Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:03, 15 February 2009

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Some wikihounding going on

• Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor, obsessed with adding "Jewish" to articles, is WP:HOUNDing User:David Eppstein at Talk:David_Eppstein#Jewish.3F after their content dispute at Talk:Noam_Elkies#Noam_Elkies_is_Jewish. THF (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There's some edit warring and hounding, so a 12 hour block for disruptive editing would probably be justifiable. PhilKnight (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently a recidivist. Twelve hours seems light if a block is appropriate at all. THF (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

My reading of the block log is that s/he should be considered a user with a single block from over 6 months ago. PhilKnight (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Separately, there seems to be some similarity with Wolfowit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), though it's within the realm of possibility that two different editors have the same insistence about identifying Jewish bloodlines in biographies. THF (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

THF, just a heads up, but you already probably knew this, there are actually many IPs, editors, socks, meatpupetts, you name it, that have an obsession with Jewish related issues. I send alot of time sending them Jayjg's way :) So I wouldn't assume they are the same editor. I just "treat" them as I find them :). Anyways, cheers, --Tom 15:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this here. I did bring it up at WP:BLP/N but haven't yet received a response there. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

My take on this is that if an editor is going around generally inserting what they think is a person's religion into bios, they may be being a pain or tendentious or whatever, but probably not racist. But if they are only inserting Jewish into articles, well, that looks like a duck. dougweller (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Jews look like ducks? :-P Sorry, could not resist. /humor KillerChihuahua 16:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps wikifan may be aware of the Jewish background of some people but perhaps not aware of the Muslim or Christian background. People tend to know the background of our own group rather than others. That wouldn't be "racist," it would simply be adding material. I haven't looked at this article (and can't speak to the edit warring charge) and know nothing about David Eppstein myself, but generally speaking if a notable person is of an ethnicity or a religion, what is wrong with its inclusion (assuming that there are RS to support it)? Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, early Christians were primarily Jews anyway. Maybe someone is looking waaaayyy too closely at the photographs, and can determine if the individual in question went through their brit milah or not? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Could this be a content-dispute masquerading as an "edit-war"? Just wondering.  ? Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Not really. Please read this section. Is there a point here or not?? --Tom 18:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That is very creepy. I'd say BLP's requirement for conservative reporting and respecting people's privacy applies, and Wikifan should be warned to stay clear of reporting such information unless it is relevant to the living person's notability. It was not so very long ago that this sort of "one drop" of blood theory was used to create lists of people for adverse action, and we don't want any of that here. Ray (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

How is this obsession? Noam is Jewish, I found a source and put it in there. What is the problem? It was reverted a couple times because my original source was weak, and I got that...but I don't see why this is such a big deal. Half the article is uncited, yet all you guys delete is the Jewish statement? HE IS JEWISH. His name is friggin Noam. Eppstein starting stammering on about blood purity blah blah I don't care about political correctness. I don't care if it offends him, it's truth. I saw that he had his own article and there was no reference of him being Jewish. I googled his name and found some documents indicating he *might* be Jewish, so I asked: craziness. He said his father was Jewish and I told him that he might be considered Jewish, at least according secular law. We kind of got into a little heated discussion about who's a jew etc.. and then he accused me of being racist. Read through the link I provided. Look, If it really takes this much hassle to put it ONE fact, why friggin bother. If this is what wikipedia has come to....christ man. If anything I should be reporting harassment...you don't just call some racist. Whatever, take me away and lock me up. : )Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan is a thoroughly unreasonable editor with a history of calling others racists. That he takes such offense to that line from David Eppstein is astonishing. And saying that because somebodies name is Noam he must be Jewish, that is a bit OR isnt it? And googling to find if he is and finding information that 'he *might* be', is that reason to want to put in a BLP that he is? Nableezy (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Never called anyone racist, even if you agreed to that. Please actually read what is going on before posting your painfully biased opinion. You're an extremely pro-Pal, I've been an openly pro-Israel user....nuff said. This isn't going to be another witch-hunt like in the current talk..LOL. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This isnt the place for this dispute, but lies are lies: and . an anti-semite is a racist no? Nableezy (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

wikifan12345 break 1

You said I wasn't racist. Jews aren't a race, as far as I know there's no genetic code to prove one is Jewish. There are however common phenotype traits but they aren't always unique to Jews. anyways, my rationale for my accusations stands and I apologized for them...but only for offense. It's not like you're innocent Nableezy, you're notorious for dragging out accusations and accusing me of hate/blah blah on your talk which you conveniently removed. But, this isn't a place for that discussion. This is about Eppstein's unjustified noticeboard and some user's inability to appreciate facts, (I.e, Delson, Noam is JEWISH.). And that being fact and me trying to put it in the article isn't RACIST, as I am accused of being. Fuck this is exhausting. I give up, leave the articles as is. Facts don't matter these days anyways, only argument. So sad. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, Eppstein and THF seem totally obsessed with anything Jewish-related being shoved into articles. I provided a reliable source per TH's request, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Noam_Elkies&action=history But eppstein is still reverting, continually, without going to talk which I requested. this is a FACt. He is Jewish. It can't even be debated, my god why are you all doing this? Don't we have better things to do than combat over easily-proven and blatant facts? If you're a self-loather I don't care, but stop censoring out facts. I changed the sentence placement per MoS, I got a verifying and reliable source even though it's a known fact he is Jewish and half the article isn't sourced to begin with, and you know the rest. Argh. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Your first reference was not a reliable source. Your second reference does not mention the religion of Elkies, FWIW. And your questioning of David Eppstein this section was creepy and gives rise to the suspicion that you're a monomaniac. Why is this whole thing so important to you? Why don't you just drop it? --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not important to me, what's important to me is this arbitrary crusade to delete everything Jewish from those articles. And as I said, the excuses changed as new info was provided, the situation didn't play out like the poorly-crafted strawman you posted. Noam and Delson are Jewish, one sentence in the correct paragraph shouldn't be a big deal. It's not like I'm saying his a racist or sex offender or anything. My discussion with Eppstein wasn't creepy, he's the one that wanted it. And he accused me of being racist and promoting blood purity...NOW THAT IS CREEPY. Makes me cringe lol...blood purity WOW. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

He wanted you to come along and ask, "Hey David, are you Jewish?" ... where did he ask you to do that? And neither did he promote blood purity; he said "Regardless of your bizarre beliefs about blood purity, WP:MOSBIO says that religion AND ethnicity don't go in unless they're important, and WP:BLP says they don't go in unless they're sourced". You may believe your own propaganda, but the record shows your assertions - all of them - to be false. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh? David has his own article, I googled David eppstein and there was evidence indicating he might be jewish, I ASKED IF HE WAS JEWISH. Fair question, no? And guess what, he's basically Jewish. LOL. Again enough with the strawman and actually read the talk and this. I'm simply repeating myself. And don't get nasty. Poisonous words like racist, propaganda, and blood purity should not be said without justification. I'm sick and tired of this, I proved what I did and provided evidence for my statements, so STOP dragging this out. If you would like to continue repeating the same rhetoric, I will continue to answer it promptly, but don't expect me to sit down because you shout louder. Eppstein was being a creep, I wasn't. He has a tendency to remove anything non-jewish, and his opinion of ethnicities was evident in the talk. what a waste of bandwidth. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Update - anyways, issue seems to be resolved from an editors perspective. im sure you guys want blood so by all means, but the article is done for now. me and jay are talking about the source issue so yeah. cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Just a point of order. WP:MOSBIO says that ethnicity should not go in the LEAD unless it relates to the person's notability. It does NOT say that it does not belong in the article ANYWHERE. Most "well-written" bios include some mention of ethnicity and religion, whether that is relevant or not is POV. Also, this all started when Wikifan12345 added Jewish-American to the lead sentence which is against MOSBIO so I removed it. After that, we were off to the races as it was. Anyways, --Tom 15:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

There are other relevant policies here, notably WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Wikifan12345 seems intent on adding some mention of Jewishness to articles, based not on sources but seemingly based primarily on their names, and is uninterested in any other ethnic backgrounds that the same person might have. In the case of Elkies, the situation seems to be resolved: the word "Israel" now appears in the article, making Wikifan12345 happy, but it appears with a reliable source describing a group Elkies himself is actively involved with, making the rest of us happy. But I think Wikifan12345's edits bear continued watching. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, after reading the "creepy" section on Talk:David Eppstein here, I have to agree with the deep concerns. Wikifan12345 is ... problematic in his interest and approach, and if not racist, is at least biased and focused to an unbalanced degree. I suggest a topic ban on all aspect Jewish. He's not "getting it" here, or elsewhere. KillerChihuahua 17:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem here. Elkies is JEWISH, so is Eppstein according to several laws though that may be disputed. I've been involved in many articles that don't relate to Jews. I'm not a racist, I'm not the one deleting facts simply because it has "Jew" in the title. Why is it so controversial? Eppstein, you're reasoning is rather off. I googled Elkies and it turned out he was Jewish, as is the professor he supposedly replaced as the youngest one at Harvard. It is a moderately notable fact and wasting time bickering over it is suspicious. Do you have some undeclared resentment?? I honestly don't care about your personal opinion, but I stand by my actions as I see I've done nothing wrong. Adding a one sentence FACT to a non-controversial article is not bias, Chihuahua. I don't understand your rationalizations so if you would like to elaborate further feel free to. Eppstein, you constantly list BLP and NPOV but I don't think you understand, since I've thoroughly explained why my actions haven't violated those rules. Please see this: Adding the names of editors to an article in order to make textual attribution visible in the main text. I did however use unreliable sources to back up the statement, which has been cleared up as far as I know. You can punish me for that if you want. ; ) Cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You haven't answered a key question - Why do you think this information is relevant or proper to be on the pages? What is your objective or goal in having put that in all those pages? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

wikifan12345 break 2

I already answered the question: It is a fact. For Brad Delson, he is one of two members of Linkin Park who are Jewish. Also, he's been religious since a child according to one of the sources in the article. For Elkies, he replaces Jewish Dershowitz as the youngest professor at Harvard University. He is also actively involved in the Harvard's Israel Review, which promotes a positive spin on Israel. Are these not notable facts? Surely they're more notable than the rather unimportant philanthropy section for Delson or the house Elkies lived in at Harvard. My question to you is: Why are you so concerned about this? You imply that I have some sinister plan to paint Jew over wikipedia, when that is obviously not the case. A person's religion/ethnicity is notable if there is evidence and it relates to the topic. I've provided sufficient evidence IMO, if you disagree, please say so why. "You're a creep, racist, blah blah" is not acceptable and is highly inflammatory if not uncivil. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, unfortunately, there has been a rather clear trend in the past where anyone who went around adding large numbers of "this person is/was jewish" info to articles turned out to be rather vehemently and in some cases violently racist.

Wikifan12345, I cannot know what's in your mind and heart on this matter. And I have no particular indications of malice or misbehavior on your part. However, unfortunately, the historical incidents related to this particular behavior require us to take a careful and concerned look into it.

The answer "It is a fact." does not answer the question. It may be true - but is not sufficient justification to add the information. Where the information has been persistently used by racists in part of their campaigns to shape public information and opinion, we need a better answer than that.

Again - This is not assuming bad faith or being rude to you. If we were to simply assume that you are another in a long line of racists / antisemites who came here to vandalize Misplaced Pages and blocked you without asking or listening, that would be rude. That has not happened. You are being given every opportunity to explain your position and interests in the matter.

But the history of the situation demands that we examine what you're doing, and demands that we insist on you actually answering the question.

If you think that asking and insisting on more detailed and specific answers is implying or asserting that you are in fact racist or antisemite, I apologize for that implication. But there's no real way around us having to ask, given the situation and years and years of history about this type of behavior.

Please answer the question.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I just answered the questions. Here, I'll bold everything for you so there is no more repeating. This is your exact question not paraphrased: "Why do you think this information is relevant or proper to be on the pages? What is your objective or goal in having put that in all those pages?"

Here is my response paraphrased, you can look one post up to see the full version: "For Brad Delson, he is one of two members of Linkin Park who are Jewish. Also, he's been religious since a child according to one of the sources in the article. For Elkies, he replaces Jewish Dershowitz as the youngest professor at Harvard University. He is also actively involved in the Harvard's Israel Review, which promotes a positive spin on Israel. Are these not notable facts? Surely they're more notable than the rather unimportant philanthropy section for Delson or the house Elkies lived in at Harvard."

I appreciate your politeness, but that does not excuse the extremely abrasive and combative attitude of David Eppstein and KillerChihuahua calling me racist, creepy, etc...even after I explained myself. I hope if this ends up being cleared it is somehow established that I am not trying to smear Jewish propaganda over every article I edit. There must be a rule somewhere that doesn't allow users to accuse others of highly damaging violations without proper justification and appropriate conduct. Other users are also consistently reverting my edits in good faith I presume, because they see me adding the same thing over and see others reverting it and just assume. One argument was over sentence placement, but that is another story and doesn't apply here I think. thanks Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Update: THF, another editor involved, continues to revert my edits even with appropriate sources. I asked for an explanation on his talk and he deleted it, summarizing with: your single-mindedness on this is disturbing to me. Feel free to ask for a third opinion.. using TW Here is the edit in question: Edit Brad Delson I would ask for a third opinion, but I think this dispute should be resolved first as it may pose a problem. I'm sure you can imagine how frustrating unjustified roadblocks or refusal to negotiate can be, especially when it goes unnoticed. Argh. ; ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Let the record reflect that I did not revert. I deleted an SPS in a BLP, and I moved a link about Delson's Jewish wedding from his "early life" section to his "personal life" section where there was an unsourced statement about his marriage. I think that's perfectly reasonable, but if anyone besides wikifan finds that edit problematic, feel free to revert my edit. I stand by my talk-page edit summary. THF (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well according to this: Revert 1 Revert 2, you did revert. In addition to your removal of my edit (though it wasn't a revert). Check the history for more info: history. Can we just end this? I don't care any more, if you guys are this concerned it's not worth it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank g*d for transparancey aroud here :) Wikifan12345, sorry to say it, but you sound like you are ranting. Above, you highlighted the "fact" that Delson is is one of two members of Linkin Park who are Jewish...SO F*CKING WHAT?????? Two of the members also jerk off with their left hand rather than right, did you KNOW that also???? I have been "defending" the fact that I am actually ok with adding ethnicity to bios, but your apparant ranting has to make folks wonder and who can blame them. Your protesting WAY to much about a non-issue raises concerns for most. Again, what is your fixation here? You gave me a story about the "truth" and I have assumed enough good faith, time to come clean if you are man enough but I doubt it--Tom 14:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I really hope you don't have a reference for the "jerk off" comment (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is OR?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a general comment rather than aimed at any specific article or edit mentioned above. Seems to me that a person's religion or ethnicity is only notable if it is a major factor in what makes them notable. Barack Obama's race is notable because he is the first black president. In the majority of cases however, a persons religious persuasion (or lack of it), and their ethnicity is not going to be notable enough to include. There should always be references to back up the suggestion that the person's ethnicity or religion is genuinely something notable about them and worthy of inclusion in their article.Riversider (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I told you, I don't care anymore. I offered plenty of reasons why it should be included, if notability is your concern there are far more less-important facts in the article that I'd be happy to remove. also, please try to be civil. I'm trying to and whenever I slip I get the book. I would like for the admin who asked the question to respond, because I answered it thoroughly without strawman. Sick of wiki fallacies. sorry!forgot to login: Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment While according to generally accepted policy, a person's religion does not belong in the lead, there is no reason to not put that information in a biography. I just noticed that there are WP:categories called Jewish actors| Jewish Mathematicians|Jewish Americans| Belarusian-American Jews | Russian-American Jews|Jewish American writers|Jewish philosophers, etc. see: for plenty more. Alan Dershowitz's Judaism is noted in his "infobox." Those categories are there for a reason. They are given to help us understand more fully the subject of the article written. There is no reason NOT to include such information in an article if it is so and properly sourced. The allegation that to offersourced information on the religion or ethnicity of a notable subject is somehow "racist" is laughable. While perhaps it is more interesting to know whether they jerk off with their left or right, but it ethnicity and religion is one of the things that readers of an encyclopedia may want to know. So call this done already. Let's move on. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This isnt about adding Jewish categories, this is about wikifan following David Eppstein from a recent dispute to question whether or not he was Jewish, and then when getting an answer of a polite no insisting that he is in fact Jewish. Read the beginning of the complaint and you will see that was why this section began. Nableezy (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't follow David Eppstein. As I said previously (about 3 times), I went into his own article David Eppstein and made a talk section asking if he was Jewish. Google indicates he MIGHT be, so I felt it was appropriate to ask. You can either accept Nableezy's interpretation, or actually read the talk discussion. Please know that Nableezy and I have a long history of disputes, so his opinion obviously violates wikipedia:COI. Admin, or whoever asked me those questions, please see my posts above. I've been as cordial as I can be and if uncivil/false evidence continues to be provided, I hope this thing can go to a higher power (as in the next level) because I can't take it any more. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, for further reference please see Noam Elkies talk discussion. A lot of thought slipped into the David Eppstein talk, so make sure you read that first to get a better picture of the situation. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

End this mess

Okay, let's put an end to this silliness. Wikifan please be a little more careful that all "Jewish stuff" be reliably sourced. All the ts-ts editors here at the talkpage, if Wikifan wants to discuss religion/ethnicity at article talkpages, he has every right to. You can make a very logical argument that religion/ethnicity is irrelevant, but it does not represent the real world situation. The calls to block Wikifan1234 were ridiculous, and one has to question the reasonableness of any admin making such a suggestion. One fact overlooked by a number of editors is that the discussion about Eppstein's ethnicity took place at Talk:David Eppstein, not User talk:David Eppstein, an important distinction. WP:COI comes to mind here.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You're going to call WP:COI on me because an editor moves a confrontation with me to the talk page of the article about me? That's a bit rich, especially because both WP:COI and WP:AUTO say to go to the talk page rather than editing the article. And to be honest, it took me a little while to notice it was there instead of my user talk page due to the similarity of names between the two pages. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

He probably should have had more tact and not gone to the talkpage of your article, but I wouldn't call if a "confrontation". I'm not calling you out on WP:COI. My point is that if you would treat the article about yourself like it's Monster Allergy (TV series) this whole thing wouldn't have happened. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Btw, I find myself going to your Misplaced Pages article now that we have communicated; it's most natural. If I were to assume good faith, I would assume that the same thing that interested him at other pages (Jewish ethnicity) interested him at your article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me remind you that "this whole thing" started on Noam Elkies and that I got into it by trying to enforce WP:BLP standards on that article. And, while I think you're going completely down the wrong track thinking this has anything to do with WP:COI, I'd like to point out that I think it's unreasonable to ask me to stop paying attention to the article about myself, and that in suggesting that I should you're going far beyond what WP:AUTO and WP:COI recommend. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think COI has been put forth a couple of times without actually reading it, but a simple question is this. Even if it was fine to ask on the talk page, why when given the answer "no" is wikifan still insisting on saying that he is Jewish, even if he thinks it is true. Why not just leave it alone at the response of no. Why even here does he have to again say "And guess what, he's basically Jewish. LOL." Why does any of this matter at all? Am I the only one who is asking why this even started to begin with, and even if how it started was legit why did it get beyond the no? Nableezy (talk) 08:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

His ethnicity is arguably something that's intrinsically notable and thus discussion-worthy. The only reason why this whole thing became problematic was because User:David Eppstein cares about the David Eppstein article. We can't expect David to ignore the talkpage of the article about himself, but my point is that that this sort of a WP:COI issue because had he divorced himself from his bio we wouldn't be here now. Btw, I just noticed that the original comment included a smile, something that should be taken into consideration in this context. In any case, I'm done sticking up for Wikifan. He could use some more tact and maturity, but there's nothing here that requires any sort drastic action.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't do anything wrong. the rules violated were in regards to sourcing, not notability. They claimed notability, and I explained why that wasn't an issue several times but to no avail. I found reliable sources anyways, but they still didn't care. After being called a racist, promoting blood purity, intolerant, blah blah blah, I honestly couldn't care less what they thought. They wouldn't compromise in talk, so they came here to save face. Is that mature? I know I'm a little ignorant when it comes to the feelings of other users, but I just don't care if it conflicts with facts. I'm curious: Why is everyone so obsessed about including one's ethnicity? Elkies is Jewish, he has promoted Jewish/Israeli causes at Harvard, he is one of several Jewish professors at the University. Brad Delson was a little iffy, I didn't really think including his ethnicity/religion would be that big of a deal considering all the fluff, like philanthropy and guitar style (which had no sources). I was more than tactful, but you can't expect Gandhi when I'm being berated by 10 users who are allowed to be uncivil and mean because they aren't on trial. Totally absurd. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Per wp:undue, we only add information if they are relevant for the topic and have an enclopaedic value. The lead of an article is a summary of an article. To add in the introduction of the article of a person, his religious beliefs, it must be developed in the core of the article. To be in the core of the article, it has to be developed from wp:rs secondary sources stating it has some importance.

That is an easy stuff. If somebody refuses this and uses rhetoric in the talk page to circumvene these basic principles with bad faiths, he should be warned.

The same in the other direction if somebody refuses that the lead gives a fair and equilibrated summary of the core of the article. Ceedjee (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well. I didn't know Prof Eppstein but this discussion is enough to warn wikifan to stop. Why not to add the size and the weight of Epppstein, the name of his wife and his children, his personnal address, his emails, his phone number etc : . Ceedjee (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban

※I don't accuse anyone here. I accept topic ban if there is sufficient explanation and procedure.※

I edited some Japan-Korea related articles. I admit my edition tendency was somewhat rough.

I was Topic banned by Future Perfect at Sunrise after my edition of Comfort women and Talk:Comfort women. And this time is the my first edition of Comfort women and Talk:Comfort women.

• User talk:Bukubku#Blocked again

Then I protested my Topic ban with my explanation. (Before I was topic banned, I encountered Future Perfect at Sunrise at Yaeko Taguchi and Korea under Japanese rule.)

• User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 15#Let's have a conversation
• User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#Please talk civilly

After our conversation went awry, I accept my Topic ban. Then I read Misplaced Pages:Banning policy. I think there is lack of procedure. But I don't know Misplaced Pages rules well. My edition certainly tended to edit nationalstic issues, so I think I deserve topic ban. However, my topic ban has no specifically definition.

Administrators, please specify my Topic ban definition like other users.--Bukubku (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The topic ban was given at User talk:Bukubku#... and topic-banned as "I am therefore banning you from all topic areas dealing with Japanese-Korean political, historical and cultural controversies." Bukubku, what part of "Japanese-Korean political, historical and cultural controversies" is unclear for you? Without being familiar with the subject area, it would seem to me that one would know if an article did or did not fall under this description. Comfort Women - yes. Oxygen - no.

Oh, and may I say thank you to you for accepting the topic ban; very good. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Is only Japan-Korea related article and how long? Please, define like other users.--Bukubku (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It is only articles which fit the description "Japanese-Korean political, historical and cultural controversies" from which you are banned. There is no time limit on the ban. The normal mechanism for lifting the ban would be for you to ask for it to be lifted. You would have to show evidence that you are unlikely to undertake the same sorts of edits that got you banned in the first place. I would suggest that you need to do many months of good work whilst still having the ban to be able to convince an admin to lift the ban. But as there are nearly 3M articles on wikipedia, and millions more that could be added, there is no shortage of good work that you can do. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, thank you for your comment. However you are not Admin.--Bukubku (talk) 10:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not they are admin is irrelavant. Don't discount opinion on this topic, and insult others POV in this manner. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean insult. I wanted Admin replys and I thought him as Admin but not. So I said like that. I apologize my words. I'm sorry, Tagishsimon.--Bukubku (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Before accepting topic ban, things should be cleared for other users and me. I was topic banned as POV-pushing of the Comfort Women. However, I don't think as POV-pushing. There are reliable sources. If other users edit comfort women like me, other users will be blocked and Topic banned? Are everyone banned to edit women who are coerced into prostitution for non Japanese Military? South Korean women were coerced into prostitute for Military until 1980s. And Russia and the Philippines women were corced into prostitute near military base until 1990s in South Korea. I don't deny Japanese Military Comfort Women existence. I think Japanese deserves to be accused. However, why specify only Japanese?

My edition

New York Times

Sources

• Ex-Prostitutes Say South Korea and U.S. Enabled Sex Trade Near Bases New York times 2009/01/08
• Former sex workers in fight for compensation South Korean News Paper JoongAng Daily October 30, 2008
• Openly revealing a secret life South Korean News Paper JoongAng Daily July 31, 2005
• Deliver them from 'hell' South Korean News Paper JoongAng Daily October 19, 2002
• 미니 인터뷰 ‘한국군 위안부’문제 제기한 김귀옥 박사 “밝혀진 건 퍼즐의 일부” (Short interview ‘South Korean Military Comfort Women’ problems, Dr. Kim Gwi-ok alleged. “The thing which revealed were part of the puzzle” ) South Korean News Paper Ilyosisa 2002/03/26

(Google Translate)

• 朝鮮戦争時の韓国軍にも慰安婦制度　韓国の研究者発表 (South Korean researcher announced South Korean Military Comfort Women system during the Korean War) Japanes News Paper Asahi Shimbun 2002/02/26

(Google Translate)

Please reply.--Bukubku (talk) 10:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this is rapidly becoming content-related ... (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears to have swung from "I accept the content ban" to "I do not accept the content ban and wish to contest the whole matter from first principles. Not good. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I want sufficient reason for my Topic ban.--Bukubku (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason was tendentious editing & edit warring on Comfort Women, which you know. The problem with your proposed insertion is that it is about allegations of South Korean hypocrisy. It is not directly about comfort women, except in so far as it is they who are leveling the accusations. It certainly does not deserve to go in the opening section of the article. And we see a string of five edits constituting the war. Caspian blue quite clearly explained on the talk page what was wrong, and where else the information might be placed in wikipedia: you went to war; and you got a topic ban. I trust that clears the matter up. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Look the page signature correctly, Caspian blue inserted his comment between Oda Mari and Bukubku. He changed turns. And he didn't reply my last comment.--Bukubku (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Please, check Talk:Comfort women history.--Bukubku (talk) 12:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Bukubku has disrupted part of Misplaced Pages and many edit warring has been occurred. And three blocks in 2 months are one of the evidences that he has disrupted part of Misplaced Pages.--Historiographer (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

So I was blocked as 3 revert. Yes, sorry. However, this issue is my POV pushing of Comfort women. And topic ban or not, I don't want to edit Japan-Korea related article now. I mend my edition tendency taking this opportunity. I don't want to involve with you. Why don't you stop editing Japan-Korea related article for a while. You were blocked many times, too. We should leave the articles. --Bukubku (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Objection

Sorry, my lack of knowledge. I understand now clearly.

My topic ban did not accord Misplaced Pages rule.

(Misplaced Pages:Banning policy#Administrator)

There was no warm. I oppose--Bukubku (talk) 09:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, we don't unban clearly problematic editors based on a technicality, especially not one who clearly knew better due to prior blocks. Take the suggestions above: spend some time working in other areas and show you can properly handle disputes; after a few months of that, ask for the ban to be removed. Shell 10:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, your generous comment. However, please change Topic-ban reason. Because I didn't POV pushing of Comfort women. Please change the reason for other users who edit comfort women too. For example, edition war..--Bukubku (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Abusive admin

This is not even close to resolved; I have not even been answered; only one or two of the posts below came close to addressing my concerns at all. Talk:ID is the place for the content dispute, but not the place for concerns about how an admin threatens to use their tools. Almost all the posts below both assume I care about the damn image war and/or assume this has something to do with that image war. It has nothing directly to do with it and I am not involved in it, having made ZERO edits in that mess. I'd re-open this because I have yet to get anyone actually reading what I've said and addressing that, but there seems to be a group insanity here. I'm insulted and annoyed at the tenor of the responses and the nearly complete lack of any kind of meaningful response. I would have appreciated it if those whose goal involved the ID images would have stayed out of this, as they have muddied the waters and lengthened this, and yet I have not received the input/help I requested, nor any rationale why that help is not forthcoming. This is now a large section which addresses nothing. I don't blame those who came after and didn't want to read all this and decided tl,dr; but I'm fairly pissed off at those who misdirected this section and tried to move it, attacked me, and finally closed it as "resolved" when it is anything but. Puppy has spoken; puppy is one. KillerChihuahua 10:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• The title of this section is "Admin Abuse". you claimed User:John abused his privileges as an administrator. Two uninvolved administrators told you this is not the case. No administrators voiced an opinion this was abuse. You have your answer. I'm sorry you don't like it, but you have your answer. That is why this thread is closed. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is resolved, I think this needs to be unpicked from the NFCC mess, but I can't see how that can be done easily. I suspect that the best thing would be for us to advise John to step back from this, but I don't think it's as simple as it looks. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you could be right. To be honest my real motivation was to shift this off the drama board before it developed into an actual drama. Black Kite 11:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

For sure, and that needed doing. I do feel that this might be a separate issue requiring of some debate; perhaps, though, we need to unpiock the various issues into an RfC of some sort? Guy (Help!) 15:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no need for same. John acted within the discretion the community entrusts to its admins. Probably just best if a couple of uninvolved admins watchlist the relevant pages, and pour water on any developing fires.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Originall debate

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yes, I used that heading. Yes, I can't believe I did either. I am at a loss. User:John is in a content/policy dispute, the crux being whether or not criteria #8 has been met on the NFCC policy. I avoid such disputes and am not part of it. However, John has been threatening to use his admin tools to block and/or ban editors during an edit war and after I counseled him against threatening to use his tools in a dispute, he responded by basically saying I was a liar and he attempted a misdirect to the content, accusing me of violation OWN ignoring that I have said nothing on the dispute. I spoke only to his handling of the dispute. He has escalated to trolling my talk page, attacking me and my motives, and continues his attacks on other editors with whom he disagrees. He most recently made a personal and insulting attack on Guettarda. I left a notice on his talk page, but he has summarily removed it, apparently feeling that if he trolls my talk page and is called on it by me, he can ignore NPA warnings from me. I cannot say I am done with John; as if he continues to insult and attack editors, and certainly if he blocks to gain advantage in a dispute, if no one else will act I will feel compelled to do so. Hence my presence here, as John has dismissed me as "not in good faith" and is continuing to attack and run roughshod over other editors. Please, do not confuse this or mix this with the content/policy dispute, which is being discussed elsewhere. KillerChihuahua 14:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• John's tone isn't much different from Guettarda's tone in the
• IMO his tone is significantly different, but that's subjective of course. Where did he say he wouldn't use the tools? His response to my concern was to call me a liar and accuse me of violating OWN, neither of which is correct or helpful and neither of which address his threat to end an edit war he was in by blocking three editors who disagreed with him. This is a matter of grave concern; that he threatened to do so at all is very disturbing, and he has responded to concern about it with insults. If he did state he would not use his admin tools, well and good - where did he do so? Do you recall? Thanks much - KillerChihuahua 15:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

  Adding, what do you mean "once he became involved" - he was edit warring before issuing the block warnings. That's why I said something. He was deep in an edit war when he made those threats. KillerChihuahua 15:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

  I was referring to this, where John says I then made one revert on the article myself, after which I recused myself from taking admin action on the matter, as I felt that by the very strict interpretation of WP:UNINVOLVED that I hold myself too, I would no longer be considered strictly uninvolved. , and the whole WP:UNINVOLVED business is discussed further at John's talk page by two other admins.-Andrew c  16:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

  Ah, ok. That I missed in the noise, I guess. I note he only considered himself "involved" well after others did, which is still of serious concern to me, as he does not acknowledge that his previous edit warring constituted involvement in any way. I would still appreciate others keeping an eye on this, especially as this editor continues to be verbally abusive and hostile to well-intentioned counsel and criticism, personalizing both the content/policy dispute as well as any concerns about his handling of it in an inappropriate way. KillerChihuahua 16:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

  Missed it in the noise because you removed it from your talk page with the edit summary "READ the note at the top of this page. Keep article content disputes on the ARTICLE talk page". You're complaining that I am personalizing the dispute, and here you are... personalizing the dispute. Hmm. --John (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

  Indeed, I did miss it in the morass of edits on my page which I removed. I expected you to respond to my concern post; you did respond, but your response was to malign me and dismiss me, as I have already noted. That you chose to change venues and state that you had belatedly determined you would not use your admin tools fails to address that you actually did threaten to do so while engaged in a content dispute. I have yet to see you acknowledge that or address that issue. Further, I fail to see how attempting to engage more of the community in this and solicit input and assistance could be in any way characterized as personalizing; I have made no personal attacks but have addressed only concerns about your actions and behavior. KillerChihuahua 19:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

John's actions in this matter have already been discussed at length at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/ID-NFCC. Since these actions are directly involved with the debate regarding WP:NFCC and Intelligent Design, I earlier moved this discussion to the ID-NFCC page . KillerChihuahua believes this is not the same dispute at all, and reverted this action . I don't see the point in having two obviously tightly related discussions going on same topic. Would someone else please move this discussion as I did? Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That discussion is about content and policy. This is about behavior; specifically threatening to use admin tools during an edit war, and subsequent attacks on editors who disagree with his position. They are specifically different and not related at all. KillerChihuahua 19:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably better if KC will agree to close this one. His/her comments have been noted. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Closure would indicate my concerns have been addressed; they have only been partially addressed. Closure also suggests that there is an "end point" and IMO that paradigm is inaccurate for this type of concern. Closure is inappropriate. KillerChihuahua 19:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"I don't see the point in having two obviously tightly related discussions going on same topic." Doesn't that apply here as well, then? •Jim62sch• 19:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• No. The reported admin abuse has already been discussed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/ID-NFCC, and opening up another discussion here at WP:AN/I where that discussion came from is rather pointless. The discussion of the image itself is a rightful standalone. Regardless of the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/ID-NFCC, the question of its use under our policy is perfectly legitimate and worthy of standing on its own. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

What part of "this has noting to do with NFCC" are you failing to comprehend? This is a separate issue. KillerChihuahua 20:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• What part of this has already been reported are you failing to comprehend? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, I disagree with you - or else you are not quite getting what I'm talking about. KillerChihuahua 20:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• You are complaining about his actions in this event, are you not? You have noticed that discussion regarding the appropriateness of his actions has already taken place at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/ID-NFCC, yes? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Looked over this. The warnings given by John, though they do not specify the policy violation, all relate to potential copyright infringements. John's previous "involvement" doesn't matter as WP:NFCC is serious global policy, and if there is a situation where several editors are collectively violating - knowingly or not - this policy, there's little John could do in theory except warn/block or revert and protect (or get other admins to do the same). Local "consensus" can never override this policy and John, having had the community trust placed in him, is entitled to be given the benefit of the doubt to force the application of this policy over local consensus when the latter may be insisting on - knowingly or not - violating it. I don't see how John behaviour can be at issue here. I suggest this thread is closed. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The warnings given by John were not about a policy violation. They were about interpretation of a highly debated criteria which one side of an edit war felt had been met and the other side feels has not. This must be resolved by dispute resolution; not by one side threatening to block. The "other" side would have been just as in the right to block John for page blanking vandalism (in other words, not in the right at all, even though that's what he was doing). KillerChihuahua 20:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, it's only guideline so it can be ignored. Understood. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Now I *know* you aren't talking about the same thing I'm talking about, and further, your sarcasm is unhelpful. KillerChihuahua 20:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Call it as I see it. In NFCC debates, an age old argument is "It's only guideline, so it doesn't have to be followed". John acted properly. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You're on the wrong page. This belongs in that other discussion. THIS discussion is NOT about NFCC, which is a policy, not a guideline. Please do not continue to post your thoughts about NFCC here. KillerChihuahua 21:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Kinda like the cop who likes Pat's Steaks but doesn't (should that be "don't?") like Geno's Steaks only busting people who rob from Pat but not those who rob from Geno. •Jim62sch• 21:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the other discussion, John clearly believes those edits constituted copyright infringements. So he was only doing his job, and can't be seen to be acting in bad faith or abusively (and wikipedia can't chastise admins for attempting to protect wikipedia from copyright infringements). The only potential issue would be whether John's intepretation is so unreasonable that his judgment could be called into question. It really doesn't look like that's gonna be the case. So there's nothing more to say here. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no dog in this fight whatsoever. But as a confirmed cynic, I would note that "clearly asserts" and "clearly believes" are not synonymous. arimareiji (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"potential copyright infringements"? Yep, the publishers are gonna pitch a bitch and sue us castrato over free publicity. Duh. •Jim62sch• 20:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Another ancient argument. "They'd never sue over this!" so therefore it's ok to violate copyright. Uhg. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you realise that if you go to cross the street and your first step is not inside the ped-walkway, no matter that all the rest of your steps are, you're jaywalking and can be cited? That's why there's these really weird concepts like discretion, judgment, intent, etc. Oh, wait they're all subjective. You get a ticket. •Jim62sch• 21:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Arimareiji. Speaking as an admin, I think it is a poor idea to enforce policy in that way on an article you're involved in, once the fact of said enforcement becomes contentious. There are dozens, if not hundreds of uninvolved admins who would be willing to come in and help out.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

We have WP:AGF when in doubt. I'd agree that the method John pursued was not the one most likely to avoid animosity for himself, but there's no question of abuse here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks for addressing your comments to my areas of concern, Deacon. Clearly there is a question, since I raised it. I accept and respect that in your opinion, my concerns are unfounded and you feel his actions, while less than optimum, are not abuse or even bordering on abuse. Please correct me if I have misunderstood you in any way. Two questions (this is to Deacon) do you feel that his edit warring was excusable as he thought he was enforcing a policy, or do you feel his threatening blocks while edit warring was not in any way using his tools (by threat) to gain the advantage in an edit war? and 2) the NPA violations - acceptable or not? KillerChihuahua 22:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggest you drop it now, Killer. It takes two to edit war, and AN/I is not limited to action against the complainee. Your question is loaded and seems designed (as did your initial post) at gaining you sympathy, and possibly advantage in an editing dispute. Let it go.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There were about five or six in the edit war. Only one threatened blocks. I'm not sure why you think I should "drop it now" but you'll have to give me an actual reason to do so. I am no in the edit war; I haven't made a single edit nor have I posted any talk page opinions on the dispute. I have no "side" to gain sympathy "for". You have misread my entire purpose here. KillerChihuahua 00:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"complainant" maybe, but irrelevant. KC is pooched because she bitched about the same thing others are bitching about? Nice. •Jim62sch• 22:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

KC is hunting for a declaration that John was edit warring, from another admin. I think the matter has been resolved, now let's improve an encyclopedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I damn well know he was edit warring. I am concerned that he threatened to block three editors on the "other side" while engaged in the edit war, which is to me a clear violation of the buttons. This has nothing to do with the content dispute per se. KillerChihuahua 00:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that's factually incorrect, as the message I sent on your talk which you erased indicated. Do you want me to show diffs? I already asked you this once on your talk, but you erased the message (as we already discussed above) rather than reply, so I assumed you didn't. Please let me know if you have changed your mind. Or, it should be really easy to look at the times from my contribs and see that I made the warnings before I had edited the article, and that after the one edit I made to the article I recused myself from taking admin action. Let me know if you need any other clarification. --John (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Ghagent and User:Ghchat pages are being used for Myspacey-type chatter

Hello. As stated above, these two userpages (and their associated talk pages) seem to be used extensively as a page for users to chat amongst themselves (not about Misplaced Pages-related matters, more in a Myspace-like fashion), which isn't allowed under Misplaced Pages:UP#NOT. I was unsure where/how to report this, feel free to move it elsewhere if there's a better place. Raven1977_{My edits} 21:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

For the moment I have blanked the social chit-chat and left appropriate cautions. – ukexpat (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

An anon undid your edits. I've indefblocked Ghchat and protected its talk page as it was clearly not going to be used for encyclopedia work. Ghagent I've left alone for the time being. -- Earle Martin 12:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Civility

Are such edit summaries considered to be appropriate, especially given that the editor in question had been warned to stay civil shortly beforehand? — Aitias // discussion 22:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Saying that the editor "has been warned" when you mean that you warned the editor, is disingenuous. Please do not do that. The edit summary is an expression of frustration and while undesirable it is understandable, not apparently directed at any readily identifiable individual, and does not appear to em to degrade the content of the encyclopaedia, nor to inflame any debate. I am marking this as "resolved" for those reasons. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit war at Rochelle Heights

I ask for administrators' immediate assistance to block User:Orlady for a short time for edit warring and to inhibit, however possible, the further edit warring by an IP editor for a comparable time. I am not sure what is possible but could a temporary block on an IP address or a range of IP addresses be put in place?

Background: This is one of many articles on neighborhoods of New Rochelle, New York which have been created and deleted repeatedly. Orlady has been one of a couple watchdogs and enforcers about New Rochelle area articles who have, in my opinion, been over-zealous and have been unfair and punitive against editors in that area. Their enforcement has caught up more than one user in a broad case labelled Jvolkblum and associates. I am preparing a case to make one or more unban proposals to help one or more users caught up in this who I believe have been treated unfairly.

However here I am trying to work on addressing the legitimate complaint of New Rochelle area editors that there deserves to be wikipedia articles on their neighborhoods. Mainly, recently, I am trying to manage a centralized discussion at Talk:List of New Rochelle neighborhoods.

In the immediate instance, I warned (in edit summaries and at Talk:Rochelle Heights ) both Orlady and the IP editor to stop edit warring on this article linked by merger proposal to the main list, and I put up their alternative passages for orderly discussion at the Talk page. They both are fully aware of edit warring policy. I ask that Orlady be blocked for some time, immediately, even if that is not entirely even-handed. The IP editor is perhaps beyond immediate control, but I expect this user has had one or more previous accounts already blocked and has cumulatively been wronged and punished disproportionately. It is important for my establishing credibility in being able to support / arrange for fair treatment for this and other Jvolkblum-linked editors to have some immediate action taken on Orlady's edit warring now. Disclosure: I have had differences with Orlady in other content areas, due to honest differences of opinion at times and also due perhaps to communication style differences and/or stuff that has seemed to get personal. My request here is unrelated to any of that; I do basically respect Orlady as an editor and contributor and I am just wanting this one instance of edit warring to be noted and stopped by a block. doncram (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You've reverted the article just as many times as either of them. Why do you feel that they deserve to be blocked but that you don't? 87.112.81.29 (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am trying to act differently than an edit warrior. One difference is that I reverted the article to a short version created by someone else, to which I had only added a merger proposal tag. I am not edit warring in favor of any material written by me, while their edits struck out the others' material in favor of theirs. Also, I was already trying to lead a discussion at the talk page of both contending passages and I put time in to put them there, to get their references showing properly, and so on. Also, unlike the others, I don't have a history of edit warring in articles on New Rochelle neighborhoods. I don't think that most people would view my actions so far as edit warring. If i kept reverting others' changes back, then yes it could eventually appear that i was edit warring. One difficulty for administrators to deal with in attempting to moderate edit wars, by the way, is in determining which version of an article should be deemed the version to be reverted to, to freeze upon while the edit warriors are blocked for a while. My reversion was to put in place a version of the article that was relatively neutral, and which serves better as a fair base point for the article than either of their versions. Perhaps wp:edit war has more on this. doncram (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The article was created and has been edited by two different sockpuppets (SSH2009 and QUADCIN; see SPI case) of banned user Jvolkblum, who has run some 300+ sockpuppets and has an appalling habit of creating plagiarized articles (and uploading plagiarized images) for which s/he supplies falsified sources. I assume that the various IP users (it's not a single IP user, but two different ones) who have commented on the article or made edits to it are also Jvolkblum socks (the whois records for 69.86.223.174 and 64.255.180.25 are consistent with Jvolkblum's IPs). The article could be deleted on sight as the ban-evading creation of a banned user, but Doncram has taken it upon himself to rescue this and other articles contributed by the sockpuppet. That is, of course, his prerogative, if he or other legitimate contributors are willing to take responsibility for the article content.

Jvolkblum's alleged sources typically are not available online. In this case, I managed to find one of the cited sources for the sockpuppet contributions online, read it, and determined (pretty much as I had expected) that it did not support the paragraph that cited it. (The paragraph may be true, but it's not based on the source cited.) Considering that the source is a long-term vandal and that I could not verify the content, I deleted the sockpuppet contributions, but added a paragraph of my own based on the content of the source. I am willing to take full responsibility for the validity of my content, and I believe that I am justified in reverting Jvolkblum whenever s/he appears.

Doncram seems to have decided to label my changes to this article as vandalism or edit warring with an anonymous IP (never mind that there are multiple anonymous IPs involved), and apparently has taken it upon himself to play "referee" by reverting all of our edits and insisting that we discuss the article on the article talk page. I have difficulty seeing my edits as edit warring, but it does look like Doncram is engaged in a revert war. --Orlady (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I note that i should have opened this at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. If someone wants to move this there that is okay by me. Also, I am not aware of a differentiation between a "revert war" vs. an "edit war", so I think Orlady is saying that i am edit warring while she is not.

It is a serious deficiency in Orlady's reasoning that she makes the judgment that an editor is Jvolkblum and holds the editor responsible for the entire sweep of past edits made by other editors caught up by her and others' accusations in the Jvolkblum case. I believe that Orlady has been wrong in labelling various editors as Jvolkblum. It happens that a checkuser today cleared, as not Jvolkblum, one that she had accused of being Jvolkblum. I believe that the checkuser took more care, and came to that different conclusion, because I have recently been asserting there that mistakes have been made. I think it entirely likely that the IP editor engaging in edit warring today has not been banned, because he/she may not be Jvolkblum. It is beyond reason to think that every person erroneously labelled as Jvolkblum by Orlady or others should understand that they are subject to a ban imposed on someone else. As relatively inexperienced users, some of them have effectively had no chance to respond through official channels, and in fact would not be able to do so, because they are blocked and only the Talk page of the original Jvolkblum, perhaps long gone, is left open for anyone to file any appeal. Given a few recently proven errors in accusations, I think it is unreasonable for Orlady to persist in both labelling IP editors as Jvolkblum and deleting everything they write. Particularly not if there are editors taking responsibility for content in various New Rochelle area articles, as I am now trying to do for the neighborhood ones and a few others where i have edited at Talk pages recently. It seems painfully clear that there are frustrated users out there trying to add legitimate content, although sometimes/frequently not in entirely perfect form at first, and with a fatalistic air because they have learned that wikipedia is a punishing environment. I sympathize with their not constructing difficult footnotes sometimes, as they must expect more substantial work put in is likely to be deleted anyhow.

This wp:ANI request is not intended to resolve all that. I ask simply now that Orlady's and the IP editors edits (and, I guess, mine) for this article Rochelle Heights be reviewed as to whether they constitute edit warring, for that to be stated, and if so, for the warring parties to be blocked for a short time, if administratively feasible. doncram (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The situation at Rochelle Heights is no edit war. The most common definition of an edit war (from WP:WAR is more than "three reverts on any one page in under 24 hours," meaning more than 3 reverts by the same user, not counting reverting one's own edits, reverts for vandalism, reverting the actions of banned users, reverting the addition of copyright violations, and other exceptions outlined at WP:3RR. At Rochelle Heights, I made a grand total of 3 reverts in 42 hours. In two of those cases I was reverting edits that I am still convinced were the actions of a banned user. Doncram made a grand total of 3 reverts in about 27 hours. During those 42 hours there was also one revert by a registered sockpuppet account, one revert by an anonymous IP, and another edit by a different anonymous IP. The rate of activity is not consistent with the usual definition of an edit war, and there is nothing in the specific history to suggest an edit war between Orlady and an anonymous good-faith user. Furthermore, the best way to satisfy my concerns would be to delete the whole frigging article as a nonencyclopedic item about a residential subdivision contributed by a banned user. I'm sorry that I wasted my time trying to insert some verifiable content in place of the questionable content from the banned user, since Doncram (who I thought was committed to rescuing this content) has twice seen fit to delete my contribution (the users with whom I am supposedly warring left my material in place). --Orlady (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It does not require 3 reverts by one user to be deemed an edit war. But this situation seems not to be an edit war any longer. The page has not been changed overnight from the short, relatively neutral version that i had put in place, and there has been reasonably civil discussion of the two alternative passages at the article's Talk page. I suggest that Orlady's preference to delete rather than build the article should be discussed at the Talk page of List of New Rochelle neighborhoods, consistent with the merger proposal tag. Thank you to anyone here who has read this discussion, I think it did help to have this discussion here in order to calm the situation on the Rochelle Heights article. doncram (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Next time, someone (anyone) with a cool head actually ask for protection and/or requests for copyright review. Orlady, if everything from those users are suspected copyright violations, report that and get some outside help. If not, and without any verification, I really don't like you calling anonymous sockpuppets immediately, either in summaries or on the talk page. While I'm guessing you are right, at least assume a little good faith. I'm reminded of another user who will call everyone, from admins to anonymous, puppets out to stalk them. It's aggravating. Doncram, you really thought that ANI was the most appropriate place to get help after he reverted you but your reverts back ignored his edits? He did claim to have read some parts and added that text. You should have at least respected that. Can we agree to chock this up to two users in a misunderstanding and move on? WP:3O is what you want, not this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Fethullah Gulen

Fethullah Gulen biography has recently been consistently vandalized, blanked and verified information, resources and links are deleted. The users User:Arnoutf and his master User:Adoniscik are doing that in turn. They claim ownership of the article, vandalize and blank the article written by many editors for long time, while does not allow new users edit. Please see the history page for tens of recent evidence. Just two example for your convenience for each:

Thanks, YusrSehl (talk) 04:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

A content dispute is not vandalism, and your accusations should be withdrawn. You are just as much guilty of edit warring. Discussion should continue on the article's Talk page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The case is different from a content dispute. They never discuss why they delete verified information, so there is no chance to discuss. My comments are not accusation, I am referring to well established wiki standards. What is page blanking, vandalizing and deleting verified information from an article, then? They delete huge amount of text and 80 references. Please note that not only me, there are many other editors they do not allow to edit. Here is a few such recent edits:

YusrSehl (talk) 05:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I smell some edit warring that needs to be snuffed out. MuZemike 07:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yes ... this is just warring between two versions of the article, one of which - the longer - appears to be an extended puff piece for the person, whereas the other is shorter and more critical of him. There isn't any vandalism going on here that I can see, just a content dispute. I'll watchlist it and protect if the edit-warring carries on. Black Kite 08:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

So, is it OK to delete 2/3 of any article together with ~80 references and verified information from it, with a brief edit summary?.. YusrSehl (talk) 09:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The answer is, it depends. If the material is hagiograpic and the references are uncritical, then absolutely yes. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Strange, I thought the references need not be critical alone. Are we writing critics of the living people instead of a biography? YusrSehl (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice being accused of being a puppet of Adoniscik, we sometimes meet in editing; but nothing more. The Fethullal Gulen article has been plagued since its beginning by Gulen fans who do not accept any critisism on Gulen. The original editor there was User:Philscirel, who has afterwards been banned for sockpuppeting. After that the longer versions originally been written by Philscirel have been reset by several sockpuppets of Philscirel. And after that a number of accounts were created that had as first (and often only) mainspace edit restoring the long version. Forgive me for thinking these many editors can not be taken on good faith in the light of the history of the article. Arnoutf (talk) 10:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is who started the leading section of the longer version . YusrSehl (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Following another revert, I have protected the page for a week. Please discuss changes on the talk page; there must surely be a middle ground between the wide-ranging reverts. Black Kite 11:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Perfect timing Black Kite. You should not, of course, wait for another, a second, revert. Congratulations for your unbiased high caliber administrative action. YusrSehl (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

For information. YusrSehl has been found to be a sockpuppet of Philscirel, and has been blocked . Arnoutf (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism on the PERT page

I undid an edit by 202.138.249.67 due to his/her vandalism. Look at the history of the page to see what it was. If this was not vandalism, let me know. If it was, block the user? Or is one offence not enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybersteel8 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I would definitely say that that edit is vandalism. It may possibly be in a different language, but considering that this is the English Misplaced Pages, it might as well be vandalism. Since this is their only edit, though, I'm not inclined to block. In the future, please report edits of this nature to Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Thank you. --Cyde Weys 16:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous edits and advocacy in Network Neutrality

There is circumstantial evidence of an advocate using different IPs to make edits in this article: Network neutrality.

diff 1 A recent edit.

diff 2 An older edit.

diff 2 whois

I am trying to be careful not to harass or "out" here, but I think the circumstantial evidence (the whois, the pov, the reference cited in the edit shown in diff 2, and a google search) is strong that both diffs show the same editor, and others would come to the same conclusion.

I didn't put this is WP:RFP because I don't want to see it come to that. Hope that's okay. demonburrito (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Tom

Tom has been asked repeatedly & politely to stop attempting to censor discussion about the article and it's history on Talk:Bernard Goldberg, as well as the article itself. Not just by me but by other editors. Those efforts have repeatedly failed. I have previously referred Tom to WP:CONS, WP:FORUM, WP:SOURCE, WP:TE, WP:OWN and WP:3RR among others, all to no avail. Tom engages in edit warring and reverts arbitrarily, right in the middle of discussions with other editors that are intended to build consensus. A review of this editor's talk page indicates other recent and difficult encounters of this same nature. Unfortunately, at this point, serious intervention is needed. Please help. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like the IP complainant keeps adding an unsourced matter that might be trivial, might be a BLP problem, without having built consensus on talk page. I'm more inclined to think the complainant is to blame. Some of the IP's history of interest, including a past block (two weeks ago) may be seen here--Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)This is more of a minor content dispute at Bernard Goldberg that has spilled over into the talk page. I have removed two posts from the talk page that I felt were violating WP:FORUM. If others here feel that is not the case, then fine, I will not remove them again. I have no problem with 68.183.246.93 arguing his point about content as long as he assumes good faith and does not accuse others of bad faith in his edits, that's all. --Tom 16:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC) ps, thanks for that Wehwalt. Again, I have no problem with this IP arguing his point as long as he keeps it "clean". --Tom 16:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, all of the material I've added has not only been sourced, but passes WP:SOURCE, and WP:NOT. I was 3RR reported earlier because I didn't realize this editor and one other work together to revert and delete, so I paid the price for my naivete'. But this report goes to my comments on the discussion page about their history of reverts and deletes in the article, and those comments were deleted as well. He also deleted my notice on his talk page that I intended to report him. The comments that were removed on the article's discussion page also did not violate WP:FORUM as he suggests. To the contrary, they conformed with the letter and spirit of 4. Discussion forums. And the edits that were removed from the article were not only minor, but explained on the discussion page, and agreed to in principle by the other editor, Mark Shaw only to be removed by that editor later. It's a shell game. Unfortunately, my experience has been that both editors ignore WP:TE and WP:OWN, and I have tried to suggest that to them, but to no avail. Also please note, Wehwalt, that you will see both on Tom's talk page, and on the article's discussion page, the difficulties other editors have had with him for this same thing. I'm hardly the first. Thanks. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The sources listed on the talk page of the article seem to be blogs to me, and there was no ref inserted in the article with the info. IP, everyone has the right to delete matters from their talk page, we take that as an indication that the material has been read. I really suggest that you guys go back to the talk page and work things out. I really don't see any intervention required, but you're verging on edit warring. Not quite there yet, but it's close.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually the content that I was trying to get included, even minimally, has now been included to an even greater extent by an admin. Curiously with little objection. But I'm satisfied now. I'm not interested in edit warring or fighting editors, I just want to improve articles that interest me, and think we should be to do that without anyone acting in a manner that resembles ownership, my ugly step-child IP notwithstanding. But it's good now, at least until the next update is necessary. Thanks again for your help & imput. Much appreciated. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Open an account, you'll turn into a swan. Glad it is resolved satisfactorily.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Threats

• Scripturalreasoning (talk · contribs)

Just spotted this - Talk:Scriptural Reasoning#External Damage to Interpersonal and Inter-organisational Relations Off-Misplaced Pages.
It's a bit Misplaced Pages:TLDR, but comes down to a threat by User:Scripturalreasoning to publish dirt on an organisation and its members if other editors don't obey this user's stance.
This note will be to put on the record in writing that any future embarassing material (more correspondence from David Ford, stuff about St Ethelburga's financial fraud) which comes into the public domain on Misplaced Pages, is published in response to demands made from you ... From now on, you will get whatever gruesome and personalised detail you ask for -- and it will go into the public domain on Misplaced Pages
Not sure if this counts as a legal threat, but it looks pretty objectionable whatever it is. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is no. I don't think it is very polite, but I can't characterize it as a legal threat.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

OOF, WP:SOAPBOX violation at any rate.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Threat yes, legal threat no. arimareiji (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Editors Removing Links

Hi I posted some links for few artists and your editors are removing the links. They say it comes under advertisement. The site links i put is a small website that features the indie and unsigned artists to promote them. Obviously evry website runs with ads or donations. I linked to Katy and jennifer paige and few other artists i like. ex http://www.tunesbaby.com/jennifrepaige . Your editors just removed them and said its spam. Im mkaing it clear that its not spam. When you have an article on certian artists you can add links here. Its not come under advertising or spamming. If its spam then why do you keep links to youtube.com,myspace.com, imdb.com soundclick.com and many more websites? Many of these sites have google ads you know they put cookies and do so called collection of your information and use for business purpose. when you can gie big support to these corporate websites, whats wrong if i add link to a site that has only information related to an artist? By adding links they don't get so many hits and make a million dollar by tomorrow or next week. We are just providing a link to give some basic information to contact with those artists. What i say is adding link to that website is completely fair. In case if its against your policies adding any link that has an advertisement or sell something on the website is even not fair. So please support the small websites and let the visitors on wiki check some related websites. Sure Your policies making injustice to people or the editors are doing it on purpose.

--Jag666 (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied on talk page, not an Admin issue. --Rodhullandemu 18:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

And user blocked indef as a spam-only account. Blueboy96 18:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I had invited him to put a complaint on this board in this bit of my talk page. He seemed to take particular umbrage about my actions... which I don't regret at all. As you said, spam only account... who's still editing from an anon IP by the looks based on this section. Tabercil (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Mini RFC opened on Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections

Please see here. I've opened a mini-RFC for sitting Arbs and current CU/OS operators to give feedback to the community on Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections in regards to the elections and sitting CU/OS operators from before the elections. rootology (C)(T) 18:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

71.252.55.101 on Ante Starčević

71.252.55.101 (talk · contribs)This user has been performing some edits like removing tags and been reverting them. This user has done it before in the article and has been repeating them. Also this user told me that I can't post any warnings, which I've warned the user about. Take a look at the contributions and see if this user needs to be blocked (this user has been blocked before) This user also have removed warnings too. I'm posting it here because I'm unsure. Thanks. Techman224 19:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Like pretty much everything having to do with the Yugoslav wars, figuring out who is "right" and who is "wrong" in the situation is nigh impossible. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is ignoring the warnings, I think. Have you tried discussing with the IP about his edits? Maybe that would help instead of just giving him warnings. He is allowed to remove the warnings from his talk page btw, and we can take that as a sign that he has read them. But thing is, he seems to be regarding them as 'offensive messages'. Chamal 03:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Plumoyr again creating large number of countryX-CountryY relations

Plumoyr (talk · contribs)

See - some were AfD'd in the past (and some of those I speedied some time ago. Is this a problem or do we just ignore it? dougweller (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops, another(?) editor was doing this recently, but the same articles, see . Sorry, that was on the AN board. dougweller (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I NPP'ed a few of these yesterday. I was wondering if he's going through every country pair in the planet and creating a stub for each one. Some of these might be valuable, but I have to question the sheer volume here. §FreeRangeFrog 21:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that bilateral relations are not inherently notable (see Burma-Greece relations, Greece-Turkmenistan relations, Greece-Guyana relations for some dead-end "articles"). Should Plumoyr persist in mindless creation of non-notable bilateral relations stubs, he should be warned and perhaps blocked -- there is no reason we should be absorbing this junk. - Biruitorul 22:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You what? You actually speedily deleted some of these? Which ones? They better have been rejected. They most certainly do not come under any of the speedy deletion crieria. AfD if you must. I agree that mass creating stubs that don't give any useful info isn't exactly useful, but an article on the relationships between any two countries could easily be FA is inherently notable, because there are so many sources out there for this type of thing (Hundreds per article I would imagine).--Patton 23:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No, they aren't inherently FA quality. Greece-Guyana relations, say; how do you thing that is going to get to FA? Greece has an embassy in Guyana. I assume Guyana has an embassy in greece. That's it. A lot of relations (UK-US) for example probably could be FA: long-term cooperation, a history, so on so forth; ones between country X and relatively unknown country Y? probably not. That being said as much as the mass-stubs annoy me CSD isn't really the way to go; AFD would be better (unless they went to AFD and you are deleting them as "pages previously deleted in a deletion discussion"?) Such articles will eventually be valuable, but we should wait on creating them until we have more to stick there than "Country X has an embassy in Country Y". Ironholds (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I doubt any of these will ever get to GA, let alone FA. The notable ones (future events notwithstanding) are already covered in detail. I honestly fail to see the encyclopedic value of an article about relations between Uzbekistan and Ghana that essentially says Ghana is a country. Uzbekistan is a country. Ghana maintains an embassy in Tashkent and Uzbekistan maintains an embassy in Accra. But that's just me. §FreeRangeFrog 00:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If some of these were afd and speedied in the past they're speedy candidates as recreated deleted material. In addition if the editor is "again" doing this, to me that sounds like he did it in the past and perhaps was told not to. In that case this would be seen as disruptive and frankly I don't see a speedy being out of order in that circumstance.--Crossmr (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody thought to notify him? Really? Ok, he's been notified and should read here. First step he needs to do is stop recreating these things. Check the AFD discussion and if there's something debatable, consider WP:DRV. If not, find the ones that are allowed and work out the others until they are created. However, someone needs to be help me. For example, Ireland–Ukraine relations was deleted under G4, but I can't find a link to the prior discussion. I'll guess that's Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bilateral relations of Ireland. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Boubaker sockpuppets

The massive sockpuppet infestation of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Boubaker polynomials (3rd nomination) has now spread to Misplaced Pages:Notability (numbers), where one of the socks appears to be attempting to game the AfD by inserting language favorable to that article. There's some older related sockpuppetry in Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Mmbmmmbm, and a possible relation to m:Vandalism reports/BogaertB since the Boubaker subject was one of the ones treated by the BogaertB socks (there are some differences, though: BogaertB appeared to have less narrowly focused interests). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive183#Boubaker polynomials and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive377#User:Clem32 and User:Mario scolas. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the AfD. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Template malfunctioning?

When I logged off, I noticed this <centralnotice-template-plain_text_election_notice> became disabled. Is it intentional or something else? Because I thought if it were meant to be removed, it would have been removed altogether. I hope I'm not setting off a false alarm. --Whip it! 02:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No false alarm, I noticed that also. FTR, I'm viewing with IE 6, but I suspect that this problem is being seen with other browsers as well. Edit Centric (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, because I use Firefox as my primary browser. However, Safari doesn't seem to have that problem. --Whip it! 03:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec ...really :)) IE7, Firefox and Opera for me, so it's the template. I would have tried Safari, but that errr.. malfunctioned for me. Now reinstalling. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 03:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

And Google Chrome. Yes, I am now officially the most boring person on Misplaced Pages. :) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 03:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Not that this helps, but I'm having the same problem with Firefox. Chamal 03:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Centralnotice is controlled on Meta, so we have no ability to deal with it here. If it wasn't intentional, it'll probably be back up soon; if it was and they just messed it up, good riddance. Hersfold 04:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: It's been globally disabled ATM because it's broken and will be back once it is fixed. Peachey88 06:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

ATM? Wikpedia is now in the money-dispensing business??? Baseball Bugs 07:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like mine in increments of $5, pls! (Okay, now back to work!) Edit Centric (talk) 08:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio Images sent to Wikimedia Commons

User Dominick1283 has placed dozens of inauthentic images into cryptozoology articles. While going through the process of deleting them, I found that this user has uploaded many, many images to the commons as his own work. He has agreed to change the tags, but I'm still concerned that the images are copyvio. DavidOaks (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The commons ones will have to be taken care of on commons — admins here have no power over commons. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, but some of us are admins on Commons. Please explain the problem in greater detail. I could do something about it, but need a better picture of events. Durova 05:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Art

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Art

Could an admin please take a look at the situation at Misplaced Pages Art? The nominator regrets nominating for AfD, when several CSD criteria probably would've applied. I've seen AfDs closed early in favor of speedy deletion and I think this qualifies. This has caused quite a stir, which I think was the intention of the article creator. I don't think any further community effort should be wasted on this clear violation of many policies and of Misplaced Pages's overall goals. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:03, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Well, it has several keep !votes with people attempting to argue notability, so CSD no longer applies, as it would obviously become a controversial deletion. Best let the AfD run its course, imo. Though looking at the sources provided, I have absolutely no idea how that could be considered anything but original research, a neologism and non-notable. Resolute 06:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Article has been deleted. Can we mark this resolved? (I suspect it'll show up at DRV shortly anyhow, judging from that AFD...) Tony Fox (arf!) 06:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's resolved for the time being, but I'm not sure how long that'll last. Werdna seemed to be acting alone on that one. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:52, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Yep, you called it: Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2009_February_15 Resolute 07:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Remember, "non controversial" doesn't strictly apply to CSD. Plenty of people contest spam deletions or G3 deletions. The criteria themselves need to be non-controversial, but controversy is not a disqualifying characteristic for a speedy deletion. Although an AfD being in progress should have stopped us from deleting it per WP:DELETE. Protonk (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Harassment by dynamic IP sockpuppets of banned user Naadapriya (crosspost from WP:AN as the situation is spiralling rapidly out of control)

From WP:AN#Harassment by dynamic IP sockpuppets of banned user Naadapriya

Please comment at WP:AN#Harassment by dynamic IP sockpuppets of banned user Naadapriya, or better, do something immediately: We're sending the message that if you make it difficult enough for us, you can ban-evade and sock and harass any editors even tangentially involved with your ban to your heart's content. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for a review of Digwuren's block by William M. Connolley

William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) recently blocked Digwuren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 8 hours for edit-warring on the article Michael Wines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Digwuren has requested to be unblocked at User talk:Digwuren#Something to consider, and as an admin reviewing his request, I believe it has merit: he made one edit to the article at issue, which cannot be considered edit warring. Because of the brevity of the block, it appears important to me that it receive expeditious review; hence this post, which I am informing William M. Connolley about.  Sandstein  12:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I feel it should be overturned. WMC might have felt there was a editwar going on as the one edit was part of a longer string of reverts on that particular page. But the subsequent edits of Digwuren show that there appears no danger of an editwar by Digwuren. Therefore the block would no longer be preventative. Agathoclea (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

He had earlier blocked User:Idlewild101, who seems to still be an active participant in that edit war, and is not currently blocked. Baseball Bugs 12:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Digwuren was banned for a year for edit warring and misbehavior on East European topics. The ban expired. Here's an EE dispute and Digwuren jumps into an edit war instead of discussing the issue. Hmm, good block. Jehochman 13:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards