Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:33, 27 May 2009 view sourceUmrguy42 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,685 edits →Where to forward this?: reply← Previous edit Revision as of 15:40, 27 May 2009 view source Deskana (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users22,062 edits →Report from ThuranX re: Joker "threat" emails: Section deleted. Please e-mail functionaries if you have concerns.Next edit →
Line 28: Line 28:
== Report from ThuranX re: Joker "threat" emails == == Report from ThuranX re: Joker "threat" emails ==


Section deleted. Given the nature of this problem, there is nothing that anyone who is not a checkuser can do about it, so there's no point fuelling the fire by discussing it and keeping him interested. ], please. If you have any concerns, please e-mail the functionaries mailing list, {{email|functionaries-en|lists.wikimedia.org}}. We are looking at ways to solve this problem. --], ] 15:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
{{resolved|1=CUs/AF engaged to mitigate impact. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font> ] 04:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)}}
(Resolved). –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font> ] 02:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)]
:Why blanking? Shouldn't this at least get archived? And it didn't appear to be resolved either.]rew ] ] 02:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not over; I just got another one at {{checkuser|Semper discipulus}} <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 02:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
::It's trolling, ongoing. ] and so on. ] (]) 02:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

::Yeah, just sweep it under the rug, don't talk about it. Instead of addressing it and getting it sorted out, getting out ahead of it so the community is aware, just keep hiding it. ] (]) 02:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
:::Well, it appears it isn't resolved, but my original question still stands, why blanking and not just archiving?]rew ] ] 02:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
::::Mostly to ] jollies to the troll.--] (]) 02:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::I got the same e-mail. Its just a troll looking to get a response, which Thuranx seems to be helping. I deleted it right away. Ignore is best.--] (]) 02:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

::::The only thing that can be done about it is block-on-sight, an activity which is already under way. Anything more is recognition granting. Someone may wish to pen an abuse filter if this lad is going to stick around for a while. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font> ] 03:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::Can you even abuse filter emails? <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font>/<font color="red" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> 03:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::Good question; I was more talking about the MO in general. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font> ] 03:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who may be interested. Please go ]. Sock farm and perhaps worse on this guy. This may be more difficult to get rid of. Same guy was vandalising last night--] (]) 03:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
:Checkusers are aware of the issue, and are doing their best to handle it.--] (]) 03:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Did anyone besides me notice that these were all sent by fairly established editors? One of them, Facist chicken, has been around since 06. Whats going on here?]rew ] ] 02:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
:] is the best response to this vandal. ] 02:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
::Let's all remember the most important thing though: ]. But yeah, RBI. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 02:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
:::But we can't ignore the fact that they are all longtime users. Did something go wrong, or did someone ''actually'' hack their accounts?]rew ] ] 02:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
::::Vandals usually create long-term accounts that are then aged. Any more expansion on this would be against ]. Please just drop it as you are giving the vandal all the attention he wants. ] 02:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::This happens from time to time. And whether they're hacked or the original users, either way they get the hammer. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 04:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
:I'm worried. How come I don't get things like this? All I get is spam for Cialis. '''That''' worries me even more. ] (]) 02:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
::It's a little scary, but it's good to have a reference for a backup plan... for when the time is right. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 04:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
:::According to the ads, the only time that the time is right is when you and your partner are sitting in adjoining bathtubs. ] (]) 17:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

=== Apparent threat by permabanned user ] ===

Last night I received a somewhat disturbing e-mail through the "E-mail this user" feature from someone claiming to be "The Fascist Chicken". (I checked and the username in question is permabanned as a sockpuppet of another permabanned user.) Here is the text of the e-mail, which was dated 1 a.m. on 22 May 2009:<br>
:''Tonight, you’re all gonna be a part of a social experiment. Through the magic of hacking skills and steward powers, I’m ready right now to blow your minds sky high. Anyone attempts to block me or revert, you all get desysopped.<br>

:Each of you has a button to block another editor. At midnight, I desysop and block you all. If, however, one of you indefinitely blocks as many constructive editors as you can, I’ll let that admin keep their admin powers. So, who’s it gonna be? Misplaced Pages’s most-wanted scumbag collection or the sweet and innocent contributors? You choose. Oh, and you might wanna decide quickly because the other administrators may not be quite so noble. — The Joker''<br>

It's probably some guy just blowing smoke but is there any way of shutting down the "e-mail this feature" ability for banned users? And if in the unlikely event this guy does follow through with his threat (if he meant midnight last night then he failed), what is the process for being re-sysopped? Did anyone else receive this e-mail? I personally don't remember ever dealing with this guy, myself. I'm generally not one for bothering to feed the trolls, but it does get annoying when I get e-mails of this nature. Personally I consider myself semi-retired from the project anyway - too much else happening in "real life" - but this is just annoying. ] (]) 13:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The same (self-described) joker has been uttering the same fantasy under a variety of usernames. We are all, like, ''so'' scared by this. -- ] (]) 13:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

:This is a known user. Revert block ignore. Since he's already blocked, simply ignore.] | ] 13:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
:Seems to me that he's just another user obsessed with ].As for the threat, you guys smell that? I smell bull crap. --''''']''''' ] 13:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
::: ...although "The Fascist Chicken" is a cool username LOL (]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''</span>]) 14:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
::::My name is cooler. ]] 16:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::"FascistChicken" is right, and his just fell into the stock pot. If they think they can frighten us into willing submission, they haven't been around very long or are thick. -<font color="32CD32">'']''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>(] ])</sup></font> 17:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::: I really don't think this is a serious attempt at intimidating Misplaced Pages's body of editors. :-) It's probably just a bored teenager who's quite into The Dark Knight. … (Note: I also received a message from "The Joker.") ] 20:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::::I wasn't at all worried when I received this message. Why? Because it's obviously a ]. You see, ''Real Hackers don't warn their targets beforehand unless they are making ] on them''. --] (]) 10:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
It does not seem to be resolved. I just got an email from ] saying the same thing. ]rew ] ] 21:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
:And I, one from ]. <b>]</b> 04:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
::Yes, it seems he reached the A's as I received one from that account as well. Blocked. --]&nbsp;] 04:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
:::File another SPI, if possible, to root out the proxies. -<font color="32CD32">'']''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>(] ])</sup></font> 05:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
::::I just got one from ], aka The Joker. ''''']]]''''' 06:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::Mine came from ], the old username of ]. +]] 07:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::I also got one this morning from ]. It was a lovely thing to wake up to. <font face="Tahoma">] <small>(])</small></font> 07:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
<----Poppypetty is a sysop on french wikipedia. I seriously doubt we have this many established editors in on this.]rew ] ] 08:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What I'm noticing is that these messages are coming from usernames that have been changed. ] was ]. ] was ], who is ''not'' blocked. ] was to ], who is a currently active admin. ] was to ], who is ''not'' blocked and is an admin at French Misplaced Pages. And ] was to ], who is ''not'' blocked. Does this mean all these users are also sockpuppets? Even Ryan Delaney and Poppy, who are both users in good standing and admins either here or at fr-wp? +]] 08:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

:It's my understanding that when an account is renamed, the old username becomes fair game for anyone who wants to re-register it. So no, I don't think that the established accounts have any role in this. --] (]) 08:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
::That is correct. This is also why anyone who requests a rename should re-register the old name after being renamed, and redir the upage/utalk to the right place. //] ] 08:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)</small>
:::So the pattern is that this character is looking for users who renamed themselves, and is latching onto the old name, right? I wonder how many of those there are? Hundreds? ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 08:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Just for the record, I've also received one from 'Poppypetty'. ]&nbsp;] 09:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
:Yeh, it looks like he's working his way through the list of users alphabetically - at least those that have e-mail enabled, which I don't. He's using old ID's to log in and create new ones. So, in effect, he ''is'' conducting a social experiment. I'm assuming the admins are working behind the scenes to choke this character off before he gets too much farther along. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 09:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It's from a known user. Just ignore. All this discussion simply feeds the troll. ] &#124; ] 09:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
:One problem with you guys' theory. Poppypetty had a redirect from his old userpage. Poppypetty ''did'' re-register his old account, and redirected it.] (]) 09:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
:The old user page redirected to the new one, but that doesn't mean the account itself was re-registered. Anyone can replace the content of a user page with a redirect to a new user page. +]] 10:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
*{{vandal|Rx StrangeLove}} needs to be blocked, with email disabled.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 06:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
:Aw, I received a rather cute e-mail. Why so serious? - ] 20:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
=== Solution re: re-registering vacated accounts===
It may be a sound idea to have the "ghosts" of all renamed accounts automatically re-registered through the software. I'm not sure about the technical implications of this, but I can't think of any cons logistically. It extinguishes this joker, anyway. &mdash;<strong>]</strong>] 11:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
: I suggested this a year and a half ago; the usuals have been doing this for a long time. Cheers, ] 12:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
::Mine was reregistered earlier this year after Johnny the Vandal got ahold of it and SUL'd it. I have it again, and I don't think the asylum inmate can guess its pass. As an aside, are we making sure that these accounts' SULs are nullified as soon as they are blocked? -<font color="32CD32">'']''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>(] ])</sup></font> 21:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
<< I'd suggest that on being renamed, a 'crat leaves a user a standard message ''advising'' them to re-register their account. Then it's in people's own hands. <font color="#A20846">╟─]]►]─╢</font> 10:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


=== Multiple similar merged reports ===
<small>moved from its own section. --] (]) 10:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)</small>

]&nbsp;{{toolbar|separator=dot|] | ] }} sent me a funny email through wikipedia's email system about how he is going to hack and desysop me. A truly amazing hacking feat, since I'm not even an admin in the first place:

:"''Tonight, you’re all gonna be a part of a social experiment. Through the magic of hacking skills and steward powers, I’m ready right now to blow your minds sky high. Anyone attempts to block me or revert, you all get desysopped.''"

:"''Each of you has a button to block another editor. At midnight, I desysop and block you all. If, however, one of you indefinitely blocks as many constructive editors as you can, I’ll let that admin keep their admin powers. So, who’s it gonna be? Misplaced Pages’s most-wanted scumbag collection or the sweet and innocent contributors? You choose. Oh, and you might wanna decide quickly because the other administrators may not be quite so noble. — The Joker''"

Please indef-block the wannabe ] and someone check the email system for similar messages. --] (]) 10:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
: He's now blocked. I'm quaking in my janitor's uniform. ] 10:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
:: Oh, and ] has been linked to by AnonDiss below. ] 10:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

;] - Wierd email
<small>moved from its own section. --] (]) 10:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)</small>

Just received this:<br />
<blockquote>Tonight, you’re all gonna be a part of a social experiment. Through the magic of hacking skills and steward powers, I’m ready right now to blow your minds sky high. Anyone attempts to block me or revert, you all get desysopped.

Each of you has a button to block another editor. At midnight, I desysop and block you all. If, however, one of you indefinitely blocks as many constructive editors as you can, I’ll let that admin keep their admin powers. So, who’s it gonna be? Misplaced Pages’s most-wanted scumbag collection or the sweet and innocent contributors? You choose. Oh, and you might wanna decide quickly because the other administrators may not be quite so noble. — The Joker
<br />--<br />
This e-mail was sent by user "Джокер" on the English Misplaced Pages to user "DYKadminBot". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

The sender has not been given any information about your e-mail account and you are not required to reply to this e-mail. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Email>.</blockquote>

<span style='font-family:monospace,tahoma;font-size:90%;'>~ ]]</span> 10:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
:See ]. &mdash;<strong>]</strong>] 10:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

;I just recieved this email from "The Joker"

Not sure what to do (besides obviously not give in to these somewhat confusing demands.) Not sure if this person is serious, but reporting it anyway. Oh, and if he is serious I guess I request unblock and resysopping in advance. ] (]) 12:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
:Merged. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 12:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
::Thanks ] (]) 13:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
:: I wonder when "midnight" is exactly. ] 13:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Might I recommend some admins to this joker? :) ] (]) 13:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Just making it known, the last 30 or so blocks by {{user|AntiAbuseBot}} (the ones from 22nd May onwards), are all of this same clown--]] 14:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Just noting that I got the same e-mail from this same user yesterday. ] (]) 06:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

:Adding my own report as well - I received the same exact email. &mdash; ''']''' (]) &mdash; 15:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

===Stupid "Joker" emails > time to restrict email-sending?===
Would this problem be alleviated if the send-email function was disabled for all users younger than, say, 2 weeks? Because I doubt it'd be much of a difficulty for such newbies, certainly, and if it solved the issue, it's a Good Thing... <font color="#A20846">╟─]]►]─╢</font> 11:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
: Er, what if someone is blocked and wants to contact the blocking admin in case of mistake? ] 11:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
::Well, they have the {{tl|unblock}} template, and if — for whatever reason — they cannot edit their own talkpage, then they were probably abusive and don't have a good claim to be unblocked within a fortnight!
::Anyway, I'm sure it's possible to, say, allow blocked users to email below the age of two weeks, if that's likely to be a big issue for anyone. <font color="#A20846">╟─]]►]─╢</font> 11:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
:::I think this would create a big problem for newbies who are looking for help with our very confusing system. I've helped a lot of people through email. Besides, what's the big problem? I got one from El Guasón and my reaction was "ha ha, that's stupid." ] <small>]</small> 13:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
::::No big problem, which must be disappointing to the wannabe troll. It appears his scheme was to confuse someone into blocking the holders of established (but renamed) accounts. Not only is no one falling for it, it's a bit lulzy to watch him flail. <span style="font-family: serif;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 16:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

===List so far===
Just to make things a bit clearer, since this whole discussion is a mess, I figured it would be a good idea to compile a list of the blocked ones so far, for CU purposes etc. Go ahead and remove this if you think its not appropriate
*{{user|Джокер}}
*{{user|جوكر}}
*{{user|Rx StrangeLove}}
*{{user|The Fascist Chicken}}
*{{user|Malathion}}
*{{user|Anthony S. Tsoumbris}}
*{{user|Poppypetty}}
*{{user|OkerJay}}
*{{user|Suit}}
*{{user|Fire Truck on Fire}}
*{{user|Afghana}}
*{{user|JCutter}}
*{{user|HaHaHaHaHaHaHa}}
*{{user|Funnymanhahaha}}
*{{user|Afghana}} uttered a cry for help--"You wanna know how I got these scars? My father was a drinker and a fiend. And one night, he goes off craaazier than usual. Mommy gets the kitchen knife to defend herself. He doesn’t like that. Not. One. Bit." Etc. --The Joker. ] (]) 18:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
*Plus the ones from here
*Plus the last 30 or so blocks by {{user|AntiAbuseBot}} (the ones from 22nd May onwards)
--]] 14:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
**Add {{user|Funnymanhahaha}} to that list. ] (]) 14:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
*** The general formula is the old usernames of people who have renamed but not registered their old name again. ] 14:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

**Also add ] (note the oh-so-clever use of punctuation). --''']'''''<small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small>'' 18:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
**And {{user|Funnyjoker}} emailed me. ] (]) 21:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
***Ditto that. Just came back from wikibreak to see that... *sigh* –] (]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 22:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
** {{user|Јокег}} (note the characters) just popped up in my inbox. Block away. ''']]]''' 23:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
***Killed; Bongwarrior neglected to emailblock. About the only person he's joking is himself; the charade is up. I'm pretty certain this is another ] wildfire - note the infatution with a recent movie in the use of his usernames and behavior similar to the character they're attempting to emulate. In short, this Joker crap is simply Grawp wearing a fursuit. -<font color="32CD32">'']''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>(] ])</sup></font> 01:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
:::: Got one too. "You wanna know how I got these scars? ..." Seems like a kid who's obsessed with The Dark Knight. --] <sup>]/]</sup> 06:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
::::: Me too. I guess I am well-enough known to get my first clown email. Wish there was a way to visit these folk for some good ol' fashioned biblical-style beat-downs. Oh well, adventures in middle-school. - ] ] 18:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
*{{user|The One & Only Fools and Horses}}
:This may be the same editor discussed below at ] also named ]. ] (]) 01:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
::I just saw that as well, but I don't think(Gut instinct btw) that it is. This trolls MO is stealing old usernames, and this is what El-Pabloski wanted his name change to but hasn't been done yet. I think its more likely our little clown just saw it at UAA, might be a good idea to check the other requested names see if they've been registered too--]] 01:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
::yup, see {{user|Rigaudon}}, {{user|William S. Saturn}} and {{user|The Wine Dude}}, all at UAA and blocked, {{user|BeeZeeEdit}}, registered at at similar time to the others and not blocked yet, and probably not {{user|Miamallory}} as it was registered a few days ago and edited then (an attack page which co-incidentally I deleted)--]] 01:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
*{{user|William S. Saturn}}. He finally got through the H's. Blocked. <span style="white-space:nowrap">— ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small></span> 01:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
**You'd think that he should realize that it's rather pointless now that it's past midnight of the first day. It's obvious that nothing's going to happen. We may want to ] a bit more and just not even mention new socks unless the user who received the e-mail isn't able to block them. –] (]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 02:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
***Just got another one(by which i mean 25), think I must have pissed him off :-). Still not quite sure i get this though, as trolling goes its pretty tame, "ooh scary, an email with a movie based threat", which nobody visiting wikipedia can see meaning it therefore has no negative impact on the project. If this is grawp I almost feel bad for him, he really is running out of ideas, poor little fella--]] 02:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
****Indeed. This seems to be the epitome of "too much time on your hands". Oh well, I have that problem too, most of the time. Drilnoth, you may be correct; I listed here because I wasn't certain if Checkuser ops (or anything else) were still in progress. <span style="white-space:nowrap">— ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small></span> 02:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
*I just got one from {{user|조커}}, who is already indef-blocked. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 05:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
:*And, confirmed - It's Grawp. He's attacking PPG, whom I'm pretty sure Grawp loves to harass. RBI, guys; I'm running scans for OPs as we speak. -<font color="32CD32">'']''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>(] ])</sup></font> 07:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
*Got one from {{user|Man Who Laughs}}, already indef blocked. --] 12:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

=== Where to forward this? ===

{{resolved|ignoring works for me, since others have reported this.--] | ] 14:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)}}
I haven't had enough caffeine yet to figure this out on my own. :)

Some bored vandal sent me an email saying they'd hacked in to a bunch of admin accounts and was going to block all admins who didn't start blocking other editors. I doubt they've hacked into an admin account, but I want to forward the email to the appropriate people. Except I can't remember who handles that.

Thanks!--] | ] 13:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
:Someone might want to merge this with the threads above. This is a known timewaster. Revert, Block, Ignore. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 13:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

:Posting it here is fine; it's already well known though, as you arent' the first. It's an idle threat, nothing like the events described are going to happen, and those who would need to react if it were are already aware of what action they would need to take. So... don't worry, be happy. - <span style="font-family: cursive">]</span> 13:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

::Ignoring and being happy works for me. (I looked through the last half of ANI to see if had been reported -- didn't look at the top. Off for that caffeine now.)--] | ] 14:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
:::One thing though, who was it? Are they already blocked?--]] 22:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
::::It was ]. Looks like they're blocked.--] | ] 23:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(Unindenting) I just received this this morning... I think it's one of the funnier things I've read in a while. Even if this guy's incredible hacking prowess led him to such power, how long would said blocks last before another sysop/steward/whoever reverted them? Two, three minutes? And what admin would ''ever'' actually start blocking good editors based on some ridiculous threat? -- ] ] 14:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

:Heh, I'd imagine a script-kiddie wanting to hack into the admin database would want to do something a lot more destructive than just send out bogus, threatening emails anyway. Wouldn't it be more likely that he'd either just "desysop" everyone himself? &mdash; ''']''' (]) &mdash; 15:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Where to forward this? ] comes to mind... ;) <font face="Comic Sans MS">]]</font> 15:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


== Threat by ] == == Threat by ] ==

Revision as of 15:40, 27 May 2009

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion Centralized discussion
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links


    Report from ThuranX re: Joker "threat" emails

    Section deleted. Given the nature of this problem, there is nothing that anyone who is not a checkuser can do about it, so there's no point fuelling the fire by discussing it and keeping him interested. WP:DENY, please. If you have any concerns, please e-mail the functionaries mailing list, functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org. We are looking at ways to solve this problem. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 15:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Threat by User:Petri Krohn

    Petri Krohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a fairly unambiguous threat against User:Digwuren here. I urged him to remove it; he has edited since then and not done so. I think he should be blocked, and I move for an immediate and permanent community ban. He's been given enough chances. //roux   09:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

    User notified. //roux   09:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

    (edit conflict) To be fair, it doesn't look like an actual threat, more like "MY DADZ A POLICEMAN AND HE'L GET U" — extremely childish, but not a genuine menace (though I'm not familiar with the case, and might have misunderstood it). Therefore, I think that a permanent ban is a bit of an overreaction, and "horrifying" a bit of an exagguration. However, allowing such abuse, absurd as it is, shouldn't happen, so I suggest a block of a week, to be added to any block that might come separately out of the discussion in which the thread was made. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

    See further comment below. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
    This may provide some needed background to this apparently intractable problem. //roux   09:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
    Ah, OK, horse of a different colour. Permaban seems much more palatable now, sorry for the ignorance... ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

    Personally, I really did not read the statement as a threat, but (as he himself said) as a friendly piece of advice. I don't know what he was talking about, but perhaps he meant this "agency." At least give him a change to explain himself before jumping into conclusions. Offliner (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

    Given Krohn's past on Misplaced Pages, I read it more like "Nice place you got here, shame if anything happened to it, know what I mean?" than actual friendly advice. //roux   10:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
    "You may get yourself into trouble because of agency X, you should be careful" is taken for "Nice place you got here, shame if anything happened to it"–with the threat of a permanent ban for the user? (What?) PasswordUsername (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
    The absurdity of thinking that someone would intitiate a threat against another user at ANI is beyond me. PasswordUsername (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

    Looking at the actual edit, it doesn't read like a threat. Petri Krohn is not threatening to take or initiate or cause any action. Warning editors of possible real-world consequences that could follow independently, from the warned editor's actions, isn't a threat. It's wasn't "my Dad's a policeman," which would be a threat to tell Dad. Whether or not it was advisable to say would depend on many factors, but PK's post is primarily a recounting of his history with Digwuren, and to sanction such reports would be chilling. And to propose it here disruptive. That post, to AN, would probably have been seen by many administrators, and if it called for immediate action, surely they would have noticed it. Complaining here is spreading discussion. --Abd (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

    I see no request to User talk:Petri Krohn to remove the comment. The request cited above is to AN. AN is very difficult to follow and I often remove it from my watchlist even when I've posted there. No presumption can be made that an editor has read it. Some of the editors commenting here seem highly involved in disputes with PK, that should be considered as well. --Abd (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

    No request? How about my diff posted above? //roux   18:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "If he continues his edits, he should make sure his true identity remains secret", plus telling that a Russian Agency will take care of him. Not a threat? Of course he did not tell: "you will be killed for making too much noise" as was said by another user in my case , but this is very close.Biophys (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
    There is a threat, yes, but not coming from Petri Krohn, if he is correct. If he's not correct, then, of course, blow it off. I see no sign that Petri Krohn himself is threatening. Now, if it could be shown that he's connected with this "agency," then, of course, he should be out of here in a flash. But that's not the story here, at least not yet. More below. --Abd (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
    I am sorry if I have offend someone. I did not intend to threaten anyone. I have removed my offending comment.
    As for the "Russian Agency", the story is true – and it will have profound effects on Misplaced Pages. It remains to be seen what those are. Looks like the time of free speech is over. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
    No, Petri, it has always been true, and remains true, that if you exercise your rights to free speech, in a way that offends someone with power, you can be harassed, prosecuted, murdered. Misplaced Pages hasn't changed the world in this respect. In fact, sometimes you can offend someone with apparently no power, and the end is the same. Basically, human beings have power and sometimes use it, make them angry enough. Some of us will do anything given sufficient provocation, and there are a few who will be provoked simply by their own imaginations. The world is a dangerous place, still. Welcome to it, it's also quite a nice place and usually safe if you don't go around pissing people off. Unfortunately, some of us find it necessary to speak up, on occasion. I'd probably be high on a list if certain people or organizations were to gain more power, or if I were considered more of a danger, and one of my old friends is seriously dead, for exactly the crime of speaking what he believed, there is an article here about him, you could probably figure it out from my edit history. He lived in Tucson, Arizona. Safe place? Not if you become well-known for something that some really don't want to hear. {He was wrong, by the way, but that doesn't make a difference here, he's still dead.) --Abd (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
    I'm not seeing any activity at Joseph Stalin which seems related to this. If the "Russian Agency" was getting involved in Misplaced Pages, we'd probably see some efforts to rehabilitate Stalin's image. So far, no. --John Nagle (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

    I have clarified my statement in the original thread. What I have now said explicitly is that activity similar to what we have seen on Misplaced Pages may become a criminal offense in Russia, and by extension in Estonia. I was too vague originally. I took efforts to avoid linking anyone to criminal activity, especially as this activity is not criminalized in the United States. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

    P.S. I now see that User:Digwuren had already started an article on the newly created Russian Historical Truth Commission. The associated Law on countermeasures against the rehabilitation of Nazism, Nazi criminals and their associates in former republics of the Soviet Union threatens imprisoned for up to five years. I too find this threatening. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

    P.P.S. Please note that whatever I wrote on ANI was not addressed to Digwuren but to administrators in general and User:Offliner in particular. I have presested my {{WikiThanks}} to Digwuren here. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

    Yes, you also implied that Digwuren has apparently been singled out for special attention by this committee, hence your original "friendly warning" when you said: "If he continues his edits, he should make sure his true identity remains secret. Things said on Misplaced Pages do have effects in the real world. If I am not totally mistaken, Digwuren's edits on Misplaced Pages may have had a small role to play in the creation of the Agency" The question remains who singled Digwuren out and how do you know that Digwuren's activities figure so prominently in the formation of this committee that you felt compelled to give him this additional "friendly thankyou" on his talk page? --Martintg (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

    Permban, I am not sure, but a few month may be helpful. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

    Support a permaban. Krohn was already banned for a year for this kind of anti-estonian polemic. Krohn's remarks read as a threat that this Russian agency would be notified of Digwuren's identity should it ever be revealed, implying that Krohn would report Digwuren to the agency if he continued participating in editing Misplaced Pages. This is intimidatory. Misplaced Pages doesn't need editors with extremist agendas threatening people for the sole reason of belonging to a particular ethnic group. There should be zero tolerance for this kind of intimidation. --Martintg (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

    What you are in fact reading from my comment, is that I would be willing to provide evidence to law enforcement agencies investigating and prosecuting criminal offenses. This is not what I am saying. Even if I did, I do not think this could be considered a threat. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

    Support permaban or very long block. Petri Krohn 's warnings are directed only to people who disagree with him, especially user:Digwuren. Someone who says that dire things will happen to people who dare to disagree with him is not giving "friendly advice"; he is using intimidation to attempt to give himself an advantage. This is an utterly unacceptable debating tactic on Misplaced Pages. Abd's argument that no-one has actually proved that Petri Kohn is "connected with this ‘agency’ " is utterly irrelevant; we don't have a rule that people get a free pass on making threats until someone proves that they are able to carry them out.

    Petri has made two "clarifications". They are oddly different from each other, and neither of them is very clear. One is that “As for the "Russian Agency", the story is true – and it will have profound effects on Misplaced Pages. It remains to be seen what those are. Looks like the time of free speech is over.” The other clarification possibly means that, when Russian law extends to Estonia, Estonians who have disagreed with him are likely to face criminal prosecution. So, possibly this second clarification is "only" a legal threat. Whatever these statements may mean (and I expect there will be more clarifications to these clarifications), in both of them the threatening tone comes through loud and clear. Also, that the threat has now been repeated, and in more than one version, proves that it was not a fluke. Petri Krohn has already served a 1 year block for misbehavior related to his disagreements with Estonian editors; apparently it was not enough. Cardamon (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

    • I support permaban. This user's list of misdeeds is enormous. He is known for advocating inflammatory 'points of view' that he apparently is fighting for in real life, too. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, nor should it be battlefield. Petri Krohn's hint that his 'opponent' Digwuren might get Russian secret service's attention in real life был последней каплей for me. --Miacek (t) 08:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Oppose permaban > 6 months? I've actually just had quite a civil chat with this user on their talkpage, and they don't seem to be the complete crank that they come over to be here. I think that they deserve a long cooling-off period, and then another chance, so I'm suggesting 6 months. Sorry to keep chopping and changing my opinion on this subject, but I hope this will be my final word! ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 08:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    Except that what Krohn regards as Digwuren's POV on Estonian history corresponds to the view of eminent historians such as David J. Smith (who is a Reader in Baltic Studies at the Department of Central and East European Studies, University of Glasgow, and Editor of the Journal of Baltic Studies). This is what Smith writes in his book "Estonia: Independence and European integration". Krohn on the other hand is an apparent member of SAFKA (This has been previously reported to the COI), an activist group that believes the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states is a myth. The activities of the SAFKA have been investigated by the Estonian security police who have discovered some members have links with certain elements within Russia and this has widely reported in the Estonian press. Hence Krohn's "friendly warning" to Digwuren had a chilling effect that was certainly intimidatory. --Martintg (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Support permaban - Digwuren and Petri Krohn were both banned for a year, in part for clashing with each other. Since their return, Digwuren has shown good conduct, but Petri Krohn has proven unable to do so. Implying that the Russian government is going to go after you if you don't change your ways is bound to have a chilling effect, especially on someone from tiny next-door Estonia. We don't want that kind of editing environment, and so I propose Petri Krohn should be excluded from the project. - Biruitorul 15:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    Note to admins–As said before, I find it ridiculous that a particular number of editors who have written above, largely the same group of user who always seek to justify Digwuren's latest pattern of behavior by slinging mud at his opponents, is now seeking to make the claim that Petri Krohn's warning to Digwuren about the latest development on a contested historical issue from the perspective of the Russian government's commission, which he has already amply clarified, is taken for a threat when he posted it on ANI–publicly and under his own name!
    Laughable is the assertion of the editor above, claiming that "since their return, Digwuren has shown good conduct, but Petri Krohn has proven unable to do so." As Offliner has clearly demonstrated here (I strongly recommend reading this thread in full detail–Offliner's post, among other things, features a whole compendium of personal attacks and crass incivility against a number of users, including myself), Digwuren has not shown good faith–rather, the bulk of his edits have been constituted by disrupting and making personal attacks against other editors, including against myself. (This new diversion from Digwuren's behavior–a transformation of the issue into an attack on Petri Krohn for supposed "threats" is interesting of itself.) Digwuren is now proceeding to stalk my edits: compare the good work done by Digwuren as far as these unmistakable instances–plainly obvious from the most recent histories of articles such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
    Moreover, as Digwuren himself wrote on May 11, the day on which within 24 hours of encountering me he laughably accused me of being a sockpuppet of Anonimu or Jacob Peters (he never actually made up his mind as to which editor I was)

    "Today, PasswordUsername asking Petri Krohn for help regarding the Neo-Stalinism categories. It is unlikely to help him -- Mr. Krohn has been behaving rather well in the recent months -- but since this is his very first edit on Krohn's talkpage, and they do not seem to have had previous contacts regarding Stalinism -- neo or otherwise -- it raises a question of why he'd pick Petri Krohn out of the thousands of editors." 7.

    My explanation for "picking Petri Krohn out of the thousands of editors," of course, is explained fully at the same link provided. What is funny is that even Digwuren himelf (in fact, a SPA, unlike Petri Krohn) has publicly acknowledged the good nature of Petri's contributions (again, oddly enough, this being in the context of an obscene attack against myself), but, having now given a history of his rather difficult co-existence with Digwuren's belligerent editing patterns, Petri is accused of some great malice by Digwuren's loyal crew. Frankly, I interpret this as nothing but the bad-faith insults of a lynch-mob threatening to conduct "punishment" against a user whose productive, if not exactly quite passive, editing history stands in sharp juxtaposition against their own. Between Digwuren and Petri Krohn, I can say in all good conscience that if anybody deserves to be permabanned, it is not Petri Krohn–although given the administrators' reluctance to intervene in the dispute against Digwuren by taking measures more stringent than simply asking both Offliner and Digwuren to "walk away and behave," I strongly suggest that the accusations here simply be dismissed as equally frivolous. (And what has been said about Petri is much more frivolous than the substantial cases made against Digwuren many a time in the past.) I encourage all administrators to examine this issue seriously–claims against Petri Krohn are partisan and blatant character assasssinations which should be observed and analyzed just for what they are. PasswordUsername (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Krohn has just issued another "friendly warning" on Digwuren's talk page, implying that this commission will take particular interest in Digwuren and ominously talks of Digwuren in the past tense . --Martintg (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
      • That isn't a "friendly warning" in quotation marks–what Petri says is clearly a commendation for the article he himself had wanted to start and the tense is the grammatical feature of language known as the "future perfect"–but thank you for noting it. I should also note that Petri Krohn opposes the commission, if you're still fond of equivocally speaking of the subject. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Simply not true. SAFKA endorses the law and hails it as "a victory for Safka". The connection between SAFKA members and one of the committee members Alexander Dyukov is well known. There are many editors involved in editing articles about the former Soviet Union, yet Digwuren has apparently been singled out for special attention by this committee, or so Krohn claims. The question remains who singled Digwuren out and how does Krohn know that Digwuren's activities figure so prominently in the formation of this committee? --Martintg (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
          • Sorry, you obviously haven't bothered to read what Petri Krohn has written here at ANI/Incidents, at the main administrators' noticeboard, or on other pages. Whatever organization he may or may not happen to be part of, the opinions he holds as an individual are his own personal thoughts–and he has clearly written online that he, too, "find the law threatening." (See here.) I think you should stop throwing in people's real-life identities in these disputes–regardless of one's ideology, opinions, occupation, or activities in real life, the benchmark for judging the conduct of online contributors is simply their online conduct. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
            • Your initial claim was "Petri Krohn opposes the commission", this is a long way from "find the law threatening". Evidently he was hoping Digwuren would find this law threatening too, enough to intimidate him from further contribution to Misplaced Pages. However this law has absolutely no jurisdiction anywhere outside Russia, except perhaps to those Russian citizens living abroad who may contribute to Misplaced Pages. Yet this "friendly warning" was not offered to any of these Russian editors, only to Digwuren. --Martintg (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
              • The commission is "the law" being referred to here–I think you're attacking the imprecise semantics, yet doing injustice to the concrete meaning (the proposition) being brought up here. (Perhaps the best way of gleaning this is to consult the informal fallacy trivial objections.) The application of the law is coordinated in conjunction with the work done by the Historical Truth Commission–and Petri's already clarified that his concern related to the law's not being limited in scope to Russia's territory. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    P.S.: I even misquoted Petri Krohn's remarks–rather than speaking of "the law," he specifically made clear:

    "P.S. I now see that User:Digwuren had already started an article on the newly created Russian Historical Truth Commission. The associated Law on countermeasures against the rehabilitation of Nazism, Nazi criminals and their associates in former republics of the Soviet Union threatens imprisoned for up to five years. I too find this threatening. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)" (1)

    Whatever else was said by Petri Krohn, it was all in the same vein: nowhere does he endorse the commission (you might want to try asking his own opinion of the commission or gleaning it from what he's written about it before you jump to conclusions). Here's to hoping that this has now clarified everything up for you, Martintg. PasswordUsername (talk) 05:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

    I'm not commenting on the specifics here, because they may come before the Arbitration Committee, but I strongly urge everyone interested in this situation to carefully review and abide by the principles outlined in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

    This hardly should come before the ArbCom because this user was already banned by ArbCom, and a consensus about his behavior was reached at AE noticeboard . Telling another user "If he continues his edits, he should make sure his true identity remains secret" and reminding about an "Agency" was clearly an attempt of intimidation, as noted by DGG at another board . Biophys (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    What I get from the ArbCom case NewYorkBrad refers to are principles in that case concerning harassment and threats, which states: "The making of express or implied threats against another editor is a form of harassment and is prohibited. In particular, any suggestion of seeking to disrupt or harm an editor's off-Misplaced Pages life (including his or her employment) in retaliation for his or her editing on Misplaced Pages is unacceptable.", which links to Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Threats, stating "Legal threats are a special case of threat, with their own settled policy. Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely.". --Martintg (talk) 05:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    This is not a case of legal threat but of legal risk. The relevant section is Raising good-faith concerns:


    “ 5) Under certain circumstances, a user may have good reason to warn another editor that the editor's conduct is putting himself or herself at risk (for example, that he or she is inadvertently revealing personal identifying information or is creating a legal risk). At times, such a communication may be in the best interest of the recipient... ”
    — Raising good-faith concerns
    The text goes on to say: However, the sender should be sure that the communication serves a legitimate purpose and should take great care to ensure that it will not be perceived as threatening by the recipient. If I had felt a need to send communication to Digwuren, I am sure I would have taken great care to ensure that it would not have been perceived as threatening. However my communication at WP:AN mainly served the legitimate purpose of informing the administrators and User Offliner. On the issue of Russian law enforcement we have been in friendly communication. In fact we have collaborated on the article, without a hint of conflict. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Support permaban From the evidence presented it is clear that this user has exhausted the community's patience. He has been banned before and still has not changed his ways. It is high time to eliminate his disruption from the editorial process. I also support removal of Arbcom review. Geoff Plourde (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    Chronic WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA violations by User:Otto4711

    Resolved – 72 hour block

    User:Otto4711 is an individual who has made a number of productive edits in a variety of subjects. He has participated actively at WP:CFD, where he has far too often crossed the line in using bullying, profanity and other abuse of individuals who have disagreed with his positions, in clear violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Most recently, this manifested itself at a CFD where an individual argued for the retention of categories Otto wanted deleted, only to be told that as "an apparent newcomer to CFD you may be ignorant of the history here" see here, and then told that this individual should "know better than to bust out shit like 'deletionist kick', noob" see here.

    This is not a new problem. Otto has had chronic problems with incivility, profanity, abuse and personal attacks, a small sampling of which is provided below, and I would be able to provide dozens more if space permitted:

    And again, the notability of the people buried in the cemetery and even the number of them is not relevant, because the notability of those buried there is in no way connected to the cemetery. Otto4711 (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    And again, Otto, your opinion carries no more weight than other opinions, no matter how many times you repeat it. Believe it or not, Wikipedians are smart enough to understand what you said the first time you said it, and smart enough to know that your saying it over and over doesn't make it true. Ward3001 (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    Well, I can think of at least one Wikpidean who isn't smart enough to understand, despite the repeats. Your "argument" in favor of this category basically amounts to nuh uh, which is about the level of a four year-old. Shock the world, offer up some substantial support of your opinion. Otto4711 (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
    You're skating on thin ice, Otto. Read WP:NPA. Consider this a warning. Ward3001 (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
    Oooh, a warning. If I were wearing boots, I'd be shaking in them. Otto4711 (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
    I responded on your Talk page. Please leave any future personal comments on user talk pages rather than this discussion page. Ward3001 (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

    Insisting that others who disagree with his positions are ignorant is also not new: A frequent theme is a repeated accusation that those who disagree with him have some fundamental misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages policy. No documentation is provided to support the claim, but the accusation is made regardless:

    • This diff "Except of course that without independent reliable sources the items on this list are not notable, something that you are either unable to understand or that you understand but in your zeal to keep everything you choose to ignore"
    • This diff "Talk about having no grasp of basic understanding of WP policies and guidelines. WP:CLN in no way obviates WP:NOT and a collection of every beverage that exists within every fictional setting that lacks reliable sources that discuss the concept of fictional beverages is trivial garbage."

    Otto insists that he is entitled to spew profanity-laden abuse based on the fact that Misplaced Pages is not censored. Unfortunately that policy only applies where necessary and in direct quotations in articles. One need only look at his utterly failed attempt at adminship provides multiple examples of profanity, used as part of his uncivil behavior.

    While this may be viewed as an isolated incident, there have been many prior issues raised regarding Otto's behavior, including several issues of incivility, profanity and personal attacks:

    Otto is clearly capable of productive work, especially when interaction with other editors is minimized. A brief block, with warnings that further violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA will result in blocks of increasing severity may have the effect of eliminating this rather unfortunate and abusive behavior. Eliminating Otto's participation at CfD through a content ban, where he has demonstrated the lion's share of his abuse, may also be an effective means to allow Otto to focus on where he can be productive without being disruptive. Alansohn (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

    After reviewing the diffs and prior discussions provided, I agree with Alansohn's assessment and would support either or both of the remedies he proposes, except maybe if Otto4711 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) chooses to react to this thread, of which he has been notified, in a particularly constructive manner. His block log is also worth taking into account.  Sandstein  21:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    1. Alansohn has proven that Otto's been rude on a continuing basis right up until just recently, with clear violations of WP:CIVIL; 2. Otto just has a nasty attitude, and I think many, many editors who participate in deletion discussions have seen many, many examples of it -- this isn't even the tip of the tip of the iceberg. 3. Otto shows no signs of stopping, and his attitude is on display in his comment here, now. Sandstein just left a pretty broad hint suggestion as to what Otto's proper response should be, and it's been ignored. That's telling. 4. I still remember being stung by Otto's comments in '06 or '07 -- he really makes an impression on editors and sets a terrible example for new ones, or editors who are new to deletion discussions, as I was then. If this were just old news, it'd be something to forget about, but it appears that it's just continuing. 5. Unless the block or topic ban is done now, or admins decide to watch him carefully, this behavior will just continue -- disturbing more editors and just kicking the can forward until it stops on another day at AN/I. 6. WP:KETTLE is no defense. 7. I'd support either both of Alansohn's suggested remedies. Really, it's hard not to. Editors who participate in deletion discussions shouldn't have to put up with this. -- Noroton (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    72 hour block for Otto4711, agree with Noroton. Also noting Alansohn really needs to avoid terms like "foolish" and "nonsensical". — Rlevse • Talk • 02:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "people"?? Please elaborate and provide diffs. What did the "other side" do, and who are these people? Otto's history, recent actions and current attitude are clear, so the reason for a block is clear. Please clarify your own proposal. -- Noroton (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Alansohn has been blocked twice recently (probably due to disputes in cfd with Otto) whereas Otto4711 has not. I did protest about the blocking of A (to no avail) and shall now protest about the blocking of O. Both editors have strong views and express themselves trenchantly at times. (Otto has delivered fruit-related barbs in my direction, eg in this cfd discussion a banana wagon is introduced into cfd, possibly for the first time; so I am not 'on his side'.) Occuli (talk) 02:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Endorse block due to extensive history of incivility. Otto has indeed done some comendable work on GAs, but there has been much more incivility in his edit history than even his block log would suggest. Sincerely, --A Nobody 00:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    User:BatteryIncluded on Talk:Life

    User BatteryIncluded (BI) has twice now removed a large comment block (mine) from Talk:Life: See today's delete diff and yesterday's delete diff. I have pointed him to WP:TALK for basic guidance, but he did not acknowledge and now repeats his violation. Seeking some assistance. Regards, -Stevertigo 21:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

    Thank you Baseball Bugs for chiming in on the talk page. I went ahead and restored my comments to that page, and in the event that BatteryIncluded removes them again (violating WP:TPOC), I humbly request that an admin here takes action. Regards, Stevertigo 23:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


    I will keep ignoring Steve's attempt to debate the meaning of "meaning" and miscelaneous words. I am sure there are forums to do that. If the administrators want to preserve in there Steve's personal beliefs on the worthiness of biological sciences, that will be fine. As a molecular biologist I will keep to labor for the article's scientific accuracy, so his inclusion of pseudo-scientific terms and original research in the article will be deleted again. You can have the talk page and write a novel if you wish. However, no drama Steve can make in the talk page will change scientific methods, terms, international conventions or biological facts.

    Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

    You are within your rights to ignore comments made in talkspace, but unless they are made in bad faith (and we are encouraged to assume the opposite) they should not be removed. If there is some question of whether there is a bad faith intent behind the edits, then request the view of a neutral third party to make a determination and to try and deal with the issue. Talkspace and article space are different creatures (no pun intended, but I will accept the kudos) and while accuracy and sourcing is required for editing the subject, the only consideration in talkspace is the intent - if it is honest and well meaning then it stays; no matter how ludicrous the content. I trust this clarifies the "Misplaced Pages method" of creating content. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    I dropped in at the talk page (and some damaging edits made to the article) and BI, who I don't know from Adam, is perfectly right. For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War -- and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge -- get all pissy when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment. Peter Damian (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Indeed; but it is easy enough for any expert in the field to say, "These are my sources, please cite yours," LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    And it only takes Randy about three seconds to say "I see all of your sources are from tradionalist historians who believe that only things that are documented to have happened happened. I just so know Crackpot McJunkyscience, who, as you may know, is the foremost authority on turning Lead into Gold, wrote a paper on this recently, in the very reputable journal Frontiers of History in Kyrgistan. His paper was cited favorably by Loonytons Dementia the third in his well regarded book "Things I Thought About Whilst Crapping," published by very reputable publisher Eastern European Scientific. He says that Skeletons absolutly fought in the Peloponnesian War, and, since he's the most recent article published on the actual combatents in the war, it is very important that we have a section on his opinion of skeleton combattants. Hipocrite (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    User:United Statesman

    Resolved – User blocked and email disabled. Law type! snype? 07:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Little problem here. Someone has been sending e-mail messages to other Misplaced Pages members (whom they do not know) using my former username. Not only that, the e-mails are repulsive. A member sent me the contents of the message he got:

    You wanna know how I got these scars? My father was a drinker and a fiend. And one night, he goes off craaazier than usual. Mommy gets the kitchen knife to defend herself. He doesn't like that. Not. One. Bit. So, me watching, he takes the knife to her, laughing while he does it. He turns to me, and he says, "Why so serious?" He comes at me with the knife: "Why so serious?" Sticks the blade in my mouth: "Let's put a smile on that face." Aaand.why so serious? - The Joker

    My username was United Statesman until a couple of weeks ago, when I changed it to Brunswickian. And now, someone is playing a sick joke, as the current United Statesman has no edits and re-directs to my userpage. B R U N S W I C K I A N 07:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

    Looks like the Joker vandal. This issue has been raised at WP:BN under the section heading "Renames and the Joker" --t'shael mindmeld 08:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    The account has been blocked by another admin and the user can no longer send emails. The remarks in the email stem from the movie the Dark Knight, so maybe that makes it less creepy, and certainly unoriginal. If the joker decides to quote The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, then I'd be very concerned. Law type! snype? 11:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I got that too and deleted it as a random stupid joke. Probably worth mentioning to people that they should recreate their old account after a rename. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    More out of process category renames

    Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is still at it, changing categories out-of-process without consensus. He not only should know better, he's already participated in the earlier complaints. What can be done?

    Probably missing some, where he fails to provide an edit summary:

    1. 2009-05-24T00:03:00 Template:Failed verification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (top)
    2. 2009-05-24T00:08:47 Template:Original research (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (since=>from and simplify) (top)
    3. 2009-05-24T00:13:13 Template:Or (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (top)
    4. 2009-05-24T20:44:21 Template:Expand-section (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    5. 2009-05-24T21:09:55 Template:Article issues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (since => from)
    6. 2009-05-24T22:15:51 Template:Mergefrom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (since=> from) (top)
    7. 2009-05-24T22:18:34 Template:Mergeto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (since=> from : rmeover the category parameter: not likely to be used in article space.) (top)
    8. 2009-05-24T22:24:33 Template:Mergefrom-multiple (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (clean up using AWB) (top)
    9. 2009-05-24T22:25:04 Template:Merge JRRT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from using AWB) (top)
    10. 2009-05-24T22:25:42 Template:Merge FJC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from, Replaced: since → from, using AWB) (top)
    11. 2009-05-24T22:26:38 Template:Merge-school (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup using AWB) (top)
    12. 2009-05-24T22:27:07 Template:Portalmerge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup using AWB) (top)
    13. 2009-05-24T22:27:23 Template:NorthAmMergeto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup using AWB) (top)
    14. 2009-05-24T22:27:40 Template:Multiplemergefrom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup using AWB) (top)
    15. 2009-05-24T22:28:56 Template:Merging (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup using AWB) (top)
    16. 2009-05-24T22:29:15 Template:Mergetomultiple-with (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup using AWB) (top)
    17. 2009-05-24T22:30:32 Template:Mergeto2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup using AWB) (top)
    18. 2009-05-24T22:30:41 Template:Mergeto-multiple (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup, Replaced: since → from, using AWB) (top)
    19. 2009-05-24T22:30:55 Template:Mergesections (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup, Replaced: since → from, using AWB) (top)
    20. 2009-05-24T22:31:05 Template:Mergesection (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup, Replaced: since → from, using AWB) (top)
    21. 2009-05-24T22:32:35 Template:Mergefrom-category (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup, Replaced: since → from, using AWB) (top)
    22. 2009-05-24T22:32:55 Template:Merge-multiple-to (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup, Replaced: since → from, using AWB) (top)
    23. 2009-05-24T22:33:00 Template:Merge-multiple (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup, Replaced: since → from, using AWB) (top)
    24. 2009-05-24T22:33:06 Template:Merge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup, Replaced: since → from, using AWB) (top)
    25. 2009-05-24T22:33:19 Template:Afd-mergeto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup, Replaced: since → from, using AWB) (top)
    26. 2009-05-24T22:33:25 Template:Afd-mergefrom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup, Replaced: since → from, using AWB) (top)
    27. 2009-05-24T22:34:57 Template:Expert-verify (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    28. 2009-05-24T22:35:22 Template:Expert-verify (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (top)
    29. 2009-05-24T22:36:25 Template:Expert-subject (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (top)
    30. 2009-05-24T22:48:35 Template:Tdeprecated (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (since=> from. Stop self include.)
    31. 2009-05-24T22:49:52 Template:Tdeprecated (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (top)
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    I reverted all of those edits (and probably a few more related edits in sequence, which may have been sensible.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    These were trivial edits, changing only "since" to "from", standardising all 42 Misplaced Pages maintenance categories involving dated categories. Making changes is not sensible. Why are you undoing another admins actions for no good reason? Debresser (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    Arthur Rubin wrote Rich to his talk page here. But didn't await his reply or actions. And see my reply there that Arthur Rubin was non-specific and did not take the most logical course of action. Debresser (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    See also above and this diff, where Arthur Rubin admits he might have reverted some sensible changes. Debresser (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

    People should know better than to respond to these sort of trollings. The reversion breaks maybe a zillion articles, maybe two zillion. Rich Farmbrough, 13:36 25 May 2009 (UTC).

    People should know better than to change a template/category pattern without discussing it in the relevant WikiProject or on TfD or CfD. As I pointed on in a smaller rename (about 38 decade names), we need to make sure that all the links are done correctly. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    Since either "since" needed to be changed to "from" or "from" to "since", both causing a significant disruption, you should have discussed which it was to be before making the changes. I don't think I have the tools you constructed to reduce the auxilliary errors caused by the process. I suppose, at this point, the good of Misplaced Pages suggests I allow to continue as you wish, as I don't know how else to mitigate the damage you caused.
    For the most part, From is just wrong. I suppose I had better revert my corrections, as I can't figure out else to repair the damage. May I suggest that you rename all the generated categories to "since YYYY-MM", as that makes automated processing easier? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    See Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#More_out_of_process_category_renames for linguistic arguments to choose "from" rather than "since". But that can be discussed and taken care of later. When we had 32 categories at "from" and only 9 at "since" (and 1 at "as of") the obvious choice was to go to "from". Debresser (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    Actually, changing all categories to another format will be a lot easier after Rich finishes. His edits are well though through and take care of all loose ends. See Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template which started geting crowded right after Arthur Rubin's actions and is now again depopulated. Debresser (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Points to Rich Farmbrough for being bold on this one, but since it's obvious that these changes have encountered opposition, he should stop his unilateral changes and submit them to CFD, which is the process established for exactly this purpose. I have no opinion on whether any of his changes are actually a good idea, but wholesale changes of this sort generally set somebody's nose out of joint. Best to send it through the process created for the purpose.--Aervanath (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    Not convinced of the need of process as the 32 vs 9 argument goes well with WP:IAR in particular as the discussion is under discussion and a final resting place can easier be dug with those changes already in place. Agathoclea (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    • The above demonstrate at least 30 changes in 1 day — "since" to "from" — your count must be inaccurate. WP:IAR is inapplicable, as Farmbrough's edits were not improving or maintaining anything. Indeed, as Arthur Rubin learned, Farmbrough actually made it difficult to revert, an essential maintenance function.
      --William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    1. I said 32 categories, not templates.
    2. As I said before, it will be easy to make changes after you let Rich finish. Debresser (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    Who are "the folks at WT:CFD#CfD categories renamed"? Is that some Misplaced Pages subgroup with special rights somewhere? Trying to own part of Misplaced Pages? Or is that you and me and Rich and anybody else who wants to contribute to Misplaced Pages in good faith? Debresser (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    Of course it means "everybody who wants to contribute to Misplaced Pages in good faith"...which means consulting other editors and being willing to seek consensus for your actions once objections have become known.--Aervanath (talk) 07:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    You and me know that, but do all editors involved in this discussion know that? I have a reasonable doubt as to that. Debresser (talk) 09:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    So if we agree on this, why don't we agree that Rich should stop and let his changes be discussed more thoroughly with all interested parties before he continues with the wholesale changes?--Aervanath (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    See e.g. Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_26#Category:Pages_for_deletion where William Allen Simpson uses language such as "Obviously, we decided by consensus" (without any reference to that discussion, btw). Debresser (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Actually, in that discussion he does reference a discussion from 2006 in the nomination.--Aervanath (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Thank you. My fault completely. You might be interested in Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#User:William_Allen_Simpson. Debresser (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    KoshVorlon and rollback

    This has nothing to do with his sig. Earlier today I removed a link from Dead Sea Scrolls which has too many external links - I made my reasons clear in the edit summary. KoshVorlon (talk · contribs) reverted it using rollback (I'm told). I discovered he'd done the same thing to Acalamari . Looking at his history page, it looks like he's also done it to QuackGuru and just now he's removed referenced text. As I could be considered involved (see my talk page where someone has commented on his removal of the link on Dead Sea Scrolls I'd appreciate it if another Admin could deal with this. He's using Lupin's tools it seems, if that's relevant. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

    The edit to Dead Sea Scrolls which Dougweller made was this, and Kosh's rollback was here. Seems to me that would constitute a violation of the rollback guidelines (WP:RBK). I recall other cases previously where rollback-like edits of good-faith contributions were permissible (e.g., using WP:TW) provided a descriptive edit summary was used. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    I'm not really looking for drama here. However, Yes, I do use Lupin's tools, and have been doing so for quite some time.

    First, let me point out that Dougweller made no attempt to ask me about these rollbacks. Had he, we might not be on this board. The rollbacks were all done in good faith. I have no agenda on the Dead Sea Scroll pages, in fact, my only edit was the removal of a blog from that page. (In Lupin's tools, it highlighted a blogsite and I used the rollback function to take it out, per our policy). As far as QuackGuru, yes, I've been reverted him a lot today, for his usual "Jimbo Wales is the CO-Founder" of Misplaced Pages " edits. The particular edit that Dougweller is talking about is a different page where a Sultan had a highlighted nickname of "The Lame", which was obviously not supposed to be there. I would prefer to continue this discussion with DougWeller directly , as it should be ( disupte resolution ? ) instead of bringing more drama here. I would move that this section be closed and I will continue discussions with Dougweller. (However, I , as before, will yield to consensus)Naluboutes, Nalubotes 22:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

    Consensus is that one should use rollback only for vandalism reversion. Were you not aware of that?--chaser (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    Of course. The edits I described above are obvious vandalism. Giving some the nickname "The Lame" is vandalism, as is adding in non-rs sites. That's why I use the tools. Take a look at my contributions and you'll see that I have a history with those tools, and I've not encountered any issues (except for a few mistakes, like putting a test1 message on the wrong person's page, as would be normal) My use of this tools has always been in good faith.Naluboutes, Nalubotes 22:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what "the Lame" is about (diff?), but the latter example and the other diffs in this thread are not vandalism. See WP:NOTVAND generally. Vandalism is actually more narrowly defined around here than you might think.--chaser (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    Why are we accusing Kosh of abusing rollback? According to this, he doesn't even have rollback! He must have been faking it, that's always possible. → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 22:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    Wait a moment, can I get this straight please. KoshVorlon, you are saying you made this revert because the other editor was referring to Tamerlane, and you think that because that name incorporates the historic nickname "The Lame" it was vandalism? Can you please quickly say something that convinces me you are not on a trolling spree here? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    ...and adding a non-reliable source is not necessarily vandalism if one follows WP:AGF to start. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    I'm gonna suggest you WP:AGF on this one, FPaS. If I weren't familiar with the etymology of "Tamerlane" courtesy of Badass of the Week, I'd probably have made the same mistake as KV upon seeing him referred to as "Timur the Lame." It sure as hell sounds like something a vandal would add, since "lame" seems to be a favorite... rdfox 76 (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    Even if Kosh isn't using the real Rollback, the reason using rollback for reverting good-faith edits is frowned upon is not because of the tool, but because of the lack of any reasonable edit summary. Using a rollback-style edit summary while reverting edits is tantamount to saying "rvv" in an edit summary. While I have no opinion of QG's edits, characterizing DougWeller's edits as vandalism without any obvious evidence of those edits being deliberately bad is just plain wrong. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 23:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    I agree with Mendaliv here. Undoing/reverting/rolling back edits with a generic edit summary (those edit summaries are the exact same native rollback uses) is basically saying to editors that you feel their edit was so worthless it didn't deserve a descriptive reason for your undoing it. This is not collegial. Use undo with an edit summary (or twinkle's rollback that allows you to enter an edit summary) except in cases of clear vandalism. –xeno 00:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    FPAS .. your'e correct. Timur the Lame appears to be vandalism, and so it was reverted. This was a good faith revert. Just for clarities sake, I don't have Rollback. I am and have been using Lupins tools which allow for a quick revert, in which I can see an edit summary window for 2 seconds (literally). Not enough time is available to enter in any type of edit summary (and I'm pretty quick typist, 80-85 WPM)! Check my contrbs and you'll note I've used this tool in past, in good faith. Especially take a look at the Dwight Lauderdale page and you'll see plenty of examples of me reverting in bad faith. You'll know it by the summaries (pretty incivil!).


    Naluboutes, Nalubotes 01:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    That's a bit more understandable, but even so Kosh, the use of automated tools, no matter how well or poorly designed, does not excuse their users from the behavioral expectations the community has of editors not using automated tools. All that's being asked here is that you not make rollback-type edits to revert things that don't meet Misplaced Pages's definition of vandalism. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    ..."appears to be vandalism"? KoshVorlon, are you actually still of the opinion it was vandalism? Have you taken the time to understand that the byname "the Lame" is a well-established historical name of this ruler? And, in addition, did you even read the diff carefully enough to understand that the edit you reverted wasn't even the one that introduced the phrase? "The Lame" had been part of that passage long before KansasBear's edit (and your revert didn't remove it either). What were you thinking? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    << KV does seem to have a bit of a problem with assuming good faith; he notes above that, "...is vandalism, as is adding in non-rs sites. That's why I use the tools." In addition to being factually incorrect, it has a rather unappealing defensive tone. He still seems to be defending his reversion of "The Lame" (above), not as a mistake—which would be reasonable—but as perfectly proper.
    I don't think any action's warranted, but, KV, I urge you to be much more careful. If the automated tools you're using don't give you time to check that you're not making mistakes like the various ones above, then find some other ones or do it by hand. Twinkle is good, if you're looking, because it uses the normal diff system before giving one the oppurtunity to revert. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 07:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    No doubt, this excuse doesn't hold water. Popups has the ability to click "undo" (it's right next to revert), at which time you can enter a descriptive edit summary as to why you are reverting the edit. Further abuse may result in the removal of the privilege of semi-automated tools. –xeno 17:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    FPAS, step away from the horse carcass, please. Anyone with 1/2 a brain would look at an entry that shows a historical figure nicknamed "The Lame" and at least consider that it could be vandalism.
    AGF.
    I'm closing this now. This whole episode is imporper from the word go. The admin filing the report failed to follow WP:DR at all and it definetly not "involved". So....... stick a fork in it and call it done.< br/> KoshVorlon (talk)
    Please don't "close" threads dealing with yourself. As to the dead horse, well, perhaps it is one, but you still seem not to have understood the issue: perhaps anybody with half a brain would consider whether "The Lame" might be vandalism, but a wikipedian with a bit more than half a brain would be expected to actually check whether it is vandalism, before accusing other users of such. If you are now admitting you made a mistake, fine, we can call this finished, but your defiant tone is hardly fitting here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    User:194x144x90x118

    I am concerned that, while this user is making some useful edits, they are outweighed by his general incivility to other editors. It isn't hard to understand why he dislikes me, since I blocked him, incorrectly supposing him to be a sockpuppet, about a month ago, when he was a relatively new user. But his incivility and refusal to assume good faith has been directed at many more people than myself. In general, I've avoided contact with him except when he's definitely breaking the rules, but I couldn't help noticing that the problem does not appear to be going away. A few examples of edits that I found problematic include the 'no one is allowed to talk to me' message on his talk page, his repeated undoing of another user's edits, this charming personal attack- and that's just the last two days. Because he is so convinced of my incompetence, I am hoping that an uninvolved editor would be willing to read through his talk page and express an opinion on what, if any, action might be called for. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    Second FisherQueen's request, since I'm apparently too incompetent and insane to deal with this user...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    My good friends SarekOfVulcan and FisherQueen that like writing on my talkpage so very much, well I am glad that we are now able to discuss our matters with more of our friends. I'd like to start out by repeating a reply that I wish that someone else would have written on my talkpage but nobody did:

    I just viewed the talk page of the dreamhost article and I can see that 194x makes some valid points regarding alleged strange behavior of the admin Sarekofvulcan, like 194x says the dreamhost talk page is rather clouted with personal attack from the user he mentions and I for one find it strange that the admin finally chose to block both 194x and the other user at the same time as if they were somehow equally guilty especially seeing as 194x had mainly been reacting to the other users personal attacks and nothing had previously been done about them whatsoever.

    I also took a look at the block by Fisherqueeen that 194x mentions and I have to say that the only things that I can think of that could possibly have led Fisherqueen to come to that conclusion are A. the fact that 194x stated an opinion, something not strictly prohibited by wikipedias rules and B. Wishful thinking. It also seems as if another editor warned Fisherqueen that she was indeed mistaken but she decided to ignore his words. Also these "if you were wise" and "right to expect" remarks that she made on his talkpage are hardly appropriate seeing that she is a wikipedia admin so perhaps it would be best if Fisherqueen left matters relating to this user for someone else to deal with in the future. --194x144x90x118 (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    As far as I know, Julius Cesar talked in the 3rd person when he was referring to himself. Is this or such resemblance intended? Just wondering.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    I was confused for a moment as well. 194x144x90x118 is printing the administrative reply he is hoping someone will give him. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    That is possible as it makes sense. Let's see if s/he'll comment on this.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Per The Magnificent Clean-keepers polite request, I stated "I'd like to start out by repeating a reply that I wish that someone else would have written on my talkpage but nobody did:" So in other words I am both displaying my disappointment that nobody took a look at the other side of the coin and writing a pseudo reply as if someone had. I was unaware that Julius Cesar talked in the 3rd person when referring to himself. Expect further replies from my behalf regarding more serious aspects of the issue that we were discussing.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    The specific conversation that this user is referencing is here. Notice that I undid the block in question on April 30, which was nearly a full month ago. There does not seem to be any further action I can take regarding it, and it is not directly related to my concern regarding this user's current edits. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    I'm a little worried by this editor's apparent interest in FisherQueen's work here; in particular, I see no reason why this edit occurred, beyond her input to that situation, and on the face of it, this is getting perilously close to WP:HOUND. On the other hand, if a reasonable justification is forthcoming... Rodhullandemu 01:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Ok man you want it you've got it I aint hounding anyone the edit you are referring to was actually a well motivated edit, after seeing all that discussion that he had been participating in I just thought I'd give the fellow a little pat on the shoulder, we all need one every now and then, my hope was that it would calm the fellow down and motivate him to use his time for something more productive.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 02:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    You told him that you were familiar with his accomplishments on the screen. Which particular role of his did you notice and remember him by name from? Was it 'bar patron,' or 'party guy?' -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    My dear, this is Not the place for casual chat or personal attacks. Do try to maintain the very high standard that you demand from other users.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Do try not to patronise other editors; it scores very low on the kudos scale. Rodhullandemu 02:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    (ec)Well, perhaps, but I didn't think "Don't be wasting too much of your valuable time and energy on these people, life is too short." was particularly helpful in the circumstances; it shows to me a lack of understanding of the policies and issues that led to the blocking, and a lack of good faith in the editors who had given quite enough advice to that editor before their patience was exhausted. Rodhullandemu 02:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    I don't think that you quite understood what I wanted to say, I didn't necessarily write my honest opinion there, the reason I wrote that was that I was concerned for the well being of the individual and my hope was that those remarks would ease its mind and make it feel less "alone in the world", I wrote those comments on the users talkpage not the proposed deletion thread so they were primarily intended for his eyes. The carrot and the stick, both are necessary you know what I mean?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    WP is not a forum and social network. Even so it is not against any rule, "...a little pat on the shoulder,..." is basically a nice thing to do, the way you phrased it wasn't helpful to the editor (nor to your résumé) as you should first familiarize yourself with rules and guidelines so you can give him/her some helpful advise how s/he can do better in the future. You chose not to do so. In fact, you gave this editor no real advise but instead clearly (very) bad advise. You have to make yourself familiar with policies, rules and guidelines before attempting to "help" others or you'll just draw them in the same or similar trouble you're in; Or you might just drive them away this way which would be even worse.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    My advice to the editor was to not waste too much of his time on these matters. The guy obviously wasn't on the right path and if he wants that article to someday acctually excist here on wikipedia then he'll have to get himself a little bit away from his computer and do something to justify its creation. My advice was good.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 02:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Well then, assuming good faith regarding your comment at this editors talk page, it wasn't good advise. Details are already pointed out at my comment above. Maybe "watch-and-learn" (as I did and still do) might help?
    BTW, regarding the small print above: Would you mind to enlighten us and clarify? --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Another "BTW": Quote: "My advice was good". No it wasn't. Not in my opinion. Although you think so it is a common and human error that happened to you, me and everybody else. We always think we do or say the right thing and might see and regret our errors later, (or not...).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Second that. The section in that edit was titled "Your article". That is leading him to believe that he owns the article. Nobody owns articles. MuZemike 05:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Strange editor, more disruption than contribution, seems very much to be a sock (why was the initial finding overturned)? Has recently taken interest in and edit warred on Obama-related matters on another editor's talk page. Inappropriate and misleading talk page "disclaimer" that would be disruptive if acted on, and it apparently is. I tried to delete this as improper use of talk page but TMCK restored. More interest in drama than editing. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    User:DreamGuy

    Resolved – moved to WP:AE

    Extended content

    User:DreamGuy is out of control and must be stopped for the sake of the Misplaced Pages project. He has been sanctioned (see Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions), but to no effect. He continues to be uncivil, makes personal attacks, and makes assumptions of bad faith of all who do not share his POV. This longtime editor has a very long and documented history as a bully editor who harasses and demeans anyone who has a different point of view from his own. He stalks the edits of users, edit wars, refuses to accept AfD consensus if it does not meet his own POV, is argumentative in discussions and on talk pages, assumes bad faith in all who disagree with him, and trolls to bait otherwise well-intentioned editors to violate policy by retaliating to his uncivil behavior. He is a known abuser of multiple accounts. He has frequently been blocked from editing, but somehow he has been able to weasel his way to having the block rescinded or shortened. Why he has not been blocked for life I do not know (some admins look at his positive contributions, but his negative contributions are too numerous and severe to continue to ignore). Other editors are afraid of him because of his aggressive revenge tactics of complaints, trolling, staling, edit warring, ect. He has been allowed to continue his tactics for much too long. It is an understatement to assert that dozens of well intentioned editors have been hounded and bullied by User:DreamGuy to the point that they have abandoned the Misplaced Pages project because they do not want to continue to experience DreamGuy's negative confrontations; or worse, they have been so dismayed by their wiki-experience that they participate in a non-constructive way. The following are just some examples of his negativity from just the past few days. It is time to stop DreamGuy. he is out of control, and it is negatively affecting how other editors contribute in editing and discussions.

    Uncivil comments directed at User:Colonel Warden

    Uncivil comments concerning User:Varbas:

    Uncivil comments directed at User:MichaelQSchmidt

    Uncivil comments directed at User:DGG

    Uncivil comments directed at User:Nacl11

    General Uncivil comments and trolling in various AfD's and discusion pages:

    Examples of DreamGuy not accepting consensus of AfD and continuing to edit war on articles:

    Examples of Uncivil edit comments:

    • 16:17, 25 May 2009 Richard von Krafft-Ebing ? (removed bad edit that interrupted flow of sentence (leaving a fragment) and falsely claims that another edition that clearly had the main name of Psychopathia Sexualis supposedly had a different name)
    • 16:14, 25 May 2009 Vampire ? (remove massive POV pushing with editor choosing cources that fundamentally change definition of vampire to cover unrelated creatures due to sloppy research by unreliable sources, per WP:UNDUE)
    • 01:46, 24 May 2009 Talk:Vince Orlando ? (Undid revision 291810342 by Ron Ritzman (talk) nonadmin trying to do a close but violated policy and can't count votes)
    • 15:19, 23 May 2009 Moll Dyer ? (some of the worst edits on Misplaced Pages are dedicated AFD Keep voters putting garbage info and unreliable sources/link on pages -- cleaning up)
    • 22:06, 22 May 2009 Steven Van Slyke ? (?Highly Cited Publications: really stupid to have a subsection called this)
    • 21:52, 22 May 2009 Pazuzu ? (Reverted 1 edit by 76.113.39.176; Who? and who cares?. (TW))
    • 16:13, 22 May 2009 Elizabeth Báthory in popular culture ? (this is about pop culture, don't need a WP:FORK of the main article discussing history -- and removing amazingly bad POV-pushing, point linkspam)
    • 15:55, 22 May 2009 Ivanhoe ? (?Plot Summary: plot tag - wayyyyyyy too long)
    • 19:11, 20 May 2009 User talk:DreamGuy ? (Undid revision 291129609 by Colonel Warden (talk) rv wikilawyering nonsense by problem editor) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.39.30 (talk)
    • Note: The same thing was posted twice, so I just removed the duplicate. Killiondude (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    This looks like an issue for the Wikiquette board. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Note: I changed the section header and notified DreamGuy. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    This was the IP's first edit. Again, there is something not right here. MuZemike 05:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    I agree that this simple cannot be the user's first edit in Misplaced Pages. Whether it is a indef blocked/banned user should be determined before assuming the worst seems a good route to go. Looking at the evidence provided, it would appear that DG has indeed failed to follow his civility parole as dictated by ArbCom Enforcement. Of course, I'm not neutral in this, as I've been subjected to DG's colorful behavior on a few occasions. I do note that his old chestnut "blind reverting" pops up here and there,which implies, like the rest of the diffs, that he is smarter than the rest of us. The identity of the anon aside, this might bear examination. - Arcayne () 15:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    You aren't neutral on this by any means as you have a long and documented history of filing false accusations against me. I see that even when I try to steer way clear of you that you still show up to make such accusations and are now engaged in the same behavior I pointed out years back with other editors. DreamGuy (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    I actually said that I wasn't neutral, DG. perhaps you missed that in your rush to post. I am not making any false accusations. At all. I never have. I am simply saying that the diffs listed above seem more than a little familiar to someone who has had to interact with you before. - Arcayne () 16:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    I saw you that you said that, but I was just pointing out the actual reason why you aren't neutral. DreamGuy (talk)
    Sigh. Anyhoo, John will address it as he sees fit. I just pointed out that the tone seemed familiar. Thanks for reinforcing my point, though. - Arcayne () 18:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    After reading through some of the above diffs, it looks like there are several multi-party edit wars in progress. From the diffs alone, it's hard to tell what the issues are. It doesn't seem to be a big enough issue for ArbCom. It will probably take an hour or so of work for someone (not me) to sort out the issues before taking action. --John Nagle (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    This anon IP account (who obviously is a regular user signed out) seems to want to portray catching bad edits to improve the articles in question as somehow a bad thing. Looks like yet the latest revenge filing by some disgruntled editor who can't get consensus to do what he/she wants to do and therefore lashes out at a target perceived as an enemy. Saying that I find an edit to be, for example, POV pushing is an explanation for my edit, nothing more. Certainly we can explain our reasons and that an edit violates policy. For example, this anon user compains about an edit I made to Elizabeth Báthory in popular culture where I said there was linkfarming and POV pushing via a FORK file, but any neutral admin who looks into it will see that that's exactly true. The main Bathory article has sources showing that, for example, the legends of Bathory bathing in blood of virgins in unsupported, whereas this FORK article was outright saying it was real and calling Bathory vile and other unencyclopedic language and side-taking; and there were many highly improper external links in the body. Why this anon user thinks there is anything wrong with that edit I don't know, but it's probably just that he thinks he can toss off a ton of supposed examples and get people to take ation without looking into anything.

    Similarly, I certainly have disagreements with editors, but I go above and beyond by following 1RR and back off in any case where a For a real consensus is established (instead of just some individual person or small minority edit warring to try get their way)and let consensus stand despite my beliefs. As always, I'm an editor who's not afraid to take on bad edits and clean things up, and of course the people who aren't following policies are going to be upset about it... it just gets tiring to see them running off and complaining and edit warring to try to force their way instead of actually following normal standards of consensus. Frankly, examination of the above edits in context (which reports of this kind never want anyone to do) will show a wide range of problem editor that I am doing my best to remain civil while trying to clean up after, including someone who is in all likelihood a sockpuppet of recently blocked editor User:Esasus/User:Azviz/etc. who was banned after using sockpuppets to harass me and disrupt AFDs (the sockpuppet report caught the user in question using multiple account but could only get a possible reading on the previously banned editor via checkuser, though the edits methods/wikihounding/AFD disruption/serial deprodding for no reason are EXACTLY the same). DreamGuy (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    I notice that you are defending the edits you make, which are sometimes appropriate, but not the edit summaries and comments on edits which are the matter of complaint here. NPA applies to even the best editor. (I am reluctant to comment, as I admit I am not neutral about the general tendency of some of what you do here at AfD, but that is not the present issue either.) I do not like anonymous accusations, but the material posted makes clear why some people would be reluctant use their regular IDs in commenting on your contributions, and the edit summaries do sort of speak for themselves. DGG (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    I'll make this short, I am annoyed that DreamGuy continually makes arbitrary changes to the outcomes of AFDs as seen above despite my message warning him that doing so is WP:DISRUPTION and will lead to blocks or worse, so he has been warned. I find it nothing but a slap in the face that he not only removed the warning with an editsummary to match his attitude but also changed that AFD without leaving a note on my TP as I requested so we could discuss what he was thinking and why I would be prepared to topic ban him from AFD. His actions are not acceptable for a community project of any sort.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    (ec) I think its unfortunate that it is getting to this point. I think the editor can be sharp and make some pretty concise edits, but his behavior is turning into a net negative for the project. There are a lot of otherwise easy-going editors who DG has accused of one thing or another, which has undoubtedly soured some on the Project. I realize the at the world is full of rude people who still have a part to play, but we should be able to limit this sort of negative personality trait in here. Being an encyclopedia anyone can edit means that they shouldn't be hit with a shovel for making a mistake or disagreeing. There must be a better way of interacting. I don't know if DG ever asks this of himself.
    Anyway, I support any and all limits on DG; we cannot parent DG; we can keep him from disrupting the editing of others, and we should, - Arcayne () 03:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Is the identity of the IP editor really a big deal? He provided proof positive of personal attacks towards multiple other users. Whether this is a banned editor or not, we need to take these diffs at face value, and not question the person bringing them to light.Drew Smith What I've done 03:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, it is, because if this is the same person that has been out harassing DG (who is not banned yet, by the way) for the past six months or so, then that needs to be known that an apparent agenda of one person against DG is continuing even after being indef-blocked for sockpuppetry. MuZemike 04:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    This thread is about DG, not the IP. If your concerned about who the IP is then that doesn't really belong here, take it to SPI. What we know for certain is that DG's actions need review hence this thread. Making adhomenium arguments that the IP may be a banned user (or something to that effect) does not weaken or address the actual issue of DG's actions, period.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 04:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz. I am starting to believe that this is a deliberate attempt to bait DreamGuy into another block. MuZemike 06:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    If the SPI comes out negative, then I'll shut up and let the community have carte blanche on what to do. MuZemike 06:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Ok, seriously, this isn't the place for it. Whether he's a sock or not, he has provided plenty of diffs to prove DreamGuys incivility, and we need to look at the evidence, not the person who presented it. Take your sock concerns and click the link you provided.Drew Smith What I've done 06:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, this is certainly relevant. If it is shown that the same blocked user has complained twice in those three times you mentioned to ANI, then that basis for this complaint (nearly the same made a week ago, which ended up digging two other socks) holds a lot less. MuZemike 06:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    How so? There are still diffs proving that DreamGuy was uncivil towards multiple other users. Whether the person who makes the complaint is a sock or not, doesnt diminish the fact that DreamGuy is uncivil.Drew Smith What I've done 07:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    • User:Dream Guy has made some terrific contributions to the project, and I wanted very much to stay away from this ANI this month (I cannot find the third one right now), as I am listed above as someone to whom User:Dream Guy has been uncivil. But even after being notified of this ANI (03:37, 26 May 2009) concerning his behavior, he continues to involve himself in incivility and personal attack.
      1. Claims that I "rallied a bunch of people who vote Keep on every article they see" in order to "tagteam to show a false consensus", and that I "work with a team of sock accounts" to get my way.diff
      2. Demands I do not encourage User:Varbas to lie diff, when I had specifically done no such thing and actually counseled Varbas to remain cool under continued attack.diff
      3. Denigrates Varbas
      4. Denigrates Varbas (boilerplate comment)diff
      5. Denigrates Varbas
      6. Denegrates ME diff
      7. Denigrates Varbas (boilerplate comment) diff
      8. Repeted assumption of bad faith diff
      9. Removed reliable sources diff
      10. Accused me in his summary of "Clear Deception" diff
      11. Stating in a summary that I "know" I'm not supposed to post on his talk page and that I have been "harrassing him" diff
      12. Calls me abusive and states that I "never made a good edit" diff and tells another editor that in a posting on my talk page he told me not to post on his. He did not tell me that (see discussion), but claims it.
      All these after he was made aware of an ongoing ANI dicussion concerning his lack of civility. I acknowledge that User:Dream Guy has made excelent contributions to the project, but this a community built on and surviving through courtesy, civility, and good faith. He must please stop being so acerbic. Schmidt, 04:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    I believe this is the third complaint about DreamGuy this month. Something needs to be done.Drew Smith What I've done 05:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    I just ran across 68.147.253.39 (talk · contribs) when they edited an article on my watch list -- new, virtually every edit has reverted an edit by DreamGuy, and not for the better. Another sock? Dougweller (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Probably. Totally inappropriate behavior, but this ANI thread is about Dreamguys behavior, not an IP.Drew Smith What I've done 06:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    @ MuZemike: Your not helping here, Making un-proven claims about the IP that has lodged a perfectly valid complaint (with diffs I might add) is not what this thread is about. I'll ask once, Back off. I see the IP is not the only person complaining about this user, so your ill conceived theory that discrediting the IP may help DG is wrong and reflects poorly on you and DG   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Am I the only one here who thinks there is some baiting going on here? This is ridiculous! MuZemike 08:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Your the only one trying to defend him by attempting to discredit the reporter, a cowardly thing to do without even attempting to address what the reporter has said. This is my report (and the other handful of users here) just as much as it is the IP who started it. Again, Back off   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 08:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Banned User:Pioneercourthouse resurfaces

    Resolved – for now, anyway. Admin has protected the pages.

    As noted in Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Pioneercourthouse/Archive, that guy has found three more articles connected with Pioneer Courthouse Square to attack, the main article having been protected for some time now. Why we need 3 articles on essentially one subject, I don't know. But I just wonder if it would be wise to also have the other two articles protected, or more to the point, whether anyone would object to it. The three latest targets of this abuser are Pioneer Courthouse, Pioneer Place, and Pioneer Square, Seattle. Baseball Bugs carrots 04:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    An admin has now protected Pioneer Courthouse, and meanwhile there is another sock currently attacking the still-unprotected Pioneer Place and Pioneer Square, Seattle. I'm assuming the admin will protect those too, so I'm just kind of getting this on the record for possible future reference. Baseball Bugs carrots 04:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Other pages now protected also. Baseball Bugs carrots 05:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    I guess that message he sent us through the possible meat puppet that said he did not want to continue the pattern of disruptive editing was a fabrication. Even though that possible meatpuppet was blocked on sight, this report here will just give us more reason in the future to wave off such claims.— Dædαlus 06:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    I raised this here because of the page protection question, which was quickly answered in the affirmative. The socks themselves can be turned in to WP:AIV for on-sight indef-blocking, as was that obvious sock from the other day who claimed to be a "friend" of the puppetmaster. It is grossly unfair for one jerk to be holding those pages hostage, but that's show biz. Baseball Bugs carrots 06:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Just a comment that I hope others will be adding these new targets to their watch lists. The vandal has demonstrated a willingness in the past to create multiple sleeper accounts and to make enough minor edits to get auto-confirmed in order to get around the semi-protection on the Pioneer Courthouse Square article, which has resulted in long-term full protection on that page. I see no reason to suspect he won't use similar strategies on these three new targets. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Yep, I don't expect this will be the end. To that effect, I'll be experimenting with a filter targeting the behavior itself so the articles can be unprotected. —EncMstr (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Those pages are now on my watchlist. I won't be online much in the next ten days, but I'll be happy to take out any ducks I happen to see pop out of the pond. OhNoitsJamie 15:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    Just a thought: It doesn't seem this blocking strategy is working. He is becoming more effective with each passing day. Perhaps if we sat down and talked to him, this could be worked out. Most people are not completely irrational and from what I've seen, there has been a wholesale assumption that this guy is a malicious vandal and has no ulterior motive except vandalism. Maybe this is so, but maybe a little discussion could do wonders - maybe he honestly believes in the homeless issue, for instance. And from what I've seen, he may want to reform, but his demands have just been deleted. Again, just a random thought from someone who has been observing from afar and decided to chime in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davisomalley (talk • contribs) 19:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    See talk:Pioneer Courthouse Square and the archive pages for it. Discussion has been attempted. Reasoning has been attempted. All have failed. The sock/vandal has a specific agenda they choose to push - and when others oppose that agenda, their standard practice is to either claim that they are being abused; or to claim to be a third party wanting to help negotiate a resolution, while actually manipulating the Misplaced Pages community, until such time that their true colors are shown and the additional sock is blocked. Both strategies have been used many times by the sock/vandal. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    I understand this way of reasoning. However, if you read the archives carefully, it appears the vandal attempted to "reform" himself once but perhaps sincerely felt abused by others when he did so. I think we should offer him one more pathway to reforming and if he rejects it, it should be assumed he is truly a vandal. I disagree that he has attemptefd to manipulate the community "many times." In fact, it doesn't appear he has ever been given a good faith opportunity to reform. Rather than always assume the worst about vandals, perhaps we should, as a community, try and take a softer approach sometimes. Just banning, banning, banning, blocking, blocking, blocking really doesn't seem to be working very well. Again, just a point of view from afar. Take it or leave it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davisomalley (talk • contribs) 20:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    Yes, many times. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pioneercourthouse and Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Pioneercourthouse/Archive. Yesterday's edit warring is direct evidence that he has no interest in changing his ways, his one and only interrest is to press his agenda any way he can. His tools are to edit-war, or to pretend to be engaging in reasonable discussion which has always fallen appart due to his non-willingness to accept overwhelming community concensus, or pretend to be a third party pretending to want to find a resolution - while actually only attempting a different means to waste the community's time in an alternate strategy to force his unsourced soapboxing into Misplaced Pages. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    You may be correct. However yesterday's edit war may also be a sign that he is seeking attention. Perhaps give him attention in a positive way. My point is our current strategy is not working at all. We need to find alternative strategies. What good is this current blocking strategy doing? None at all! I don't believe the soft approach has been adequately explored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davisomalley (talk • contribs) 20:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    The continuous block of the page is actually working quite well, in the sense that it's keeping your 3 1/2 year old nonsense edit out of the article. The downside is that by your behavior, you continue to hold the article hostage from legitimate editors. Baseball Bugs carrots 21:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Oops, already indef'd. Never mind. :) Baseball Bugs carrots 21:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    If it is a sign that he's seeking attention, then R-B-I is the best approach. No attention is the proven only viable solution for these situations - not to feed his temper-tantrum request for attention. The soft approach has been more than adequately explored, multiple times and with the same repeated soapboxing being forced upon Misplaced Pages articles each time it has been attempted. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    He's accumulated a lot of R-B-I's already this year. He strikes out a lot, but he keeps trying to get a homeless run. Maybe you think I'm just being funny, but that's on the square. Baseball Bugs carrots 00:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    I've started a page to try to explain this situation so we don't have to repeat it every month: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Oregon/Pioneercourthouse sockpuppet saga. tedder (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    User:Ratel / David Copperfield (illusionist)

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

    Short background and then on with the show - last week, an approach was made to the BLP board about the state of the David Copperfield article. Various people (including myself) became involved and material was removed because it was felt it was WP:UNDUE, not properly sourced etc etc etc - usual stuff.

    I check back on the talkpage a week later (this morning) and see this disturbing comment from Ratal, a user who has pushed quite hard for a unbalanced negative version of the article - My motivations are immaterial, but if you have to know, I delight in adding frank and full details of misbehaviours to pages on so-called "celebs", many of whom are absolute scoundrels or hypocrites, or worse, under the glossy veneer. a statement that worried me greatly.

    Here is the problem I want some admin advice (possible action?) on - I notice that he has started a page in his userspace where he is storing material rejected from the article and also adding links to low quality tabloids reports with comments like "another disturbing report about this character".

    I am concerned that the tone and low quality sourcing take this beyond a page used for the collection of sources for inclusion in an article and it is actually an attackpage trying to do an endrun around our BLP policies. Thoughts? --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    I'm certainly concerned that any user would claim My motivations are immaterial, but if you have to know, I delight in adding frank and full details of misbehaviours to pages on so-called "celebs", many of whom are absolute scoundrels or hypocrites, or worse, under the glossy veneer. - that's completely unacceptable. Misplaced Pages is not a platform for attacking living people on which we have biographies. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, our mission, when it comes to BLPs, is to provide relevant, informative, neutral and above all, accurate, very well sourced biographies - there are allegations made against people all the time and it would be acceptable to mention this, but not at length, and only using the most reliable of reliable sources. When it comes to allegations of rape, deviancy etc, these sources, I would suggest, should be news gathering organisations, such as the BBC, that stand to make no financial gain from allegations; that really doesn't cover most newspapers that tend to run exposés, even if they can normally be considered reliable sources. Our biographies should focus, on the main part, on the career(s) that make the person notable, so David Copperfield, the majority of the text should be related to his career as a magician/illusionist, with the requisite section on purely factual, non news worthy details of his place of birth, age, education etc. Scandals and other material unrelated to their career(s) should be relatively small in comparison, they shouldn't readily mention, in the case of sexual assault, the name of the victim(s) and so on, and unless the subject was convicted, we need to be very, very clear if the allegations were dropped, if the subject or his lawyers released a statement claiming his innocence, if charges were dropped and so on. We never leave allegations floating, both sides need to be represented and everything about an alleged offence needs to be completely balanced, completely neutral and completely accurate and up to date. If someone is charged and then the charges dropped, that needs to be noted (and only if it's really relevant, if it's a trivial offence, like DUI, minor assault etc, that's really not relevant in the long term) and if reasons are given, that also needs to be noted. People make up bogus allegations, so if someone has been charged for wasting police time etc, that really needs to be noted too. When reporting on controversial or illegal activity, we must write in such a manner as to try our hardest to prevent people from jumping to conclusions, it needs to be completely unbiased, no emotive language can be used, it really just needs to say Joe Bloggs was arrested on suspicion of theft, but was later cleared on all charges - you need to make perfectly clear the arrest is purely on suspicion etc. You also can't make any inference that there were other motives for making an allegation or used some means to have the charges dropped, unless there is categoric proof that is the case, and again, it really needs to be relevant to the article, if someone paid a few $$$ as compensation for breaking a camera, that's not really going to be relevant to an article. Finally, historical relevance needs to be considered, did Isaac Newton ever punch someone because they got in his way ? We'll never really know, because it's something that really isn't relevant to his legacy in the long term, don't add irrelevant crap to articles that isn't going to be relevant to readers next year, in a decade or in a century. I would be inclined to consider blocking Ratal until they can confirm they're going to contribute to our BLPs in a manner that is compatible with policy, our mission and the mantra Do No Harm. Nick (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    I've indef blocked Ratel with a note that the way towards an unblock is agreeing to abide by WP:BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    I have been watching Ratel for a while, ever since I let him off some 3RR vios a few months ago. He is very forthright, but he is an editor who delivers a net benefit to the project. His comments here are a product of his love for bombastic rhetoric and overwhelming sense of intellectual superiority, rather than I think I genuine stubborn determination to subvert BLP guidelines. He's annoyed that so many celeb pages are dominated by adoring fans adding worshipful material. And he is right to be annoyed, this is a problem, even if it isn't one with the serious consequences the opposite has. He should be allowed to remove cringe-inducing worship if he wants to, though I agree we that he needs to give a commitment to BLP spirit and word before resuming editing such articles. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    This is why I left the very broad hint about unblocking. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    He shows an interesting attitude -- on Bill Moyers he founght to keep out material he did not like. I would also like folks to be cognizant of his use of personal attack as a means of discussion (too many diffs to leave here). Collect (talk) 12:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Ratel is a superlative editor and one of Misplaced Pages's best. He was complaining about the dire state of Zoophilia long before I was even aware the article existed. An indefinite block is far too long, whatever his current crimes. Agree that BLP is a concern. Could there not be a topic ban or something?Peter Damian (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    This edit deserves a knighthood. Peter Damian (talk)
    Hopefully he'll swiftly acknowledge that gossip magazines and websites are not reliable sources (sometimes they're "right" and sometimes they're "wrong"), but entertainment. His statement that he "delights" in adding negative content to celeb BLPs shows a lack of neutrality which is highly worrisome. I do agree with him, however, that many celeb BLPs are a mess. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Ratel has not been a collegial participant at Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist). For a glimpse of his how he works with others, see the banner near the top of his user page, "Attempting to give a damn about your Wiki-whining.." Since Misplaced Pages is a group project, I don't see how he is going to come back and apply his talents to our work in a positive way. If one person drives away ten, what have we gained? Perhaps Ratel can make a proposal for how the future will be different from the past. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    I've unblocked Ratel because he has acknowledged WP:BLP to me and seems to understand that the sources aren't strong enough for what he wanted to add. If he is uncivil, please post to WP:WQA. If he edit wars, post to WP:AN3. If he stirs up more BLP worries think about posting at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    Sockpuppetry by banned user

    Resolved – Case is currently being handled at WP:SPI. Icestorm815 • Talk 18:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    I have copy-pasted the following from my check-user complaint. I have been waiting for a response for over 10 days now, all in vain. Therefore, i request any interested administrator to please look into the matter and take some much need action.

    User:Persistent Organic Pollutants and User:Morningmistblue both behave very much the same as User:Mynameisstanley, disruptive editing on articles related to organized crime articles. A look at the contributions made by them bears some striking similarities to the edits previously made by Mynameisstanley. Both these accounts have made only a few edits and all to the Organized crime related articles which were previously vandalized by Mynameisstanley through his many sockpuppets (the articles being Stephen Grammauta, Mickey Cohen, Gaspare Mutolo, etc). They both seem to have a pre-occupation with deleting references, merging the "References" section with the "Further reading" section, minimizing image size, etc, all hall marks of Mynameisstanley. Above all, both identities were created this month within three days of one another. The first identity was created on 11th May, whereas the second was created on the 14th. Mynameisstanlry is a convicted sockpuppeteer who has been indefinitely blocked in the past for sockpuppetry by User:Malinaccier. See . Even after getting banned, he has deliberately attempted to circumvent the ban many times by creating new accounts. See this and this for a list of confirmed and suspected sockpuppets of him. Joyson Noel (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

    I have just checked the John Gotti, Salvatore Gravano and many Jewish American gangster articles which were previously vandalised by Mynameisstanley. I found a few more accounts which i suspect to be his sockpuupets: User:Angeloja, User:You once you, User:Kong fishing villages, User:Italianjoemike, User:Peachicetea21, User:Sizzleman212, User:Anyothername, User:Thereistheoffer, User:Tylerson, User:Eastern central mountain, User:Pastros rock, User:Thefreezewarning, User:Wannabe gangters and User:Tubeporch1111.

    They have all been created during the past three months. They have made very few edits, mostly to the same articles and another striking co-incidence is that all have exclusively edited to Organized crime articles previously vandalised by Mynameisstanley. Many of the user pages have been deliberately created with no content or a sentence in order to make the red links appear blue. He isn't doing it for all, because that was how they were identified the last time. He is creating a lot of sockpuppets in a deliberate attempt to evade detection. Joyson Noel (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

    I have once again identified another one: User:Wearetheselfpreservationsociety, It vandalized this page and made personal attacks against me calling me "gay" (as if that is some kind of insult). See this. It was created yesterday. Please hurry up before he does more damage. This is taking unusually long. Joyson Noel (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

    Keep on delaying this. Bravo! I have completely lost faith on the ability of administrators to conduct quick and speedy action. I have been waiting 10 days without any response. This guy just created another sockpuppet today User:UR a Dope and started harrassing me by reverting all my productive edits. Fortunately, he was blocked by another administrator User:Gimmetrow. Are you all going to wait until he does more damage? Joyson Noel (talk) 06:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    Comments by other users

    I agree there are some similarities. Mynameisstanley has a record of returning under other names, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mynameisstanley/Archive. Better check before he does more damage. - Mafia Expert (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

    Joyson, the edit summary "Hurry up, god dammit. Does anyone even give a damn?" on your SPI and your continuous accusations that volunteer administrators are not doing their job is not helping here. There happens to be vandalism all over Misplaced Pages. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    I really apologize for being impolite. I'm sure you will understand if you realize the context in which i said it. At that time, one of his sockpuppets was harassing me at the same time. So, i was enraged and therefore not thinking straight. Look, it's not in my nature to start quarrels and make unwarranted accusations, but you must understand that i waited incredibly long for some action to be done. There is a certain point in which everybody's patience starts to wear thin. For me, it was after ten days. I would not have minded if it was delayed for two days or even four days, but ten. If i accused the administrators of ignoring and not taking any quick action, then that was justified. I'm aware that vandalism is a daily occurrance here in wikipedia, but that does not excuse slow action. Joyson Noel (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    I would say, personally, I'd pass this in a second. You can't just say "a bunch of users are doing things like minimizing image size and merging sections" in the entire organized crime series of articles without a single diff. Is it a simple case of one guy-two guy-three guy playing at the same article? Are all three working together at the same time but on different articles? You make puzzles for volunteers and then go on the "hurry up" bit, nobody is going to help. Why? Especially when we get enough of the "everyone out there who disagrees with me is a sock puppet" game from vandals. Now, give me a single (one) article (again, listing a pile during which a dozen editors could all in theory be colluding will again not encourage assistance) where certain characters are doing this and we can start from there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Trust me, pal. I know that these are sockpuppets for the reasons that i have stated above. I'm not being paranoid. I know the pattern in which he edits. In fact, i have caught him many times and he has been blocked repeatedly. I'm not picking on anyone. I suggest that you read my previous evidence carefully so that you don't have any misunderstanding. Even though i reverted the edits, this guy has no business being here. That banned sockpuppeteer User:Mynameisstanley has a track record of vandalizing organized crime articles, circumventing bans and returning under new identities.
    • User:Thereistheoffer is definitely a sockpuppet. His editing pattern such as removing links to blogs (although right) is very similar to Mynameisstanley. Moreover, i feel that it is vandalism because he removed the fact that "Spanish was involved in the Second Labor Sluggers War in 1919 during the intro and became involved in labor racketeering, holdups of saloons and other businesses, and murder before organizing his own gang. This is an undisputable fact for which he was well known and does not need to be sourced according to WP:CS. It would have been unfair to a newcomer, but i was sure that this is a sock. Furthermore, he did the exact same edits that was done by confirmed blocked sockpuppet User:Evenmoremotor before and reverted by another user later. Moreover, he has made a total of 8 edits, 7 of them to articles previously edited by the banned sockpuppeteer User:Mynameisstanley as well as Evenmoremotor. Furthermore, he has done all of them on the same day and has been inactive since that date (19th May). Check contributions. Furthermore, his userpage was created with the purpose of making his account appear blue, which is the main hallmark of Mynameisstanley's previous blocked sockpuppets. See mynameisstanley's talk page. Too much for a coincidence.
    • In the case of User:Sizzleman212, it is the same primary reason as above. The fact that John F. Kennedy International Airport) was in the territory of the Lucchese family and specifically the Paul Vario crew operated out of there including such mob stars as Henry Hill and Jimmy Conway is an "undisputable fact for which he was well known and does not need to be sourced according to WP:CS." Plus, he only made a total of one edit to the same article which was previously vandalized by the aforementioned two banned accounts. Furthermore, this account has remained inactive since that edit.
    • I beg to differ. Ganglandnews is a reliable source. Just because it is inactive does not make it unreliable. All right! The site's owner Jerry Capeci is a widely recognized authority in this field. It's unreliability has not been established or reached upon by consensus. I have disputed you on ikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and offered some solutions. Also, i have no problem with the grammatical corection and that was never a point of contention with his edit. Plus, i repeat myself. Evenmoremotor was confirmed to be a sockpuppet and blocked indefinitely on March. See this. Joyson Noel (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    User:Malcolm Schosha

    Malcolm Schosha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I have lengthened Malcom's block to indefinite for ongoing personal attacks whilst already blocked for edit warring and personal attacks. Posted here for input and review. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    • Good block. Attacking large numbers of volunteer editors who sacrifice their time to maintaining Misplaced Pages should never be tolerated and if someone continues to do so even while being blocked for exactly those reasons, they should be shown the door. I'd even suggest disabling talk page editing for this editor because it's unlikely to become better... Regards SoWhy 12:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
      • It is the previous section Talk:Self-hating_Jew#The problem with Finlay where he totally misrepresents Mick Finlay's record of published writings and calls that academic an apologist for Islam that got to me. I was on the verge of posting in another place something asking what Malcolm brings to Misplaced Pages apart from niggling comments that waste other editor's time. So that's a Support block from me. --Peter cohen (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Long overdue. Has a knack for juvenile condescension against users of different POVs...don't have diffs handy, but he got a kick out of addressing me as Tark for some reason. Plus he has been calling other editors antisemitic for quite awhile now, and was even tossed off an ArbCom case because of it. Tarc (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Support Pretty nasty ongoing commentary, and obvious from his last few months of article space edits that he's only here to push what appears to be a pretty fringey POV, which is never helpful. Has been pretty much on a rampage of nastiness since people on the same political wavelength as himself were topic-banned from the Palestinian-Israeli topics in the recent RFAR. rootology/equality 13:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Support I have been following this at a distance and I think indef is now merited. --John (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh, I don't know him except one encounter at Talk:Porcelain#Lead image. Before reading this, I'd have suggested that his profound knowledge of fine art is too valuable, so just allow him to write such subjects only. However, the "Empty skulls" comment is way beyond any acceptable range of incivility, so I support.....Caspian blue 13:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Support Though not necessarily for the precise reason stated in his block log. I think his general abuse of Misplaced Pages as a battleground is a more accurate summary of his problems.--Tznkai (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Support It might have been less inflammatory to have requested another previously uninvolved admin review and act as appropriate - but I am certain the end result would have been the same/ LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Malcom's way was to strongly attack admins trying to deal with him, then claim they were "involved" and "harassing" or "out to get" him. Hence Malcom said I was involved, but I never was. I always hoped he'd settle down. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Indeed, which is why having yet another admin do the review and likely block does not feed into that culture of being accused of having prior bias - but ultimately, it was a good block for the right reasons. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • No objections, I generally support incivility blocks. It's somewhat amusing that he's blocked for displaying poor social skills by ranting about the supposed poor social skills of others.  Sandstein  19:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Well, it looks like he's amused with us. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    Maury Markowitz and redirect deletions

    I'm taking this here because this will likely need administrators to undelete pages. Maury Markowitz (talk · contribs) has for some time been deleting redirects for being unused or "polluting Google". He doesn't seem to understand that he's wrong, even after a successful deletion review; relevant threads are User talk:Maury Markowitz#VIA redirects and User talk:Maury Markowitz#Redirects. The next step would be to go through all the redirects he deleted and undelete those that should not have been deleted. I can help create the list, but for obvious reasons cannot help with the undeletions. --NE2 13:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    Oh my god, this is still going on?! Undelete them all, with my blessings! I don't care one way or the other. But I do care about NE2's constant complaints and casting aspersions. So if undeleting all of these makes him leave me alone, great, full speed ahead! Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Fair enough; if someone sends me a list I'll work through it. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    User:NE2/redirects includes all of them. There are likely a few non-redirects and a few valid redirect deletions in there. --NE2 17:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    I've checked through #39 (PostScipt). --Carnildo (talk) 01:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    IP User 63.119.117.69

    Resolved – blocked for one year

    I think this IP should be blocked indefinitely. This IP hasn't made a single constructive edit and if you look at the talk page there are over 30 warnings about vandalism. It also shows that the IP has already been blocked 3 times and it's obviously not stopping the user. Continuing to warn this user and give short blocks isn't going to help Misplaced Pages in any way. I think something more permanent should be done to stop this user's vandalism.  Anonymous    14:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    I agree, and he meets my criteria for a full year. —EncMstr (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    Poor judgment and questionable timing on a speedy deletion

    I am posting this note because I believe that there was poor judgment shown in the speedy deletion of Stanislav Menshikov. Here is the chronology:

    • May 16: a dispute begins over whether commentary by Menshikov that is favorable to Lyndon LaRouche is sufficiently notable for inclusion in the lead of that article.
    • May 22: Will Beback posts a comment in which he says Menshikov is "not impartial."
    • May 22: Will speedy deletes Menshikov's bio.
    • May 23: TallNapoleon notes that Menshikov is "redlinked."
    • May 23: Cs32en deletes Menshikov quote on the grounds that Menshikov is redlinked.
    • May 24: Cs32en posts this: "If Menshikov is not notable enough to have his own article, why would his opinion about another person be so important that it would be in the lede?"
    • May 24: Will responds, "That's a good point."

    The reason given for speedy deletion was that the article was created by a banned user. Assuming that this is true, Will had several options:

    • He could have deleted the article over a year ago (he chose to edit the article instead)
    • He could have posted a notice on a relevant board, asking an uninvolved admin to take action
    • He could have invited community participation through a conventional AfD process

    Instead, Will chose the one course of action that was most likely to create the impression that he was using admin tools to shape the outcome of an article content dispute. --Leatherstocking (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    He edited the article only once and deleted it as having been created by a banned user. Any user in good standing can recreate it. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    I'm with Leatherstocking on this one. Recreated. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    That's ok! Gwen Gale (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Well, since the article creator MaplePorter (talk · contribs) does appear to be a sock of a banned user, Will Beback was technically correct (which is, as my idol Hermes Conrad would say, the best kind of "correct") to speedy delete it, prior edits notwithstanding, although the circumstances of the deletion as related by Leatherstocking do seem a bit odd. Worse, the recreation by Maury Markowitz might (also technically) be considered both proxying for a banned editor and the beginning of a wheel war. To avoid any unproductive nastiness, I suggest that we just submit the article to AfD to find out whether this (probably borderline notable) guy should have an article or not.  Sandstein  17:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Maury Markowitz didn't use the admin bit to recreate the article so I don't see much of a wheel war there (as I said, any editor in good standing could have done that). However, I do agree AfD would be the way to go if anyone is wondering about the notability of this topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Actually, going by the Google cache, it looks like Maury recreated it without undeleting the history, a big no-no for reasons of attribution. --NE2 17:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    (ec) Well, I assume he used admin privileges to retrieve the deleted content (but, as I said, technically).  Sandstein  17:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    The user in question was banned six months after the article was created. The policy is very clear that you SD material in violation of the ban, and only if there are no other major editors. Neither case applies. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Given the very long and sad block log of the sockmaster before and after the time when the article was begun, I can't get too stirred up about the deletion of an article created by one of its socks. I think we can agree AfD is the way to deal with this now. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    However, Maury, it does look like you rs'd the text by copying from an edit window only an admin could have. This was not what I meant by "recreate." I think both of you have made a muddle of this and I have restored the article history, given the need for attribution under GFDL. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Now listed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stanislav Menshikov.  Sandstein  21:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    Trotskyism bias

    The pages on Trotskyism read as if written by Trotskyists. They make scores of statements about the USSR and its history, usually without any verification, sometimes only with references to Trotsky or Trotskyist writers. When these are challenged, as by the present writer, threats of blocking are made (e.g by Roland - who says on his page that he is a supporter of Trotsky's 4th International.) Stevenjp (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    Hi Stevenjp, I suggest you have a look at the dispute resolution page. PhilKnight (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    I made no "threats of blocking"; but I warned this editor several times that if he persisted in adding unsourced factual claims, personal commentary and derogatory remarks, then he risked being blocked. My editing of the page is no less acceptable than is that of Stevenjp himself, since he is a supporter of the hostile CPB (M-L). RolandR 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Which, says CPB (M-L) "should not be confused with the Communist Party of Britain (941 members), the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) (30 members), nor with the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist). ("one of the smaller remaining fragments") " See also Monty Python's Life of Brian re "Judean People's Front". There's still someone alive who wants to edit war over this? --John Nagle (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    I remember "Leon the Lip", as they called the old twirler. He was a lefty, with plenty of heat but no control, and eventually the other team went gunning for him. His cousin Hal was far more successful. He was a first baseman and a heavy hitter. Being an Indian, he stayed neutral on political matters. Baseball Bugs carrots 00:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Ah, Trotsky. IIRC he once addressed a political meeting in the US with the immortal line, "Workers and peasants of the Bronx!" Always had his finger on the pulse that one. --Folantin (talk) 08:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Was that the one at Yankee Stadium? With his cousin playing first base for the visitors? After Leon the Lip was given the Bronx cheer, he sadly remarked that on that day, he considered himself the unluckiest man on the face of the earth. For one thing, they refused to retire his number. Baseball Bugs carrots 08:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Anticipating Mike Dukakis by several decades, Leon posed in a military vehicle, and sang the Bob Hope song, "Tanks for de memories." At that point they awarded him a prize - a free vacation trip to Mexico. Turned out to be a one-way ticket. Baseball Bugs carrots 08:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    wfalpha.com spam - please add to black list

    I removed this link from the Wolfram Alpha article and from the same article on a number of Wikipedias (not just en.wikipedia.org). It has now appeared back and has been removed again by another editor.

    The site is a fraud. The spammer pretends that is a "short link" to http://www.wolframalpha.com/. In fact, it shows the genuine Wolfram Alpha website in an iframe surrounded by advertising.

    Can the site please be added to the blacklist on this project and international sister projects? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    Update: I see there is an request page for such additions at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Done it myself :) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    Prem Rawat enforcement action

    I'd like to draw the community's attention to my arbitration enforcement action at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Teachings of Prem Rawat. Because that action involves the block of an administrator (as well as a non-administrator editor), and because blocks of administrators have the potential to become controversial, I am bringing the matter here preemptively. I consent to any change to my enforcement action that might be necessary to bring it into accordance with community consensus (if any).  Sandstein  16:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    Well done. These edits by User:Will_Beback so soon after the Arbcom decision show very poor judgement, unworthy of an administrator. Under these circumstances I would say a topic ban was in order. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC))
    Concur with block - if ArbCom Enforcement is to mean anything then it needs applying swiftly and without favour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    Will Beback made a case that he wasn't in violation, in the 24 May portion of Talk:Teachings of Prem Rawat#FORMER FOLLOWERS section. When Newyorkbrad becomes available after holiday, I request that he examine Will's defense and offer an opinion as to its merit along with noting any gray areas. Newyorkbrad has the professional skills to parse a defense by detail of rules, and is widely considered fair in making such judgments. Milo 20:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    I would like to thank Milo for his confidence in me. However, traditionally, sitting arbitrators generally do not participate in enforcement of decisions, because the cases may come back again them before a later date and they would then have an involvement in the actions being reviewed. Therefore, it would probably be best if discussion here continues for a consensus of uninvolved non-arb admins. (I also have three truly massive arb cases that I need to work through in the next 24 hours.) Thanks again for thinking of me, though. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Will Beback is substantially in violation of the section provided at ArbCom Enforcement, in that he reverted to his earlier version within the 7 day period. If he wishes to argue that there may be other findings or directions that permitted him to do so then he should take that up with ArbCom in the Clarifications section - until then he was found to be in violation and thus blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


    Will Beback has posted the following request for block review on his talk page, copied below:
    "I believe that Sandstein has miscounted the reverts. I first added text in following a discussion on the talk page. That was not a revert. Several days later another editor, Pergamino, made significant changes to the text without discussion. I reverted the changes. That was the only revert. The RFAR editing restriction prohibits more than one revert per week. No user may revert any given changes to a subject article more than once within a seven day period... Since I only reverted once I did not violate the prohibition. Further, I acted in good faith to avoid violating the prohibition, and if I did violate it then I did so unintentionally and with a misunderstanding of how the revert(s) are counted. I received no warning that I'd violated the prohibition, and I would have self-reverted if I had been warned. One revert per week is an unusual standard and I think that either Sandastein or I is not calculating it correctly. Will Beback " by Milo 00:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)]

    That looks like legitimate grounds for lifting the block if it's true. Durova 00:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I was having a look at that first edit, and I couldn't find any consensus to add it on the talk page, there was some discussion and then willbeback added it.

    Added by cirt,

    Reports obtained by Ted Patrick and several scholars after deprogramming of several of Rawat's former worshippers refer to the experience of Rawat's "meditation" techniques as self-hypnosis, and as diminishing the ability to think both during the practice and for an extended period of time after cessation. name=Patrick>Patrick, Ted with Tom Dulack, Let Our Children Go!: By the man who rescues brainwashed American youth from sinister 'religious' cults pp. 214-215 (1976) E.P. Dutton & Company, ISBN 0-525-14450-1 name=Conway>Conway, Flo and Siegelman, Jim, "Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change Second Edition, Second printing: pp 159 f (2005) Stillpoint Press, ISBN 0-38528928-6</

    this was removed by Zanthorp

    then this was added by willbeback, it's basically a reinsertion of the same material with a small rewrite.

    Former premie (follower of Rawat) Marcia Carroll was deprogrammedfrom Rawat's cult in 1973 by Ted Patrick. Carroll describes each of the four techniques in detail within the context of her experience. She concludes: "the more meditation you do, the less able you are to reason. It becomes painful to think at all. So whatever they tell you, you do.... With more and more meditation, you experience a sort of ... self-hypnosis. It keeps you there." name=Patrick>Patrick, Ted with Tom Dulack, Let Our Children Go!: By the man who rescues brainwashed American youth from sinister 'religious' cults pp. 214-215 (1976)E.P. Dutton & Company, ISBN 0-525-14450-1. (Off2riorob (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

    Clause

    I think Will is misreading which clause of Remedy 3.1 of the RFAR applies...

    To quote the whole thing:

    Revert limitations
    3.1) The Prem Rawat article and all related articles are subject to an editing restriction for one year. No user may revert any given changes to a subject article more than once within a seven day period, except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations. Furthermore, if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period.
    Passed 11 to 1 to 1, 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

    I believe that the issue is the last sentence ( "Furthermore, if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period." ). Will made a change, and it was reverted, he wasn't supposed to change it back until 8 days later (and did so in 5 days). I'm not sure I agree with this provision, but that's what they entered into the rule as it stands. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Agree. Because of this clause (and quite independently of this discussion) I reached the conclusion to deny the unblock request. I'm not truly aware of the depth of disruption on this article, and this may have been a good-faith misunderstanding by Will about the restrictions, but I felt that unblocking him would be somewhat disrespectful of the RFAR ruling, and also give an appearance of unfairness unless Pergamino is also unblocked. Mangojuice 02:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Good point. Since this is a newly closed case and neither editor has been warned, perhaps unblocking both and extending a warning would be appropriate? It's an unusual clause in the case, and the wording isn't easy to parse. Had me confused too until I read it three times. Durova 04:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, it is the second element of the restriction that Will Beback violated in this case. I would normally be reluctant to block a user for the violation of that unusual a remedy without a prior warning, but since he was a party to the RfAr and indeed was specifically admonished at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2#Users admonished for his conduct in articles related to Prem Rawat, I think he must be deemed adequately warned in this case.  Sandstein  05:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    I have declined the unblock request by Will Beback on the grounds that it appeared he did violate the letter and spirit of the ArbCom decision as I have read it; however I also support Durova's proposed solution. Will Beback's comments since my decline have indicated that he made a good-faith mistake based on his reading of the sanctions, and he has clearly indicated that he will tread lighter in the future. Durova generally keeps a very clear head in tough times, and I trust her judgement on these issues. I think a provisional unblock, with perhaps a request to ArbCom for clarification and the understanding that these blocks serve as clear warnings to tread lightly in the affected articles. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    If an editor (Rumiton) can be banned for a year over Prem Rawat issues without a warning and with only one previous block, any diminishing of WillBeback or Pergamino's tiny 24 hour block would seem like gross hypocrisy. Mind you, ArbCom's decision to enshrine "up to one week in the event of repeated violations and After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year" sends a clear message that bad editing at PR articles are now to be considered trivial. Sandstein, as usual, is right, WillBeback has had adequate warning.Momento (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    User:Mytestid1980 is damaging an article

    See and all contribs. He is putting hoaxes on 2008 attacks on North Indians in Maharashtra even when we warned him. All warnings are gone from his talk. Some more bad eits also ocurred. See history

    i hope its the right place (WP:AIV asks for recent disruption and I don't smell a 3RR violation.) Hometech (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    Looking at Mytestid's edits, this is a political/ethnic issue, and that user is clearly pushing an agenda. This is best served at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts, which is set up specifically for this type of situation. Be sure to read the intro at the top of that page and provide diffs so you receive the proper attention. Mytestid should probably be blocked if s/he makes one more such edit (after being warned, of course). --64.85.214.21 (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Sam Blacketer resignation article at The Register

    I just saw that an article was published today on The Register about Sam Blacketer, and wanted to give you guys a heads-up. TotientDragooned (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    Correct link ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 18:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    It's a rather good article, actually, thanks for sharing. I particularly like the quote in the final paragraph! ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 18:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Heh! That might explain this (reverted) edit, which had me scratching my head. Cheers, This flag once was reddeeds 18:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Its rather a bummer. Sam is a pretty good editor, but the aforementioned edit was clearly pov. - Arcayne () 03:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    I think you are misreading the situation. All that Sam Blacketer did was revert vandalism in Cameron's article: New Canadian (talk · contribs) inserts a picture designed to mock Cameron: . It is a picture that shows Cameron, making a stupid face, in front of something in the background that makes him look as though he has a halo. Sam Blacketer then reverted that edit, restoring the normal picture, showing Cameron smiling in his suit: , with the edit summary "(Undid revision 290191421 by New Canadian (talk): Revert choice of picture to one not carrying saintly overtones.)" His crime was to have a sense of humour. Two days later, Sam Blacketer reverted another vandal: . Metz makes it sound as though Sam Blacketer had inserted a less flattering picture of Cameron, to score a popularity point against Cameron. The exact opposite is the truth. Thus I conclude Cade Metz is a journalist whose writings should not be given much credence, and that is putting it politely. ;) JN466 11:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    No, I get that, Jayen466 - I do - but there is a reason we avoid those articles with which we have conflict of interest issues. It's incredibly poor judgment. It isn't like editing Hitler and Ghandi's page to keep junk out (when you hate one and love the other); the editor had a real connection to the subject. Hmm, we should have a policy or guideline about this... - Arcayne () 12:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    David Boothroyd article

    Someone may want to take a closer look at this article and the drama quickly emerging behind this. I think this is going to get ugly. MuZemike 08:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    That is, it has been rapidly recreated, and another user has a copy of the article on his userpage, which is now up for MFD. MuZemike 08:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Never mind. Deleted again and salted. MuZemike 08:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    See WP:DRV. No need for drama. Jehochman 08:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    The article is now posted on the user page of TAway (talk · contribs). Mathsci (talk) 08:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    I've resolved that. Jehochman 09:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Advice please

    See this editor, El-Pabloski (talk · contribs), along with this, Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Barnstar copied from another editor and this strange edit which could be good or bad, . Advice and thoughts would be helpful, thanks--Jac16888 20:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    It seems that the 'good or bad' edit was bad. . I had a look through this editor's contributions earlier and couldn't spot a good one. pablohablo. 22:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    I agree with Pablomismo. Last time I went through the users contribs, I couldn't spot a solidly constructive one. Killiondude (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    I've tried pretty hard to get this person into good habits and useful contribs, but without success thus far. *sigh*  Chzz  ►  00:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    My impression is that this is a keen, but young editor, who wants to run before he can walk. Some of his edits seem to be well-intentioned, but naive. If he can be focussed into some area of interest, and accept mentorship (assuming anyone is prepared to take the time and effort to do that), his enthusiasm could be usefully channelled; meanwhile, he is unaware of this discussion, and I'll drop an {{ANI-notice}} for him. Rodhullandemu 00:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Vandalism of File:WPAbortion-logo.svg

    Resolved – fixed and protected.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    I'm sorry, I don't know how to fix this, but I think it needs urgent attention - the Abortion "logo" that appears on all abortion related topics has been changed to read "Murder" by CGrapes429 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thanks, Dawn Bard (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    Hmm... I tried to fix it, but something seems to be working wrong. Any suggestions? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Seems to be fixed. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Drilnoth uploaded a new version of it. What is weird for me is that the Murder still appears in the image at the top of the image page, but the update to read "Abortion" at the bottom by Drilnoth looks ok, and I clicked on the Abortion article to see that the sidebar does indeed say Abortion. I figure it's a thing with my computer. I refreshed the page 4 times but it still read as Murder...anyway, I fully protected the image page for 3 days. --Moni3 (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Huh. I protected it indef, and refreshed until the image cache caught up with Drilnoth's fix. In any case, one or more of us took care of it. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks, y'all. I warned the user who made the change; I hope that was appropriate. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Most probably. :-) I extended the protection to indef again, and deleted all the "Murder" versions so that someone couldn't just revert to an earlier version.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Only one edit since January, and it's a vandalism? Sounds like a compromised account. If it were me deciding, I would indef it and see if the user even notices. Baseball Bugs carrots 21:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Bugs, treating these folk with your fluffy kindness and indolent patience is surely going to backfire on you one of these days. Sometimes love and maple syrup isn't enough! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    And that's why I'm not the one deciding, don'cha know. But as merely a lowly peon; just a simple farmer; one of the people of the land; part of the common clay of the new west; I can always make recommendations. 0:) Baseball Bugs carrots 23:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Just be glad I didn't refer to that drive-by vandalism as the CGrapes429 of Wrath. Oops, too late. Baseball Bugs carrots 23:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Love and maple syrup are useless without pancakes and sex. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Mmmmmm maple syrup and sex... damn I wish I was young again! --WebHamster 23:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    I don't recommend mixing lovin' and syrup. Things can get stuck together, and then you'll be subjected to the ridicule of the Rescue Squad. Or so I've heard. 0:) Baseball Bugs carrots 23:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    I think you misheard, that is super glue and sex. Not that I have first hand knowledge.... The Seeker 4 Talk 00:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Actually, what they need is some kind of syrup with the consistency of K-Y. That would be ideal for keeping those pancakes lubricated. Baseball Bugs carrots 00:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Was that from that summer at band camp? Oh... MuZemike 03:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Good grief I go to Disney World for a week and THIS happens in AN/I? Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Standards keep heading down the ladder as we try to wring the last ounce of humor. By now we must be down to the last wrung. Baseball Bugs carrots 13:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Brianna Tatiana

    Would this be a legal threat? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    Yeah, I say so. Block away. MuZemike 22:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    OK, done. Article prodded two days ago in any case. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    Sounds like "The Name Game":

    Brianna Tatiana, bo-biana
    Banana-fana fo-fiana
    Fee-fi-mo-miana
    Brianna Tatiana!
    :) Baseball Bugs carrots 23:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    There some talk on the talk page about this not being about a real person. I was unable to find a single reliable source which is very strange given the article claims she was on MTV and has released an album. If this isn't an article about a fake person, it almost certainly fails to reach notability guidelines. The article should be deleted. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Actually, as I was constructing that Name Game thing, it occurred to me that it would also work for Hannah Montana - which is maybe what inspired this apparent bit of fiction. Baseball Bugs carrots 23:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • OK, sorted. User talk:Indie-lauper has rescinded the legal threat (it wasn't a serious one apparently but nonetheless) and I have unblocked him. I checked the article out a couple of days ago when it came up on the BLP noticeboard and decided to prod it as I couldn't find reliable sources for it but there seems to be a wider problem than Misplaced Pages here, of someone's name and photo being taken and used elsewhere to create a fake identity. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    I think I've found the problem. There was a press release on PR Newswire regarding Brianna Tatiana being signed by Global Village Records.. According to an 2006 SEC litigation release , "Global Village Records" was part of a Ponzi scheme and had no actual business activities. "According to the complaint, even after the original defendants were enjoined from continuing to violate the federal securities laws, they continued their fraud by soliciting additional money into this scam. To circumvent the asset freeze, certain defendants created a new company, Global Village Records, and then used the bank accounts of companies owned by Daniel J. Merriman to forward money from investors." On April 15, 2009, a court ruled against the people behind the scam, with a $51 million final judgement. A criminal prosecution is pending. One can see why someone might not wish to be in Misplaced Pages associated with Global Village Records. --John Nagle (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Crosscheck. Yes, it's the same "Global Village Records". The press release cited above was from a Dr. Henry Jones. The DOJ press release on the criminal case says "A third defendant involved in the plot, Henry Jones, 53, a record company executive, formerly of Marina Del Rey, is expected to be sentenced in early 2009. Jones has been incarcerated since being extradited from Hong Kong last December." Brianna Tatiana is not mentioned in any of the Government press releases on the scam. --John Nagle (talk) 05:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Dr. Henry Jones, lol. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 06:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Great. Times must be tough in the archeaology business. One link says, "Brianna has performed for thousands of fans at sporting events." Is there actually a Brianna? I was thinking I could make this claim myself, for every time I sing the national anthem at a ballpark. I guess I draw attention, because everyone's singing off-key except me. Baseball Bugs carrots 08:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    I am being hounded

    An IP has been following around Misplaced Pages for about a month now and shows no sign of stopping. QuackGuru (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Blocked a month for disruptive editing based on a previous block that appears to not have been effective. Nakon 03:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Odd possible legal threat?

    What do you all make of this removed edit? Seen on RFPP here. rootology/equality 03:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Seems like they're violating the "court order" as well. Nakon 03:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Lol. Does anyone actually understand what Misplaced Pages is outside of Misplaced Pages? - Arcayne () 03:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Not really. That's why they all think it's unreliable. My wife thought it was a blog until I sat her down and showed her everything that goes on behind the scenes. Now she just thinks it's "White and Nerdy"Drew Smith What I've done 05:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    No, that's why they think it's reliable, which it isn't. --NE2 07:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    I don't think it's a legal threat, I think it's just that someone with the newspaper seems to think that they can include specific information about their newspaper here. The IP needs to be pointed to some guidelines regarding encyclopedic information. (I thought my copyedit of that article wasn't so bad when I removed that bit earlier...) Tony Fox (arf!) 04:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Agree. It's not intended to be a legal threat. Mishlai (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Edit War

     Resolved. indefinitely blocked by User:William M. Connolley -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    One user seems to be involved in some serious edit warring. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 06:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    With a name like User:Justthefacts 101, how could there be a problem with his edits? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    They've been indef'd as a sock. Thanks for catching the last revert. Pinkadelica 09:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    A rogue bot

    I am concerned by what I consider a rogue bot. It is working its way through the biographical articles, adding a {{DEFAULTSORT}} parameter to each one.

    Various other people have told the bot owner that they have concerns over this bot. Maybe the bot owner paused their bot. But, if they did they didn't leave a note informing those with a concern that the bot was stopped.

    What this bot was doing was an enormous mistake, for every individual who does not have a name that fits into the European naming scheme of inheritable surnames as the last component of the name. Chinese people use inherited surnames -- but it is the first component of their name. People with Arabic names don't use inherited surnames at all. That is billions of individuals.

    This bot has generated a considerable burden of extra work to clean up after it.

    If it has not been disabled, could an administrator stop it? If it has been stopped could someone leave a note to that effect on the bot's talk page?

    For what it is worth I think there is no mechanical way that a bot can determine whether an individual's name should be put into a defaultsort template, and this bot, nor its brothers, should not be restarted. Geo Swan (talk) 07:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    I believe the bot being refered to is DefaultsortBot. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    DefaultuserBot's owner, Mikaey, has been notified of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    <sigh>. I don't know how many times I try to explain this to everyone. The bot isn't deciding on its own how to arrange the name, it's pulling the listas parameter of the {{WPBiography}} on the talk page. I agree that it's extra work to clean up mistakes, but a) I think it's doing more good than harm in the long run, and b) we need to focus more on editors who are getting the listas wrong in the first place. Anywho, I've turned the bot off for the time being so that hopefully we can get this cleared up. P.S. -- the bot's RfA is here. Matt (talk) 07:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    To err is human, to really screw things up requires a computer.

    Well meaning, but ill-advised volunteers have assumed the European style of inherited surnames was applicable to all names -- when it demonstrably does not apply. Over the last N years they have added ill-advised, unreliable, templates and parameters, to an enormous number of articles where they do not belong. Bots written by well-meaning but ill-advised bot-authors, which rely on the already unreliable data, are compounding an already serious problem.
    At this point more than half of our articles about individuals with Arabic names have had someone add an ill-advised, unreliable guess at what their inherited surname would be. This data is so unreliable no bot should rely on it. Geo Swan (talk) 08:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Why don't we come up with a good way of fixing the problem? Geo Swan, what should the defaultsort/listas be? I or other can try to generate a list, then go through purging/just plain removing the offending defaultsorts/listas. - Jarry1250 08:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    It's really unfair to call it a "rogue bot", when it was approved by the Bot Approvals Group after positive input from the community. The bot takes sorting information from WPBio and puts it into DEFAULTSORT. The vast majority of the time, the sorting information is correct. When it's not correct, the bot can't know that, and it puts it into DEFAULTSORT anyway. The incorrect information would be there with or without this bot. The correct response is to fix it when it's incorrect, not blame the bot operator. This is similar to a bot that changes malformed links like ] to , but isn't aware that occasionally http://www.example.com/ is an irrelevant link. I don't think this is an issue for the Admin Noticeboard.

    So as a solution, it would be great if we could find editors familiar with the Arabic and Persian naming conventions, who can say with a good degree of certainty whether Mohammed Mosaddeq should be sorted under Mohammed or Mosaddeq. Does anyone here have to expertise, and where can I ask? Is there, perhaps, a reference work that lists this? – Quadell 13:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Threat

    Resolved – Scottydog77 indefinitely blocked by User:SarekOfVulcan and sockpuppet report filed.

    I'd appreciate it if an admin would deal with this user in regards to the threat to post my picture "somewhere". And a checkuser who isn't busy may want to also deal with the same user at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Scottydog77. Nice defense there by the user. - ALLST✰R▼ wuz here @ 10:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    *tap tap* Is this thing on? i can haz admnz? - ALLST✰R▼ wuz here @ 11:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Blocked indef. Someone who's more awake can review.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Thank you. - ALLST✰R▼ wuz here @ 11:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    So, you've got your own picture, on a publicly-visible and high-traffic website, and he's threatening to "post it somewhere"? Next thing, he'll be threatening to "out" you. He'll stop at nothing to expose what you've already exposed. Baseball Bugs carrots 13:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Regardless, threats of off-wiki harassment are unacceptable. - ALLST✰R▼ wuz here @ 13:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Why, exactly was the user blocked? WP:OUTING says "Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily posts this information, or links to this information, on Misplaced Pages themselvesItalic text. " NoCal100 (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Regardless, threats of off-wiki harassment are unacceptable. - ALLST✰R▼ wuz here @ 13:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    What threats are you referring to? WP:outing is clear that reposting your picture is not harassment, if you voluntarily posted it yourself to Misplaced Pages. NoCal100 (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    WP:OUTING refers to outing on Misplaced Pages. It doesn't address harassment off wiki. Maybe he shouldn't have been blocked because of WP:OUTING but he should have been blocked period. - ALLST✰R▼ wuz here @ 14:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    what should he have been blocked for? He threatened to do something you've agreed to, which is to republish a file you uploaded to Misplaced Pages undder Creative Commons ShareAlike. NoCal100 (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    It's not just the picture itself necessarily, it could be invasive. For example, it might get posted on the RNC bulletin board: "For a good time, call..." plus his home phone. Then he would start getting calls at all hours, begging for donations. Baseball Bugs carrots 14:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Where would the home phone # come from? If it was also made public, then again, WP:OUTING excludes this from being harrassment. NoCal100 (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    From thorough detective work. For example, anyone who knows me really, really well and were to happen to read all my posts could possibly connect the dots and figure out who's writing it. If they post it, that would be outing, since I haven't explicitly given out my real life identity, they've just inferred it, which could happen to anyone here, in theory. Baseball Bugs carrots 14:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    User talk:Allstarecho has given Scottydog77 (and anyone else) the irrevocable right to publish his pictures anywhere for any purpose. His only condition was that derivative works (i.e.: photoshoppings) should be equally licensed. What's the matter here? Scottydog77 hasn't threatened to do anything wrong. And if you disagree with me, I promise I'll make all your articles in a book and sell it! Mwahahaha.... --Damiens.rf 14:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    The threat to post an already-publicly-visible photo somewhere, reminds me of the time a plane bound for Warsaw was hijacked, and the hijacker demanded the plane be taken to Poland. Baseball Bugs carrots 14:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Apparently you all have missed the issue here. I have not once questioned the licensing or how my photo is used. What I did question is the threat of off-wiki harassment. Thanks for playing. - ALLST✰R▼ wuz here @ 14:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    The block was appropriate. Baseball Bugs carrots 14:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    How so? Which policy ? NoCal100 (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    The problem is that we don't know what else he might do. If all he does is post the picture and say "here's a picture of this guy from wikipedia", that's one thing. But he might have done some research and figured out his real identity. As with legal threats, maybe we can't stop them from doing things off-wiki, but that automatically disqualifies them from editing on-wiki. If the guy were to rescind the threat/promise/whatever, then maybe he could be reinstated. Baseball Bugs carrots 14:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Aside from the off-wiki harassment threat, they've all been blocked now for socking. - ALLST✰R▼ wuz here @ 14:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Bingo. The trump card, as it were. Baseball Bugs carrots 14:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    90.202.151.82

    A user seems to have posted a comment at Misplaced Pages:Abuse reports/90.202.151.82 rather than a more suitable location, copy/pasted from the page, and I shall delete the original shortly. Not really too sure where to put this discussion though...

    90.202.151.82 (talk · contribs)

    Requester Comments Hi - this IP is continually reverting edits that are not being agreed in discussion on a UK town article. Despite several attempts to engage them I have not managed to resolve the situation which has left them undoing any good faith edits I make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regshaw (talk • contribs)

    Notes

    • It would appear from Bradley Stoke that this user is
      • conducting personal attacks on the requester ("you are an insult to the people of Bradley Stoke" , "i can tell you know nothing about web development", ,)
      • blanking ()
    • Possible connection with new account bennyrand (talk · contribs) whose only edits have been making a reference to an off-wiki attack on requester () and making his own home page.

    Ian¹³/t 12:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    This looks like a content dispute that's got a couple of temperatures raised. No warnings have been given out yet, so I've remedied that (IP and Bennyrand have been informed of 3RR+NPA & NPA respectively); I'll keep the page on my watchlist; if the disruption continues in any shape or form and I don't appear to have noticed, feel free to give me a nudge (or post back here). EyeSerene 14:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Category: