that BCB is dealing with, indeed don't touch on real-world legal issues. Others do. Truly invalid claims of fair use indeed do constitute copyright violations (unlike failures to declare them properly according to NFCC10 etc.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

As a general matter, it may be preferable to avoid referring to any policy not written by a lawyer and explicitly adopted as a 'legal policy' by the Wikimedia Foundation by such a name. Just to provide as stringent a divide in everyone's minds as possible, and avoid confusion. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we at least all agree that it's understandable when someone mistakenly thinks that "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images on the English-language Misplaced Pages, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, of logos for certain uses involving identification and critical commentary may qualify as fair use under United States copyright law." is a "fair use rationale" under a common-sense understanding of the term? Having a tag like {{logo}} alone was the accepted practice in 2006 and earlier, even if it wasn't in line with a written policy that nobody read at the time. —Random832 14:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Instead of limiting the amount of reverts that a bot can do, I'd suggest that if the bot could recognize if the same editor has reverted them more than once on an image, they leave a message pointing them towards the copyright help desk or the media copyright questions page.

If we don't want to put it on the editor, maybe a subpage of WP:ICHD or WP:MCQ for the bot to report the disputed image to along with a message to the editor pointing to that report, and asking that the editor refrains from further reverts until another person has a chance to look into it.

OK...the terminator rip-off might be a little much...but could the rest be something to work with? I know BCB currently mentions Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions in his notification note, but I think a message that was tailored just to specifically point out that there is a forum for questions would be more noticeable. I just don't think we should be limiting the bots, who seem to usually be right even if they are a bit strict. --Onorem♠Dil 15:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Wcfirm and Channing Tatum

This user is adding POV-style edits for a site that is supposed to be an official one for the actor, but is a blogspot. The way they describe it comes across as advertising. As can be seen from their talk page, this has been going on for a while, and reasoning doesn't appear to help. I don't want to get into an edit-war over this, and didn't know where else to report this, so I thought I'd try here. Thanks, and here's hoping. -Ebyabe (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of arbcom in content dispute

It appears to me that User:Fennessy is using the fact an issue has been disputed in an arbcom Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, namely use of the Ulster Banner, to justify reverting me on Template:Bus transport in the United Kingdom, which arbcom decisions are not used for. In fact it appears that is all he is logging in for at the moment, in an apparent attempt to go slow to avoid 3RR. MickMacNee (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you explain clearly and fully the arguments for the version you support at Template talk:Bus transport in the United Kingdom, and discuss the matter with anyone who replies there. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to 'The Troubles'. You can try engaging on the talk page, though I am doubtful about your chances of success. The cynic in me also says that by posting what was previously a quite obscure page on ANI, you might have ensured that the problem never gets sorted out (though the pragmatist in me asks if the flags are really necessary at all on that template). Black Kite 07:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Anon IP 74.xx.xx.xx claims persistently blocked

74.15.4.18 posted to me (see User talk:Davidruben#Account blocking) that repeadly now blocked following a good faith edit to List of medical abbreviations (this one) that I had reverted (I gave no direct warning nor any block for this). However presumably if blocked as a range block, would not then have been able to send me the query to my talk page as Special:Contributions/74.13.81.92. Is there/was there any sort of range block at 74.xx.xx.xx, and if so, how does one find out to confirm or unblock for a anon editor (obvious if a fixed IP, one just goes to User:IP and looks at block log) ? David Ruben 23:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Rangeblock helper doesn't show any block that would apply to that IP. Evil saltine (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Yeah, not seeing the block either. Tiptoety 00:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If he's blocked, he can't edit your talk page. Its that simple. Is he using an IP address to avoid another block? Or is he being confused between a page protection and a block? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies (and for the Rangeblock helper link) :-) David Ruben 00:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if the IP is trying to either create a page or edit a semi-protected page. —Travis 00:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

E.O. Green School shooting again, help please

E.O. Green School shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a tragic in-school shooting incident involving 1 or 1 year old victims and suspects. An editor or possibly more than one keeps adding the suspects name, which is covered in RS. However, from the Corey Delaney (that Aussie party teen) deletions I was under the impression that minors' names are left out, generally, in presumption in favor of privacy. Editors have sought help on both the help and BLP boards but the article still seems to include the teen suspects name. Even if that teen is responsible for murder shouldn't we at least wait for the trial? And then come to a consensus on this? Benjiboi 00:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting problem, but what administrator action do you seek in this issue? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP is rather clear to me; until such time as a minor suspect is convicted, it's not appropriate to name them in an article. I've removed the name, according to the Privacy of Names section, I'll note so on the talk page, and will keep an eye on the article. — Coren  01:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've also left a note on the editor's page explaining my reasoning, and I notice the page has been protected by other admins in the interval. — Coren  01:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, usual routes of dialog and BLP noticeboard didn't seem to be getting a minor's name removed. As a involved editor I didn't feel I was going to get much traction and I felt wikipedia was in a gray area in a current high-profile murder case involving minors. Benjiboi 01:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It admittedly is a gray area, and my move may not have been uncontroversial. I prefer to err on the side of caution, however, and it would appear I am not the only one who had that concern. — Coren  01:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A brief review of the sources, and of the wider internet sources shows this news article which states the arrested suspect has been charged as an adult, which frees up legitimate journalistic avenues to reveal the name of the suspect. Suspect's name is widely available on the internet, on blogs, activist sites and news articles. As such, I think there's nothing to stop us. The horse left the barn ,the genie's out the cork's not going back in, etc., etc. on the aphorisms. I don't think it's as gray as suggested. Example: when they thought he DC Sniper was a kid, they didn't say name, when they got more info, they released. Were this the day of the event, I'd back BLP, but there are sources from days and weeks later still publishing the identity. Why wouldn't we be able to, so long as we cite it all and examine sources carefully? BLP doesn't preclude negative information. ThuranX (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Addendum Re:BLP section 'privacy of names'. Section states if the name is NOT widely disseminated. There are a number of papers on the net from all over the nation covering the story, so while there is one event, this is a widely notable event, combining hate crimes and school shootings, a veritable bonanza for our tragedy driven, opportunistic, and atavistic Mainstream media. In other words, the person's name is just about every place people might seek out for information BUT us, and while 'everyone else is doing it' is not always an excuse for an action, in this case, it does make us simply look lax. ThuranX (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll again point out we deleted Corey Delaney, wrongly, IMHO, because he was a minor associated with one news event and we didn't want to saddle that poor kid with a wikipedia article for one event that would likely haunt him and he would regret the whole affair. Nevermind that Coery has since gone on to turn that scarring event into a career and his name has gotten more coverage than many of our BLPs. As this article has a minor as a suspect pending trial seems like we shouldn't convict him in the worldwide encyclopedia quite yet. Benjiboi 01:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

His name is obviously public domain. It's in the USAToday article. Given the Florida Wendy's shooting it's probably already yesterday's news. :( Baseball Bugs 02:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Benji, no one is convicting the suspect here, simply reporting using verifiable sources, none of which can report he's convicted in a trial yet to be held. ThuranX (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

As others have said, the name is widely disseminated and obviously relevant to the article. WP:BLP mentions nothing about minors or waiting until a conviction. I recommend that the page be unprotected (as far as BLP is concerned) and the name be allowed to stay. Evil saltine (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the sources already referenced in the article contain the name. Evil saltine (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they do. It's not trying to suppress anything, but to avoid bringing undue prominence to the name. Seriously, what does the article gain by mentioning the name of a suspect? — Coren  04:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The name of the suspect is a relevant piece of information, just as it would be for any other crime. The name is already prominent; what Misplaced Pages does won't change that. Besides, it's not as if this person is getting his own article. Evil saltine (talk) 05:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) This minor is involved in a murder trial, even if ultimately tried as an adult. Once the trial and appeals are over I would support a discussion to whether or not to include the information but an encyclopedic article can be written fully with the absence of the alleged shooter's name and those reading will fully be able to understand the content. Misplaced Pages is not a tabloid and we are also not to be used to sway legal outcomes and processes. We are here to write encyclopedic articles not to hang crimes on a young person on the world's encyclopedia for whatever reason. "Cover the event, not the person." Benjiboi 07:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Like it or not, he is a part of the event. I don't understand your assertion that publishing his name would be tabloid-like, given the many reputable organizations that have already done so. We are not "hanging a crime" on anyone, just reporting the facts, namely that he is a suspect. Evil saltine (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it's very clear that those who support censoring the name aren't citing BLP anymore, just their own idea of what is moral or encyclopedic. Since BLP is no longer involved, I don't see how page protection is justified. Evil saltine (talk) 08:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Because there was edit-warring.--Doc 09:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring is not the reason the template says it was protected - it says it was due to BLP. The response to edit warring is to lock the page on a preferred version (misquoting BLP) for a week? Sorry, but no. The page needs unprotecting. Neıl ☎ 12:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason not to name the arrested 14-year-old, as it's public domain knowledge. The statement that wikipedia is "not to be used to sway legal outcomes and processes" is not a rules-based argument, it's a feeling-based argument. It also makes no logical sense. Wikpedia isn't swaying anything. It's reporting public information. Baseball Bugs 12:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

8HRE (talk · contribs)

Any chance that this guy is a sockpuppet or troll? I've discussed the user's activities with Masamage, a sysop, but we couldn't really find this to be 100% accurate. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

All edits are nonsense or vandalism, but a warning wasn't left until very recently so I'd leave it for now unless he continues. Evil saltine (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I think if this were the case, the edits would be more sophisticated. I see a young person experimenting, even to the point of nominating himself for adminship, and I have deleted his RfA (since it was malformed anyway) and advised him to edit constructively for a while. However, I will be keeping an eye on the situation. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Korean War

I noticed there's a semi-protection icon on the page yet anon. users are having edit wars. Is the page really protected or someone forgot to remove that padlock?--Cahk (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the padlock, since protection expired March 1. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 02:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Calling any/all RESPONSIBLE admins

Despite page protection, admins are continuing to edit the Jimmy Wales and Rachel Marsden page.

For the sake of decency and fairness would a few admins out there keep an eye on the pages and revert them to the version they were protected as? Sethie (talk) 02:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Then would that not just continue the revert/edit war? Tiptoety 02:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyways, it appears to be one edit (to the Jimmy Wales page) ,made in good faith and was reverted. Tiptoety 03:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Tiptoety, you are incorrect: the edit in question is to the Marsden page, by user Nyttend, and has not been reverted. See discussion above also. I request again (as done by several other editors) for an administrator to restore the protected version, as policy makes clear ought to be done. BCST2001 (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Thought we were also discussing the Jimmy Wales page as stated above. As for the situation with the other article, have you tried contacting the admin who's actions are in question? Tiptoety 03:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I did. Here is his reply, on my talk page. GRBerry 03:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet another mis-application of WP:CENSOR. WP:CENSOR means we include images of Muhammad in Muhammad, images of a dick in penis, and don't remove articles on subjects Conservapedia considers we should not cover. It is not a license to include salacious gossip in WP:BLPs. Regardless of the merits of the content, it is an incorrect application of WP:CENSOR. Guy (Help!) 07:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Without any evaluation of the positives or negatives of the edit in question, it was a blatant breach of WP:PROT, so I reverted it. Orderinchaos 08:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, Guy, but no mention at all on the Rachel Marsden page isn't because we are not giving it undue weight, let's not kid ourselves. This is (or should be) a case such as is covered in the essay wp:recentism. But I think we all know that because it concerns Mr. Wales things will get get locked down rather tightly. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've put a HTML comment warning on the article and the section, since the big red text above the edit box doesn't seem to be enough. —Random832 18:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User Avineshjose on a personal war with me

No admin action required. Raising party encouraged to review advice given by admins/others below. Orderinchaos 05:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I am a constructive Wikipedian as evident from my contributions Tinucherian (talk · contribs) and dont believe in any kind of edit war. But another wikipedian's acts are pushing me to the wall.

It all began when he put AFD tags on 2 of my articles - Pakalomattom and Pakalomattom Ayrookuzhiyil and that lead to the AFD discussion Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pakalomattom Ayrookuzhiyil. Inspite of all the evidences and references given , he made sure the articles were deleted by fighting with nails and tooth.

I requested him not the treat other wikipedians this way and play big brother. He feels only he is right. But he misunderstood ( Misinterpreted ) it was a personal attack and complained here accusing me of threatening him. All I was saying that Not to kill other's articles while being build. Anyways I did apologized unconditionally , to not leave any misunderstandings.

Ofcourse I nominated some of his not so worthy articles for AFD Skyline Builders ,Radio Mango 91.9 ,Radio Joy Alukkas , Joy Alukkas which escaped only due to me being accused of nomination on Bad faith. I leave to the admins to decide, where those and many of his other articles Kannur Rajan , American Schools and Hospitals Abroad , Bluefield International Academy ,American Seniors Housing Association are of any encylopeadic in nature.

There was several instances his fights of many people because he started killing others articles one by one, one way or other. The evidiences were there in Archive page but he convienantly deleted after it came in some disucssion.

• See Dont bring back deleted pages with the same content
• User_talk:Avineshjose/Archive_3#Nominating_articles_for_deletion User_talk:Avineshjose/Archive_3#Nominating_articles_for_deletion
• User_talk:Avineshjose/Archive_5#Kottayam_medical_college User_talk:Avineshjose/Archive_5#Kottayam_medical_college

• User_talk:Avineshjose/Archive_2#Would_you_like_a_mentor_to_help_you_learn_more_about_Wikipedia.3F

All his actions are now fit enough for scaring away the wikipedian newbies... Ex: User_talk:Avineshjose/Archive_4#Nominating_articles_for_deletion

I did complained to his mentor User:Richardshusr This was what he said about him User_talk:Richardshusr#Reading_your_mentee_User:Avineshjose :- "The reason that I took on Avineshjose as a mentee is because he was a pain in the ass with an excess of enthusiasm and a paucity of technical expertise with Misplaced Pages processes. My hope is that he will grow wiser and more knowledgeable in the Ways of Wiki. For the record, his comments about Kottayam medical college were on the money. Many of his concerns about articles are valid although these can sometimes be fixed by editing and or deleting sections of text rather than deleting the entire article. --Richard (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC) "

User:Avineshjose was habitul person on putting lots of articles to AFD , Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Kaimal

He then a merger proposal on one of my articles Coonen_Cross_Oath to Coonan_Cross_Oath . User:Avineshjose added

With just one proposal by a user , See , User:Avineshjose just deleted the article [[Coonen_Cross_Oath and redirected to Coonan_Cross_Oath and didnt even allow a fair discussion.

I can give another 100 references , where it is also referred to as Coonen cross. Besides mergeing doesnt mean , deleting one and redirecting to another. The data of both should be merged to the retaining artcile. What he was trying is just destruction /loss of data in Wiki.

He used to upload all copyrighted material to the Wiki . Finally an admin noticed this and deleted most of his images and warned him , not to make any more uploads.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AAvineshjose%2Fimage&diff=192236047&oldid=192229080

User_talk:Avineshjose/image

"Please do not upload any more images until you have cleared with an admin that you understand WP:IUP, WP:COPYRIGHTS, and how to specify an accurate source and license. Thank you. --Yamla (talk) 05:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)"

There was silence from him for a few days and I prayfully hoped he is happy that many of my articles got deleted and wont nagg me again.

BUt it was not. Having probably put my usertalk page in watchlist , he started to continued to fight on areas where I am also interested.

There was a AFD discussion on another article Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath and I participated in it. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath He swiftly came in oppose there and fought with more vengence. Same with many other discussions I participated. Aparrently He was the only one who fought to delete the article and the administrator's decision was to Keep.

Having being unsuccessful here , He now shifted his whip to an article on the book Daivajanam by Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath and proposed to merge it. Talk:Fr._Thomas_Kuzhinapurath#Merger_proposal . Having faced stiff opposition here also from all others, I guess his next attempt will be to push it to AFD.

I am feeling cornered by this 'Big brother of wikipedia' and making my life in Misplaced Pages stressfull and unpeaceful. He suffers from an attitude problem and feels he is the only person right in Misplaced Pages.

Admins, Please tell me what I should do ? - Tinucherian (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Summarize this in three sentences without any bold text, please.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree - that hurt my eyes. Per WP:IAR I changed all bold above to italics. Orderinchaos 07:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

So let me get this straight... He tagged some articles for AFD... consensus got them deleted, and so as a revenge you specifically hunted through his contribution history and tagged several of HIS articles for deletion, you know, just to make a point. I fell asleep after that. Now, what exactly do you want us to do? Cuz other than outing yourself for being disruptive, I can find no purpose for this message.... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Your evidence does not support the claim that he is the "big brother" of Misplaced Pages. He nominates many articles for deletion - nothing necessarily wrong with that. He made a mistake in formatting an AfD - nothing wrong with that either. Mergers/redirects do not have to be discussed (and he didn't "delete" the article concerned). And you haven't shown that he sought any contact with you after the first AfD. Hut 8.5 07:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous and Obscene Threat on Talk Page

Hi, I'm not sure how to properly deal with this, but an anonymous user (IP address) left a threatening message on my Talk Page ]. I'd appreciate any advice on how to precede and/or take it completely seriously. Thanks. Zidel333 (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You could tell them to talk to your attorney, Helen Waite. Baseball Bugs 04:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Or you could go to that ID's "contributions" page and click on "whois" on the bottom, which tells you where the internet service provider is based. In this case, it's Belgrade, Serbia. Don't tell us where you live, just ask yourself if that location is close enough to pose any threat to you. Regardless, an admin should, at the very least, block that IP address for awhile and give you some proper advice. Baseball Bugs 04:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast response. I was a little taken aback by the vulgarity of the comment, and will be deleting it from my Discussion page post haste. Zidel333 (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's probably just an empty threat, but if you do live near/in Belgrade, Serbia, you can never be too careful. Useight (talk) 04:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. - He was blocked by East718. Useight (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Spy89

This user is continuosly reverting my edits, without bothering to see the results. He has been sufficently warned and duly reported on . He is constantly vandalising my edits.

He also appears to have sock-puppet acounts User:ReadandWrite123 Ajjay (talk) 05:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked'em... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Stone put to sky continues to make personal attacks

User:Stone put to sky was recently blocked for 3RR violations, using multiple sockpuppets, personal attacks against me, and violating WP:Username by making attack accounts on my name. Unfortunately, this seems to have little effect and he now continues to make personal attacks: "You really need to get out more.", "you are either lying or just phonetically-challenged".Ultramarine (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note asking Stone put to sky (talk · contribs) to calm down a little, but neither of the above diffs are especially terrible, so I don't think it needs any more than that at the moment. If he carries on, please leave another note on this board, however. Neıl ☎ 13:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User: PunjabiConviction

User:AjayKumarMehta User:99.238.149.188 User:Spy89 Looks like sock puppet. constantly reverting my edits.. Was banned asUser:Spy89, but now is operating under User: PunjabiConviction. Harrasing me on my talk page.. What should i do? Leave wiki! Can't administrators help me!Ajjay (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked indef as a block-avoiding sock. Black Kite 12:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:168.170.197.10

Could some admin have a closer look at this IP-address? It looks like a continuous flow of disruption and vandalism.

Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 04.03.2008 13:57

That IP originates at a school (see the talk page) and, to me, the vandalism doesn’t look persistent enough to warrant a block at this time. —Travis 14:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:VivianDarkbloom

VivianDarkbloom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I recently censured this editor for violation of WP:NPA per two recent edits which accused two established editors of sockpuppetry and WP:COI violations. However this account, ironically, turns out to be a 2nd account itself (see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ophelia Benson and this conversation). Using an alternate account is not reason for sanction in itself, but an examination of the user's editing history reveals many more abuses of NPA (the last sentence of this, from yesterday is revealing; typical others include and a quick scan of the Talkpage history shows the relentless incivility with which the editor responds to others). This is not to mention an editing history which involves a WP:POINT spree of tagging porn biographies for speedy deletion and a 48-hour block for harrassment. The whole history of this account is poor enough for a single account, but is completely in violation of the good hand bad hand rules. Thoughts? Black Kite 15:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Block the user until we're given a suitable explanation. We did the same to Eyrian. Will 15:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've had run-ins with this user in the past as well, and it seems she dropped off the map shortly after her 3RR block in January and only resurfaced today. As far as the alternate account goes, is there any evidence that it's in violation of WP:GHBH? I don't believe Vivian has publicized the name of the original account (although it's possible that she notified Arbcom per WP:SOCK#Alternative account notification), but--putting aside the fact that this particular assumption of good faith results in a head-splitting paradox--isn't it just as likely that the behavior on the original account is no better than the behavior on this one? --jonny-mt 16:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't care much for head-splitting paradoxes. Just as an intellectual exercise, how would your treatment of VivianDarkbloom differ between the case of her alternate account being a second bad hand vs. being a good hand?Kww (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Technically, I am actually assuming good faith by assuming this is the bad-hand account of a good one. It is of course equally likely that the other account is just as tendentious. Black Kite 16:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to sound like I was suggesting that you're not--I just wanted to mention that in the absence of evidence one way or the other, the two possibilities are equally likely.

With regards to Kww's question, the answer is that two tendentious accounts would mean that we have an honest issue with the user's approach to editing, and so the standard dispute resolution process (probably WP:WQA or WP:RFC/U) is probably the best place to turn for a solution. A good hand/bad hand set up would mean that the user is cynically trying to game the system and disrupt the encyclopedia, which means that blocks and bans should be considered to prevent further disruption. BUT...all of this is hypothetical at this point :) --jonny-mt 16:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It could be argued - and I would - that a second account being used so tendentiously is not sanctioned at all by the legitimate uses defined in WP:SOCK, though. Black Kite 17:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree - I don't think WP:SOCK gives anyone license to use a second account in such a disruptive manner. I'd block the account indefinitely, with the autoblock disabled, and ask this editor to restrict themselves to their primary account. Either their primary account is better behaved (in which case it's a good hand-bad hand scenario), or the primary account is just as bad (in which case they're running multiple disruptive accounts). Either way, I'd start by blocking the VivianDarkbloom account and restricting them to whatever other Nabokovian account name they might be using. MastCell  19:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: I will let this discussion run for a while longer before taking any action. Black Kite 20:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

  Ah... I reviewed the matter, concluded that it was appropriate and enacted the indef block. I commented at User talk:VivianDarkbloom#Indefinite block for abuse of alternate account, linking back here for the rationale. Since the block is enacted I think you should proceed from here. I shall take no further part other than to accept responsibility for making the block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• No problem. To be honest, I don't think this is a particularly controversial block. Black Kite 20:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Philip Baird Shearer

For this user, any sports team like those of the Associação Académica de Coimbra, must be referred to by the English name. Since almost all the articles of sports teams articles in this Wiki use native language designations for the teams name, I (and other users) don't agree with this administrator actions. Besides that, this user/admin does the same errors and abuses over and over again. He has done a mess with the article Associação Académica de Coimbra (AAC), the AAC's sports teams, and related content. He broke all the rules in the survey on the same article and got a lot of complaints but he still thinks he is doing the good thing. For more info read the talk pages: , and here . He can't be serious. Yodaki (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

He is serious. He is also correct, per our policy. Leithp 16:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Which is the more common usage when the subject is written about in English? If its the English translation, then that should be the name of the article and the way it is mentioned within the article. As the convention says, include all other used forms of the name in the first paragraph. You can typically refer to the group acronym of the non-English name (Such as FARC, PKK, BJP, etc.). Avruch 16:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:213.97.51.67

This user's edits and comments are much too often pure racism and personal attacks. The user seems to have hold the Macedonians in low regard, and has repeatedly made highly insulting comments on pages like the talk page of Republic of Macedonia. Moreover, he attacks all users that are non-Greek, calling us trolls, calling for us to be banned and arguing that we have no right to take part in Misplaced Pages. The only "offense" users like us have committed is pointing out the established Misplaced Pages policy WP:MOSMAC to this extreme nationalist. I find it highly insulting to be called a troll for that, and I find it offensive that the user calls for people to be "indefinitely banned" , from Misplaced Pages for not sharing his opinion. JdeJ (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Warned . Sorry for a bit of troll-feeding, couldn't resist. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

ForeverFreeSpeech

ForeverFreeSpeech (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been making insane accusations on Israel-Palestine conflict and the associated talk page, as well as Barack Obama and elsewhere.

• (Undid revision 195817741 by Eleland (talk) undo hizbullshit)
• (undo hamasshole)
• ‎ (undo obama campaign staffer)
• "I love how you're completely trying to mistranslate things to justify your racism. Grow up and get a clue, neither the SS, nor the KKK, nor any of the other groups you hang with are in vogue any more."
• "Could it be you support terrorism and want to find a way to attack Israel using deliberate mistranslation and anti-semitic ramblings as a wedge? Accusations of Jews as "Nazis" seem like something you and your hezbollah friends do a lot of."

I'm not familiar with the whole CheckUser / SSP thing, but I get a strong, strong vibe of the indef-banned User:CltFn. The incivility alone is intolerable, but someone should look into that as well. <eleland/talkedits> 16:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Having reminded the user several times to calm down, but watching the rhetoric going on in the associated pages, I wish all sides were able to calm down. Categorizing someone as "making insane accusations" isn't very helpful to anything, and the user's not had the best time with getting bitten either. M1rth (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

at this time, ForeverFreeSpeech (talk · contribs) has been blocked; the talk page and block log messages seem slightly contradictory, and I don't think it falls into "harassment". I agree the 24-hour block is probably wise.

however, he's not the only one being incivil and I think that bears noting. Your rhetoric and behavior haven't been helpful either, Eleland. M1rth (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't an issue of "sides," m1rth. I have not done anything remotely comparable to FFF. It's interesting that you, a supposedly very new user, are here at ANI defending FFF, again. It's also interesting that you both edit on the same controversial topics. Tell me, M1rth, is this your only WP account? <eleland/talkedits> 17:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• sigh* It looks a heck of a lot like "sides" if you read the talk pages, Eleland. Then again, the poisonous nature of the Israeli/Palestinian debate almost ensures that's what it is. I've been trying my level best to get people to calm down on a number of pages, as well as having to work cleaning up the mess made by a nasty anti-Israel sockpuppetteer on FOOD articles of all things recently, not to mention well-meaning editors with faulty "anti-vandal" tools and/or judgement who kept thinking the cleanup itself was "vandalism"... I'm going to go lie down and get an advil for the migraine this is giving me. M1rth (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that this smacks of CltFn. A checkuser might be appropriate on both FFS and M1rth, in my view. Bellwether _C 18:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• I suspect I'm out of line here but I'd have blocked indef, due to complete failure to engage or fix behaviour after multiple warnings, suspicion of sockpuppetry and so on. As it is, the block will expire in 24h and someone will likely have to come back and report them again. Guy (Help!) 18:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • ForeverFreeSpeech has been warned numerous times and has made absolutely no concession to appropriate editing behavior. The 24 hours is extremely generous - the next block should be for 1 month to indefinite. WP:BITE is only half the story - a combative, pugnacious user who's unwilling to take any sort of step toward editing civilly or collaboratively is going to be shown the door in short order, as they should be. I'm absolutely sure that they are not the only editor behaving badly on the pages in question - for instance, I warned Kahmed (talk · contribs) around the same time yesterday for edit-warring - and I'd be open to M1rth's assertions if they were backed by diffs. Alternately, it may be better to take this to WP:AE since the article falls under the Palestinian-Israeli ArbCom decision. MastCell  19:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Florentino floro

Dear Adims I am contacting you about a user who I believe should be blocked. His name is User:Florentino floro. I know our community is supposed to assume good faith, but I have reason to believe he is criminally insane. You can totally shoot me down for this but I am concerned about letting him have access to the site. For more information, (I used to ahve refrences but they shut down!) please just google his name. He was involed in a major case and it shouldn't be hard to find. Thank you Skeletor 0 (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This looks like trolling at first glance, but I took a minute to google it (AGF and all that) and I think a more obvious explanation is that the user in question is not, in fact, the same person as Florentino Floro, but Skeletor 0 has made the unfortunate mistake of thinking he is. Actually, it looks like the user does in fact claim to be the notable person in question. I don't know what to make of this. —Random832 17:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

He claims to be the same person. I made sure of that before bringing this to your attention.Skeletor 0 (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

He does say he's the Filipino judge, and based on his edits, he is a Filipino (or has at least spent time there, like I have, as he only edits Philippine-related articles). Useight (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Florentino's scope is certainly what would be expected of someone that is native to the Philippines, and he has demostrated interest in the Florentino Floro article, now if we are indeed dealing with the man himself we will have to be very careful when judging his edits, a man that claims to have seen "dwarves", "elves" or something of the sort may certainly not be trolling, remember to assume good faith. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I know and love the idea of AGF but he has been deemed to be suffering from psychosis by a court of law. I am not attacking him, I am just expressing a concern. Skeletor 0 (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not the same as "criminally insane" (though I can see where you might think that) - what they decided was that he was unfit to continue serving as a judge. He wasn't thrown in jail. —Random832 18:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I see your point there (thanks for being nice about it!) but I still wonder that while he may think he is make edits in good faith he has been pushing his own views (which are may not be sound) on several issues. Skeletor 0 (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(Florentino Floro again??) I used to be in contact by e-mail with him and I can confirm he is Florentino Floro. That being said, we had the same conversation last week, and I don't think this is helpful to call him insane in a public forum. If you have precise concerns, please link exact incidents. For now I don't think this is an administrative issue. -- lucasbfr 18:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know that this issue had already been discussed. If you don't mind, I would like to know why you think this is pointless. Skeletor 0 (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Suffering from some mental condition is not enought to justify a block, unless we can't prove that he is willingly breaking policy we can't block based on that, there is no WP:INSANE yet. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is an administrative issue because only admins have the powers to watch and control him if nessicary. Skeletor 0 (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok thank you for your help. I will watch him and report any violations. Cheers Skeletor 0 (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Betacommandbot

• Moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#Categories

Meucci

Meucci has engaged in troll-like behaviour on the article, Alexander Graham Bell, including "following me home" and I really prefer WP:DNFT. Any suggestions would be appreciated. FWIW Bzuk (talk).

I've indef blocked. As Bzuk commented in the reverts to Alexander Graham Bell, Meucci's edits would be more appropriate in the Meucci article (with proper citations). However, the comment to User talk:Bzuk was so bizarre as to leave me little option. I welcome a review of my block, and have no problem with an unblock if the editor can provide a good reason for their latter comments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

JdeJ

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:JdeJ

Please, have a look at the latest edits of this person. He has been trolling and insulting Greek people because of his biased and impartial point of view. Additionally, he has removed a complaint from his profile, referring to his attitude, as if he was trying to hide something. He does not seem to understand that the articles have to be impartial and satisfy all parties and keeps attacking editors and explicitly calling them trolls and accusing them of nationalist POV. I am pretty sure that if wikipedia followed the United Nations convention, both parties would be satisfied and these kind of situations and kindergarten fights would not happen again in the future. I dislike seeing fellow Greeks being attacked like that.

87.221.5.113 (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Um...You realise the terms 'biased' and 'impartial' are mutually exclusive, right? HalfShadow (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing any of that. I'm seeing calm, rational discussion from him and nasty attacks from you, that were rightly removed (WP:CAIN) and restored by you. You're trying to paint him with a particular viewpoint that his recent edits don't appear to support. Therefore, I would conclude that the problem is at your end. Perhaps you should try discussing calmly and rationally what you are seeking, rather than attacking and telling tales to get what you want? Just a suggestion. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 19:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Recreation of Category:Rouge admins by Hu12

The category Category:Rouge admins was deleted by UCfD, and restored today (complete with history and other content) by Hu12. VegaDark posted to Hu12's talkpage, noting the CSD criteria of recreation of material substantially identical to that previously deleted. There is no assertion that the closure was outside of process or an incorrect interpretation of consensus, and no DRV as far as I remember. The category should probably be redeleted, no? It looks like its being passed over by the CSD patrol folks. Avruch 19:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Hu12 just cleared out the content except the names. User:MaxSem is the one that restored the cat. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ 19:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hu12 undeleted it, per the page log. MaxSem reverted the category to a prior revision and removed a tag. Avruch 19:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, should have looked at the log first. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ 19:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is being ignored, at least by me, being a nice refreshing glass of poison. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 19:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hu12 is often brusque, but rarely acts without good reason. I see that you engaged with him, but he often needs a little extra prodding to fully explain what he's up to. Ronnotel (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Redeleted as G4 here Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Will exciting wheel warring ensue? Avruch 19:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL..No wheel war. I'll cleanup the 17 pages populating it. --Hu12 (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That didn't work last time. Good luck! ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 19:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I'm just worried that this will lead to an edit war. A sampling of pages still in the category shows that many of them were removed and the bot was since reverted. —Random832 19:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Of all the admins I know, Hu12 is by far the most likely to be successful in this particular task. Make of that what you will. ;) Ronnotel (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That may be, but he's already been reverted at least twice since starting to remove the cat... --Onorem♠Dil 20:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeing how there was already a discussion on this page, that concluded remaining in the deleted category was perfectly acceptable, he'll likely be reverted. - auburnpilot talk 20:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL. I guess someone should probably tell him. Ronnotel (talk)

5 pages reverted back, oh well..what does one expect from Rouge admins..I'd revert it to. Guess I'll get my share of hate mail for trying..--Hu12 (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This just goes to show that there really needs to be a policy about users re-adding deleted categories to their userpage. Hu12 acted in good faith creating the category, thinking that it should be created due to members still being in it. This isn't the first time this type of thing has happened, and such re-adding disrupts the function of Special:Wantedcategories. Personally I think re-adding should be disallowed, unless there is some way to make the pages not show up in Special:Wantedcategories. VegaDark (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Users have been blocked for re-adding deleted categories to their userpage. It's not clear why it being an admin category, and the users being admins, should mean they get special treatment. —Random832 20:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This certainly isn't the only category that users are re-adding themselves to after deletion. See Category:Gayass Wikipedians, Category:Queer Wikipedians, Category:Gay Wikipedians, and Category:Irreligious Wikipedians just to name a few. VegaDark (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And see the discussion had about the issue at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 19#Categorizing in a deleted category. And additionally, it doesn't "disrupts the function of Special:Wantedcategories" because, well, they are wanted categories. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ 20:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive370#Red links (Category:Rouge admins). - auburnpilot talk 20:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Random832 has started Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2008_March_4#Category:Rouge_admins. --Hu12 (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I was looking for this thread to let people know about it, but yeah. My basic argument is - if people are allowed to categorize themselves in deleted categories, what's the point of ever deleting any user category? (next up: MFD/UCFD) —Random832 20:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It would have to be done on the delevopers level, to restrict automatic additions to those cats...probably complicated (I assume)--Hu12 (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Or we could actually get rid of Category:Rouge admins as well as Category:Gayass Wikipedians, Category:Queer Wikipedians, Category:Gay Wikipedians, and Category:Irreligious Wikipedians these are obviously wikilawyering there way around the deletion. The Categories must Cease to Be. 21:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

<-And this would be achieved how? Other than by edit warring over them, there is nothing to be done. Since there is nothing to be done, there is less stress all round by ignoring redlinked user categories. Mainly because we have no choice. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 21:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Simple, make policy explicit that once a category has been deleted it must be removed from user pages and not re-added, our policy abiding editors will do that. Those that don't, well thats a job for an admin, edit warring should never be an option. 22:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's evaluate that for a second: once the category has been deleted, does leaving the text on the user page do any harm? Is it different from any other text on a user page? - Philippe | Talk 02:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

YES, and it all depends on why the category in question was deleted, in the case of Category:Rouge admins which was in large part due to the category fostering of negative attitudes on wikipedia, the harm is still being done because the category is still there because i can still tell who is a "rouge admin". 03:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? It seems to me that a category is a category (a list of similar subjects or people) only if it's...well, a category. Otherwise it's text on the page. For instance, what if AdminXYZ123 typed on their userpage that they're a "rouge admin" without the trailing and leading brackets? At what point have we crossed a line? It seems to me that the community has spoken about the existence of the category, but I'm loathe to take action on someone for just having the words on their userpage. - Philippe | Talk 03:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The difference, once you start moving from just plain text to wikimarkup such as templates, links and category tags (whether the category page exists or not) is that inbuilt tools exist to see the members of the network. For templates (ie. userboxes) lots of fancy stuff can be done, but essentially, like links, you can use "what links here" to see a list of pages with that link or template on the page. Category tags can similarly be used to view a list by clicking on the category tag - this takes you to a listing even if the category tag is a redlink. The only differences, I think, between a pseudo-category (redlinked) and one where the category page has been created, is that the created category has an editable page that can be annotated with an introduction and explanation. Also, if the category has more than 200 members, I think you can only see the category members on subsequent pages (using the "next 200" link) if the category page has been created. There may be other differences as well. Carcharoth (talk) 04:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Will BetacommandBot get blocked again if it removes this category from userpages? After all, it was deleted through UCFD and endorsed through DRV, but that doesn't seem to make much of a difference to the admins involved here. Horologium (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Being in Category:Rouge Admins is funnier if it's red, anyway. --Masamage ♫ 03:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Wouldn't it be nice if you could HIDE a deleted (and hence redlinked) category (Using the HIDDENCAT magic word). Imagine the fun vandals would have with that! :-) In any case, people who want to identify as "Rouge admins" or "Gayass Wikipedians" or "Irreligious Wikipedians" can still do so without categories. Just remove the categories from the userboxes, and ask people without userboxes to add self-identifying text, rather than a catgegory tag. It's all a bit WP:LAME really, but unless people stop climbing the Reichstag, it will end up in arbitration like the userbox wars did. Carcharoth (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • More helpfully, a clear distinction should be drawn between "identifying as" categories and "collaboration" categories. For example Category:Wikipedians with an interest in collaborative editing of LGBT articles (actually, there is a WikiProject category for that) would be the collaborative category, while Category:Queer Wikipedians would be the self-identification category. But I'm sure this has all been said before. Carcharoth (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • It has all been said before. Unfortunately, that apparently makes too much sense for the dramah club. Please stop acting in an understandable manner. (For clarification, the "dramah club" includes everyone making a big deal about insignificant sh stuff like this from both sides of the silly dispute.) --Onorem♠Dil 04:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC) -updated at 28
      • Where is the most coherent of the previous discussion? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Cult free world -- persistent personal attacks despite 5 warnings

Cult free world (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a user who makes "harmonious editing difficult or impossible" and demonstrates "a clear intent to disrupt Misplaced Pages." As proof, he repeatedly attacks anyone who has expertise or an interest in eastern spiritual traditions as being members of cults and labels even simple meditation groups cults, in order to promote his very strong "CultFreeWorld" POV (consistent with his username).

He has been warned multiple times, yet still continues to escalate his attacks and lies, most recently accusing me of being "paid" by a "cult" to work on Wiki when I'm not even a member of this group. Here are his warnings:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ASahaj_Marg_India&diff=195631919&oldid=195624393
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ASahaj_Marg_India&diff=195647299&oldid=195644852
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ASahaj_Marg_India&diff=195786209&oldid=195783290
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ASahaj_Marg_India&diff=195835390&oldid=195834925
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ACult_free_world&diff=195648124&oldid=195646785

Here are some examples of personal attacks and offensive labeling of groups.

1. Here he calls an admin with expertise in eastern spiritual traditions a "cult-promoter" and intentionally mis-states facts and tells lies in order to mislead other editors (i.e., asserting that people want to hide information, saying that admin Jossi deleted the original article when can't sleep clowns will get me did, etc.)
2. Here he adds anti-cult blogs, promoting his POV and in violation with WP:RS and WP:V.
3. Here he labels a meditation group a cult; this is on par with going onto an Islam page and calling all muslims terrorists.
4. Here he adds an anti-cult blog source to a legitimate article; again, in violation of WP:RS and WP:V.
5. Here he attacks the administrator again, calling him a cult member and making false accusations.
6. Here others note his tendency to troll and call names.
7. Here he calls me a "cult-promoter" and makes false accusations, when I've never even interacted with him before (unless, of course, he is a sock of previous editors involved in edit wars on the deleted pages, which I strongly suspect; please see User:Rushmi and User:Shashwat_pandey).
8. Here he bolds "cult member" after being warned three times for WP:NPA, showing his intention to continue to attack.
9. Here he gives a blanket statement calling all people who disagree with him "cult members."
10. Here he moves a heading in an attempt to subvert the process and further promote his views on cults. (I had created a header for sources where an admin had stated the guidelines for what would be good sources, and CultFree assumed poor faith and moved it as a further show of disruptive editing.)
11. Here he starts lying outright, accusing me of being a member of "this cult" (which I am not) and expanding his untrue accusations, saying I am a "paid" to edit this page.
12. Here he attacks me as being mentally disturbed.

These diffs show a clear and persistent pattern of disruptive editing and personal attacks in line with his username, in order to promote his POV.

I have tried following procedures regarding his username, which others have found offensive too (e.g., see this), and again he fails to make any meaningful attempt for discussion, see this. When I attempt to work on the article he is creating, he says, stop and wait (see this), then he recruited someone to help him write the article consistent with his POV (see this). There is not attempt at civility or cooperation in developing articles.

I request CultFreeWorld be banned from editing articles of an eastern spiritual nature, given his stated purpose and pattern of posts that promote a strong negative POV toward these groups. Wiki is not the place for agendas (and certainly not in their usernames!) and those who derogatorily label whole groups or classes of people do not belong here. He has demonstrated an unwillingness to cease engaging in personal attacks (and even escalated his attacks in the face of warnings by making false statements). In addition, he has now recruited a person to write a POV article while not allowing opposing viewpoints voice. None of this belongs on Wiki. Renee (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody else has warned them, and the two of you seem to be battering each other a bit. That said, I agree that they're over the line, and left a level 3 NPA warning on their talk page.

It would be best if you disengage from discussions with them except in article talk space, to avoid aggrivating the situation. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The personal attacks to me were concerning enough to merit a one week block. If anyone has issues with this, feel free to undo it.¤~Persian Poet Gal 20:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will remain civil and on content. Regarding Georgewilliamherbert's statement above,here is one other admin warning him too and here and here the same user has to remove persistent trolling. Renee (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did this even merit a discussion. User's name implies an SPA. User makes personal attacks in support of his POV. User has few to no constructive edits otherwise. A week seems too short to me. ⇒SWATJester 00:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

True dat. Definitely a reasonable block. MastCell  04:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring and BLP issues on Darko Trifunović

This has been a perpetual problem - we have both Bosnian and Serb extremists trying to edit war the article on a Bosnian Serb security expert who may or may not be a genocide denier (Darko Trifunović). BLP issues right and left. Edit warring. Possible attempts at whitewash by the article's subject and others.

I just blocked an IP and an editor on one side, and warned someone on the other (who may be trying to whitewash, but is behaving much better on the whole). If other previously uninvolved admins would like to come in and take a look more eyes and viewpoints would be helpful. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in. I've tried to monitor the article and intervene in this dispute for quite a while, but to no avail. As George William Herbert rightly says, there are two sides in this dispute: one side tries to attack Trifunovic and the ethnic group to which he belongs, while the other side tries to attack those attacking Trifunovic. This article has been a magnet for BLP violations, legal threats, pov-pushing, soapboxing, fringe theories, unreliable sources, incivility and assumptions of bad faith. Aecis 23:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

i have been wroking to improve the atmosphere of hts article by clearing up any ungrammatical and badly spelled mistakes in the article. it is my bleief that in order to reduce the negative enrgy in the article it must be beautified, so ir ecommend adding this article to either WP:Bosnia or WP:Serbia to increase an influx of wikifairies with good attitudes to coutneract the behavior shown on ocassion in contentious aritlces such as this. Smith Jones (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a less-than-hopeful view that bringing in either side would have positive results, but not doing so hasn't worked either. Hopefully the project people are better behaved. Perhaps the article should be deleted to make the controversy go away; as far as I can tell, Mr. Trifunovic is by our normal standards not hugely notable in the first place, though I didn't think that calling for article deletion earlier would be seen as positive. Perhaps it should be, if bringing in a project doesn't help. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, look, another IP editor joins the fight.... Zzzzzap. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

...And another. I've semi-protected the article for now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

thank you for you intervention but i see semi-rpotection as a temporary solution. a good one, but you cant have this article semi-protected for all eternity or until all the edit warriors die of old age. and it wont take long for them to be able to circumfent the protection either and figure out a way to cause more havoc than even before. perhaps it would be better to warn or ban the really egregious ofenders and really introduce editors from the WikiProjects. i find that editors dedicated to a particular segment are more likely to be more conscientous of wikipeida policies (altough i am not stereotyping editors who remain unafiliated) and it certainly couldnt hurt. I really cant recomend deleting the article over this, since there are lots of other controversial articles and if deleting them was seen as a solution to debate then prety soon we will only have a handufl of articles lying around anywhere in the world. Smith Jones (talk) 04:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: apparnetly i aan "extremist Muslim propagandist". despite the fact that i have added no content to the articles of yet and hav eonly corrected a few formatting and spelling errors (it looks like the article was translated from some other language to English rather poorly). for an extremist Muslim propagandist i am surprisnygly tame. Smith Jones (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Long term low grade BLP attacks

152.130.8.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been performing long term low grade attack vandalism against particular named individuals. Note today and several edits targeting a different individual including this from Feb. 11. The individual has returned every few months since summer 2006 to target the same people. Could be the same individual who started this deleted attack article, based upon the name of the target, the interest in Parma, Ohio, and word choice. Has never been blocked and received only 2 warnings.

Misplaced Pages has been weak at identifying and responding to persistent low grade BLP attackers. An unrelated example is this IP address, which remained unblocked for a long term series of misogynist attacks even though the user made statewide news in South Dakota for Misplaced Pages edits that attempted to derail the reelection campaign of congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin. We need to keep our eyes open for this kind of problem. Durova 21:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

WIKISTALK case with UWMSports

I believe I have a case of WP:WIKISTALK with User:UWMSports . Please see the above link for evidence. --Josh (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Without going through the whole editing history, I note that the main contention is that the other editor is (quite correctly) replacing merge tags that you are removing on an article that is a quite clear merge/redirect candidate. Black Kite 22:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No one is stalking User:SportsMaster. I don't think I'm doing anything out of the ordinary adding stub, source, or merger tags for articles that surely need it. Look at his contribs and you'll see pages such as Maxwell Show. Here Josh reverted my merge tag suggestion several times. I brought in User:Tony Fox to look at the page and he agreed with my assessment. I also nominated Yahoo! Fantasy Sports for deletion which was discussed and came to a no consensus decision. But obviously more than myself agreed that that page was in bad shape. I suggested to Josh that he expand his current articles before starting new ones. I just simply put tags in those appropriate spots. There would not be a problem here if Josh simply communicated with those who have interest in some of the pages he has similar interest in. Look at my talk history with him at User talk:SportsMasterESPN and User talk:SportsMaster, then look at his responses. You won't find any. SportsMaster clearly has conflict of interests with his creations and feels he can work alone and not take suggestions from other users. That is not how Misplaced Pages works! -UWMSports (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is an admin issue, really; the page I was pointed to definitely needs a merge. I'd suggest that SportsMaster use article talk pages to discuss issues brought up by other users (I didn't see any such talk discussions in his contribs), and that UWMSports maybe try to stay clear of articles SportsMaster works on, to avoid conflict. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Kent Hovind

There's a hell currently going on on this page... I've gotta go to bed and can't investigate claims of POV/vandalism/possible sockpuppetry, so heads up... MaxSem 22:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• His teeth remind me of someone. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I filed a CU case in what appears to be a fairly clear cut case of socking (since the IP accounts gave different whois results). Case is listed here. I also restored the page to the last good version. Baegis (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

TiconderogaCCB

There is a vote going on based on the opinion of user TiconderogaCCB. Out of nowhere there seems to be a lot of Vote fraud Since Ticon is obviously from Pennsylvania and and we have a number of new edits from accounts that are pennsylvania based and , . I'm going to move to simply ignore these random ip "votes" any opinions? Uconnstud (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

As noted on the talk page, many of these votes are coming from SJU Alumni Association members in Pennsylvania. These are individuals with a vested interest in the integrity of the article. However, even if you ignore these votes, you cannot ignore the input from users without an interest in the article, who have all indicated a preference for Option 1 (not UConnstud's article). This vote should remain open. If you want to ignore or combine the PA votes as one, do so, but we cannot fully ignore the preferences of all users and individuals with interest in the article. You cannot close a vote simply because its not going your way. --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as the vote goes, Misplaced Pages operates on consensus, not voting, and so you're both technically free to ignore whatever votes you wish. If you are concerned about sock/meat puppetry in violation of policy, you should either provide more information here if the puppetry is blatant and time-sensitive (e.g. specific diffs clearly indicating connections between the accounts) or open a case at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets. I've left some additional comments on your individual talk pages. --jonny-mt 04:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oop, check that last bit. User:Ultraexactzz beat me to it. --jonny-mt 04:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by Classic Tendentious Editor

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Scientific_investigation_of_chiropractic&diff=next&oldid=195763645 revert-happy vandalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Scientific_investigation_of_chiropractic&diff=next&oldid=195896428 revert-happy vandalism

Levine2112 vandalized an article twice in a row because he does not like what the text says. The information is heavily referenced and is in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy. Editor does not explain his reverts of massive content deletion of an article that is under homeopathy probation. Levine2112 attempted to remove the probation warning from the talk page. Involved editors should not remove the probation warning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive378#SPA_User:_Anthon01_and_similar_accounts_on_homeopathy_and_WP:FRINGE_alternative_medicine_articles

Here is a previous discussion above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive126#Question_about_Twinkle_use

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Levine2112

Here is some background information on Levine2112's behaviour above.

I recommend an WP:INDEF block per gaming the system by Levine2112's WP:SPA. Respectfully, QuackGuru (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at your first two diffs (the "revert-happy vandalism"), I see you and Levine2112 edit-warring, and you labeling this obvious content dispute as "vandalism". Contrary to your third paragraph, Levine2112 did comment on the talk page regarding his revert (), though this did occur after you came here demanding an indefinite block for what appears to be one of many content disputes the two of you have engaged in. Since the first 3 paragraphs are all based on erroneous or misleading assertions, I have to admit I didn't read further, but maybe someone else will. MastCell  04:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, both Levine2112 (talk · contribs) and QuackGuru (talk · contribs) have been blocked for 12 hours by Vsmith for edit-warring over the tag on the talk page. Which I fully support. MastCell  05:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please review my block of

XNathanBurnsx (talk · contribs) (Special:DeletedContributions/XNathanBurnsx) for recreating this attack page and as a likely sock of NathanBurns (talk · contribs) (Special:DeletedContributions/NathanBurns), who was indef blocked for creating this attack page. Under the circumstances, I thought it best to not leave matters at a final notice. Dlohcierekim 23:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearly vandal only accounts, Its a good block as far as I can tell.--Hu12 (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, an obvious sock with obvious malintentions and no interest in being a model wikipedian. Endorse. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: NathanBurns was already blocked. Dlohcierekim 23:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Single purpose campaign behaviour on WP

Following on from Misplaced Pages:ANI#Use_of_arbcom_in_content_dispute, and before he comes here to set an admin on me (for what I don't know), it is now apparent that all this user is logging in for is to monitor his 'campaign', and pursuant to that, harass and threaten me. If what he says is true by the way, then I think it's quite sad that this status quo is apparently achieved with users going on organised campaigns, and the majority sitting back for a quiet life, rather then there being an official policy on the matter. It's clear he won't quit stalking me if I revert, and I've observed first hand the alarming retrospective punishment bans that apparently can be applied without warning for 3RR days after the event, so I am serving notice to replace the flags with the 'official' flag, not the contentious one, not being happy with the proposed solution of removing them all. If he has a problem with that, then someone can tell me where to find the 'no flags at all' policy. MickMacNee (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, he probably shouldn't have phrased it like that. Anyway, User:JzG solved the problem this morning (), as I suggested yesterday. The "official" flag is the Union Flag, which seems a little pointless in that particular template.Black Kite 00:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That's what I was referring to, in this case solving the problem seems to be removing the problem on the presence of a campaign, as opposed to consensus or policy. This guy has a campaign strategy for forcing his version of articles, based on no policy I have seen yet, and it appears to work. I would rather see 4 flags than none, and if the NI one has to be the official one to satisfy this guy, no problem to me, it's just his method and the community response I have a problem with. MickMacNee (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • You probably need to read the entire history of related talkpages on this issue (actually, no, don't bother, it'll take you years). No real consensus has ever been reached, but an uneasy truce seems to have settled on the fact that the Union Flag is generally used for NI (as, after all, it IS the official flag) except in sport-related articles, where the Ulster Banner flag is still used IRL to denote the country. Black Kite 00:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Buh6173 (talk · contribs)

• This guy has been a thorn in my side for some time now. He insists that the Manual of Style for anime and manga somehow does not apply to unaired episodes of the anime Zatch Bell!, even though an RfC I opened some time ago confirmed that this was the case. And now he has resorted to leaving insults on my talk page and keeping them on even after I revert them. I would like an admin to tell him in no uncertain terms to not leave any more messages on my talk page and that the matter regarding Zatch Bell! is settled. I don't want to deal with him anymore. JuJube (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Krzyzowiec and extreme incivility / edit warring

• Krzyzowiec (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

Hello. I would like to request a block, or at least official warning. The case is following. I added to this completely unreferenced article: All-Polish Youth some sources and User:Krzyzowiec continues to whitewash it. I asked him on the talk page - - to stop removing valid references. He replied - - with harsh uncivil comments, calling me "socialist" and accusing me of "communistic propaganda", for instance. Moreover, he again blanked whole my constructive contributions, see , calling me "left-liberal kid" etc., in edit summaries. He also blanked references in similar article - - with mocking edit summary "NAnanNANa". If some anonymous IP would do this, it would be no problem to block it but this is other case, because it is registered user. Personally I think his uncivil behavior and removal of content is pure vandalism. He continues to vandalize both mentioned articles reverting various users, see and . Please, take some action. Thank you. - Darwinek (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Geez. He called you a socialist, a communist, and a Nazi all in one post. Avruch 00:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning issued. A block might be appropriate anyway, but we'll see what happens. Avruch 00:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

For recent edit summaries, see the following:

Avruch 01:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Angrymansr

First he attacks me very rudely: and . Then there is this: , where he messed with what I posted. He's had a grudge with me for a while, and I'm fed up with it. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You should probably see Dispute Resolution and maybe a little bit of this. --EoL talk 01:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

At any rate, incivility in that form is unacceptable. I left a note on their talk page. seicer | talk | contribs 02:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Major move vandalism

I need some help here: A vandal (I indef blocked him) moved an extreme number of pages, and they need to be moved back. the vandalism. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that is a ton! I have been moving pages back for 5 minutes now and there are still pages to go. This user really loves the number 41... hm... Tiptoety 01:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's good he did not move the whole Misplaced Pages..:) First time I have seen a mover vandal. He must have read WP:BEANS. We should update WP:ABF this is notable for the article! "My user id has 41 so all Misplaced Pages articles should have 41 in them, because I own Misplaced Pages" A clear vilation of WP:OWN Igor Berger (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Too bad the user didn’t stop at 41 moves. :/ Good job cleaning up that massive mess. —Travis 03:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

He/she should start wiki41.org then they can have all articles end with 41. Igor Berger (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Your warnings to the vandal should have read, "If we've asked you once (to stop vandalizing), we've asked you 41 times..." Jonneroo (talk) 03:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

User:JimmyjOHNS38

I've reverted two uncompleted AfD's done by JimmyjOHNS38 (talk · contribs) which I considered to be done in bad faith (Hewlett-Packard was one article). Hope this was ok. If not, please let me know. Thanks. --NeilN 03:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like you did the right thing. The articles simply had the AfD template added and were never properly submitted. It looks like the user was properly warned, but I’ll keep an eye on their activities for a while anyway. Thanks —Travis 03:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Adult-child sex article lives at User:VigilancePrime/Userfied/Adult-child sex.

Since the CSD tag I posted will probably be turned down, I'm posting about this here to get additional eyeballs. I don't have all the links in my brain at the moment, but this article was:

• Deleted in an AfD
• Endorsed at DRV
• Deleted in userspace
• Overturned at DRV
• Deleted in userspace, again, via MfD
• Endorsed at DRV

And, I'm sure I'm missing a few. The userspace MfD can be found here and the current version of the article can be found here. As you can see, only one edit has been made since this page was created. There are boxes at the top of the page saying it is an "article in progress" and exempt from CSD because it is userfied content. Well, it isn't in progress at all, and I don't see how userfication gets content out of deletion when it was last deleted while in userspace. There has been amply demonstrated consensus that the community does not desire to have this article anywhere on Misplaced Pages - and the fact that it is being recreated yet again should be regarded as disruptive. Avruch 04:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that there should be some sort of community sanction for re-creating this in userspace after so many XfDs and DRVs. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Bye bye. Viridae 04:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

would it be acceptable to keep the material in user space under a different title? I am somewhat disappointed in the DRV being closed after less than the full period. I do not think it impossible to construct an acceptable article out of this material. I suggest that especially in the most contentious XfDs and DRs, there is good reason to allow to allow full time for discussion.DGG (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Guess what's back? seicer | talk | contribs 04:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you (all) for notifying me of this ANI, as is (used to be) customary.

The page is significantly different from those shown above. Also left out was the original AfD that resulted in a keep.

The page is userfied in accordance with policy. I have made no attempt to hide its presence (in fact it is listed in the header template for every userspace page I have).

The page had most of the work done offline so that it would not be a "substantially identical" page. Care was taken to follow WikiPolicies in this matter so as to not be disruptive.

The goal is to take this term which has been used by the New York Times, USA Today, Fox News, and The Washington Post and create a truly neutral article.

I think that among all thus far, DGG has shown the most good faith in this and I agree with him that it is not impossible to construct an acceptable article out of this material. That's the entire purpose of this and the core of Misplaced Pages.

I am not being disruptive. If anything, the harassment that I and (to a far greater extent) others have endured because we seek to better Misplaced Pages through the use of sourced information is disruptive. That I have had to post about this and re-defend it over and over has been disruptive. That I am doing so civilly and in good faith is not disruptive.

Bottom line is that this is a potentially encyclopedic topic and the page is not substantially identical to a deleted page.

• VigilancePrime • • • 05:04 (UTC) 5 Mar '08

User:PaxEquilibrium

In my thinking this user has kidnapped articles Pagania and Tvrtko I of Bosnia and because of that I am asking that he is not allowed any more to edit this articles. On talk page of article Pagania there is consensus that population of that state are not Serbs. Users Marinko (), 83.131.246.108 () ,Afrika Paprika ( ), 193.198.128.12 () ,Marinko8 and Kubura (), 24.80.118.62 and 193.198.128.12 (), Linguae Latinae () . All in all on talk page vote is around 10:1 (HolyRomanEmperor is second name of PaxEquilibrium) that Serbs nationality need to be deleted from article, but Pax is always reverting changes.

In talk page of article Tvrtko I of Bosnia vote is 4:1 that we need to have other version of name writen not only Serbian version and then comments he is sometime called... Users EmirA , ,Aradic-en and Rjecina are asking that Croatian version of name is added. User 78.3.33.176 has demanded that Ikavian version of name is added , but User:PaxEquilibrium are always reverting article to his version which speaks:Stephen Tvrtko I (Stefan, sometimes translated as Stjepan, Stevan,...) is only right version. In begining on talk page even he has recognized that all Bosnian rulers are called Stjepan but latter he has forget that.

He has writen best comment about his editorial style when I have declared on his talk page that I am only interested in legal arguments (about article Podgorica Assembly). His answer has been:"I am not interested just in legal argument I want to gladly inspect the situation as a whole." . Because his editorial style and working against consensus I am asking that he is not allowed anymore to edit articles Pagania and Tvrtko I of Bosnia --Rjecina (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

User:PunjabiConviction11

This is the fifth time i am reporting this sock puppet. And i think this is not going to be ther last. Isn't there a permanent solution Ajjay (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

User:VartanM

This contributor is personally attacking me on the Misplaced Pages board here, calling me "You are immature, fooling around articles, with your childish adding". I never said the words that he is adding and never used "he-he" in my comments. I prefer not to respond to him, but the contributor is also Wikistalking my talk page edits and has been attempting to WP:HARASS before that . The contributor is a party to ArbCom case, and is currently under a parole and supervised editing . Atabek (talk) 05:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards