Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:50, 6 September 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
• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Threats to exterminate me, overdose of lead etc. on my User pages

Hi, I checked my User page and talk page today and found it had some very nasty edits made, threats, wanting me exterminated and given an overdose of lead and so on.

I have now undone the edits but they remain in the history record so I reckon right now it will be easy enough for someone to undo my undones and restore the abusive edits so it is not a satisfactory situation right now to say the least.

This is my user page and my user talk page - Peter Dow (talk)

The abusive and threatening edits have been made both by unsigned IPs interspersed with signed edits by one user called GeorgeFormby1

This is one such edit by IP of my user page to illustrate -

diff IP 82.17.219.182

Helo, my name is peter dow and im a retard, i am a pathetic 47 year old nobody who has committed high treason against the Crown and should be traked down by mi5 and exteminatid.

The abusive threatening edits to my user talk page are

diff IP 86.132.166.95

PETER DOW IS A MENTALLY ILL, DELOUSIONARY FRUITCAKE WHO NEEDS TO BE LOCKED UP FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.166.95 (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

and

diff by IP 82.17.219.182

....Including, of course, the Queen and the entire Royal Family, When a government with some balls gets to power he'll get an overdose of lead-Duce Fox, Defender of the Realm and Crown 22:18, 12 August 3008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.219.182 (talk)

The pattern of edits on my user page done by IP 82.17.219.182 can be seen here and you can see that that IP has been used for the abusive edits of my Peter Dow user page, and to edit, I presume, the culprit GeorgeFormby1's own user page. So if he thinks he is covering his tracks entirely by making unsigned edits he is mistaken.

The edits made by IP 86.132.166.95 are not yet directly associated with anything else that I can see but it looks like the same guy in my opinion based on the timings of the edits - within a few days of each other.

So I need some administrator help to prevent this very malicious, abusive and threatening edits to my user page and to my user talk page.

I am quite new to Misplaced Pages and as a newcomer, it seems to be with Misplaced Pages user pages, is that, it is impossible for the user to protect his or her user pages from abusive and threatening changes - is that right? There is no way actually to take username ownership of your user page, to stop such horrible edits, is there?

So I don't know what action one can take - except initially to report the problem to the administrators. Do you ban editing from troublesome IPs? Well perhaps we can get to the solution once an administrator takes a look at the problem.

Thanks for looking at this and for helping as much as you can.

Peter Dow (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the edits have been oversighted (removed) from your talkpage history. Under the circumstances, the persons able to remove the edits are also likely to be looking at limiting such edits in future so I think this matter can be closed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me LessHeard vanU but the history of both my user page and user talk page seemed unchanged when I revisited those pages - no oversight removal of history edits which I could see - are we looking at the same Peter Dow (talk) pages? Peter Dow (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would advise you to request semi-protection of both pages at WP:RFPP to avoid such things from happening again. It is completely allowed to request such protection :-) SoWhy 13:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks SoWhy for the tip about semi-protection. I will now investigate that and take any action I can to protect my user pages. :) Peter Dow (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put level 3 warnings on both IPs talkpages. If you want to complain to the ISP the July vandalism on your talk page was from a BT IP - their complaint address is abuse@btbroadband.com and you need to send them this link http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Peter_Dow&diff=next&oldid=224544960. The August vandalism to your user page was from an NTL/Virgin IP address and their complaint line is pim@virginmedia.co.uk you'd need to send them this http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User%3APeter_Dow&diff=231534955&oldid=216438185 ref. Hope that helps. ϢereSpielChequers 13:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Gosh. lol Thanks WereSpielChequers Peter Dow (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection will block any IP address from making any changes to your pages. Meanwhile, I'm wondering what an "overdose" of lead would be? That is, what would be a "normal" dose of lead? Anyway, if a registered user similarly vandalizes your pages, you could also get swift action by taking it to WP:AIV. Baseball Bugs 14:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"Overdose of lead" likely refers to shooting him or her with a gun (with lead bullets). It's a common expression. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Aha, as in "I'll fill ya full o' lead." Not good. And then there's the "exterminate" part, which means the authors probably watch too much Dr. Who. Baseball Bugs 16:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Of the two the one I find more worrying is Special:Contributions/82.17.219.182. From the other contribs it could well be connected to user:GeorgeFormby1, who in any event has a user page that I would suggest an admin look at. I'm not necessarily saying that fans of Mussolini should be banned from Misplaced Pages, but threats of violence? ϢereSpielChequers 17:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me like user:GeorgeFormby1 has anything to do with this. He simply removed an offensive sentence, which he may have spotted on RC patrol. Looie496 (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You think? --jpgordon 17:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was these three diffs that made me suspect that user:GeorgeFormby1 might be connected to the vandalising IP. ϢereSpielChequers 18:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/user:GeorgeFormby1 submitted. I hope I only made one mistake in it. ϢereSpielChequers 14:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Weathermen article

(NOTE: I cite diffs below, but it's easier to follow the talk page discussion at Talk:Weatherman (organization)#Addition of info citing reliable sources about Weatherman called a terrorist group -- just note the timestamps to see whether or not consensus was declared precipitously, as Wikidemon asserts.)

At Weatherman (organization), I added a section , which was removed by Wikidemon . Discussion began on the talk page, in which Wikidemon participated (start of discussion: ) After several days of discussion, in which four editors and no one else participated, Wikidemon unilaterally said "discussion is over" and appeared to stop participating. (Justmeherenow even asked Wikidemon on the talk page to explain his refusal to discuss more. ; so did the other editor in the discussion, Verklempt -- just added info in italics -- Noroton (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)) I asked the other two discussion participants whether they agreed with a new proposed language. and . They said they did, and . At that point, with discussion having ceased, I implemented the consensus (incorporating some changes as a result of the discussion, including changes that Wikidemon had proposed).

Now Wikidemon returns and reverts the consensus-approved language . He states on the talk page that he still has objections and mentions them generally, but doesn't specify what they are. I revert back to the consensus-approved language and he reverts again . I tell him on the talk page that he is being disruptive , seems to be trying a delaying tactic as the election approaches (he believes this information which is independent of the Obama campaign is embarassing to Obama -- it is independent of the Obama campaign and is very relevant to the Weatherman page; it is irrelevant for the purposes of the Weatherman page that it is embarassing to Obama. As a matter of fact, every source cited was written before Obama became a candidate, and the sources go back to when Obama was 8 years old. This is not an Obama-related matter, except in Wikidemon's mind.)

Wikidemon's three final edits on the talk page as of now in which he states:

• (he closes the discussion with a box): ''Closing this part of discussion without prejudice to discussing civilly in the future - discussion has grown too hostile to reasonably reach consensus
• it is unfair to ask me to participate in your disruptive discussion. Do not revert this contentious material again. I will close this discussion for now. There is no consensus. If you want to propose the material again in a civil, proper way please do so,

Wikidemo is the one who wants to stop the consensus from being implemented. His language is far more disruptive than anything I've said (which has been in response to his outrageous behavior here).

We have a behavioral problem here. Wikidemon refuses to accept consensus. After having removed the language from the page and edit warred to do it, he now (yet again) announces that he is refusing to continue discussion.

I would like admins to tell Wikidemo:

1. That consensus has been reached
2. That consensus can change, but it must be respected until it does change
3. That removing language from an article before consensus has been reached is disruptive
4. That he must stop his disruptive actions now
5. That if he wants to change consensus, the place to do it is on the talk page.

I have told Wikidemo that I'm willing to listen to his specific objections, if he ever gives them. I resent having to hunt up all these diffs and make this report here. Wikidemon is wasting my time and everybody else's time. There are other, approved ways of trying to overturn a consensus you don't like. -- Noroton (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC) -- info in italics added above as noted -- Noroton (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've postponed an appointment in order to type this. I'll be around for the next 30 minutes, then will be gone for the following two hours or so, then back here. -- Noroton (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the care you put into the above post; it encouraged me to put equal care into reviewing the situation. I think, truth be told, that since your original insertion of the section on August 29, it is a little too soon to claim that edits that have not had objections since then are now the consensus. This is especially the case here, as the discussion has been primarily between you and Wikidemon; the other two participants have made rather minimal contributions. I don't know if I agree with Wikidemon closing the discussion, though, but it was looking like it was going nowhere. I think the best solution is to post a request for comment and try to get more outside opinion involved. Let me state on my own, I think that while the material may be merited in the article, I don't think it belongs directly below the lead, because while whether or not to use the word "terrorist" may be a big debate on Misplaced Pages, it is not what readers would be interested in: they would be more interested by far in the group's history, activities, and ideology. Mangojuice 19:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree that RFC seems the way to go. Personally, I think this section is very long, if the purpose of this section is to establish that they are ofen referred to as a "terrorist" orghanization, why not simply note that the FBI has refereed to them as a terrorist organization on several occasions in the past (e.g. , ...). If sourced refutations of the label exist (I imagine they do) then cite them claiming the contrary. I think this is what WP:TERRORIST suggests to do. Kazoovirtuoso (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

A neutrally-phrased content RfC (not a further behavioral complaint fork - see below) sounds reasonable. Wikidemon (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not up to me to do an RFC. It's for me to get consensus. I got consensus. If Wikidemon wants to try to overturn consensus, he can do it. More than once (three times I think), Wikidemon said the discussion was over and he wasn't going to participate. It isn't up to the rest of us to wait for him. Mangojuice, I appreciate your comments about the content, but that's really beside the point on this page. Wikidemon has reverted, stated he has complaints about the discussion and said the edit violates some policies but refused to say how and placed a "close" on the discussion section where he should be trying to convince the rest of us. All disruptive. He needs to stop now, and he needs to understand this is a problem, because if he doesn't stop now and understand he can't do this, he's just going to continue it again and again on that page and other pages. -- Noroton (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Justmeherenow may not have indicated it in that discussion, but that editor has done quite a bit of research on Weatherman and some of its members. Verklempt seemed to indicate that he or she had done some research as well. I've done a ton of research, spending hours in libraries. All three of us have taken a serious interest in the subject. As far as I know, Wikidemon has done a little and mentioned a couple of Web pages in the discussion. The discussion went on for several days. I don't think it's too soon to claim consensus at all, especially when all parties, especially Wikidemon, agreed discussion was over (Verklempt and Justmeherenow and I were willing to discuss Wikidemon's objections further, but not Wikidemon -- we don't even know just what Wikidemon's objections are). Wikidemon repeatedly said discussion was over. And reverted the consensus result of the discussion at the same time. Isn't that basically disruptive? -- Noroton (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Yuck. Utter fabrications. Can we please close down this noxious behavior complaint and ask the editor to stop wikigaming over content? Weathering personal attacks from disgruntled content warriors comes with the territory of being a serious editor, but the Barack Obama pages are bad enough without this kind of personal attack. Please don't make me deal with this nonsense yet again. There are already two outstanding meta-discussions about Noroton's edits (you can follow the links below) and we hardly need a third. Enforcing the article probation terms would be a welcome relief. Wikidemon (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon, what precisely are "utter fabrications". If I've fabricated something, I should be unable to provide diffs to back it up. Please tell me which "utter fabrications" you don't think I can back up with a diff? -- Noroton (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness sake! Noroton is now canvassing editors he thinks are on his side. Can we shut this down now or should I alert the various other editors affected by Noroton's latest incivilities and edit warring? Wikidemon (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You forgot one: -- Noroton (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You forgot at least two and, considering that this is a fork of an ongoing behavioral dispute you are involved in you forgot Blaxthos, GoodDamon, Arjuna, Gamaliel, Loonymonkey, BehnamFarid, and Flatterworld. I wish we could spare everyone the trouble of yet another pointless AN/I discussion, but assuming this does not go away as it should I'll notify them in a bit. Wikidemon (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Response by Wikidemon

(formerly Wikidemo)

Please do not take this new report at face value. It is a process fork of Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation/Incidents#Noroton and Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation/Incidents#Scjessey, arising from a long-term dispute over a cluster of articles (Barack Obama, Bernardine Dohrn, Weathermen, Bill Ayers, and Obama-Ayers controversy) that fall under community-declared article probation (see Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation), on which the reporting editor has been edit warring in an increasingly contentious way to insert a claim of terrorist activity so as to accuse Barack Obama of consorting with "unrepentant terrorists".

Noroton omits the 4+ month history of his involvement spanning several million bytes of material. He re-proposed this content time and time again in different articles, different forms, and on many different theories. He is well aware of the objections by various established editors to repeating on these pages the off-wiki attempts to connect Obama to terrorism. Saying that I refuse to talk specifics, withdrew from the discussion, or that my brief silence signals consent, is untrue to the point of bizarre. The breakdown of the latest discussion happened when Noroton unexpectedly instituted the edits he wanted and amped up the accusations and edit warring - not only on this article but also simultaneously on Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and Controversy over an Obama–Ayers connection. There is a gap in the talk history for Weathermen because this triggered discussion and edit warring on four articles at the same time. Noroton's edits were rejected in all four articles, and I told him he had killed the consensus process but that if he wished to propose the content addition in a civil way we could discuss. Undaunted, he canvassed two sympathetic editors, tallied my earlier discussion as support, then three hours later - on Saturday morning of a holiday weekend! - less than an hour later continued the edit war and declared he had achieved consensus.

Noroton's behavior is already under discussion at the article probation incident pages. He is capable of being a productive editor - he has been in the past. But he is thumbing his nose at article probation and the need for civility, assumptions of good faith, etc. The fabricated accusations against me for "outrageous behavior", partisanship, etc., when he cannot have his way on the content, are particularly toxic. If this matter needs administrative attention it is on the article probation page, not a process fork like this.

Regarding content, I was, and am, willing to consider reasonable discussion of the fact that some people have called the Weathermen terrorists, although the distinction is mostly a matter of opinion and does not relate to what they did and did not do (back when they were active there was no official designation of groups as terrorist, as there is now, so it is all a question of historical analysis). There is room in the Weatherman article for a careful treatment of this material. It does not matter what I want, I am just trying to keep the peace here. What matters is that any discussion about calling people terrorists has to be carried out in a civil way by cooperative editors, without wikigaming, and not as part of an effort to coatrack BLP violations in articles about living people, or POV violations in articles about the presidential campaign. Wikidemon (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(1)This has nothing to do with Barack Obama or any other article. (2)I object to your ad hominem argument re Noroton. I have seen nothing but civil behavior and good editing by Norton on this article. Even if he/she was tendentious, you have yet to address the substance of his/her edits. (3) You have not offered any alternative to Noroton's language, nor have you raised specific objections to specific sentences or sources.Verklempt (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've done research, added sourced content and then edited lead sections to reflect that content sourced elsewhere in the articles. When all my work was reverted for Wikidemon's frivilous reasons (see his edit summaries and talk page comments) I did get angry and reverted back once. Wikidemon is trying to protect Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn from having their articles state what vast numbers of reliable sources state: That they were among the very top leaders of Weatherman, a terrorist organization (Dohrn, the topmost leader). Lucky for Ayers and Dohrn, Barack Obama associated with them for a time, and therefore Wikidemon works like mad to protect their articles from reflecting relevant, fair facts from reliable sources. I followed every freaking policy and guideline in the book, and Wikidemon reverted, making no secret of the fact that his doing so was to protect Obama. Wikidemon closed discussion at Dohrn and told me to go to the Weatherman talk page, and I decided not to contest the matter, instead deciding to have one discussion on a basic issue at Weatherman first. Now Wikidemon, not getting his way on that page, is causing disrpution. As for the rest of what Wikidemon says: he and Scjessey were successful in taunting me a few times; Wikidemon's trademarked strategy of collecting whatever diffs he can on anyone he's in a conflict with then kicks in -- Wikidemon must spend more time collecting diffs than doing anything else on Misplaced Pages. Nothing I've said to Scjessey or Wikidemon comes close to what each of them have said. I do plead absolutely guilty to disagreeing with them, which, at base, is their real problem with me and always has been. I'm trying to add information about Weatherman, Ayers and Dohrn, and all of those articles I have developed a continuing interest in, and I have added information positive, neutral and negative to each article. I've done the same with Early life and career of Barack Obama because my goal is to get relevant information to readers. Scjessey and Wikidemon (living up to his name) quite clearly appear to have a different agenda. I think mine is the only proper one for a Misplaced Pages editor. That's what this is all about. I can accept differences of opinion and tolerate some bad behavior, but Wikidemon has been disruptive.

Get him to stop. -- Noroton (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There you have it. That is a content position, pure and simple. Noroton wants the former Weathermen who were in contact with Barack Obama to be labeled as terrorists. Elsewhere he has repeatedly argued that the relevance of the accusation is that it raises questions about Obama's judgment. There's nothing wrong with taking a position as Noroton does, and nothing about it that calls for administrative intervention. Only, Noroton needs to accept it when the weight of consensus falls against him rather than carrying out games and making nasty attacks like this one on other editors. Calling me a disruptive editor or behavior problem is simple retribution. Trying to chase away the serious editors over a holiday weekend through insults, so he can finally get a momentary window to declare himself the victor, is plain rudeness. And belittling my user name (something I recently adopted in good humor after an editor's typo) and my contributions to the project (I have started well over 80 articles, as well as templates used on more than 50,000 articles) is just petty. Noroton tries to portray this as some personal fight between himself and me, or between himself and Scjessey. It is a content dispute between Noroton and most of the legitimate editors on the Obama articles. Playing dirty when you cannot have your way is wrong. Again, can we please end this discussion? It's not going anywhere. Wikidemon (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(1)We are not discussing the Obama articles. Please try to focus. (2) Your ad hominme approach is not productive. Please try to address the content. (3) The WU has repeatedly been described as a terrorist group by scholars, news media, and law enforcement. There is no disputing the evidence. Instead of confronting that inconvenient truth, you're stooping to ad hominem.Verklempt (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're trying to insert a word in order to push a point of view, especially a political point of view, you're not likely to get much sympathy here, even if you claim to have sources. Misplaced Pages is about giving readers information, not about persuading them. Looie496 (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Looie, all the sources were pre-Obama campaign. The earliest ones were from when he was eight years old. Obama is not mentioned in the edit. If your going to support or oppose something based on your own politics, you're doing just exactly what you're criticizing others for. The section that got consensus can be considered entirely separately from anything to do with Obama, and that's the way it was presented, and that's what the editors agreed to. You painting the whole thing as politics is just plain wrong. -- Noroton (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Noroton was edit-warring simultaneously across four articles (and has on other articles also) to insert the word "terrorist" by way of impugning Obama. It's disingenuous to claim this article has nothing to do with those articles, particularly considering that in his latest ploy Noroton added the "terrorist" description to this one in the same string of edits in which he added the terrorist description and categories to the other articles. Noroton never had consensus for his campaign to add terrorism mentions, and this is just another failed sneak attack on article neutrality. Wikidemon (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

this is just another failed sneak attack on article neutrality This is Wikidemon's description of the addition of POV-balanced information to an article that does not mention Obama. His reasoning is that since this NPOV addition could possibly hurt Obama, it's a "sneak attack on article neutrality." If another soul in this galaxy thinks that there is something to that argument, please see the section that was added. Does anytone else think that this is the way we should consider edits -- whether they might be embarassing to candidates we like or don't like? I mean, we do add negative information directly to biography articles, so, uh, is that a worse BLP violation? If the argument for adding the information is that it will help the article, and that's what the consensus agrees to, and the argument against is that it will hurt a candidate, who is POV pushing and who is not? Who is working for the best interests of Misplaced Pages and its readers and who isn't? Is this to be considered on its own merits or isn't it? This is basically the core flaw of Wikidemon's way of looking at this. -- Noroton (talk) 04:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If Noroton wishes to seek consensus for his proposed edit we can discuss that (if civility can be maintained) on the talk page or an RfC as proposed. No, proposing the edit was not the sneak attack. The sneak attack is the behavior I describe as the sneak attack. I won't respond to the other random nonsense. Wikidemon (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Where did I fail to accept consensus? Oh, when I reverted in the face of consensus and put a "closed" box on the talk page at Talk: Weatherman (organization)? Oh, that's right, that wasn't me, that was you. Holiday weekend? It's Wednesday. I thought getting a consensus and abiding by it was the alternative to edit warring. Questions for others: What am I supposed to do in the face of Wikidemo's disruption? Waste my time reverting the already-passed-consensus section back and forth forever? Plead with Wikidemo to allow the consensus to be implemented? Get a bigger consensus? And why wouldn't Wikidemo just ignore that one as well? Just how disruptive does Wikidemo have to get before he's told to stop? Should I try to revert in the face of consensus when I don't like it? -- Noroton (talk) 01:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)A new provocation I would like to point out. Wikidemon (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You link to a request that you engage in constructive negotation, and label that request as a "provocation"? I am beginning to think that an RfC is called for regarding your behavior on the WU article. We get nothing from you but ad hominem, and not a bit of constructive editing or negotiation. Examine your actions, my friend.Verklempt (talk) 02:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Come off it, this is trolling. Your edit speaks for itself. Now cut it out.Wikidemon (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Reqeuesting that you lay off the ad hominem and begin good fatih negotiation is "trolling"? You can't be serious.Verklempt (talk) 03:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Your edit speaks for itself - in the middle of this discussion you started a new section on the article talk page in question to accuse me of bad faith and personal attacks. Wikidemon (talk) 04:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I object to Noroton's preemptive assumption that no one other his cronies have done research on the subject, as well as his persistent trolling and attempts to steamroll opposition to his POV. We can say that the FBI says they're terrorists. We can say anyone else says they're terrorists. But we cannot say that they are terrorists because that would be direct violation of the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style. I've done extensive research on the Weathermen, and have actually briefly met Bill Ayers himself at U of C, but did not have the chance to talk to him. (Maybe I should have a userbox that says, "This user is a terrorist because he met one") I do not condone the practices of the Weathermen, and I think of them as terrorists. However, I object to classifying them on Misplaced Pages as terrorists. Noroton, please do not attack me or anyone else in opposition to you again. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You've just summarized the content of the proposed language. So where's the problem? Why did you revert it? What is your proposed improvement? Be constructive.Verklempt (talk) 03:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

My "cronies"?? I don't know Verklempt (I don't remember ever participating in any discussion with that editor previous to this), and Justmeherenow is sometimes in agreement with me and sometimes not. If you actually read the section you reverted, Erik the Red 2, you'd find that nothing in it is contrary to what you just said. Shouldn't we be able to present properly sourced, POV-balanced information to readers so that readers will have information they can use to form their own conclusions? I'm not proposing to do anything more than that. We mentioned WP:TERRORISM in the discussion, and the consensus was to follow it. What is your problem with that? -- Noroton (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is reasonable to discuss, in the article on the Weathermen, whether or not the organization has been classed as terrorist. So, I think on balance I would rather have seen Wikidemon attempt to edit the passage to include the information in a way that was more suitable than to remove it outright. This is not a slippery slope situation: if the classification of the Weathermen as a terrorist organization is controversial it would be absolutely inappropriate to casually refer to Weathermen as a terrorist organization or its members as terrorists. Mangojuice 03:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is reasonable to discuss, in the article on the Weathermen, whether or not the organization has been classed as terrorist I'm not sure if anything just said was a criticism of the editors involved in the consensus, but just let me be clear: Mangojuices comment is precisely the consensus position on the article talk page. Wikidemon proposed his language. We considered it in the discussion. We opted to use some of his language. Then he decided that he would not allow what we wanted and he would not discuss it further. I'm not in favor of casually referring to Weatherman leaders as terrorists. I saw no indication that anyone in that discussion was in favor of that. -- Noroton (talk) 03:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure how to read Mangojuice's comment, but it gets to the consensus discussion on content - which we can have if everyone will behave. As far as I know the Weathermen has never been classified as a terrorist organization. It has been called a terrorist organization, by a few people contemporaneously, many more in hindsight after 9/11, and by far more after February of this year as a campaign tactic to tie Obama to terrorists. The term absolutely is controversial, particularly in reference to Ayers (who denies he or they were terrorists) and his wife Dohrn. Noroton keeps repeating the make believe statement that I unilaterally backed out of a consensus discussion. What happened is that he grew insulting and started wikigaming and edit warring on multiple articles while we were supposed to be having a discussion. This is the continuation of a long pattern of tendentious editing. One of Noroton's frequent moves has been to pester and insult editors until they don't want to deal with him, accuse them of not wanting to discuss things, then threaten to treat their absence as consent. This time he made good on the threat. Another is to start a new discussion on the exact same proposal as soon as consensus runs against him in the current discussion. Anyway, we clearly do not have consensus on the proposed edits but all parties seem willing to entertain a discussion limited to the question of whether, and how, to describe the use by some parties but not others of the label "terrorists"to describe what the Weathermen did, limited to the Weathermen article. I am not willing to widen the scope, as Noroton tried to do, to Noroton's broader agenda of shoehorning the word "terrorist" to the Dohrn, Obama-Ayers controversy, Ayers, or other Obama-related articles where it has been soundly, and repeatedly, rejected. I also must insist, as a ground rule, that the discussion proceed with all due attention to civility and avoiding personal attacks.Wikidemon (talk) 04:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Compare: Wikidemon's version of reality: limited to the Weathermen article. I am not willing to widen the scope, as Noroton tried to do. My version of reality: Wikidemo's comments, including this one, are trying to do what he objects to me doing: I do not support the introduction of a section discussing the Weathermen as terrorists unless we agree that: this is not used to shoehorn discussion of terrorism or classification as terrorists into the Ayers, Dohrn, Obama-Ayers, or other related articles. Also: Wikidemon's statements here are often at odds with what can be seen on the Talk:Weatherman (organization) page. In bizarre ways. Also, I decline Wikidemon's demand. Also, decisions on the Weatherman page don't govern what happens on the Dohrn or Ayers or other pages, but if its agreed on the Weatherman page that we should mention that they have been called terrorists, it makes it look more reasonable to assert that we should say that Bernardine Dohrn, the leader of the group, has been identified as the leader of a terrorist group. And there are overlapping sources for that. (See what Wikidemon reverted on the Dohrn page ). It would be stupid of me to agree not to point to the Weatherman article on terrorism when arguing at the Dohrn article that it's reasonable to mention she's been called a terrorist. I need to promise not to do that in order for Wikidemon to behave? I think I'd rather not. -- Noroton (talk) 05:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a good argument for why we should avoid describing the Weathermen as terrorists in this article too - if Noroton intends to use article to support calling Dohrn and Ayers terrorists, and (as he states elsewhere) use those articles to impugn Obama, this whole thing is part of a concerted program of POV efforts. That is obvious anyway from editing this into all four articles at the same time but it's useful to hear that said directly. My behavior, by the way, has never been reasonably questioned here. Noroton is the one making trouble. Wikidemon (talk) 06:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the difference between Wikidemo and me: I do the research, get the information and then put information into the article from there because the way you judge NPOV is by what is reflected in the sources. Wikidemo hasn't shown that he's done anything more than take his personal political preference, then argues that whatever information is out there must conform to what makes him feel comfortable. He doesn't realize that sometimes NPOV actually demands that what goes into the article is what makes you feel uncomfortable because your comfort level, all by itself, is not enough reason to avoid giving readers what seems to be the fairest, truest account. That's where real integrity lies in editing (I'm not saying he lacks integrity; I'm saying I haven't seen him show it). That's why I'm able to add even positive information to even the Dohrn and Ayers articles. That's why I actually even like adding that information -- you get less uncomfortable writing for the other side the more you do it. Wikidemo has never justified his repeated smear that I'm conducting a "program of POV efforts" because the only basis he has for saying so is that many of my edits disagree with his POV, something which shouldn't matter. It shouldn't matter that some of my edits agree with my own POV if I'm distancing myself from it and advocating edits that promote NPOV articles. One check on unconscious POV is discussing differences on a talk page; his refusal to do so is what brought about my complaint. He has not demonstrated that he is interested enough in the subject to actually research it aside from citing a couple of pages he found on the Web. He has only demonstrated that he supports Obama. A search of "Weatherman" and "terrorist" in Google Books yields this result that is entirely, or almost entirely, from books published before this election ; as does a search of Google Scholar . That isn't precisely determinative of the state of reliable-source opinion about the Weatherman group, but it certainly proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that recognizing that the Weatherman, Ayers, Dohrn and the rest have been considered "terrorist" by an enormous number of reliable sources is not just some "program of POV efforts". When Wikidemon says that I'm making personal insults by pointing out his ongoing inconsistencies and bad behavior, it's time for him to look in a mirror. -- Noroton (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yikes. I'll turn the other cheek rather than dignify this with a response.Wikidemon (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, an IP troll has just edit warred to revert the content in again twice. Wikidemon (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Now you're complaining that someone's reverting without discussing the matter on the talk page? Self-aware much? -- Noroton (talk) 06:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I was posting fifteen words to this talk page to say exactly what those fifteen words say. Why does Noroton feel it necessary to respond with a personal insult? This report started as harassment for opposing a POV push, degenerated from there, and ought to be closed. There is not going to be any administrative action as a result, at least not against me. Wikidemon (talk) 06:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Erik the Red 2 said, I've done extensive research on the Weathermen, and have actually briefly met Bill Ayers himself at U of C, but did not have the chance to talk to him.

Justme: Wow!

Erik: We can say that the FBI says they're terrorists. We can say anyone else says they're terrorists. But we cannot say that they are terrorists because that would be direct violation of the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style.

Justme: Hey, folks.....Let's do as Wikidemon says below, at least far as abandoning seeking expression of administrative disapproval of Wikidemon's attempted importation of consensus from other articles possessing unique contexts; still, let's INSTEAD simply agree we add a graf adhering to this excellent, excellent suggested edit of Erik's.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 04:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no "attempted otherstuff" - there is an demonstrated (and announced) effort to insert content linking Obama with terrorism. We have to decide where, if anywhere, that material belongs. An editor has spread the effort simultaneously across multiple articles, so it is perfectly sensible to discuss that effort as a single matter rather than as multiple content and process forks.Wikidemon (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I fully support Erik the Red 2's excellent, excellent proposal. I know Verklempt also supports it. Mangojuice's comments on the Weatherman talk page also seem to agree with it. CENSEI seems to agree, too. Let's bring this content discussion to the talk page. -- Noroton (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we please close this now

It started out as a personal attack on me by an edit warrior for purposes of POV-pushing, it has degenerated from there, there is no reasonable question of my editing behavior or likelihood of administrative action, this discussion is serving to inflame rather than calm disputes, and the whole matter is now moot because another editor and I have attempted to start a civil discussion on the topic on the article talk page, if the other editors involved here will only follow suit. Wikidemon (talk) 06:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon is still insisting that a precondition of his cooperation on the Weatherman article is that no similar edits be made to the Ayers or Dohrn articles (see last paragraph of this edit ). So if I get consensus on those articles to state that many reliable sources have called them terrorists, we have every reason to believe he'll pull the same thing again. At that point, two of my options are to come back here with the same complaint in a different article on a different day or to decide this is acceptable behavior and engage in it myself in similar circumstances. Either way, won't that be fun? Another alternative would be for admins to tell him this is disruptive. -- Noroton (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this editor will not let go of a bogus administrative complaint. It would be much appreciated if he could stop antagonizing established editors instead of threatening future trouble.Wikidemon (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This should be closed now with a warning to Noroton to stop POV-pushing and attacking other editors. Saying that just because X and Y both say Z is a terrorist group, Z should be classified as a terrorist group, is a violation of WP:TERRORIST, whether Noroton likes it or not. Come on, AN/I will not get us anywhere but increased animosity and an even greater challenge to consensus. Unfortunately, Noroton does not understand that steamrolling opposition does not create consensus. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 21:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, this should be closed like all the previous such frivolous complaints by Noroton. I would add that Noroton should be warned about his habit of engaging in exactly this sort of time-wasting distraction in order to make a point. I believe this is the fourth time (that I know of) in the month or two that he has gone directly to filing an incident report over a mere content dispute. There appears to be a distinct pattern of bypassing the normal dispute resolution process (and, in at least one case, bypassing the talk page of the article in question entirely) whenever his edits get reverted. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Erik the Red 2 and Loonymonkey are fervid partisans of Obama who are not looking at the facts here. Erik has been answered above at 3:24 and 3:53 Sept. 4 (comments by me and Verklempt), and he repeats the same false comment here as to what the content issue is all about. Getting consensus is not "steamrolling opposition", but I guess I don't need to say that. Erik's and Loonymonkey's other comments show a similar relationship to the facts. Noroton (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So your only response to these (very valid) complaints about your behavior is to engage in personal attacks against anyone and everyone who mentions it. And wasn't one of the frivolous AN/I complaints you recently filed an accusation that another user wasn't assuming good faith because they referred to your edits as agenda-driven? I am an uninvolved editor in this content dispute. I have no interest in the Weathermen article and don't edit it. I do have an interest in seeing you cease this habitual abuse of process. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Wikidemon has re-engaged in the discussio on the Weatherman talk page, and Mangojuice has commented as well. Wikidemon has still not indicated that he won't begin edit warring again the minute something doesn't go his way, so as far as I can tell, this could well rev up once again, and I'll make another complaint. If admins applied actual Misplaced Pages policy, this would be resolved. Noroton (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, lets close this and give Wikidemon a warning for edit warring. CENSEI (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yikes! I believe I reverted the BLP violation twice? Please, please, please, close this ridiculousness down. It's becoming a magnet.Wikidemon (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Renewed problem

The complaining editor just reverted the "terrorism" accusations back into the article for Bernardine Dohrn (Ayers' wife and suposed Obama "friend"). Her BLP article now says "terrorist" or "terrorism" thirteen times (it had been two, both in citations). Now he's at work on the Bill Ayers article and I don't know where he's going with that - he's said during this discussion that he should be called a terrorist too. This is exactly what he did three days ago that I reverted, leading him to file this bogus complaint. I am stunned he would abandon consensus discussions, and even his own attack on me here, to simply revert war on the subject. Another editor just joined the fray to revert the material (6th time now?) into the Weatherman article. I'm at a loss here. Revert on BLP grounds? RfC? It has become more or less impossible to work with this editor because of his insults, accusations, bogus administrative complaints, and editing stunts - in his last post above he's threatened to bring another complaint against me if I oppose his one-man POV campaign. In the meanwhile I've added an NPOV tag to the Dohrn article. Wikidemon (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ever think that the reason that Dohrn is labeled a terrorist is because so many people call her one? Its only a BLP or POV violation if it cant be properly sourced, and this description, that Dohrn was a terrorist, is very well sourced. Who is the problem editor here? CENSEI (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Dohrn is called a terrorist on Misplaced Pages because an hour ago Noroton inserted into that BLP for a third time the material he has been shopping around to various articles to call her a terrorist thirteen times. The weathermen are called terrorists because a few minutes ago CENSEI, a contentious editor fresh off a bogus 3RR report aimed at derailing another editor, just joined the revert war to insert the same material into that article. Ouch! Wikidemon (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon, why are you trying to obfuscate the issue. When there are no behavioral issues, discussion of content is done on the article talk page. I haven't called her a terrorist, I've said others have called the group she headed up a terrorist group, cited sources for that according to WP:TERRORIST and said there are dissenting views. This is not a behavioral problem unless you misbehave. There is nothing unusual in the reliable sources about calling Bernardine Dohrn a terrorist. See this Google Books search ("Bernardine Dohrn + terrorist) and Google Scholar (same search words) -- Noroton (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC) added last two sentences -- Noroton (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not me who has tried to insert the identical disputed material in multiple articles simultaneously, it is the editor(s?) proposing the material. I have attached the new RfC (see below) to the Weathermen article but it clearly affects the other articles where the material is being proposed. My behavior has never been reasonably at issue - attacking solid editors like me has always been a convenient (or perhaps, not so effective) way by people to try to pave the ground for promoting their disputed content. Getting attacked goes with the territory of being a serious Wikipedian, I only wish these attacks were not so petty. Wikidemon (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC

As suggested I have proposed a content RFC here: Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC. I am in process of completing and notifying the various editors. If anyone can help me notify people that would be most appreciated.Wikidemon (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat

_Gb 10:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There's been a legal threat by an anon here. --Tango (talk) 09:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Disneysuit, eh? SSP says that he had a vendetta against Disney for allegedly infringing on a trademark or something... His accusations of corruption and fraud against us reminds me of that Jack Thompson guy, I think... Blake Gripling (talk) 10:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ho hum. Since the edits are in exactly the same vein as the previous edits for which he received a 48 hour block, and since he has carried straight on once the block expired, I have reblocked for 72 hours. _Gb 10:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The IP address appears to be static, wouldn't a longer block be in order? Don't we usually block indefinitely (for a static IP that should probably be reduced to a few months) for legal threats, pending them withdrawing the threat? --Tango (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but let's see how it pans out. If he picks up after the block under the same IP then I'd agree that a long block would probably be in order. _Gb 18:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

For anyone not "in the know" this DisneySuit whacko has been stalking Misplaced Pages for about a month (?) now on and off. Motivations appear to be they are a lawyer who is trying to get attention for some random trademark suit. Or something. It must be a pretty crappy lawyer if it is one because of their stupid behavior which I think would be admissible in court against them. IANAL.--mboverload@ 19:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, close, but not quite. It's an individual who claims that Disney stole his idea for Pirates of the Carribean. He did bring a lawsuit a few years ago, but I believe it was withdrawn. I have read his site, and all of his postings here...he appears to have evolved into attacking Misplaced Pages and its editors for blanking his soapboaxing on the relevant articles and talk pages. _Gb 20:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

He is currently harassing a 14 year old female editor, mostly on the basis that she has expressed an admiration for things Disney (ah, the innocence of youth), Pirates of the Caribbean (ah, the appreciation of youth) and Johnny Depp (ah, the perceptiveness of youth) who chose not un-naturally to edit the articles she is devoted to - as only a early/mid teen can be - giving him the delusion that he can promote an argument of conflict of interest. While the soapboxing is fairly contemptible, in attempting to create a case where legal avenues have proven a failure, I find the hounding of a volunteer teenager to be reprehensible. My only other comment is that I note the ip used has remained constant, so any action that may be taken in future may be of a mid term duration. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If you need anyone else to keep an eye on that please drop me a line. --mboverload@ 22:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I like that diff provided. Provides ~8 minutes of entrainment, depending on reading speed.--mboverload@ 23:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned that this 72-hr block is not going to be enough - They're very persistent. It appears that the places they have been contributing are good things to watchlist and monitor going forwards. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do (wtchlist the pages). While we're at it, if this guy registers another account and uses it, block it NEM - he has sent legal threats through the email system (I should know; I received one). -Jéské 23:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

At what point did the term 'lawyer' become synonymous with the terms 'psychotic' and 'stalker'? HalfShadow 00:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Henry VI, Part 2 has a helpful line about lawyers. DuncanHill (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

How do I sign up for a legal threat? I feel like I'm missing out. Please point me in his direction next time he pops up. --mboverload@ 02:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Simple. Just block his account. -Jéské 02:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a legal threat for you: I'm thinking of filing an asbestos suit. That should get me into some hot stuff. Baseball Bugs 05:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Asbestos? Doesn't anybody tell you coffee is where it's at? -Jéské 06:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Good one. A tempest in a coffeepot. Baseball Bugs 09:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be a teapot, but the censors didn't want to relinquish it. -Jéské 05:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

.svg image issue...Misplaced Pages or me?

Is it me, or is it a Misplaced Pages issue that doesn't allow me from 5 minutes to see svg images in wikipedia's articles? All I can see is 'Image:Gnome-dev-cdrom-audio.svg" rather than the image link. Same for and all other .svg's. Anyone else having this problem? —Do U(knome)? _{or no} 04:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just tested it on my Internet Explorer browser and it's perfectly fine. Perhaps I'm having an issue with Firefox. Any reason for this? I realize I probably shoudn't be asking it here, but it would be nice if anyone could help here. —Do U(knome)? _{or no} 04:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll confirm that (as far as I know) this seems to be Firefox specific. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I can see them in Safari, but not in Camino (a Firefox-based browser on the Mac). Opening the svg image itself works fine, it's just the cached png images that aren't working. Wonder what's gone wrong? In any case, this probably better belongs at the Village Pump than here. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And now it's back to working again for me. A temporary glitch, I guess? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Not so, I'm on Internet Explorer 7, and I have the problem. Why is this here instead of at VPT? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't work on Firefox 3 or IE7. Works on Google Chrome though and now Firefox 3. Bidgee (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this isn't some kind of linkage problem between en.WP and Commons. A new Commons image I uploaded took a long time before it was seen on the article page I had put it on, and now .SVG images, most of which I believe are free and hosted on the Commons, aren't showing up (I'm on IE7 as well). Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse" 04:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I'm running Firefox 2. on a Mac and I have no problem. Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm seeing them with Opera 9.52, Firefox 3, IE 8, Chrome, and Safari on XP; and Firefox 1 and Dillo on Damn Small Linux. AnturiaethwrTalk 05:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm having the same problem with the latest version of Firefox on a PC. I started a thread at WP:Village pump (technical). The images in this thread render fine for me. Funny thing is the image I'm having a problem with is a png. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Might be something to do with this. 3000 images were accidentally deleted from the database. Woody (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

All but 496 were apparently recovered. There's a list of missing images. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse" 14:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Lajolla2009

Could someone please take a look at User:Lajolla2009's contrib record? The editor has been active for about 2.5 months. Early on he was involved in a bit of an edit war on List of University of California, San Diego people and David K. Jordan (an article he created), trying to add the name of a student who only received his undergrad degree in 2008 and only had college level awards as a notable student/alum to these articles. There was an AN/I thread about it at the time, see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive447#User:Lajolla2009. There were several instances back then where User:Lajolla2009 removed the comments of other editors from the talk pages of these two articles (again see that AN/I thread). He eventually stopped adding the disputed info and removing the comments of others after the AN/I thread. However recently he resumed removing the talk page comments of other editors related to the notability discussion even after being specifically told again that this is inappropriate. Moreover, he proceeded to assign to the article David K. Jordan (an article he created) first an A-class rating and then GA-class rating the latter after I warned him that assigning A-class ratings requires a special procedure and cannot be done by the author of the article. I don't want to edit-war with him, but I'd like for a previously uninvolved admin to take a look at this. In his last removal of the talk page comments from Talk:David K. Jordan he appears to indicate BLP concerns as a reason for the removal of the comments. I personally don't think there are BLP issues here and the removed talk page comments are directly relevant to the editorial dispute on the article's content. Maybe I am wrong here and an outside view would help. There was also a recent warning message from a crat at User:Lajolla2009's talk page related to his recent RfA comment but I am not familiar with the details there. Nsk92 (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

As for the last thing, the "warning" by Dweller (talk · contribs · rights · renames), it was mainly spawned by this user's comment at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/SchfiftyThree#Oppose, a simple "Not enough experience."-oppose without any reason why that is. I do not think that the crat or anyone involved knew about all what you mention above but I have left Dweller a note on his talk page so that he might elaborate here on what he meant by that "warning". SoWhy 13:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I was happy to AGF that the double voting (see this) and the strange oppose were all the result of haste. After all, I make mistakes all the time. I did ask the user to return to clarify the oppose, but he has so far chosen not to, which is his prerogative.

I was unaware of the issues raised above - to me, they seem entirely unrelated. --Dweller (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see. You are quite correct that the RfA issue is unrelated and hopefully he will be more careful with his opposes and RFA comments in the future. The talk page removal episodes and assigning A/GA ratings to the article he created are more problematic issues since they are more persistent. Since he does not seem to react well to input from me, I hope that someone else can talk to him and explain that these kinds of actions are inappropriate. As I said, I don't want to keep reverting him (3RR is already close), not even to correct the obviously inappropriate GA-rating assignment for David K. Jordan. Nsk92 (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this thread - I've left a note on the editor's talk page per a separate thread at GA talk (WT:GA#David K. Jordan). It looks like they've been more problematic than I thought - I was assuming it was just a newbie who didn't understand how GAs are awarded. All the same, I'll let my friendly warning stand for now, and keep an eye on how things develop. Further input always welcome ;) EyeSerene 21:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Block review requested

I blocked a user indefinitely for vandalism, but since I'm not in the habit of blocking people, I would like someone to check to see if I did it right. The user in question was Fipps revenge (talk · contribs). Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine. Clearly a single purpose account with no intention of being constructive.--Crossmr (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That's what I figured, thanks :) Gatoclass (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, me, I'm shocked. A "new" user who's obviously trying to make the encyclopedia better, and you just arbitrarily block him without even a warning? Clearly a terrible miscarriage of justice from yet another rouge admin, mad with power. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good block to me. Good job! --Kralizec! (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well done! Now you've got me wondering if I should have requested review on blocking Manoffeathers (talk · contribs) this morning. .. dave souza, talk 17:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked User:Sz-iwbot

I've blocked Sz-iwbot (talk · contribs). It looks like it was doing useful work (adding/removing interwiki links), but I couldn't find any information about who runs it or whether it was approved.-Wafulz (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine. Stifle (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that he can't find the approval. If you know where that is perhaps you could link to it, otherwise it isn't really "fine" even though the work it may be doing is fine.--Crossmr (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The owner has applied for global bot status on meta, but it has not yet been granted by stewards. – Sadalmelik ☎ 14:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Generally interwiki bots are left alone as long as they're not doing any harm. I can't navigate zh.wikipedia well enough to find an approval discussion, but it is flagged there. --Random832 (contribs) 17:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Userbox claiming inappropriate WP credentials?

detailed explanation added to box to avoid confusion by anyone except the illiterate.

Can anyone point me to any appropriate policy regarding a user claiming to belong to the Provisional Editorial Council - see User:903M. This stems from a rejected proposal to establish an Editorial Council and I guess this user decided to jump the gun. I know there is something somewhere about making inappropriate claims regarding WP credentials but I can't seem to find it easily. Just curious - thanks for any pointers. Ronnotel (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with groups of editors getting together to edit collaboratively (cf WikiProjects), and it's not a 'proper' userbox on his page, but it does sound a little odd and I agree it has the potential to confuse. Perhaps just a gentle application of trout would suffice? I've left a note on User:903M's talk page, and his adopter's (User:Sticky Parkin) talk page, letting them know about this thread. EyeSerene 18:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There's something scary about that name. It's reminiscent of Lenin's "Provisional Revolutionary Council". That's probably an accident. We once had a neighborhood watch group near me which called itself the Committee for Public Safety until someone with a knowledge of history wised them up. Suggest applying "minnow" section of WP:TROUT. --John Nagle (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent :D The mental image of a guillotine on the street corner and some Meldrew-ish chap in an upstairs window, in a Phrygian cap and with a pair of binoculars, is very beguiling... EyeSerene 21:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can call themselves anything- unless they claim to be an admin, Jimbo or Catherine Zeta Jones or something.:) I have told 903M on their userpage however, as their adopter, that in my opinion calling themselves and others this might not endear themselves to others. Have people discussed it with 903M first before bringing it here? It is not just them, but another user too that they've decided are part of this Provisional Editorial Council. It is based on some sort of proposed thing someone else wrote- I'll try and find it in their contribs.Sticky Parkin 21:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see Ronnotel mentioned the essay thing. To clarify, 903M put that userbox up before the policy (written by someone else I think) was rejected, so they weren't deliberately going against any consensus. I think they honestly believed the council would be established, if you view its talk page, Misplaced Pages talk:Editorial Council and they wanted to help out provisionally until something was firmed up. Sticky Parkin 21:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree their motives are good. The worst we can really say is that enthusiasm has led them to trying to run before learning to walk, so if 903M can remove the UBX as Ronnotel has requested, I don't think there's anything more that needs admin attention ;) EyeSerene 22:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Request review of userspace deletion regarding Sarah Palin

Pulsifer (talk · contribs) before protection at the Sarah Palin article was attemtping to add a large paragraph regarding her supposed involvement with the alaskin independance party. Pulsifer edit warred at the page regarding it and has been attempting in my opinion some pretty big POV pushing. After the article was protected a edit request was submitted and denied. This morning I found that Pulsifer had taken the rejected paragraph from the article and effectivley recreated the Sarah Palin article in their userspace with the intro and only the section on the Alaskin Independence Party. I deleted this userpage here. I would appreciate a review of this action in light of the recent sarah palin controversy. Thanks! Chrislk02 15:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Good deletion, as the editor specifically states their intent to start a "new page" on the subject, which is inappropriate. Since the main article is under BLP Special Enforcement Ruling, does that extend to forks such as this? Oh hell, would it also extend to Political positions of Sarah Palin? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 16:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please restore the deleted page. This material was a draft of a new wiki article. It was factual, fully sourced, written from a neutral point of view, and relevant to current events. The material deleted was created in my own user page, which is the approach suggested in the Wiki user guide for drafts of new articles. This material was not accepted for a bio page on the grounds that less than half of the participated editors stated that is was not sufficiently relevant for inclusion in a bio page, and therefore no consensus could be reached. That does not mean it would not be sufficiently relevant to another page, which is not a bio page. The author kindly requests that he be permitted to complete the draft article so that it can be considered for inclusion in wikipedia. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulsifer (talk • contribs) 16:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't play dumb and/or try to wikilawyer around this. You know very well what you were creating. Your content was declined to be added multiple times at the original article where you make it clear your POV. Chrislk02 16:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)This is wikilawyering; if the material was rejected as non-notable in the main article, then it will be non-notable for a separate article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Chris, I am not going to argue with you about my POV, because that is irrelevant. Many people have POV which they may not even be aware of. The issue is whether the content has a POV, and if and answer is yes, then how to correct that. What you are attempting to do is to call my character into question, which is not appropriate for a civil discussion.

I am calling your actions into question (if it happens to be a result of your character, so be it). You are POV pushing (and has been declined by several other editors). based on this discussion and previous discussions at the Sarah Palin talk page your content has been shown to be full of POV and the example that I deleted was a particular example of a synthesis comprising original research. Your POV is ireelevant, the POV you try to put in articles her eon wikipedia is. That is what I am calling into question. Chrislk02 18:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Chris: you are incorrect again. There was no POV material in the page you deleted. In addition, regarding WP:SYNTH, all material in wikipedia is a compilation of facts from multiple sources. In order to be WP:SYNTH, the article must attempt to draw a conclusion. The draft article made no attempt however to draw a conclusion, it simply recited facts, and was therefore not WP:SYNTH. It is troubling that you are setting a moving bar, first claiming one reason for deleting the page, then another. It is even more troubling that you deleted a draft page of a new article created in a user's own space before it could even be written, preventing it from being reviewed for publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulsifer (talk • contribs) 18:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, should I log this deletion at the BLP log? Chrislk02 16:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think your deletion will receive consensus here and will stand. Better to avoid the heavy artillery of the BLP log in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

POV forks are bad. POV forks in userspace are even worse. Good deletion. It could be taken to WP:DRV by Pulsifer (talk · contribs), I suppose, but I'd urge him to put that energy to more constructive uses, like finding better sources or arguing his case at Talk:Sarah Palin. Avoid BLP Special Enforcement like the plague. MastCell  16:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Chris, your actions here are fine. As MastCell says, avoid BLP Special Enforcement - using it is unwise. There was clear consensus at the talk page that this content was inappropriate for the biography and there is not a snowball's chance that a one-two news cycle admitted screwup by the source is going to get an article of its own. GRBerry 18:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I will avoid BLP. Chrislk02 18:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

GRBerry, the article was not complete. The question is not whether it would be suitable for an article of its own, but whether it might be suitable for inclusion anywhere in wikipedia. It was factual, well sourced had a neutral POV and addressed a relevant issue as shown by the amount of media coverage. There is therefore no basis on which it could not be included in wikipedia in some form. There was a disagreement about whether it should be included in the bio, based on whether the amount of material would give the subject undue weight, but there was no consensus. The lack of consensus on including it in the bio does not rule out the possibility of including it is a different article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulsifer (talk • contribs) 19:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the lack of consensus was for it appearing in Misplaced Pages - but the discussion was framed within the Sarah Palin article. It begs the question that material that would otherwise be encyclopedic should not be included in the article of the main subject (except for space reasons). LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU: That was not my understanding, but I agree with your point that there was a lack of consensus. This is different than saying there was a consensus (that it should not be included). Again, the page that was deleted was a draft. Before publication, I would expect more discussion, but it is difficult to do that when a draft article, in a user's own space, is deleted almost immediately after it is created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulsifer (talk • contribs) 19:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note that Pulsifer has taken this to Deletion Review here Davewild (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

User talking in legal?

Lantanabelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been wanting content (and has removed content in the past) that has been sourced by an Government body (Australian Communications and Media Authority) on the Talk:104.1 Territory FM talk page but this comment sounds rather legal. I've posted this here for someone (an Admin) who may have more knowledge. Bidgee (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a legal threat, so I'm thinking it's a copy-paste from somewhere. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Catherineyronwode

Catherineyronwode (talk · contribs) who commonly edits as 64.142.90.33 (talk · contribs) made an accusation of libel and slander impinging on her employment, then asserted that "The legal threat is real" after being reminded that making legal threats is blockable. Far from withdrawing the threat or stopping editing, she began to escalate the dispute by preparing an ANI complaint, and took the dispute to an unrelated article with a talk page statement which resembles WP:Wikistalking. I'll ask her to explicitly withdraw the threat and take it through dispute resolution, but Misplaced Pages:No legal threats states that "Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding." and I'd appreciate it if others could review whether these accounts should be blocked until the threat is withdrawn. . . dave souza, talk 16:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I would also agree that Ms Y should withdraw (or clarify according to Atom' interpretation) the threat of legal action. The other matters are not actionable. I can't see how, for example, preparing an ANI complaint is a red flag. Madman (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

These look like clear legal threats to me. Other users seem to have valid concerns about possibly copyvio. Saying that discussing those will lead to legal action is unacceptable.

JoshuaZ (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the user should be blocked until this is dealt with. The diffs show that the editor has reviewed their threat, and have decided to escalate the dispute improperly. The IP should be blocked too. Verbal chat 17:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I am dense. I looked carefuly at the cited diff "Do not accuse your fellow editors of committing illegal acts. You have now gone past gratuitous personal insult and into libel and slander, impinging on my ability to secure employment as a freelance writer. This is intolerable and will be treated as such. catherine yronwode a.k.a." This sounds like a basic user dispute. She has not threatened any legal action, only mentioned two legal terms. I see no reason to block her. He comment regarding "a legal threat is real" was her concern that she what she perceivces as slander may damage her reputation as a freelance writer. She has not suggested that she plans on, or is threatening to sue anyone, and has only asked the uncivil editor to not do that any longer. Try asking her a direct question "Are you threatening legal action against editor Hrafn or Misplaced Pages?", and base your action on that? I think I will. Atom (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Saying that expressing concerns about copyvios is "slander" or "libel" clearly runs afoul of WP:LEGAL. The fundamental problem with such statements and the point of LEGAL is that they can be highly intimidating to users. Even if someone doesn't file suit directly the same problem exists. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Atom, for raising the issue more directly. I'm a bit concerned about the question "Do you have any immediate plans to sue Misplaced Pages, or User:Hrafn?" as it would still be a legal threat if deferred or conditional on some future action. It did seem pretty clear to me that "The legal threat is real" meant what it said in the context of the discussion, but it wasn't clear if she was aware of the policy and further clarification is useful. . . dave souza, talk 19:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

On first blush, I also interpreted her response as a legal threat, but upon careful reading (after Atom's post) I do see that it could be interpreted in various ways. It's best to ask.

BTW, Cat is a long term contributor to Misplaced Pages who has worked long and hard to add material and to create articles throughout Misplaced Pages. We certainly owe her the benefit of doubt here. Madman (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Threats of libel are enough. The account should be blocked and the issue dealt with on the talk page. This is, I believe, to stop wikipedia from getting into any legal problems with things being discussed here. Misplaced Pages is not a forum, the threats should just be removed or the user blocked while they deal with it or not. The user has already been asked and warned per the diffs above. Verbal chat 21:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Verbal, I saw (and respect) your opinion stated earlier. No need to reiterate it, I was just offering my own. Should I state mine again too? You said "threats of libel" my point was that she made no such threat, she only used the word. Atom (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't my intent to restate - I added some new thoughts I thought, such as WP not being a forum for discussing libel and slander. Saying a comment is libellous is enough too, just from using the word in that way. Dispute resolution should be used so this doesn't arise. My comment about WP liability was new also. No hard feelings. Verbal chat 22:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought carefully about the "Do you have any immediate plans..." wording. My thinking is that we need her current state of mind, not past or present. We could not hold someone to "I don't plan on legal action in the future" anyway. Our main desire is to determine if by definition, WP:NLT applies or not for this case. Atom (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

One point here. We really shouldn't be accusing fellow editors of committing illegal acts. If you are wrong, then that is a problem. WP:NLT doesn't give people carte blanche to accuse someone of everything and anything, and then yell WP:NLT when they end up provoking a response. Some common sense is required as well, and careful and professional handling of copyvios and other similar issues. Carcharoth (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Good advice, though in this particular case it's wrong to suggest that the original accuser yelled "WP:NLT when they end up provoking a response." The question of it being a legal threat was introduced after Hrafn had struck his accusations and accepted that he was in error, when Aunt Entropy pointed out that legal threats are a blockable offence. It was Catherine's response to that which included "The legal threat is real." Catherine followed that up by stating on Hrafn's user talk page that "The real issue is that i was falsely accused of plagiarism by hrafn", and that she would "continue to carry my concerns to every place that hrafn has made this accusation against me and ask him to delete it or to apologize." Hrafn replied at 04:00 on the next morning, 3 September, then at 04:18 said that since she had made an explicit legal threat, he was "ceasing all communication with her, per WP:NLT". In light of the statements below do you now consider it appropriate for Hrafn to reopen communications, and would you advise him to delete the comments she finds offensive? He's already struck the comments on the Haane talk page, and her assertion of "deliberate copyright violation in the Haanel article on Talk:The Science of Getting Rich" appears to refer to Talk:The Science of Getting Rich#Page restored to existence again which makes no accusation of copyright violation, as it's an argument about which Misplaced Pages article text was taken from. Your advice will be greatly appreciated. . . dave souza, talk 10:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The claim that i had deliberately committed a copyright violation was false and very harmful, since my *real name* (and therefore my *personal information*) was attached to it. I asked for Oversight to remove it, but they declined. Very shortly, however, hrafn, the editor who had made the charge, admitted he had been wrong, and acknowledged that the charge of copyvio was backwards -- that is, the web page on which he saw the text had actually copied the text from an earlier version of Misplaced Pages, and i had also pulled up the old Misplaced Pages text.

He then admitted to having based his belief that i was committing copyvio on the fact that my text had been dropped into Misplaced Pages as "short lines." The lines were short because i use a 65-character-width text editor when i work offline to help compensate for my low vision. (I have nystagmus and cannot read long lines.) That excuse was just silly enough to seem real. In my experience, hyper-vigilant people read all kinds of meanings into typography. :-)

Hrafn withdrew the charge against me and then, at my request, he also deleted the sub-head text in which my real name was connected with the charge of illegality. He did not apologize, but the matter ended there. That's all there is to it.

Building a controversy about this kerfluffle days after it all ended is a bit strange, 'cause anyone could have asked me what was up.

Meanwhile, it is true that i am preparing an AN/I report against hrafn in my user-space. He knows about it; it's no secret. It is based on a long pattern of editing by him and not on any specific incident involving me. The hoped-for result is not to block or ban hrafn from Misplaced Pages, but to restore, for review by other editors, the several pages he deleted without discussion, and, if possible, to restrict him from editing in that category unless he agrees to work cooperatively with, rather than against, other editors. I am taking my time to develop the AN/I statement, and have asked other editors to contribute to it and edit it, if they find it of value. There's no rush on it, and it is proceeding as i have spare time; hrafn's been making these undiscussed deletions for months, and it takes many hours to find out what's gone missing.

It is conceivable that the prospect of hrafn facing an AN/I report may have provoked this attempt to get me blocked or banned from Misplaced Pages, but of course, that may just be coincidence. None of the editors speaking against me here are ones i know through editing the pages concerned with the proposed AN/I report; perhaps they are friends of hrafn's.

In sum, the copyvio charge was retracted by hrafn, the connection between the charge and my *real name* was deleted by hrafn, and that's a closed book. Meanwhile, i am still working on the AN/I proposal in my user space -- but that's an entirely different matter.

So, onward and upward, as they say.

Cordially, cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The above statement lays out the detailed situation pretty well though the statement "the matter ended there" is rather misleading, the important point is covered in a similar statement on her talk page, with her statement that "I asked for the charge of ciminality to be withdrawn and hrafn did admit his error and deleted the sub-head, which contained the worst part of the accusation; the rest of the text he merely struck through rather than deleting, which i considered vile on his part, but that is typical of his personality. He did not apologize. That was that. I have no plans to sue Misplaced Pages or hrafn; rather, i felt that hrafn was using Misplaced Pages to publish his accusation that *i* was a criminal."

The article talk page is a bit confusing due to interspersed comments, but in essence the matter continued with an exchange about whether there was evidence suggesting copying, and was then left unresolved with Catherine's assertion that "The legal threat is real". In my country copyright violation is a civil matter, not a criminal offence, but your situation may vary.

I accept that the ANI complaint and the dispute on an unrelated article relate to her general dispute with Hrafn over removal of unverified or disputably verified material from articles, and should have made it clearer that these are not directly concerned with the legal threat. My involvement began when I was asked by Hrafn to take a look at the situation on that unrelated article, and while investigating I came across the legal threat and on consideration felt it should be raised here. In my opinion the threat appears to have been withdrawn, but I leave it to others to review that aspect. . . dave souza, talk 10:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sensing a bit of bad faith on the conjurer's part. Perhaps if we repeat these bad faith allegations re hrafn long enough, the spirit world will assist in his condemnation. Or maybe not. Bottom line is that Cat's allegations re hrafn's "evil" plan ring quite hollow. •Jim62sch• 15:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

NYScholar issues revisited

I hate to bring this one up, as it was decided fairly readily by the community on the last occasion after a great deal of debate, but it has come to my attention that the community sanction agreed to in the previous discussion against User:NYScholar in or around 12 July, which effectively required NYScholar to be mentored in order to avoid being blocked, has been railroaded and undermined by a recent failed RfA candidate, User:Ecoleetage. Ecoleetage volunteered to mentor NYScholar (see e.g. User talk:NYScholar/Archive_21#Good_beginnings.21) then proceeded to recruit the latter to support Ecoleetage on a number of AfDs (see e.g. User talk:NYScholar/Archive 22#Hey_there). Somewhere in the interim, Ecoleetage "released" NYScholar from the mentorship on 5 August. They then continued to tag-team together on XfDs, with some more evidence thereafter (for example, on 27 August). NYScholar then voted on Ecoleetage's RfA days later. As it was a community enforced mentorship in lieu of a community ban, it seems to me that this was an entirely inappropriate handling of the situation.

This interpretation of actual events in "They then continued to tag-team together on XfDs," is entirely false: see below. This is an absurd claim! --NYScholar (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

NYScholar has taken this in stride, noting at the RfA that "He mentored me for a short time earlier in the summer when I was (briefly) required to have a mentor." Yet the problems with NYScholar's editing persist - we have repeated examples of hyperediting on the user talk page, mostly of the nature of removing negative commentary. Also some unusual editing at Talk:Czesława_Kwoka and Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#Image:Czeslawa-Kwoka.jpg.

Offensive allegations. Totally out of context and totally misleading. I am an editor trying to maintain the integrity of all the hard work that I did in editing the article; the images, in my view, damage its integrity as they could lead to its deletion due to potential copyright violations in the uploading of these images to Misplaced Pages. Nothing to do with Ecoleetage or anyone else. Nothing personal. Just Misplaced Pages policy re: media. --NYScholar (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It may well be that NYScholar no longer requires mentoring, but I think there is a principle here that the community needs to decide the fate of actions it sets rather than these informal sorts of agreements between two users without any kind of scrutiny (nothing, for instance, was posted here to note the end of the process). The canvassing of a mentoree for XfDs raises alarm bells with me, and raises deep concerns as to whether any mentoring did in fact take place, or what benefit could be derived from it. Orderinchaos 17:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• These are inventions of OrderinChaos above (and Wikideman below); it is entirely acceptable to make edits and corrections to improve an article. I work very quickly to save changes so as to avoid losing them through "(ed)" server issues, which happen frequently. There is no rule in Misplaced Pages saying that one cannot work quickly to save edits. I make a lot of changes and a lot of corrections; I want to get things right; and I do use preview. Detailed citation sources and details about citation sources take a lot of work, and preview does not show the mistakes up easily when working online, as I am doing. I can't do the work offline and import it, because, given the reversions that occur in Misplaced Pages, all that work would be lost and a total waste of time. It's the nature of Misplaced Pages. The editing history summaries indicate what I'm doing; if people have trouble following the editing history, I can't help that. Everyone has trouble following editing histories, especially given the enormous amount of vanadalism going on. You would all be better attacking the vandals and leaving the editors who contribute hard work and reliable sources (like me) alone to do our work, and just appreciate the improvements being made to the articles. No one is paying me to do all this work. It is voluntary. It results in improving articles. Instead of complaining about it, you all need to be more appreciative, or we hard-working editors (not lurkers in incident noticeboards) will just stop doing this work, and you can work on these articles yourselves. --NYScholar (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not talking about "improving an article". I'm talking about improving (?) an image talk page or a debate at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review, neither of which are helped by users obfuscating the process with hundreds of edits in a row, which reduces accountability for users reading the history and trying to figure out what the hell is going on. There is also a potential chilling effect on users who wish to get involved in the debate. If you want to edit something and think you're going to need to make hundreds of edits, do it in Notepad or something first. I recently wrote an entire series of list-class articles which required some research, sometimes needed to be updated as research required or new facts (or errors) discovered, and I think the most number of edits I amassed on any one of them was 18. I use Excel and Notepad offline quite heavily when editing, especially as the Wiki editor has no capacity for search and replace which is sometimes useful. Orderinchaos 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had noticed some hyperediting at WP:Non-free content review, a page on my watch list, and a number of image pages, but due to the huge number of diffs the situation is utterly impenetrable, and daunting.Wikidemon (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Orderinchaos 18:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• • See above. If I can follow the editing history, so can you. It depends on why you are looking at an editing history. Are you doing it to improve the article, or doing it to pin some purported Misplaced Pages "violation" or "crime" on someone? Motives here do matter. I edit in good faith; see WP:AGF. These comments are not in the spirit of WP:AGF. --NYScholar (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record: there is no such "informal agreement" or "canvassing" of me involving Ecoleetage. In fact, as I understood the initial demand that I be adopted, it was later changed by the administrator's ruling to the possibility of an "informal" adoption; however, I stayed with the formal adoption and the featured adoption template.

The claims made in the above comments are entirely wrong. There is no such purported collusion (as suggested) between Ecoleetage and me. He was my mentor for a very short time, and later, he thought I was okay "on my own" and unadopted me. There was no ongoing "informal" arrangement. He was just continuing to be courteous, from time to time, asking how I was doing. I saw no pattern of "collusion" going on and no "canvassing".

A couple or a few times fairly recently, he asked me if I would take a look at some discussions of articles that were facing difficulties. I looked at the discussions.

My editing of two articles that he pointed me to look at and my creation of two other articles are totally independent of him. I perceived no "canvassing" of me. I just responded naturally to a request for another eye.

Last week or so, Ecoleetage posted a message on my talk page requesting if I might allow him to recount the circumstances of my being "adopted" by him as part of his request to become an administrator (which I then learned is called an "RfA" .

I responded, on my talk page, declining to have it "dredged up"; as it had been so painful, so time-consuming, and so upsetting to me. I did not want to re-experience the misery.

As I do not use e-mail at all in or with Misplaced Pages or Wikipedians, he posted the request publicly on my talk page. I replied briefly (believe it or not) and asked if I could delete that exchange (given the previous concerns about so-called "premature archiving" of my talk page, etc., which now uses a bot (not a requirement I learned of the last "incident"; the adoption was required; the archiving just a recommendation, which I have been following. However, as long as Ecoleetage didn't mind, I didn't want to engage in discussion of this RfA of his further and archive it; I just wanted to respond, which I did (basically no thanks) and delete that. As I said then, I did not want to get involved.

I also had recalled (apparently wrongly) that he did not want to be an administrator and said so, but realized that I must have been wrong, and struck that from my comment, prior to deleting that whole exchange from my then current talk page, with his permission (which I had requested first).

Later, I noticed that he was the subject of the RfA (a procedure that I was totally unfamiliar with), purely accidentally. (Automatic watch list item by another user who had posted a barnstar on my talkpage and also commented in Ecoleetage's RfA, making the link show up on my watchlist.)

On my own and entirely without any further comment of any kind from Ecoleetage, and purely out of courtesy that I felt to my past mentor, I took the time to post my "support" in the RfA, which as a Misplaced Pages editor I am fully entitled to do. He had not come back to me at all about it prior to that. (He just accepted that I declined to have the previous incident leading to my being adopted by him posted about in the RfA.

This whole manner of OrderinChaos now making a new "incident" report based on so many misstatements and false accusations only illustrates further why I did want to be drawn into any such administrative process as an RfA.

I had initially declined his request to allow him to dredge up the details of that unpleasant matter, and he respected that. But I posted my support out of courtesy a few days ago, just to be considerate.

Only last night or so, Ecoleetage came to my talk page to thank me for my independently-supportive comment (as he had done others in his own talk page). (I knew it must have surprised him, because I had decline the initial request to have the adoption brought up so publicly, etc.

On my own initiative, following the courteous example of many others posting comments in support to Ecoleetage, I had posted a "cookies" template wishing him luck on it earlier and giving him the heads up that I had actually posted something in the RfA, despite my initially telling him that I did not wish to comment, etc.

It appears to me that there may be some vindictiveness going on in OrderinChaos's post above, despite the "I hate to bring this up again" lead in.

OrderinChaos was one of the main forces in the past dreadful experience I encountered that led (very briefly) to Ecoleetage's adopting me. It was Ecoleetage who ended the adoption, after he felt, on the basis of compliments from Keeper and others, that I did not need the adoption.

I have worked enormously hard to improve an article that Ecoleetage had alerted me was in danger of being delet. But there was and is no "collusion." There is no working going on in concert with each other; he calls the work a "collaboration"; but it was not done together (in concert); it was just done at about the same time period. Our work on the articles was independent, and in some cases I changed what he wrote and vice versa. We were simply 2 editors working on trying to improve the same article.

I have not had any communication with Ecoleetage directly in my talk page or in any other way about my own editing of specific articles, other than gracious thank yous for the work that I have done, which he appears to have noticed after I did it.

The work I do has nothing to do with Ecoleetage. Our interests are most often different. But I took the time to spend enormous hours contributing to improving two weak articles in Misplaced Pages that he brought to my attention because I was concerned about them after seeing how weak they were. A lot of what I do is provide citations to reliable and verifiable sources; and it takes a lot of time to do that.

Speaking personally, I perceived no "canvassing" etc. going on of me. I do not engage in such activities in Misplaced Pages.

Clearly, the kinds of responses one gets for such hard work from other users like OrderinChaos make one wonder, "Why bother?" (As I have wondered before when abused and maligned).

If it weren't for praise for such work from other editors like Keeper and Ecoleetage for the work, and others who give one barnstars or words of praise over the years, I would have felt worse, I suppose; the words of encouragement are nice; but I don't see them as "canvassing".

I have done the work that I have done in creating and editing articles to benefit the readers of Misplaced Pages (and hence Misplaced Pages); not to benefit myself, Ecoleetage, or any other user.

I simply do work in Misplaced Pages to improve articles when I think they need improvement. As a Misplaced Pages editor for several years, that has been my contribution to Misplaced Pages.

The current dispute going on (not in edit warring but in properly-placed templates and discussions of the problems) appears to me to be a difference of perception about the images by various editors. I have provided sources and points of information about the subject of the articles because I know from being the main contributor to one of them and the creator of two of them what these sources are. I did that work too in an attempt to improve the articles. That has nothing to do with Ecoleetage. I have had no communication with him about the content of the articles at all

All my communications with him , except for the request about whether or not he could bring up adopting me and the circumstances for his RfA and my declining that request, are archived. I will be happy to find the deleted exchange and put it in an archive (it's from last week; it's in the editing history), if necessary; though I don't think it's necessary.

The image dispute going on over what appears to me to be a highly-dubious image or is simply part of my own concern about the integrity of an article that Ecoleetage first drew my attention around August 28. I've had no communication with Ecoleetage since then about the article(s). (That initial exchange is now archived in page 22 of my archived talk pages.)

I would not have spent the time working on , if I did not think the particular subject both notable and even highly significant, which I learned from doing research to help develop the article's source citations and content. I spent more time than I would have liked on that article and doing that work led me to create two additional articles on notable subjects: Wilhelm Brasse and The Portraitist, instead of leaving them red-linked. The idea of creating the two additional articles came to me after I realized that they could use articles for linkage in the article on Kwoka (one that Ecoleetage suggested I take a look at the deletion proposal in late August).

I was taking time off from my own non-Misplaced Pages work because I had worked far too hard all summer on it and sent it off to press, was watching the Olympics and the political conventions, and got involved in working on the articles while watching them on my computer Media Center tv. Again: nothing to do with Ecoleetage. Just worked on them while not working on other things.

Given this level of lack of appreciation and lack of compassionate understanding of such work by people like OrderinChaos and the continued false allegations without documentation (same pattern in the last "incident"--no "diffs."--just false allegations based on misreadings and invented false assumptions of other people's alleged "motives"; total violations of WP:AGF: as Yogi Berra has said: it's déjà vu all over again.

It's taken me a long time to post this response to the outrageous claims by OrderinChaos, which I consider both offensive and violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. They are unwarranted false claims, as I have now pointed out, for the record. They are dangerous false claims as they create a negative environment in Misplaced Pages that discourages contributors to articles from contributing work to them and that discourages reporting of potential copyright violations for fear of reprisal (which has already occurred) and which encourages anonymous IP users and others to rachet up the personal attacks. (See my user page; fortunately, I was busy working and didn't notice all the vandalism being done to it until administrators reverted the vandalism to my page and blocked the offending anon. IP user.)

Too tired to deal with any of this any further. Shame, shame, shame on the filer of this so-called incident report. In my view, he or she invents an incident where none exists. Working hard to improve articles is not a violation of Misplaced Pages editing guidelines or policies; providing sources and objecting to potential copyright violations in uploaded media is not any such violation; it is requested by Misplaced Pages editing guidelines and policies. Engaging in discussion of highly-complex and disputed fair use rationales and licenses of these images is not "hyperediting." I have provided those who make decisions about whether to keep or to delete an image with the sources that I know of relating to them. It's up to the administrators to make a wise decision in keeping with all of WP:POL. Whatever it is, I will live with, and I hope that the decision does not lead down the road to administrative deletion of an article on which I have devoted a lot of time to improve. If it does, c'est la vie. I'll know better not to waste my time again in the future (I hope). --NYScholar (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

¡Ay, caramba! - could we have an executive summary of that? I think it's cleary that NYScholar wants to contribute a lot to this project, and has done so. Also that efforts by some to change how he does so have not succeeded. Hmm.... Wikidemon (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll put it on the record that I have no problem with NYScholar editing at all, I think they improve a lot of content areas by participating in them, but their dealings with the community and in debates leave a lot to be desired and have been the focus of repeated attention. Orderinchaos 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If you guys or gals are going to make false statements about me (and Ecoleetage) etc., you are going to have to read the reply. This is outrageous. If you want to "change" how I (and please stop applying the male gender pronoun to a user whose gender you do not know) edit, on the basis of your own personal preferences, you are not acting in good faith. Don't go around casting aspersions on people and then complaining when they take the time to set the record straight. I am entitled to respond. Both Wikidemon and OrderinChaos tried to ban me from Misplaced Pages in the past, and failed in the attempt; they were overruled by administrative review. Apparently, they are still at it. Why don't you just let us do the work and stop this nonsense?

I'm leaving this page. What you are engaging in is, in my view, despicable. You want to talk about people behind their backs by frightening them out of responding because if they do, you will claim that they are not "changing" if they respond; well, you're not changing in continuing to make and renew the same old attacks. Don't instigate responses through baiting with false accusations. Having set the record straight, I am leaving this page. In my absence, please desist. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have personally had nothing but positive experiences with both NYScholar (mostly at the Heath Ledger article) and Ecoleetage. They are not out to destroy Misplaced Pages. They collaborate on many things, most importantly, they collaborate on making Misplaced Pages better. This is a travesty in my opinion that some would use collaboration as evidence of some sort of collusion. Bogus claims, as far as I can read. NYScholar, and Ecoleetage both have the interests of a fair and balanced Misplaced Pages in mind, to accuse otherwise is an astounding assumption of bad faith. Keeper ǀ 76 20:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

As you can tell I've suffered some bizarre and unpleasant encounters with this editor before. As judged through the filter of reading the text he types out on the pages here his behavior is simply not normal. This isn't really a thing we need to debate or establish - it is so over the top, it is an elephant in the room so large that even those people who normally ignore elephants in the room see it. "Hyper-editing" is a useful and neutral term for it. And what is in those edits are obsessive corrections, perceived slights, boasts, put-downs, complaints, announcements of trivial personal details, digs at other editors, threats, insults, talk about process. There are some issues going on with the editing that are just not the usual things we deal with through our various content and behavior standards. I get the sense that using normal Misplaced Pages process to deal with it is about as useful as trying to catch a cloud with a fishhook. Wikidemon (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I think you should refrain from writing such comments without giving precise diffs, at least at illustrative purpose. Writing this is, from an external point of view, against the spirit of wp:civil vs this editor. Ceedjee (talk) 09:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Keeper, can I suggest you might look into the various archives because there have been pretty serious longterm issues with NYScholar that go back a long time, such that he was very nearly community banned. I can assure you that nothing written by Orderinchaos is "bogus" and I would ask you to do research this issue before condemning fellow admins acting in good faith. If the community now wishes to release NYScholar from his community imposed mentorship then so be it but I think you would agree that the community needs to do that, not two users on their own without even notifying the community of their intentions. Sarah 02:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I second this. Before accusing me of having some agenda, just *think* that I might be trying to improve the encyclopaedia by bringing this back-room defeat of a community decision to their attention. I thought this was resolved in July and was stunned to find out what I did yesterday, had to double-check several times to figure out what had actually taken place. Orderinchaos 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nobody should be accused of having an agenda.

Neverhteless, searching in archives is maybe not the question.

At each case, precise diffs refering to precise problematic behaviour should be given.

Ceedjee (talk) 09:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Now that I came back to find and correct a mistyped work and am momentarily here again:, I will just say thank you, Keeper. In the positive general meaning of the term, Misplaced Pages is a "collaborative" enterprise; that is the effect of editing in a "cooperative" manner, not in collusion; the collaborative nature of Misplaced Pages results from the open editing procedure. To change Misplaced Pages from a "collaboration" to "collusion" via false claims of "canvassing" (against Ecoleetage) is the opposite of this spirit of collaborative and cooperative self-less (un-self-interested) editing in Misplaced Pages. Some of the very same people who claimed in the last incident I was not "collaborative" are now claiming that I am too collaborative and colluding with another editor with whom I do not collude. (It's just plain nonesense to claim so: Ecoleetage and I developed a courteous relationship as a result of his volunteering to mentor/adopt me, which I thought was very generous on his part. You can't have it both ways, folks. Collaboration is not collusion; bringing an article in danger of deletion due to false claims of lack of notability to the attention of other hard-working editors who might help work on it is not "canvassing"; it is trying to improve the article so that other readers can perceive the notability of the subject, by dint of developing sources that illustrate its notability, which I what I did in part in developing some articles that were almost deleted. The work resulted in "keep" decision (by others), and in two new articles relating to the first one. That is an improvement to Misplaced Pages, not evidence of "collusion" or "canvassing": Again, the false arguments otherwise really violate Misplaced Pages:Etiquette and Misplaced Pages:Civility and WP:AGF. Again: shame on those making them. --NYScholar (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, this should not be perceived as a call for everyone who wants to to jump on me or Ecoleetage again or on anyone else to try to heap on more offensive and more unsupported allegations; or to dig up links to out-of-context comments (as OrderinChaos et al do), wrenching them out of context further to make them appear to say what they do not say. If this misdirected notice is not stopped and removed quickly, this so-called incident report could easily escalate and degenerate into such a further travesty, bringing who knows who out of the woodwork, including anon. IP users: all those who have nothing better to do than to play enforcer (of nothing) in false incident report noticeboards. I would suggest that the user who posted this thing (OrderinChaos), whose errors have been brought to his attention with complete clarity, strike out the whole thing: withdraw it. This pack of false allegations (lies) does not belong here. End it now, please. Withdraw it. OrderinChaos and Wikidemo: You are simply wrong. Wikidemo's allegations had no diffs. to support them in the past, and again they don't now. I regarded his/her perceptions as very odd. So what? --NYScholar (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: hyperediting: learn to live with other people's editing styles. My editing is directed toward improving an article. This "notice" is, however, "hyperincident-report-posting." What are you people doing here all the time? Don't you have anything better and more important and useful to do? I can't even remember how I noticed this notice was here (something came up in a watch list) but I do not routinely check this page, and it is not on my watch list. I cannot wait to delete it now. Bye. --NYScholar (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I found this, and supported Ecoleetage in their RfA, I wanted to make some points. (NYScholar might have said these already, but I couldn't even begin to navigate that essay.) 1) NY's support at the RfA is pretty far down the list- a lot of people had already commented. Think of it this way- if you discovered a user you knew was up for RfA, and you believed them to be qualified, wouldn't you support them? 2) Per NY's talk page, it's acceptable for users to remove posts from their own talk page. Look at that IP user's first post- I'd have deleted their posts, too. Also, if you look at that IP's talk, you'll see that NY was warning them, and they wound up blocked. They were deleting speedy tags and vandalizing his user page, for crying out loud! 3) I don't see why we're accusing this user of "hyperediting". Some people don't make all of their changes in one fell swoop. I've been known to rack up half a dozen consecutive edits on a page by fixing sections at a time. These issues aren't major problems in need of administrator attention. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeremy, I'm not sure that you understand. NYScholar was placed under community sanctions (community imposed mentorship) in large put due to his hyperediting and the disruption he was causing on talk pages. This is why Orderinchaos outlined several issues that ordinarily wouldn't be a problem but are in this case. We all agree that NYScholar is a good content contributor but unfortunately the area there has been serious problems is in collaborating with other users, something that is unavoidable on Misplaced Pages. However, the issue here is the community imposed mentorship which Ecoleetage and NYScholar apparently decided amongst themselves to cancel without discussing it with the community or even informing the community. Two users can't just overturn a community imposed sanction. Sarah 02:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Trust is the basis on which we proceed. If trust is undermined, then a lot more of these kind of issues end up out of the community's hands and being dealt with by ArbCom. For the record, if the issues had been dealt with in a mentorship which followed acceptable standards and demonstrated progress, we wouldn't be here at all. Orderinchaos 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is you were put under a community imposed mentorship in order to be unblocked and avoid being community banned. If you want the mentorship to be revoked then you need to come back and ask the community, you and Ecoleetage can't just overturn a community sanction on your own. Also, AGF works both ways, you know. Sarah 02:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Point of information: Sarah: you are addressing me as if I were here to see what you wrote; I wasn't here; I've been working on something else for several hours, and just noticed you all still talking here and this address to me as if you were answering me and I would see it: I just saw your post, and I haven't had time to read anything between my previous post and yours just above this. See below. --NYScholar (talk) 03:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah: I was not "sanctioned"; I was asked to be adopted by a mentor and that is all. That is what I did. Sarah: Really, by now, you should know better. No one "overturned" anything. Ecoleetage told me that he asked permission to end the adoption by the ruling administrator in that matter, and did so and notified him. See my talk page archive 22, where he informed me and there may be replies re: that on his talk page (in its history if not still there). There was absolutely no time limit imposed re: the adoption (the term) and the administrator gave me an option to have only an "informal" adoption--read the archived discussion--to avoid there being a template, but I said I didn't mind the formal adoption and posting of the formal template. I really do not know what Sarah is getting at here, but I know that I accepted being adopted and that I had nothing to do with Ecoleetage telling me that he had decided to end it. He notified me of that. The only contact that I have had with Ecoleetage is archived on my own talk page, on my current talk page, or on his user and talk pages and in the editing history of his talk page, if he deleted my comments from time to time. Having to comment here and on other talk pages when asked to or provoked (as in this case) to reply to outlandish and false allegations, unreliable and false memories backed up by nothing but false memory, and so on undoes the advice that I got from Ecoleetage: not to comment so much on talk pages. As you see, such notices posted behind my back as this one make that hard advice to follow.

I was not notified on my talk page of this incident report in this noticeboard; I can't remember now how I learned of it; OrderinChaos has posted a notification of courtesy to Ecoleetage (see his talk page) but not to me.  ?????

I will read the comments above Sarah's perhaps later. But you (Sarah) and others are just waving about false allegations that aren't even backed up by the evidence of the adoption requirement on my own talk page; if you go to my "block log" you will see what the administrator posted as a "requirement" or condition for me to remain editing Misplaced Pages (if I wanted or want to) and that he states that I accepted it; if you go to my archive talk page, you will see my interaction about this adoption with him, and then with Ecoleetage. Everything we discussed is there. I have also archived my exchange with Ecoleetage about the RfA "request" that he made to me, taking it from the editing history of my current talk page. I am still using the bot to archive my talk page, though sometimes it seemed not to be functioning as set up and intended. I've asked for assistance with fixing it if something is wrong. The closing administrator in the last incident explicitly told me, however, that the archiving bot was a suggestion and recommendation, not a requirement. There was only one requirement and that was adoption, I accepted that, I was adopted, and it was left up to the adopter to decide how long it would be. There was no specified time. I don't mind being adopted; but I do mind your casting aspersions on both me and the adopter as if we've done something in "collusion" or wrong, when we have not. Everything is above board. The violations of Misplaced Pages user policies and guidelines going on here boggle the mind; as administrators you all know what they are, and yet you continually make false accusations, misstate actual situations, invent things that didn't happen, and attack my being an editor who edits in good faith: again: see WP:AGF. What is going on here? --NYScholar (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Message from Eco Lee Tage I was hoping not to come back, as I am trying to take an extended Wikibreak due to personal problems that I need to address offline -- and the very last thing I need at this point in time is melodramatic distraction. Based on what I am reading here, however, I need to step back and answer some matters.

First, when I received permission from John Carter to "adopt" NYScholar, I received no parameters, rules or time limits on mentorship. Nor did I receive any instructions that I had to report to any person or entity that the mentorship was concluded. The statement "if you want the mentorship to be revoked then you need to come back and ask the community" is specifically not Misplaced Pages policy in regard to WP:BLOCK (as the adoption was linked to NYScholar's unblocking), nor was it part of my communications with the blocking admin in this case. Without specific instructions, I chose to exercise my rights as the adoptive editor and state that I did all I could for NYScholar.

The decision to conclude the mentorship was solely my decision, based on what I saw as NYScholar's positive contributions to the project and the appreciation of other editors to his work, most notably Keeper76's unusually strong praise. Keeper is not one to give out praise lightly, so his endorsement convinced me that there was no reason to keep the "adoption" going. Based on this editor's writing and referencing skills, and the manner in which he was interacting with other editors, it was my editorial judgment that NYScholar no longer required mentoring. Perhaps he requires muzzling, given his propensity to use 5,000 words when five would be sufficient. (That is a joke, by the way.)

Since nobody gave me directions on the mentorship, I find it odd that we are getting after-the-fact attempts to re-open a closed and resolved case and bring new punishment on someone who has already been held up to ridicule by his peers and blocked.

Furthermore, the mentorship concluded a month ago -- you people just noticed it now?

I also want to take a moment to address a comment made by one of the editors who felt NYScholar's "behavior is simply not normal." Not normal? This man has not brought physical, emotional or professional injury to any member of this project. He talks too much? Yeah, tell me something I don't know. His editing is overly exuberant? Uh, yeah, I know that, too. And do you know what the cited article, Czesława_Kwoka, is about? I originally rallied to save that article from deletion -- it is the story of a young girl who perished in the Holocaust. The main reason that article has been preserved and went on to win DYK honours is because NYScholar took his time and energy to expand the article's sourcing and provide it with content that ensured that poor child's life story wouldn't be erased from our pages. I don't recall any of NYScholar's accusers lifting a finger to help save that article. Thank you, NYScholar -- because of you, and solely because of you, that poor child did not have to die a second time by having her memory erased.

If there is any shred of decency out there, drop this matter immediately. This does not contribute to the betterment of the project in any way, shape or form. And if anyone here who finds fault with NYScholar want to make him a better editor, I happily invite them to step up to the proverbial plate, "adopt" him and find success where you feel that I failed.

I am now returning to my Wikibreak. If you need to reach me, please contact me by e-mail since I will not be returning to these pages for some time. Thank you, and please be nice to each other. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ecoleetage. I see that Ecoleetage (who I know to be male from his self-description on his website and only from that) also assumes that I am a man. Even Ecoleetage does not know my gender. I can't believe how all of you regard this attack on both Ecoleetage and me to be reasonable or even "normal" (using a word he quotes from a comment that I haven't seen yet). May I just remind everyone again that scholars may be male or female. Re: the Holocaust-related article: I have done some specialized literary-related research pertaining to the Holocaust and given a paper at a major scholarly conference on the Holocaust, so the closely-interrelated subjects of Kwoka and then Wilhelm Brasse and The Portraitist became very interesting to work on and, because of (in my view) enormous importance as human rights issues (another subject of my work outside of Misplaced Pages), it became very important to me to make these articles well-documented and reliable and in keeping with Misplaced Pages's core policies and editing guidelines. The problems with the images are of concern to me because I fear that if they are not properly uploaded with all the proper licenses and proper fair-use rationales or whatever they need, down the road some administrator will come along and delete the whole article on Kwoka; I have taken it as a challenge to improve the Kwoka article and to create and develop the other two, but it is not a "personal" matter; it is an editorial matter. I am a very conscientious responsible editor (in actual life) and take such work very seriously. Perhaps that does not seem "normal" to others; but I also have devoted many, many hours to getting these articles where they are and I would not like that work to be lost to Misplaced Pages and other Misplaced Pages readers (as is the case w/ all the articles that I work on). My professional work is described in general terms in an archived talk page answer to someone who said I didn't have the degrees that I do have and so on. That too was highly offensive. Re: the anon IP user recently blocked: I rarely delete things from my current talk page; but that just seemed unnecessary to bear, and look what that anon IP user did to my user and talk pages afterward. I was unaware until administrators had reverted the changes bec. there is no orange bar for changes to a user page it seems. I was happy to have missed all that aggravation. --NYScholar (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder and possible legal threats

Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs) seems to have made a new legal threat (or promise of action) on his talk page. I'm not sure whether this is a problem, but considering past problems with this editor maybe this should be reviewed. I brought it to the attention of the person who unblocked him and the person who blocked him previously. Verbal chat 17:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This is just blatant disruption now. There will be no more NLT blocks, and I suggest a permanent ban for disruption. As the unblocking admin, I have reblocked Guido indefinitely, but I think, due to the complex issues involved, the proper length of this block should be decided here. My personal opinion is that it is not appropriate to keep suing editors, regardless of if the language prefix is nl or en. This is not contributing to the collaborative environment we want on the Wikimedia sites. Prodego 18:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

For more info on Guido, please consult the WP:COIN archives here:-/ SHEFFIELDSTEEL 18:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I presume that this is the edit that has prompted this section? If that notice had had "person" rather than "Wikipedian" in the text, would we be having this discussion? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw a thread a while back posted by him on one of the noticeboards - apparently despite the other person happening to be a wikipedia user, this is not actually arising from something that happened on-wiki. --Random832 (contribs) 19:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it have been better to keep it off wiki, and just announce a wikibreak in that case? Regardless, it's on wiki and he should have known better. Verbal chat 20:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

See my comment below. If I was ever unfortunate enough to be taking legal action (it does happen you know), I wouldn't want to be judged under the current overly-broad interpretation of NLT. The aim was always to stop people using legal threats to influence article content and to influence the actions of other editors. Simply leaving a note like that is not, in my opinion, a legal threat. Who feels threatened after reading the edit Guido made? Carcharoth (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone that ever interacts with him. Verbal chat 21:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That's being over-sensitive. WP:NLT doesn't mean block litigatious editors because they are litigatious. It means block them if they threaten legal action related to Misplaced Pages, or a user's actions on Misplaced Pages, not any old off-wiki dispute. There are many litigatious editors on Misplaced Pages who don't make legal threats concerning Misplaced Pages, but who would be very quick to litigate against you in situations off Misplaced Pages (eg. if you failed to pay your rent). The WP:NLT nutshell is misleading because it says "threats of legal action to resolve disputes", but the lead section says "legal threats or legal action over a Misplaced Pages dispute" (my emphasis). Carcharoth (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

He didn't state it wasn't a wikipedia dispute, there is no information, and I wasn't referring to policy but trying to answer the question you ended your post with. The user should be blocked until this is sorted out, and that shouldn't be a problem as they're on a wikibreak. If someone was to talk about people they sued who are also on wikipedia I think admins and the arbcom might get involved in that too (hypothetical). I'm off to bed now - it's late here. Best, Verbal chat 22:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

From what I can make out, he is trying to abide by the NLT policy, not breach it (the edit summary said "temporarily unavailable in accordance with policy"). Prodego, the "disruption" charge is too easily bandied about. A case could be made that blocking people for vague and ill-defined reasons disrupts the collaborative editing environment. There should be something specific you can point to, rather than saying that your personal patience is exhausted. And SheffieldSteel, bringing up the COIN thread from April is not helpful. That was nearly 5 months ago. Have you reviewed Guido's more recent contributions? Carcharoth (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

From looking through Guido's recent edits, I came across this discussion, which may shed some light on the matter. I think Guido realised that he needed to either drop the matter, or go on a wikibreak to deal with the matter. He seem to have chosen the latter course of action, and I think people are over-reacting to the message he left. Carcharoth (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If you do choose to use legal action or threats of legal action to resolve disputes, you will not be allowed to continue editing until it is resolved and your user account or IP address may be blocked. And he's not editing...Someguy1221 (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth, suing two wikipedians, at two separate times is not something to ignore. We can't just let people go about suing anyone who disagrees with them! Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a collaborative project. If you can't collaborate without suing people that is most certainly disruption of the worst kind. Prodego 20:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If what GdB is suing over does relate to the discussion at my talkpage, per Carcharoth's link above, then my understanding is that it does not involve an editing dispute. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"bringing charges" says to me more than just "suing". Though that might just be something being lost in translation due to use of a non-native language. To my ear, "bringing charges" implies criminal proceedings, and not just legal ones through civil law (I know they are both legal, but still). I think if things get to that stage (and I'm not saying things have - we don't really know what is going on here), with really serious accusations being made, then WP:NLT no longer applies, but a break from editing is still common sense. And, as others have pointed out, making unsubstantiated accusations, even if later substantiated, is a personal attack. Carcharoth (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you know who he is suing? Is he suing them because they disagree with him? From what I can tell, NLT applies to using legal threats to influence on-wiki disputes. eg. "If you revert me I will sue you", or "If you block me, I will sue you" (please don't say I have to point out these are hypothetical examples I'm giving here). If there is an off-wiki legal dispute that happens to involve another Wikipedian, the situation is far less clear. As far as I can tell, he is mainly in dispute with Dutch Wikipedians, such as User:SterkeBak and User:Oscar, the former over some allegations about wikisage (a wiki Guido appears to have set up), and the latter over some mentorship thing. The dispute with Oscar was demonstrably on a wikipedia (the Dutch one). The allegations against SterkeBak concerns a, private, non-WMF wiki, but Guido has brought that dispute here and to meta. Not a good idea, but have a look at the advice LessHeard vanU gave Guido. That would have been a better way to handle this, and it seems Guido took that advice and the situation was handled. Well, until User:SesquipedalianVerbiage (Verbal chat) raised the issue here - presumably, as he edits alternative medicine topics, he had Guido's talk page watchlisted. Carcharoth (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't watchlisted until this, I got there following a comment I thought strange on a watchlisted article which took me to a page GdB used to edit, and from there to him, where I saw this very strange comment - I then brought it up with admins and here for review, after looking at his bock log and recent history. I wasn't aware of the COIN stuff. He's been blocked and I agree with that view, he should be blocked until this is resolved. If it's off wiki he should have left it off wiki. The fact is we don't know and by posting on talk pages he's brought it on wiki. Also, I agree with JzG below. Verbal chat 21:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that Guido should be, and remain, blocked, until his dispute, whatever it is, is settled. It's not just the legal threats and apparent over-reactions, it's the numerous other disputes which are being flagged up on his talk page as well. Time for a break, I think. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Blocking users who seek a fair on-wiki treatment is i.m.h.o. completely stupid. Assume good faith was the main pillar of wikipedias... where has that gone? I only see in GdB a user who is sometimes somewhat critical (fortuntely!), but in this case the point is that GdB gets blocked for living up to the rules wikipedia provided.... therefor please unblock a.s.a.p. DTBone (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• No, I believe he is being aggressive and pursuing legal action against others. That is a problem. Guy (Help!) 10:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• It depends what others and for what reasons. You should be able to cite a specific user and a specific legal threat and a specific way in which it affects Misplaced Pages's article content. A legal threat against a non-Wikipedian does not count. A legal threat concerning non-Misplaced Pages matters (eg. actions on other websites) does not count. Let's take a more concrete example. If someone with an account at a Wikia wiki was in a legal dispute with Jimbo over matters involving the Wikia wiki, that alone, in my opinion, would not be a valid reason to block their Misplaced Pages account. If the legal dispute was discussed here (it shouldn't be, but sometimes people can't stop themselves), and both parties (Jimbo and this other account) participated in the discussion, then, yes, both parties (including Jimbo) would be skating on pretty thin ice due to having brought a legal dispute on-wiki. If the discussion of an off-wiki legal dispute has a chilling effect here, then something does need to be done. In some sense, Guido is pretty blameless in this - it is those who have started and perpetuated this thread that are more problematic, in that this thread is bringing far more attention to the issues than Guido's talk page post - I haven't found the earlier threads yet. In other words, there needs to be a clearer distinction between: (A) mentioning and discussing here (on wiki) legal matters about off-wiki stuff (eg. I'm suing User:X for what he said about me on this random website); (B) mentioning and discussing here (on wiki) legal matters about on-wiki actions (eg. I'm suing User:X because he blocked me); and (C) mentioning and discussing here (on wiki) legal matters about on-wiki content (eg. WP:NFCC and WP:COPYVIO and WP:BLP discussions). The response to (A) should simply be "That's nothing to do with us. Please stop talking about this here." (this response is needed even if there are no threats involved - off-topic stuff is disruptive, full-stop). The response to (B) should be to block. And (C) is perfectly normal. Even though most people participating in such discussions are not lawyers, they are discussing legal issues such as copyright and fair use, seen through the filter of our policies. The worry is that the "threat" part of WP:NLT is being watered down, and now even the mention of legal action is considered threatening (or chilling) enough for action to be taken. In some cases, yes, but, in my opinion, not this one. Maybe this discussion should continue at WT:NLT. But as far as I'm concerned, if Guido returns and says everything has been sorted now, then he can be unblocked, unless someone can demonstrate that there is a visible tendency to initiate legal action that is having a chilling effect, and even then I'd be wary of going down that route. The only reason some people now know Guido might have this litigatious nature is because people keep talking about it. In some ways, that is a good argument to present to people: "don't fling legal threats around, because even if unblocked, you may get a "reputation" for such actions and it will be very difficult for you to get rid of that reputation". Carcharoth (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Short ANI report here

Hi guys, got a quick one for you. Albertrocker (talk · contribs) has been in trouble for being rude and violating WP:NPA before (See block log). He's made some pretty bad calls as to his behaviour recently including this little charmer and this one. Could an admin drop him a quick note to tell him to step in line? Preferably an admin who speaks Spanish. Cheers. Utan Vax (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's see, numerous warnings for vandalism, blocked already once...why aren't we just indef blocking this user? Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he's trying to contribute content rather than vandalise wilfully. Indef blocking is very much a last resort, n'est-ce pas? Brilliantine (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a good talking to about civility is in order then, due to the large number of rather uncivil comments and edit summaries. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, assuming good faith, he is trying to be helpful. I was more looking for someone to guide him into the light. He is bringing some anti-Americanism to Misplaced Pages, though, that much is clear. Utan Vax (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

New vandal - "Nigzakilla"

Nigzakilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - Normally I would report this under user names but this is pretty noxious hate speech. The name means just like it sounds. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, okay. The account is already blocked, so there is really nothing else that can be done here. Tiptoety 21:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. To be fair, that was a couple of minutes after this post. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's just another ED troll - no big deal - Alison 22:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Letter from Chris Selwood to the community

With respect toward all, I ask that we keep an open mind and refrain from speculation at the present time. Being bold and collapsing for now. Durova 05:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Seconded--Tznkai (talk) 05:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the archiving of the whole thread, though if someone wants to re-archive the letter, please feel free. This is a very serious issue (especially the checkuser aspect) and it needs to be aired. SlimVirgin 05:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have received this letter from Chris Selwood, the boyfriend of the women shown across Wikiprojects as "Taxwoman": http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Chrisselwood I've been asked to share it here, and reprint it in full:

Two years ago, I was informed that pictures of my girlfriend were on Misplaced Pages on a profile of a person calling them self “taxwoman”. I did not really understand what Misplaced Pages was about at the time. I looked at the site and yes found pictures of my girlfriend and the profile they were on was called taxwoman. The worst thing for my girlfriend and I was the fact that the majority of articles taxwoman had contributed to were of a sexual nature and mostly to do with the subject and paraphernalia relating to BDSM and bondage. Several articles had a line saying “with picture of myself” obviously the picture was of my girlfriend and not the person writing the article. As previously stated I did not understand what Misplaced Pages was about or how the site worked, so I started to delete the pictures of my girlfriend. I soon received messages within the site about vandalism etc. I replied to these messages explaining that taxwoman was using pictures of my girlfriend and how could I put a stop to this. At first I was met with the question from the administrator about how could he know that I was telling the truth? I replied that we would take a picture of my girlfriend holding a card stating the she was not taxwoman. During this time I e-mailed taxwoman through Misplaced Pages and in short said “take the pictures of my girlfriend of the profile.” The pictures were removed; I also received a reply to my e-mail from an e-mail address gaggedbound@...............com telling me that they had been removed; this e-mail also had a name Vicky, like a signature at the bottom. I also had correspondence from the administrator that in investigating taxwoman it had to come to light that several other profiles “poetlister” “londoneye” and others I do not remember were all sock puppets, this term meant nothing to me, but in short taxwoman and other profiles were blocked from using Misplaced Pages and the pictures were removed.

Move on two years, taxwoman is back using Misplaced Pages and with pictures of my girlfriend again and also on adult related sites, one in particular has a picture of my girlfriend taken in a fancy dress costume, which is a black corset. On this profile is a text line “as you might have guessed I’m an accountant. I’m one of the administrators here. Please feel free to e-mail me or leave me a message” On this profile page there is also a list of things this person likes, they range from butt plugs to rope bondage and many other things again relating to BDSM. So in short you see a picture of my girlfriend, a list of kinky likes, and an invitation to e-mail who people will assume is the girl in the picture. The big problem with this is that my girlfriend works in the service industry, she weekly meets with hundreds of members of the public, she also works within a company of approximately 14,000 employees, due to the nature of her job she works with different people every week. If any body were to come across the taxwoman profile and put two and two together and come up with five it could be at the very least embarrassing to my girlfriend.

I guess many of you reading this will have had correspondence with taxwoman. Well I know taxwoman is not the girl in the picture, I am pretty sure that the person doing this is a guy, a guy who dresses as a woman, he is an ugly man and an even more ugly woman, I have what I believe to be a picture of him dressed as a woman.

I still am unsure as to exactly what Misplaced Pages is about; if I am right it is a community of online people who contribute to an online encyclopaedia. I do not understand why then contributors would have profile pictures, it is not a dating site. If in contributing to an article, for example about black corsets, if to help in your article you want to show a picture of a girl wearing a black corset, and somehow you get a picture of my girlfriend which is not copy written and you head this picture as a woman wearing a black corset, then I have no problem. Because of what this person has done, which is to use someone else’s picture and pretend to be that person, then I have absolutely no confidence that any information within the Misplaced Pages website to be truthful or reliable.

I would like to finish this letter asking that taxwoman reply to this so that I and other people will be able to see what this man has to say for himself. From reading some of the articles he has contributed to he seems like an educated intelligent man. I guess he is just also a sick, probably lonely sad pervert.

Chris.

Proabivouac (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

He should probably contact Misplaced Pages:OTRS. Tom Harrison 22:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Owch! This is serious. I notice some diffs from over two years back from Chris Selwood which seem to confirm this. Suggest contacting ArbCom on this one, too. Not sure if there's much we admins can do here - Alison 22:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

in about 15 minutes I'm going to blank this. We should be taking this to the User's talk page until we've figured out the right course of action, but this is definitely not the right place for it. Objections?--Tznkai (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, hold on a second. Can we determine if there are any of these images left on this site, or on Commons? If this is any ways true, they're both unlicensed and misused and should be removed - Alison 22:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

See these uploads to Commons by Shalom Yechiel (talk · contribs) -- Jheald (talk) 22:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Nooooo! Not the roads! --NE2 12:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There's evidently quite a lot of history here . Jheald (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Holy smokes. I still think this is outside of our league as Admins.--Tznkai (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Roger roger, but this is definately not the best place of this, and I'd like for us to take the discussion somewhere else.--Tznkai (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm on OTRS and I work in London. I will happily arrange to meet the purported parties in the City or Canary Wharf at some convenient moment. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hundreds of people have been duped by this impersonator. The community deserves to see the truth.Proabivouac (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully asked the original poster to perhaps link to it from his userspace as I don't think this is the correct place to bring it. As said above, bring it to OTRS, not here where administrators can do nothing :-) Utan Vax (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Better in my view to leave this thread open for a while so all of us know about it. We'll be better able to make any necessary changes to process if we're informed about it, and someone may see it and realize they know something relevant. Tom Harrison 22:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Re JzG's suggestion above, I've already arranged a meeting with the victim and her boyfriend. That said, Mr. Selwood's claims have already been verified beyond a shred of doubt.Proabivouac (talk) 23:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever else may happen, we probably need the subject of the images to contact OTRS themself, for obvious reasons. Can you let Chris know, Proabivouac? FT2  23:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a little late in the day GMT, but I'll no doubt speak to him tomorrow.Proabivouac (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The way it is, I guess, is that we have two people claiming that the pictures are of them and obviously, one of them is not telling the truth. I think I can guess which is which, and I believe Proabivouac has the correct version here. However, I think the subject/victim here need to contact OTRS to verify the authenticity of their claims - that should be pretty easy. Once that's established, we can take things from there, and in that case, it's a very serious matter indeed. Chris has started the ball rolling here now via his letter, so let OTRS find out first-hand from the complainant - Alison 23:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please let us proceed with dignity. I don't think this board is the best venue to manage this allegation. Endorsing the recommendation to proceed via OTRS, and requesting we assume good faith of all concerned until all accusations are thoroughly vetted. As someone whose reputation was stained on the Internet somewhat more than was deserved, I wouldn't wish a similar dilemma upon anybody else. If consensus on Commons decides that the images should be deleted I would gladly implement the deletions, although (due to past involvement a year ago) I recuse myself from any other action related to this matter. With respect toward all, Durova 23:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Images have now been deleted from Commons as 'out of scope' - Alison 23:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

One local image seems to have survived the last image cleanup: Image:Newport.jpg. It is orphaned. John Vandenberg 03:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted it under I11 as there is a significant cloud of doubt over these images. If they can verify who they are, they can be restored. John Vandenberg 03:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that User:Taxwoman was blocked in 2007 as a sock of User:Runcorn? Where are these new appearances of the photos? Whoever is posting them could potentially be Runcorn, a banned user. Jehochman 01:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A lot of discussion on the issue over at http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20205 from users, admins and others - There's some pretty serious evidence and discussion going on. --78.86.153.121 (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of what? Corvus cornix_talk 02:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Evidence for/against the allegations? I'm not sure. I'm curious, though, whether these photos have appeared via a registered account (indef block) or an IP (more complicated). Also, did the photos appear on wikipedia, or just on commons? That could affect who would need to make an action in this situation- Misplaced Pages admins can't do anything about it unless they are also commons admins. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A lot. It's positively Machiavellian. Has an arbitrator clerk, bureaucrat, admins and more user socks. Misplaced Pages has been had deeply. It's like the man set out deliberately on an egotistical game to see how much control he could get. --78.86.153.121 (talk) 02:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for these allegations? This cannot turn into a McCarthian witch hunt, and you cannot be the one to hold up the folded paper with the communists in the State Department. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Read the pages. There's way too much to go into and anyway I am not directly involved to explain it as well as others have. There's a press release being written up by Proabivouac at the moment from what I understand, and while I do realise that it's the thread is a lot read, until then that's what you need to do if you want to know, read all the pages. --78.86.153.121 (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There are 7 pages; if you just point to one of them with "evidence" that would help ;-) Seriously, I've read right through (I started several hours ago when this first "broke" here) and I saw no "evidence", just a great deal of OMG! Wikidrama! Evidence is being prepared and will be released to an eager public in a day! In a day or so! In a day or two!

Me thinks you're being just a teensy bit salacious.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  02:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Oh yeah, at the risk of getting off topic, what color is the flag now? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Black, though possibly with a hint of red around May 1st...!

Cheers,  This flag once was red  02:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm very glad this is finally coming out, and I extend my thanks to Proabivouac for posting here about it, and for getting to the bottom of it. This individual — who was very obviously not a woman never mind five of them — has taken Misplaced Pages for a ride for several years. He outed me, and I don't mean he simply put stuff together about me from Google, but he actually tried to "investigate" me in the real world back in 2006, then passed whatever he found to Daniel Brandt. He earlier admitted this on WR, and Brandt has just confirmed it.

He sockpuppeted on WP not only with regular accounts, but with an admin account (Runcorn). Using Poetlister, RachelBrown, Taxwoman, Londoneye, and Newport, as well as Runcorn, he subverted several RfA and deletion discussions. Using Guy and Poetlister (and apparently several others that I don't know about), he attacked Wikipedians on WR, helped to out people, and enthusiastically supported the neo-Nazis who ran the original site.

It was obvious these accounts were run by the same person. They edited from the same IP address, and they e-mailed from the same one too — that was before they realized Hotmail accounts expose the IP. It was also fairly obvious it was a man judging by how thick he had to lay it on that he was female.

Despite knowing all this, arbitrator FloNight not only arranged for him to be unblocked from WP, but also supported him becoming a bureaucrat on Wikiquote, after he abused his position there to harass Chip Berlet. I hope FloNight will consider her position. SlimVirgin 04:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Cut the bullshit, Slim. Nobody is buying your drama-mongering. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should learn a little bit of the history before jumping on Slim's case. Just a tip. Bulldog123 (talk) 05:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm sorry, but I have to put aside my self-imposed non-vandalism edit restriction to agree with Dragon. Slim, stop using every moment you can get to make a campaign against the people who don't like you or go against what you say. Yes I'm being a hypocrite here but at least I can admit that. Kwsn (Ni!) 05:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So, um, support for a community ban of Quillercouch (talk · contribs) (nee Poetlister)? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently this letter is from a banned sockpuppet, I've been accused of being a sockpuppet of someone I've never heard of, covering up the truth, and being Jimbo. This thing is spiraling far out of control. Does anyone here have SPECIFIC complaints about SPECIFIC violations of WIKIPEDIA policy? If not, can we please, for the love of all things holy have the appropriate parties write up a complaint for ArbCom?

Don't worry, I'll recuse myself from clerking too.--Tznkai (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC) |}

Potential leak of private data

Title change since "hugeness" of leak now confirmed not an issue by original poster, see below. FT2  08:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

After reading the above, I'm most concerned that Poetlister/Taxwoman/Cato, in their position as a CheckUser on the English Wikiquote, may have had full access to the global CheckUser logs; until a few months ago, a CheckUser on any project was afforded access to view the combined CheckUser logs (including here on the English Misplaced Pages), and could have viewed them at any time to glean information about who is being checked and when, as well the checkee's IP addresses as in many cases. (I suspect this could have contributed to their ability to evade detection.) In a similar vein, they also had access to the CheckUser mailing list (with its full archives) and IRC channel. I'm a bit worried that they could have used this massive cache of data for malicious purposes and even leaked it to others. krimpet✽ 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Correction: after some digging, I found that the global CU log was disabled in r29527, on 2008-01-10, about two months before "Cato" was given CheckUser rights, thus they only had access to the local logs after all, thankfully. However, they still did have access to the full archives of the CheckUser mailing list. krimpet✽ 05:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait.. en.wikiquote didn't require proof of real-world identity before granting checkuser? Am I reading this right? SirFozzie (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well he was identified to the foundation, (don't know whose ID he used for this) so what Krimpet just mentioned above is true, he may have records of all the logs and can most definitely be a problem..--Cometstyles 05:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I had no idea he had access to checkuser too. If he did have access to the global logs, we can assume that it has all been compromised. SlimVirgin 05:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we get a confirmation from someone knowledgeable if Poetguy had access to these global CU logs? A *lot* of us are exposed, if so. rootology (C)(T) 05:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The global log was disabled in January 2008, Cato was elected in March, so he only ever had access to the Wikiquote logs. Thatcher 05:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What about the mail list archives? Do you guys store IPs and sensitive data in there? rootology (C)(T) 05:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sensitive material is discussed on the checkuser mailing list, and someone has said that Poetlister did indeed have access via Wikiquote. I was cc-ed on some mailing list posts a while back when Anthere, then Foundation chair, raised an issue I had raised with her; I was cc-ed because I was connected to the issue. Based on what I saw, if Poetlister had access to that kind of material, it would be very damaging. SlimVirgin 08:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Global checkuser logs were disabled in January 2008, before Cato was appointed to the position. Risker (talk) 05:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Do they mail around IPs, work information for editors, real names and all in plain text email? How much would he have had there? rootology (C)(T) 05:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes IP information is posted, usually to coordinate action against vandals who appear on multiple wikis. Sockpuppet investigtions on single wikis are usually not brought to the list since it is a global list and the majority of readers would not be involved in investigations specific to a single wiki. Thatcher 06:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And don't hat or hide or whatever

On this, please. At a dead minimum I see someone has proposed community sanctions above which need to be discussed and we need public confirmation from the WMF if this guy has all our checkuser data now. rootology (C)(T) 05:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, this discussion needs to take place and it shouldn't be hidden behind a header. There's a lot to consider here, and the community needs to take part in that. Everyking (talk) 06:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

He only had access to checkuser data on wikiquote. If you are concerned that you were checked on wikiquote, you can ask another wikiquote checkuser to look in the log. If you want to know if you have ever been discussed on the CU mailing list, email me and I will check (however, it will not be a speedy check, especially if there are a lot, and I am going to bed now. Expect requests to be handled in a day or two.) Thatcher 06:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I can understand why Durova collapsed the section, even though I believe an "official" statement is coming shortly as to the links between the accounts, there's still a lot of possibly sensitive information here. It's not hiding it, it's keeping it out from casual view until such time as the information is confirmed and we treat everyone as they are due. It wasn't done from malice, but with a good faith idea to treat sensitive materials in such manner. SirFozzie (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

As the editor who proposed community sanctions, I'm inclined to agree on reflection that my proposal was probably a few hours premature. I have no objections to it being collapsed for the time being. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Would people please stop trying to censor this discussion? These are serious matters that need to be thrashed through, because it now seems that any editor discussed on the checkuser mailing list has been exposed. People have a right to know what's going on. SlimVirgin 08:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you please stop trying to be a dramaqueen? The world does not revolve around you, your conspiracies can wait for another day. --Dragon695 (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nor does it revolve around you, Dragon695. There are real victims here, and yes, our checkuser data has been leaking like a sieve. As Slim says, people have a right to know what's going on. What's your angle, that they don't?Proabivouac (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to censor the discussion. Yes, these are serious matters. And as a community we have a track record of jumping the gun--people sniping at each other and wasting space on speculation that obscures the real facts when they come out. All I asked is that people wait a little while and consider the potential real-world ramifications of these things being alleged. It's easier to have a serious discussion once the full picture is available. Durova 11:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Central discussion of Poetlister and Cato

I have posted an initial summary at Meta: Meta:Babel/Poetlister and Cato.

There is still work to do. It may take a few more days for everything to get caught up and all the followup that's essential, to be done. Some but not all socks are blocked at this time. Thanks.

FT2  08:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Now at m:Requests for comments/Poetlister and Cato. Giggy (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that User:SlimVirgin is attempting to hijack the discussion in attempt to create maximum drama there. I suggest she be blocked from meta pending the completion of this investigation. Her hysterical rants are really not helping anything. --Dragon695 (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

strong opposeProabivouac (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

not a voteDragon695 (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I was merely pointing out that diverging into discussions about possible neo-nazi connections is not helpful. --Dragon695 (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I hate to say this Dragon695 but Slim is behaving more constructively in this discussion than you are. Granted I do not know whom she is referring to as "neo-nazis" as I am unfamiliar with the early development of WR. I'm sure she will explain this epithet if you ask her nicely, but that's beside the point. If even half of the claims being circulated are true this is a very serious issue, and getting to the bottom of it trumps everything including but not limited to Godwin's law. Please put aside any extant personal differences and cut people a little slack. — CharlotteWebb 13:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I assisted in this investigation and I have posted my comment at the meta link. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Sceptre ban evasion

Sceptre evaded his ban using a confirmed ip address of his to nominate an article for deletion. This should not stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.25.156 (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Someone unblocked him when his ban discussion was going on so that he could participate and forgot to reblock, it seems. naerii 23:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Insults again and again and again

Can somebody please short block to user:Kirker. This is his 5th time to be on this noticeboard because of his insults ! First of this insults has been on November 2007, in second of 4 August 2008 he is calling user "snide arsehole" and recieving administrator warning . Only 2 days after that he is again on noticeboard because of insults and on 14 August he is telling user "you're too spineless" and he is again on noticeboard (Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive466).

Now on 5 September I am idiot: "If it makes one or two people see what an idiot you are, the effort won't have been wasted" . Can somebody please give him reward for this nice words ??--Rjecina (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No. No no no. Rjecina is a POV warrior who makes many articles in the Balkans area an uglier place than they need be. Have a look at this, for example, just this afternoon, his/her latest unsourced highly POV edit/reversion to Lika: "But the propaganda and influence from Serbia and neighbouring rebelled areas was strong and heavy. Besides all that, the influx of greaterserbianist paramilitary volunteers and neighbouring warmongering extremists, as well the rise of influence of local warmongering extremists, these areas turned to rebels' side" the .
Kirker is a diligent, good faith editor who puts a lot into the project, with library trips and all manner of things to make articles better. Rjecina is everything that Kirker is not. Kirker seeks to make the encyclopedia better, while Rjecina's contributions are mainly to delete things hostile to the glorious memory of the Independent State of Croatia. Enough said. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of your view about Kirker's editing, he does not interact well with others. The only edit you gave was a reversion by Rjecina, which is a content dispute. If there are some language by Rjecina that you think deserve a mention, I'd suggest a subheading or a new section for them. I am blocking him for 31 hours. Note that this is not in response to his noting my grammar and my error in wording, but because I asked him to comment before and he chose not to. There has been numerous people questioning him and he doesn't respond to anything and keeps going the entire time. If someone feels that this is improper, please feel free to unblock. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(un-dent) And Alasdair, stop with edits like "Rjecina, you are, at best, an apologist for the NDH, and at worst, possibly, judging from your edits, a POV nationalist fanatic." You are not supposed to insults other edits and that kind of behavior is not acceptable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You are clearly entirely unaware of Rjecina's edit history. Disgracefully so, given that you have chosen to use admin tools here. This is an outrageous block. There is absolutely no justification for this whatsoever. Please supply diffs to justify your actions. Curtly, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And, by the way, from the diffs you have already supplied, you have a blatant COI here. I need say no more. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm involved and quite busy, but I think this is a bad block. We have an excellent user frustrated by a consistent POV pusher and an administrator who can't see the forest for the trees. Considering past interactions with Kirker, I'd think you would let someone else block as this wasn't an emergency. AniMate 01:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Even POV pushers must be treated with civility, even by other POV pushers. I agree that it is best to let an uninvolved admin make the block, as then there will be no accusation of COI. If this is Kirker's first block, I recommend also lowering the block time to 24 hours. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) So now the scourge strikes again. Just like when we batted this around at Elonka's RFC. So whenever a (neo)fascist or apologist for same turns up and deletes well-sourced material from an article then the most important thing is to be civil to them? I thought this was an encyclopedia. Yes, civility is crucial, but neither Ricky81682 nor Erik the Red 2 have bothered to look at Rjecina's contributions. So clearly, and I choose my words carefully here, it is obvious that for neither of you is the encylopedia the central element of this project. I think you'd both be better off over at MySpace. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? I acknowledged that Rjecina's a POV pusher. I merely said she should be treated with civility, too. I am a wholly uninvolved editor, just offering my opinion as a ANI watcher. (I've been to Croatia once in my entire life, and that was for 24 hours on a layover flight. But I'd better stop rambling.) Accusations like that are uncivil in and of themselves. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Information for non involved users: there is August content dispute between me and AlasdairGreen27 , Kirker, Animate, DIREKTOR about use of words sadistic, bestial and similar in article (editorial style dispute). Other dispute is if victims citations can be used in Croatia related WWII articles because they are not used in German or any other WWII related articles. Because of meatpuppetry (articles Miroslav Filipović, World War II persecution of Serbs, Magnum Crimen and this discussion) in next few days I will start checkuser case against users in question. --Rjecina (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Continuously calling users meatpuppets or sockpuppets is just as insulting as anything Kirker. You've been warned about this time and time again. Shall I go through your contributions and find every example of you doing this? Considering how upset you get over insults, I'm assuming you'd support a block of yourself. AniMate 03:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I will start action on monday. This is answer to AniMate comments on my talk page--Rjecina (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I will respond to Alasdair first. Regardless of Rjecina's editing, you put yourself at focus when you chose to attack the person reporting the issue. Frankly, I have half a mind for just blocking you right now for calling User:Erik the Red 2 a "twat", but I would ask someone else to do it. I don't care if you want to claim that your edits aren't at issue. You made them an issue. If Kirker wants to dispute something, then he can ask for an unblock and I'll apologize for overreacting if that's people think. The last time he was at WP:AN/I here, he decided to get into a funny semantic game of saying "he didn't say someone was 'too spineless' but just musing aloud about the nature of his spine." I also see that you've posted below. That's fine. I asked for review and I hope someone does respond. I guess there's no point to keeping this thread open, but I'll leave it for another. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The block is completely justified. See my comments below. I have warned Alasdair for personal attacks against me. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 15:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Block review please

Ronnotel (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who knows me knows that I have a low tolerance for attempts at on-wiki intimidation. Therefore I wanted to get a sanity check on this recent block. Too much? Thanks. Ronnotel (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

it doesnt seem to be a threat to me. It seems to be a lightharted way of saiyng that he was going to step bac from the porject for a little while and maybe to encourage other users to step back as wel. its one thing if he said something like, "i better not see you epopel in RL" but "see you in RL" seems to be along the lines of "see you around" more than anything Smith Jones (talk) 02:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think saying "see you in real life" is a clear sign of intimidation. I haven't looked at any of this user's edits, so there may be more going on, but solely based on that edit, I really wouldn't block.--Atlan (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd unblock and issue a 4im warning instead, but that's just me. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Those who don't know or care what those numbers mean may prefer to unblock and express their concerns in plain English. — CharlotteWebb 02:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks all. I get the point. Appreciate the input. Ronnotel (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose this is my fault in a way. No, I did not feel threatened by this, but on the other hand I was not part of the discussion. I was not calling for a block and only meant to suggest that T0mpr1c3 (apparently "Tom Price" in leet) should clarify his comment just to ensure that nobody does feel threatened. Unfortunately Tom has not yet done that. — CharlotteWebb 02:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

First Slrubenstein‎ goes wacko, and now this. WIKIMADNESS IS IN THE AIR. The roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a helpful comparison. — CharlotteWebb 02:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been more than thirty years since the Nupedia and Sanger. And now, as then, a beast approaches; patient and confident, savoring the meal to come. This beast is made of crazed men and admins, blocks and WP:CIV warnings. An army of madness, vast beyond imagining, ready to devour tiny Misplaced Pages, ready to snuff out the world's one hope for reason and justice. A beast approaches. --mboverload@ 02:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"The falcon cannot hear the falconer"? Seriously, Ronnotel unblocked rapidly, this is not a big deal I don't think. Chick Bowen 02:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

How comforting. :) Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That's it. Blocks for the lot of you. Let Jimbo sort it out. Ronnotel (talk) 02:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Urgent block review please

This appalling block was imposed by an admin that posted his/her COI freely in the above discussion. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Insults_again_and_again_and_again. The original discussion of the block has turned into a train wreck of a variety of matters. I open this new thread to focus on the block issue and seeking to immediately overturn the block. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 02:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The block should not be overturned but shortened to 24 hours, and the posting user and Rjecina should also be blocked for the same amount of time for incivility towards myself, other editors, and each other. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Erik, please supply diffs that support the block of Kirker. For heaven's sake. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Rjecina supplied them for me above.Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 03:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you please explain statement about my incivility ?--Rjecina (talk) 03:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was tired. I meant to say a 24 hour block for continuous NPOV violation. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 13:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that others review my comment above, particularly Alasdair's comment to Erik's talk page. If I'm in error, I'll rescind everything and apologize to everyone involved. I am sympathetic to Erik's solution, but don't want to get any more involved. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

From what I've reviewed, Alasdair is not only in the wrong, but acting outside of good faith.--Tznkai (talk) 07:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Tag team vandals or socks

A mess at Miley Cyrus tonight, with false death rumors. Oberburgermeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Ilmc69‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) were apparently created solely to fan the flames. Burningacorn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added it into the article as his first edit in a year. Treenuh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added in the death date as well. I can't sort out whether DAP388 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is asking an innocent question or trying to get the rumor spread. Blocks all around, I say.Kww (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

DAP388 has a lot of good edits, it looks like a valid request for info. Corvus cornix_talk 03:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think its best to AGF for DAP, Ober... and Ilmc are clearly socks, most likely Treenuh is too, and burngacorn looks like the most probable puppet master. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 03:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Geoking66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has blamed his participation on a compromised password.Kww (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm, that's a new one.

I've blocked one of the persistent violators, and protected the article and one redirect. Since this is obviously an organized campaign, please watch for more of this. Antandrus (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Given the history of the article why isn't this semi-protected indefinitely? JBsupreme (talk) 04:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's only extremely rarely that it hasn't been semiprotected. The current semi-protection has been in place since January. Antandrus (talk) 04:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow. All that effort of back-and-forth in the protection log strikes me as a waste of time and effort.  :-( JBsupreme (talk) 05:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Burningacorn filed.Kww (talk) 04:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems 4chan is largely behind this. -- Ned Scott 05:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Burningacorn came back as all accounts completely unrelated.Kww (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Anti-semitic remarks and edits

I feel this comment by user:Puttyschool was completely inappropriate: "it is WikipediA not JpediA" - after this editor wrongly assumed that the Jerusalem Post is "for Jews only."

I'm very new to Misplaced Pages, and these comments are completely unacceptable and incomprehensible in an environment which prides itself on promoting civility. I am trying to be very civil, but I find these anti-semitic and ignorant statement to be completely repugnant, and I'm not sure how to handle it appropriately. I feel that this person should perhaps be warned and watched due to their anti-semitic slurs and multiple reverts along those same lines.

I have seen quite a bit of anti-semitic attacks on both my user page and one of the main articles in which I have been editing. It is my hope that Misplaced Pages will take a firm stand against this serious problem.--Einsteindonut (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A message has been left for Puttyschool on his talk page. You might want to request that your user page be semi-protected if you feel it is a target for vandalism. All the best, Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 03:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Erik, I will consider your advice and appreciate your action though I don't think I am able to see the message you left for him?--Einsteindonut (talk) 03:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

See User_talk:Puttyschool#JPedia. Corvus cornix_talk 03:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A relevant question

I don't agree with the revert of course but what would I say if someone said "this is Misplaced Pages, not Islamopedia/Hindupedia/etc"? I've heard these many times onwiki but would I leave a warning (stating that the remark was offensive) at their talk page just for saying that?

So why is it considered anti-semitism? Why that was considered offensive? Could you guys explain further? -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 09:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I share FayssalF's analysis.

If this remark was uncivil and so, unappropriated, because it is contrary to wp:agf; it is not anti-semite. By comparison, I have been told several times, and I think with reason, that it was not wp:fr here...

More, I think the suspicion of anti-semitism made by Einsteindonut is also against wp:agf. And from my personnal point of view, the accusation of antisemitism here, is even worst, it is against WP:NPA.

In the particular context of Einsteindonut, who doesn't masterize yet all wikipedia policies, we should not give him the feeling "anti-semitism suspicion" is a good way out to solve the "content issues" he has with other editors.

Ceedjee (talk) 09:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact, my point was addressed to the experienced admins (though no admin has commented yet on this thread) and Malik Shabazz who left the soft warning at Puttyschool's talk page. It was not addressed to Einsteindonut as he is a new Wikipedian.

On another note, I've just now run a CU on the vandal 75.3.147.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who left the swastika and the Islamic Jihadist flag at Einsteindonut's page. That lead us to here. I am not convinced of the response gotten out there and would ask some other admins to review though admin Luna Santin has already blocked the IP.

And Einsteindonut, I know you are new but please do not use sockpuppets. I am leaving Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) as your main account and blocking Wikifixer911 (talk · contribs) (which was already blocked once) and PeterBergson (talk · contribs) (the original one but with only a few edits) per wp:SOCK. I've not taken any action concerning Einsteindonut since this is your first time. As for the IP, I believe you used it accidentally three times or four, so please refrain from using multiple accounts. Puttyschool (talk · contribs) was also check-usered but came clean. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 12:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Problem

About the block mentionned here above. It seems that Einsteindonut has a fixed IP. So when FayssalF blocked the IP, he also blocked the account... Einsteindonut didn't appreciate but I think he doesn't understand. Ceedjee (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That's being autoblocked. "#1127998" unblocked. Please leave him alone as it may not be helpful. Thanks. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 14:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalizing of Arjun MBT pages

The user By78 is vandalizing the Arjun MBT pages. This is supported by the Admin Jauerback. Admins Jauerback has misused his Administrative powers earlier as well and went to the extend of blocking me to support vandalization of Arjun page with inaccurate information. He has repeated the mistake again. Request warning of By78 from vandalization of the Arjun MBT page and request the removal of Admin rights of Jauerback for acting in a very irresponsible manner and preventing me from contributing to Misplaced Pages (Arjun MBT pages) in a positive manner. Thank you.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I see an edit war but no vandalism.Geni 04:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Chanakya, Please assume that other editors are working in good faith on the encyclopedia and work to find a consensus talking with other editors on the article talk page. Your attempt to bring this here for administrator intervention is inappropriate or at the very least extremely premature. You need to discuss this constructively and in good faith on your own part on the talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Block review of Thewikiqediarollbacker

I just blocked Thewikiqediarollbacker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) because his initial edits were copies of FirefoxMan's user page and Alison's talk page into his own user and talk pages, respectively. He copied Alison's talk page twice and then copied my user page. After I left him a note, he threatened to take me to ArbCom and then copied the Main page and Main talk page into his user and talk pages. The account name didn't exactly sit with me very well either. Probably somebody's sockpuppet. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And, of course, the inevitable unblock request proclaiming innocence just appeared. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds as though he's up to no good and knows how to do it. Support block. Ty 06:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not that unusual for new editors to copy existing pages to theirs for experimentation purposes, to see what the markup does etc. This could just be innocent behavior, though an immediate threat to take someone to arbcom sounds non-new-userish. Let me take a closer look here... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The behavior seems sort of suspicious, but ... I can't for the life of me see what policy you blocked him/her under. I don't know of any policy saying that you can't copy content out of another's talk page. Even though the arbcom reference seems unlike a new user, this seems pretty bitey.

Can you please explain your blocking rationale in more detail? The page only existed for a couple of minutes before you deleted, it appears to be BITE and failure to AGF on your part. Plus no warnings. If there's a sequence of other behavior that this might be a sock of, that's one thing, but standing by itself this needs much more clarification...

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it was a lack of AGF at all, since it is obvious that this editor was not a new editor to Misplaced Pages. You have a user name that references a feature that a new editor is not likely to know about. The first edit of a full copy of one administrator's user page followed by a full copy of another administrator's talk page, it is rather suspicious. Then following up with references to ArbCom and a copy of my own user page, this shows me that this is not a newbie at all. The unblock of making only three edits is totally bogus since the first edit references the deleted edits. If anything, I feel that I gave him too much AGF. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 09:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a username violation regardless. ⇒SWATJester 09:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Time for User:Ricky81682 to go?

No further action required. See content below. --VS 07:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I just happened to have found this place and I'm greatly concerned about Misplaced Pages's future viability if we allow people like Ricky81682 to run amock destroying the hard work of people like Kirker (and smearing people like AlasdairGreen27) just out of a personal vendetta. We need to immediately stop him and I would suggest a long hard block to make sure he doesn't edit here again. Look at the destruction he caused above at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Urgent_block_review_please. We cannot allow conduct like to go unnoticed and I think someone should go to Jimbo and stop it right now. 76.171.201.224 (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

For someone who has just found this place, you sure do know the ins and outs of it already.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree Ryūlóng and I just happened to find this notice (and I admit have been editing for a long time). Indeed I couldn't add another word to your synopsis of this complaint.--VS 07:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This IP has one other edit back in august 5 and guess who else is involved? Ricky. Looks like sock puppetry to me. Considering a Checkuser request.--Tznkai (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

User:kirker has a recent history of conflict with Ricky and Rjecina, and a distinct lack of civility in much of it, writing tone seems suspicious. Anyone else want to weigh in before I submit a checkuser request on 76, Kirker and AlasdairGreen27 for block evasion?--Tznkai (talk) 07:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Let it go. There has been a mass of checkuser and sock allegations going back forever. Let's not add to it. It's probably meat puppetry anyways. Just offer an opinion at the other section and close this nonsense down as resolved. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the IP address looks closer to a series of crazies I annoyed late last year with another article. I wouldn't be surprised if it's not even related to these guys this time. I've been here long enough to annoy plenty of groups, some of whom I guess have nothing better to do than complain when they see me. My personal favorite was this chaos, including threats to complain to an Indian government minister. Seriously, people take things WAY too seriously. Can someone else just mark this as resolved and leave everyone on their way? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

IP block reviews on administrator User:Kaihsu

A little while ago, User:Da monster under your bed became concerned about several long-duration IP address blocks issued by administrator User:Kaihsu. Monster mentioned this to User:Gogo Dodo and apparently administrator User:Gonzo fan2007 noticed on his own.

I just flipped around and reviewed the last several IP address blocks, and I found them extremely suspicious - 1-year blocks after 4 questionable but not horridly abusive edits, with no warnings; an IP address indef blocked; multiple IP address blocks with no block message left on the IP talk page.

More administrator eyes on this needed. I'm going to ask him for clarification, but more review further back is probably a good idea. These may be sufficiently out of policy to overturn. I'm not going to do more than ask about it, as I'm going to bed soon, but more eyes on it seems like a really good idea. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

These blocks are extremely problematic. I am very keen to see the explanation from Kaihsu. If there is no response by morning my time, I intend to unblock the IPs. Kevin (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Incivility

can someone block this editor , for breaking my The Giano code of civility, thanks. Giano (talk) 09:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked, and the page was protected by another. Kevin (talk) 09:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist, please

Ifeanyi Chijindu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) had a spate of IP vandalism a month or so back and has been subject to a snide edit more recently, the subject is upset and asks for protection but the level of vandalism is very low so I have said I will ask some more people to watchlist it. VRTS ticket # 2008061610024571 (and coincidentally THEN WHO WAS PHONE? reverted some of te earlier IP vandalism, small world). Guy (Help!) 10:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I will watchlist it for whatever it's worth :-) SoWhy

OK, will watchlist and try to notice it when there are any edits. Easily distracted by these things, must focus on article writing. . . dave souza, talk 12:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible legal threat

I reverted User:PURECREATIONS here for not adhering to NPOV and the editor has made a legal threat here. Could you advise me if it is a legal threat or should it simply be ignored, thanks BigDunc 12:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It can be taken as a legal threat (however muddled). You might ask him to retract it. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Although it is a legal threat, I would ignore it as infantile and grossly inacurate. Blood Red Sandman 12:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have asked the editor to retract here. BigDunc 12:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards