Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:02, 30 June 2009

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Darko Trifunović

Darko Trifunović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a BLP, is yet again being repeatedly vandalised by a series of anonymous IP editors - this article has been discussed several times before on AN/I and the BLP noticeboard . The IPs repeatedly post angry rants , blank the article and replace the article with a canned resumé / curriculum vitae . The individual responsible is almost certainly the subject himself, Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been blocked for periods of up to two weeks, has edited from IP addresses and socks, and has been warned numerous times for posting copyright violations, soapboxing, disruption etc. The article has been semi-protected several times but IP vandalism and disruption has resumed as soon as protection has lapsed. This situation has been going on for at least 18 months. Some kind of resolution is long overdue, frankly.

In the light of this continued disruption, I suggest that the discretionary sanctions in force on Balkans-related articles should be invoked. Specifically, I suggest:

• an extended block of Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs) for up to the year mandated by the discretionary sanctions;
• an indefinite topic ban of Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs) editing BLPs;
• indefinite semi-protection of Darko Trifunović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to prevent the ongoing disruption by IP sockpuppets.

I should add that I would not object at all to Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs) being given an indefinite block. He is plainly not interested in contributing productively and has done almost no editing apart from disrupting "his" biography. Given the very lengthy catalogue of disruption that he has caused over a long period of time, I can't see him becoming a useful editor any time soon (or ever, for that matter). -- ChrisO (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I see some edits by him of "himself", but they are a week old. Is there evidence the IPs are this guy, such as a checkuser? I dislike community bans on gut feeling.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been peripherally involved, in that I have blocked some socks and also suggested that the editor/subject contact the Office regarding allegations about the editing of "their" article (which either they have not done, or it was not sustained), and would back ChrisO's call for some resolution. I would, however, hesitate in locking up the article and throwing away the key - I have seen some serious allegations linked to sources that do not necessarily support the comments regarding the subject. I support linking the article to the ARBMAC provisions to ensure that the neutrality (derived from reliable sources, properly ascribed) is not compromised by any party. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It's not a community ban - it's a request for the enforcement of discretionary sanctions per WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions. The IPs all trace to the same ISP, Serbia Broadband in Belgrade, where Trifunovic is based , and they all do the same sort of thing - replacing the article with Trifunovic's CV and posting rants in broken English. As I said, this has been going on for a long time - 18 months at least. In response to LessHeard's comments, semi-protection is needed to ensure that the article can be edited without being continually vandalised. It's a bit of an exaggeration to say that semi-protection would be "locking up the article and throwing away the key" - it would just mean that the endless vandalism from IPs would cease, which can only be a good thing. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

(3x e/c) In response to ChrisO's prompting on my talk page, here are my thoughts:

• The Darko Trifunovic article is in an inefinite state right now. Various editors trimmed and RS'ed the article into a state just above stub, but only into a state where it is verifiable, not IMO to where it is notable.
• Darko (presumably) is mildly disruptive, but nothing that the multiple eyeballs already watching can't handle (as I just did). However the mild disruption does not violate BLP, in that it does not inject negative information. Thus I would be opposed to semi-protection or indefblocking of the Darko user themself.
• User:Bosniak could possibly use a topic ban, since their contributions are rarely productive. Also, Darko's presumed lawyer and the supporting academic possibly located in NY State have been unhelpful.
• The answer here, to me, is to finish the job and construct a proper article that deals properly with the subject. As it is, we have a single event where the subject is not necessarily a prime mover. Maybe so, but also maybe not. No matter how vile the viewpoints expressed, we need to obey BLP. We should either fix the article up properly (and I can't help much since I don't have access to EE sources) - or we should delete it. Franamax (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the incomplete task of rewriting the article needs to be finished - it seems to have stalled. With regard to the disruptive editor, WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions specifically provided for the sanctioning of editors who "fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process." I think it would be hard to argue that Trifunovic has adhered to any of those things. He has contributed absolutely nothing of value to Misplaced Pages and his continued involvement is not helping to improve the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that some evidence that the IPs are this guy are needed. Yes, I know, quack quack, but there are several peopele in Belgrade, at least ten or twelve, and no doubt a few of them write broken English.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Well, on the Purpose clause, the purpose is NPOV, which is not necessarily being satisfied here; the Decorum clause doesn't really apply, since Darko and all the sock/meat-puppets are quite polite; and Editorial process - well, when it's your own name, you find an injustice, nobody listens - wouldn't you walk around to every internet cafe in the city too? I'm not saying it's right, just that it's a reminder that we need to fix the article.

Even if you get an SPI that nails down a connection between DT and the IP editors, we generally block the puppets, not the master. I'd think that a final warning to the Darko user entity not to edit their named article page under any guise would suffice, with a reminder to raise specific concerns on the talk page of the article. If the resume is anonymously posted after the warning, sprot would be indicated, with around one month duration (it's not a high-traffic article). Same goes for the user and user-talk page.

Note that Trifunovic is not noticeably pushing the POV of "they raped and tortured people so it's OK that we raped and tortured people" here on the en:wiki. The issue from what I can see is to just clear up the BLP article. Franamax (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It sounds reasonable, Franamax, though I'd be cautious about the final warning thing. Perhaps more along the lines of "Please work with us on the article talk page. If this is you, please cut it out, you aren't helping matters any."--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I must say I'm surprised to see this individual still treated with this much mildness by some people here. As someone who has followed the issue from a distance for some time, I have to agree completely with ChrisO: the amount of long-term disruption the article has seen is mind-boggling. This guy is not here to correct BLP problems about his own article; his presence has been disruption-only for months. He should have been indef-banned long ago. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's called assuming good faith, not mildness, and demanding evidence before banning an editor. I still haven't seen any evidence these IPs are this editor except for being allegedly in the same city and language troubles. I suggest this thread be closed, this isn't going anywhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any real doubt that the IPs are the editor. I'll request a checkuser run on the IPs - in the meantime please keep the thread open so that I can update it as necessary. In the meantime, can we at least semi-protect the article so that the current run of disruption can be stopped? -- ChrisO (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the identity is plain obvious. Just compare the following edits:

• posting CV instead of bio article
  • logged-in: ; logged-in sock: , IP
• copy-pasting non-wikified article text from earlier versions:
  • logged-in: , IP
• posting complaint rants in article space:
  • logged-in: ; IP:

Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Updated - the checkuser request is at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Darko Trifunovic. The pattern is indeed extremely obvious. The IPs are doing exactly the same thing that the Darko account and a previous sockpuppet have been doing for some time. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I too have watched the Trifunović article and its Talk for some time. As I reverted one of the countless instances of vandalism by the the article's subject, I was notified of this discussion by ChrisO.

ChrisO and Fut.Perf are well up to speed with Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs)'s persistent disruption. There have been numerous warnings. The fellow never complies. When his changes are reverted and his self-promotional propaganda removed, he switches to accusations of apartheidism and terrorism etc. It's clear from his repeated outbursts that if the article does not serve his personal agenda he will not hesitate to disrupt it and use it as a propaganda vehicle.

I tend towards liberal treatment of Wikimiscreants, but it was tried ad nauseam with Trifunović and it failed. ChrisO, in particular, has been patient and courteous in the extreme. It looks as thought the time has come for firm action such as he has suggested.

And it seems that Wehwalt may not be fully conversant with the article's history. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Writegeist (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism has resumed, this time from an apparent open proxy in Israel which is being used to repeatedly blank the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser has confirmed that Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs) is responsible for the IP edits. In view of the lack of any interest here in dealing with an obvious case of disruptive sockpuppetry, I'm taking this issue over to WP:AE. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Result at AE was an indef block of Darko Trifunovic (block log). — Satori Son 14:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Joining this discussion late; however, I'd like to respond to Franamax's point. I for one am aware that the article is woefully incomplete. There's a good bit more that can be added, with proper sourcing. However, I and most of the other main contributors to this article have been somewhat preoccupied by WP:ARBMAC2 and the associated naming debate. I have every intention of returning to this article when time permits. // Chris 13:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Also joining late - I have been dealing with this for years now, Darko had been extended good faith much longer than any other chronic abuser I am aware of. He's repeatedly been told not to do this with the article, and to bring concerns to the article talk page. Which he's done at times, and resulted in a significant reduction in critical content about him, but not a complete whitewash.

His ongoing disruption here was not acceptable. As CU confirmed the anons are really him - we have no reason to AGF anymore, we've proved bad faith engagement after repeatedly giving opportunities to engage within Misplaced Pages policy and plenty of assistance and openminded discussion. I support the indef. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll just go on record here as saying that blocking the primary account is not a good idea. That account is currently making quite ham-fisted attempts to "vandalise" one single article - really now, spotting that is a highlight of my wiki-day. We're not at serious risk of damage here. The distributed attacks by IP's, acknowledged by the CU to be unblockable at this minor level of disruption are similarly a small concern. An inadequate article is replaced by a resume for a few minutes. So what? It's fixable, right?

The bigger issue is that we need to either finish the article or dispose of it. We need to occupy the higher ground. I'll help either way, but I'm devoid of resources to research the whole thing. We need someone to step up to the plate and get this resolved. Franamax (talk) 09:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive SPA?

I bet you'd like to know (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I do not see this as permitted under WP:SOCK#LEGIT. Moreover, the last thing we need is more of these advocates for absolute free speech, especially ones that aren't even willing to do it under their main account. I almost blocked indefinitely myself, but I thought I'd solicit more views. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that the user seems to be American, they don't have the excuse that they're contributing from some politically sensitive region of the world and need additional protection. So far the "illegal" thing they've posted using this account is the name of a juvenile offender. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Which is in fact illegal to publish in Canada (the location of the crime), just so we're clear. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh for God's sake. We on about this again? When will people understand that just because we can (legally) publish something it doesn't mean we should (morally and ethically)? And more to the point, when will Americans learn to understand how their free speech guarantee actually works? Ugh. → ROUX ₪ 03:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Constitutional free speech and press largely has to do with the right to criticize the government. Unfortunately, some think free speech and press mean "no limitations". That ain't it. Baseball Bugs carrots 03:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

What I'm taking from the above is that my first instinct to indef block was the correct one. I shall make it so momentarily. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 04:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse that block you are about to make. Good call; this is clearly a multiple account situation, and this is also clearly NOT a legit use of a secondary account. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • A checkuser would also be a good idea. Results don't need to be made public, but the user who is hiding their tracks needs a severe talking-to about why it's unacceptable. Frankly, I'd be happy if we changed the sock policy to "No socks, ever." Would make situations like this much more easy to deal with. → ROUX ₪ 04:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
    • The likely response of a checkuser request here would be "checkuser is not for fishing". I'd like to see it happen, but I'd be surprised if anybody would do it. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 04:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Which speaks to an enormous misunderstanding of what Checkuser is good for, alas. Not to mention is found nowhere in WMF policy. It should absolutely be used for fishing; the long delay between identifying socks and getting rid of them is silly. Pre-emptively finding them would only be a benefit to the project. → ROUX ₪ 04:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
        • You won't find it anywhere in WMF policy because it's a English Misplaced Pages-specific policy. "Fishing" requests, as they're called here, are permitted elsewhere. Hersfold 04:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I know; it's a silly policy. → ROUX ₪ 05:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Is it because there's a shortage of checkusers? Seems like when even an accepted SPI is posted, it can take days for them to get back. Baseball Bugs carrots 05:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Endorse check being run. Enigma 04:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I was drawn to this discussion in reviewing this user's request for unblock. I find this block preposterous. This user has not posted the real name of the minor defendant that is being discussed and has no apparent intention of doing so, despite what their user page states. But they have stated that they live in Canada, and that their main account is under their real name. They have done nothing but make two comments in the discussion. There are reasonable editors (admins, even) on both sides of the dispute, and if the user has had a bit of confusion between the principle of free speech in the US and Misplaced Pages's own version, I think that's forgivable. This is clearly an appropriate use of alternate accounts under WP:SOCK#LEGIT, as an alternate account for a controversial area. Mangojuice 21:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The user has posted the real name of the young offender, in his second edit. Besides that, by the account's own admission it is an alternate account devoted to the single purpose of taking an extreme stance on freedom of speech; if somebody wants to push such a stance, they should not receive the benefit of WP:SOCK#LEGIT to do so. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I meant in the article. Two edits is not an extreme stance: I would like you to justify that these two edits constitute actual disruption rather than discussion. Mangojuice 21:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

A couple of things: first, the account's gratuitous use of the young offender's name on the talk page, especially in conjunction with the posts on his user page, strongly suggest that he's here to make a WP:POINT. Second, I don't think it's helpful for Misplaced Pages to facilitate Canadians' violation of Canadian law (we're not responsible for enforcing it, obviously, but it strikes me as dubious to allow accounts whose sole purpose is to violate it). Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have unblocked the account with the condition that it limit its activities to participating in this thread until the question is resolved. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Steve. I'd like the opportunity to speak on my own behalf. The question here is not whether the killer's name should be mentioned, or what the limits are to free speech. (For the record, I know free speech is not absolute, and that Misplaced Pages policy may differ from what's allowed in the outside world.) The question is whether I was being disruptive or violating any Misplaced Pages policies. WP:SOCK only bans secondary accounts used for "fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes that violate or circumvent enforcement of Misplaced Pages policies." In fact, WP:SOCK also says it is acceptable to use a secondary account to avoid "real-world consequences from their involvement" in a controversial topic. In order to determine whether the block is appropriate, you have to divorce yourself from all of your thoughts and opinions about the Richardson family murders article and look at it strictly as a matter of Misplaced Pages policy. If you have a strong opinion about whether or not to mention the killer's name, you should address that on Talk:Richardson family murders, not in a blocking discussion.

As regards WP:POINT, the policy is "Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point." I did not mean to disrupt Misplaced Pages; I merely posted two comments on the talk page.

For my part, I promise not to mention the girl's first name on the talk page again until the issue of whether to mention her name in the article is decided. -- I bet you'd like to know (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Your very username is WP:POINTy. → ROUX ₪ 22:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) To add to that, everything about this account - from the user name to the quote on its user page (including the quotation marks around "illegal") to its unnecessary disclosure of young offenders' names on article talk pages suggests that it is a single purpose POV-pushing account. Single purpose POV-pushing accounts are made no more acceptable by the POV in question being about Misplaced Pages policy rather than about a real world subject. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. WP:POV deals with bias in articles. It has nothing to do with pressing a point of view about an article's contents on a talk page. That's the responsible thing to do -- to press one's case on a talk page rather than unilaterally editing an article. -- I bet you'd like to know (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:POV isn't applicable here, which is why I didn't link to it. You're here to push for a change to how Misplaced Pages deals with voluntary self-censorship; that is your account's single purpose (and don't try arguing that you're not trying to change Misplaced Pages's policy so much as to change the content of individual Misplaced Pages articles; the descriptive nature of Misplaced Pages policy means that this is the same thing). Per WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY, "In particular, sockpuppet accounts may not be used in internal project-related discussions, such as policy debates." Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that the "internal project-related discussions" mentioned in WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY applies to all discussions on Misplaced Pages, even localized discussions on individual talk pages? That leads to a conclusion that secondary accounts cannot be involved in any disputes on Misplaced Pages. I don't think many people would come to that conclusion after reading WP:SOCK. Anyway, the point of the account is to contribute information that may get me in trouble in the real world, not to get into policy arguments. But being a responsible Misplaced Pages editor, I decided to have a discussion on the talk page rather than to unilaterally change the article. -- I bet you'd like to know (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Not all localized disputes are about Misplaced Pages's broader policy. Localized disputes about Misplaced Pages's approach to information that is illegal to publish in some jurisdictions, especially when pushed by an account who acknowledges that liberalizing Misplaced Pages's rules on such matters is its sole purpose, are de facto Misplaced Pages policy discussions. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 23:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The account was not created to "liberalize Misplaced Pages's rules on such matters." It was created to contribute information to the encyclopedia, like all constructive accounts. It so happens that was a dispute regarding the article, so I made my opinions known on the talk page first per WP:EP, like I should have done. -- I bet you'd like to know (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will request a change in username. -- I bet you'd like to know (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Participating in a discussion about a controversial issue in order to keep one's main account private is a perfectly reasonable thing for an alternate account to do as long as there's no disruption. I don't believe mentioning an already-public name of someone whose name is supposed to be kept secret constitutes disruption: in fact, I am far more concerned that the oversnsitivity being shown here will affect the debate on the issue. And Steve Smith's idea that this was somehow a Misplaced Pages-wide policy discussion is preposterous: no, this is really about this single article, and no one is proposing rewriting policy. That interpretation would have the effect of preventing any legitimate use of alternate accounts where policy is involved, which is basically all article editing when there is any contention at all. Mangojuice 13:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hold on. Including the names of murderers in an article about the murder hardly sounds like free speech absolutism to me, especially when a quick Google search shows several US-based reliable sources ( i.e. Discovery Channel's website ) which mention the name without reservation. I'm finding the reasons given for the block extremely underwhelming. I'm also seeing a contradiction in the arguments claiming this is an inappropriate use of a sock: One one side, some users want to take sensitivity to Canadian law into account in obscuring the names. But on the other side, editors are saying that the user is not contributing from a politically risky part of the world and therefore not a legitimate use of a sock. So which is it? It seems to me we're bending our own rules toward Canadian censorship standards while at the same time claiming Canada isn't repressive enough to allow the use of a sock. I highly doubt we would show the same deference to Iranian law. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that permanently unblocking me does not mean we're going to name the killer. That decision will be made on Talk:Richardson family murders. I can see it both ways, but the question here is whether I was violating Misplaced Pages policy, and I think it's clear that I was not. I wish I could go back to 2005 and not use my real name as my username so this wouldn't be an issue. But I promise that if permanently unblocked, I will change the username of my secondary account, change my secondary account's user page, abide by WP:SOCK#LEGIT, refrain from using the killer's name on Talk:Richardson family murders and only edit Richardson family murders in accordance with Misplaced Pages policies on consensus and dispute resolution. -- I bet you'd like to know (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I was holding off in case more feedback comes in, but this is really all we could possibly hope for. I'm lifting the block completely; you are now free to rejoin the discussion. Mangojuice 13:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Final conclusion about Google hits

In the recent AFD discussions, the problem of Google hits was really intriguing. In some discussions 80 google hits were considered as proofs of notability, in others, 300 google hits were judged meaningful; what about this.?,Rirunmot (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That is interesting. My understanding is that Misplaced Pages:GOOGLE#Notability dismisses the entire idea of establishing notability with hits, so I don't know why these arguments are still being used. Viriditas (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Google hits are rightly listed as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions.  Skomorokh  13:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's because many who make such arguments do not care about or otherwise outright dismiss the notability guidelines. MuZemike 17:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Skomorokh, how can anyone remember all of these arguments to avoid? Can anyone come up with a mnemonic? Viriditas (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Why remember when the Internet can remember everything for you?  Skomorokh  04:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• This is the wrong place for this conversation - take it to the essay's talk page if you like/dislike what the essay says/doesn't say. Marking resolved, as there is nothing here to resolve. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks in article mainspace

I'm having a bit of a dispute with User:Russellfl5, in the article John Russell (Florida politician) and outside. I listed the article for deletion, and actually filed a sock puppet report, thinking that they were the same as User:Baxterword, and I'm still not convinced that they are not the same (the report is at ]). Now, after cleaning up a coding error by Russellfl5 in that SPI, I saw some nasty, nasty things, and to my surprise they had repeated accusations of terrorism (yes, indeed) in the article mainspace, here. I can't rightly tell if I'm being "outed" here or not--I guess not, since the user doesn't seem to understand UTC, but I'm certainly being insulted as an Israel-hating terrorist. Do I need to explain here that my interest, as you'll see from the article history, was to remove trivia? Your attention is appreciated. Russell is aggravating me a little. Drmies (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems that Russellf15 is claiming to be John Russell (Florida politician). I removed his rant from the article and left a standard COI warning on his talk page. If it continues, he'll likely be blocked. --auburnpilot talk 05:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

After making this edit, one minute after the COI warning, I've indef-blocked the user. It's a bit faster than usual, but this type of harassment isn't indicative of someone who wants to edit constructively. I trust that's not overly controversial. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No arguments here. Somebody might also want to keep an eye on PuddyKat (talk · contribs). The account has the distinct trademarks of a sock/meat puppet. --auburnpilot talk 05:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Good block on Mr. Russell; is deserving of an automatic indefinite disruption block. MuZemike 05:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have also requested CheckUser in that SPI per the likelihood and evidence of further abuse via sockpuppetry. MuZemike 05:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

From the SPI report: Russellfl5 (talk · contribs) is  Unrelated to Baxterword (talk · contribs).  Confirmed PuddyKat (talk · contribs) = Russellfl5 (talk · contribs). (Check done by Nishkid64) Icestorm815 • Talk 14:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your quick action. Reporting someone at AN/I does not make me feel real good about myself, but I guess I am glad I did it. I do appreciate, from all of you, your serious consideration, which led to the block and the unmasking of a sock puppet--I wouldn't have thought of that myself. Which is why you guys have the admin job and I correct comma errors! Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I received an email message from Russell, accusing me of lack of balls and inviting me to call him and all that: "If you have the BALLS why don't you call me RIGHT NOW AND WE'LL TALK?" (He included his cell number...) I don't know if, after the block, he still has email privileges. Also, I should just ignore this, right? Or should I just call the local newspaper, haha? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Local newspaper would be more satisfying, but ignoring is best -- unless he starts slinging legal threats around, in which case you should let us know again -- you shouldn't have to stand alone for good-faith edits.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Block his ability to send emails, please. MuZemike 16:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, that was apparently already done, and the user still was able to send an email. MuZemike 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Which account did you receive the email from? User:Russellfl5 has email sending blocked. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Whoa, I never thought to check. The email came from his own email account, not through Misplaced Pages. So he had my personal email address already at Monday, June 29, 2009 12:27 AM. No wonder he had my work phone number at 10AM. This is creepy, but as I understand it's been 'handled' already at the sysop level. Brrr. Drmies (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Adjusted block on PuddyKat to do the same. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Broy7 seems to be an obvious site abuser

User:Broy7 Has been warned twice already by me and refuses to respond or discuss. Numerous examples of blatant removal of material on dozens of articles. Deletes vast sections of articles and gives reasons like "poor grammar" or "bad English." The grammar and English on the page will be fine..........then what they leave of the article they mess it up with grammar errors and bad English on purpose. Unreal the nerve they have.

Constantly removes sourced and pertinent info from numerous pages, even entire sections of articles that are sourced and pertinent, citing "bad English" and "poor grammar," only to then leave a bare bones article, to which they then go through again and purposely put bad grammar and English on what is left of the page. Reverts back any restores of pages and reverts unlimited number of times, usually within an hour or less. If someone adds something new to an article this user works on or has worked on in the past, then within an hour, maybe less, the page will be reverted back. No matter what the add is, how pertinent it is, if it is updating an article, correcting an article, adding a source, whatever........it will be reverted back.

There are it seems in the dozens of articles now in a relatively short period of time that the user is doing this to. Most of them just include taking an article and deleting most info on it and leaving an edit summary like "greatly improved this article that was done so badly", or "fixed the terrible English in this article". Of course, there was no fixing or improving, just deleting of a whole lot of stuff and then purposely messing the English and grammar up. It seems that all articles relating to Lithuania Misplaced Pages project are what the user is targeting, at least for now anyway. If you try to talk to this user and explain about new material being added to a page that was a pertinent update or a source being added and that it should not be reverted back you get no response. You also get no response if you try to inform them of the 3 revert rule. This user is an abuser - one of the worst I have seen yet. I would not put this here lightly, but this user is certainly purposely trying to mess up articles. That is very obvious. This user might even be worse than Downwards. Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 08:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The first few diffs of Broy7's that I reviewed seemed like good edits. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you please provide us some links to this purported "problem behavior"? I checked out several of the edits and I do not see any obvious issues. Shereth 14:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

They are feuding at Šarūnas Jasikevičius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Ramūnas Šiškauskas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Naturally neither one is using the article talk pages, Basketball's first edit to User talk:Broy7 assumes bad faith , and Broy7 has never posted to use own user talk page. Thatcher 15:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The user is clearly abusing the site. I told you what they are doing already. I am 100% sure that the site would ban this person permanently if they looked at the pattern of all their edits. Also it seems that this might be the same user as User:Downwards, one of the most notorious site abusers ever.--Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Longstanding edit war on Syrian/Egyptian articles

Hey. I wasn't really sure where to post this since it's been growing in the past few days, so if it's in the wrong place, please let me know and I'll take it elsewhere.

Basically I became involved in this issue as a third opinion to settle a dispute. Two editors have been going back and forth on Asmahan and articles related to that one about whether she was Syrian, Egyptian, or Syrian-Egyptian, or some combination involving Lebanon as well. Turns out that one of the editors was battling on the page as an anon IP before he registered as Arab Cowboy. Either way, this issue has been going on for nearly two months and resulted in an admin fully protecting the page. The editing has recently spilled over into other articles.

The reason I wasn't sure as to where to post this is because it touches so many different issues. It largely looks like one user being a tendentious edit warrior, but maybe not. And it is a content dispute, but after two months of issues, I don't really get the sense that this one editor is going to respect any sort of consensus that comes out of an RfC. The main discussion I've been involved with is at Talk:Asmahan. But I'm really not sure how to proceed from here, so any advice would be helpful. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong 13:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, just as a follow-up, the two editors are Arab Cowboy (talk · contribs) and Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs). — HelloAnnyong 18:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"She was born on a ship heading from Greece to Lebanon." In other words, she was born in international waters -- which is going to complicate even a civil discussion of the matter. Aiyaiyai. Annyong, my advice is to get the parties to supply reliable sources which show that this is a point of contention beyond Misplaced Pages's little world; if they exist, use what they say. If none are forthcoming -- that is, except for these two, no one actually argues over her nationality -- then use Occam's razor & go with the simplest statement, such as she was Egyptian citizenship of Lebanese (or Syrian) parents -- or simply have the article state she did most of her shows in Egypt. (Even better, use what the reliable secondary sources say.) But getting a pair like these to accept that Misplaced Pages's not going to print The Truth -- only statement of what notable people think is The Truth -- will require a lot of patience & tact. Good luck. -- llywrch (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editor Wikifan12345 possible sockpuppet for banned accounts

Wikifan12345 is a disruptive and tendentious editor who exclusively edits Israel/Palestine articles from a pro-Israel perspective. Full disclosure: I've had problems with him/her in Israeli Settlement but I've also noticed him causing problems in 1948 Palestinian exodus and Mohamed ElBaradei, the latter in which he has continually refused to accept a consensus against including a section about Israel. He pushed the issue to mediation and then refused to accept the outcome after the mediator told him to accept the consensus.

I noticed on his userpage () that he has listed 3 accounts under the heading R.I.P. (meaning rest in peace, one would assume). The 3 accounts are pro-Israel accounts (Malcolm Schosha, Tundrabuggy, Jayjg) that have been admonished for violating Misplaced Pages rules.

Tundrabuggy was blocked indefinitely for sockpuppeting after they evaded detection for 10 months during a 1 year ban on their original account (Dajudem) that resulted from CAMERA fiasco.

Malcolm Schosha was blocked indefinitely after a number of virulent personal attacks against pro-Palestinian editors.

The fact that this user has created a memorial for a number of blocked users shows that he is not going to accept community standards, and that he regards Misplaced Pages purely as a battlefield rather than an encyclopedia.

This also raises the question of whether Wikifan12345 is a sockpuppet of one of these banned accounts or is a CAMERA meatpuppet. Halfacanyon (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This looks suspiciously like a tit-for-tat of WP:Wikiquette_alerts#Halfacanyon_accusing_me_of_POV-pushing.2C_lying.2C_etc... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Halfacanyon, where has Jayjg been admonished for violating Misplaced Pages rules as stated above? --Tom (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Here and here. There are also earlier arbitration cases, but those are the most recent. Halfacanyon (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if that is the same as violating rules, but got your drift, thanks, --Tom (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan12345 is evidently not in the same time zone as any of the other three editors. It's usually a good idea to check such things before making public accusations. Hans Adler 15:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Halfacanyon

For someone whose account has been active for one month, this looks like another tit-for-tat... seicer | talk | contribs 15:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone reaaaaaalllly learned Misplaced Pages quickly! ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If Halfacanyon walks like a duck, then quacks like a duck... duck-billed platypus? IronDuke 16:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

But unlike Wikifan I'm not maintaining a memorial of sockpuppet accounts that have been banned on my user page. Now _that_ is quacking like a duck Halfacanyon (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, of course. IronDuke 18:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

His addition of this smartarsed edit and immediate removal is ... well ... interesting (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What's "smartarsed" about saying I have nothing to hide? I removed it because I thought he may have been asking Wikifan due to the indenting. If he isn't then I stand by my comments. Halfacanyon (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I will respond to this in a couple of hours. I am busy at the moment. this is too funny. : ) cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Remarks by Seicer, BWilkins and IronDuke above are unclear, unhelpful and distracting. Please find a useful WP:-policy yourself. A user promoting CAMERA-banned user on the user-page cannot claim a pro-wikipedia-attitude. -DePiep (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I could give less than a flying fuck about "CAMERA", Israel, or the original topic at hand. I'm curious as to why, an account that is only one month of age, is so well versed in our policies and prior incidents that his editing scope has been very narrowly defined to include only a handful of articles and an obsession over one particular editor. So, please take your POV ranting elsewhere because I have no claim, nor have I edited, in the realms that you noted above. seicer | talk | contribs 17:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

DePiep, if you have nothing to add, you needn't feel you need to comment here. Seicer, a CU check might be useful to see which other account(s) Halfacanyon has, but the account itself is a disruptive, "bad hand" account, and should probably be blocked in any case. Your thoughts? IronDuke 18:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(editconflict see Wf12345 after this:)

re seicer: CAMERA was the topic. You changed the topic/sectiontitle (disruption). Then, writing "less than a flying fuck" is not civil. IronDuke: "nothing to add"?: if I cannot follow the talk here through deviation etc., I am perfectly entitled to ask for clearness etc. I was not commenting, I was asking for clarity. Please do your private fightings elsewhere. -DePiep (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

CAMERA was mentioned briefly (and quite unconvincingly) by the probable sock Halfacanyon; that you continue to raise that issue could be construed as you meatpuppeting for an abusive sock -- possibly himself a banned editor. I'm sure you don't want to be seen as doing that. And your request for clarity was, ironically, not particularly clear. If there's something about you didn't understand about what I wrote, I am happy to clarify. IronDuke 20:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

re IronDuke(out-of-chron!): briefly or whatever quality: it was in the original report, then seicer changes the topic/sectiontitle, and then he/she writes "I'm not interested" (in other words). I don't raise it, I return to it from seicers deviation. And I wrote yours remarks 'are unclear, unhelpful and distracting'. If not clear, you could have asked for an explanation. I assume you were well aware that the topic was moving. Finally, could you clarify your remark "I'm sure you don't want to be seen as doing that", because unspecified it could be read as threatening. Now we can go back to the subject: Wikifan12345 -DePiep (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Seicer is an editor in good standing, Halfacanyon is an obvious disruptive sockpuppet. Whatever Seicer wants to do is, I'm sure, far closer to the interests of the project than Halfacanyon. Some of your remarks seem garbled, so I'm not quite sure how to respond to them. I think my remarks about the dangers of your being seen to meatpuppet for a disruptive editors are quite clear (and not at all threatening); indeed, an increasing number of (uninvolved) users seem to be of the opinion that you have things very, very wrong here. There's no shame in being wrong, only in continuing to be wrong when the truth becomes clear. I would back away from this, if I were you (NB: Not a threat, just good advice). IronDuke 21:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Try again. I've been around here for over three years, as an administrator and as an editor, and anyone with a bit of experience can easily detect a meatpuppet and/or a disruptive sockpuppet. Since you apparently have issues comprehending what I am writing, let me make it clear: I have no issue with any of the articles mentioned, and have never edited any of the articles mentioned nor have any inclination to do so because it's something I could care less about. Therefore, my "flying fuck" comment is directed towards that, not any one individual, therefore it is not an uncivil remark. Unless you are truly offended by the word fuck. seicer | talk | contribs 20:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

re again seicer (a-chron). Three years or zero: I react to what I read, whatever your resume. - On first exchanges. If you can recognise or detect a puppet that well, you could have written that more clearly and less fuming. It really was getting into a tit-for-tat-for-tit, unreadable for a fresh reader like me. I need to point out that you first inserted a new sectiontitle, and then went off-original-topic. - Then reacting to me. Next, if you are not into a detail of the topic, you could have skipped that in your reaction (you could have left out your whole first sentence, at no cost and all gain). Finally, since you mention adminship, I find your line of talk and the change of topic, eh, disturbing in Misplaced Pages-sense. (You're the first admin I meet that writes "I'm not interested in your topic"). And after writing to me "your POV ranting" leaves for you the sweet invitation assuming my good faith. -DePiep (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent): Ok, I'm back. Are we going to close this? User:Halfacanyon has been very hostile from the moment I started editing Israeli settlements. He reverted every single one of my edits claiming I deleted sourced material and removed references. I tried to explain to him I simply removed duplicate references and told him to re-direct identical references in the future. He is also following me around in other articles I'm editing, such as 1948 Palestinian exodus . As far as sock-puppetry is concerned, I don't know what to say. I consider it a compliment for someone to accuse me of being an alias of User:Jayjg. I posted a brief wikietiquette alert following Half's mean accusations that I am a POV-pusher. I suggested Half and I go through dispute resolution to avoid edit warring but he has yet to respond. I posted a lengthy explanation for my edits at the settlement talk but that has gone no where. I would greatly an uninvolved and experienced admin/user weigh in on the discussion. Cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(This understandably to be read as a re to the previous section #Disruptive editor Wikifan12345 possible sockpuppet for banned accounts. Due to the disruptive edit by seicer, inserting a new sectiontitle out-of-chron, out-of-place, it might read illogic). -DePiep (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It's all the same section. DePiep, I see you are concerned about my "memorial" of editors Malcolm, Tundra, and Jayjg. I thoroughly enjoyed collaborating with those users and whatever flaws they might have does not change my opinion of them. Plenty of pro-Israel/pro-Palestinian editors share respect for retired users, I am certainly not the first to do this. Everyone who edits the Israel/Palestinian articles harbor some kind of bias, but that is irrelevant. I provided a comparison of my edits and Half edits in the talk, I suggest you look at it. If you believe my rewrite screams Zionist propaganda let me know. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect to W12345, he's definitely not Jayjg. There is nothing wrong with worshipping banned editors, and since WP promotes AGF, then an accusation of guilt by association is certainly 'bad faith on Halfacanyon's part. This whole disruption/sockpuppet double accusation is quite absurd when the real basis for this useless discussion is that Halfacanyon does not like a w12345s pro-Israel editing. --Shuki (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

DiPiep, please stop trying to obfuscate things here. "I don't give a flying fuck about CAMERA" is actually quite important here - the articles or topics themselves are not the issue, so your posts seem to be the ones becoming disruptive. A "new" editor, who was the subject of a Wikiquette filing later filed a tit-for-tat ANI filing, accusing someone of being a sockpuppet, and it appears to be solely for the intent to discredit them. Anyone can easily tell that Wikifan is not any of his "heroes" as listed on his page. I fully expect that Halfacanyon is some with whom Wikifan has had past incidents, and this is their way of getting back. If anyone is a sock (or even meat), it's Halfacanyon. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

re (a-chron) thank you for clarifying. Please accept my initial question: the posts by you three editors (now top of this subsection) were unclear for a fresh reader like me, indirectly and insider-only-like. Read like there is something invisible. I want to be able to understand Misplaced Pages, so I ask. (Question left: why not created a fully new section?). -DePiep (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

DePiep, not to be insulting, but WP:ANI may not be a good place for you to understand Misplaced Pages - it's a location where problems are brought in front of admins, so it's very full of insider-related discussion. It's not typically meant for "normal" editors. Indeed, by watching, you can learn a lot, but make sure not to comment unless you understand the process when complaints are lodged. However, let me answer the question: a complaint was lodged by User:Halfacanyon about User:Wikifan12345...turns out that Halfacanyon was apparently the real problem, so you make a subsection and continue the discussion. We often call this situation the "Plaxico effect", as Halfacanyon effectively shot himself in the foot here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this might be out of line but I have a turbulent history with User:Jersay who was banned for sock-puppetry at List of terrorist incidents, 2009. As far as I know, his most recent sock is User:Pattywack. However, Half's posting style appears to be a lot more intelligent than Jersay's but I figured this was worth a mention anyways. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's an old tit for tat thing (I love WP for actually relating to this behaviour). I'm now leaning towards Halfa being related to Special:Contributions/Ewawer. If so, very good separation of personalities, but some crossovers. Ewawer is a sex-lover, from Australia, Jewish and/or has an affinity for Christian issues with some pro-Arab edits. The Ewawer personality also has inconsistent edit interests. Halfa has also edited Christian pages, yet not entirely anti-Israel, maybe somewhat leftist anti-Zionist. --Shuki (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

← OK, this has probably degenerated far enough. Halfacanyon (talk · contribs) is obviously not a new user, and I think that the general trend and consensus has been to tighten up a bit on the flood of agenda-driven socks on Israel/Palestine articles. Accordingly, I've blocked Halfacanyon indefinitely. I can't say with certainty which account is behind Halfacanyon, but whomever it is, they need to go back to using their main account to edit this controversial and sock-ridden area (assuming their main account has not already been sanctioned). I think a checkuser would be worthwhile to look for sleeper accounts, though probably of limited utility without a clear idea who the main account belongs to. Insofar as Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) is concerned, nothing presented here as evidence here indicates any issue requiring urgent administrative action against him. MastCell  21:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In reviewing Halfacanyon's unblock request, I feel that this sort of vague wave accusation of sockpuppetry is a poor way to go, but there is enough cause for suspicion that I think we need more disclosure from the user. That said, I've issued a strong warning about the general sanctions on Arab-Israel conflict articles. I would prefer to handle the situation that way. Mangojuice 04:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I also believe Wikifan12345 is in some way connected to CAMERA and User:Tundrabuggy/User:Dajudem. The CAMERA accounts were uncovered in April 2008 in part thanks to work by ChrisO. On May 28, the person behind Dajudem, one of the CAMERA accounts, started editing as Tundrabuggy. She made a beeline for an article ChrisO was working on, Muhammad al-Durrah, and proceeded to cause trouble for him there. Ten days later, on June 7, Wikifan12345 was created, and similarly headed for articles ChrisO was active on, Muhammad al-Durrah and Pallywood.

Both accounts are extremely pro-Israel; both use poor sources, including blogs and partisan websites; and both make a habit of reverting anything they don't like. I've not looked carefully through the accounts yet, and wouldn't have posted this unless it was being mentioned already, but given that it is, the suspicion is worth adding here. SlimVirgin 05:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Slim, that's very a inflammatory accusation and as an admin I expect you to back up your claims. If you think I'm some propaganda appendage of CAMERA, prove it. I've been involved in many subjects on wikipedia and a majority of my edits have been restricted to talk and collaboration discussions. Slim has been following me around to various articles, almost to the point of stalking. I suggest you file an ANI because I am truly tired of you inserting defaming language into discussions unabated. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been following you around, though if I had, it'd be perfectly justified, given your tendency to use random websites as sources in contentious history articles, where only academic historians can be used safely. In fact, I rather think it's you who may have been following me; your throwing yourself into the Nicholas Beale debate to oppose me (see the deleted talk page) was somewhat surprising. Regardless, I'm not going to argue with you. I've said what I think. I could be wrong, of course. SlimVirgin 06:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Random websites? Hardly. If you are referring to the Palestinian exodus, I provided 3 certified-academics. I do not have a history of relying on blogs or bogus sites to support information. I had a genuine interest in Nicholas Beale and has absolutely nothing to do with you. If you are going to dig through my edits 1 year ago, misconstrue conflicts with User:ChrisO (who is no longer an admin), imply I am a sock of Tundra/Dajudem and was party to the Misplaced Pages/CAMERA conspiracy, and then say you are "not going to argue" is nothing short of bizarre. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is an example of you using an essay by a lecturer in social work posted on an Australian-Jewish website for some highly contentious material about the Palestinian exodus; and you edit warred to keep it in. When I asked you who the source was, you didn't at first know. There are plenty more examples like that. SlimVirgin 07:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As I explained in the talk, Mendes is a published author having written several books on Israel, is a lecture at a major University in Australia, and is a member of notable Jewish magazines. You claimed he was neither of those things, and repeatedly asked "Who is he?" in talk. And no, I did not edit war to keep it in. You however were very adamant in ensuring the only sources in the lead were by Palestinian "historians", Nur-eldeen Masalha and Constantine Zureiq. Whatever, this still has nothing to do with me belonging to a CAMERA conspiracy. Care to elaborate? Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Halfacanyon appears to be  Unrelated to Tundrbuffy/Dajudem on a purely technical level. Thatcher 10:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It was Wikifan12345 who was accused of possibly being Tundrabuggy/Dajudem. Wikifan said he had previous similar problems with Jersay and Pattywack, so Halfacanyon was possibly a sock of one of those. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• To go back to Mangojuice's comment, I think that warning and restricting such accounts under the discretionary sanctions is a reasonable alternative approach. On the other hand, I haven't seen this solution scale very well; given the extremely limited number of admins active in these areas, and the din of the constant partisan chorus who attend any such discussion, agenda-driven SPA's and alternate accounts proliferate faster than they can be handled. My reading of recent ArbCom decisions was that these areas are afflicted with widespread problematic editing behavior, and that people who come here to improve the encyclopedia as a general reference work shouldn't have to deal with dozens of agenda-driven socks and SPA's, nor should it take a year-long process to deal with an editor who is clearly agenda-driven and abusive from the start (c.f. User:Tundrabuggy). I wouldn't stand in the way of an unblock if another admin feels strongly, though I think that setting some ground rules would be useful at a minimum.

  Regarding Thatcher's note: as BWilkins points out, the link in question was between Wikifan12345 and Dajudem. I don't have sufficient information to assess the circumstantial strength of such a link, and I'm going to pass the baton to some other admin to look into it. I will say that the balance between encyclopedic content and agenda-driven advocacy in Special:Contributions/Wikifan12345 is hardly encouraging, but that alone doesn't inspire me to do anything at this juncture. MastCell  20:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Threat of violence - Lancashire, England

I recently deleted some threats of violence from an article. In the past, I have simply deleted such edits and not taken any further action. In this case, however, it does not appear to be the typical schoolchild type threat - the threats are very specific in terms of named targets and place where they are employed. If there are any editors willing and able to make an appropriate report to local authorities in the area of Lancashire, England, please contact me. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The ordinary telephone number, accessible internationally, for the police station at Thurnham Street, Lancaster, Lancashire, LA1 1YB, which covers the Lower Lune Valley area, is +44 1524 63333. Callers within the U.K. can also use 0845 1 25 35 45, of course. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. If someone local could assist, that would be helpful. Otherwise, I'll make the international call. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's a credible threat really; just moronic vandalism. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Moving / renaming entries

I am a comparatively new editor, and wanted to report (without names) an incident which I experienced. I'd appreciate if you advise if this practice is in line with Misplaced Pages's rules:

I posted an entry, which after some discussion was approved. It was posted under my original title. After that, one of admins posted another entry under the same title. He/she used Misplaced Pages administrator's rights to move my original entry to a different title he invented, and to name his/her article with title used originally by me. In result of this operation, the search for my original string in Misplaced Pages now leads to the new entry, not to my original article as before. The same happens in the Google search, creating confusion. The administrator explained his action as follows: "...moving to make way for clearly notable topic", which appears to me as a case of subjective judgement of prioritization, when a single administrator decided which entry is more notable, according to his/her personal tastes. However, I may be wrong. Please, tell me if this practice is acceptable in Misplaced Pages. Thanks in advance. --Witizen (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Witizen

In the general case in which you frame the question, there is no single answer; it depends on the specifics of the situation. In this specific case, it appears they did not use their admin right to move the page, and any editor could have done that. It's a standard Bold editing decision. It seems pretty reasonable to me. If you disagree, start a discussion on the article talk page, or on the user talk page of the editor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Especially considering that Wirtland was already redlinked from a National Register of Historic Places list, and Wirtland (micronation) wasn't linked from anywhere until you added it to the Micronations portal. I'd call this a good move, especially considering that Nyttend went out of his way to make sure your article remained findable from the original location.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. A hatnote at the actually notable Wirtland article seems more than generous. — Satori Son 18:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with the others - seems fair to me. This is called disambiguation. Orderinchaos 10:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all answers, which are helpful indeed in understanding Misplaced Pages's approach. Though I still believe the "more notable"/"less notable" judging lacks measurability and objectiveness, I don't have any further questions or suggestions. Again, thanks and happy editing to all. Witizen (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Witizen

<--Outdent: ahem, the whole article (Wirtland (micronation)) is a blatant copyvio of http://www.wirtland.com/ and I have tagged it for deletion accordingly. – ukexpat (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Two IP editors reverting each other, possible inaccurate edit summaries

IP editors 70.112.199.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and 86.158.237.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are reverting each others' edits to a wide variety of pages. I specifically noticed them putting multiple sockpuppet templates on each others' talk pages. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Now add 86.151.126.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), after 86.158.237.39 was blocked. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, two banned users... 70.112 is Hkelkar and 86.158 is Nangparbat. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason why we don't ever report long-term abusers like these two to their ISPs citing breach of TOS? With most ISPs that is cause for losing access. → ROUX ₪ 18:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In theory it is, and people have done so in past cases, but there's not a very good track record of this actually working when the ISP gets contacted by a random person with no official status on the website affected. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

So why don't we have Cary (second choice) or Mike do it? This sort of long-term abuse is detrimental to the entire project, and I suspect something on WMF letterhead coming from the legal counsel to one of the largest websites in the world would make them sit up and take some notice. Fill the appropriate CU information into a form letter and send it off. → ROUX ₪ 18:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Two reasons that the Foundation does not pursue these problems more aggressively. One, it could be seen as undermining WMF's section 230 immunity, under which individual editors and not the WMF are responsible for content and management of the site. Two, if an ISP ever refused, the WMF would either have to launch a legal offensive that would cost a considerable fraction of the budget (for being the 8th or whatever biggest website in the world, WMF is run on the ultra-cheap) or admit to being a paper tiger. Besides, if the WMF ever did decide to man up and take on a problem editor, these two are way down on my list of targets. Thatcher 19:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'd just like to add that it would be bad PR to do this-- headlines would argue that Misplaced Pages vandals are so out of control we are resorting to legal action. We need to show that we can take care of this sort of thing "in house". ⟳ausa کui 22:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Further intervention required?

I'm not sure what policy is regarding vandal IP edits in relation to FBI alerts, but should this edit be reported somewhere? ponyo (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Report it. Even if it isn't credible on its face it's still a threat against a state official and should be reported to the appropriate investigative body. -Jeremy 17:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem doing so, but being from Canada I'm wondering what the best way to go about it would be? ponyo (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Call or e-mail the US Secret Service, as per this page. John Carter (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother. This is just cheap-ass vandalism. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Compromised account, AgoINAgo

] (talk · contribs) claims that they picked up the account name and password from a website. —LOL /_C 18:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked as a compromised account - seemed to be a bit of trolling as well. Thanks for the report, LOL. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmmm "Thanks for the report, LOL" - your account name makes it particularly hard to sound sincere! ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite 18:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:70.189.122.208

I've block this IP address indef due to someone creating numerous talk pages with no articles; obvious vandlaism. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be a dynamic IP, I've set the expiry to 2 weeks. No prejudice for reblocking if they re-offend after that, but we should not block IPs indefinitely. Please see Misplaced Pages:Blocking IP addresses & break your habit of blocking IPs indefinitely. –xeno 20:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

O.K. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

cheers. =) –xeno 20:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• My first legitimate use of Special:Nuke. Very special. ;-) It seems to be a repeat vandal who has also used the IPs 70.234.105.193, 70.142.52.40, 70.128.106.25, and 70.234.150.190. They all appear to belong to AT&T's DSL service in Tulsa, Oklahoma. --auburnpilot talk 20:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

2009 Israel Defense Forces T-shirt affair: Edit war ahead?

Hi, I improved the article greatly (well, forward it is). Since a few hours User:Jalapenos do exist is swamping the newly created section with weasel, fact, hih, fv templates. Since I edited seriously three times to delete a bunch of his templates, and in the end he puts in more. Also: the article is in an AFD here, probably related userpolitics? Anyway, I feel an abuse of my good faith. Any advice? -DePiep (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Your last edit summary sounds like a challenge about edit-wars ... not good. Yes, a lot of the words in the article are weasel words. I expect that the article will be rightly deleted shortly, based on the current state of the AfD. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the advice was asked into improving the article, and how to react to an editor adding 25 huh-like templates to a section. Editing and improving is allowed during AFD. Especially since the section involved is a serious argument for a keep. Do you really mean I could frustrate an other AFD by behaving like the editor? Further, I don't think it is a good idea that you advise me here while voting delete on the same article. -DePiep (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I recommend then either allowing the valid templates where they belong, or remove the weasel words and unreferenced facts. My !vote to delete has nothing to do with the templates, but the notability of the subject matter. You've been on Misplaced Pages long enough to know these things. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Long enough to know? Sounds like you don't trust my question here. Anyway, you're invited to re-read the article, weigh the well-referenced new section (even now), and reconsider your vote. -DePiep (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wipeout International Editions

We have taken great care to update the International Edition section of the Wipeout (2008 Game Show) page located at Wipeout_(2008_game_show). The section accurately lists all the international versions of the show. An unregistered user from the following IP address User talk:83.85.168.35 has added numerous countries that do not air Wipeout. They have engaged in an edit war and done this appx. 20 times. If you look at their TALK page they have been warned and blocked but they continue to add the countries without any reference or backup. All of the current countries include information about hosts, networks, etc. They are simply adding the name of a country with no information or backup. "MattMDK (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)"

...and the IP user has a fairly nice block history from this article. They just came off another last week. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What does "we" mean? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Concern at DRV

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 29 has five seven successive nominations from a new user who's (alarmingly) called "TheGriefer", and I'm having trouble assuming good faith where he's concerned. Might these be disruptive nominations? Outside views would be welcome.—S Marshall /_Cont 00:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Blizzocked as a sock of User:Biaswarrior. MuZemike 00:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• All DRV's opened by this editor are now closed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Tothwolf and Eckstasy

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

After inadvertently stepping on a landmine by nominating List of quote databases for deletion, I've been barraged with personal attacks, accusations of bad faith, off-wiki harassment, and veiled (on-wiki) bragging of denial-of-service attacks, mostly initiated by Tothwolf (talk · contribs) and Eckstasy (talk · contribs). Please see the discussion on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of quote databases. I'm not sure where to go with this... sorry for not detailing all the grisly details, but a quick read of the AfD (and advice) would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I also note that Eckstasy, apparently dissatisfied with the AFD result, is now gathering "evidence" (presumably with which to harass me later). No comment on the irony that he's archiving an AFD debate, which exists ad infinitum in the proper namespace already... :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

With regard to Tothwolf specifically, while the discussion was heated...I don't see anything that would require administrator attention here, unless you can substantiate your claim of off-wiki harassment. The discussion with Eckstasy was also heated, but again, I don't see a need for admin intervention at this time. While I don't condone some of the things that were said, I would also note that the discussion was not helped by your accusation that the AfD was canvassed. Your presumption that the second link provided will be used to "harass" you later is a strong claim and an assumption of bad faith. Harassment is an incredibly strong term, I might add, and such accusations should not be thrown around lightly. In short, no action is needed at the moment, unless there is evidence that harassment is occurring. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That article got archived there for a reason, not to harass anyone. And as for off-wiki stuff, it has nothing to do with Misplaced Pages whatsoever. Seeing you posting this in the noticeboard, sadly made me come out with even more stuff. if anyone read, they would gather what this is about. Eckstasy (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

tothwolf has harassed and caused drama in multiple articles he's had disagreements in. he has a COI in irc-related articles because he's a developer for a well-known IRC application, so he takes the articles very personally. he also is a regular on wiki's IRC, so expect him to canvas his IRC friends for help/support. good luck getting anything done with this uncivil harasser. Theserialcomma (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Theserialcomma, I suggest you stop commenting on Tothwolf. You're on very thin ice because you've been hounding him. -Jeremy 19:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This is ANI, where patterns of behavior and abuse is discussed, so no, i won't stop reporting his patterns of abuse to the proper channels. i'm only on thin ice with an abusive admin (you) who is threatening to BAN me (not just block) for 'hounding' his irc buddy who canvassed an entire admin channel on irc for days before only you decided to step in and bother me. i've never been blocked before for any reason, and you've threatened to BAN me. you are the one hounding me, and tothwolf is the one with the pattern of abuse. i'm not intimidated by your threats. i am quite sure you'll block me, but i'm also quite sure that your block will be tenuous and it won't stick. so threaten away. i'm reporting abuse as i see it, whether it's tothwolf or anyone else Theserialcomma (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The blog that Eckstasy points to looks alarmingly like slander. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Slander? there's nothing false about it. Eckstasy (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"he looks like a criminal on smack."? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Slander is spoken. You print it, it's libel. However, both are defamation. -Jeremy 20:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Danras

I was cleaning up categories and ran across several articles created by Danras (talk · contribs). I am a bit concerned that most of his edits are creating/maintaining very poorly sourced BLPs like Dennis Dechaine and populating categories like Category:People convicted of murdering victims who were later found alive with articles that read more like the National Enquirer than any encyclopedia I've ever read. If it were one or two articles, I wouldn't be as concerned, but this appears to be a pattern of editing dating back to 2006 that has gone unnoticed as much of his editing appears to be in a walled garden of orphan criminal articles. MBisanz 02:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Taking a look at some of these articles, none of them contains any references, but they are all about people who are long dead. Doesn't seem like a BLP panic to me yet, but I'm still digging through his contribs. ⟳ausa کui 04:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain Dennis Dechaine and Robert Diaz are still living. I haven't done a complete audit, but it looks like at least half of his new articles are about living people. MBisanz 09:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Matt, I haven't looked through all these articles but I think there are definitely problems with Butler and Yelder which seems to plagiarise Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University.

• The Misplaced Pages article states without citing a source: "The remains allegedly were put into a sack and then thrown into the Alabama River."

• Northwestern states: "The remains allegedly were put into a sack, which Louise and George threw into the Alabama River"

• Misplaced Pages: "The children then admitted that they had fabricated the story, at the behest of a man who had a grievance against George. It was never explained why they also had implicated Louise, or why she had confessed."

• Northwestern: "The children then admitted that they had fabricated the story, at the behest of a man who had a grievance against George. It was never explained why they also had implicated Louise, or why she had confessed."

• WP: "Less than a week after sentencing, Topsy was discovered alive and well, and residing less than twenty miles away."
• NW: Less than a week later, Topsy was discovered alive, well, and residing less than twenty miles away,

Center on Wrongful Convictions gives permission to "reprint, quote, or ost on other web sites with appropriate attribution" but it's not really clear if the commercial aspects of Wp are acceptable and the WP article only refers to the Center on Wrongful article as an "external link" and not as a reference or source and doesn't credit any of the parts copied or clearly derived from their article. Sarah 12:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, this might be a broader problem. Nicholas Yarris also seems to be a problem which seems to plagiarise www.deathpenaltyinfo.org and www.victimsofthestate.org. Examples:

• Misplaced Pages: "Police leaked to other inmates that Yarris was a snitch, and he endured days of regular beatings and torture."
• deathpenaltyinfo: "Police leaked to other inmates that Yarris was a snitch, and Yarris endured days of regular beatings and torture."

• WP: "In an effort to save himself, he asked police what would happen if he had participated in the crime, but was not the murderer. The beatings stopped, and Yarris was charged with capital murder."
• DPI: "In an effort to save himself, Yarris asked what would happen if he had participated in the crime but was not the murderer. The beatings stopped, and Yarris was charged with capital murder."

• WP:"A fellow inmate made a deal with the DA and began exchanging false information about Yarris in exchange for conjugal visits and reduced sentencing."
• DPI: "A fellow inmate made a deal with the D.A. and began exchanging false information about Yarris in exchange for conjugal visits and a reduced sentence."

• WP: "This inmate became one of the few witnesses to testify against Yarris at trial."
• DPI: "This inmate became one of the few witnesses to testify against Yarris at trial."

• WP: "Yarris' alleged motive was that he was angry with his ex-girlfriend, and the victim allegedly looked like her. Yarris' blood type also happened to be among the 25% of the population that matched the actual perpetrator's blood type."
• victimsofthestate.org: "Yarris' alleged motive was that he was angry with his ex-girlfriend, and the victim allegedly looked like her...Yarris shared this blood type along with 15% of the population. "

This material was in the original version posted by Danras . Sarah 13:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I won't keep lifting out comparisons as this is quite clearly an extensive problem but Robert Diaz, particular the "Crimes" section is heavily copied from victimsofthestate.org. If User:Danras is the original author of any of this material (and looking further I've realised that is possible for some but I don't think all) he needs to verify this to OTRS and confirm permissions and he still needs to be able source the material. Posting slabs of material that is copied from other sources without explanation and which isn't written in an encyclopedic tone or from a NPOV and is unverifiable isn't acceptable. Sarah 13:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Sarah--this is beyond unacceptable. I don't have time as of yet to help cull through them (ah, the joy of working nights), but we're definitely looking at a major, major copyvio/plagiarism problem here. I'm blocking this user indefinitely until he can come up with a really good explanation for his behavior. Can't be too harsh when dealing with copyright issues ... Blueboy96 14:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Per Blueboy and Sarah. Good catch. Durova 14:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

RedPenOfDoom

This user is bothering me. I'm a fairly new user here and I'm sure that many of their edits to Ally Mcbeal related articles are vandalism. I've tried to respond in a friendly and helpful manner. Can anyone summon up the patience to read through the relevant talk pages on our accounts and do some sifting? I appreciate that I am making this harder by not really knowing what to do in this situation. Alaphent (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide diffs (links to the edits that you think are vandalistic)? RPOD's been around for a while, and I've always found him/her to be productive, though that doesn't automatically mean that you're wrong. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 02:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I would if I knew how. I know I'm asking for quite a lot here, but do you think you could read our relevant talk pages and look at recent edit contributions. That isn't to say I don't want to learn what to do in a case such as this. Alaphent (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Alaphent is referring to his interactions with RedPenOfDoom on his talk page. Tiptoety 03:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a sample diff - Ally McBeal diff. It seems there is a dispute about whether the minor characters get their own article page or not. There is a relevant discussion here. I think this is merely a content disagreement and can be resolved on the talk page. My opinion is that it all looks in good faith to me. Nothing on the Alaphent's talk page seems overly objectionable, except possibly the use of the term "fancruft". Manning (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Mansourramis

I'm a new admin and was hoping to get a second opinion on the edits by Mansourramis on Charm School with Ricki Lake‎. Basically, this user is ignoring all warnings and continues to add unsourced future information. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the world of being an admin :-) (BTW - It's not too late to change your mind!) Am looking over it now. Cheers Manning (talk) 05:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

OK as far as I see it, much of this information seems to be casting an opinion about who will win the contest. If so, this is not really WP:CRYSTAL, this is actually WP:VANDAL. Can you confirm my interpretation? Manning (talk) 05:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, my opinion was that it could be classified as both. I had asked for a second opinion at AIV, but they declined stating that it wasn't vandalism. Thanks. Plastikspork (talk) 05:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well either way, I think you've been as patient as you need to be. I will commence with a 24 hour block. Let me know if you need any further action via my talk page. You've handled it well thus far IMHO. Manning (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As the admin that declined at WP:AIV, I only note that I didn't deny that this could be vandalism. I only noted that the "quick glance" check did not show that it was simple vandalism of the type which could easily be dealt with at WP:AIV. This wasn't some kid inserting swear words into articles, and it was unclear, without considerable explanation and/or investigation, what was wrong with this users edits. I have no problem with a finding that this ended up being vandalism, but complex cases like this are generally hard for a process like WP:AIV to handle. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Jayron32 - Agreed and don't worry about it. All's well that ends well. Cheers Manning (talk) 05:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I also wasn't very clear when I asked at AIV. No worries. Plastikspork (talk) 05:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sock wash please

Hi, we've got a new sock at Barack Obama -

The same editor who operated

• CrazyEd20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (indeffed as sock)
• CrazyEd30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (indeffed as sock)

Recently created:

• Not An Ed Puppet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (please block!)

...whose only real activity is blanking the talk pages of the other two socks and vandalizing Barack Obama with the same claim of losing his job because of Obama.

No point going through the trouble of a sockpuppet report - this is WP:DUCK. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 05:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Good, good. Thanks Bongwarrior and Jayron32. There's no block notice and I forgot to check the block log. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding this...

//* Sysop decrier/detector (rights group displayer), version 
//Originally from http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Splarka/sysopdectector.js
importScript('User:Splarka/sysopdectector.js');

...to your monobook.js will display usergroup(s) of the user at their user and talkpages, as well as if they are currently blocked. → ROUX ₪ 06:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Rick Astley Hoax push

Looks like /b/ is at it again at Rick Astley. Wouldn't hurt to have a few extra eyes reverting the inevitable crap. OhNoitsJamie 06:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Watched. //Blaxthos ( t / c )

I'm on board as well. Potential trouble-making due to this post. . Manning (talk) 06:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If it keeps up we might want to fully protect it. It's currently at semi, but a bunch of sleeper socks seem to be coming out to insert the hoax info. I don't have time to dig into this now as I'm going offline, but it likely would not hurt to indef block some or all of those accounts. It's entirely possible they're controlled by the same person (though some might also make legit contributions, I haven't checked). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a full protect is worth it. There has been no constructive edits made since June 9 so we're not interfering with anyone's work.Manning (talk) 06:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User:GaryColemanFan

I wish to report this user for using warnings in an invalid manner to try and stop me from making perfectly reasonable alterations to the article Bill Verna. I warned him to stop putting warnings on my page without discussing the matter at hand, but he insists on doing so even after the warning I gave him about it. It would appear that he does not understand how what he is doing is in any way wrong and he needs to be pulled into line on the matter. I consider his behaviour to be uncivil, but because he is using warning templates incorrectly I felt it would be better to report the matter here instead of going over to the Wikiquette area. TaintedZebra (talk) 06:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional note. I am unable to revert his edits without violating WP:3RR. TaintedZebra (talk) 06:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, you're removing cited information from the article. That is generally well worth issuing a warning. Are you claiming that the source does not exist or does not say what User:GaryColemanFan says it does? → ROUX ₪ 06:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying the source can not be verified, and he has not properly cited it (no author of the published work for example). The fact that he has not discussed it - preferring to arbitrarily issue warnings first - is the reason why I brought this issue here. Discussion should take place first, shouldn't it? TaintedZebra (talk) 06:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed discussion should take place first... so where did you discuss with him your concerns about the sourcing? His warnings to you are entirely accurate. Can you explain why it's unverifiable? → ROUX ₪ 06:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

He wouldn't at first. That's the whole point. He went straight to the warnings without discussing the issue. It's unverifiable because the magazine he uses is not notable and could be nothing more than a local newsletter for all we know. This can't be confirmed or denied. I looked for it and I couldn't find any reference to it except in the Bill Verna article. So it is in violation of WP:V and WP:RS. I also previously mentioned his failure to provide an author, which would be needed for a source that is not online. Online of course an author would not be needed. I don't believe the warnings were justified at all. It was like shooting first and asking questions second. TaintedZebra (talk) 06:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability is applied to articles, not sources. That something doesn't exist online doesn't mean it can't be used as a source; I certainly have many books the text of which doesn't appear online. As for shooting first and asking questions later.. you brought it up on the talkpage eight minutes before coming here. → ROUX ₪ 06:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The magazine being not notable means it fails WP:RS. And a magazine is not the same as a book. And just for your information on the chronology of events (off the top of my head) I went to the article's talk page after I warned him on his talk page, but before he stuck the latest warning on my talk page. It was that warning that caused me to come here because he had clearly ignored the warning on his talk page (which was informal - I did not use a template) and I assume he also ignored the article's talk page which would have been the explanation for the eight minutes. TaintedZebra (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of violations of 3RR, is recruiting someone else to make the third revert any different than doing it yourself? GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No it's not. TaintedZebra (talk) 06:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

So.. you asked him to do it because...?→ ROUX ₪ 07:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is, the very definition of meatpuppetry. At a minimum, against WP:CANVASS. MuZemike 07:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No it's not and I resent the accusation. The information GCF was providing was not within WP rules so it had to be removed and I couldn't do it because of WP:3RR. People have been asked to this before now so I see no difference in it. TaintedZebra (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

A copy of the article has been provided to TaintedZebra, as requested. I believe that this makes the lack of an author a moot point. The verifiability has should also be cleared up, as the article states what I said it did. I am requesting, therefore, that the sourced information be re-added to the article. The content has since been removed by an editor who claimed that it violated a neutrality policy. Because I am not claiming that Verna was "appreciated and admired as a player throughout the world" but rather than he was described in those terms, I do not believe that this violates NPOV. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The link only uses the magazine as a source for the statement. Now we would need to find if the link I was provided with actually fulfils WP:RS by itself. If it doesn't then it kills the magazine citation by default. TaintedZebra (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• A source failing the notability guidelines does not mean it isn't reliable. Most of the law texts I use would fail the notability guidelines, because they don't have any third-party coverage. That doesn't mean, however, that they aren't reliable sources. To equate notability with reliability is incorrect. A source not passing WP:N should not lead to removal unless there are actual reasons to call its reliability into question. Ironholds (talk) 08:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Abidreh again

This tendentious user was let off an indefinite block, and again he is adding unsourced information or information sourced to homemade youtube videos. Despite a talk page message, he continues to say it is up to me to prove that his video is a valid source, which it clearly is not. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Another 3RR violation and keeps on violating undue, eg see Talk:Younis Khan YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Warned properly for 3RR. He does it again, someone can wack him with the banhammer. Ironholds (talk) 08:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Reported to AIV after more warring. Ironholds (talk) 08:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Suggest and support a community ban then. Let off an indef and comes back for more? Lets not give him a third chance if he's chosen to throw away the second. Ironholds (talk) 08:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Sigh. Another case of an editor who simply does not understand this site's policies. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Requesting a community review

I've recently stumbled upon Nableezy (talk · contribs) a few times too many to my liking where he reverts me automatically and, many times, makes clear mistakes on top of bias and civility issues.

The most recent account included three times changing the meaning of the source in a time span of 10 hours.

• - Bell reported that "everyone has a tragedy, about executions they saw"
  • Source (Stewart Bell, "What happened at Jenin?", National Post, April 15, 2002) says: Ahmed Tibi, an Arab member of the Israeli Knesset, said ... "everyone has a tragedy, about executions they saw"
• , - first-hand accounts of massacres was scarce. One such example was
  • Source (Stewart Bell, "What happened at Jenin?", National Post, April 15, 2002) says: The lack of solid information has fuelled the rumour mill. A grocery store owner near Jenin spoke in a hushed voice about seeing ... Asked to elaborate, he declined ... When a National Post reporter inspected the truck, it contained not bodies but apples and other food and supplies for the troops.
• Here's a link to the source (scroll down) - I have validated the source and can email an original copy to anyone interested.

My main concern here is that Nableezy is (a) confusing the project with a battlefield, where he requires explanations that the text is already biased in his favor to let go of accusations that others allow "just the one that fits the narrative of liking", and (b) that this conduct is spilling over into articles in a damaging manner where the sources don't even matter to him.

I noticed Nableezy was blocked recently for edit warring on another Israel-Palestinian related article but I haven't seen any warning/notice given in regards to to Final decision of the WP:ARBPIA.

With respect, Jaakobou 08:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Nableezy seems to insist that his edits were not erroneous and does not show recognition of the problem with his decorum (per "Your proclamations dont mean much to me"). I can't see this as something that should be ignored when occurring on a repeated basis. Jaakobou 16:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a mountain out of a molehill. He appears to be arguing not over what the source says but he thinks that extraneous information like troops listening to Allanis Morrisette and whispering isn't necessary. I'd add that while his tone may not have been overly civil on the talk page, you are experienced enough to know that 'crying wolf' often escales rather than deflates tensions. If he tries to engage in comments about the editors and not the edits, just ignore that part of his comment or remind him that it is best if the argument focuses on the edits. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Narson,

Its not as bad as the previous edits but with yet another edit -- "collaborators" are everywhere removed as "needless information" -- Nableezy is misrepresenting the testimony 4 edits in a row.

With respect, Jaakobou 15:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

happy now? Nableezy (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

And please show how I have "misrepresented the testimony" or is that uncanny ability to say others actions are sinister and improper without the slightest bit of evidence rearing its ugly head? Nableezy (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Nableezy,

Its an improvement, sure, but he also said they were everywhere which seems quite germane to the quote. I believe you should, out of true good faith, revert this portion of the text back to its previous version. If you fix this and promise to stop reverting me on sight (try suggesting changes on talk maybe?), then I'd be happy to close this "review request". Fair enough?

Warm regards, Jaakobou 15:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

p.s. where did the "and rumors were abundant" text go? Jaakobou 15:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC) add diff 15:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Last things first, we dont need to quote everything the source says, this is an encyclopedia and superlatives are not needed. I dont care about withdrawing your "community review", if others feel my behavior is improper I would welcome the critique. I am not reverting you on sight, so that isnt a problem. I think the current text is fine, so no I will not revert it back to your favored version. And about the narrative of your liking. You removed multiple times from the references and notes section an answer by Erekat but left a direct question to him out of fear of inflating "Erekat apologetics/further propaganda". When you cut out the answer to a question but keep the question you are in fact promoting your favored narrative without any response. It is not a personal attack to say that, and I would hope you can see some mistakes in your actions and attempt to resolve them. Also, I asked an admin to notify me of the ARBPIA decision (any admin here who reads this feel free), so that shouldnt bother you anymore either. Nableezy (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Nableezy,

Changing the article body 4 times - 3 of them to something not said in the cited source - and then making further edits which removes highly relevant text is not a great way of helping the project and collaborate with fellow editors.

As a side note I add that the rumor mill is clearly relevant and not something to be dismissed with "we dont need to quote everything the source says".

With respect, Jaakobou 15:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to respond again unless you can show what I changed that was not said in the cited source. Your proclamations dont mean much to me so I will not spend my time arguing with you unless you can actually show what I did. Bye, Nableezy (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteer Trouble

Sockpuppet Investigations probably would've been a better place to put this but the socking seems to be so obvious that I don't think a CheckUser report is needed. The Borusmat socks User talk:Borusmat5 and User talk:Borusmat4 have both made unconstructive edits within minutes of each other in particular attacking the article Biscuit. I don't know how many socks there are or what they'll do next but I think this needs intervention.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 08:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocking as clearly abusive socks, though it does not appear the main account is blocked at the moment. ⇒SWATJester 11:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Also preemptively blocked Borusmat2; was a vandalism only account last used several months ago.⇒SWATJester 12:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Tamils of Sri Lanka

Anyone have any idea what's going on with this category?? (See , .) Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 09:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like there's an ongoing CFD at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_22#Category:Tamils_of_Sri_Lanka. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

COI vandalism

The article The Art of Dying (Cashis album) was nominated for deletion on June 23, 2009. Approx. 4 hours later, user:Rikanatti removed the AfD notice without comment. The artist who did the album, Cashis, has an article that lists his manager as Rikanatti. The same user has also removed a WP:SPS tag from the article on Cashis a couple of times, despite the fact that the article relies heavily on SPS's. Normally I'd put this on the COI noticeboard, but given that the user is intentionally sabotaging the AfD process, I thought it was better to place it here. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll relist it so it can go the full 7 days.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I made the nominator aware as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

File:AntiObama.jpg

Is File:AntiObama.jpg and associated userboxes considered acceptable? Seems dodgy to me. Where should I have reported this? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:IFD (now WP:FFD) probably? WP:MFD for the userbox(es), obviously. –xeno 14:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Possibly a borderline G10? – ukexpat (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The answer to the original poster's question depends on the answer to this one: "What encyclopedic purpose does that illustration serve?" Baseball Bugs carrots 17:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Image deleted for licensing issues (F3/F9). Black Kite 17:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What, exactly, was the licensing issue? The image was a scaled down version of File:Barack Obama.jpg, a public domain image, with an X over it. There may be valid reasons to delete the image, but G10 and F3/F9 are not them. --auburnpilot talk 19:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

John Baird (Canadian politician) BLP issue

Several days ago, there was a discussion about whether to include dubiously-sourced allegations of homosexuality in John Baird (Canadian politician). That discussion is now archived here. In that discussion, there was clear consensus i. not to include the allegations, and ii. to archive the discussion on its conclusion. Nfitz (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly de-archiving the conversation against consensus in an effort to continue pushing the view (which he's the only one to hold) that the allegations should be included. I would appreciate the eyes of an uninvolved admin or two in case a block becomes necessary. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 14:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Watchlisted. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Community review of Law's block of Peter Damian

• Peter Damian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship#Peter Damian (diff)

How to utterly destroy Misplaced Pages, Idea needed initiated by Peter Damian at Misplaced Pages Review

User talk:Peter Damian#Blocked (diff)

There's a lengthy thread on WT:RFA here. I considered an unblock pending community review but decided against it as Peter has not requested it and I couldn't reach Law as the blocking admin, so I'm just going to throw it up and see where it lands. Also, I will be pretty much out of touch for the next two days and it wouldn't be right to take an admin action and then be unavailable to discuss it. Best, --Wehwalt (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It could have been communicated better but it's a fine block. It's a pretty straight line from someone wanting to destroy Misplaced Pages - laying out a plan - starting to act on it - getting banned/blocked. If Peter wants to walk the whole thing back, fine. But otherwise...RxS (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm more bothered about the way it was done, in the middle of a discussion, it smacks of cowboy adminship to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Good block. R. Baley (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I also endorse the end result of a block. Considering that he called for wikipedia to be destroyed then tried to put it into action (however unlikely it was to succeed) a block to prevent disruption is justified, at least until Peter Damian retracts the threat and pledges not to intentionally disrupt or try to destroy wikipedia. Davewild (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Was a ban from participating in RfAs ever considered, or would something of that nature require ArbCom or similar? Tarc (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The general conclusion was that we can't ban people from RFA because it leads to a "slippery slope" of what is/is not acceptable as a vote, and that since his disruptive edits were outside AN/I as well it wouldn't cover everything. Ironholds (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Whose conclusion was that? And b'crats can certainly discount ppl who routinely post "oppose" with no reason except to make a point, they've done it before. KillerChihuahua 15:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse block. Prevents disruption and the attempted "destruction" of en-wiki. Ironholds (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with Wehwalt. Yet another fine example of a power-crazy admin gone berserk, just 'cos he can. And any other administrators who agree with this block are just as guilty as Law is. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse Guess I'm "guilty" then. Last I heard, accounts here aren't meant for projects to "destroy Misplaced Pages." Gwen Gale (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  Had any attempt been made to "destroy Misplaced Pages" your argument may at least have had some some semblance of credibility. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  (ec) What project? No such project has been started. KillerChihuahua 15:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like a straightforward call to gather others and do harm. Blocks are meant to protect the project from harm. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

See my post below about internet stalking and punishing here for what happens elsewhere, also, then this is a preventative block? Because I see no harm or disruption from Damien. KillerChihuahua 15:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, please answer the question: To What project do you refer? Please provide a link to the project here on Misplaced Pages which Damien started. KillerChihuahua 16:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose block. Overreaction much? He called (offwiki) for others (many of whom are banned trolls, the rest of whom aren't going to play) to "consistently vote against" all Rfas. Simple enough to ban him from Rfa, or discuss other options. He's hardly going to destroy Misplaced Pages with that petty gesture. Just make a note on the B'crat noticeboard that he's acting a little like Boothy and be done. KillerChihuahua 15:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As was said at WT:RFA, Peter's efforts to destroy Misplaced Pages have much the same likelihood of success as Pinky and the Brain's efforts at world domination from their lab cage.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly like Pinky and the Brain but without the catchy theme song. KillerChihuahua 15:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• This is quite unlike the DougsTech incident in that Peter creates content. It is, however, similar in that he was blocked unilaterally at the tail end of an WT:RFA discussion for reasons asserted to be unrelated to the alleged disruption at RFA. The similar block of DougsTech was overturned. It's surprising a single vote and off-site thread kicked up so much dust and perhaps speaks to our proclivity to happily feed trolls at our dinner table. His Nietzsche-esque goal to destroy Misplaced Pages and create something better in his place smacks of tilting at windmills and he can be safely ignored. Nevertheless it is a good faith (if misguided and ill-advised) attempt to create something better. The block should probably be overturned as there will be less drama all-around. –xeno 15:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Question Where is the on-wiki statement that he is attempting to destroy Misplaced Pages? All I see is him trying to reform RFA. Direct links to diffs onwiki of his threats would be nice. Or are we now blocking people for what they say offwiki? I have some names to submit... Hipocrite (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• As far as I know, the only on-wiki copies of his threats have been posted by people other than PD. Nev1 (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose block It's not right to in the middle of a discussion about how to handle the situation. Since his vote on Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Ceranthor 2 Peter Damian's edits were confined to improving the Nannette Streicher article and more importantly discussing his vote at WT:RfA. If he was serious about trying to bring down wikipedia, why didn't he vote in the other RfAs that were open at the same time as Cerantor's? Nev1 (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• I find the application of a block in the absense of any on-wiki disruption to be disturbing. Are we really going to begin holding users accountable for what is said in other places on the internet? If a few baseless !votes at RFA are a blockable offense, then a whole slew of "per so-and-so" !voters had best brace themselves for the banhammer. This is silly. Shereth 15:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It was off-wiki. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Which is precisely why I find the block less than appropriate. Shereth 15:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression we tried to avoid punishing people here for what they say elsewhere. Are we now internet stalkers and paranoid conspiracy theorists? I must have missed that memo. KillerChihuahua 15:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• I find it very difficult to believe it was just one RFA, he produced the off-wiki statement including the plan to vote against all RFAs early on the 24 May June then soon aferwards opposed 6 RFAs within 7 minutes. Davewild (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• In breach of which policy exactly? Would you be equally arguing in favour of a block if he'd supported six RfAs within 7 minutes? Somehow I doubt it, even though it's plainly evident that the real way to destroy wikipedia is to promote as many poor administrators as quickly as possible. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• If someone had made a threat to try and destroy wikipedia using any kind of plan beforehand (supporting or opposing RFAs)then I would certainly support preventing them by block if necessary. When someone has made a threat to disrupt wikipedia follow through on one point of that plan then I do not see how we can trust they will not implement the other parts of their plan such as point 4 - subtle vandalism. Is someone is willing to pledge to check every mainspace edit and the sources they are based on to ensure this is not happening? However if consensus is against the block then so be it. Davewild (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Where was this threat made? What disruption has occurred? Again I state, this is a preventative block based on off-wiki commentary, on a site I might add where people routinely blow off steam and complain about Misplaced Pages to no effect at all here. KillerChihuahua 16:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• He linking to the statement while implementing the first point of it on an RFA. I don't see much difference between that and just making a copy on-wiki. I know people say all kinds of things off-site but it's when they actually start acting on them that I think we should respond. Davewild (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

So you're against linking, and want to prevent that, or against opposing on Rfa's, and want to oppose that? I'm not seeing what damage the block is preventing. KillerChihuahua 16:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

These bold blocks never cease to amaze me. Why not simply bring this to ANI first, saying "I think this calls for a long term block or ban, what do we all think?" Then wait an hour or so, and if consensus for a block develops, then enforce it; if it doesn't, then you shouldn't be blocking. Imposing an indef block after a tendentious WT:RFA discussion that had come to no conclusion whatsoever is just a bad idea. I'm not arguing for or against a block of Damian in general, just saying that this was ill-advised (predictably so), and that the objections above demonstrate why. If you expect a block to possibly be controversial (as Law must have), then maybe you should start a discussion about it instead of doing it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• oppose block At least for now. So far, all Peter is doing is opposing all RfAs. If he intends to destroy Misplaced Pages by that method while continuing to produce good content then let him. Letting him be unblocked and continue his tilting at windmills will result in more productive content than the reverse. We are trying to build an encyclopedia here and Peter's actions do still provide a net benefit. If he decides to destroy Misplaced Pages using an actually disruptive technique we can deal with that then. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose block: What policy was violated in his off-Wiki comment to "consistently vote against" all RFAs? Topic ban him from a RFA if you must, but an indef block for such a comical gesture is a bit far. Do you really think that "consistently vot(ing) against" RFAs will really lead to WP's downfall? seicer | talk | contribs 15:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) (3x) Oppose block. Agree with Shereth. Off-wiki activity should not be reason for a block. We cannot block people for doing what they like on other websites, that's what they are perfectly allowed to do. We block them if and only if they disrupt Misplaced Pages itself with their editing. Peter Damian did not do so and as such, blocking him was certainly incorrect. No matter what one might think about his !vote at one single RFA, he has not behaved in any way that warrants a block. If he does do so, we can still block him but as long as he does not break any rules here, we cannot block him and have to deal with it another way. I prefer WP:DENY personally. Regards SoWhy 16:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• It's my understanding that things like Peter's sockpuppet category were disposed of under the assumption that he would be leaving peacefully. If he has returned, it's time to re-evaluate his past "contributions" to the project. As far as I'm aware, this includes sockpuppeting extensively, being banned, trolling on his user talk page with retirement banners, trolling at RFA, and trolling with an Editor's Association or whatever. I'm all for second chances, but this one seems to be used up. I'm not sure the people opposing the block here are getting the full picture. (And if anyone can locate that category, I'd be much obliged. I can't find it anywhere.) --MZMcBride (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  I'm all fine with discussing a block first but here we are talking about a block done for incorrect reasons before taking time to consult the community about it. I think it's perfectly possible to oppose this block and still support a block after discussion for other reasons. Regards SoWhy 16:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  Hmmm, fair enough. Though it seems to be a bit color of the bikeshed to me. :-) Oh well. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  Could not agree more. This discussion regard this block. Please don't muddy the waters with general discussion. KillerChihuahua 16:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  Hold on. That's a bit too far. Not checking the right checkbox on form 12W-A is a reason to put on blinders? That's a bit extreme. The block summary may not be descriptive enough, but that isn't a reason to forego a discussion regarding the blocked user. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  We're discussing whether Law's block was appropriate. As SoWhy stated, and I agreed, there is no problem discussing whether Damien should be blocked - but not by adding post hoc rationalizations to this block. KillerChihuahua 16:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  You're right, my comments speak only to the present case. –xeno 16:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  Found it. Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Peter Damian. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  So the Established Editors Association was trolling? 10/10 for assuming good faith there MZMcBride. It appeared to many people like a genuine attempt to improve wikipedia by increasing representation. Nev1 (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Folks supporting the block know that ArbCom unbanned User:Thekohser the other day, right? That's a pretty good indication that off-wiki posturing isn't really blockable. I can see the motivation behind the block and that's fine, but in the grand scheme of things, it would have been better to get some consensus first. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That was a provisional unblock. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

My point is that people can blow hot air off-Wiki all they want, and we don't seem to have a basis in enforcement to do anything about it here. Nothing Damian has done since that comment has been earth-shattering; much like Kurt Weber and DougsTech, it's easily ignorable. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment It is very likely Peter Damian would be unblocked soon and that should be handled at least by admins unrelated to Misplaced Pages Review that has caused this wasteful dispute for everyone.-Caspian blue 16:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ideally the blocking admin would do that, and I have asked for that action on Law's talk page. There's a strong sentiment above (including from multiple admins) that this block was not good as enacted. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• endorse block, since we don't really need this kind of WP:SOAPBOXing going on. However, I would support a full unblock if he retracted his published desire to bring harm to the project. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  So you support preventative blocking, based on off-wiki activity. Just checking. KillerChihuahua 16:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  Nope. Not in any way, shape or form. However, I do support this one block based on the facts presented of this one case. I make no statements about general actions to be taken in the future, merely on this one situation. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  I think KC is suggesting that this particular block, at least as implemented, seems to be a case of preventive blocking based on off-wiki activity. Personally I think that's an accurate interpretation—Damian said something off-wiki that people did not like (understandably) and then linked to it in an RfA vote. Nothing destructive has actually occurred, but the assumption was that it could. Alternatively, the block was solely for the off-wiki comment and was not trying to prevent anything, but I think this opposing here also clearly view that as problematic. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose block per SoWhy above. If off-wiki comments are really a blocking offence, there are a fair few IRC logs and ED pages that make interesting reading. For the record, Peter has opposed 11 RFAs in his entire history on Misplaced Pages (and supported 3); for comparison, even a hardline "support by default unless there's a strong reason to oppose" editor such as User:Majorly has 64 RFA opposes. – iridescent 16:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• For those opposing the block because it's based on off-wiki comments, the bright line here is that off-wiki comments were followed up by on-wiki actions. No one is suggesting that comments made off-wiki are blockable. His on-wiki actions are plainly done in bad faith and are clearly pointy. RxS (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• It's only a violation of WP:POINT if the votes he made caused disruption. The votes themselves didn't dent the change of anyone running for RfA, and didn't harm wikipedia. What did cause disruption was people trying to get Peter Damian blocked or banned for opinion before he had violated policy. Denying his votes recognition would have been far more effect, but instead some people decided to make their own pointed remarks. Nev1 (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• That may be clear to you, but what's clear to me is that this block was arbitrary, out of process, and not supported by consensus.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Fatuorum (talk • contribs) 16:24, 30 June 2009

and that "bright line" was opposing Rfa's. Wow. Now, opposing Rfa's is just too dang disruptive to have, I'm sure! /sarcasm. KillerChihuahua 16:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It will not be long given the current rate of "progress" before it's forbidden for anyone to oppose at any RfA. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This is obviously not about merely opposing at RFA, strawman equiped rhetorical outrage aside, this is about threats and following through with those threats. RxS (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse block Once you link to an off-wiki comment on-wiki they cease to be off-wiki. This person is basically describing to us how he is going to disrupt Misplaced Pages, of course we should prevent this with a block. I wonder if everyone opposing the block is aware of the full extent of the situation, several people have mentioned voting in RfAs when Peter also promised to do subtle vandalism and to attempt to demoralise vandal fighters. Please don't over simplify things. Chillum 16:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• If Peter really wanted to destroy wikipedia then his tactic ought to have been to support RfAs of plainly unsuitable candidates, not oppose them. That would be one sure way of chasing the regular editors away, as they get confronted by the abuse of administrative powers like this example. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse per Chillum. He linked his own comments here, that's not some paranoid stalkers trying to foist offwiki comments in an attempt to sabotage or discredit him. He did that himself. He's laid out his plan, I see no reason not to block preventatively. That's what we're supposed to block for. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 16:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Logic therefore dictates that you should immediately block yourself, to prevent the possibility of disruption caused by a potential mental breakdown. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• (was responding to your original post, then got an ec) No, because we should assume good faith that you, me, or whoever isn't going to fly off the handle and attempt to destroy Misplaced Pages. But there's evidence to the contrary to the point that I can't assume good faith in Peter starting a thread and then linking it here. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 16:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose block, basically per Nev, JoshuaZ, and Xeno; as the last outlines, a block is less reasonable here than it was for DougsTech, and inasmuch as I opposed our blocking DT, believing that single !votes at RfA are necessarily non-disruptive, I can't endorse this one. To be sure, if Peter does something more pernicious, we might revisit the issue, but for now we cannot rightly conclude that the net effect on the project of his continuing to edit should be negative. Joe (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Endorse block at this time. I would advocate the allowance of Peter to continue conversation on his talk page if he so desired. If we are not understanding his intent, then perhaps he can clarify. re: the items being said "off-wiki": Peter himself brought the link to WP and posted it in this post, so my perception is that he is effectivly saying it here. To add a bit of clarification to the matter, it appears to me that this editor has also edited under the following user names:
• Peter Damian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Current user name under discussion, and some of the un-ban discussion can be found at: the first talk page discussions
• Renamed user 4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Original 2003 account which Peter references on WT:RFA. Original talk page ban discussion can be found here
• Peter Damian II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) which was moved with this: 10:21, December 6, 2008 WJBscribe (talk | contribs | block) moved User talk:Peter Damian II to User talk:Peter Damian ? (Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Peter Damian II" to "Peter Damian") (revert)
• Americanlinguist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and the self-request to be banned can be found in this archive (now a redirect to User:Peter Damian)
• PeterDamian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) page delted as: 08:01, February 28, 2009 Nishkid64 (talk | contribs | block) deleted "User:PeterDamian" ‎ (CSD G5: Contributions by banned user)
• Peter Damian (old) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Hinnibilis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• Now my own personal view of what I've researched so far is that Peter was originally one of our most valuable and prolific contributors, but fell into disagreements with others. (perhaps over animal rights?). My view at this point is that his efforts are geared toward extracting revenge for the original ban, and his perception is one that WP needs to be "destroyed" in order to be "re-built". I'd suggest, that since our site and its content is liscensed under CC-BY-SA and GDFL, that it is not necessary to "destroy" our site, but that one may visit godaddy.com, purchase a domain name, and simply "build" the site he deems to be more worthy of encyclopedic content. I don't find an admission of intent to "destroy" to be the least bit encouraging. Full disclosure: I was not around for much of this (2003-2008), so I would welcome the input of editors, admins, and arbs who are more familiar with the details of history. I fully understand that there are likely missing pieces to this puzzle, and am willing to modify my opinions with more relevant input. — Ched :  ?  16:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse We see you trollin'. BJ 16:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• I like Chamillionaire as much as the next guy, but I'm pretty sure he would oppose this block—he doesn't like the fact that "With So Much Drama On the Wiki-P, Admin police are listening." --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Time line and comment. Recent Peter Damian activity:

• 25 May starts working on his "Established Editors" project to give more weight to content contributors.
• 26 May significant contribution to Life.
• 19 June Peter gives up his "Established Editors".
• 23 June Off-wiki plan to "destroy Misplaced Pages".
• 24 June a series of RfA oppose votes with little or no explanation.
• 28 June Ceranthor 2 oppose linking to his fiendish plan.
• 28 June creates Nannette Streicher.

And now Peter, who is known to be opposed to the role of content-phobics in Misplaced Pages gets blocked during an on-going discussion by someone who got through RfA a month ago on a DYK/vandal-fighting ticket? Wow. Hans Adler 17:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Just noting that the Nannette Steicher article appears to be a copy of the pre-existing German wikipedia article, not an original creation and no credit was made to the German authors or article by Peter Damian. I have added the Translated page template to the talk page which I think is sufficient for credit? Davewild (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

...the place should be blown up and destroyed could be taken by some as a call to vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You didn't quote what comes before it: he majority of the 'community' are barking mad and are simply not normal people. They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and . This could be understood by some to refer to themselves, which might lead them to overreact, sort of proving Peter's point. Not that I agree with Peter, but there are some problems with the most vocal part of our community and with the dynamics of discussions such as the one on the RfA talk page. Hans Adler 17:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Only because you brought it up, I did see it. I've found that kind of thing tends to say more about the writer than anyone else. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Hans Adler 19:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You forgot one data point, he brought his off-wiki threat on-wiki RxS (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't forget it. I edited the time line to make it clearer where that happened. Hans Adler 17:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose block as administered. Controversial blocks should not occur in the middle of discussions without consensus. This should have beed discussed at ANI and consensus developed BEFORE pushing the block button.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment After looking through the various block logs of the accounts, it appears that this is not just a matter of "opinion" or "Hyperbole". There are blocks for 3RR, abusing multiple accounts to avoid bans, block evasion, vandalism, parole violation, and dare I even mention the "incivility" item. Also, while the terms "lawyer", "legal", and other items mentioned in WP:NLT are not explicitly mentioned, this post certainly suggests an intent on building a "case" to present to those who would "fund" our efforts here. — Ched :  ?  17:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Just speaking to the last part of your comment, I think that is pretty clearly not a legal threat. It seems to be a threat to give a report to (presumably) large donors to Misplaced Pages—there's no mention whatsoever of going to court or anything like that. That diff is not edifying at all, but WP:NLT just does not come into play in my view. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) and (out of sequence post) Understood, and agreed BTP; however, I think it does speak to the intent of the editor in question. I don't see the intent at this point to be constructive in any manner. In my eyes, it shows a clear intent to act upon the declaration of intent to "destroy". That is the primary item I think is most relevant in this particular thread. — Ched :  ?  17:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• For clarity, you believe that threatening to ask donors to pull future donations is a blockable offense? Hipocrite (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• In and by itself, no. However, as an "item" in a list of intentions, to be used to an end result, Yes. (big picture view) — Ched :  ?  18:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• The blocking policy is quite explicit. Which of those criteria justifies this block in your view? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Common rationales for blocks, protection subsection, bullet 2: "making personal, professional or legal threats (including outside the Misplaced Pages site)". This is clearly a personal threat to Misplaced Pages, and the phrase "Including outside the Misplaced Pages site" has been a part of the policy since at least a year ago (I didn't look farther back than April 2008), and has been uncontested in all of that time. This may not be the NLT definition of a "Legal threat" but blocking policy also includes as blockable offenses "personal" and "professional" threats as well. Again, these two types of threats have been part of the policy since at least April 2008, and quite possibly much earlier. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The common rationales listed there are not all-inclusive. I think the background leading to this block (and speaking only of this editor) matches and meets all four goals listed at Misplaced Pages:BLOCK#Purpose_and_goal, along with the preventative (rather than punitive) goal of a block. If the likelihood of disruption wanes, the block can and should be lifted. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Unblock This is awfully silly. He couldn't "destroy Misplaced Pages" even if he wanted to, and doesn't strike me as muddled enough to believe otherwise. Topic ban maybe, but that's not something to be decided on WT:RFA. --SB_Johnny |  17:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse block. Frankly, I find the "didn't happen here, can't do anything about it" argument completely unconvincing. The thread is written about this place, in a completely open, publicly-viewable forum. Personally, I don't even have any problem with a thread entitled "How to utterly destroy Misplaced Pages." I think that these things are good to discuss, as they provide insight into the biggest problems that face us and the road to destruction; (theoretically) they would enable us to change, address the issues and hopefully solve the problems (I admit, I'm an idealist). Discussion is good, criticism is good, but when the user actually starts implementing a plan to destroy WP and provides a direct link as form of explanation... come on. It doesn't really get much clearer that they are trying to "utterly destroy Misplaced Pages". Should we be good bureaucrats (in the RL sense of the word, naturally) and wait until he breaches Bylaw 13, Section 33(c) before we block him? Should we wait until he embarks upon point 4, the subtle vandalism? _{Oh but hang on, the thing about subtlety is that it’s just so damn... subtle.} Or should we just say "urm, actually, we don't really want to be destroyed and we aren't going to let you try and do it here?" We have long passed the point of naiveté. To throw a WP-meme at you, there's AGF and then there’s plain old stupidity. – Toon 17:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose to Block - There is nothing in our policies or guidelines that suggest such a block is acceptable. This is Wikianarchy at its best and is a complete destruction of the values of our encyclopedia. This also supports drama mongering by those who called for the block, which happen to be the only ones causing problems. Those who support this block are not acting in any regard in Misplaced Pages's best interest. I am a blatant enemy of Peter Damian. Most people know that. I do not say these words lightly. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support block, after a lot of thought. Intentions are important. If someone adds mistyped gibberish to one of our pages, we politely revert it, and ask if we can help with translating. But if someone's goals are specifically to damage our project, even if the way they go about it doesn't seem too likely to succeed, that is still the very point of a preventative ban. Peter Damian should be encouraged to start his own, better project - almost all our work here is freely available under GFDL, so he can have it all to build from. He should be encouraged to criticize in a way we can use to improve our project. But we shouldn't welcome someone who comes straight out saying he intends to destroy us. --GRuban (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support block. It makes sense that people threatening to assassinate the president of the United States are arrested, especially if they have set out a specific plan to do so. This is essentially a parallel situation. Peter has publicly declared he is planning to destroy Misplaced Pages. He has even set out a numbered list of activities to achieve that goal, and has already acted on the first one. He is trying to destroy the encyclopedia, not just unintentionally causing disruption like Kmweber and DougsTech. I believe a block was necessary, and the current one was justified and should remain in place until/unless Peter promises to cease his quest to destroy Misplaced Pages. Timmeh 18:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Nuanced opinion that cannot be reduced to a sound bite: expressing dislike of the site's response to controversial voting patterns at RFA. This is the third time in less than a year that conduct RFC has been circumvented in favor of multiple rounds of drama/ban discussion etc. That does not speak well for us, collectively, as a project. We have dispute resolution venues; it would be far better to use them. That said, PeterDamian was formerly community banned, and was allowed to return upon terms against which a portion of the community has procedural objections. There is no doubt that he can contribute encyclopedic content. Can he do so without also causing disruption that exceeds the considerable benefits of that content? Is he a net positive--and if not, can he be? These unanswered questions leave me unable to support or oppose the block. Requesting that if he does return, the matter proceed to an immediate conduct RfC. Durova 18:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse block. Enough of the ridiculous drama already. We've got better things to spend our time on. The drama to content ratio, at this point, in my opinion, is not a net benefit. That said, I think throwing insults at the blocking admin is unnecessary. لennavecia 18:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse block - user announces intention to disrupt Misplaced Pages. Links to announcement on wikipedia. Begins implementing an item from the list of disruption tactics. Any reason to believe he won't do the others? No. Ergo, block is preventing further disruption. → ROUX ₪ 18:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse block and WP:TROUT to those who oppose it. "Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the face of an upraised knife" and second-guessing an administrator who takes decisive, preventative action in the face of a stated threat serves to undermine and disincentivize those who stand ready to defend Misplaced Pages against disruption. The only real question is whather an apology and retraction from the blockee would be acceptable and grounds for an unblock--I don't think it would be, given the fervency and intensity of the original statement, but on this score others might reasonably differ. Jclemens (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree, a question that should be considered; however, given all the second chances and apologies already offered by User:Peter Damian, User:Renamed user 4, User:Peter Damian II, User:PeterDamian, User:Peter Damian (old), User:Hinnibilis (all the same editor as I understand it), I'm not sure how much AGF would be left at this point. Personally, it appears to me to be a habitual pattern of disruption that we would be best to avoid. — Ched :  ?  19:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Stated threat? Your post right there is more of a threat than anything put forth about Peter Damian. If anything, you should be indeffed on your own rationale. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Someone asked above why Law would block first, and seek consensus later. The answer is clear and can be found in this thread - by changing the status quo, he made unblocking the action that needs consensus instead of blocking. Others have asked why an off-wiki comment should spark on-wiki action. In addition to the reasons noted by others (bringing the issue on-wiki by quoting/linking and by taking action in support of his off-wiki "plan"), its been my opinion that while off-wiki behavior that is unrelated to Misplaced Pages is irrelevant for our purposes, off-wiki behavior that is directly related to Misplaced Pages often and necessarily plays a role in on-wiki enforcement (think Bedford, Nichalp, Thekohser, the many opposes based on WR participation, and many other instances). Even so, this block was hasty and premature. There is something to be said for extending folks like Peter extra rope - either you give them the opportunity climb up, or you ensure that when they hang themselves with it the end is definitive. Nathan 19:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• "...by changing the status quo, he made unblocking the action that needs consensus instead of blocking." Well said, but of course that's precisely the problem. In a sense it was a smart move for someone who wanted Damian blocked, because now it is unblocking which is difficult, not blocking. But we are talking about an indefinite block for an editor who has contributed good content (and a lot of drama, obviously), and in that situation I think that is simply not how things should work. Incidentally I imagine a lot of the people here opposing the block are opposing primarily (or even solely) the process, not so much the idea that something needed to be done about Damian. One could easily argue that asking for consensus on this first could have resulted in a fairly quick solution backed by multiple editors. I think a simple rule for all admins before making a block should be to think, "Will this cause a shitstorm at ANI?" If the answer is yes (as it should have been for this) then post a comment on ANI (or wherever) instead of blocking, even if blocking benefits your position because you know it will be difficult to get consensus to undo it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Unblock. Indefinite blocks for trolling are reserved for SPAs, which Peter Damian is not. There are other ways to deal with trolling, the best is to ignore it. Kusma (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Since when? Indef blocks are used for pattern disruption or to prevent incredibly likely further disruption. → ROUX ₪ 19:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• endorse If PD will just settle down and make useful edits to articles - which he certainly can and has done - then he would be welcome. If he insists on all this pointless attention-seeking drama - which alas he does - then he should be blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Unblock So where we know where he is. Has socked in the past. Likely to do so again. Let's keep him on the radar. Does edit content well after all - and the fact that a stated aim of destroying Misplaced Pages doesn't seem to marry to actively improving it is clearly an indication of his - err.... issues. Pedro :  Chat  19:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I have to say that blocking Peter Damian for disruption has really, really, really passed un-noticed and not tied up lots of people in discussion and argument. Is there any reason why I shouldn't simply block the blocking admin - and everyone commenting here (including me) - for the disruption this action has taken? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Break

• Oppose, and a great big "Wake up, people": Off wiki is off Misplaced Pages. We do not, have not, and will not allow people to go searching through the web looking for similar account names, or trying to tie identities to account names, or alleging similarities, or the like to try to "get" people. The rules and policies of Misplaced Pages apply here and only here. They apply nowhere else, and one reason that the "badsites" and the like exist is because of the exasperation people feel when they think they're getting ganged up on or watched for any misplaced word. This kind of block (and indefinite, too!) was for something off Misplaced Pages. Do you want people looking for your entire Internet history to try to find something to hang you with? Do you want people to look for similar account names and say they're you? Do you want to have to prove who you are so as to free yourself from every charge? Do you want to be at Fark and then get blocked here for saying a dirty word there? Don't be stupid, people. Additionally, this block, without warning, without discussion, without review (all of which are violations of policy), was indefinite. We don't do that to IP trolls. But a long time contributor like Peter Damian who obviously cares enough to be angry... yeah. This is doltish, and the people endorsing are either not thinking or hypocritical. Geogre (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Except that PD linked to it himself, and is fulfilling one of the items he himself listed. So this isn't some sort of witch-hunt trying to find information, it is information provided by the user. → ROUX ₪ 20:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • User makes threat off wiki to destroy it. User begins to carry out plan on Misplaced Pages, by mass opposing RFAs. Ergo, user is blocked for trying to destroy Misplaced Pages. I can't see what the issue is. User said they will destroy Misplaced Pages, user carries out plan, user is blocked. What else is there to it? I can't understand the opposition against a block for someone with such a blatant disregard for Misplaced Pages's well-being. It's like having a disease, but refusing to get the cure for it, despite the disease is actively destroying you. Complete madness. Majorly talk 20:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
      • That's more than a little hyperbolic. "User said they will destroy Misplaced Pages, user carries out plan..." Really? Where and when did that happen? (sorry, but some RfA votes don't cut if for me). And Damian is "actively destroying" us? Really? I don't like his comments or his actions, and I'm quite open to serious sanctions (possibly including an indef block), but let's try to avoid blowing this out of all proportion, and let's respect the fact that there are a number of people opposed to the process by which this block was put into effect (i.e. in the context of an ongoing discussion in which there was no consensus for an indef block), and that that is a legitimate view to have. Thinking the block was smart and righteous is legitimate too, so let's just try to discuss calmly, to the extent that any discussion which started at WT:RFA and migrated to ANI can ever be calm. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Don't forget that the blocking admin promptly ended his wikipedia day less than 20 minutes after his block, and has not yet responded to a single thing regarding the block. Hipocrite (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Do you honestly believe that a one line oppose at RfAs that can easily be discounted by Crats chosen to decide such things could break Misplaced Pages? Gesh, Majorly. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose a really stupid and unproductive block. Misplaced Pages is not the Tiananmen Square massacre ffs; legitimate criticism of the many faults in our governance (especially off site) needs to be cherished, not stifled or censored. --John (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Blocking someone who is actively trying to destroy Misplaced Pages is now stupid and unproductive? What about all those vandals who are blocked? Majorly talk 20:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I think people are trying to answer the wrong question. Why not discuss how best to deal with Peter Damian? Whether or not this particular block was good will then become moot.

If someone says they are contributing in bad faith, I tend to believe them, regardless of whether they say it explicitly in a Misplaced Pages post or link to it offsite. It may be debated whether or not "destroying Misplaced Pages to fix Misplaced Pages" counts as acting in bad faith or a kind of "ends justify the means" meta-good-faith. Personally the only thing I think it safe to take from such a statement is the user's intent to disrupt; there is no guarantee that the chosen means will lead to the desired end.

That's a separate question, I think, from what's been going on at RFA. The 'crats assure us that contributions to RFA which are unrelated to the candidate will not affect the outcome, which makes possible the defence that Peter Damian's actions are harmless because futile. This is not the same as saying that such contributions are desirable in any way. The question is how to respond. Some at RFA argue that anything goes, that any user may say whatever they like, no matter how unfounded or indeed irrelevant, and that it is those who urge any reaction that are guilty of causing disruption. I worry that this tendency will lead to a trial-by-ordeal culture at RfA, where users intentionally behave like dicks just to see how the candidate responds. I'd like to see bureaucrats more actively indenting or striking RfA !votes that are clearly not appropriate and that will be ignored. This helps prevent the RfA being derailed and encourages future contributors to make sure their remarks are on-topic.

I don't have any strong opinions as to what should be done with Peter Damian. I am inclined to think that this block wasn't a very good idea, as implemented, but that doesn't answer the question of whether he should be indefinitely blocked, or perhaps community banned, or banned from RfA, or unblocked with or without an apology. Unless a consensus emerges that an alternative outcome is better than a block, or someone has a link to the blocking admin stating their intent to destroy Misplaced Pages by blocking its best content editors (this part is a joke), I don't think further action here is necessary. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose block – now if he took a dispute from on-wiki to off-wiki and started to engage in harassment, then I could see a block being justified. Otherwise, this is a baseless threat of, as mentioned above, the Pinky & the Brain mentality. MuZemike 20:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Far too many people are commenting without knowing the situation. Pretty much anyone who said something along the lines of "His voting at RfA is not a blockable offence" or saying "This was off-wiki" is just not reading the whole thread and is decreasing the signal to noise ratio in this discussion. This has to do with him announcing on-wiki his intentions to be disruptive and listing the precise means he intends to do it including announcing his intention of vandalism and demoralising the hard work of Wikipedians. Chillum 20:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The unblock by Geogre

Geogre (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)

2009-06-30T20:09:26 Geogre (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Peter Damian (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 minute (account creation blocked) ‎ (Feeding the Wikipedian trolls)

• To anyone who is not aware Peter Damian has had the duration of block changed to 1 minute (some minutes ago now) by Geogre - User talk:Peter Damian#Blocked2 - is his explanation. Davewild (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• With the edit summary "Feeding the Wikipedian trolls". He then "voted" on this discussion, opposing the block and attacking several people he disagreed with in the process. Majorly talk 20:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Sad because Geogre doesn't seem to understand the issue. This was not about off-wiki comments but bringing off-wiki threats on-wiki. I wonder if he even read the background. RxS (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  In light of Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Geogre-William_M._Connolley#Geogre I have asked Geogre to consider reversing his action procedurally. Now is a time for consnsus rather than bold action. Durova 20:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  What an appallingly bad unblock (zero consensus for it) by someone who quite clearly doesn't understand--or doesn't care--what is actually going on. → ROUX ₪ 20:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  Not advisable in my view given the above discussion, but then again neither was the original block given the lack of any discussion. Cries of "bad unblock!" routinely follow cries of "bad block!" (see above for the latter), and in fact we should probably even write some sort of essay about that pattern. The best thing to do is to avoid blocks that will result in drama (and perhaps even wheel warring) in the first place. I look forward to the re-block and then the re-unblock, and then the RFAR, all of which is completely unnecessary. Or we could just take Durova's advice above, end this conversation, and move the whole party to a user conduct RfC on Peter Damian, which probably should have been the path take in the first place. This ANI thread will likely not end well, which anyone could have guessed from the moment the block was implemented. It's rather sad and dumb and sad (and also dumb) all around, really. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  Oh great. First we have a very extensive discussion at WT:Requests for adminship#Peter Damian with no doubt plenty of admins watching it and some even participating. Then one newbie admin of the kind targeted by Peter apparently decides that there is not going to be a consensus to block him, so it's best to make use of the veto right against not blocking that every admin has. And goes to bed 20 minutes later. (I checked the time zone, at least that makes sense.) There are quite a few things here that are appalling. Geogre's actions is not one of them. Hans Adler 20:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Now is a time for consensus rather than bold action." The same can be said for the brazen indefinite block that was placed earlier. Let's not wheel war over this; I suspect that anyone who would re-block could face possible sanctions. seicer | talk | contribs 20:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not the first time this has happened. I hold Geogre responsible for any future disruption Peter causes due to this unblock. Any disruptive edits he makes now are troll food from Geogre. The very least Geogre could have done is ask Peter to promise not to be disruptive, I fear Peter will take this unblock as permission to do more of the same. Chillum 20:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User conduct RfC?

In the interests of drama reduction, would someone initiate a conduct RfC? Let's regularize this situation and redirect it into productive venues. Peter Damian has much to offer. Clearly, he also has a bit to take on board. Let's move forward toward the most productive resolution. Durova 20:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a capital idea. We need a couple of users who have tried (and failed) to resolve issues with Peter Damian in the past in order to even start an RFC (unless that's changed somehow). Or a couple of people could go to his talk page now and try to work something out, and failing that then proceed to start an RfC. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Continued disruption at Aisha

Gnosisquest has been causing trouble at the highly controversial article on Aisha for many months now, and I'm about at my wits end. I'm afraid admin action may be needed. Gnosisquest is a single-purpose account whose edits have been almost entirely confined to adding apologetic material to this one article, and arguing about it on the talk page. His material is in my opinion very poorly sourced and inappropriate for such a controversial subject, and his edit warring, revert warring, and use of sock/meatpuppets led me to protect the article back in April. This protection was lifted in May on the understanding that he would utilize the talk page. Since then he has resumed editing the page in the same tendentious manner, adding and reverting his material back in despite lack of consensus on the talk page. He's asked for comment WikiProject Islam, but found no support, and he requested a 3rd opinion, but didn't get the answer he wanted. In spite of this, he proceeded to make this edit, which plagiarised the source, and then revert-warred it back twice more in spite of several warnings about the plagiarism and TEND issues Today, I saw that he's started engaging in CANVASSING, though admittedly in a more nuanced way than than the canvassing I asked him to stop some days ago. I don't see this problem getting any better. At this stage I think his edits have gotten disruptive to the point that a community article ban may be in order--Cúchullain /c 15:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

DoctorBenwayMD

• DoctorBenwayMD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - copyright violations, 3RR violations, censorship, etc. Has received several warnings. —BMRR (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours by Toddst1 (talk · contribs). –Juliancolton |  16:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Involved admins making decisions at watchlist application

Collapsing: good faith misunderstanding. Please take followup concerns to the relevant talk page. Durova 17:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User:VegKilla and User:Hell in a Bucket

Two months ago I had a extended altercation with Vegkilla. I was extremely rude and inappropriate and very verbally abusive to him and admin. I recvd a few blocks for these behaviors. I did as my contribution show calm down and regret my behavior and apologized to all invovled. I recieved a last block in which I agreed not to contact that user again unless invited. Also there was a reccomendation to avoid pages with Vegkilla editing until I "reestablished my bona-fides" I have been accused of violating the terms of my unblock and unfairly warned in a situation that is clearly nothing but good faith. I would like uninvovled admin to please look at me and my contributions and clarify if my actions were incorrect and how to change them in the future. Also I will npot be posting the ani posting on Vegkillas page as to do so would invite more conflict, if someone could please help him out I would appreciate it. There is a Road, No Simple Highway (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and notified user:VegKilla of this thread. -T'Shael,The Vulcan Overlord 16:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC 18:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As one of the admins who blocked HiaB for the earlier poor behaviour I would note that I feel that he has moved forward greatly over the last weeks, and has transformed himself into a good faith editor. I do not think that VegKilla's attitude is appropriate in referring to that previous instance over what may be considered a minor content dispute. I note that a couple of people have noted to VegKilla that his current responses are indicative of overreaction, but to date the only responses have been further references to the old instance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The somments such as this is teh most bothering to me. I would invite Vegkilla to strike those accusations.

"I adamantly persist that this was blatant, repeated vandalism that HellinaBucket has already been warned about countless times. HellinaBucket was almost permanently blocked for making this exact edit to this exact article. The HellinaBucket account has been trying to make this edit to this article since the account was created. This article was protected to guard against this exact edit being made by anon ips, and further more, Hellina's edit summary of "changing verbage" was intentionally deceptive and is itself an act of vandalism, since it attempts to conceal the fact that the edit fundamentally changes the meaning of the first sentence of the article.VegKilla (talk) 06:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

HellinaBucket is a vandal. Unfortunately, ThaddeusB is not familiar with this issue. I directly oppose everything that ThaddeusB has said as being completely false and unwarranted (I specifically deny that Hellina's edit was a mistake and was not deliberate vandalism).VegKilla (talk) 06:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"What I did accuse Hellina of, was of vandalism: making the same edit to the Operation Repo article that he has been trying to make since April. He has repeated this act of vandalism by removing words like "faux" or "scripted" from the article, and this is vandalism because it is introducing false information. I also accused Hellina of violating the agreement he made when he was making a plea to avoid a permanent block....

The concept of "assuming good faith" does not apply to this situation, because as I said earlier, this is not a new issue. This is an edit that Hellina has made to this article countless times, and has been warned and even blocked for persisting in this issue. Furthermore, Hellina's edit summary "changing verbage" is intentionally deceptive.

If Hellina wants to continue to vandalize Operation Repo, then he can start a new account, and (not knowing who he is) I'll start him out at a level 1 warning again. If Hellina wants to make helpful contributions to Operation Repo without introducing false information or using deceptive edit summaries, then he can (and does), because as you can see from the edit history, I don't even blink when he makes constructive contributions VegKilla (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)" There is a Road, No Simple Highway (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• I was involved (with another non-admin, Neutralhomer, in the previous incident here when there seemed to be a shortage of admins (Saturday morning in the EU, the wee small hours of Saturday in the US). At the time I suppose I sided with VegKilla, since Hell in a Bucket's conduct was, as they acknowledge above, unseemly. Since then I've been following both VegKilla and Hell in a Bucket, and they appeared to have disengaged and generally become good members of the community. Unlike ThaddeusB I am familiar with the background to this; however, I do have to agree with ThaddeusB that VegKilla's allegation of vandalism is completely inappropriate. I'd view Hell in a Bucket's edit as good faith. I do not regard Hell in a Bucket as a vandal. Cheers, TFOWR 18:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, here is the supposed vandalism edit: and here is the very strongly worded warning it received: . To me, this is clearly a content dispute and not at all vandalism. I take no position on the correctness of the edit, but I feel strongly that the threat it generated was way over-the-top.

VegKilla went on the accuse Hell in a Buck of "following his edits around," which I consider a serious accusation without basis. VegKilla has mostly only edited Operation Repo for the last month. He has made 15 edits to the article (mostly reverts) while Hell has made 6. It is pretty hard to stalk someone through a total of 1 page. Again, this is a content dispute not stalking.

I do understand that these two have had conflict in the past, however that does not excuse making threats of "permanently blocking" over a minor changing of the words. At worst, this is a slow moving edit war - and it takes two to edit war.

Additionally, VegKilla has been jumping straight to L4 warnings every time an IP vandalizes the page. He seems to think ever IP edit is really coming from Hell in a Bucket, which is highly unlikely IMO. I have advised him to step back from the article for a while, as he seems to have lost focus and is emotionally involved to an unhealthy level. I believe this is good advice and stand by it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• For someone with "no familiarity" of the issues behind this incident, you seem to have summarised it nicely ;-) I agree entirely that this is a context dispute - heck, I agree with everything you've said. VegKilla needs to step back. Cheers, TFOWR 19:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

VegKilla's objection is a change away from describing Operation Repo as a "faux reality show." As far as I know, that's not a genre name that is widely used by anyone. In my opinion, Hell in a Bucket's proposed change is not only not vandalism, but is a very reasonable edit. I've weighed in on the talk page regarding the genre discussion, and added the article to my watchlist- I'm conerned that User:VegKilla may have a slight case of WP:OWN. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the user is not going to review our thread and is "taking a long wikibreak". I would like to thank everyone who weighed in here and for the support for my turnaround. I do want it to be known that I hold my hand out in friendship to VegKilla, my actions before were completely inappropriate and I sincerely apoligize again for it to him. I hope you understand I am sincere and would love to reach a consensus with you at a later time of your choosing. There is a Road, No Simple Highway (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan King caught POV-pushing his own article

Add Jonathan King, the sometime pop-music figure/TV personality, to the list of people caught trying to own their own articles. In this case the subject had been extensively anon-posting, trying to massage the presention of his underage sex convictions, and to reinflate the article's previous (self?-)assessment of his former importance.

Kudos to Little grape (talk · contribs) for detective work.

See: Talk:Jonathan_King#Rule_879:_'The_subject_of_an_article_shouldn't_edit_it_himself' & recent history

-- Jheald (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Already reported at WP:COIN. – ukexpat (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, does nobody see any contradiction in encouraging this sourt of thing while insisting on Misplaced Pages editors' god-given right to remain pseudonymous at all costs? If blatant POV pushing by I.P.s is becoming problematic, semi-protect the article. I thought we didn't out people here? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If career-long self-publicists like JK use Misplaced Pages this way, we should hang them out to dry. For WP's own self-defence. Jheald (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to propose a change to WP:OUTING, then, which currently says that "Posting another person's personal information...is harassment unless that editor voluntarily posts this information, or links to this information, on Misplaced Pages themselves. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy. This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Misplaced Pages editor."? If memory serves, there was a pretty high profile case in which a fellow was blocked for outing another career-long self-publicist (who was socking to boot). Something about some kind of tactic on financial markets... Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Outing that an IP address is where it is, that anyone can see? Outing where Jonathon King is, when it's public information anyway? There is no outing here - just a COI issue that needs to be managed properly. Pedro :  Chat  19:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Revealing the person behind a set of edits without that person having voluntarily done so is outing. I don't believe that outing should be outlawed here, but it is, and as long as it is I have a real problem with article subjects being held to a higher standard than Misplaced Pages editors. There's nothing in WP:COI (which is advice to people considering editing under a COI, not some kind of hammer allowing us to ban people or disregard their views) that allows for outing. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Maybe we need to fix OUTING a bit. Pedro :  Chat  19:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That could be gamed. Further beans instructions available on request. Hans Adler 19:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a perfect instance of WP:IAR when to not out them means the project is negatively affected, ie in this case used to spin a sad and ailing career back into existence by someone who is actively lying about who they are. --WebHamster 20:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that Misplaced Pages's treatment of article subjects editing their own articles tends to be less WP:IAR and more WP:SASTTTWATERIAZBTBATSU (Subject Article Subjects To Treatment That, When Applied To Editors, Results In A ZOMG Banned!" Tag Being Affixed To Someone's Userpage). Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 20:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What's impressive is that even having been busted, JK comes back and edits some more...

There are some examples, eg Peter Hitchens stands out for me, where article subjects engage on their article talk pages in an open and honest way, aware of COI issues, and their presence actually has a solidly beneficial effect. But posting anonymously from a hotel in Italy pretending to be somebody else seems a bit sad.

IMO the best way to prevent such activity is to make clear that people caught doing it will be named and shamed. As Durova said in a thread at WT:HA last year (00:33, 4 October 2008), manipulating Misplaced Pages can look like an attractive option, unless balanced by the PR risk that it can and will get out. Jheald (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Griefing

Misplaced Pages:Griefing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Obvious griefer/troll IP vandalization (IP:75.183.114.232), of Misplaced Pages:Griefing on June 30. Defaced the authors and placed obscene remarks on the essay, along with a message left on the talk page claiming to be from one "Lord Wulf". Definite IP bans needed. --Thecitrusking (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Similar report already declined on RFPP. If there are vandals that need to be blocked, AIV is thataway. Tan | 39 19:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Blonde field

I blocked this user as an obvious reincarnation of sockpuppeteer User:TreadingWater and User:TruthPrevailsAgain (blocked by User:J.delanoy with a "vandalism" tag). As I consider myself involved in the boomer mess, I ask for confirmation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not exactly appropriate to annouce the new sock on Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations, is it? If so, I'd just do that, if there's a perceived problem. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Userpage question

Just a quick question - I reverted this blanking, as per WP:USER, "Some people add information about themselves as well, possibly including contact information (email, instant messaging, etc), a photograph, their real name, their location, information about their areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes, homepages, and so forth. (If you are concerned with privacy, you may not want to and are by no means required to emulate this." I haven't delved much into userspace applications, so wanted a second opinion. Tan | 39 20:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, it was a sock that is blocked, nothing to see here. Arbiter set me straight on my talk page. Tan | 39 20:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User keeps removing unreferenced refimprove tag

Regushee (talk · contribs) persists in removing fact, unreferenced and refimprove tags from a number of Subaru articles, despite efforts by two of use to explain to him/her that they should not be removed without addressing the underlying issues. See my talk page for the discussion. I now believe that this user is in breach of 3RR on at least two articles and because he/she just isn't getting the point it would be of benefit to get some administrator intervention to stop this disruptive behaviour. --Biker Biker (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#PLOT

We need to get rid of this now, it's hurting the encyclopedia:

• It actively discriminates against a key part of the encyclopedic coverage of a fictional work.
• It encourages the deletion or hacking down to a paragraph of sections with encyclopedic content (plot summaries) in articles. This plot summary will just have to be recreated later when the article gets longer, and in the meantime, we've ruined what most people have come to Misplaced Pages to find.
• Plot summaries are encyclopedic content. Since when has encyclopedic content been part of what Misplaced Pages is not?
• Other encyclopedias, such as Encyclopedia Brittanica, have articles all or primarily plot summary.

WP:NOT#PLOT might just work as a guideline, encouraging improvement. It is appallingly bad policy. Please help save Misplaced Pages. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Help save Misplaced Pages? Hyperbolic much? The encyclopedic value of a particular work of fiction is how that work has been received in the world, the context in which it was produced, etc. A short plot summary allows for the salient points to be shown without devolving into fansite silliness. → ROUX ₪ 20:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the WRONG PLACE for this comment. you want to go to the community improvement area to suggest removing a policy. no-one at WP:ANI can just remove a policy for you even if you tiouy are right that is thould be removed. Smith Jones (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks and intimidation by User:Allstarecho

I believe that User:Allstarecho is using unfounded and unsubstantiated accusations of "stalking", "hounding", and "harrassment" to discourage me from participation in discussions. I am tired of the accusations and would like some admin action to put a stop to them. Per WP:NPA, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are "never acceptable".

On 17 June, in response to a suggestion at ANI by User:Benjiboi that my support of another editor who had an issue with Allstarecho amounted to "hounding", I stated clearly that I was not "hounding" Allstarecho. Benjiboi graciously withdrew his suggestion, but Allstarecho insinuated that I was wikistalking him and did not respond to my request for clarification. I further explained that my interest in Allstarecho's contributions arose from his recent block for the introduction of copyright violations. I hoped the matter was settled.

On 19 June, in another ANI thread, Allstarecho accused me of "hounding" here and here. I asked Allstarecho to stop making accusations and invited him to follow up in an appropriate forum if he had genuine concerns about my behaviour. The same ANI thread also includes the perplexingly mysterious but clearly threatening comment "Disengage from me before my accusation escalates to a worse accusation".

On 28 June, Allstarecho again accused me of "wiki-stalking" here for participating in an MfD discussion. I reiterated that I was not wikistalking him and again asked him to stop making accusations and take it to an appropriate forum.

Today he removed comments of mine from a Village Pump with the edit summary "rmv that which has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion; feel free to post it somewhere appropriate, and thanks for the additional stalking/hounding/harassment".

Please do not respond to this thread with platitudes such as "just disengage from each other". Allstarecho has been involved in a large number of actions just in the past month - block for copyright violations; questionable unblocking for same; egregious ownership and COI issues at Equality Mississippi; similar unsubstantiated stalking allegations against User:Damiens.rf; and creation, re-creation, and re-re-creation of redirects from article space into his userspace. Forgive my bluntness, but there is no shortage of legitimate complaints based on Allstarecho's actions. I have already been run off Equality Mississippi and have ignored other issues that I would not otherwise have hesitated to tackle. Although some of my comments did not help the situation, I do not think I am the problem here. Please address these repeated personal attacks. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

RFC used to harass

Mosedschurte and Yachtsman1 have opened Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Viriditas in an effort to harass and intimidate me from pursuing my plagiarism investigation against them which I am. I have already made two reports on one incident and I am in the process of making a third, more detailed report. This RfC against me violates just about every aspect of a user-conduct RfC: 1) It does not show with diffs that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute 2) This RfC was brought solely to harass or subdue me as, Mosedchurte and Yachtsman1 consider me their adversary 3) I have responded twice to these baseles allegations in a related incident report, however it is close to impossible to respond due to every single, cherry picked quote taken out of context, without overwhelming Misplaced Pages's servers 4) The entire user conduct RFC represents a dispute over article content, including a dispute over how best to follow the neutral point of view policy. Per the user conduct RfC guideline, this complaint belongs in an Article RfC. 5) Even though the process page clearly says that "an RfC cannot impose involuntary sanctions on a user, such as blocking or a topic ban", all three users are using the RfC to call for sanctions. 6) Yachtsman1, who has a documented history of making false allegations against me, is now using the RfC page to make bizarre, sockpuppet allegations. Could a neutral administrator look into this? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards