Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:39, 24 November 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 admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

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

• Prohibiting the creation of new "T:" pseudo-namespace redirects
• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

WP:UP#NOT

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

Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a link to an off-wiki website entitled "Jennifer J Dickinson and Mark Bellinghaus cyberstalking on Misplaced Pages" on their user page. I am pretty sure this contravenes our user page policy; Bellinghaus is a real person with an article here, and Dickinson is his colleague. I removed it once after discussion with the user, and the user has now restored it. Rather than block I thought I would bring it here for others to review, as I have been involved in editing the Bellinghaus article and am therefore not disinterested. What do others think? --John (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Block? For what? I restored the userbox after reviewing WP:UP#NOT and finding nothing that seemed relevant. I asked you in the edit summary to bring it here or MFD if you continued to have concerns. Your comments on my talk page were added after I had restored it, fully 20 minutes after you had removed the material from my userpage. I would appreciate it if you could withdraw your comment about blocking me. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Rather than repeat the discussion here, please see the discussion on my talk page here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say that a block is premature until DC refuses to take down the link. This link is definately bad; one should not game the system by linking to pages that merely exist to contain information that would not normally be allowed at Misplaced Pages. We do not allow this sort of information on a userpage, so we also should not allow links to this sort of information. A userpage is not about discussing the behaviors of other people in this way; we don't maintain lists of "perceived wrongs" at Misplaced Pages, and therefore we should not also link to such pages from our userpage. The link should be removed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The very short version of this is that I am falsely identified in several places on the internet, including Bellinghaus' own blog as Pauline Berry. I am not Pauline Berry. I have linked to the page on Berry's site where she addressed this misidentification. I do not control the content of the site. Most of the page is actually just cut and paste of WP discussions. I am not refusing to take down the link, but I don't have time for this discussion at the moment. If a consensus is reached that the link must go, please leave the userbox intact and just remove the link. Thanks. 19:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Since DC is being falsely linked to Pauline Berry on other sites, it is not unreasonable for him/her to want a denial on the userpage. However, DC, I wonder if you might be willing to remove the link. Perhaps people can e-mail you if they want more than just your denial. Let's leave aside hitting DC with policy, and just ask nicely. Would you please, in the interests of reducing drama, be willing to remove this link?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(Hey, if I say my name is Xing, will you do as I ask? ;) --Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC))

Having read all the proof (following the links on DC's talk page)((PS: I read it a long time ago)), I was astounded at the attempts to identify DC, and the lengths someone went to in order to trash them. I have NO issue with DC defending themselves. You insist they remove the link, then DC can just copy and paste a whole whack of it ... and place <ref> </ref> with it, so that it's properly cited. ►BMW◄ 19:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

C'est folie ! L'escarboucle doit utiliser tous les outils il ou elle a à leur disposition pour se défendre du "bellinghaus" d'équipe et n'importe quelle suggestion autrement serait comme mettre un tas des briques sur un hamster et l'instruire au " équilibre, " de monsieur. Les tendrils de la marque Bellinghaus vont loin et profondément. Cahiers du jason (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Parlez en anglais, s'il vous plait. C'est la "English" Misplaced Pages. (Putting bricks on a hamster and telling it to "balance" - have to remember that one.) Avruch 20:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Bloqué pendant une semaine pour perturbation, je suppose avec Google translator. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sacré phoque!!! ►BMW◄ 22:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest resolving any off-wiki problems off-wiki and just doing stuff on here that is designed to improve our encyclopedia. I don't think this falls into that area which is why I raised it here, after my attempts to persuade Delicious carbuncle to remove the material were unsuccessful. And, although naturally we are all highly able linguists here, this is best resolved in English. --John (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Off-wiki things are often brought here, such as threats, etc. We have a policy against WP:OUTING. Editors may also defend themselves. They're not spamming/advertising. Case closed. I see very little support for your attempts to remove their defense. On top of that, I know that I am a cunning linguist, and the block of a user noted above is partly because of comments made in this thread, so relax a little. ►BMW◄ 22:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a place for this sort of "defense". "He did it first" is not a defense against WP:BLP. I am relaxed about most things but this is a flagrant breach of a policy which exists to keep our organization safe from being sued. I am not relaxed about this. I do not want to see anyone blocked over this, I just want the offending and unencyclopedic content removed in accordance with our policy on user pages. --John (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to settle any dispute through having this link on my userpage, either on- or off-wiki. I'm simply trying to correct the misidentification by pointing to the web site of the other person being falsely identified. Let me point out again that what you refer to as "the offending and unencyclopedic content" isn't on my userpage. People coming to my userpage will not see it unless they choose to click on the external link. I don't think there's anything even remotely actionable on the external web page, but I'm not a lawyer so I'm not really qualified to offer an opinion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

BUt the whole point is, if its information that would not normally be allowed on your userpage, then its not information you should be able to link to from your userpage. The distinction between "actually printed on my userpage" vs. "printed in a link from my userpage" is moot, and attempting to claim that the former should be allowed where the latter is not is simply gaming the system. The link should come down! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT#MYSPACE, either, but there are tons of editors linking to their personal blogs on their userpage. Instead of racing to claim the lofty moral righteousness of Policy, why can't people start off with the basics - that the page linked in DC's userpage makes them feel uneasy; nothing more, nothing less - and then have a level, paced, reasoned discussion from there? Part of what's dragging the project down (as well as many other Web 2.0-style projects, I should add) is this notion of discussion as a "race" of some sort. If people could feel comfortable asking for clarification and/or elaboration ("What do you mean? ~~~~") without being looked down on as trolls or threadshitters, not only would we all collectively end up with a lot more clarity and elaboratification, but long-winded folk (*cough*) wouldn't feel as pressured to address every single conceivable point in one long mass of tl;dr, perhaps skipping over important nuances in our drive to explain all. Focused conversations are good, but there's such a thing as too focused. Badger Drink (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of being accused of wikilawyering, I think there's a difference between the content actually being on WP and being on an external site. If the guidelines are to protect WP from being sued, as John suggests, there is good reason to disallow certain content on user pages, but that no longer applies if the content only linked. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think it makes any difference? More importantly, what is this contributing to our mission to build an encyclopedia? If you cannot answer convincingly, you should take the link down. --John (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:BADSITES was rejected. --NE2 04:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a non sequitur though. I am not objecting to this because of BADSITES but because it contravenes WP:USER and WP:BLP, neither of which has been rejected. --John (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If, as you suggest above, WP:BLP exists to protect WP from potential legal issues, then there is no issue here since the content is not on WP. I still don't see any part of WP:USER that applies here - can you be more specific? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, I'm afraid. WP:BLP exists to ensure that this project does no unnecessary harm to living individuals. It way beyond what might be legally actionable. It certainly does apply to userspace, and can at times apply to links that contain libels, or other grossly unhelpful material. We don't link bios to attack blogs for instance, and we don't link the names of private individuals to unauthoritive attack pages. BLP is pertinent here. Please do remove the link.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a quote from WP:USER that may address the charge from Jayron32 that I am attempting to "game the system": "If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so — such content is only permitted with the consent of the community. Alternatively, you could move the content to another site, and link to it." The clear implication is that content which is not allowed on user pages may be freely linked to. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well and good; but BLP trumps USER I'm afraid. Please remove the link. --John (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

John, I know you've corresponded with Bellinghaus and you may feel that you need to protect him. If he were simply posting nasty remarks about "Delicious carbuncle", I really wouldn't care. Sadly, he is targeting an entirely innocent party and claiming that we are one and the same. Bellinghaus' account Mmmovie (talk · contribs) was recently indef blocked here for similar comments. I am simply linking to the page on her site where Pauline Berry defends herself against Bellinghaus' accusations. I don't feel that the content of that page is offensive, but it's a moot point since it is a private website and WP rules don't apply. She has, as a result of the discussion on my talk page and unbidden by me, changed the title of the page to "Mark Bellinghaus Accusations Addressed". I don't feel that I am violating any policy or guideline by linking to the page, but does the title change alleviate your concerns? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No. If somebody accuses you of something on-wiki, we can deal with it, as you have seen. Off-wiki stuff doesn't need to be dealt with on your Misplaced Pages user page. I find it astonishing the amount of time and energy you have spent defending this link. It contributes nothing at all to the reason we are here; why is it so important to you to keep it? --John (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The time I've spent defending it is only as the direct result of your attempts to have me remove it. I've explained several times now why the link is on my userpage. As I said at the beginning of this thread, I will remove the link if that is the consensus that is reached. I honestly don't see that consensus here, nor do I feel that I am in violation of any WP rules, but I'm sure there's an admin or two who will weigh in shortly. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm growing rather tired of John's continual one-sided arguments about this. It's starting to look like a jihad witch-hunt relentless-chase-very-much-along-the-same-line-as-the-hunt-for-the-one-armed-man. We got your point from the start. Further repetition of the same point, although with different wording, is not swaying anyone. I see no real consensus to take punitive action, and I really still don't get why there was any feeling that immediate intervention was required. ►BMW◄ 15:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

A link on[REDACTED] to a web site, where someone complains of "being harassed by telephone and being defamed online as a 'criminal'" by a named living person is completely unacceptable. It is indeed a one-sided argument and is spelled out clearly in WP:BLP. We do not allow such links. Ty 15:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You may want to review this entry on Bellinghaus' blog entitled "Pauline Berry, 45, the Cyberstalker & Marilyn Monroe mocker is bored to death in New Zealand and hiding behind names like Delicious Carbuncle on Misplaced Pages and more of the hired haters, freaks & creeps". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That is quite irrelevant to our policies, which are not dictated by people's blogs; nor is[REDACTED] a place to promote off-wiki attacks on people, whether justified or not. Your implication about John above is quite unfounded. Both he and I have had email correspondence with the individual in question, and both of us in the last 24 hours have received what I can only describe as the most abusive communication I have ever received in my life, so I can assure you there is no motivation for personal favours. I am, for the record, apparently John, as well as some other people I've never heard of before, and am in league with Delicious Carbuncle. Now, will you kindly remove the link. Ty 16:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Through no actions of my own, my username has been inserted into a pre-existing off-wiki dispute between two people and my userpage linked to by one of those parties. As Bellinghaus' own blog entry shows, the parts of the linked web page that you picked out as offensive are factual. I don't think that it is accurate to characterise Berry's site as an attack page, nor is it reasonable to expect that any external site will follow WP policies. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

External sites can follow whatever policies they want, but users on this site have to follow[REDACTED] policies. That is a requiring of having the privilege of editing here, and that is why one of the individuals involved in this dispute has been blocked from this site. It is not appropriate for a user page to direct people to extreme accusations in a vicious blog war. As you don't seem to be willing to take the link off, I am making a proposal that it is removed regardless. Ty 19:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

As I stated at the very beginning of this pointlessly long thread, I am perfectly willing to remove the link of there is consensus for me to do so. Despite John's constantly shifting reasons for deleting the link and your assertion that this is in violation of WP:BLP, I don't believe that I am in violation of any WP policy and I don't see any consensus for removal of the link. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

To date those asking for removal are John, Jayron32, Scott MacDonald, Tyrenius. The only clear supporter (in English) of this link is BMW. It's quite obvious that the consensus is that it is not appropriate. Ty 19:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I took Scott MacDonald's comments as a request to reduce unnecessary drama, and I think I addressed Jayron32's concerns about WP:USER#NOT earlier in this thread. NE2's statement is pretty clearly against removal. I don't know how to take Badger Drink's comments. BMW also finds that no consensus has been reached. You and John have dominated this thread. Given that both of you have been involved with Bellinghaus' bio and have off-wiki communication with Bellinghaus, I question your neutrality in this matter.I think I've said everything I need to say here and I'm tired of repeating myself, so my only request is that someone other than you or John remove the link if they decide that there is consensus to do so. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, my 10c worth as owner of the site pointed to from DC's page is this: since both Ty and John are in contact with Bellinghaus could they possibly suggest he could solve his own problems by removing HIS accusations on his blog? I know its almost too simple a solution to consider. Then DC I am sure would have no problem removing the link, the same as I would have no problem with taking down the page itself referring to this wiki dispute. I have to say there is nothing attacking in my page, (Ty said "vicious" - I am really confused about that, as I think that word applies in a "Godzilla-like" way to the above link on the Bellinghaus site about myself). At most, there a little sarcasm on my page, which outlines my looking into the reason for the phonecalls etc. I don't see how it can be viewed as "accusatory" either, as it simply reproduces "on record" wiki conversations between myself and DC including Bellinghaus's own words. Accusations? I am not accusing him of making a threatening phone call, it actually happened and you can hear a recording of it on my page. Yes the text is somewhat damning - yes, the text gives a very bad impression of Bellinghaus - but he authored it and admitted his wiki ids! He is the author of his own bannings all over the net. No, the page is an explanation for anyone catching a very bad impression of DC and myself via highly critical and incorrect information on Bellinghaus blogs.

Furthermore, I dare not communicate with Bellinghaus myself, as anything I could possibly say (and I tried total understanding and kindness, believe me) will be twisted against me and reproduced a 100 times on various blogs.

On another note; Ty and John are worried about threats of Misplaced Pages being sued, rest assured Mark's threats are simply that. I have heard all that before (as can you if you listen to the recordings on my site). Now a question: is the threat of a lawsuit an actual threat? i.e. an empty lawsuit threat is simply a tool of intimidation, thus a threat, is it not . . . . ? Restawhile (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Restawhile. If you read upthread a few posts you will see that Mark Bellinghaus and I are no longer in contact with one another as a result of some highly abusive emails he has sent to me and Tyrenius, accusing us of both being one and the same and also being someone who he has been in conflict with, so the idea of me or Ty asking him to do anything like that is out of the question. Let me also clarify that I have no interest whatsoever in your blog, Bellinghaus's blog or any other blog. My interest has only ever been in removing this offending material from Misplaced Pages. Once that is done the matter is concluded for me. Furthermore BLP is not entirely predicated on the likelihood of a user actually filing suit against the Wikimedia Foundation, but simply in preventing harm to living people. However ironic it may seem after MB's abusive behavior, I remain committed to correcting this situation on-wiki. --John (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I find the suggestion that John or I are not neutral because we have received emails from MB to be absurd, unless it means we are biased against MB, which I don't think is what was intended. I mean, DC, please actually read the post you are answering: it describes the emails received as "what I can only describe as the most abusive communication I have ever received in my life". So I am under no illusion about the nature of the aggravation involved. But it has no place on wikipedia. We are here to write an encyclopedia. WP:BLP mandates that no contentious material about living people has any place on the project, unless it is properly referenced by reliable sources, not personal interpretations of the blogosphere. That includes links on[REDACTED] which go to such material. Find acceptable sources which think it is a sufficiently important matter, and then it can go in the article. Until such time,[REDACTED] does not provide space to promote it. Ty 03:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that "basic human dignity" goes both ways: if someone's pointing people to a user page, saying that user is someone, that user should be able to deny that. And for everyone that says BLP requires removal of links such as this: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Statement, March 1st, 2008 --NE2 03:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is an objection to a simple statement of denial (especially as the RL person mentioned is supportive). It's the link that is problematic. The linked page had an extremely inflamatory heading, which has now been toned down, so it is an unpredictable page (just the reason blogs are steered clear of), but essentially geared to negative information about a third party. Jimbo's statement is not criticising a third party: it is defending his own actions and relationship to wikipedia. Had there been a litany of Rachel Marsden's perceived flaws, it would have been received very differently. Ty 05:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

John apparently has a problem with more than just the link. --NE2 05:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. The diff shows him removing the link(s). If you mean he removed the user box as well as the link in it, well, that's just nit-picking, and is not going to help reach a solution, which seems to be evolving further down the discussion. Ty 06:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems a highly tenuous connection for you to make for two reasons. One is that the Jimbo sex scandal was a major gossip story back in March, placing it in a different class entirely from these people bickering over who said what about Marilyn Monroe's dress. The other is that while people half-jokingly refer to Jimmy Wales as a god-king, we all know that he does not create policy or precedent by his actions.--John (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how someone's user page can be considered part of the building of the encyclopedia, its simply a user page, of no consequence to actual articles on wiki Restawhile (talk) 04:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, BLP does apply everywhere, including user pages. The question is whether it applies to this statement and link. --NE2 04:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, I guess Jimbo Wales is in trouble too. I am for the general consensus bearing the weight of decision. If my vote counts, I say "keep". However, I didn't ask DC to link to my site and am well used to my stalker, so I don't really mind what happens here. I do however, thank DC, if chivalry was behind the linking, and unfortunately there is nothing I can do about my real name and his/her user name forever being linked on the internet in such a negative way.Restawhile (talk) 04:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I would be quite happy to make a signed statement on DC's page that there is no evidence that DC is Pauline Berry and all the evidence indicates that (s)he is not, and that DC is a respected editor on wikipedia. If some other editors provided something similar, it would be immediately informative to anyone going to the user page, having read about it elsewhere in a negative way. Ty 05:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a great solution to me. Perhaps mention there is no isp number in common? Restawhile (talk) 05:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I too would be happy with this solution. Far better than linking to an attack blog out of some misguided sense of equal time. Misplaced Pages is not here to provide equal time or to address perceived wrongs off-site. --John (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what people's IP addresses are, but for the rest I have the evidence of my own eyes. Ty 06:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This solution has been rejected by Delicious carbuncle. Ty 05:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This link is not acceptable

This page would not be permitted on a user page. It violates WP:UP#NOT and Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons#Non-article_space. It is not acceptable to game the system by posting an external link to it instead. The page concerns a banned editor, and a real name, where the person is said to be "a deranged fan" with the comment "I couldn't have agreed with this statement more", who "writes new lies about you daily", and who makes phone calls "in a menacing manner": the commentator states, "I was being harassed by telephone." It mentions the real name of an associated third party, who is accused of being a "co-harasser". The fact that some of this was stated on[REDACTED] is irrelevant. Some of it shouldn't have been in the first place, and it certainly shouldn't be compiled and attention drawn further to it. All of this is far in excess of Delicious carbuncle's purported motive of simply asserting that s/he is not Pauline Berry, which can be achieved by a plain statement to that effect. If Dc, as appears the case, is not willing to voluntarily remove the link, then it would be best done by someone not significantly involved in this discussion. Dc has indicated that this is acceptable, but if they then replace it, they should be blocked for doing so. Ty 05:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I would second the above. The link is not acceptable merely because DC has found some random line on a guidleline page that may be used to kinda-sorta justify it. WP:OUTING is a sacrosacnt policy at Misplaced Pages. We cannot control what happens off-wiki, but we really should prevent people from making any attempt on-wiki to out other users, and linking to a page which outs a Misplaced Pages user is the same as outing on the wiki itself. If the link is removed, then there would be no problem. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the second time in this thread I'm being unnecessarily threatened with blocking (both times by admins who have off-wiki contact with Bellinghaus). I've made my position clear in my earlier comments. If quoting the guideline that I'm supposedly breaking is finding "a random line" and wikilawyering then there's little I can say in my defense. I'm making no further comments here so that I won't be blocked for being "disruptive" which is usually what comes next in these kinds of witch hunts. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Attempt at resolution

I personally believe that this does not need to be solved at an administrator level. As I'm officially a neutral party with no real previous interactions with either, I have offered to John and DC to informally mediate. If they both agree I would personally like to put this ANI issue on hold until then. To start, I would like to only involve the 2 original parties, and will involve additional comment later. I am awaiting response from John and DC on my talkpage in order to move forward with a resolution that is acceptable to WP and all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwilkins (talk • contribs)

A mediator should be neutral. I do not regard Bwilkins as neutral, so I reject this offer. The consensus here seems reasonably clear in favor of removing the attack link. I suggest that Bwilkins or another party remove the link, and that DC be blocked for a short period if they restore it. DC has rejected what seemed to be a reasonable compromise offer in favor of the status quo, which I don't think is acceptable. --John (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You have a sad understanding of both WP:CONSENSUS and of my own neutrality, if the above is actually what you believe. I'm actually quite blown away that you have no realization that your "opponent" is also a human being with feelings, and that I (as about the 4th person who was disagreeing against only 2 others) was somehow against "consensus", and is anything other than neutral. Wow. Good luck with your future interactions with the human race. ►BMW◄ 00:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

COMMENT Marking as resolved as the link no longer works from DC's page. ►BMW◄ 00:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion (related issue)

Mark Bellinghaus' self-identified account Mmmovie (talk · contribs) was recently indef blocked here. An account previously part of this Bellinghaus-related SSP case has recently begun editing again, on Mark Bellinghaus. Anyone having read the above thread should understand and recognize the accusations made here, even though they didn't make sense to me at the time. Weareallone (talk · contribs) is quite obviously Bellinghaus evading his block. SPA TerpischoreMuse (talk · contribs) is a likely sock as well. Can someone please look at blocking? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Propose topic ban for Weareallone and Delicious carbuncle from editing the Mark Bellinghaus article, in the interest of reduced dramah. MB should not be editing his own article, and DC has amply demonstrated that a conflict of interest exists for them on this subject too. --John (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment I don't want to get into this debate too much, as it looks like many concerned are getting very caught up in it, but I think it's worth pointing out the state of the article when DC made his first edit on it: 1, at a point when seasoned editors John and TY had made edits but not had an issue with the content. To me, that looks like an article with need of a lot of improvement, and looking at the history, not only has DC patrolled the page, removing both unreasonably positive comments and negative attacks, s/he has also incurred a great deal of abuse from the parties involved in the page simply because s/he was following WP guidelines. To prevent anyone from editing the page if they have been contacted by Mark Bellinghaus would first exclude practically everyone who does, as MB seems to get in touch in most of these cases, and secondly would definately exclude DC, TY, John, Pauline Berry especially, all of whom have confirmed that they were contacted by Bellinghaus. If DC is to be banned for COI issues, then surely John and TY must undergo the same sanction. You can't just have one rule for one in this case, surely? Fantastic Work (talk) 11:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Get the facts right. The article as lasted edited by John and myself was nothing like the version you linked to. It had subsequently had multiple edits by Weareallone to bring it to the version you cite, whose contents I would certainly have an issue with. You might like to be more specific about and substantiate "s/he has also incurred a great deal of abuse from the parties involved in the page," as this casts a negative light over anyone who has edited the article. What COI exactly do you think I have? I have no involvement with any of the RL activities of the people involved, nor any particular interest in the subject. Ty 15:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. This is Fantastic Work's first edit. Who are you a sock of? Ty 16:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a very simple request to look into block evasion. It's not drama and it's not in any way, shape, or form an attack on the individual using the accounts. Bellinghaus has never contacted me off-wiki. Can we just deal with this like any other admin request, please? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Abraham K. Biggs

I've posted this at WP:BLPN, but vandalism is going uncorrected so perhaps admin attention would be beneficial. This is an article about a recent suicide that was allegedly broadcast live over Justin.tv. It's already internet-famous and has attracted the attention of the chans. There is likely to be a lot of traffic to this page over the next few days, so I'd like it to be on as many watchlists as possible. Danke, the skomorokh 17:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Can't we just speedy this per WP:BLP1E or something? Or per WP:CSD#G13, "articles that drag the encyclopedia even further down into the tabloid gutter"? --barneca (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Topics like this always resurface, and reliable coverage of them tends to emerge slightly slower than coverage in tabloids/blogs. To delete now would not serve any long term purpose. See Megan Meier, Jason Fortuny etc. the skomorokh 17:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be callous, but if he is dead how is this a WP:BLP issue? – ukexpat (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The usual response would be family, friends etc. You can imagine how inaccurate information about Abe's suicide disseminated via Misplaced Pages might effect them. the skomorokh 17:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I can see the point, but as it stands WP:BLP applies only to living people. I agree that the article should stick to the facts and avoid tabloidism etc, but that is pursuant to WP:V, WP:RS etc. If material otherwise conforms to WP policies and guidelines, we should not, in my view, be censoring it out of sympathy for his family.  – ukexpat (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No-one is suggesting that the article be censored out of sympathy for his family; I only mentioned BLPN so that editors here would not recommend I post it there. I would simply like responsible editors, preferably including some admins to watch the article so that vandalism is quickly dealt with and high standards of sourcing (note the types of sources that have been used so far in the article's history) observed. Regards, the skomorokh 17:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the article per BLP1E. While there is some coverage by sources much more notable than those that were present, this is still a classical example of what Misplaced Pages should not publish - we're not a news site nor tabloid. MaxSem 17:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, in a way, I guess I am. I don't mean per the exact wording of BLP, but the philosophy behind it; that we should try not to be dicks when it affects real people, like any family or friends. Having this pop up as an article while the body is still warm just makes me feel like I'm associated with jackels and hyenas. I wish we were more civilized and let one of the 10,000 websites devoted to immediate pop-internet phenomena deal with stuff like this. I also wish I had a million dollars, though, and that's not going to happen either. --barneca (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The article has been speedily deleted. What foresight. the skomorokh 17:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The story has been picked up by, among others, the Associated Press and The Times. WP:BLP1E does not justify speedy deleting articles, it only justifies—"cover the event, not the person"—moving and refocusing articles. I propose that the Abraham K. Biggs article be restored and moved to Suicide of Abraham K. Biggs, with the aforementioned coverage in reliable sources added. the skomorokh 18:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep Biggs represents a larger issue. Many people are curious about this incident, and there are several links to the now non-existent page. All facts were double-checked, and the page was rewritten for proper tone. Every paragraph had a reference. Several people worked to write a proper page, and no warning of the deletion appeared. Pepso2 (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If he represents a larger issue, then write an article on the larger issue. --Carnildo (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Restore People who just learned about this on CNN are turning to Misplaced Pages for more information and finding zilch. Pepso2 (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

If they learned about it on CNN, then there's a strong likelihood that they are now in possession of all the facts which can be reliably confirmed. Since we should not, per policy , have anything more than that, there's not much need for us to have an article until the facts come out, the dust settles, and the wolves and jackals stop licking their chops over the tabloid-exploitable nature of this tragedy. We should let the poor guy's body cool down, rather than sticking a flag into a mountain of questionable "facts" and claim "we got here first".GJC 01:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Reaction of Biggs' family: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gtO167ywBhMURgOmp4ScpR7rBdvgD94JV9P80 Pepso2 (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It should be restored. Has been the subject of media coverage, like Kevin Neil Whitrick was.-Boshinoi (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I mean, it should at least be restored and subject to AfD discussion. WP:CSD explicitly does not list "biographies of people notable for one event", so this deletion was out of process.-Boshinoi (talk) 21:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

That's simple Wikilawyering. BLP violations may be deleted on sight. — The Hand That Feeds You: 01:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

He is dead, so WP:BLP doesn't apply. We fall back on WP:RS and the other relevant policies and guidelines. – ukexpat (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus has been that recent deaths still fall under BLP, out of respect to the family. If you wish to dispute that, take it up on Misplaced Pages talk:BLP. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

<--outdent OK I can accept that. But for these purposes what is "recent" - days? Weeks? Months? Years? Not being obtuse here, just trying to understand. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Krzyzowiec

• Krzyzowiec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would like to ask for a community review of editor Krzyzowiec. I have run accross him in relation to the National Revival of Poland article. After looking through the history of his contributions, it seems to me that this is a highly tendentious POV-pushing editor who is a net negative to the project. His user page essentially proclaims that his intention is to do WP:BATTLE here: "I am here to edit a lot of English Misplaced Pages's articles about Poland and Polish right wing or "middle" movements, history etc. because a lot of articles here are written by Polish left wing liars. I'm here also because Polish Misplaced Pages isn't fair, 3/4 of Polish Misplaced Pages's Administrators have left - liberal point of view on everything and they make changes as they believe in real life, so their articles aren't fair." There is also a charming rant against the Jews there:"This user can't understand why everyone tries on English Misplaced Pages (and everywhere else) show the Polish society as a bloody anti-semites while "Jewish pogroms" in Poland ("officialy" commited by the Poles) took approximately 1500 victims from 1944 to 1989. During the World War II Poles saved up to 400,000 Jews (official numbers), 3,000,000 Poles risked their lives under the Nazi occupation of Poland to save the Jewish people. This is how you pay us back ?!" His edit history shows that a great deal of his edits are indeed related to extreme far right, fascism and Jews related articles and appear to be exactly of the kind that WP:BATTLE proscribes against. There are 5 blocks from May to August of this year for edit warring, 3RR, incivility, personal attacks and the like. Although there are no more recent blocks than the one-week block on August 11, it does not seem to me that the editor changed his attitude much or that he is in any mood to reform. Just by looking at the edits for the last few days, one sees the following examples: an anti-Jewish rant, tendentious fact tags, more tendentious and clearly inappropriate tags on National Revival of Poland (the article is well-sourced and the notability and primary sources tags are obviously not abpplicable), an edit summary Who are you to decide what belongs in the article ?!, and finally the charming placement of the fact tag next to the statement about Protocols of the Elders of Zion being a hoax in the List of conspiracy theories article. All this shows a dedicated POV and WP:BATTLE warrior who is here for the wrong reasons. I think that either an indef block or a topic ban on all Poland, Jews and fascism related articles would be in order. Nsk92 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're asking for a community review as you said, wouldn't a request for comment for user conduct fit that bill nicely? That is, that would be the best way to go if a topic ban is desired. MuZemike (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that an RfC is for less clear-cut cases than this one. Here, according to the proclamations at his talk page and his actions, we have a self-described POV warrior whose main motivation on Misplaced Pages is to do WP:BATTLE and whose actions confirm this. I do not believe that this is a close call. Nsk92 (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as a "rant against the Jews" as you say and quote: >>There is also a charming rant against the Jews there:"This user can't understand why everyone tries on English Misplaced Pages (and everywhere else) show the Polish society as a bloody anti-semites while "Jewish pogroms" in Poland ("officialy" commited by the Poles) took approximately 1500 victims from 1944 to 1989. During the World War II Poles saved up to 400,000 Jews (official numbers), 3,000,000 Poles risked their lives under the Nazi occupation of Poland to save the Jewish people. This is how you pay us back ?!"<< I see nothing wrong with what was said, and it's a sad state to see any mention of a Jew lead to accusations of insensitivity or antisemitism. In addition, his ideas and opinions on the "left wing liars" bending Poland related articles towards their views...well it may be true! Who are you to decline him the opportunity to contribute here? The editing power of Misplaced Pages, the way this place works, prevents a lone person from hurting the project. Everything can be undone. I think you're over reacting, and I see no action necessary against this man. Good luck though. Beam 17:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? You do not think that the passage about the Jews ending with This is how you pay us back ?! as offensive and repulsive? Now, that is pretty sad. What about Protocols of the Elders of Zion being a hoax fact tag? Nsk92 (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In response to Beamathan: Sorry no... Misplaced Pages is not the place to post ones political views regardless of whether said views support the left or right wing of any political system. Misplaced Pages is about collecting verifiable information from reliable sources and reporting that information in a neutral manner. Its not the place to post random rants about personal beliefs over conspiracies and the like. Misplaced Pages is about building an encyclopedia, if one wants to post their personal political views, there's another place called "the rest of the internet" where such views are quite welcome. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, that is precisely what WP:BATTLE is about. Someone who, according to their own user page, comes to Misplaced Pages with a self-professed agenda of fighting some political and ideological battles here should find another place to do it. Nsk92 (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• This report seems to document disruptive editing. The appropriate response is an indefinite block. The user is repeatedly violating WP:NOT by using Misplaced Pages to advocate their political/historical views. Additionally, they are engaged in a campaign of anti-semitism. It is fairly easy to spot their use of traditional code words and arguments. This diff really gives it away. The user has not edited since the notice about this thread was posted to their talk page. I will hold off on blocking them in case they want to respond here. Should they resume disruption on any other page, I or any other administrator should block them immediately. Jehochman 10:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Background

This user is banned for three years currently on Polish Misplaced Pages for all kinds of disruptive editing block log. Just one diff from pl wiki titled "Why I am (here)" - one section of the user page is titled "Dlaczego jestem Antysemitą ?! (Why I am an antisemite), when long collection of anti-Jewish quotes follows. This is year 2006. And this is year 2008 and en.wiki: openly anti-Semitic rant in Czech language. Anti-Semitic "Talmud quote" (a forgery still popular in modern far-right and anti-Semitic circles) is cited: Žid nemůže krásti -- on jen bere, co jeho jest. Peníze nežida jsou majetkem bez pána -- Žid má úplné právo si je přivlastnit. ("Jew can not steal, he takes what belongs to him. The money of non-Jew is a property without owner, Jew has a full right to take it"). This user claims to be associated with National Revival of Poland on his user page. When talking about this organization he often uses word We. So agenda behind his edits at National Revival of Poland article is quite clear. Disruptive abuse of templates is repeated on regular basis for months now . Recently Krzyzowiec stated what he would never leave this article , and I believe him. M0RD00R (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit reluctant to take into account his activities outside of English Misplaced Pages, although I do think that his behaviour here, in en-wiki has been sufficiently disruptive to merit an indef block. Are you sure, and if yes then why, that the user on Polish Misplaced Pages whom you referenced and User:Krzyzowiec are the same person? Nsk92 (talk) 14:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's the same user behind those two accounts. Userboxes of both account accounts claim that this user was born in Warsaw but currently lives in New York. Political views behind the edits are also identical, so is editing pattern - same picture (now deleted on both wikis) was uploaded and insterted to National Revival of Poland article by User:Krzyzowiec on en.wiki and by Timber Wolf on pl.wiki . IP 71.183.38.75 who is clearly Krzyzowiec , on pl.wiki signs his post as Timber Wolf . M0RD00R (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm on my non-admin account until I get back to a secure computer. I believe you can go ahead with the block if you are uninvolved. Jehochman2 (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Err, I am not an admin. Nsk92 (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Kryzowiec is not here to benefit the encyclopedia. Going through his contribution history needs a strong stomach; take a look at this edit from 22 November. I support an indef block. (Nsk92 notified me of this thread, and reminded me I'd blocked K. previously for 3RR). EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Per consensus on this thread, and my own review of the facts, I have blocked the user for 1 year. Jehochman 19:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Another troubling user page - Judge Florentino Floro

User:Florentino floro -- I blocked this user indefinitely for outing (and you should see what he's written on this talk page now), and never looked at his user page. Is it a record for weirdness? And is it acceptable? He talks a lot about other people so I'm a bit worried about BLP. If I type his name into Google, his user page is the first hit (hey Diligent Terrier, you're in the snippet!), which doesn't seem too good. And our article (Florentino Floro) on him is 2nd, which is no problem obviously. dougweller (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear god... —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 18:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the same Florentino Floro who claimed to talk to invisible dwarfs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shnitzled (talk • contribs) 18:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That picture...wow what has been seen cannot be unseen. On topic, that talk page might need to be locked down to prevent further, uh....rants. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Aagggghhhhh where's my eye bleach?! – ukexpat (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

...sitting with mouth unhinged....That's just...i mean...Dude. That's the most....no. Seriously. Dude. I mean....what the...DUDE! What the FA...... No, man, seriously. I mean....why would you...what did...

...shakes it off... I'm going to bed. Would someone please come and remove my brain while I sleep? Thanks. GJC 01:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, my turn to be no fun, I guess. Folks, this is somebody with schizophrenia. He has a brain disease that makes him behave erratically. That doesn't mean he has a license to disrupt Misplaced Pages, but it means that we should take the necessary measures without making fun of him -- in spite of how tempting it is. looie496 (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm shocked by the amount of time, thought, and--good heavens!--typing involved in the creation of that userpage. Can you imagine how long it took to write and format all that? Or how many articles could have been written during that interval, or with that number of keystrokes?? (I would add to his list of probable maladies "repetitive stress injury to the wrist"!) The content may be....um....yeah, something...but it's among the best-organized, most-fluent "um-yeah-something" I've ever encountered. Despite his diagnoses, he shows an impressive mastery of language and communication--assuming (and it's a BIG assumption!) you can ignore the WTF-ness of the content. (Could have lived without those ::::shudder::: pictures, however...Well, the "violet" one was pretty, anyhow.)GJC 06:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Never underestimate the sheer endurance of those who've been Called By God, dear Gladys. X MarX the Spot (talk) 06:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that fact mentioned on his page, but anyway, wouldn't it be better if Misplaced Pages prevented user pages from being indexed by Google? Surely such an action would prevent certain Misplaced Pages admins from bragging on slashdot that they're more popular than other famous people with the same name, but I don't consider this side effect a bad thing. Pcap ping 02:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

o_O I had no idea that we actually had an article on him... Wow. And Cortez, I'd be glad to remove your brain :) Anyways, what is it that we should do? ♫ IceUnshattered 02:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You may also want to read the last version of the mainspace article that was written mostly by Floro himself . Quite different from the current article, isn't it? He was clearly using his user page for more of his POV. The article and his user page are the top 2 hits on Google when searching for "Florentino Floro". Indexing of user pages makes soapboxing too easy for all but banned users. Of course, given his psychotic antecedents, Floro just embarrasses himself on his user page, probably without even realizing it. I don't think that facilitating self-ridicule of the mentally ill is a goal of Misplaced Pages. Good job blanking the page, but not allowing Google to index such pages would be better. Pcap ping 03:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The next time Bill O'Reilly goes off on a rant about American judges, he should take a look at this Judge. He may seem like a nutcase, but how many are not that far away from becoming what this guy is? In short - judge not, lest ye be Judge. Baseball Bugs 05:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

He's totally nuts. He's been spouting his nonsense on other forums and people's blogs as late as this month, identifying himself as "established Misplaced Pages editor Florentino Floro" and "creator of legendary 14 page forum thread." He's also been mailing viruses and copies of his books to bloggers and Misplaced Pages editors, and pestering us with friend requests on every social networking site available. I browsed through his 900 page book which he emailed to a Wiki admin, and it's just an archive of all his forum posts and rants from the talk namespace. --Migs (talk) 05:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Clearly the poor chap is bat-shit insane. Quite sad really. One feels for his friends and family. Can he not be ignored in the hope that he'll eventually slip into dignified obscurity? X MarX the Spot (talk) 05:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention what I actually came here to say. Users LUIS_Armand_and_Angel and Judgefloro are two of the dozen alternate accounts he claims to have. This is in addition to the now blocked Juanatoledo. They haven't been active since 2007, but should something be done about those accounts? Especially since he declared his intention to keep editing either anonymously or under another name. --Migs (talk) 06:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, well, it is good to see this issue (finally) getting some attention from the community. I think the proposal to prevent google from indexing user pages is a really good one. Where could that be taken up? xschm (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Admins may also want to be aware of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Florentino floro, which he has recently been claiming that he won (presumably on the grounds that his account wasn't permanently banned on the spot). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I almost feel bad seeing that page blanked. It's like the world's longest monument to formal thought disorder next to the randomly-faxed pamphlets of Francis E. Dec. And this one's got pictures! I will admit, I laughed myself hoarse over the shirtless one with the rifle. God love this place... Bullzeye 05:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I am deeply, deeply upset by the comments I'm reading above. It's completely inappropriate to talk so disparagingly of someone who has worked hard on Misplaced Pages for quite some period of time. Can we consider unblocking him now? Have any conditions been discussed? If there's anything I can do, I'd be happy to help. At the very least, let's restore his user page and quit adding insult to injury. Everyking (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Restoring his user page would in no way be in the interests of Misplaced Pages. If we did that, it would be a statement that almost anything except attack pages is acceptable in userspace. dougweller (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I am so totally pleased that people are now finally talking about how crazy this is. For so so long, I thought no one else could see it. TheCoffee (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Wake up, and smell the coffee! Sorry, I couldn't resist. Pcap ping 15:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Anybody mind if I IAR and delete the personal images? We (and I suppose, he) don't really want anybody out there to turn some of those into some internet meme or something, do we? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Dang, they are all on commons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

So, let me guess, we can't delete a picture of a half-naked psychotic individual holding a rusty rifle because it's free content? No WP:IAR on commons? Pcap ping 15:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Holly dwarfs! Did anyone check out his commons user page? Pcap ping 15:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, we just need to find a commons admin. I don't know if the user is even blocked over at commons yet? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit in doubt about deleting all his images. This one won't scare the children. He's been admonished for uploading lots of personal images to commons (see his talk page there). The irony is that he's an encyclopedic subject, so some pictures of him may be appropriate. But we should have some decency, even if he lacks judgment, and it's all too easy to make fun of him. Pcap ping 16:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Those are, uh...nice pictures -shifty eyes- , but I really can't see any encyclopedic value in them. I'm not really familiar with the deletion policies, but I really feel uncomfortable with just letting those images sit there. ♫ IceUnshattered 16:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If someone has the time and patience to go over his uploads, I think most of them can be tagged for deletion because they fail . Pcap ping 19:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yikes. Should I expect spam emails, socks leaving long messages on my talk page, and the like? I declined his previous unblock purely on procedural grounds because he didn't supply a reason, but I wasn't aware that he's a nut. I kept tabs on his talk page after declining the unblock, and I admit, this is some of the most bizarre stuff I've ever seen. — sephiroth bcr 03:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know but apparently he has a blog here where he outs every editor whom he's spoken with at length. As far as I know, all the people here have been pestered by him on multiple social networking sites and email. I had a laugh explaining to the guy that Floro claims is me why he was getting spammed by him. --Migs (talk) 03:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Judge Floro may be mentally ill. But that's not his fault. So our discussion here should be conducted using more neutral terms. The terms being used in this section read like the who's who of a psychiatric manual including some slang terms for good measure. I mean as long as we don't have a certificate from a doctor who's to say what this man suffers from exactly? And why should we be floating these terms around anyway? They are not facilitating a better discourse in any way. Dr.K. (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The Wiki article about him says that he has a psychosis. In fact, I believe Floro may have added one of those sources himself. Anyway, it doesn't matter. Floro's been blocked due to a (now-archived) discussion from the other day which was much less rude than this. This discussion is alive mainly due to Everyking's wish to facilitate his unblocking, my reports of Floro's sockpuppets, and some warnings that Floro may try to spam and/or out the editors involved here. --Migs (talk) 04:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

When someone devotes a year or more of their own time to help us build an encyclopedia, that is something worthy of our respect, not ridicule. This discussion, filled with claims of mental illness and insults, is wildly inappropriate. If we cannot agree on unblocking Florentino, we can at least treat him with some measure of respect. Everyking (talk) 04:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Everyking. Respect for everyone, especially the weaker members of society, should be a motherhood issue. Understood and followed by everyone. Dr.K. (talk) 05:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The previous discussion has very little name-calling and makes persuasive arguments as to why the "year or more of own time" hurt Misplaced Pages more than it helped. The name-calling may be uncalled for, but I think his mental illness is relevant because he blatantly allows it to bleed onto Misplaced Pages and affect his judgment and editing patterns. See the previous discussion. --Migs (talk) 05:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The man has been treated with considerable respect in this thread. It's pretty clear that he struggles with some significant mental health issues and that has been noted. Characterising people with mental illness as "weaker members of society" is just about the most offensive thing I've read here. X MarX the Spot (talk) 05:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Great. I guess you prefer calling him a nut? I used the term "weak" in terms of their treatment by others and in terms of their diminished capacity to appreciate their illness. I also guess that I cannot make everyone happy no matter how gingerly I approach the subject but I do find your comments unfair and uncalled for. Dr.K. (talk) 05:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You're the one who said it. Be a mensch and take responsibility for what you say, rather than offering limp wristed excuses kiddo. X MarX the Spot (talk) 06:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This righteous indignation coming from you who just called him "bat shit insane" a few lines above is the paragon of hypocrisy. Also don't presume to teach me how to be a mensch if your attitude and vocabulary (quote: "kiddo") are in their early teens stage. Dr.K. (talk) 06:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh don't be so thin skinned, Dr Taramasalata -- clearly he is batshit insane, he thinks he's the fucking angel of death. Just because someone is an all singing, all dancing member of the crazy-folks tribe doesn't mean he or she is weak minded. X MarX the Spot (talk) 06:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I have to revise my estimate above. You barely make toddler level. I should not have reacted so strongly to you. Babies must be treated with care. Dr.K. (talk) 06:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That's ok, apology accepted. Just you be more careful in future, this is a serious website y'know. You can't just say whatever you like. :) X MarX the Spot (talk) 06:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Erm, ok. :) Dr.K. (talk) 06:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Relax people. He's indef blocked, we're not going to unblock him, and arguing over semantics here isn't constructive. Concerns: 1) have all his socks been blocked 2) what are we going to do about his upcoming unblock? — sephiroth bcr 06:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If yer not gonna unblock him, why should we be concerned about his "upcoming unblock"? X MarX the Spot (talk) 06:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Because I'm wary of another thing like this. And I won't be the one handling the upcoming unblock because I recused myself by declining the first unblock. — sephiroth bcr 06:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Fairy 'nuff. X MarX the Spot (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It has been suggested on my talk page that if Floro agrees to be more civil we should unblock him. It is my position that given his behaviour in the past this wouldn't work and that he is not in control of himself enough to do this. And of course that there are other reasons why an unblock would be wise, which we don't need to discuss unless someone seriously starts a new discussion about unblocking him. dougweller (talk) 08:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Aside from Everyking, I don't think anyone else is pressing from an unblock. Given a review of this archive, I don't think an unblock is warranted in any situation. I don't care that he suffers from a mental condition. I care that it clearly affects his editing, and in the end, it's a giant net negatitive. He's clearly not responsive to any attempts at reasonable discourse to change his behavior. — sephiroth bcr 09:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

What should we do if he tries to subvert the block by using a sockpuppet, maybe User:Lux Lord? xschm (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice catch, how did you find that one? I'm blocking it indefinitely. TheCoffee (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

My position is that we ought to outline conditions that would make it at least theoretically possible for Florentino to resume editing, if he is willing to modify his behavior, rather than saying, like Doug, that he is fundamentally incapable of working within the environment and should never be allowed back under any circumstances. As I pointed out on Doug's talk page, this is only Florentino's second block ever. Florentino has been around for quite a while, and if he's such a difficult and troublesome user, why hasn't he been blocked more often? It's not normal to move straight to an indef when dealing with an editor like Florentino. Why don't we try short blocks to see if his behavior can be guided in that manner? Everyking (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Edinburgh sock again?

78.148.56.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has added "Scotland" to a city list and has changed the photo in Edinburgh. Does anyone recognize this? Is this the same sockmaster that deleted references to UK? I think it's about the same IP range. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• It looks like the same user, see http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_twin_towns_and_sister_cities_in_Russia&action=history and Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Nimbley6 (5th), although probably not worth blocking as the user changes IP address so often (e.g. 84.13.115.209 (talk · contribs) yesterday). —Snigbrook 00:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Nimbley6 currently has a few unblocked registered accounts, and is using one.

Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 20:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Firefly322

Firefly322 (talk · contribs) This bad faith editor has just filed this Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Orangemarlin obviously as revenge for this ani and Firefly's subsequent blocking here and here. This sockpuppet charge, which will be easily refuted by a checkuser, and since I have no reason to use socks, is a personal attack. Since there is no reason to ever consider that I use socks, especially Verbal (talk · contribs) who shares interests in articles, but doesn't cross paths with me as often as about 100 other editors, I would as an extended block be placed on Firefly. OrangeMarlin 18:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

*blink* I have to say that this does appear from many angles to be a revenge SSP filing. I have suggested to Firefly that perhaps this action is unwise, based on their history of disruption. Filing a completely unreasonable SSP report is going to take more than 1 person's time and energy away from editing articles, and instead off on a snipe hunt - that's purely disruptive behavior. I recommend that if Firefly does not remove their obviously vexatious SSP report that they be given a few days rest to determine if they wish to stop disrupting Misplaced Pages in the future, or if the community needs to make that decision for them. ►BMW◄ 18:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It's out in the open, so it's too late to take it back and take a time out. I think an indefinite block is warranted. In the Misplaced Pages world, this like defamation. OrangeMarlin 18:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. Editors may discuss a shorter block, longer block or community ban and shift this as they please. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't we make it for a year? It's interesting that after his week-long block, he was nice for about a week. Then out of the blue this thing. It's clear he doesn't have the temerity to play nice. OrangeMarlin 18:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Would I be allowed to archive close the checkuser, as it's clearly frivolous, or should someone else do it? Is there a different procedure for checkusuers? HalfShadow 18:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't want Firefly to come back claiming "favouritism" or that his complaints were "unheard" or that he was poorly treated. Let it go through, and if he hasn't apologized for his vexatious attitude by the time it's completed, block him for a year. If he does apologize, continue his 1-month block and welcome him back cautiously when it's done. ►BMW◄ 19:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important the checkuser be completed per BMW. OrangeMarlin 19:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Meh. It's spurious. But since you asked nicely...  Unrelated ++Lar: t/c 20:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

How many bad unblock requests does he get before his ban is extended? ►BMW◄ 20:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

As a technical concern, I don't see evidence that the block is a ban. (This is done without checking the validity of the block; I lean toward it being a good block.) I have little opinion on the extension; I've interacted with Firefly, but cannot recall whether it was favorable, and favorably with people who have agreed and disagreed with him in the past week. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

WGN-TV

Resolved – Betacommand gets his way this time.

I would like for someone who's an expert on the subject to comment on whether Betacommand is correct in removing the logos from that article which have sat there for months with no complaints. He may well be right, but he's been blocked so often for misinterpreting the NFC rules that I can't assume he knows what he's talking about. If someone else could comment, I would appreciate it. P.S. He threatened to have me blocked for reverting him twice. I thought those threats came after three reversions??? Baseball Bugs 19:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a discussion of the use of several historical logos (specifically for a TV station, just not this one) at WT:NFC. There has not been any consensus yet, though I am involved in that, the best unbiased statement I can state is that the issue is between too much non-free media without necessary commentary, and those that feel the logos are needed to show the historical changes in the logo, and can go without significant commentary. Is beta right for deleting them? It probably would have been better to tag the page with "too much non-free" instead of deleting them without a resolve to the issue - but there's also the fact there doesn't seem to be a resolve - there's no middle ground that can be readily approached. --MASEM 20:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

So, in short, Betacommand is taking his usual slash-and-burn approach and threatening anyone who disagrees. Par for the course. He wins this round, from my standpoint. Just as it was stupid for someone to get blocked for a week over the importance of Salma Hayek's breasts, it's stupid to risk getting blocked over a bunch of TV logos. Luckily, I already downloaded them. 0:) Baseball Bugs 20:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You can be warned after making no reverts, but they are unlikely to be taken seriously. Speaking of seriously, yes you can be warned after two revisions or even blocked for same since 3RR is not an limit but a clear blue line. However, BC making such warnings is habitual (it seems to be his version of "hi, I see you have made some changes to an edit I made - can we talk?") and should be considered within context; does it exceed his civility probation? No, and therefore it is better to take the higher moral ground and investigate the basis of BC's actions and determine whether the consensus exists for it. If it doesn't, or is debatable, then the next action is to civilly draw peoples attention to it - and if it does then do right by yourself. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Or, give up and let someone else do the fighting. As long as Betacommand is here, there will be no peace. And that's the way it is. The best thing is to avoid him like the plague. Baseball Bugs 23:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

how about you just follow the policy? and all will be well. β 02:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Policy set by legal counsel or policy as interpreted by you? I personally go with what Mike Godwin has said, but that is just me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 02:33

Please shut up as you have admitted you have no clue what your talking about. What Godwin was talking about as a legal issue not a policy issue. Non-free content is not allowed in galleries. it might help if you read WP:NFCC and its talk archives. β 03:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"Please shut up" is overly aggressive Beta - try for a more moderate/conciliatory tone please. Exxolon (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a violation of his civility probation? - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 04:17

It is, and I have blocked him for 24 hours for violating that, in addition to the requirement that he "Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion", which it does not appear that he has done. If anyone thinks I'm being unduly harsh, please let me know, but by this point, Betacommand really ought to know better. For reference, these restrictions are listed here. Lankiveil 08:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC).

To be honest, I don't think you are being harsh enough. If it were me, I would have gone 72 hours. 48 hours because he last block was for 24, escalation in time, plus since he violated two terms of his probation, an extra 24. That is an this editor's opinion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 08:48

Neutralhomer, please be aware that the legal position of Misplaced Pages is a completely separate issue from the non-free content policy set by the Foundation. A gallery of non-free images is, as Mike Godwin has stated, completely legally ok, but that's the legal side; a gallery of non-free images weighs down the free content mission goals. We're not going to get sued by having such, but we are hurting the ability to disseminate free content with it. --MASEM 06:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

So, really you are saying, they are "OK", but you are just going to throw any ol' policy at them to get them to go away? When Godwin said they were "OK" to him, that didn't mean delete them anyway. Perhaps we ALL should ask Mike for a detailed opinion on this before deleting everything and if Mike says they are OK and don't violate any policy, I think that should be made policy. I ask for all of Beta's changes be reverted until a detailed opinion on this from Mike is given. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 06:23

They are legal based on USA fair use laws, they are not OK by Misplaced Pages's fair use policy and the Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy resolution. Misplaced Pages's fair use policy is much stricter than US law (and I believe always has been, this isn't news) in a deliberate attempt to restrict fair use usage, as Masem said to keep within the foundation's free content principles. Mr.Z-man 07:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That is why I said the "let's delete everything" idea should stop until we get a detailed opinion on galleries vs. NFCC from Mike Godwin. He has the final say on everything. Also, I don't think Wiki should be able to trump law, because, essentially, nothing can trump Misplaced Pages. I think there should be something that can. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 08:04

Neutralhomer, you need to start getting the point. Mike Godwin does not have the final say in this case. Now, if it were the reverse—if Mike said "This is against the law, we need to stop it", then he does have the final say, and we would stop at once. But just because Mike says something is legal doesn't mean we will do it. Mike has the final say on legality. He categorically does not have the final say as to whether or not something passes our policy, nor did he even address that issue, he addressed only the legal matter. If he did choose to address the policy issue, his opinion would carry no more or less weight than any other editor.

There are plenty of situations where we disallow something, not because it would be illegal, but because it would be damaging to the project. It would be perfectly legal, for example, for us to allow companies to place spam/ad arguments about themselves. However, that doesn't mean we will allow that. It is not illegal to use sockpuppets to skew a discussion or vote. That doesn't mean we don't prohibit it, we certainly do. The same is true of our nonfree content policy. We cannot override the law, nor are we trying (we would only be doing that if we were using images we did know or believe to be unlawful). However, this aspires to be a free content project. We seek to use as little nonfree content as possible. In order to become a truly free content project, we would have to get that number to zero; however, we still seek to be as close as possible. That's why we have a policy on nonfree content that is much stricter than the law. That's not an attempt to "override the law", we have every right to say "Yes, the law would allow use of a nonfree image here, but we will not." Free content projects do not use nonfree content just because they legally can. Seraphimblade 08:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Nothing trumps law or is trying to right now; that argument is a red herring. Rather, the NFCC policy is a condition in addition to the law, a policy established by the Foundation, and Mike Godwin's opinion is irrelevant unless he says that this policy is actually illegal according to US law and other laws that may apply. Just because something is legal doesn't mean we should do it. —kurykh 08:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If it is legal and "OK", then it should be done. "We don't want to" isn't a good enough arguement. If Mike says it's OK, it's OK. Mere editors (which is what we all are) can't trump the head legal dude, which is what it seems ALOT of people are trying to do. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 08:55

I can say spam is "OK." Should we do it? I say advertising is "OK." Should we do it? If I were to say launching personal attacks at you was "OK," should I be permitted to do it? Such an argument is nonsensical. No one has invoked WP:IDONTLIKEIT except for you, Neutralhomer. Mike Godwin cannot be trumped if he says what we permit is illegal, not if we restrict actions which are legal. —kurykh 10:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What you say is "OK" doesn't matter. Mike's opinion matters and he said galleries of images were OK. The anti-fair-use group, which you are obviously a part of, is the ONLY people who have said I Don't Like It (also, I never "invoked it", you just did). The anti-fair-use group is the only ones who are trying to trump the legal staff of Wikimedia and refuse to get Mike's detailed opinion on this because he might, God forbid, disagree with you. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 10:23

Yes, I'm part of the secret cabal that will take over this place and wreak hellish anti-fair-use tyranny upon you. Please tell me where I can document my registration. —kurykh 10:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

And Mike Godwin disagrees with me on what? Point it out and provide evidence of your assertions instead of engaging in abstractions. —kurykh 10:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Which "policy established by the Foundation" are you referring to, Kurykh? There's a lot of misinformation flying around whenever someone says "Foundation", and it generally looks like the anti-fair-use people have gotten into the habit of claiming their preferred interpretation of English Misplaced Pages policy was mandated by the Foundation when the Foundation said no such thing. Particularly because nobody bothers to question it, except that's what I'm doing right now. If you're referring to a specific thing that the Foundation actually established, though, I apologize. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Didn't the Foundation say "minimal fair-use"? We're circling around what "minimal" means, and some people are wary that anything beyond "almost none" will open the floodgates to "always". In particular, Beta's Non-free content is not allowed in galleries is unsupported at the last discussion thread I've seen. (NB No admin action requested in this post) Franamax (talk) 09:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess "Foundation policy" was not the most correct choice of words, but I refer you to this. More of a "mandate", I guess. I'm not saying that there should be stifling restrictions (I will leave "stifling" deliberately vague), but to reject the entire policy wholesale just because it is legal to do so does not serve us well. Also, policy changes such as these can be discussed without labeling others without first ascertaining their exact position on the issue (i.e., your seeming labeling of me as "anti-fair-use" when I have neither said nor asserted any such thing). —kurykh 10:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

So, you are saying that because it is legal to do so...it is legal to reject the idea and it really is OK for us to use galleries....you are going to do the opposite for what reason? Because you can? Because ducks fly? Your logic isn't making sense. It's OK, but we said it isn't? Come on. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 10:23

No, no, no. You're misinterpreting me again. You're saying that we can do anything because Mike Godwin says it's legal, and that we shouldn't be allowed to add conditions in addition to US fair use law. I disagree with you. Are we on the same page now? Or are you going to talk past me again and call people names instead of discussing this without stuffing words in my mouth? —kurykh 10:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

NeutralH, it is legal for you to smoke cigarettes in your own home. It's also legal for you to forbid people from smoking in your home. We're not talking about what is most legal, we're trying to figure out how much blue haze is acceptable. It says somewhere near the top, "the 💕..." We care about the law, but we also care about the goal of being free. So we set our own rules, within the law but also in accordance with our aims. The discussion is not about what could win a court case, it's about what will best meet our conflicting goals of being both free and encyclopedic. Franamax (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Because we are a free content project, and in addition to being legal, nonfree content must pass these restrictions as well. There is a lot of content which it would be perfectly legal for us to use which we still do not because it is nonfree. Indeed, we even do not use "permission for Misplaced Pages only", "noncommercial use only", or "no derivative" licensed works (unless they pass the nonfree content test), even though we could perfectly legally do so in these cases. Our requirements for use of nonfree content are much more stringent than simply being legal, and that is by design—the Wikimedia Foundation has specified that use of nonfree content must be minimal. Using nonfree content anywhere the law would allow would be maximal—after all, we would be extremely unwise to make any more use than the law allows, so "everything the law would allow" is the maximum possible. That is not in keeping with our goal as a free content project. I think what you're failing to see is that "Yes, it would be legal to use those images" does not translate to "Yes, we should use those images." Certainly, if I went and asked Mike "Mike, would it be legal for me to remove the images?", he would tell me "Of course it is", and wonder why I would even ask. If I asked him "Would it be legal for me to change every instance of 'colour' to 'color' in every article I see it in?" he would, again, tell me that yes, that would be perfectly legal. Would that make me categorically and indisputably right? Seraphimblade 10:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's be clear here. WP's policy is narrower than US fair use, in two precise, quite limited ways. First, because we ask not whether we ourselves could use the image, but whether a commercial downstream reuser using our content verbatim would be okay. Secondly, because we don't accept non-free content, even with permissions, if it could potentially be replaced by free content. Those are the parameters WP:NFC was crafted to defend.

These images aren't replaceable. So if Mike says these images are okay fair-use - which I would understand to mean okay for downstream verbatim reusers, then we should pay some attention to that. Jheald (talk) 10:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, there are many, many, many circumstances where things are valid fair use under US law but are not allowed under our policies. Many nations have no fair use laws whatsoever. Reusers in those countries would not be able to use the content. Wiki(p|m)edia's goal is to spread free content, not "sort-of free" content. That is why we limit non-free content so much. Mr.Z-man 19:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Will people please acquire a clue on the difference between "legal" and "within Misplaced Pages policy". For example, it's completely legal for me to spam my website on the external links of dozens of articles, but it's not within policy, and would be removed. It's completely legal for me to include reams of unsourced original research in articles, or to create an article about my dog, but ... you get the idea. The real point here is "do these logo galleries contravene WP:NFCC or not?", and IMHO the answer is "yes, they do contravene it". Though since no admin intervention is necessary here, this should really be at WT:NFC. As for the articles, I'd see no problem with tagging them all with {{Template:NFimageoveruse}} to perhaps spark individual discussion on their talkpages. Black Kite 12:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The key letters being IMHO. It would be brilliant if you could ever have your specific ideas backed up by solid judgements, but you never do. All you have is your own personal interpretation of the NFC, and your endless attempts to represent that as the universal opinion with much heat but without any light. MickMacNee (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh look, a Betacommand thread and who pops up? Anyway, solid judgments? Try WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8, which aren't my personal interpretation of NFCC, and both of which the non-free logo galleries fail. I put "IMHO" because I don't presume to be the ultimate authority on non-free images, unlike some people. Black Kite 16:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The galleries fail 3a and 8 in your opinion'. That's the thing you never quite understand. You are not the ultimate authority, and quite often, you are not even in the qualified minority. You never even undesrstand this basic point, which is what makes these repeated bs argumnents over the nfc pointless until such time as the foundation educates you on your absolute lack of knowledge of either the purpose or interpretation of the law, and the actual reason the NFC exists.MickMacNee (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You know quite well that the vast majority of non-free image galleries always have, always do, and always will fail WP:NFCC; but not quite all of them, which is why I qualified my statement. Oh, and quit with the personal attacks, you've never masked your dislike of me since one particular AfD many months ago, and your singling out of me for your petty jibes due to a personal vendatta is getting really tiresome. Go and bother someone else, because I'm not replying to you again. Black Kite 18:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"The vast majority of non-free image galleries" is as usual an unqualified, unproven, and just basically pointless statement with regards application of a policy. This is as usual just your personal opinion, you singularly fail many times to convince others of its merits because you never provide anybody with a working paradigm as to why everybody else should be convinced by your interpretations of 1b, 3, and 8. MickMacNee (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand keeps citing the WP:NFCC policy as saying galleries of non-free images are not allowed. I'm not seeing that. Could someone point that out to me? Baseball Bugs 15:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_galleries. And yes, this is a guideline, not a policy, because there might be a small minority of occasions in which non-free image galleries might squeak past NFCC - I can't find the article now, but there was one on the history of CGI imaging techniques in film where there was a gallery of non-free images but each was illustrating a particular CGI technique, along with a large amount of text explicitly commenting on the image which of course enables them to pass WP:NFCC#3a (minimal use) snd WP:NFCC#8 (significance). That doesn't happen in these articles - they're just galleries of images. Black Kite 15:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutralhomer

Based on what I'm seeing above, and based on his edits in relation to Betacommand in the last 24 hours, I believe that something needs to be done with Neutralhomer. This is not the first time he's been involved in warring and incivility with Betacommand. He, more or less, came in and baited Betacommand into a block. He admits, time and time again, that he does not fully understand the policies and guidelines affecting fair use galleries, yet, he consistently engages in revert warring with people who understand the policies and guidelines far better than he does. When he was unblocked in July, he was told to stay away from Calton and JPG. I think that we need to now include Betacommand in this list. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive488#NeutralHomer, which is another action between these two just a few weeks ago, is relevant here. I think some sort of restriction needs to be put in place here as this is a reoccurring pattern much on the same level as his previous actions with Calton and such which led to his block earlier this year. either way (talk) 13:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Independent of this thread, I have warned Neutralhomer, Betacommand, and Emarsee to stop edit warring over these images. All three need to stop reverting and wait for the discussion to play out. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that things need to be done above that. Something needs to be set to prevent Neutralhomer from doing this again. If it's not about the fair use galleries, it'll be about something else. He did the same thing awhile back when Betacommand was tagging images with no fair use rationales. He went through and blindly reverted Betacommand's taggings without reason other than it was Betacommand doing the tagging. A restriction is needed because this is a reoccurring issue. I think the fact that he needs these same restrictions with other users makes it apparent that this is an ongoing problem with Neutralhomer as an editor, either way (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Metros...*sigh*...here "we" are again. Let me answer some of your points.

First, I never baited anyone. People make decisions on how they act, Beta acted the way he did. I didn't make him act that way.

Second, I understand policies about as best as I can, and saying I don't and making is seem like I haven't got thought one in my head (which is the way it sounds to me), is kinda pushing it. I am not a policy genius, but I understand them to the best of my abilities.

Third, you want me to stay away from Beta, all you have to do is say it. No need to bring things up on ANI, just post it to my talk page (it's always open).

Fourth, there is no "something else" to it. I would have reverted Beta's edits if he put "I like penguins" on 26 pages. He broke a rule in his probation, which states if he "undertaking any pattern of edits....that affects more than 25 pages" he must first propose it and "wait at least 24 hours for community discussion" (see here for the full list). Those edits were, yes, something I take difference on, but if it was putting "I like penguins" on 26 pages, I would have reverted. There is no "something else" to it.

If you have anything else, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 14:00

The baiting of Betacommand is that you came into the thread and added this which only appears to be added in order to provoke Betacommand into saying something to you in response, i.e. baiting him to respond after you knew that there is not solid relations between you two. And yes, you need to stay away from Betacommand. From this point on, the same restrictions that were given when you were unblocked in relation to Calton and JPG-GR will also apply to Betacommand. You are to stay away from Betacommand which includes not reverting any of his actions and not commenting on any of his actions. Any violations of this will result in block. Is this understood? either way (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's understood...and for the record, JPG-GR and I have put our differences aside and are now on the smallest of speaking terms. I wouldn't call use "best buds", but we have had conversations and not snapped each others heads off (all of which was watched closely by several admins). So, I can get along with those of which I have had problems. It is a two way street though. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 14:25

"I understand policies about as best as I can" - Which in this case obviously isn't very well. I count at least 6 users above trying to explain to you why Misplaced Pages is allowed to have stricter rules than US law, but you have not indicated that you understand this. And this is either a massive misunderstanding of policy or a sarcastic baiting remark after BC forgot to specify "galleries of non-free images." Mr.Z-man 19:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Surprised no one took a look at this. 3 weeks ago, no less.--96.232.95.79 (talk) 03:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Don't shoot the messenger; there are those who will report BC upon him making the slightest edit in violation of his parole/limitations, and there are those who will ignore BC's occasional slip because of all the good work he does. There is no reason for these two groups to start an argument with each other when BC does appear to have breached his terms. If BC's friends were to notify him when he is about to drop himself into hot water then all this crap could be avoided. Just saying. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Zahd

Continually violating WP:NPOV and WP:V on pages such as abortion. Has been given sufficient friendly reminders on his talk page. When I pointed out that his continual violation of policies and guidelines might constitute disruptive editing, he responded with a personal attack. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Not just on his user page, Talk:Abortion#Problems with terms is also worth reading, and this IMHO goes too far. ϢereSpielChequers 00:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I think a lot of christian groups do tend towards pro-life and there's nothing offensive or going too far about saying that, even to most xtians. His summary is accurate IMHO. I see nothing wrong in that particular diff (towards the end of your comment,) just expressing his summary/opinion in a content dispute. Will say more in a mo when I've read the other diffs...Sticky Parkin 01:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Note the vagueness of "Religious views" in that diff, as well as the labeling of one side of the debate as "arbitrary" (WP:POV, anyone?)--not to mention the utter lack of sources. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, my reason for bringing the matter here isn't to discuss whether he's wrong or right; it's to point out that this individual is violating WP:V and NPOV, and throwing in a dose of WP:PA violation for good measure. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually he shouldn't have said f*ck, I didn't spot that before. Is there an arbcom covering this article, as it's well known as one of our most contentious ones? Sticky Parkin 01:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Activity is actually rather low, and it had good wardens who were good at handling it.--Tznkai (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. Zahd has, in my opinion crossed the line with his incessant accusations of partisanship and bad faith, and I do not refer to the abuse he has hurled my way. As ignoring it, as many users have done, has not made the problem go away thus far, I think an outside admin stepping in would be appropriate.--Tznkai (talk) 04:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

. Really nice :\ -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just blanked this as polemic per WP:USER, one gets the impression this user isn't here to help build an encyclopedia. Misarxist 11:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeh??? Them's fightin' words. Kneel before Zahd! Baseball Bugs 05:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Post-credits scene films

There appears to be some deja vu about this. An IP address is adding a bunch of entries to this category. Trouble is, it's a red-link category. But if you go to it, it has a bunch of entries along with 2 separate discussions for deletion from October 2007 and earlier from March 2007. So evidently someone is trying it again. What's the SOP for this situation? Baseball Bugs 00:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. To get to the category, you could go to The Muppet Movie. However, there are many other entries from that IP (71.190.26.165). Baseball Bugs 00:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The category has been twice deleted and salted. DRV is the next step (I express no views on whether it would be successful) so I'm removing the names from Category:Post-credits scene films. I've asked the IP to stop, and have linked this discussion. Bencherlite 00:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

71.190.26.165 (talk) is continuing to add films to this category, without reply. Bencherlite 00:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, sounds like it's time to take him to WP:AIV, unless someone jumps in here. Baseball Bugs 00:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Which I just did, and which would leave a bunch of items to roll back. However, I don't want to do that until the IP is blocked. Baseball Bugs 00:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Aha, you gave him a 3-hour tour, er, block. Which end of the list do you want to start the rolling back? Or can you do all of it in one swell foop? Baseball Bugs 00:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

All done. Bencherlite 01:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I also point out these, Talk:List of films with Post-credits scenes, Talk:Post-credits scene in movies, Talk:Post-credits scene in Examples, Talk:Post-credits scene in Movies and Talk:List of post-credits scene movies, all created and filled with lists of movies by this IP--Jac16888 (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

From the history, it looks as though this is the same individual at 71.247.88.225 (talk), who did the same thing last October, earning a block then. Bencherlite 01:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd hardly call it a deletion discussion. Someone nominated it, no one discussed it and somehow out of that we bore a "consensus" of deletion and salting. Whats the real objection to this being a genuine category? There are a number of movies that do this. Its possible to do cite this by using them as a primary source. so what if it was done by a single user?--Crossmr (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You've obviously only read the third discussion, not the first two (first, second). Bencherlite 09:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

and having read them I'm none the wiser as to what the real problem was. As pointed out trident's reasoning didn't quite make sense as he seemed to be talking about deleted scenes and not post-credit scenes and I see a bunch of WP:IDONTLIKEIT !votes (or were we still voting in 2006? I don't think so). The second one is based solely on comments of "we got rid of it once, do it again". Seems like a compelling candidate for DRV.--Crossmr (talk) 12:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did tell the IP to take it to DRV, but he didn't reply. In the meantime, the consensus not to have such a category stands. Bencherlite 13:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a type of trivia, which is not necessarily bad, but it's also anecdotal and depends on original research, in the sense that someone just happens to notice it in a few films and then defines it as a category. It's possible that there's an authoritative source that would discuss this topic, but I doubt it. Baseball Bugs 15:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

For example, he didn't list The Cannonball Run series, which I'm pretty sure had clips or outtakes played during the credits. Or maybe that doesn't count? But why shouldn't it? It could be argued that the category itself is original research. Having said all that, this is the reason I generally don't mess with categories - they're shifting sand. Baseball Bugs 15:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The film is a primary and reliable source, how is that original research to present a fact? Its only original research if he analyzes and presents an opinion about it in someway "This movie is awesome because of the extra scenes after credits". His missing a film doesn't mean there is a problem with the list, lists don't have to be made 100% fully formed. If they were we'd make them and lock them.--Crossmr (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to take this matter to the DRV page. Baseball Bugs 23:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Fictional troublemakers

I have to admit the category about post-credits scenes is a lot more viable than one that a redlink user just created - "Fictional troublemakers", which at the moment has one entry: Daffy Duck. Baseball Bugs 23:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Since the above, it has acquired a number of entries... and a nomination for deletion. Baseball Bugs 05:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

hijacked RfC

This is the sequence of edits which are wrongly described by Caspian blue as harassment. A simple question about the need for a credible citation consistent with WP:V has been twisted into a Gordian Knot for which I am not to be blamed:

• 1. diff: In order to avert a continuing edit war, I initially posted an RfC-template at the top of the article, e.g., Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Economy, trade, and companies.
  • EDIT WAR development: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th

• 2. diff: In less than one minute, I discovered to my surprise that Caspian blue had hijacked the RfC

• 3. diff: I posted a disclaimer on this page ... and the subject was simple: whether a citation is or is not needed for the explicit phrase "Yonsei Severance Hospital"?

• 4. diff: I manually posted a non-controversial statement of the RfC subject on the appropriate page ... but this effort was subsequently hijacked as well.

• 5. diff: Caspian blue defines the RfC as harassment, when -- as shown by the edit history -- this is naught but another self-created charade.

PROBLEM: Caspian blue alone deserves to be held accountable for disingenuous complaints which Caspian blue has created.
QUESTION: What about the initial RfC issue? Without credible citations supporting the use of the explicit phrase "Yonsei Severance Hospital," is it not "trolling" and not disruptive to delete the unsourced phrase after repeatedly asking for compliance with WP:V?

I do not know how to address this needlessly complicated mess. ---Tenmei (talk) 06:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I dunno if anyone else agrees, but I for one would welcome a request for arbitration at this point, involving everyone involved in the relevant disputes. Let's get this issue settled once and for all. //roux   10:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Roux's otherwise commendable suggestions about WP:Arbitration assumes that this is a mere conflict between two editors; but that mis-reads the broader scope of a battlefield in which my trivial involvement is somewhat insignificant. --Tenmei (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I know it's a broad issue, and ArbCom handles broad issues. Several people are involved, and I've counted numerous edit wars, AN/I posts, a current MedCab, I think an RFC/U at some point... it's getting ridiculous. Someone please take this whole mess to RFARb. //roux   20:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Roux, I thought you have been retired from Misplaced Pages. Before commenting something drastic, why don't you do some research? --Caspian blue 21:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to do any research. I've seen forms of this dispute going on for ages, I was tangentially involved briefly, the whole Korea-vs-Japan thing needs resolution. I didn't comment in any way on who was at fault here, I just said that arbitration seems necessary to end the ridiculousness. //roux   04:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Unanticipated counter-intuitive consequences

It is possible to summarize this thread simply: Misplaced Pages is a battlefield ... despite the obvious reasons for such contexts to be disfavored.

Does even-tempered reasoning help move us beyond this kind of problem? Or does moderate, thoughtful commentary only exacerbate the evolution of strife in a counter-intuitive fashion, as in this measured exchange? diff PLUS diff

Something isn't working out well.

In my view, Caspian blue has not been well served by previous dispute resolution processes: Far from fostering a trend towards moderation and restraint, the demonstrable effect seems to have been to encourage extravagant language? provocative comments? confrontational threads? escalating tactics?

The corollary question becomes these:

• What could anyone have done to avoid this? ... ANSWER: Nothing.
• How could anyone have mitigated escalation? ... ANSWER: Nothing.

This doesn't need to be construed as an intractable problem. --Tenmei (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hijacked RFC in 23 sec.? No more personal attacks

Tenmei, you're still attacking me as depicting my RFC filing as a "robbery". Your behaviors are really out of line. I'm the one who should report you for your constant harassment and personal attacks.

As soon as seeing your absurd tagging again to the article, I filed the RFC with several lines at *2008-11-22T15:13:47

Unlike me, your RFC without any reason on the main page was at *2008-11-22T15:13:24 There is 23 seconds gap between mine and yours. You did not even put your reason. Do you reall think that writing several lines and putting the RFC and finding a fitting RFC category would take only 23 second? Be logical. Your constant false accusation and personal attacks constitutes "personal attacks" and "harassment". I gave you a chance to redeem your bad faith comments and personal attacks against me as not reporting your clear 3RR violation to AN3, but all you gotta do is this fiasco? Very good one.--Caspian blue 15:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Examples of extravagant language:

• "... false accusation ..."?
• "... personal attcks ..."?
• "... harassment ..."?
• "... bad faith comments ..."?

Why not de-escalating, non-confrontational, moderating language? --Tenmei (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The hoax report is a false accusation itself, personal attack, harassment, bad faith comments against me. Why don't you "de-escalating, and non-confrontational, moderating language? Think about it, why Taemyr removed your absurd tagging? --Caspian blue 21:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I am fairly clear in my edit summary on why I removed the tagging. The contested fact simply isn't in the version tagged. Please do not construe this as a statement about whether or not the fact should be in the article. Taemyr (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggested resolution

As Caspian Blue points out, there was less than a minute between Tenmei's RfC and Caspian's. As such it is extremely unlikely that Caspian launched his as an attempt to hijack Tenmei's.

However the text of Caspian's RfC makes it clear that he intend it as a request on user conduct. He confirmed this himself. As such this RfC should be closed as being in the wrong venue.

Tenmei's question, regarding the sourcing of the name "Yonsei Severance Hospital" is probably better suited for WP:RSN and should be pursued there. Taemyr (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The example of non-confrontational, moderating language is very valuable in this context -- far more important than any flaws in Taemyr's analysis. --Tenmei (talk) 04:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw

Following this exchange, Montanabw has begun wikihounding me. This includes making insinuations about me on other users' talk pages and recruiting an administrator, Lar, to follow me around too.

• 2008 November 20

• 01:04 User talk:BarretBonden#Weymouth
• 01:01 Talk:Weymouth, Dorset#Requested move

• 2008 November 23

• 03:14 Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Dogs#Article request: Heeling
• 03:48 User talk:Hafwyn#FYI
• 03:51 User talk:Lar#FYI and kind of an LOL
• (Lar) 04:14 User:Una Smith#Friendly suggestion
• (Lar) 04:19 Talk:Weymouth, Dorset#Requested move
• (Lar) 04:22 User talk:Una Smith#Weymouth
• (Lar) 04:26 User talk:Lar#FYI and kind of an LOL
• 04:48 Misplaced Pages talk:Navigation templates#Navigate to topics lacking own article?
• 04:58 User talk:Lar#FYI and kind of an LOL

Please block Montanabw. --Una Smith (talk) 07:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As always, I invite review of my actions. Frankly, I don't think Montanabw is the problem here, nor are matters as Una has painted them. Not at all, in fact things are rather the other way round. I'd invite readers to review this Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts/archive50#User:Montanabw Wikiquette alert, in which Una tried to make the case that there was a problem with Montanabw's behaviour. My take on the outcome of that was that Una had behaviour she needed to remediate. I believe that Montanabw is not the only person that Una has had issues with, and the Equine project is not the only project where she is viewed as not completely helpful. At the heart, this is a behavioural issue on Una's part, but earlier steps have not been completely tried here. Much of what Una points to is work by concerned editors to try to highlight to Una that she has issues she needs to resolve to be a more effective editor. No blocks for anyone are called for at this point in my view, and certainly not of Montanabw. However, perhaps it is time for a user RfC to be developed about Una. I suspect there would be a fair few folk pointing out things that need correcting. ++Lar: t/c 15:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no issue with Lar's actions. --Una Smith (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree an RFC is needed here as an initial step into looking deeper into these issues. This has been simmering a long time. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As a member of the Equine WP, I would back up Lar's statement that Una is not all that useful to our project, while Montanabw is a star member. Montanabw promotes collaboration, works well with others to guide articles to GA and FA status, asks for discussion on controversial changes, welcomes new members who show a genuine interest in the subject, and is generally a helpful and useful member of the project. For examples, see her collaboration in working to bring Thoroughbred to FA this year, our current collaboration on Horses in warfare, or her help to a new member working on Banker Horse, in which she talked three other project members into completing PR's of the article. Una, on the other hand, promotes discord, does not discuss before making large or controversial changes, and rarely, if ever, goes out of her way to help new members. Yes, I agree that there is a problem member in the Equine WP, but it is not Montanabw. Una has been told multiple times by many editors and admins that she is the one in the wrong here, but as she hasn't seemed to take this to heart, I'm going to say it again - Asking for Montanabw to be blocked is ridiculous and Una is the one who is a problem. Dana boomer (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment-If I were an impartial editor or admin reading this situation for the very first time, you'd wonder if Una Smith or Montanabw were at fault. I'm not impartial, because I've either interacted with her or watched others do the same, and in general, it isn't positive. I spend most of my time in medical articles. During editing of articles, one runs into either editors who are knowledgeable or those who are not. The problem with Una Smith is that she is not very knowledgeable about medical articles, but pretends to be, and then is very disruptive about it. Most of my knowledge of it is around Herpes zoster. Here and here are discussions about the article. Una Smith tends to be very tendentious in making points about the definition of the word "shingles", "zoster", and "herepes zoster", a point that had be agreed to long ago. And this type of edit just exhibits a lack of knowledge of editing medical articles (both in accuracy and in quality) that is just frustrating. I'll add to this later. OrangeMarlin 17:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, the problems are apparently not confined to the Equine Project, as the Medicine Project has also seen some unusual editing and input from Una Smith. The issues Una Smith brought to the Herpes zoster article frustrated several other knowledgeable participants and derailed the FAC, leaving several editors expressing confusion on the talk page about the issues she was raising. I've seen other similar incidents, to the point that I have become reluctant to request help from the Medicine Project on articles, out of concern that Una Smith will get involved, having seen her cause deterioration to articles like Herpes zoster and Atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumor (AT/RT). For example, in this incident, another editor asked for assistance in cleaning up the AT/RT article. After I worked on formatting cleanup (as requested) for about four hours, leaving it ready for further medical input, Una Smith took the article from this version to this: she eliminated the lead, created two Prognosis sections (not in WP:MEDMOS order, one at the top, one at the bottom), and created duplicate incidence and epidemiology sections, and left the article in that state. Yet strangely (in that WP:MED discussion), she claimed not to even see the issues when she later returned to editing. This incident was so bizarre that it discouraged me from collaborating on the Medicine Project to clean up articles and I'm more cautious now about asking for input from the Medicine Project. There were other similar issues. I've also noted that she doesn't have a strong sense of collaboration (see the interaction with Montanabw, for example). I suggest a mentor might be more useful than an RfC, as the basic issues have already been reviewed and I don't think an RfC would produce anything different. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

These same 2 names came up in an unfounded WQA report a couple of months ago. I'll try and find it to provide some background. ►BMW◄ 16:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

For your reading enjoyment, here is a link to the WQA ►BMW◄ 17:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that, despite everyone telling Una at the WQA that the problem was not on Montanabw's side, she felt that the response there was telling her to take it to a RfC against Montanabw. See . I was asked to provide a few examples of Una's behavior, which, although difficult because it streches over so many pages and often has discussions in multiple areas, I will try to do. First, her quick-failing of the GAN of Horse (which can be found at Talk:Horse/GA1, when she knew that Montanabw was a major editor (and this occured after the WQA). This was apparently a bad-faith fail, because the article was fairly easily passed by a reviewer who is known as fairly difficult to please. Una then argued that because she and Montanabw weren't "allies", there was no reason that she should not review the article, see here. For this action, she was roundly rebuked by involved and noninvolved editors alike, which can be seen on the Horse talk page and her talk page, as well as at Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations/Archive 10#GA review of Horse, where she apparently went to try to get some support for her side of the story. Another fine example is one that she conveniently just created for me - accusing me of biting a newcomer in the subsection right below here this one. I'm assuming she's trying to show a pattern of collaboration between Montanabw and I, and I will admit, there is one. It is a pattern of collaboration that has improved many articles, led to several GAs and one FA, welcomed and attempted to help and communicate with several new editors, and in general done what I hope is a service to WP as a whole. If Montanabw and I have a difference of opinion, we work it out on the talk page of the article, and have so far always managed to come to an agreement. That is the difference between my relationship with Montanabw and the relationship between Montanabw and Una - I am willing to discuss things at length and take criticism, while Una apparently cannot (or sometimes appears to not even read it). I hope this helps everyone to see a broader picture, as that is my intent. Dana boomer (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw and Dana boomer

Montanabw recruited User:Dana boomer to bite new user Sorrel filly 13. --Una Smith (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• 2008 June 13

• 23:02 User talk:Dana boomer#Ahem...
• 23:10 User talk:Sorrel filly 13#Welcome but a caution
• 23:32 User talk:Sorrel filly 13#Welcome but a caution

• 2008 June 14

• (Dana boomer) 00:17 User talk:Sorrel filly 13#Proposed deletion of Kool Little Leo
• (Dana boomer) 00:28 User talk:Sorrel filly 13#Welcome!
• (Dana boomer) 00:37 User talk:Montanabw#Nice but firm (I think...)
• 01:01 User talk:Montanabw#Nice but firm (I think...)

• 2008 June 19

• 13:01 page deleted

Are any of those diff's supposed to show a problem? If so, um ... they don't. ►BMW◄ 17:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Una Smith, how on earth do you get "bite" out of that exchange? I'm mystified.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

None of those, I mean not one, indicates that Dana boomer or Montanabw have exhibited bad faith towards anyone. However, the use of these diffs in trying to make a case indicates that Una Smith lacks good faith (in addition to her other faults). This is out of hand. OrangeMarlin 18:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This stuff is from June. Strikes me as vexatious litigation to be bringing it up now, given that the WQA was more recent and it could have been brought up there. All this does, in my view, is make the case that Una is not acting reasonably. ++Lar: t/c 21:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm supposed to be on a wikibreak, and I don't have much time to spoare, but I got a mail from Una about this AN/I, and I really feel the need to step in on her side. I have noticed what could well be undue irritation from her side, but Montana is not nearly as unproblematic as she's made out to be. There are also issues of Montana's acting as a constant gatekeeper for just about any horse-related article. I've been confronted with this personally without having long-standing disputes with her. I'm hesitant about getting detailed by posting diffs here, though, since it's not an RfC. I'm awaiting further comments.

Peter 06:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have diffs to share that highlight an issue with Montanabw, you should feel free to do so. We are none of us perfect, and Montanabw is surely no exception. But Una is here asking that Montanabw be blocked (presumably indefinitely), not just counseled not to show ownership. That is a very serious request, and is not to be undertaken lightly. Since Montanabw is a long time contributor with no previous block history, AN/I is probably not the right venue for a resolution, but since we're here, it's appropriate to note that Una (while certainly making some valuable contributions) has a history of antagonistic relations with Montanabw, and with others. With other members of the equine project, and members of other projects, pointing out that there are serious issues with Una, there clearly is an issue here with Una. That's not going to be resolved here at AN/I either though. I'm thinking that an RfC on Una is the appropriate next step. If Una (or others) think an RfC on Montanabw is also appropriate, that's for Una (or them) to put forward. I don't see it, but I may not be unanimous in not seeing it. Hope that clarifies matters. ++Lar: t/c 15:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I grant that the bit I posted about Montanabw and Dana boomer above is old, and in that respect not relevant to this AN/I, which concerns Montanabw's current wikihounding of me. I think Montanabw's behavior toward me reflects the gatekeeping (ownership) that Peter Isotalo mentions. But the proper venue for that would be an RFC/U on Montanabw, correct? Or is AN/I a free-for-all, as Montanabw's supporters here seem to think?

Montanabw's wikihounding of me goes back farther than I showed above. Below are just two other instances, from earlier this month.

• 2008 November 10 23:26 User talk:SandyGeorgia#Two to watchlist, just in case
• 2008 November 16 02:23 User talk:Cgoodwin#Draw reins and running reins, edit summary Asking the "other parent" again, are we?

--Una Smith (talk) 13:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

(I refactored the examples to indent, and to go above your signature, for improved readability... the "::" construct can indent bullet points nicely) I'm not the supporter or enemy of anyone. What I support is harmonious, collegial, collaborative, constructive editing, and I'm happy to support activities by anyone along those lines. AN/I is not a free-for-all but it is a venue in which the complainant may well be subject to scrutiny themselves. This is true of every venue, not just AN/I. You have a history of complaining about Montanabw which is, in my view, not supported by the facts. That's worrisome, and suggests that you are deserving of more scrutiny. When I did so the last time you complained, I found a pattern of difficult behaviour in your interactions with others, not just Montanabw. It's not out and out blockably bad, but it is concerning, and I'd like you to seriously consider the repeated feedback you've been given by many folk that the problems in your interactions with others do not lie entirely with others, but in part are your own doing. That said, I think you're unnecessarily polarising this into supporters and enemies. ++Lar: t/c 15:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I wrote nothing about how long a block should be. I would not presume. My concern here was and is to prevent more disruptive edits such as Montanabw made on November 23rd. I figured that if the AN/I notice did not stop them, an admin might apply an immediate block. I agree with Lar that my prior behavior in response to Montanabw's remarks and other behavior that offend me sometimes was less than ideal. I think I am doing better now, although it is difficult in the face of such as Montanabw's edit summary Asking the "other parent" again, are we? --Una Smith (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive, so a block NOW for behavior a while back is not warranted, unless there is reason to believe the behavior is endemic and is going to continue and is manifestly disruptice. Tell you what, Una... find an admin or other impartial party, and if you see behavior that concerns you again, ask them to evaluate it and if they agree, caution or counsel Montanabw (or whoever). I'll do so if you like, in fact, although I'm not sure you consider me impartial. That might be a better approach than coming to AN/I. If you're trying to turn over a new leaf with regard to yourself that's also a good thing... if it's for real you can expect my support. ++Lar: t/c 17:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Potential Libel on Talk:ITT Technical Institute

I am concerned about some of the comments on the talk page made by User:Veecort. In particular, he repeatededly references an alleged class-action lawsuit against the institution ITT Tech, and then proceeds to speculate that the lawsuit is a "pitcher plant" designed by the institution to "trap potential whistle-blowers" so they can be "neutralized". See the comments by Veecort at the bottom of the "Want to add a few sentences but we can't find credible sources" discussion thread.

Not sure whether this is a violation of WP:LIBEL or how to proceed if it is. McJeff (talk) 08:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds more like a bad trip, actually... L'Aquatique 09:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether it's libel or not, the user Veecort has just returned from an edit warring block to edit war again on the page, replacing the disputed section three times in the last fifteen hours (as IP) . It seems WP:UNDUE to me and I'd prefer that the discussion take place before the edit war (I'm kind of old fashioned like that). However, I do't want to edit war on it myself, so I came here for admin attention. Dayewalker (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

For anyone who cares, since this happened, Veecort was blocked for 24 hours for 3RR/Disruptive editing, and has had a Suspected Sock Puppet case filed on him. McJeff (talk) 09:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Fatal!ty speedy deleting OSU season pages

Looking at Template:BuckeyesFootballTeams, I noticed most of the per-year season articles were redlinked, so I've started creating stubs for them - Fills out the infobox, and the "CFB Schedule" templates for the scores, which is pretty advanced so a good start for the article. User:Fatal!ty has started slapping all of the articles I've created with SD templates, and isn't interested in my "please stop wasting time" arguments. Could someone weigh in on this? --JaGa 10:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and here's a sample. There's a lot of work in that! --JaGa 10:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

See here--Fatal!ty 10:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I would venture that while A7 might technically cover these articles, it doesn't seem to be in the spirit of what was intended. One could argue that being an "Ohio State Buckeyes football" team is an assertion of notability. I'll wait for other editors to chime in before removing any tags, though. Lankiveil 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC).

That's the thing. I didn't invent the convention of having an article for each year's team; I'm just getting those articles started. The templates were in place - and not objected to - long before I got involved. If Fatality wants to delete those pages, he should get that template (and the other similarly-structured football templates, there's a lot of them) changed as well. --JaGa 10:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Also speedied and then went to AFD on Mario Fernando Hernández & Hilary Teague, both of who pass WP:POLITICIAN, thus not only not speedy but also not AFD. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

A notable musician was speedied by Fatality without checking that the article is in good form. Speedy undone, but was he passed it to AfD. --Efe (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I see this user also SD'd Eastern Alamance High School. I think Fatality is blurring the distinction between "notablility" and "stub". After all, if 1944 Ohio State Buckeyes football team shouldn't exist, 2005 Ohio State Buckeyes football team shouldn't either. --JaGa 10:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

They have also speedied several Olympic athletes so I think its time for a short block to get them to stop and read the criteria as their editing has become disruptive. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Having looked more closely into this editor's recent edits, there appears to be a number of, shall we say, ill-considered deletion nominations. I'm going to assume good faith and just say that User:Fatal!ty is either just having a bad day, or is genuinely unaware of the generally accepted notability standards, but at the same time the volume of these nominations is becoming disruptive. Hopefully they will be able to provide an explanation as to why they thought that these three notable politicians would be deletable (other than the obviously shaky nomination statements), until then I would urge the user to desist from starting any more deletion discussions. Lankiveil 10:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC).

I've removed the speedys on the Ohio State pages. They're stubs, but I feel they're notable. Dayewalker (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) These are not speedy candidates. We're talking about a team which plays in front of 100,000 people, not some pub side. I'm going to remove the speedy tags. If Fatality really wants the articles gone he could try AfD, but personally I don't see any reason for deleting them at all. Iain99 10:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed it can become quite disruptive to have new articles tagged like this. I believe he is doing so because he believes that stubs tarnish wikipedia's reputation further. Count Blofeld 10:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

{outdent} I've summed up everything I'd like to say on my talk page. I view my behavior as justifiable and "encyclopedically-correct". Seeing as neither party is willing to compromise, there are a few options to resolve this "dispute". 1. You take the easy way out, and block me indef for disruption. 2. Start a RFC. The choice is yours.--Fatal!ty 10:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

And he has been asking for retractions from people who remind him of the rules. . Time for a block until he learns about our deletion policy. DGG (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I certainly wouldn't consider refering to India as "Wup-Wup" as acceptable behaviour. To be it looks completely racist and narrow sighted that towns with a population of 7,000 are not worthy of encyclopedia coverage. Count Blofeld 11:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I note to avoid confusion that the Blofield was the ed Fatality asked for a retraction from--it was Fatality who made the wup-wup comment, and Blofield properly called him on it. DGG (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the removed talk page history, we have very recent removed RFA, revoked and renewed denial for rollback rights, and a recent unblocking, so it appears that this is more of some sort of pointed editing that is not inline with their unblock request: I would like to be unblocked so that I can prove to the community that I am a solid and helpful editor, and that from hereon in, I will use my time wisely - to build and expand the encyclopedia. Aboutmovies (talk) 11:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

as these continue even as we are talking, I have blocked Fatality for 3 hours. Looking at his block log, with recent blocks for vandallism from several admins, I invite some other admin to extend the block--I suggest at least a month.--I'm about to go to sleep, so if anyone should want to unblock, feel free, but look atthe log first-- Thatcher previously blocked indefinitely. DGG (talk) 11:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well we'll see how he responds after the 3 hours is up and whether he has learnt his lesson. If he continues to disrupt by his mass tagging again then perhaps a more lengthy block will be neccesary. Count Blofeld 11:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I Support this block, and support extending it if he gets straight back to his old tricks. Lankiveil 11:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• I've decided to be bold and started closing some of his nomination, for which the consensus is clearly speedy keep and for which the reasons he provides clearly do not apply. (BLP on dead people, WP:RS on articles with sources from NYT or BBC, etc) - Mgm| 11:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
• User:Fatal!ty just came from under an indef block on Nov 20 on condition that "he edit productively". In view of the resumed pattern of disruption and belligerent behaviour, I think that another indef block is in order. Nsk92 (talk) 13:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just as a side note: The day after coming off a 2-month long indef block, this user applied for adminship, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Fatal!ty. I did not vote there since it was clear that his RfA was doomed to fail, but I thought that the RfA was basically a WP:POINT violation. The remark in his answer to RfA question 3, "It is just a website for fuck's sake anyway", was particularly telling. Nsk92 (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As the admin who lifted that block, I totally agree. The unblock was based on Thatcher's comment to me that since the IP was clean there was no evidence of the sockpuppetry that led to the indef block in the first place. However, it's clear that there are other problems with this editor. This is the first time anyone I've ever let out from under an indef block has abused his good faith. I was tempted to reimpose the block but I am deferring to DGG and others involved in this discussion. But the next block, if there is one, should be indef. Daniel Case (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I was just over at the user's talk to notify them of this clearly incorrect speedy... personally, I'd suggest forcible removal of Twinkle for the time being. — neuro 17:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If Fatality is going to continue editing, I would ask for a topic ban from deletion process. — CharlotteWebb 18:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

He's back, and although he's made a lot of perfectly good edits, he's been reverting totally valid edits as vandalism, sometimes restoring vandalism in the process, complete with erroneous vandal warnings for the editors concerned, e.g. , , , . I think a longer break is in order.--Michig (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

See also this response to one of those editors.--Michig (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

From a glance through his contributions, I can only conclude that he's reverting edits more or less at random. This is just yanking our chains. Someone block now please. Iain99 22:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

In view of the above, an immediate block is urgently required, as he is still enageged in a massive reverting spree, using Twinkle. Nsk92 (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Having seen this edit go through (complete with vandalism warning), I've blocked for 48 hours pending discussion; it looks to me like he's reverting every IP edit he sees. I appreciate 48 hours is possibly a bit draconian, even in light of his previous warnings, and give explicit consent to any admin who thinks it's too harsh to reduce or lift the block as they see fit. – iridescent 22:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think 48 hours is too much. I can't tell if Fatal!ty is being pointy or genuinely doesn't get it, but his first block (and all of the attempted discussion that led up to it) didn't seem to help. He's shown that when he's ready to go, he covers a lot of ground before anyone can check him. It's best if he takes enough time off to learn his lessons before he comes back to the wiki. Dayewalker (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The block actually strikes me as unduly lenient (and coming from me that is saying a lot). I'd suggest at least monitoring this editor closely when he returns, and pulling any rights he has to use rollback or other automated tools. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I've blanked and protected his monobook, so if he does come back he'll have to do it manually. As far as I'm concerned, any further silliness warrants an indefblock. – iridescent 22:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the block. It is certainly not draconian but rather too short. Please make it an idef. It will take a long time to undo the damage. This is a user who had come off an indef block just three days ago on the pomise of best behaviour and look where we are now. Please indef block him. Nsk92 (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. He's come straight back from a block and continued his disruptive editing. As Daniel Case said above, "But the next block, if there is one, should be indef." --Michig (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I restored the indefinite block. After reviewing his edits since the last block expired, I can no longer assume good faith about him or his editing. Even after the block he was still getting messages on his talk page from puzzled users. Yes, I feel angry because this guy burned me, the first time this has ever happened, but I think I'm not the only one who's exhausted his patience here. Confused? Perhaps, but student drivers don't get to run over this many people and wreck this many cars before they tell them driving isn't for them. Daniel Case (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Regretfully, I agree with Daniel's indef block. This is either cluelessness on a truly monumental scale or a deliberate attempt to troll us; in view of the account's history I am unable to assume the former. A shame because he was obviously capable of writing decent content when he wanted to, but there you go. Iain99 22:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Fatal!ty has now implied that another account is "the real Fatal!ty" (diff). — Athaenara ✉ 22:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems unlikely. – iridescent 22:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• User 1onepuposeaccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has now jumped in. — Athaenara ✉ 23:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

And a Checkuser has already been requested. If it comes back positive, can we consider a community ban? It looks to me (not that I've been directly involved in any) like one of those cases. Daniel Case (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Fatal!ty (talk · contribs) looks like the same user as Avi15 (talk · contribs); both have edited similar subjects, Avi15 was blocked indefinitely a few days before Fatal!ty started editing, both used the same welcome template on new users' talk pages, and both added inappropriate deletion templates to articles. Fatal!ty also restored copyrighted content added by Avi15 on the Glen Eira Town Hall article. Avi15 was also suspected of sock puppetry using a vandal account In5ecUr!ty (talk · contribs), and is also a suspected sock puppet of Lsdjfhkjsb (talk · contribs), as are a few other vandal accounts. —Snigbrook 00:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• He does indeed seem to follow the exact same patterns as the Lsdjfhkjsb (talk · contribs) sockfarm. Self-references, random deleting sprees, similar articles. I've added a tag. Kuru 00:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• I am not sure this thread is quite ready for being marked as "resolved". In the last couple of hours of editing Fatal!ty was on a mad reverting spree where, as best I can tell, he was randomly reverting edits made by IPs. In some cases his reverts did undo vandalism, in some cases he reverted perfectly good edits and in others he actually restored vandalism. His contrib record really needs to be looked through rather carefully to undo some of this mess. I have reverted some of his edits but this is a rather big job requiring several pairs of eyes. Nsk92 (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Resolved marker removed, 1onepuposeaccount is pretty much blatant. — neuro 23:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Look now, he is actually pointing out damning evidence about himself. Looks like he is only here to cause drama. — neuro 23:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

notifying editors--I have already sent explanations to everyone--some of them newbies-- whose contribution was incorrectly marked for deletion--could someone please do similarly for the people sent other inappropriate noticesDGG (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

In a few cases where his "vandalism" reverts were clearly wrong, I have undone them and erased the warning messages that he left at those users' talk pages (I pointed to this thread in the edit summaries in such cases). But this really is a lot of work since one has to look carefully at his reverts and figure out which ones were undoing vandalism and which ones were random reverts of good faith edits. What a mess... Nsk92 (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we please move on to a permanent ban? This user used up any AGF long ago and has piled on more sockpuppeting, and now I come back from sleep and see s/he is saying I'm him/her!? It is clear that his editing was disruptive (how many of us have commented here/wasted our time here and cleaning up the mess), basically has led to biteing of some newer editors (which obviously discourages them from adding the Misplaced Pages if there perfectly legit work is tagged for speedy/AFD), and now what I will classify as a personal attack against me with him/her saying I'm the real Fatality (and though I can be rude I don't do shit like this and I've never been blocked). Take into account his comment here along with his reply to the block (cya in 3 hours or something like that = fuck you people I'll be back in three hours doing the same stuff), what s/he did do when they came back from the block, and then their last comments on their talk page "I'm off. I guess you guys will have to deal with the fallout. Wiki can get stressful at times - but don't let that hold y'all back :). Oh and WP:AGF - maybe a rethink of policy>?)" Enough is enough. Ban time. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

HalfShadow's {{resolved}} comment was probably fun to add but it seems premature while one or more accounts are still being used in lieu of the blocked Fatal!ty account and the question of a ban is still open. — Athaenara ✉ 01:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed again, there is still a lot going on. — neuro 02:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser has come back as "possible", based on technical evidence, but Luna suggests behavior is more useful. And I think that gives us all we need to block the sock. So I'm doing that. Daniel Case (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: East718 already blocked 1onepurposeaccount indef. Per my comment above, is anyone up for a community ban discussion including Avi15 and Lsdjfhkjsb (If we are, let's start a new section). Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm for it. Feel free to move this comment under whatever subsection heading is decided upon for this extension of the discussion. — Athaenara ✉ 04:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm in too. Aboutmovies (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Me three. — neuro 17:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, a community ban is more than justified in this case. Nsk92 (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Gulnora Karimova article

The Gulnora Karimova article was re-written in a NPOV, press release/fansite fashion in August 2008 (diff). Since then, the single-purpose accounts Danch (talk · contribs), Bespredelwik (talk · contribs), and Unbal (talk · contribs) have resisted attempts to edit the article towards a more neutral tone (there was some related discussion on the talk page; see Talk:Gulnora Karimova#POV issues). Dchall1 has done an excellent job of rewriting the article in neutral, referenced and encyclopedic tone (diff), but the single-purpose accounts continue to revert to the version with POV and tone issues. I'm requesting interested parties take a look at the article to see if any action on an administrative level is necessary. --Muchness (talk) 11:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Muchness. I've tried to initiate communication with the SPAs, but haven't gotten anywhere. I'm not convinced it's malicious, and there seem to be some language barriers involved (for example). Full protection, preferably on the sourced/non-fansite version, might be helpful. Chris 19:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I recommend posting these issues on the more specific Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. — Athaenara ✉ 02:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this block warning warranted?

I was given this warning that I could have been blocked for a joking comment I made on my own talk page to an editor who had been repeatedly posting on my page. I have never posted on his. Here is the warning:

-- Way out of line comment --

This comment was completely inappropriate. Any repetition of that kind of thing will result in a block. Consider yourself lucky I've not blocked you now. --Dweller (talk) 12:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have seen editors allowed to use profanity in edit summaries and on users talk pages which was not considered blockable. I have also been personally attacked and have never asked for a block of the other because it seems short-lived and was not perpetuated over time. I am wondering if a joking response on my own talk page is a blockable offense. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It is usually not a good idea to use administrative powers to block editors that one may be involved with. If Dweller had blocked Mattisse for that comment, I would certainly question Dwellers motives, regardless of what was said.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It's best to avoid personal attacks in any case. Apparently ADD is a sensitive subject, and it's best to SUBTRACT comments like that. Try to keep all attacks impersonal. Baseball Bugs 16:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That should mathematically eliminate future issues. ►BMW◄ 16:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a warnable personal attack to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

ADD is not a sensitive topic for grownups. I freely admit I have ADD. The editor in question and I are both profession mental health practitioners and know that a joking reference to ADD is not the end of the world. He has been harassing me on my talk page for making comments on his FAC as well as personally attacking me on the FAC itself. It never occurred to me to ask for a block. His supporters have also been harassing me on my talk page. I have never posted on his talk page. I am really confused now about what constitutes a blockable offense. This will definitely limit my participation in any more FACs and I will start a policy of deleting comments on my talk page of the nature this editor and his supporters have made, without giving a response. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Further, his personal attack on me was merely removed from the FAC and put on the talk page. Then, he and his supporters started harassing my on my talk page because I withdrew from the FAC because of his attack on me. They asked me to return and respond, so this is very very confusing. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

On its face, it's a warnable personal attack. However, you're suggesting that the warning itself was personal. That's another issue. Baseball Bugs 17:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What were we talking about? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand what Baseball Bugs means. Do I think the warning was personal? Hadn't thought of that. My "Oppose" to Casliber's FAC and complaint that he spent time on 10 DYK's & articles, rather than on FAC comments started his harassment of me. Are you saying I think Dweller is favoring Casliber, because his warning drove me away from Casliber's FAC, you are suggesting? —Mattisse (Talk) 18:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, a lot of people have an attention deficit without the "disorder" part per se. Reading the alleged personal attack I see the wry juxtaposition of three-letter alphabet soup as a attempt at discordian humor and nothing more. But I can see how some people might take it more gravely and issue a warning without prior warning. Psychological diagnoses—amateur or "professional"—are still a scarlet letter in most circles. — CharlotteWebb 18:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It has been pointed out to me that the "warning" was issued some 8 hours after the alleged attack, and after Casliber spent the night putting more posts on my page. Casliber and I are both mental health professions. It defies credibility in my mind that he takes that comment as a serious attack. Adults are proud of their ADD. I am of mine as in many ways I benefit from it. When he accused me of much worse, his personal attacks on me were merely removed by another editor. Why did he continue to post on my page all night,if he thought I had personally attacked him? —Mattisse (Talk) 18:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

07:30, 23 November 2008 Casliber (Talk | contribs) (46,441 bytes) (hahaha)

Indeed it looks like he realized it was a joke, so I don't think this is worth all the fuss. — CharlotteWebb 18:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Do I still have to worry about a block from this editor? I have withdrawn from everything connect with Casliber and withdrawn from his FAC. I have asked that he not post on my talk page further. Is there more I can do to avoid blocks from Dweller? This is very scary. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Because nobody else who has been involved in this FAC has yet chimed in, let me just say that although Matisse has in several ways been creating more drama than is really called for, I don't believe that this block threat is either justified, necessary, or helpful. What is needed is some magical way to get Matisse to slow down, and a block threat doesn't tend in that direction. looie496 (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• The block threat requested by Casliber has had the desired effect of driving me away from my "Oppose" to his FAC. And I will net ever oppose an FAC again. So your wish is granted. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Closing this thread might be a good start. — CharlotteWebb 19:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do we always see calls to close threads here before they've run long enough for people in different time zones to even be aware of them? Casliber is in Australia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What I was getting at is that even though it's pretty lame as personal attacks go, it's still warnable. Being warned is not the same thing as being blocked. If the admin was involved in the dispute, he probably should not have been throwing those kinds of threats around, but he was technically correct about it possibly being interpreted as a personal attack. Baseball Bugs 20:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have ADD so I do not see it as a personal attack. So, you are saying he could have blocked me without warning?

It's a judgment call. Baseball Bugs 20:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

any user can warn, so it isn't usually an admin action to do so, but a warning that one will personally block as an admin, is essentially an admin action. But I think that comment would in fact have been blockable if repeated regardless of joking intent, for it would appear such to anyone who came across it & did not know specifics about the editors--I certainly don't routinely look at user pages to see if people say they have ADD. In an instance like this, I would have either asked someone else to warn, or used a standard warning template. DGG (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It didn't look like a joke up front, it looked like a typical "you must be a " that is a typical style of a personal attack. It was a pretty tame personal attack and the admin might have overreacted. But it was still technically a fair warning. Baseball Bugs 21:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Further input would be welcome at my ER in this matter. MBisanz 21:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, enjoyed the part about 11,000+ mainspace edits being "a low participation in articles". :)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone clarify for me the origin of the notion that Dweller was an involved editor ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

OK folks, been offline and back now. Let's get this straight. (a) I did find Mattisse's comment about ADD amusing (b) what I did not find amusing is a string of repeated claims I had been personally attacking her, and I did post a chronology of the FAC to show her that she actually began it. (c) many of her criticisms in the MDD FAC were valid, but some were extremely nitpicky and some were based on incorrect assumptions she had made, and the nature of extremely lengthy and hostile dialogue became problematic. (d) I did not ask Dweller to post on her talk page. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm too unwell to deal properly with this charade. But I'll stress that prior to the warning I was uninvolved in the dispute and that Casliber did not request action from me.

If Matisse wants to know what he need do to avoid being blocked - well it's the same with me as any other admin. Play the ball, not the man. In your debating, argue the point, don't throw mud at people. Even if you personally think the mud doesn't stink, others may disagree and, as it doesn't advance your argument, so what's the point anyway?

Since day one of my time on Misplaced Pages, I've made a point of being open to criticism and apologising when I'm wrong. Some have told me I'm too willing to do so. In this case, I do not believe I was wrong and I would similarly warn any other user for similar personal comments. --Dweller (talk) 13:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Location details of Minor

Looks like this person is giving out their school in conjunction with a username that could be their real name - can we purge please? Exxolon (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Since it looks like the account name is the user's real name, I've blanked a couple facts to conform to WP:CHILD, and that might need oversight, and I've linked the user to this discussiion and the CHILD on his User talk. Admins please review my actions. ThuranX (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested oversight. — neuro 18:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted and restored the page, pending oversight, to remove the details from the publicly accesible pages, and forwarded the delted history to RFO. -- Avi (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oversight done.

See also Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(proposals)#protecting_minors_from_themselves_in_userspace

John Vandenberg 21:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Please block User:Lightbot

Lightbot is an extremely controversial bot which is charging ahead delinking dates. It has various technical problems, itemized at its owner's talk page: it is changing book titles and quotations, and producing gibberish, as it goes.

Yet more seriously, the guideline it is attempting to enforce is itself disputed - edit-warring over it is why MOSNUM was protected - again; there's a wide-ranging RfC on the general subject here, which should be posted tomorrow; and a more narrow (and protested) RfC here. Under these circumstances, Lightbot should be stopped pending consensus; I thought it was.

As an aggravating factor, it is resetting its own stop button. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the validity of the bot's edits but offering a Stop facility that the bot will immediately undo itself is a total no-no. I've posted on the owners talk to come here and join discussion. Exxolon (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with block until repaired and discussed. ThuranX (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Bot blocked pending discussion. Blueboy96 17:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Support block of this aggravating bot. I and no doubt 99% of the wiki community could not care less about the MOSdate wars, but I have sadly had to reduce the size of my watchlist by at least 50% because of these tedious and downright annoying edit wars over dates made by bots and users with scripts. In fact annoying doesn't even come close. I am certain nobody gives a crap whether dates are linked or not, but for me, watching over backwater articles for vandalism or dubious additions/removals will have to wait until these people get a clue. MickMacNee (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like the bot owner logged in and removed the stop button him/herself. That is not a bug; it looks like the owner thought the issue resolved. I have no experience as to the edits, so I won't comment there. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This diff is very troubling. It reveals that the operator has, in fact, repeatedly removed the 'stop' command himself, without addressing the problems. As such, I'd support a disabling of the bot entirely, until MOSNUM is settled AND the bot properly reworked. The problems with the 'as of' test additions clearly continues, and there's no apparent effort on the operator's part to actually fix and resolve this stuff. ThuranX (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a member of the Bot Approvals Group, this bot is approved to complete certain tasks involving the linking and unlinking of dates. It should not be un-disabling itself or communicating with other users as that is outside the scope of its Bot Request for Approval and an inappropriate use of a bot account per Bot Policy. I will not unblock the bot until I have the owner's explicit assurance that it will cease un-disabling itself and cease being used as a communication account. MBisanz 18:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not self-enabling, but the operator is enabling it without correcting behaviors nor responding to complainants, which is far worse. ThuranX (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Good block, I'd personally like to see a full review of what this bot is supposed to be doing, and in contrast what it is actually doing. — neuro 18:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

To request a formal review of a bot, please see WP:RFC/BOT. MBisanz 18:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I logged in and edited the page. That is all. It isn't rocket science. If you had asked me on my talk page, I could have told you. I provided the facility as a convenience and a courteousy. It doesn't actually control the bot itself, I do. I expect courtesy from others too. I do not expect 'block first ask questions later'. I note that Pmanderson has been on my case for some time now and has been repeatedly stopping the bot without quoting an edit. So I no longer take his stalking seriously. He even 'stops' it when it isn't even running. I note that he hasn't quoted an edit to you guys either. If anyone wants to discuss matters unrelated to the false assertion of 'auto-starting' bot, then feel free to take it to my talk page. If I am going to be blocked just because I log in and edit my own bot page, then it is better if I simply don't provide the facility. Sigh. Lightmouse (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, your gripes about Pmanderson don't override bot policy. — neuro 18:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If Lightmouse had removed the stop, using his own account, that would not be a problem; the rest of the questions about Lightbot's actions would remain. If he used Lightbot's account, he violated bot policy, and WP:SOCK. If Lightbot undid its own controls, that would indeed be a serious problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Lightmouse, posting on your talk page has the same effect as pissing in the wind if the request amounts to stop using a bot in a controversial area. The fact is, you are dogmatic, your opposers are dogmatic. Everybody else could not not give a shit, but the collateral damage is that articles dont get watchlisted for vandalism/bad info because of your actions. Maybe you just don't realy care about that. MickMacNee (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Please provide an example edit. Lightmouse (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Pick any edit by your bot, reverted by someone else, reverted by someone else, then reverted by someone else. Like I said, I can't provide a diff because I gave up watching these articles long ago after the third or fourth revision. Date linking or not is clearly more important than vandalism or factual accuracy. 19:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The bot is innocent until proven guilty. Blocks can't be imposed without evidence. Provide an example edit. Lightmouse (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, whatever. I'm a liar. Carry on. Nothing to see here. I imagined the whole thing. MickMacNee (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe you imagined the whole thing. I believe that you have seen something that you didn't like. I just don't know what it is. The block was imposed on me and it is very hard to find out the evidence for the block. I am the victim here, not you. Lightmouse (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Per his assurance not to use the bot for communication purposes, I have unblocked it. I do this expecting Lightmouse to listen to the comments and complaints brought to him w.r.t. the bot and without prejudice to another administator blocking for any other policy violations that may occur. MBisanz 21:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's see what happens. Lightbot is not now running, which is acceptable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The linking or unlinking of dates is a cornerstone of wikipedia. Everyone I know, who goes to[REDACTED] to look for info, asks me about it. Baseball Bugs 23:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"The bot is innocent until proven guilty."? Nonsense. BOTS are guilty until proven innocent. USERS are innocent until proven guilty. That being said, unlike certain other bot operators, Lightmouse seems willing to hold off making edits where the consensus for those edits is disputed once it's pointed out to him that it is disputed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I was merely emphasising that in fair trials, evidence is required. Misplaced Pages isn't Guantanemo Bay. Lightmouse (talk) 12:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Villain article

I was wondering if I could impose upon some folk to divert a little of their attention to the Villain article. Before I began taking a closer look at it today, the article had no fewer than three 'reference needed' and 'unverified/original research' tags. To address that, I've reverted out the uncited information twice (the info has been there, uncited, for over a year), and transpo'd it to article discussion for citation work. Another editor has added it back in, and I suspect it might get a bit tedious, as the editor is the user who has recently been countering any removal of the uncited content.
I am not in danger of losing my cool, but it might be nice to get some bigger brains to levitate on over for a bit. :) - Arcayne () 19:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you are wrong to remove material merely because it is unsourced. If you had some reasonable suspicion that the statements might be false, it would be a different story. Much of the material you are removing is common knowledge. (Disclaimer: These statements should not be construed as an implicit claim concerning the size of my brain.)looie496 (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page, I agree with the removal. It appears to be a big section of original research, more an essay on villainy than encyclopedic content. Dayewalker (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Looie496, I appreciate your point of view, and respect it; I didn't purge the items simply because they were uncited, thought the lack of citation made some not-so-common connections. Are they speculation? I dunno, which is why they were tagged as uncited for over a year. However, enough is enough. They might have value, if cited. This is why they were moved to article discussion, so that some enterprising soul might be able to cite it. :) - Arcayne () 22:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No on is required to tag something and leave it. No one is in fact required to tag anything. They're free to remove anything unsourced that they feel like. Its sometimes a courtesy if the statements aren't too crazy to tag and leave, but there seems to be a big misconception that anyone can add anything they want to an article and just slap a fact tag on it and let it stay there.--Crossmr (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Consider WP:BURDEN - it's fine to remove unsourced material (and it's not fine to restore it without providing a source). However, sometimes it causes less drama to just tag it and either ask for sources on article Talk or look yourself. As to which course is better... it depends. For me, the dividing line is whether the material seems to be verifiable. If you think finding sources is only a matter of time, tagging is best; if sources are unlikely to exist, remove the material per policy. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

On the whole—I'm not really being serious here, and this is absolutely not intended to point the finger at any specific person—I wish there were a principle that people have to create a certain number of articles before feeling free to delete things. People who haven't created articles haven't been forced to think about how difficult it is, and what a waste of time, to find a reliable source for the fact that the sky is blue. looie496 (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

On NWA.Rep

Seriously, what is going on? By coincidence I saw that NWA.Rep took a leave of absence after a conflict with some admins - well, too bad I thought. I took a look at his talk page and saw his apparent farewell message and noticing a small edit-war, with the result of Swatjester blanking the page, citing personal attacks - which I don't contest. Looking at his user page however, content was deleted by Swatjester (claiming a section was "disruptive to the project" - what project?) and Gwen Gale (called his practical joke "highly disruptive") - in my personal opinion ignoring WP:BLP#Non-article space and in fact censoring Misplaced Pages. Right now a full indefinite protection is on. I hope there is an admin out there who has the courtesy and decency to look beyond a personal grudge towards a feisty Wikipedian and shed some light on the subject. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 19:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"The project" refers to[REDACTED] itself, and userpage editorials about why women should not wear clothes has nothing to do with furthering wikipedia. Baseball Bugs 19:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it makes the whole project look exceptionally foolish. This is myspace stuff, kids. Take it there. Friday (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, wait. Bishzilla undid the removal of user content, calling it "dancing on the grave".

So, what if NWA.Rep is of the opinion that women shouldn't wear clothes? Just a matter of opinion. And no, it doesn't further Misplaced Pages, but neither does having a picture of Bugs Bunny on your user page, now does it? I hope it can rest now. Let go of the grudges and let him be. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 20:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You asked what "the project" meant, so I told you. The other part was explaining why they (temporarily) deleted it. Whether it's there are not don't matter to me none. And it will all be moot when his block expires. Baseball Bugs 20:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you actually read what's way up above, or just going by some off-wiki contact that you might have had? My wife, for example, is well-known for many positive things. I know that if she had an article about her, she wouldn't want to be added to "Women with large breasts" category, or having the phrase "she is also known for her tremendous knockers" added to her article. I mean, it's fine to have a breast fixation, but keep it off Misplaced Pages because it's disruption. ►BMW◄ 20:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually did read what's way up above, and it doesn't have anything to do with this. I think its unfair to bash a guy who already left the building, that's is what my argument is about - even if he is somewhat of a pervert. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 21:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It does have to do with this, in that his apparent breast fixation is what led to him getting blocked. Also keep in mind that the user does not own "his" pages. However, you're right that it's usually considered bad form to mess around with a blocked user's pages, and that's why the admin restored them. One exception would be if he's indef-blocked, in which case his entire talk page might be cleared and protected, at the admin's discretion. He wasn't indef-blocked, only for a week; and his pages were protected due to fanning the flames (by him and others) and the protection will expire when the block expires. He hasn't necessarily left, he's just angry about being blocked. Check back when the block expires. Baseball Bugs 21:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, let's clarify: what resolution are looking for? His page is protected as is to allow him to have his "final" say. Those who blanked it got bashed a little. What are you looking for? ►BMW◄ 21:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right, the argument above does have something to do with it, but not with the point I'm trying to make. I don't like the tone of that particular section on his user page either, but I, in my most humble personal opinion, believe that it is not up to admins to remove content from another Wikipedian's user page without any discussion, let alone a warning. That's even more inappropriate when he's blocked. Little below the belt, don't you think? --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 23:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Users do not own "their" pages, those pages are subject to the rules. Tendentious content is not permitted. Personal attacks are not permitted. In general, content that violates[REDACTED] policies is not permitted. And admins have the right to remove such. I'll concede that there was not enough discussion here, though; otherwise, we wouldn't have admins reverting each other. It would be easier if he actually were leaving, because then his pages could be wiped and it wouldn't matter. As for him actually leaving, I'll believe it when I don't see it. Baseball Bugs 23:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• At least get rid of the 'New Messages' bar. It wasn't funny the first time some pisswit thought it was 'good for a laugh' and it hasn't improved with age. HalfShadow 23:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  • It's by no means original with that user. Baseball Bugs 23:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course you are right Bugs, any Wikipedian should be following guidelines. But I'm sure that you would agree with me that normally speaking any user — admin or fellow Wikipedian — would've asked NWA.Rep politely if he'd either take the section out or change the tone, and if not then other steps would be taken. But that didn't happen, because of that whole fuss ↑.

And a final note, I honestly believe the new message bar practical joke should be left standing. Whether you would find it hysterically funny or annoying beyond comparison, it doesn't hurt anyone and it is just on that particular user page. If WP:LIGHTEN UP would exist, I'd be citing that. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 00:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a little hard to ask him and expect an answer, given that his talk page was locked. Besides, he says he's leaving, so an answer might never come. There's no clear-cut answer to the question, and that's why the various admins should have discussed it first and reached a consensus. If he were indef-blocked, they would have wiped it. It's the short block that's the dilemma. As for the "new message" bar, it's a bit annoying but it's harmless. Baseball Bugs 00:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

And if he does come back, maybe he'll rename himself DELTA, as NWA will soon be obsolete. Baseball Bugs 00:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someday, someone will take the name Pan Am and do a sub-genre called Juan Trippe-hop. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. The firm that went from a major airline to a carnival sideshow offering rides on domestic animals, hence the term Juan Trippe pony. So, when an airline goes bankrupt, does it de-plane? Baseball Bugs 04:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Fake "New Messages" bars are unbelievably annoying and pointless. But edit warring on a protected page, as several folks have been doing, is strictly against the Code of Thug Life. Please, kids, settle down. :/ krimpet✽ 01:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Most other users such as User:Editor510 have had these banners removed from them as they're against a policy on media wiki interfaces or something. Sticky Parkin 02:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:SMI ~ User:Ameliorate! 05:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The page called Misplaced Pages:User page points out that offensive material can be removed by any editor, and there is no indication that permission is required. Attacks against other editors (which NWA has many in his "retirement" essay) are also against the rules. Baseball Bugs 06:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If there is a policy on media wiki interfaces that can be quoted to get rid of those message hoax banners I'd really love to know what it is so I can use it! dougweller (talk) 06:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This - WP:SMI - is on that User Page page, but it's a little vague, as it says "generally frowned upon" rather than "prohibited". My guess would be that going around unilaterally deleting them off other users' pages could be considered as disruptive as having them there in the first place. Baseball Bugs 06:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Quite so, Bugs. WP:SMI came out vague because the text is a compromise after a hot debate. If we must discuss these trivialities yet again, please take it to WT:USER, where I have posted on it at boring length. Bishonen | talk 10:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC).

Leave that "New Messages" bar. A debate has run through and through. Remove his personal attacks on his talk page instead in some bits I have suggested. Dengero (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they're debating the wrong topic. They should clobber (i.e. delete like any user can, not destroy) his narcissistic "retirement" / attack essay, and probably also his entire user page. If he does, in fact, come back then he can simply revert it and/or deal with these complaints directly. Baseball Bugs 14:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

OK but User:Editor510 was warned for edit warring, I think his page was protected as admins were determined he couldn't have it and linking to the SMI thing in edit summaries. Just saying, the policy's been acted on plenty of times. Sticky Parkin 17:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Divulgance of personal info

A new user User:The Mad Pigeon first and only edit has been to add personal information collected about me off Wiki into an article. While the information itself is public, how it was presented is disconcerting and stalkerish. Can this edit please oversighted and this editor checkusered? I strongly suspect from the last bit that this is a person who I've had a disagreement with before attempting to upset and/or embarrass me. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I noted them of this discussion. I agree that this should be oversighted and editors checkusered, but I want to see what others think. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think I know who this is. In February I had a disagreement with another editor, User:Jdfielder over Bob Ross. This editor blogged about it on his personal blog, making personal attacks against me (by name). On that blog, he calls himself The Mad Pigeon. This would seem the most likely suspect. I also suspect this is not the first time he's done this, made a new account to do some kind of harassment. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have indef blocked The Mad Pigeon - I doubt if they intended to use the account again but at least there is no longer the option. You may have a word with a CU to see if the previous account is still fresh enough to run a comparison (I would note that Alison is no longer active, you may need to find another). If other accounts pop up, have them CU'd with this one (which has a connection to the first as commented by you) and since you know this persons blog it is likely that any real problems could be resolved to a real person by law enforcement agencies if required. I trust this is of some help. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note with a CU to see if they will do the check for this AN/I. The content has also been oversighted (for others reading along). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The Jfielder account is stale, but if anything along this line reoccurs it may be worth looking into. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous vandals gaming the system

This is partly a "sanity check" for my warning I gave the vandal(s), and if you agree with my actions, consider it a recuitment for admins to watch this IP address. The contribution history of User:134.240.241.2 indicates people who will do a few vandalism edits, and then lay off for a bit, then start up again when the warnings go stale. Also the talk page regularly gts wiped clean of warning messages, so people not reviewing the talk page history generally start off with the level 1 or 2 warnings. I got involved when I turned down a request for blocking at AIV, and an editor contacted me asking why. I explained my reasoning, and I stand by the decision I made then.

I have kept an eye on the IP address since then, along with the conversations that User:Stepp-Wulf as had with User:Berean Hunter about the IP address. It appears that this vandalism has been going on for some time, and these two are doing their utmost to stay on top of it. But due to the sporadic nature of the vandalism, this IP address is not always being blocked. The user(s) has now taken to personal insults, by doing null edits to make an insult (like this one)

I have placed a final warning on the talk page, along with a personalised note warning them about their edits. Policy states that vandals can only be blocked following a recent final warning, but these vandal(s) avoid it by sporadic vandalism and "wiping the slate clean" by deleting past warnings.

So: was my warning appropriate? If not, can you sugggest a more appropriate action against the IP address? If it was appropriate, can I please ask any admins with a few minutes to spare to watch the contributions of this address? StephenBuxton (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe a recent final warning is essential. WP:BLOCK says "Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking (particularly with respect to blocks for protection) but administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking. Users who have been made aware of a policy and have had such an opportunity, and accounts whose main or only use is forbidden activity (sock-puppetry, obvious vandalism, personal attack, and so on) may not require further warning." Misplaced Pages:Vandalism says, "Note that warning is not an absolute prerequisite for blocking; accounts whose main or only use is obvious vandalism or other forbidden activity may be blocked without warning." The fact that this vandal is working slowly and, as you say, gaming the system doesn't prevent them being blocked. I think your warning was appropriate, and I think a block on any further vandalism from that IP seems appropriate. --Moonriddengirl 20:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Stephen for picking up on his activities..you're right, this user knows Misplaced Pages better than they let on and are gaming the system. I have been watching (wikistalking) this IP like a hawk after figuring out what they are up to. He has been exploiting the system and it has worked for him up to now but hopefully this will help bring it to a close. If they vandalize again, I will be filing at WP:AIV immediately if I happen to be the one that catches it. I think J. Delanoy is also hip to what is going on (he doesn't miss anything does he?).

Question: Is there a way of using the hidden categories on user pages to show a genuine warning level regardless of whether they have deleted the template from their talk page? We found this guy but I wonder how many others are using this exploit that we don't know about.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know from hidden categories, but if you file it AIV, you might want to link to Stephen's warning, if it's wiped. :) --Moonriddengirl 21:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I've implimented a six month {{anonblock}} on the IP.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block for this IP that used to be an expert at gaming the system. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody explain some of this IP's edits, such as this one? What are they doing that makes the red letters different in their version from the original version? There are several edits like that where I don't see any difference in their edits. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

In the modified version, the "p" in "stop" is actually not a simple "p", it's a 3-byte unicode character that renders as a "p" in the font you are using. (I figured this out by pasting into emacs; there are probably other ways to do it.) looie496 (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

in your diff, the the last letter ("p") of the word "stop" in the original revision is the standard latin "p", while in the new revision this is some unicode glyph that looks like "p" but actually isn't (I can't figure out at the moment what it is, might by a cyrillic glyph). 131.111.223.43 (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ha, haven't realized somebody already answered that question!!! 131.111.223.43 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC).

In fact, looking a bit more, it's actually a Russian "P" (U0420). looie496 (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• No doubt there are others playing the game. I detected this site because I knew he had been warned before and realized he was erasing warnings to make himself appear innocent each time he vandalized a page. By this means he was able to prolong his activity and avoid any serious sanctions for some time. It seems to me there is some way the system already detects page blankings, but I may be wrong. Maybe page blankings on talk pages need to be investigated. My personal opinion is that administrators take far too long to crack down on violators. Thanks, Stepp-Wulf (talk) 03:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC).

• I'd say that isn't true. In this case, if you continually took this guy to WP:AIV before he met their threshold conditions, you would be dissapointed. This isn't because AIV respondends are too lenient, it is because they are responding quickly to a strict set of criteria. In order for AIV (and 3RR for that matter) to run smoothly and quickly, administrators need to rely on "bright line" rules. Vandalism after final warning. All vandalism edits. Blatant vandalism. Etc. Bringing them a case where the IP knows these rules and skirts them isn't going to do anything. Bringing it here with the explanation that User:NurseryRhyme will get something done. This isn't a fault in the system, just a function. Protonk (talk) 06:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your help here. StephenBuxton (talk) 10:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible legal threat by potential IP sock

This edit made by 98.212.143.193 (talk · contribs), on the article Suburban Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which is up for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Suburban Express. IP is a suspected sock of Fairmont-m19 (talk · contribs) (see Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Fairmont-m19). IP has removed the comment, but would appreciate some admin eyes on the other suspected socks for similar threats/bad faith attacks. MuZemike (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing some context, but that diff doesn't seem like a legal threat at all. Just because it contains the word "litigation" doesn't make it a threat. Oren0 (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a very vague threat if it is; I do recall hearing a lot of scuttlebutt about the owner of Suburban trying to sue their chief competitor in Champaign-Urbana for libel. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 22:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm utterly confused - I don't read that as a legal threat in any way, shape or form - not even slightly. Are you sure you linked the right diff? — neuro 00:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Does not appear to be a legal threat, just a reference to litigation with domain registrations. Move of a BLP issue. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I put the words "article owned by" along with "computer and IP law circles" and "subsequent litigation" together and came to the conclusion that the user is trying to make some sort of a legal threat in retaliation to the AFD. Besides, I don't know too many people who are into computer-related law who also own a bus line. That was my rationale, but I don't know; maybe I'm reading too much into it. MuZemike (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you did the right think, putting more eyes on any issue that "might" be a legal issue. Those eyes just think it isn't a problem :) That is always better than the alternative. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Revert warring using rollbacks

Pocopocopocopoco (talk · contribs) is repeatedly using rollback for edit warring with other users: , even though he complained earlier on rollback abuses by other users: . I did not investigate this further, but Pocopocopocopoco made 48 rollbacks. Note that User:Elysander (whose edits were rolled back by P.) just has been blocked for 3RR violation . I believe the rollback feature should be taken immediately away of Pocopocopocopoco, and perhaps he should be also blocked for edit warring. I wonder how this edit worrier (see his block history) could be granted the rollback privilege.Biophys (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• IMO, "edit warring" with rollback is bad because you don't communicate in the edit summary. The physical capacity of the tool to negate multiple edits is not the fundamental problem. I use rollback (the tool) quite a bit to revert multiple edits made in good faith--the critical part is that I take time to compose an edit summary or make a post on the talk page. I have no comment on whether or not he is actually "Edit warring" (haven't looked that clsoely yet), but I figured I'd make a comment about rollback. Specifically, WP:ROLLBACK says "It is possible to specify an edit summary when using rollback; however, this requires manual editing of the link's URL or use of additional software or scripts. When such tools are used, the issue of choice of reversion method is moot, and rollback may be used for any purpose, provided an explanatory edit summary is supplied." Protonk (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Unless I'm missing something, I think there's some confusion over the term "rollback". A rollback is performed by a special button granted to users who request it; it is an automated, one touch reversion of a given edit and it only provides a canned edit summary (example here). You can read about the feature here. He has had the capability for a little under a year and I was not able to spot any abuse in a quick scan of his most recent edits. Since the two examples you've given above do not appear to be made using rollback, an example of abuse would be helpful. I can see only one block on his log, that a year old as well, so I can't see any reason to remove the ability on principle. If you're making a compliant about his manual reversions, perhaps posting something specific at the edit warring noticeboard would be helpful. Thanks. Kuru 00:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the rollback abuse, either. Can you elaborate? seicer | talk | contribs 01:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

None of the diffs show use of the rollback tool. Someone may want to let Pocopocopocopoco know that calling an at-once revert of more than one edit a rollback has seemingly misled at least one editor into thinking the rollback tool has been abused, when this has not happened. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was misled by his edit summaries. I do not know how to check if an edit was a rollback or not.Biophys (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Any revert made with the rollback tool is automatically worded spot on like this. Now that you know what a rollback always looks like, it's unlikely you'll ever mistake anything else for one again :) Gwen Gale (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Noted. I thought it was clear because I was calling it a "roll back" rather than a rollback. I'll just call it a revert instead. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

What I tend to do is leave an edit summary saying something like, back to last by User:X, blah blah blah. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll do that myself. Thanks. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Charles Michael Collins is back again.

He's an obsessed editor, and pops up from time to time. His targets are his perceived conflict with Ralph Merkle and Robery Freitas... Ralph_Merkle Robert_Freitas Special:Contributions/71.114.33.233

Please semi-protect the articles and block the IP. Guyonthesubway (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the case, but if it comes down to it (and it is not blatant enough for an outright ban) then you should take it to WP:SSP. — neuro 08:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson

User:Pmanderson performed a nonconsensual, cross-namespace move of the Bible citation article in this diff.

I request immediate reversion of that nonconsensual move.

There is a request to revert the move the page via WP:RM. It is being discussed here. But I am being told (incorrectly, I think) that only issues related to content should be discussed there, and it appears that rogue action may be swept under the rug. Hence, this entry at WP:ANI.

As I see it, the main reason to support the current move request is because it should not be acceptable in the community of Misplaced Pages to impose one's POV via a nonconsensual, cross-namespace move. The current situation seems to be:

• The page is being held hostage -- efforts to restore the content to article space (where it had resided for four years without complaint from others) are being obstructed unless the demands of one editor are satisfied, or
• The page may be effectively deleted (as noted below) if left where it is.

To let the rogue action stand would be an affront to the collaborative spirit of Misplaced Pages.

User:Pmanderson's knowledge of Misplaced Pages's policies seems to be substantial. Yet the move was accomplished in a way that created this situation:

Merging_articles#Cross-namespace_moves

the redirect that is created by such a move is subject to speedy deletion, which would effectively cause the article to be deleted from the main encyclopedia.

The ultimate effect (via predictable deletion of redirects) of the cross-namespace move may be to bury information which User:Pmanderson seems to find undesirable.

User:Pmanderson has not answered the question on their talk page concerning their objective in making the cross-namespace move.

Curiously, the cross-namespace move is marked as a "minor" edit, contrary to the expectation here:

Merging_articles#Cross-namespace_moves

Generally speaking, other types of cross-namespace moves will be controversial and worth discussing with other editors.

User:Pmanderson has not explained why their first indication of displeasure concerning the article's content was a cross-namespace move rather than fixing, discussing, or tagging it.

I believe that to do anything short of reverting the move made by User:Pmanderson would reward rogue action that was an affront to the collaborative spirit of Misplaced Pages. -Ac44ck (talk) 00:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This sort of action is not out of character for Mr. Anderson... He has a history of being difficult to work with, and on refusing to discuss issues with people he deems may work against his own goals... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The m doesn't mark it as minor, but as a move. It's impossible to mark a move as minor. There's no such box in Special:MovePage.--chaser - t 05:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Reverted move and article-ified

As also noted on the article's talk page, I've restored this article to article space, removed the unnecessary project-space content, and expanded it using sources. Everyone please note that we already have a project-space discussion of citing the Bible. It's Misplaced Pages:Citing sources/Bible. Uncle G (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work, Uncle G.

I maintain that hijacking a page and holding it hostage should not be an acceptable way to encourage improvements to an article. - Ac44ck (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Blanket personal attack by User:Cosand

At 14:00 on 22 November 2008 (UTC) User:Cosand posted remarks to the Barack Obama talk page. Diff here: ]

The accusations of racism and bigotry constitute an egregious personal attack on editors discussing whether "African American" is the best form of words to describe Barack Obama in his BLP’s lead para. (It seems that this may be an especially American form of words which is not necessarily followed in other countries/cultures. Therefore, as WP is a global resource and not a specifically American one, the question of how best and most clearly to encapsulate Obama's ethnic origins for a global readership – in the context of his being America’s first (e.g.) African American president-elect – is a perfectly legitimate one for discussion.)

The discussion has been conducted in good faith, without a hint of racism or bigotry from anyone involved.

As Cosand’s personal attack has no basis in fact, it appears to be an attempt to intimidate other editors into abandoning legitimate discussion and negotiation – i.e. an extreme POV-pushing tactic. (Unsuccessful in this case.)

At 23:57 on 22 November 2008 (UTC) I left a message at Cosand’s talk. It pointed out the nature of his personal attack on the editors involved in the discussion. It said that if he did not remove the remarks I would request a block at ANI. Diff here: ]

He hasn't replied to the message or removed his remarks.

I trust that personal attacks against WP editors in the form of gratuitous accusations of racism and bigotry are not tolerated here. Please would an Admin either ask Cosand to remove the offending attacks and impose a block if the request is ignored; or consider a block without further ado, if it's deemed wise to prevent repetition (the discussion that contains Cosand's attacks is ongoing).

There is no other history between myself and User:Cosand.

Thanks. — Writegeist (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Toddst1 (talk) 02:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Cosand has not edited since the Barack Obama post, so it is pretty likely that he has not yet seen your request. In any case you are over-reacting. What he wrote is a pretty widely held point of view, but he stated it too offensively. It is reasonable for you to let him know that, but you don't need to do it in a way that is very likely to escalate the dispute. If you're going to edit articles on Obama, you'll need to develop a bit of a thicker skin. looie496 (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah. So it's OK to attack other contributors as racists and bigots. BTW I was involved at McCain and Palin through all the long weeks of fierce and exhausting argument. My skin is plenty thick enough, thanks. If any admin has something intelligent to add it would be greatly welcomed. — Writegeist (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

1RR violation report

Violation of User_talk:Boodlesthecat#1RR_restrictions: revert 1: 00:20, November 23, 2008 and revert 2: 10:54, November 23, 2008 (two reverts within 8 hours). That's the third violation of this restriction (User_talk:Boodlesthecat#Blocked, User_talk:Boodlesthecat#Blocked_3) in the past few weeks. PS. Proof of my involvement in the article: ; refer to the discussion of past blocks for clarifications that this restriction generally applies to any article the two of us edit (his last block was for the same article). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Do I understand this correctly? You want to get Boodlesthecat blocked - during an arbitration involving you and also him (and others including myself) - for two reverts in a revert war with a person who originally got into the case with Boodlesthecat thanks to your canvassing in the Poland-related noticeboard (, thus hardly a 3rd party as required) and has furthermore violated 3RR right now (previous version revert to: , 1, 2, 3, 4). You've not even been involved in the revert war. If that's not Wikilawyering, what is? Sciurinæ (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus was also aware of the 3RR issue regarding Radek. After his fourth revert, Radek received a line in Polish on his talk page () that when put into the Google translator says something about "Rule of Thirds rewertow". Apparently Radek doesn't have IM contact with him yet. Sciurinæ (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

First, do the math a bit better...the two edits were more than 10 hours apart, not 8. Second, Boodles has a legitimate point here from a policy (rather than a content dispute point of view). The part Boodles was reverting wasn't in the referenced material, despite Radek's assertion of it. What was removed was technically OR, which was a legit removal. I see no justification of any block at this point. AKRadecki 02:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

First I would like to say that I would really appreciate it if when other editors mention me in these controversial and contentious cases they let me know. Otherwise I find out about it through indirect means well after things been said, and what can I say, not having had a say I feel like it's a dishonest use of my edits. It's basically talking behind a person's back. Second, I did not get into a revert war with Boodles due to canvassing by Piotrus. I first ENCOUNTERED Boodles after a post on Polish Misplaced Pages's Board by Piotrus but what's wrong with that? I saw Piotrus post a notice about an article that I thought was of interest, I checked it out, I saw what I thought was POV material I reverted it. Little did I know at the time that I stepped into a nasty quagmire. Boodles (or somebody else, I don't honestly remember) reverted me after which I took it to the talk page and did not revert Boodles (or whoever) again. There was no revert/edit war involved, at least as far as the interaction between me and Boodles (this is also a positive comment on Boodles' behavior). Second, in reference to the current situation over at the Rescue article, I am NOT in violation of 3RR. Please note that some of the edits Sciruinae offers as evidence are consecutive edits - in other words they're on a single edit done in two parts - and the 3RR rule clearly states that "A group of consecutive reverts by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert."

Finally, after my 3rd revert, Piotrus left a message in Polish on my talk page. Sciurinæ's paranoia basically displays his bad faith. What Piotrus' said, verbatim, was "Please watch the 3RR rule. It would be stupid of you to get a block". Basically Piotrus saw that I made 3 reverts and was telling me not to make another one. He's also chastised me for my sloppy referencing (and I am sloppy with the inline references, I admit) in the past. Why the freak out? Now, all of this could be simply ascribed to Sciurinæ being paranoid and ..., well, I don't quite know what his problem is having never interacted with him before. But the last sentence: "Apparently Radek doesn't have IM contact with him yet" is the perfect display of BAD FAITH that this whole situation has deteriorated into. In point of fact and as strange as it may seem to some, I HAVE NEVER USED IM IN MY LIFE. With Piotrus or anyone else. That statement is all about insinuation ("Are you now or have you ever been guilty of using IM?) and completely empty of substance. This is what this discussion has become. Insinuations, threats, accusations and a complete lack of the assumption of good faith on the part of one's "opponents". From people I've never interacted with before. It's Wiki at it's worst.

Sciruinae should apologize for his incorrect accusations, for his assumption of bad faith, and for talking about me behind my back.

As to AKRadecki's point, yes, technically what Boodles reverted wasn't in the reference, if by "wasn't" you mean it wasn't there word for word. But then if we stuck to word for word rendering of referenced materials Misplaced Pages would be one big copy vio. What it was, despite AKR's assertion, was not OR, but a summary of what was in the source. Which is what we do with sources, paraphrase and summarize them. There was no personal opinion (contrary to some false edit summaries) nor 'editorializing' involved. So no, Boodles' revert was not legitimate. It was more of the same "assume bad faith" attitude displayed by Sciruinae above, and then revert away. I have no idea whether or not a block is justified for Boodles, not having kept up with his restrictions or the trouble he gets into. But I do resent the dishonest statements made above.radek (talk) 06:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's not digress. This is not about Radek or anybody else. Boodlesthecat is on a 1RR violation yet has reverted twice within 10 hours. What should we do? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 08:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, would you mind not trying to make out like you're a neutral admin when Boodlesthecat, who you constantly campaign against, is one of your greatest POV foes? It's only fair and honest, as not every admin who comes here will know the background. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Deacon, as a person who launched an ArbCom against me, perhaps you should state your likes and dislikes first? I have linked the 1RR restriction which goes into history of mine's and Boody's interaction. This is not a place for anything more.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 08:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Listen, you may have tried to convince others I (a Scottish phd medieval history student of Irish descent) am a Russian Polonophobe in order to derail that ArbCom hearing, but I can't let that bother me, and I got a responsibility to uphold neutrality and perceived neutrality. Perceived neutrality is exactly why I ignored the Boodlesthecat 3RR report (I was patrolling AN/3 when that was listed), despite the fact that, our relations aside, I'm actually neutral. Was this really necessary btw? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The 1RR restrictions were on both you, Piotrus, and Boodlesthecat when reverting one another, which did not happen in the relevant edit war, so no more funny arguments. Secondly, tag teaming was declared a focus in the arbitration, so I didn't ignore the unusual sight of a 3RR reminder in Polish, and supporting the argument that it was in Polish so that it would be overlooked by others was also that Piotrus and Radek had no IM contact where such messages would be easy. Thirdly, I'm sick of having to clarify and add things because you, Piotrus, overlook the offenses by certain people while seeing (wrongly) those of others, or at least when you makes those mistakes one could expect a better attitude than hostility for providing missing information. Fourthly, I triple-checked all the reverts, consecutive edits and the time of each, and it was a clear-cut 3RR violation. Lastly, now that the article is protected, the need for the block on Radek has diminished. Perhaps it would be a special gesture of goodwill to lift the block early (though this should not lead to yet more pestering the blocking admin as if he had acted improperly). Sciurinæ (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. 1RR applies to reverts of any other editor in any article both of us are editing. This is a clear violation. Please stop trying to turn this into discussion of something (or somebody) else.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the block was placed on Radek after the article was protected. Since Radek is not cited with edit warring on other articles, the block currently serves no purpose except as punishment. I would respectfully request this block be lifted ASAP. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

More User:TheNewHubris socks

As well as User:Hubris25: F U C K and User:Hubris24: Randy Watches You Masturbate (now blocked) two more have turned up: User:Hubris27: Revenge and User:Hubris26: TheNewSirex. Similar names, similar targets. Block, anyone? (note: I'm coming here because I find it is faster to go straight to the source than open longwinded sockpuppetry cases, esp. in obvious situations such as this. Ironholds (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

See for a list. Can we get a checkuser to isolate this and issue a rangeblock or hardblock his IP or something? I am working on blocking all that I can find... That would be VERY helpful...--Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I looked around for a checkuser; none seem to be online. I recall seeing something about an IP block before, it hasn't apparently deterred them. Ironholds (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Resolved: Thanks to Kurt Shaped Box. I'll keep an eye out on the User creation log for more and keep looking for a checkuser. Ironholds (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Myself and User:Kurt Shaped Box apparently had the simultaneous idea of semi-protecting the main target article in the absence of a CU, except he did it for a day and I did it for a week. Change it back to 24h if you want, KSB. Black Kite 02:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I picked off all of the obvious ones from the naming pattern (Hubris #); however if he changes his naming pattern, we may lose him for a little while. I would recommend filing an RFCU report with the list from to help the checkusers find the underlying IPs and/or anymore sleepers... Most checkusers look there more often then here, so it will get found easier if you file that report. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I just saw this thread now (I had the Deeb article on my watchlist). Heh - that's not the first time that I've protected a page at the same time as someone else. Yeah, leave it at a week. I don't have a problem with that. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:EmilEikS

User:EmilEikS is engaging in severe personal attacks on user User:Wildhartlivie and to a lesser degree, me.

History of incidents:

First incident: The personal attacks on Wildhartlivie began when she removed a flag icon from the Mae West article. This resulted in a severe personal attack on Wildhartlivie by User:Fiandonca (who appears to have discontinued her editing of English Misplaced Pages based on her talk page note), which was supported by EmilEikS, on the article talk page here. The conversation was continued on EmilEikS's user talk page here and here. In these conversations, EmilEikS personally attacked administrator User:Garion96 as well as Wildhartlivie. Another conversation related to this incident can be found on Fiandonca's user talk page here.

Second incident: In response to my addition of a Wikiproject Biography banner to Talk:Jacob Truedson Demitz, to which I added a C-class assessment and Low priority rating based on WP Biography's scales and advice from Wildhartlivie, EmilEikS posted a notification here on the BLP/Noticeboard. Wildhartlivie responded to the notice as well as two administrators.

EmilEikS posted requests, which included a one-sided, copied/pasted discussion between Wildhartlivie and me from my user talk page, for intervention in what he sees as personal attacks by Wildhartlivie and me here, here, here, and here. Wildhartlivie responded here, here and here, and removed his posting from the Jacob Truedson Demitz talk page here. Please see the other side of the conversation on Wildhartlivie's talk page.

In response to these postings by EmilEikS, I posted a note on his user talk page here, which he removed here. He has not responded to my note on his talk page nor mine as of now.

Any advice related to these two incidents is greatly appreciated. mo 03:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I just waded through several of these edits and didn't find any obvious violation of WP:NPA. Can you be more concise? Toddst1 (talk) 04:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm preparing an addition to this report, but it will take a little time to assemble the specifics. Hopefully it will clarify what has been occurring over the last week+. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I decided to comment since I am semi involved. This all started on the Mae West article which Wildhartlivie and I did some work on for a WP:BIO project back in October before EmilEikS edited the page. Long story short, EmilEikS' got some bad faith, ownership and wikistalking issues. As stated above, this all basically began when EmiEikS and new editor who quickly "retired" disagreed with Wildhartlivie for upholding the flag icon policy on the Mae West article. After that incident, EmilEikS decided that after I added some references (note some) and did a bit of a clean up on the page, everything was magically fixed and the tags should be removed (despite the fact that the article was still largely unsourced and there were still numerous other issues). After removing the article issue tags once, Wildhartlivie correctly added a refimprove tag. Four days later, EmilEikS left a note on the article talk page regarding the tag and the urgent need for its removal which I answered unaware that Wildhartlivie had already restored the tag for the second time. After realizing she was involved, I left a note on her talk page asking her to give her two cents because I actually don't speak for her or vice versa.

Soon after, EmilEikS left a message on Kingturtle's talk page claiming that messages on my talk page (which can all be found in their entirety in my pretty visible archive) weren't "very nice" (I'm assuming that unnice message was my shock and disgust at how uncivil EmilEikS and his friend were regarding the flag issue) and that somehow my communicating with another editor who is actually involved in the incident is suspicious. Kingturtle didn't remove the tag, but suggested tagging the unsourced content with {{fact}} tags instead. Wildhartlivie complied and in turn, EmilEikS complained that the tags were overkill and then complained that some content needed to be restored. He's got a habit of critiquing the article on the talk page without actually doing much to improve it. Since that day, EmilEikS has pretty much been going out of his way to prove that Wildhartlivie and anyone she talks to is somehow conspiring against him. It has nothing to do with the fact that he's actually doing things wrong and as a new editor, might not be aware of policy or how things work. As noted above, he freaked over an article grading claiming it made the subject look bad and complained that Wildhartlivie "gets old friends to do some of the things she wants done". He then made declarations of help to several administrators copying half of a user talk page conversation between Momoricks saying that he's "really frightened" and "these people have my real name". I can and will only speak for myself, but I don't care about EmilEikS' real life identity and I know nothing about it. Considering I've only edited one article in common with him, if he is scared of me, he should also be scared of the millions of other editors out there. One admin, Garion69, has already told him to he's finding personal attacks where there are none, but considering the way one incident has snowballed into this full out attack on several editors, I doubt the message got through or that this behavior will stop anytime soon. Pinkadelica 06:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting on the perhaps-substantial issues, I feel compelled to say that you're doing people no favors by labelling this a "personal attack". I see a strongly-worded rant against policy. I happen to strongly disagree with him - the last thing we need on en.wiki is more nationalism (just look at the dandy swath it's cutting along the Eastern European articles) - but to call it a "personal attack" is reaching. The rest, like I said, I cannot yet comment on. Badger Drink (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear with my wording. By "attack", I didn't actually mean a personal attack (although I do consider saying that someone appears to be "an unbelievable hypocrite" to be mildly uncivil), more in the sense of an attack on someone's reasoning and motives. I've changed the wording to reflect the situation in more accurate way. Pinkadelica 09:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is really as much an issue of overall overt and implied personal attacks as it is of disruptive editing, incivility, a failure to assume good faith, disruption to make a point, engaging in making unfounded accusations (such as ownership and cabalism), contentiousness over extremely minor issues which end up being blown totally and completely out of proportion to the overall project, trying to game administrators by cross-posting identical accusations, and cross-posting one side of a user talk page discussion to the same pages, deriving perceived "threats" and "fears" from them, and a possible sock puppet issue. It concerns User:EmilEik, User:EmilEikS and User:Fiandonca.

I began answering talk page postings on Talk:Mae West mostly because no one else seemed to be responding. My first encounter with User:EmilEikS was under another registered name (User:EmilEik) here, when I removed a photo credit from an image caption . User:EmilEikS returned it, I again removed it after responding above. He again returned it and asked for the credit to remain "in this special case". This issue is brought up later, but by another registered name (User:Fiandonca) when it is claimed that I twice ignored "the humble wishes of this image contributor were not respected, by you, through your speedy edit of the caption." Note that Fiandonca has never edited the Mae West page. Nothing further happened until November 14.

I removed a flag icon from the Mae West infobox here, citing MOS:FLAGS as rationale. A few hours later this confrontational message was left for me, and a nearly identical message was left on the Mae West talk page, with embellishments that accused me of ownership, pleasing the religious right (?), and apparently being unpatriotic. A posting was also left on Misplaced Pages talk: Manual of Style (icons) and the page Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (icons) was also altered. I responded to User:EmilEikS here and to User:Fiandonca here. User:EmilEikS posted a response to me, making accusations that I was throwing around my weight, referencing the images he and "his organization" had released to public domain, and claiming that I was threatening him. This continued and escalated from User:EmilEikS and at one point he accused me of talking down to him. Rather than User:EmilEikS responding to my statement that I wasn't, User:Fiandonca responded to it here, which is also the posting where Fiandonca claims I edited "her" photo captions, and included what I consider uncivil behavior and personal attacks. Soon after, User:EmilEikS responded about being talked down to here, after which another editor left a WP:NPA notice on his page, to which he replied with a "fair warning". Across all of this, both User:Fiandonca and User:EmilEikS made rude warnings to more than one editor "not to talk to me again". At this point, I questioned the congruence between contribution claims, postings and "don't talk to me" admonitions. Other editors then posted comments on the behavior displayed and stating that they saw no rudeness or attacks in my comments.

At that point, User:Fiandonca posted what could have been perceived as a legal threat which was questioned by administrator User:Garion96 here, to which Fiandonca then attacked me once again . User:Garion96 replied and . At this point, User:EmilEikS made his first accusation of cabalism . Three of the editors, myself included, noted that we all saw signs of potential sock puppetry in the exchanges. Soon thereafter, Fiandonca "retired".

Things remained calm until this weekend, when I noted that User:EmilEikS pronounced the Mae West article fully referenced , at which point User:Pinkadelica and I responded. User:EmilEikS then cross posted requests to three adminstrators, accusing both User:Pinkadelica and myself of cabalism, ownership and apparently plotting and planning against him., , I responded on each page, mostly because of implied attacks and stated accusations. User:Kingturtle gave his opinion, requesting fact tags for sources needed., which I did, and to which User:EmilEikS objected and I responded , after which he announced he was "done" with the page, apparently because I responded to him and made another of many comments by him and User:Fiandonca that I employ a username.

On 21 November, User:LaVidaLoca placed maintenance tags on two articles written by User:EmilEikS and made a minor edit to an article created by User:EmilEikS, to which he strenuously objected, and posted personal notes at the heading of each page, accusing that editor of vandalism. He also cross-posted accusations of vandalism, sabotage and "personal retaliation"., , Little response was gained from those posts, except for some very wise words from User:Howcheng.

At some point therein, User:Momoricks and I were exchanging posts about a prior issue with another user who was banned (User:Werdnawerdna) and her work on Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I commented that the Werdnawerdna issue wasn't as bad or stressful as what had gone on over the above discussed flag icon issue and she commented on her opinion of the TCM film. I saw that she had added the WP Biography project template to one of the articles (Jacob Truedson Demitz) and I suggested to her the class and priority assessment levels the article met. I absolutely did not even consider assessing the article personally, although I actively do article assessments nearly daily. At that point, User:EmilEikS again became contentious over the ratings, claiming the rating was gratuitous and suggesting it cast aspersions upon himself as the author and the article subject, and then looked at User talk:Momoricks and cross-posted only my side of the conversation across three administrator talk pages , , , the article talk page in question which I removed because of the inappropriateness of posting such on an article talk page, and filed a WP:BLP report at WP:BLP/N ,and responding to my posting about by claiming once again cabalism, purposely misrepresented my level of involvement on the Mae West article, accused me of holding up that article for 6 years, claimed that he was being personally threatened and accused User:Momoricks of attempting the same thing on the Demitz article. I attempted to discuss the ratings suggestion with him at Talk:Jacob Truedson Demitz#Assessment and told him three times to feel free to request a reassessment. That was not done. The assessment ratings were supported both on the article talk page and at the BLP/N page , . He has been told by more than one editor, besides myself, to not take these issues personally, , yet he continues to do so and launches somewhat subtle personal attacks and disruption against other editors involved who are working in good faith on articles. For what it is worth, User:Pinkadelica, User:Rossrs (who made some comments in the initial flag icon issue), User:Momoricks, myself and a few other uninvolved editors all work together quite congenially across many articles and projects and have never had any WP discussions on article issues that weren't civil, polite and calm and seem to have that sort of relationship with the majority of editors on Misplaced Pages, yet all of us had encountered issues from User:EmilEikS.

I note on the Talk:Jacob Truedson Demitz page that another editor has broached a fairly compelling conflict of interest issue regarding these latter articles and the relationship User:EmilEikS has with organizations that involve both himself and Jacob Truedson Demitz, although I haven't looked at it myself. I have tried my level best to remain calm and not attack this user or be degrading to him, yet all he sees is that very thing from all editors who have tried to disc uss things with him. I have repeatedly asked him to not make these editing issues a personal issue, that it stop, but to no avail. He repeatedly claims he is willing to apologize for any behavior that has been an issue, but that is not forthcoming. No one should have to endure these sorts of accusations and behavior and it needs to stop. If I've repeated anything other editors have posted, I apologize, I've encountered edit conflicts a couple times. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• No offense, but...tl;dr. Is there any way that can be condensed into, say, 1 paragraph and 3 diffs? Protonk (talk) 08:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The circumstances dictate the size, I'd love it if this was as simple as a paragraph and 3 diffs, but it's a pattern of behavior that encompasses a lot of things and a lot of posts. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Toddst1 and Protonk, I don't see any way of condensing the information or making it more concise. These are complicated incidents that involve multiple policy violations. Per WP:NPA, "erious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." mo 09:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Then my suggestion is that WP:RFC/U may be a good route to take. I'm not saying that complex issues can't be dealt with quickly here or that your complaint is baseless due to its complexity, but something long running and nuanced needs to be handled by the community, not just admins at large. I may be wrong--someone may come along and weigh the accusations made here and come to some conclusion. But it is more fair to EmilEikS and to you for the forum to be suited to long form discussion and working issues out. If you think that he is making strong personal attacks now and needs to be blocked, then point to those and we'll make a short block, but it isn't the function of this noticeboard to tease out a solution from complex situations. Protonk (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attacks by User: Mercenary2k

Diff here:

"moron"? "delusional"? "bozo"?

"Indian"??

Similar incivility here , here , and here , repeatedly calling me "Indian" or telling me to "get a life".

Not only is there no evidence that he's going to work for consensus, but there seems to be solid evidence that he's attacking me, and is a racist. Sorry, but I really don't think I should have to put up with this, no matter where it's posted. As I indicated previously, the page protection has done NOTHING to entice Mercenary2k to come to the table, and I think nothing will. Regardless, this is pretty unaccaptable.CSHunt68 (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

These edits are obviously personal attacks. This user should recant and agree not to do this again or else be blocked IMO. Oren0 (talk)

I had asked Mercenary2k to participate in the discussion regarding his edit dispute with CSHunt68. However, from his bitter reply to that request, it does seem Mercenary2k is not willing to discuss this amicably :(. --Ragib (talk) 04:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking over the edit war at Inter-Services Intelligence, I would suggest that the two editors pursue 3O and other dispute resolution. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking further, I see Mercenary has been making personal attacks before and some ownership issues. I am going to keep watch. Ragib, I think you can remove the protection if you can get both editors to agree to go to the talk page first before being massively bold. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have already posted at 3O, and am continuing to pursue good faith DR of this article. But, that post was beyond the pale. And, needless to say, it's not okay for Mercenary to say that he's now going to make some edits _without discussing things on the talk page_. To me, that would be more of the same - demonstrating lack of desire for consensus, and WP:OWN. I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask for _some small level_ of good faith - a strikeout of the offending comments, or an apology AT THE VERY LEAST. CSHunt68 (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Segregator236

Segregator236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has made a controversial edit without discussion, see . User has been warned repeatedly regarding this on his talk page, and has been recently banned before; suggest permanent ban as he is still not responding to attempts to engage user. ThePointblank (talk) 05:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest it was permanent this time, like Ricky said would happen last time. — neuro 08:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No. This appears to be a content dispute, the settlement of which is outside the remit of this board. The three edits Segregator236 has made this month, even if they are factually incorrect, do not appear to be disruptive or grounds for an indefinite block. Please pursue dispute resolution.  Sandstein  08:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no point to pursuing dispute resolution with someone who refuses to respond in any way. Our entire system doesn't work with someone who has zero talkspace edits and nothing on user talkspace. I have blocked him indefinitely. If he asks for an unblock and is actually willing to communicate, I have no problem with him coming back. There is no need to waste time with this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

2X Cavaglia

I was going to write the article about Cavaglia, a small town in the Val Poschiavo. But Cavaglià already exist as and town in italy. And i dont want to destroy the redirect from Cavaglia to Cavaglià. What schould i do? The Rolling Camel (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Destroy the redirect, it's fine. At the head of your new article put

• {{otheruses4|the town in Val Poschiavo|the comune in Biella|Cavaglià}}

and at the top of Cavaglià, put

• {{otheruses4|the comune in Biella|the town in Val Poschiavo|Cavaglia}}

You may also want to make sure that stuff pointing to Cavaglia is pointing to the correct article. Follow the links on Special:WhatLinksHere/Cavaglia. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 11:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

user:fowler&fowler Accusations of Vandalism

The user is attacking me by various fashions. Prior there was one incident of WP:harassment against me here: diff I have informed him about this at his talk page. Now he is accusing me without any base, that I would use vandalism here: diff , as a part of content dispute. Btw, after the first incident, i have offered him to solve the issues in a dispute resolution: diff, in what he doesn't seem to be interested in at all. --Kalarimaster (talk) 11:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not convinced this is anything more than a content dispute. You might visit third opinion to bring more eyes to the document but no admin involvement is required at this point. JodyB _talk 12:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Block needed on persistent IP vandals on yttrium

Thanks AKAF (talk) 12:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Page has been protected by bot. JodyB _talk 12:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing rubbish on this article, probably other places - threats against User:Possum and the names of Baby P's parents. I've been oversighting these on my lunch break, about to go back to work ... when admins delete these revs, please also email oversight-l so we can zap them - David Gerard (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Threat against User:Possum

User threatened, and personal information given, in this diff to today's FA. Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked, for all the good it will do. The page has been protected and I doubt it's really personal information. JodyB _talk 12:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:OVERSIGHT if it is. Pedro :  Chat  12:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Page is not protected beyond standard move protection for Main Page articles. Oversight have been emailed - easier for them to remove one diff than for me to delete the Main Page article and selectively restore. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 12:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Another threat here. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Oversight contacted ... just in case someone hasn't already done so. Anyone with Checkuser access might want to do a sweep of that IP ... sounds like this person knows Possum fairly well. Blueboy96 13:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone actually called the number listed in the soon-to-be-oversighted edits? For purely encyclopaedic purposes of course. :) X MarX the Spot (talk)

No, because either it's the number of the editor in question, in which case we're helping the harasser harass; or it's the vandal's number and s/he'll get off on us chasing around after him/her; or it's a made-up number and we'll just confuse whoever it belongs to. Better to ignore it. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 13:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I 'spose. X MarX the Spot (talk) 13:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

For those who know me will know that I've been the victim of some very serious harassment recently which was one of the reasons I retired in the first place. However, what's happened today is ridiculous. The following 10 edits were made to todays featured article, my number appeared on the main page for goodness knows how long: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. He left similar messages on my talk page yesterday (1, 2 and 3) until User:Garden protected my page. He then went onto posting similar messages on his talk page as seen here and here. I have no idea who it is but I'm pretty sure it's the same person who's been causing me grief all year, he's just taking a different route to harassing me. To be perfectly honest, I don't know what to do. I thought leaving would stop this but it's only made it worse. Whilst in class this morning, I received dozens of text messages and calls from people saying I needed 'smacking.' — Possum (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Possum, how did the nasty little git vandal get your mobile number in the first place? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea but if it's the same person as last time then they also know my address and email addresses. They've been sending me cheques and other mysterious gifts through the post too. You all may find it hilarious but it most certainly isn't — Possum (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Possum, this is worrying. It's also very illegal. You're being stalked, and clearly by someone who knows you (I assume, sorry if you're older) from school. I think you need to tell the authorities. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Possum, I would suggest two things. First, contact a 'crat and ask them for a name change (or just start posting under a different name) If you want to conceal your WP identity from this guy, you might want to lay low on the articles you've been working on. Second, you might want to consider contacting the authorities. If this guy has your personal information, is using the internet to make threats, and sending you stuff to your home address, they might be able to do something.---Balloonman 14:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I renamed from User:RyanLupin very recently, however I didn't undergo usurpation purely because of this harasser. Second, I have alerted the Police but they've been less than helpful. They think the guy's from Hertfordshire because that was the address on the cheques and originally asked me to contact that force directly which I thought was ridiculous. I eventually had someone pay me a visit who gave me a card with a number to call to help tackle cyber-bullying! — Possum (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Did the card have this guy's number on it?---Balloonman 15:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

We've been getting a lot of instances of the phone number posted to oversight-l - you may wish to ask WMF what paperwork they need from the police to release the IPs to you/them (some of the edits are IP edits, you'll see 'em in the block logs, some are logged-in users) - David Gerard (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being part of the crapflood, David, but better to have each diff a dozen times rather than not at all (I assume). Possum, this isn't cyberbullying, no matter what the useless police have to say: it's real-life harassment. They have your telephone number, email address, home address and Misplaced Pages account details. That's Not Good. You need to do something. An email to Mike Godwin may be a start, to see what info the Foundation can release to you, as David suggests. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 15:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Possum, I echo Redvers above. Under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 this is harrassment and a criminal offence that can carry a jail term. I implore you to contact the police again, making it very clear that the "cyber-bullying" is mixed with real world interaction too and that it has escalated. Given the nature of the threats on your talk, you could easily argue that you are in fear of violence, in which case it is also common assault. Pedro :  Chat  15:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• I deleted the article for about two minutes in the process to get them out of public view (that's the first time ever I've deleted Today's Featured Article), and all the offending revisions have apparently been duly oversighted. The IPs who added this are all blocked for 48 hours, and I support reporting this to the Internet Service Provider. The FindIP resolves the IP to some service provider in London. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Repeated Violation of WP:outing and reverts of my edits, although based on WP:RS and NPOV policies

Dear Admins, I want to issue the following developments:

Help regarding WP policies and posting repeatedly personal names by WP:Editors

Please have a look at the New Kadampa Tradition article and its talk page: Talk:New_Kadampa_Tradition. Editors have repeatedly posted the private name of an editor on the talk page ("Tenzin Peljor" or "Tenzin"; the one they assume to be my personal name), and some of them (e.g. Atisha's Cook) even after I made known the WP:policy about this. The latter also reverted repeatedly the templates and corrections I made which I've inserted using either 3rd party sources or the WP:NPOV policy. For the templates and need of corrections I've given extensive reasons and 3rd party sources at the talk page. (see e.g. : http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:New_Kadampa_Tradition#The_reasons_for_the_NPOV_and_factual_accuracy_template)

The first WP:outing against me was made in October 2006 as you can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:New_Kadampa_Tradition/Archive_6#Kind_request_for_kt66_to_stop_editing_this_article Although I included a link to a page I run at may user account on 23:05, 3 May 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Kt66&oldid=209994593 the outing happened already before in Misplaced Pages and the same method of outing was used also at other places in the internet against me. Since October 2006 WP:outing happened different times against me in Misplaced Pages. Nowhere I've stated my personal name in relation to my user account, neither at my user account, nor on any of the talk pages of the different articles or other editors.

WP:outing was practised also by the editors involved, like Emptymountains, with respect to 79.171.58.252 see: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Dorje_Shugden_controversy#Chatral_Rinpoche and the talk page on the NKT website (see responses to http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:New_Kadampa_Tradition#NPOV_and_others_POV). There is no statement of a personal name in Misplaced Pages by 79.171.58.252 nor is there a link from which one could have derived a name.

As the strategy of the organisation or members of the organisation New Kadampa Tradition seems to be to out editors (see e.g.: http://newkadampatruth.org/fpmt.php or http://newkadampatradition.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/tenzin-peljor-editor-and-chief/ ) I see the repeated use of WP:outing as harassment against me.

At one point I was so fed up with the continuous WP:outing that I stated at the Talk:New_Kadampa_Tradition

Lucy (maybe you are not Lucy but name calling seems to be a proper attitude here), not that bad that idea ;-) However, I think the basics of the changes the NKT truth team made have to been accepted but not: 1. inaccuracy 2. violation of NPOV principles 3. favouring NKT pov while excluding other pov, and 4. excluding neutral academic pov and 3rd party sources to favour a narrow minded version on NKT according to the pov of the NKT truth office.

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:New_Kadampa_Tradition#Revert_by_Truthsayer62

This is a fault of mine. On the other hand, I felt I have to defend myself in a way. Also I didn't state a last name as it has been done continuously with respect to WP:outing regarding my own person.

I am interested to learn what you think and suggest about this case. I tried to mediate it via another WP: editor (see: User_talk:Koavf#Help_regarding_WP_policies_and_posting_repeatedly_personal_names_by_WP:Editors but until now he didn't reply, maybe he is not active, so I issue it now here on my own. Thanks a lot and please excuse the work I make for you. --Kt66 (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I just say this: there are a lot of links on that version of the userpage, so I'm not 100% sure which one you are involved in. However, a WHOIS database is open to anyone. A WHOIS database lists the "owner" of any domain name. These are a matter of public record. By linking a website you run to a userpage, you have automatically provided some tools for someone to track you - this may even include your personal address. ►BMW◄ 13:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Requesting block for two new (obvious) sockpuppets of Baseball Card Guy

• See Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Baseball Card Guy (3rd). New socks are User:Nettles 2000 and User:Wrong Glad --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This would be a surprise, seeing as BBG's continuous involvement in this forum. ►BMW◄ 13:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You are probably confusing User:Baseball Card Guy with User:Baseball Bugs. Nsk92 (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

When I hear of a user connected with baseball cards, I think of the banned User:Tecmobowl. Ugh. Yuch. Blech. etc. Baseball Bugs 14:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a suspicion that BCG is actually a sock of User:Spotteddogsdotorg, but don't know if it's worth trying to figure out. They may just have used the same proxy. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Bolly Nickers and Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/I Hate CAPTCHAS for some of the connections. I Hate CAPTCHAS (talk · contribs) looks like Baseball Card Guy, and is either a sock or meat puppet of Bolly Nickers (talk · contribs), who is connected to suspected socks of Spotteddogsdotorg (talk · contribs) by checkuser. —Snigbrook 17:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

BCG in indef blocked. See checkuser from last week. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have dealt with the user on both WQA and I thought in here, and I thought positively... I could be wrong (and BB is different LOL) ►BMW◄ 13:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sacked, blocked, protected his main target, a extensive checkuser is in place. Secret 14:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

See also User:Tecmobowl is Back! -- The Anome (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Unlikely it's actually Tecmobowl, as he tried to hide his socks. Baseball Bugs 18:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
• And another account, Area Peas (talk · contribs), the user's edits are similar, particuarly an edit on 1982 Topps which is the same as one by NaNoooooooo (talk · contribs). —Snigbrook 17:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• You think you could silence Tecmobowl? Yes I am Baseball Card Guy. You are wrong. I use my laptop to leech off of people's unsecured wireless connections. I use proxies. I use libraries. You don't know how many accounts I have. Your blocks, I laugh at them. You'll just wind up pissing off people who don't know what I am doing. You can't silence me! You haven't silenced me! You will never silence me! 72.229.126.142 (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Requesting block of the above IP, naturally. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

And it doesn't have Tecmobowl's writing style. Baseball Bugs 16:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

In most movies after a line like the above there's usually the sound of a gunshot from somewhere off-camera, followed by a very suprised look of the offender's face, the slight spreading of crimson, the ginger touching of the fingers to the sticky, viscuous red fluid, and finally a raspy "you!". Wow, such a dramatic moment. ►BMW◄ 17:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That's fairly dramatic. I was thinking more of the line from the movie Airplane, where a radio station announces, "...where disco lives forever!" seconds before the airplane wing clips the antenna and knocks the station off the air. Baseball Bugs 18:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking more of Portal and GLaDOS singing how "she" is still alive....Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit smoking. MuZemike (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• I dealt with Tecmobowl before, clearly not him, his writing style and choice of articles is much different than BCG. Secret 19:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for MB

Since it's obvious that Mmmovie=Weareallone=MB (see above), I've blocked Weareallone indef. And given that MB has been inclined to harass Wikipedians offsite, I also propose a community ban. Blueboy96 14:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion and userpage vandalism by User:Ragusino

I know this probably isn't the exact right place to report this, but could someone please just semi-protect my User talkpage ? User:Ragusino is constantly making ridiculous edits and reverting my own (see History ). He is currently blocked one month for block evasion (obviously :P) , and the IP is undoubtedly his. IP 190.21.84.122 is vandalizing my talkpage, while the guy was blocked for using IP 190.21.84.207 (see block ). I gave the guy a period to give up and stop on his own, but he's pretty persistent. I won't pretend I'm not curious as to whether this kind of continued block evasion and userpage vandalism warrants further measures? --DIREKTOR 14:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

MOSNUM RFC drama, eyes needed

The discussion over the WP:MOSNUM RFC is starting to get a little out of hand, including what appears to be some slow revert warring on the talk page and calls for backup and accusations of vandalism. I don't have time to look into this any deeper than I just presented now, but some uninvolved admin eyes would certainly help. Mr.Z-man 17:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I cannot think of a subject more unworthy of edit warring--Tznkai (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. My bias may be the reason here, but the whole section looks like it deserves blanking, the application of a wet trout, and possibly even talk page protection. Please, another admin, chime in.--Tznkai (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai, my thoughts exactly. I looked, I hit "edit" thinking that I had something to contribute, and then slowly backed away. It's very hard to imagine anything good coming out of that "discussion."

If only a tenth of the effort that's gone into that would be put into coding an autoformat option that doesn't require wikilinks, we'd be past this by now. -Pete (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Update. I've blanked the whole RFC and used a big ugly {{notice}} to get their attention. I've received a fair complaint about that action. That is my attempt to solve the problem, and if it doesn't work, I have no better ideas that I am capable of fulfilling.--Tznkai (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Howard Rich

Could another admin please look at OrangeStaple (talk · contribs)'s edits at Howard Rich, and decide how to proceed? I think it's time for a block, but being a major contributor at the article in question -- and because the article has contained things at various times that might violate WP:BLP -- I thought I'd defer to somebody else's judgment for the time being. -Pete (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

His edits certainly make a mess of the article. Because he has been so non-responsive to the warnings on his talk page, I've blocked him a nominal 12 hours and am asking him to discuss his proposed changes on the article's talk page and pointed him towards the manual of style. And I've given him a welcome menu. And mentioned 3RR. dougweller (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

A bit more explanation in this report would be helpful. I'm also a bit troubled by the edits today by other editors to Howard Rich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I'm seeing what looks like automated tools (including both Huggle and rollback) used to engage in a content dispute. Peteforsyth — as an admin, you should know better.

Prior to OrangeStaple's edits, it looks like the bulk of the Rich article was negative. Not being familiar with this individual, I don't know if that's deserved or not. It nevertheless raises red flags for me when the bulk of a BLP is the 'Controversy' section, with a lot of links back to sites like stopballotfraud.org. Whether OrangeStaple's edits cut too much or unbalanced the article too far the other way is an issue of content, not vandalism. Huggle and rollback (particularly with their default edit summaries) are not the appropriate ways to resolve the issue.

Meanwhile, I see nothing but templates on User talk:OrangeStaple and no attempt by any party to address the dispute on Talk:Howard Rich. Before coming to AN/I to ask for a block, has anyone tried talking to this editor instead of biting? OrangeStaple seems pretty obviously to be a person new to Misplaced Pages, and it seems that he's gotten stomped on pretty hard. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the templates on the editor's talk page are an attempt to communicate. The lack of response is a bit of a concern. I don't think a 12 hour block and giving the editor a menu and pointing towards the manual of style is stomping pretty hard on anyone. If you think you can engage in dialogue with the editor, by all means post on his/her talk page and try, and if you get a response, unblock or I will if I'm around. In fact, I will unblock myself if I get any sort of response. dougweller (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Fru23

Back from a block for edit-warring, has resumed edit-warring on the very page that got him blocked, the O'Reilly criticism page. He also blanked out his own user talk page, so you'll have to look at its history to see. Using the "vandal" template here for convenience only: Fru23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Baseball Bugs 18:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit tricky; on the one hand, I think Media Matters for America is questionable as a source for a WP:BLP, particularly when its criticism is unattributed in the text. On the other hand, this is probably within the gray area that needs to be resolved by discussion and dispute resolution, and Fru23 (talk · contribs) has shown himself completely uninterested in the process or goal of consensus.

I'd propose a 1RR restriction to cap the edit-warring but allow him to at least suggest changes, and I'll (once again) direct him to the BLP noticeboard, reliable-sources noticeboard, or some other means of dispute resolution as an alternative to continued edit-warring. Thoughts? MastCell  18:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts are that he'll continue to remove the Hornbeck criticism from the O'Reilly page until he gets blocked again. Baseball Bugs 18:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

A distinct possibility. The 1RR would speed up this outcome if it is, in fact, inevitable. MastCell  18:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Having been notified of this thread, he has now reverted his deletion. Resolved, for now. Baseball Bugs 18:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards