Misplaced Pages

I personally think it is useful information (though I may be biased). My concern with the removal, and why I reverted it, is partly a matter of WP:BRD, and partly a matter of a posting to ANI that will be up momentarily. → ROUX ₪ 05:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that now. I'd like to keep this separate. It isn't that the information may not be useful, but I don't see why discussion of a range of coats of arms of different Kennedy individuals or families should be on the surname page rather than on the pages of the relevant people (or indeed a page about the coats of arms, if there are a few relevatn secondary sources to satisfy notability). But this is a bit of a new area for me, so if there are contra arguments, I'd like to hear them. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Even assuming good faith here, Roux appears to be saying he wants to keep the material just so he can come here. It looks a lot like canvassing, hounding, and a lack of AGF on Roux's part. On Xanderliptak's side, it appears he's just being bold. My suggestion would be to stop this before it gets to look like you're setting the dogs on Xanderliptak. He's removing the images people have fought to get rid of, but now inexplicably are fighting to have restored. Might be time to reassess your own behavior.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

<belated response to comment by Malke about me:> "why is Hamiltonstone claiming he got here from his watchlist when everybody can read this exchange for themselves". The answer is: I have Kennedy (surname) on my watchlist. The removal of the coats or arms seemed like a good idea; its reversion by Roux seemed a bad one. But as heraldry etc is not my area, I thought I would raise the issue on the article talk page and draw that discussion thread to the attention of the two involved editors at their talk pages: . It was only when I did that that I discovered there was a broader issue, and i thought I should mention that at ANI, since a thread had already been opened and some uninvolved comment appeared to be desirable. I don't appreciate the slur implicit in your comment Malke: you could have checked the diffs, where the timestamps would have made it clear that this was the simplest explanation. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Um... did you read anything I posted here? Seriously, don't post without reading what is going on. → ROUX ₪ 18:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be an echo in this section, namely someone griping about Xander being "followed". Some editors don't like being watched, and rung up for what they're doing, since they have this notion that they should be able to do whatever they want, unimpeded. They come here and complain that they're being "harassed"... by multiple users. At some point, the possibility might arise that the editor is being followed because he needs to be followed. Hanlon's razor might figure into this. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, this actually makes me somewhat angry. You do not understand a single thing that is going on here. You clearly have not bothered to read a single thing I wrote, and certainly haven't looked at the links I provided. I am not saying 'keep the material so I can come to ANI.' In terms of that specific article it is simply the first one I saw on my watchlist. Then I looked at Xanderliptak's contribs, and saw he has removed every instance of every image he uploaded to Commons. Further, on Commons, he has requested speedy deletion of all his images. (Something he can't do, not for the reason he has given.) Nobody has 'fought' to get rid of , almost all of which are articles about nobility, for whom coats of arms are a fairly important subject, recording as they do marriages, alliances, elevations (or demotions) in station, etc. The removal here of one of his images from the talk page of WP:WPHV is particularly noteworthy as well.

Xanderliptak is, quite simply, attempting to remove all of his images from use on enwiki, with concomitant attempt at deleting them from Commons. This is a problem that is related to ownership behaviour from over a year ago detailed here and here, which you would know if you had read the links I had initially posted.

In all seriousness, please do not comment when you have demonstrably not familiarized yourself with the details of what is going on. I bear no personal animus towards Xanderliptak, my concern is with widespread disruption arising from his repeated attempts to control the end result of images which he has freely contributed to the project. → ROUX ₪ 18:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has "fought to get rid of" Xander's images. The issue, as Roux states, is that he wants to maintain control of them, and since he can't do so, he's working on getting rid of them. (I'm sure they'll bring him a healthy profit on the black market.) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This would be a good place to drop the stick and back away from the dead horse.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to advise Mr. Xander to that effect. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Malke, I tried saying this politely. Apparently you didn't read it. I'll be more blunt: you do not understand what is going on, you have obviously not looked at a single link or diff provided, and your contributions to this discussion are completely and totally unhelpful and off base. Please stop commenting. → ROUX ₪ 23:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Roux, I understand perfectly what is happening here. I don't see Xanderliptak doing anything but being bold in his edits. I don't see anything wrong with his removing the images. If editors want them back, they're free to put them back, or find other images, or they can take the articles off their watchlists. Focus on the edit, not the editor. And chill about it. It's time to let this go. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The way I understand it (and Roux, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), this guy is not "being bold", he's trying to assert ownership over his own creations, in defiance of the license rules. And he's been getting irritated because the rule-followers keep impeding him. I never heard of that guy until this past week, but it didn't take long to figure out what he was up to. How do you figure other editors are "free to put them back"? These are designs of family crests or something, which he himself created. So no one else could claim them as their own, and hence they couldn't upload them. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you do not, Malke. Xanderliptak is not being WP:BOLD. of course you would know this if you had read the diffs I had provided, including practically identical behaviour from almost a year ago. Your insistence that you understand what is going on is clearly indicating that you have not read the diffs. The edits you have made to this discussion are beyond useless. Until you can indicate that you have actually read the diffs and links provided, I urge anyone else reading this to pay not the slightest bit of attention to anything you have to say on this matter. → ROUX ₪ 23:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)First, it's never wise to assume you know what his motives are. And second, if he created the image and is now removing it, what is the big deal here? If an editor makes an edit to an article, but then comes back and removes the edit and then puts in something else, or decides that the edit wasn't really a good one, who is to say he can't do that? Images come and go on Misplaced Pages. Nothing here is permanent. A week from now none of you will care about any of this.

Imagining what Xanderliptak's motives are appears to be the central problem here. There's a reason we have this guideline. Try it out in real life and you'll see what I mean. We can always assign motive based on our own prejudices and beliefs, but at the end of the day, we don't really know for certain what anybody's motive is, or is not. This whole thread was started based on an assumption that didn't take into account other things that might be going on. The previous arguments are now old. This new argument should have been addressed first on Xanderliptak's talk page and/or the various article talk pages. Not here. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact. Again you are demonstrating that you have not familiarized yourself with the history. Addressing this problem with Xanderliptak directly would have been less than fruitful--again, if you had familiarized yourself with the history you would know this. Addressing the issue on 30+ talk pages would have been similarly useless. I beg you, stop inserting your uninformed commentary. It only obscures the situation. → ROUX ₪ 00:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

History is past. Today is all you have. Forget about it and move on.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest that Malke moves on since he seems so spectacularly clueless about this issue. Jon (217.44.188.123 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 00:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC).

If you actually read some of the stuff Xander has said recently, you don't have to "imagine" his motives, as he's right out there with it. He was trying to apply the "moral right" principle to his little creations, and he was told repeatedly that it doesn't apply. Having finally apparently gotten that message, he's going through and trying to get them zapped on dubious grounds. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

If a rights holder didn't really understand and intend the implications of a CC licensing for an image, then we have sometimes deleted the image. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

If editors have had issues with that guy for a year, it's probably not that simple. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

That is, however, not his stated intention. He has stated, variously, that they 'were intended to be quick sketches and I will replace them one by one with better versions' (paraphrase, not his exact words, but very close; of course that still doesn't explain why he is seeking deletion. He could simply upload new versions over the old ones), and 'these images have caused trouble so I may as well remove them until the new versions are ready' (again paraphrase. And ignoring the fact that the images are not the problem, his behaviour is). These are things he has said on Commons, and I can provide diffs if requested, as he has said nothing on enwiki about his motivations. Moving back to the original point of this post: there are severe behavioural issues with Xanderliptak, namely:

• Repeated application of WP:IDHT (visible in every recent dispute/discussion he has taken part in, both here and on Commons
• Repeated allegations against fellow editors and refusal to provide diffs of the alleged behaviour despite repeated requests
• Repeated misrepresentation of tenor, tone, and content of discussions and what other editors have said with, again, refusal to provide diffs backing up what he says despite repeated and unambiguous requests to provide same
• Repeated refusal to provide references backing up what he has stated
• Ownership behaviour of his images (diffs provided above setting the context as an ongoing issue for almost a year, not new)
• I will provide diffs of all the above if asked, I just don't have the energy right now to comb through that many pages.

I don't deny that Xanderliptak has made valuable contributions. Misplaced Pages's coverage of heraldry is spotty at best, and it is one of those areas where visual cues are practically mandatory for understanding the subject. However, the above issues, none of which are new, are a distinct problem and need to be addressed in totally unambiguous terms. I had proposed an editing restriction for Xanderliptak to address some of those issues; Prodego's premature archiving of the thread prevented discussion that might well have prevented this set of circumstances from occurring.

Several other editors who have bothered to read the history here seem, unless I am mistaken, to agree that there is a problem. A solution needs to be found, please, to prevent further disruption. → ROUX ₪ 02:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Roux, there is an issue. I thought the dispute about one image was just getting resolved (leaving out three shields) - with an "out" provided on a silver platter - and I was disheartened when the dispute simply shifted to something else. I do think XL's image contributions are extremely valuable, but if XL wants to remove the images, my suggestion is to just let that happen. So long as XL only removes XL's own images and nobody else picks a fight, I suspect XL would eventually restore those or better images and the project will see a net benefit. And if that turns out to be false optimism, the issues get resolved another way. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I have zero faith whatsoever that those images will ever be replaced. My AGF reserves here are fully depleted. Also as a general principle I think it is a bad idea for Misplaced Pages to indulge the "I'm taking my toys and going home" behaviour when it comes to encyclopedic content. The precedent it sets for disgruntled editors to remove content they have contributed is... bad. → ROUX ₪ 03:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I have zero faith whatsoever that taking up this many kilobytes with what amounts to "Someone needs to talk to the user, but Roux has a past history with him" is conducive to anyone staying with the project. With regard to the deletion of images, if we're talking about him wanting to make a newer, better version, that's fine; I reverted the diffs linked above because I was under the impression the user was ragequitting over his inability to modify the licensing. If the images are going to be mass-deleted for whatever reason in the future, a bot should unlink them with an explanation. This will avoid confusion and have the added benefit of not annoying people with the articles on their watchlists. Recognizance (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The good thing is that Xander's edits were reverted - the images are back in the articles. I think just about all of his speedy deletions were overturned by the admins over on the Commons. It sucks when a contributor throws a hissyfit and spitefully starts destroying all their contributions as some sort of payback - holds their contributions/images hostage. That's where we need admins to step in and set the record straight - that you can't disrupt the project that way. Maybe this thread ought to be marked 'resolved' because really Malke is pointlessly winding Roux up. I think we should just leave this issue be, it's been dealt with. I doubt Xander will pull the same stunt again.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, if Roux is 'wound up' he did it to himself. It was Roux's choice to come here and make this complaint which doesn't need admin action. He could have done nothing, especially as Hamiltonstone didn't even want the image on the page in question. Roux could have waited. There's no emergency on Misplaced Pages, least of all with the deletion of images. This whole thing has been blown way out of proportion. And ignoring the obvious lack of WP:AGF, WP:CANVASS, and WP:HOUND, makes this thread seem like an even bigger hissyfit than anything Xanderliptak has done. Stop hounding the guy. Nobody here likes his images anyway.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, look. Three people now have told you that you don't know what you're talking about. I have pointed out repeatedly that you clearly haven't read any of the links or diffs provided. If you had, you would know that this is really not about the single page which Hamiltonstone is involved with, that was merely the first one where I noticed this problem. Could you please just shut up until you know what you're talking about? → ROUX ₪ 16:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I do see your points. But what I'm talking about is, you should not have come here as your first move. If you really want to start the process, start an RfC/U. Don't come here with every bit you find. Stop looking at his contributions. You're too involved here. I'm actually very sympathetic to you that you are so upset by this. I saw your request for an unblock and I felt very bad for you. But you're coming here first is not a good move. Do you see any admins here doing anything? Xanderliptak has disengaged on this thread. You should do the same. Everybody should do the same. For now, a good solution might be a self-imposed interaction ban, for say three weeks, etc. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm. There is no other option for a first move here. Discussion with Xanderliptak is pointless. RFC/U is less than pointless, it's just a delay of a month while more disruption can occur. I looked at his contributions solely because I saw one weird removal and wanted to know what was going on. You really, really don't have a clue what is going on here, and what has been going on for almost a year. Please cease your uninformed commentary. → ROUX ₪ 17:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at all your diffs, etc. Believe, me, I know exactly what has been going on. Xanderliptak should stop removing images, and you should take a break from this. If you don't look at his contributions, you won't be upset. Let someone else notice things. And how do you know, maybe your comments have made an impression on him. Now it's time to wait and see.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Malke 2010. Xanderliptak has pissed off more than just Roux, and more than just Roux have been restoring all the images he has deleted from articles, declining all the speedies on commons etc. This isn't about two editors arguing, this is about one editor behaving in an out of order way by trying to control the onward disposition of images that they uploaded.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment from an uninvolved party passing through: If other contributors have been pissed off then it would probably be best if they make the complaint and follow up on it. Rightly or wrongly, considering their history, Roux's reporting of Xanderliptak here and forceful argumentation against Xanderliptak after the initial notification can give the impression of hounding. Notice of Xanderliptak's actions has been give to the admins here; a continuing prosecution would seem to be unnecessary. Lambanog (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hard to argue with that. Xander certainly has pissed more people off, but it may well be that they have concluded that the horse is already dead. Perhaps it's time to close up here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Fine. The next time that Xanderliptak pulls something like this--and the next, and the next--I will bring up this thread and the last one, and remind you lot that you had a chance to stop the disruption but ignored it. This editor has attacked others, been rabidly dishonest about others, attempted to own content, been disruptive, etc etc etc, with total impunity. I suggest that admins familiarise themselves with the concept of 'enabling.' → ROUX ₪ 21:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• Edit wars now occurring here, here, here, apparently over an effort to use Xanderliptak's versions of images instead of other versions. (And before anybody says anything tiresome about stalking, I have had User talk:Fry1989 on my watchlist since this edit, saw Xanderliptak's warning, and decided to take a look given Xanderliptak's penchant for... well, for being Xanderliptak). → ROUX ₪ 02:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, this section almost made it to the archive point, anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that the item Xanderlip is edit warring to have removed, is the same entry he himself posted back in February. It's the same old story - ownership. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I find this concerning. :/ To an uninvolved party, it looks less to be edit-warring to remove something than to add something. The older image was altered at one point in August, with a "transparency added and secret watermark removed with gimp". The new image has been protested in part because it displays the artist's name. While Xander has shrunk the thumbnail to obscure it, it's still there. You can see it clearly here and here. Xanderliptak, you seem to be a talented artist; why not create an image that does not contain your signature since it is being protested? People who contribute text to Misplaced Pages--no matter how good their work--do not get to "sign" their articles. WP:WATERMARK indicates images should not "have any credits in the image itself." This is policy on Misplaced Pages. It seems like it would be a simple matter to comply. --Moonriddengirl 20:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
      • See here. This is not a new issue; Xander has been told before that he's not allowed to sign his work. → ROUX ₪ 21:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
        • And that is enWiki specific. Roux, can you or anyone else point to a specific Commons guide/policy that would get Xanderliptak's contribs there removed and him a talking to by a Commons admin? In an odd way it may get him part of what he wants - his old images off of Misplaced Pages. (His release of the rights... well that's someone else's problem at that point.) But that is still a Commons argument waged in the wrong place. - J Greb (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
          • I have pretty clearly tried to stay away from Commons issues, saying as I did in my first paragraph that Commons issues needed to be decided on Commons. I have tried to focus on Xander's behaviour here, which is severely problematic in multiple ways. → ROUX ₪ 21:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Watermark

I have reverted User:Xanderliptak's changes because of the credits embedded in the image, as this is against local policy. I have suggested he create a new version of the images without the problem, but also cautioned him about edit warring, as he has reverted several different contributors across these three pages. I know he has been blocked several times before for edit warring, but hopefully it will not be necessary this time. --Moonriddengirl 21:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Completely undiscussed controversial climate change move needs reverting

A less than a month old account that originally claimed to be a WP:CLEANSTART case and still has no obvious link to the user's previous identity has just moved Climate change denial to Criticism of Climate Change (yes, complete with the wrong capitalisation) without any prior discussion. To avoid a move war, can an uninvolved admin please move back so that a discussion at WP:RM can be started cleanly. Thank you. Hans Adler 06:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Done and move protection enabled. Toddst1 (talk) 06:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Just for clarity, can you or someone provide a diff to the account's claim of cleanstart? Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

da diff Toddst1 (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

See new section below, which I have been preparing since I started this report. Off to a lecture now. Hans Adler 07:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh, and I was just thinking I'd seen this user's editing style before.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem... See here**Terra Novus's Diff**..I will stop editing this article if it really is such a issue due to me being a recent WP:CLEANSTART, but I hope that the more experienced editors involved will fix this article's WP:NPOV issues...--Novus Orator 07:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

As a relevant aside, I'm about to close the Climate Change ArbCom case (once I have breakfast) and will be posting the details later today. Dougweller (talk) 07:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

About the user

After some additional research, here is some further reading:

• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive638#Edit warring on Cryptozoology articles – 13-15 September, ANI discusses what to do with the disruption caused by the Gniniv in cryptozoology area
• Gniniv claims to retire (15 September)
• First edit by Terra Novus claims clean start (18 September)
• WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Terra Novus/Archive – 28 September, user asks for CU to clear them from suspected connection with FellGleaming
• User talk:Carcharoth#Confirmation – 1 October; user goes to an arbitrator's talk page for rubber stamping of their "clean start" after it came out that they had not notified anyone after disappearing while community action against them was discussed
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive642#User:Gniniv / User:Terra Novus / "Novus Orator" – 4 October ANI discussion
• Undiscussed highly contentious move in climate change area
• Extreme POV editing in climate change area

This seems to be a competence problem rather than bad faith, but something needs to be done. Hans Adler 07:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If certain types of editing are causing similar issues in other topics, then a topic ban is unlikely to do much good. Unless the Community is willing to put the user on probation (see Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions for examples), or a mentorship thing (which is a timesink), I'm not sure anything short of a ban or indef block would be able to address such a situation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I would encourage this editor to take this opportunity to completely leave all controversial topics, or at least to return to his initial account. To Terra Novus, if you continue having problems like this with the new account, I think you'll quickly be banned, since you will be taking too much community time when people have to figure out what you're up to. If you want to keep trying to improve controversial topics, and you want a fair hearing, you should go back to your other account. Really, I would recommend getting out of contentious topics altogether, since candidly, you don't show a sensitivity to the types of things that will get you in trouble across the board. But for maximum leeway you should surely go back to your first account. Only if you are extremely confident that you can stay out of all controversial topics altogether with this account, as well as any areas in which you've previously edited, is there any remotely plausible chance that you will not be sanctioned under this new account, at least in my opinion. Mackan79 (talk) 07:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:CLEANSTART is quite clear in its statement that editors who decide to place {{retired}} on their original account and create a new account should not return to edit the articles/subjects that they previously edited as it could lead to WP:SOCK issues. If the intent was to simply keep editing the same way, one cannot claim cleanstart. One can hold an WP:Alternate account for specific purposes, but at this point, the new account does not meet them. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, and as I said above I have stopped editing Climate Change articles. If any one will take the time to look at my edit history as Terra Novus (After my cleanstart), they will see that I have adhered to the noncontentious topics policy in the articles I have chosen to edit. This was just a ignorant misstep on my part into a new subject that was too contentious. As I acted in good faith (and, to be honest, in ignorance of the move request policy) I hope that the community will understand my full adherence to Misplaced Pages's principles.--Novus Orator 04:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Other recent edits

I've taken the time Terra Novus suggests, to review his edits, and I'm sorry to say that I can't agree that he's stuck to non-contentious topics or edited in a responsible manner within them:

• In this edit to the Pro-life article we get blatant misrepresentation of the cited source, which says, verbatim: "Traditional Jewish teachings sanction abortion as a means of safeguarding the life and well-being of a mother. While the Reform, Reconstructionist and Conservative movements openly advocate for the right to a safe and accessible abortion, the Orthodox movement is less unified on the issue."

• In this edit to the Green Party article we get the Green Party represented as "Socialism", via a sidebar, with no edit summary and no use of the talk page.

• In the Swedish welfare article we get drive-by POV tagging with no edit summary and no use of the talk page.

• In this edit to the Solid South political article more drive-by tagging, with an edit summary this time but still no use of the talk page.

• Our article on Race initially had this sentence that accurately summarized its four sources,

This new science has led many mainstream evolutionary scientists in anthropology and biology to question the very validity of race as a scientific concept describing an objectively real phenomenon.

Then Terra Novus came along and first gave us this remarkable passage,

After the rise of the New Left amongst academia, a modified population genetics reflected a new understanding of the sources of phenotypic variation. Pressure from demographic groups in society has led many mainstream evolutionary scientists in anthropology and biology to question the very validity of race as a scientific concept describing an objectively real phenomenon, although, ironically, they were the ones who historically popularized the concept. (See also Political Correctness).

and then eventually gave us this sentence, which cites the same four refs but grossly misrepresents their meaning:

This new thought has lead most modern scientists in anthropology and biology to totally discount the validity of naturalistic racism.

• In this edit to the article on Messianic Judaism we get argumentative, pro-Christian tags inserted into a simple statement taken directly from its cited source on what Jews believe about Jesus.

• In this John Birch Society edit we get a change from the correct full statement,

The Southern Poverty Law Center, lists the society as a "Patriot' Group". Its definition of patriot groups includes: "Generally, Patriot groups define themselves as opposed to the 'New World Order' or advocate or adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines".

to this truncated one,

The Southern Poverty Law Center, lists the society as a "Patriot' Group". Its definition of patriot groups includes: "Generally, Patriot groups define themselves as opposed to the 'New World Order'.

The SPLC cited reference did indeed include the phrase "or advocate or adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines."

I appreciate and value Terra Novus' contributions to space vehicle articles, volcano articles, and similarly non-controversial articles. I also imagine he believes he's doing the right thing by making these kinds of changes. But it's my clear impression from these and other edits that he's so agenda-driven that he will purposely distort controversial articles to match his political and religious beliefs without respect for the sources they cite. He doesn't seem to be able subordinate his beliefs to the policies we're all required to abide by in order to contribute here. I have no idea what the best remedy for this problem might be, but I know it needs one. This pattern cannot be allowed to continue.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the impressive presentation. Since this came after a claimed clean start (which was very ill-advised but presumably in good faith), I guess the best way forward would be a mentorship, possibly in combination with a topic ban for contentious topics and contentious edits, and an understanding that once there is a mentor available the user can no longer claim to have been ignorant about an edit's controversial nature. Hans Adler 17:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I will be happy to accept the advice and help of a more experienced user...If anyone is willing to give me comments and correction as I work on becoming less biased that would be much appreciated...--Novus Orator 03:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

A start would be to remove the statement "Please join me in helping lower WP:Systematic bias on Misplaced Pages. " from your user page. I hadn't looked at your contributions recently and hadn't realised the extent of the continuing problem. You also need to make it clear that you are not going to continue what I can only call a campaign and avoid any articles that you would believe would fall into the scope of such a campaign, as you don't appear to be able to "subordinate our beliefs to the policies we're all required to abide by in order to contribute here." I'd definitely support a topic ban for contentious topics and contentious edits. Dougweller (talk) 04:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Hans Adler is being a bit generous here. Terra Novus is presumably intelligent enough to figure out when his edits are to an area that has a political or religious controversy attached to it (race, abortion etc etc). He knows he has strong views in some areas - I don't think those are going to get any less strong. Ergo, I don't see that a mentor to 'make him aware of an edit's controversial nature' is necessary at all. Every edit that people are complaining about, Terra Novus seems to hold the view that things are being 'distorted' by political pressure or bias. Therefore, if he ever feels it necessary to make an edit that 'corrects' this 'distortion', he needs to raise it on the talk page first. The same should be true of any editor - they shouldn't just be barging into an article, changing content on the grounds of 'religious bias', 'political correctness' or whatever. I don't think TN needs a mentor, and I don't think his own views are going to change substantially. He just needs to follow the rules - if you think something needs changing because of your views on the subject, get into a discussion.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I was making an assumption on Novus Orator's age that may or may not be correct and probably doesn't need further discussion. Also most people have a lot more exposure to demagogy than to rational arguments, and many editors seem to believe that everything is about opinion and feelings (probably reflecting the state of the US popular media) – so Misplaced Pages's norms take some getting used to. If nobody volunteers as a mentor, my proposal is moot anyway. In any case I support an indefinite (not infinite) topic ban for all contentious areas and all contentious edits to other areas. Hans Adler 12:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the SPLC definition of "Patriot groups" it is possible that the definition, in itself, as it covers a large range of groups and motivations, might be misconstrued by some readers with regard to the infamous Birch society, with an thought that all of the ascribed factors are thus applicable to that group. To that extent, the attempt at truncation is likely defensible. Collect (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Not without a source that says that the SPLC only applies those specific elements of the category to the JBS it ain't. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

As OhioStandard rightly points out, much of the sourcing in TN's edits does not stand up to scrutiny. Here is another example from today in interracial marriage: . The original content was unsourced, but the source provided by TN was no better (the website of an interracial dating agency). On Heim theory, there is no reliable secondary mainstream source available that describes this theory as an "emerging theory". After TN's edits to the lede, ("trimming"), it is not apparent to the reader that this is a fringe theory, not currently within mainstream physics. These were two random examples. Mathsci (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, the dating agency link was already there as a URL - Terra Novus just turned it into a cite template footnote. Horrible ref, which I've removed now. Rd232 19:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

@Dougweller I am going to revise the Systematic bias statement on my user page to "Please be aware of Systematic Bias and do your best to correct it"...I think that would be less inflammatory. I don't think it is wrong for me to bring awareness to WP:Systematic bias as a issue, because it is something that the Misplaced Pages community is attempting to correct...--Novus Orator 03:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the concern was that you appear to have misunderstood the meaning of "systemic bias". It is not systemic bias if our articles are written based on an understanding that rape, slavery and torture are criminal and should not be allowed, or that Hollow Earth theory and alien abduction are not to be taken seriously. There is no significant difference of opinion about these topics between various cultures. Systemic bias is about the problem that we have more editors writing about the most trivial details of today's commercial children's toys than about classical antiquity, and more editors writing about obscure differences between two closely related languages that for some reason matter to nationalists, than editors writing about the major indigenous languages of South Africa. Hans Adler 08:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, what you're describing (accurately) is "systemic bias", as in bias that is endemic to the system. What he seems to be complaining about is "systematic bias", as in bias that is deliberately and methodically inserted into the system, which is basically an ideological complaint. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so there is also a real term "systematic bias"? People always seem to be linking it to WP:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, so I assumed they have trouble with the Latin and the meaning. Maybe they only have trouble with the Latin but mean what they say, not what they link. Thanks! Hans Adler 23:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Well... I don't know if "systematic bias" is a term used out in the real world, the meaning just seemed obvious from his usage and the meaning of "systematic" ("methodical"). Combine that with his clear ideological proclivities, and there you go! It's very similar to the complaints heard from conservative agenda-makers about "liberal bias in the media" and so forth.

It's more than likely that he means "methodical bias caused by deliberate insertions of liberal thinking", but is calling it "systematic bias" because he thinks that's what "systemic bias" is, if you take my meaning. Overall, I don't see any real ideologcial bias in Misplaced Pages, but the systemic bias you point to is a real problem – although the solution in my mind is not to delete the articles about Pokemon or Transformers but to increase the number of articles on more important topics. (And maybe even to, somehow, change the culture of confrontation that prevails here. Unfortunately, doing so would probably bump up against some of Misplaced Pages's basic precepts, which are among the causes of the systemic imbalance.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

So, Terra Novus: The outcome here seems to be up to you, for the present. I'm sure I can speak for your fellow editors here and say that we all greatly appreciate your contributions to non-controversial articles. It's abundantly clear that you're a very intelligent, articulate editor who can bring significant value to the encyclopedia, and we'd all be disappointed to lose that. It's also clear, I think ( and I'm genuinely sorry to say so ) that many or most of your fellow editors don't feel they can trust your ability to keep your personal beliefs from overwhelming your willingness to follow the rules when editing articles that have anything at all to do with politics, religion, or other controversial matters, e.g. don't feel they can trust that you'll be able to impartially represent sources, maintain a neutral point of view, and so forth.

Speaking personally, I'd really hate to see you subjected to a community ban, because it's so obvious to me that you can make really strong contributions here apart from articles relating to politics, religion, global warming, and other highly controversial topics. Besides, I've really enjoyed collaborating with you on the few articles we've crossed paths over. So the question I have is this: Would you be willing to just stay completely away from such controversial articles, quit "drive-by tagging" them, avoid wholesale deletions or blanking, and use talk pages in good faith as suggested above? Would you be willing, in other words, to apply your obvious talents to non-controversial articles, exclusively?

It's your right to refuse, of course, but without an affirmative reply it's my strong expectation that if you're not blocked now then you'll be back here again very soon, with the eventual result being a community ban. I don't intend the least disrespect, and I regret having to ask, but can you stick around and limit yourself to non-controversial articles (nothing remotely related to politics, religion, climate change and environment, etc.) and adhere to the suggestions others have made above re use of talk pages, etc.? I know this might seem restrictive, but there are hundreds of thousands of other articles here that would benefit from your considerable skills, and I just don't see any practical alternative if you're going to be able to contribute here over the long term. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I just appreciate you guys taking the time to help me fix my own bias. I totally agree to editing non-controversial subjects, and will do my best to stick to that area. I would just ask that whenever I slip (as I obviously have in these instances) that editors will take me to the task (civilly), and assist me in finding more productive paths for my contributions. I will accept any constructive criticism or complaint that my work produces. I will generally try to avoid Climate change articles, and any subject in which editors are known to (or say that they have) widely differing opinions. Please put a note on my talk page whenever you have some friendly advice, or correction. I appreciate the editors involved in this case assuming my good faith throughout. @Hans, thank you for correcting my spelling of Systematic to Systemic, I see that the two have widely differing meanings, and will change it at once..--Novus Orator 04:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled. You must have known that Out-of-place artifact is contentious and for the reasons I gave. As I understood it, you are avoiding any articles linked to evolution (and presumably religion) Dougweller (talk) 04:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Chesdovi

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

Not sure what to do with this editor. He's your pretty standard truth warrior ideologue and is going badly off the rails. Since the point-fest that was his article on "Judiasm and bus stops" which he freely aditted to having created because he was struggling to have an article on Judaism and violence deleted (see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Judaism and bus stops) his edits have grown increasingly aggressive and bizarre. He's been using a fringe source to try to brand Istanbul, Tiberias, Sanaa, as the "Islamic cities of hell" (using an apocryphal hadith from the 12th century from a traveller that hated these cities). For instance "ISLAM CALLS THIS CITY HELL HELL HELL HELL", . He recently sought to remove the fairly basic fact that Hebron is a holy city to Muslims (since they believe the prophet abraham is buried there and that Muhamad stopped there on his night journey to jerusalem) . Almost all of his edits have a slant -- either downgrading the muslim interest in a place, or seeking to create the impression that there are so many Islamic "holy cities" (for instance, he's just added the absurdity that Kairouan is considered by "many muslims to Islams fourth holiest city") that there interest in places like Hebron and Jerusalem is of no matter (I also saw him recently seeking to downgrade the non-contreversial fact that the original Muslim Qibla was towards Jerusalem with some irrelevancies about language in the Koran ). The sheer volume of this stuff is impossible to keep up with, and he just reverts and brushes off appeals to stop. He, charitably, is either not equipped to write on mainstream Islamic views, or is so equipped, but is simply using wikipedia to make political points. I won't oppose the edits of a propagandist any more. Hopefully this will be dealt with.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently he's had a bee in his bonnet about Islam and "holiest sites" back to 2006, according to this AN/I report from then .Bali ultimate (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Without commenting on the rest of this, I must say that it is certainly not absurd to describe Kairouan as "Islam's fourth holiest city". This is what I was told and read when I went to Tunisia many years ago; and there are over 200,000 Google repeating this. RolandR (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The Times' military correspondent wrote of Kairouan in 1939: "What a Hell of a place to put a Holy City". But unfortunatley Roland, we cannot rely on users' own experiences of what they "know" or what they have "heard". Only published RS are sufficient. That a user can remove material on the premise that it "has never heard of Damascus being a holy city in Islam" is unacceptable. Chesdovi (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it's perfectly acceptable. According to our verifiability policy, unsourced material can and should be challenged and, if challenged, the people who want to include the material need to provide backing for it in reliable secondary sources. Removing that unsourced claim is quite OK. Reyk _YO! 21:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

And if it's sourced with 8 citiations....? Chesdovi (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue was that you reverted several times without adding the sources, and now that you have added something others feel that the sources don't actually back up the claim being made. I don't presume to know enough about Islam to judge about that; you need to discuss it on the talk page. Reyk _YO! 22:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Before I moved material from Hebron, I at least made a token search to see if I could find RS. "Bali" just removes anything he has not "heard of before"! I also noted the removal on the talk page. When I have added sourced material at Sana, it is again removed. I am quite capable of discussing matters amicably as I did when I added Tiberias is a city of Hell in Islam. But I will not have anything to do with "Bali", who describes my work in rude terms and airs his views in the most repulsive of fashions. Chesdovi (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the subject but Sana'a should be protected because of an edit war, and Bali you should know better by reverting that information as vandalism, as you did with your first revert, and with Istanbul even though it's not vandalism. And Chesdovi for reverting back and not using the talk page, and looking closely at your edits, your edits keep getting reverted, and you hardly go to the talk page and as the creator of the clearly WP:POINT Judaism and bus stops, some sort of saction should be placed on you. Secret 21:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Sanctions belong on the "other" editor involved here. I am within my rights to abstain from comunicating with that editor, a most abusive and intimidating user whose use of profanities is outrageous. Chesdovi (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Err, Bali...even UNESCO think that Kairouan is a major Islamic holy city . Chesdovi, you have every right to ask not to be sworn at, but you cannot complain if another editor uses bad language in a non specific way even if you don't like it. You must keep using the talk page. Plainly not all of your edits are outright wrong, some would appear to be, but if you don't communicate with anyone, all that will happen is that you end up being blocked for edit warring. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't want anything to do with this "Bali". He has been creepily followng me around ever since I raised concern about his violation of WP:CIVIL. Chesdovi (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but you need to be upfront with everyone else, and you need to add the sources THE FIRST TIME, not the seventh time.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. But if users want sources, they could add a tag. If they want to stir up trouble, they prefer to remove and revert and then report. You can see the wonderful additions I made to qibla. My additions were a real improvement, and "Bali" uses it as an "example" of how I "downgrade the non-controversial facts", yet it is very clear from the discussion at Jerusalem that the issue is not so simple after all. Chesdovi (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of adding more smoke than light to this thread, I'd like to mention that Harar in Ethiopia also claims the title of the "Islam's fourth holiest city", a claim also supported by UNESCO. A Google search returns some 584,000 hits. So Kairouan's claim is one POV, & I'm while I'm perfectly happy either delegating the issue to WikiProject Islam to arbitrate, or adding "some say" to either Harar's or Kairouan's claim -- or both -- everyone involved should remember to be careful when making sweeping statements about any subject: there are content disputes on Misplaced Pages that are merely sleeping at the moment, & when awoken may cause unforeseen havoc. -- llywrch (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

"As I told you longe ago, do not calle up That which you can not put downe; either from dead Saltes or out of ye Spheres beyond. Have ye Wordes for laying at all times readie, and stopp not to be sure when there is any Doubte of Whom you have." --Orange Mike | Talk 21:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Ouch. Things must have got bad if you've started quoting the Necronomicon Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Naw, the only thing that has gotten bad is my attitude about how well people get along here on Misplaced Pages. -- llywrch (talk) 04:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

That seems to be the editor in questions eventual intention (stirring up trouble, all leading back to some aspect of the IP wikipedia nonesense). What's undeniable is that he's spewing this stuff across a wide swathe of articles with no effort made to determine what the underlying consensus view is, to read the survey literature, or to couch it appropriate ways. He basically just finds a source with the desired sentence in it, and makes the edit (some stemming from a misunderstanding of what he's read, but life is too short to get into revert wars every time it happens). He's continued over the past day or two in other articles. There are places that local muslims consider important for instance, and folk-traditions that say such-and-such is "xth holiest in islam" but that "islam" writ-large is scarcely aware of. The local view of the importance of a location should of course be in any article -- but that's not what's being done. The broader issue is the overall agenda, which is easy enough to discern if you look at a few pages of his edits.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands dispute

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

OK Everyone, this was posted on my talk page. And seeing as I can't make heads or tails between the two bickering parties, I'm going to repost it here. I really don't have much comment other than to note that Phoenix7777 indeed makes the poor choice of labeling any edits he disagrees with as vandalism. So this is posted from my talk page; if anybody can make heads or tails of it, by all means please step in, because I feel like I'm having the Chewbacca defense thrown at me. Regards, Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• Statement from the accused user

I misunderstood the interpretation of the vandalism. User:Qwyrxian explained me and I understood. See my talk page. I apologize for my misuse of the term. However the unexplained removal of a citation or a cited material I labeled as vandalism is still a malicious edit unacceptable to this community. Please note the problem is that User:Bobthefish2 is insisting the edits made by Bobthefish2 and San9663 are not vandalism but legitimate edits instead of malicious deletions. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I've already gave you the reasons why they were bad references in a thread where you listed them. For some reason, you like to pretend the counterarguments and refutations never existed! To repeat myself for the gazillionth time, whatever you cited was completely and unambiguously wrong.

And of course, I don't care if you apologize for mislabeling us as vandals because that does not encompass the worst of your behaviour. I filed this complaint because you've been vandalizing other people's edits including mine. You've reverted contents that were against your position regardless of whether or not they were backed by sound justification. Then later on, you even turned this into a game. Just look at how you followed User:San9663 around and reverted his edits in pages where you have no previous activities on. Your contributions page says it all. I am also not the only one who has run out of patience with you. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears that User:Phoenix7777 has just reverted yet another attempt to remove his dubious references and claims which were, again, very unambiguously refuted in multiple threads. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I am an involved editor on the page, although in the specific dispute above I think my only involvement was to correct Phoenix7777 on the use of the term vandalism. Hopefully, based on the apology above, xe will not do so again. I will say that this article is definitely a problem right now, as it's 1) a big mess, so it needs major revision, but 2) is extremely politically charged (i.e., enough that the related topic is causing riots and acts of violence in China against Japan right now), and so 3) is very difficult to make edits to. Yesterday, User:Bobthefish2 came to my page asking what he thinks we should do: . My response () is that the next best step is probably Full Page Protection (on both Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute), for about a week or two. As I told Bobthefish2, I would make the request myself, except for the fact that I recently made the most recent significant changes (moving a sentence and citation from the main article to the dispute article), so I don't want people to think I'm trying to protect "my version", especially when neither article is even close to what I would consider my "preferred" version. I do invite admins to take a look, and then lock the page down for some time, in any wrong version that you arbitrarily like. My feeling is that if we (all) can't get into a more collaborative editing mode in the next week or two, we're going to have to seek mediation. I don't agree with Bobthefish2's most recent comment on my talk page, , which recommends "the worst vandals and their IPs" being banned from participating on the article, because I don't see anyone who meets that criteria. Instead, I'm seeing mildly problematic editing from multiple different editors on both political sides of the debate, but no one person is particularly worse, and I don't see anything so bad, yet (although, like the real-world situation, we're riding on the edge all the time). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)--Sorry, but I'm removed the resolved tag. It seems wrong to me to claim in less than 1 hour after Magog posted here that the issue is resolved. Can't we just give this at least half a day to see if anyone involved actually wants to comment on the issue here? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Qwyrxian's observation and recommendation regarding the wiki entry and the issues. An example is, I added the double square brackets to the text so that it would provide a proper link to its corresponding wiki entry, but user always tried to revert me (diff here). He indeed became so obsessive as to stalk me to another unrelated entry Rare Earth Elements to remove the double brackets I put to link a chemical element to its wiki page (see diff here). I view this as unreasonable disruption targeting someone he disagrees with, call it "malicious" according to . Though behaviors such as this are probably better described by as "not particularly worse" (quote Qwryxian -- in my view it is simply minor nuisance and childish but I don't disagree with Qwryxian), it does presents unnecessary hassle to the community and creates problems and sometimes unnecessary arguments among the members. I have now basically stopped editing in entries where he participates because I do not want to waste time in meaningless edit warring. ---- (I think I do not understand how to make "Notify" function works - help/pls fix) Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at noticeboard of discussion regarding reason for discussion. The thread is thread name of the discussion.The discussion is about the topic Topic. Thank you. —San9663 (talk) 04:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

San, he reverted the wikilink at Rare earth element because it was superfluous. All the elements are linked to their wiki articles via the table. To add a link elsewhere as well is overlinking. And I am at a loss as to why you have stuck that piece about notifiction on the end of the edit.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

To help Magog the Ogre get to the bottom of all of this (& advise any Admin with enough time & courage who might want to do the same), this article is about a clutch of islands claimed by either two or three different countries as part of their sovereign territories. (The number varies depending on whether one counts Taiwan as a country separate from the PRC.) In other words, an ethnic/nationalist dispute IMHO similar to Liancourt Rocks dispute, which is currently under an active ArbCom probation. And I see a lot of actions on the article page alone which look, at first glance, to be motivated more to favor one POV in this matter than by good faith (e.g., statements tagged as "citation needed" which arguably don't need to be tagged, images illustrating the disputed claims nominated for deletion). Although further examination shows that some of the individuals involved still should be treated as acting in good faith, this article is at a tipping point. If things continue as they have been, this article will be put under an ArbCom probation at least as restrictive as Liancourt Rocks dispute is currently under; but if all parties involved start behaving civilly to each other & make an attempt to find areas they can agree on & build from there towards a consensus, everyone -- those involved in the article, the rest of the Misplaced Pages editors, & our readers -- would be very happy. Until either of those happens, I for one wouldn't fault MtO if he simply deleted all of that discussion from his Talk page & act as if no one had contributed to a thread about these islands there. -- llywrch (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of the "quote" in the reference

Please comment on the following edits.

1. San9663 (talk · contribs) removed a description from the quote in the reference and by the very next edit removed the corresponding description from the paragraph.
2. STSC (talk · contribs) removed the whole quote in the reference.

The quote was added because the availability of the preview of Google book is precarious and dependent on the region. Actually the page is currently invisible. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The contents removed by STSC are the same dubious contents I've referred to many times. It's a good thing that you brought this up yourself. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

There was diff no quotation marks on the wiki text. It does not appear like a quote at all. I thought it seems a redundant and subjective description and removed it according to the reasoning by a previous editor of "non relevance" —Preceding unsigned comment added by San9663 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(Involved user) I note that San9663 in this reversion and this reversion said "continuing John Smith's previous edit of simplifying". This refers to a removal of a reference I made of the Washington Times' supposed ownership by some church. I don't think that San's reversions are comparable, as it's a bit daft to refer to every publication's ownership if mentioned in a Misplaced Pages article. However, the People's Daily's ownership/control may be far more relevant given the Chinese government's territorial claims.

I also don't think that STSC should have marked his recent edits as minor.

I haven't looked at everyone else's edits widely. John Smith's (talk) 08:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, we may agree to disagree. My reasoning is that, many people, especially those who know a bit of Asia and the two countries disputing these islands, know what People's Daily / Renmin Ribao is. We all know it is a state-owned, propaganda organ. It is quite redundant to add a full sentence for description. But I don't mind it either way personally. I edited it once and I am not going to do any revert, or even bother to discuss about this. It is too minor an issue to me, until forced me to explain myself. On the other hand, Washington Times is much less well known. I mistook it for Washington Post a few times when I first heard of it. A short qualification to remind reader not to confused WaTimes with WaPO is necessary IMO, and more necessary than for People's Daily. Even if not, two double brackets to wiki-link it should be agreeable to all. Unfortunately, people like keep removing the links, and even worse, removing the WT and the "claim" word totally. I know this is the Japan POV section, I have no objection for anything written there, Japan can "claim it owns the world" and we have no ground to say Japan does not have the freedom to say so. In short, I do not mind as long as it said someone "claims" or someone "asserts". But trying to pretend "claims" as undisputed facts are, IMO, against wiki's rules. San9663 (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

DGG's unblocking of Rangoon11

I am asking for community input on the actions of DGG (talk · contribs) in the unblocking of Rangoon11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

Rangoon11 was blocked just over a week ago for three months following a SPI and his posting to here (see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incident#Harrassment by User:Codf1977)

At the SPI s/he avoided addressing the issue and following the block, s/he made no request for unblock or review, instead chose to evade the block two days later by editing from 92.29.112.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Only after that IP had been blocked did s/he make a unblock request, which was declined by Favonian (talk · contribs).

Without further input from Rangoon11, Colonel Warden (talk · contribs) made an offer to intercede and get the block lifted at User talk:Rangoon11's talk page, this was followed by DGG's offer in the archive of the SPI and talk page.

Rangoon11 then agreed to "make the required undertakings " and was unblocked.

DGG did not consult with the blocking admin Hersfold (talk · contribs), only informing him after the unblock. Nor does it appear did DGG consult with anyone else, or take into account any other of the reasons for the block or it's length (as detailed in the SPI) nor the subsequent block evasion into account when deciding to unblock.

I believe this is abuse of the admins discretion, not to dicuss this in anyway with any of the admins involved, or to bring it here for discussion since other editors here expressed concerns about his editing (see here).

Codf1977 (talk) 07:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Rangoon11, DGG, Hersfold and Favonian informed Codf1977 (talk) 07:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• In order to clarify matters, it appears, per Rangoon11's talk page, that you have been involved in discussion or in some other manner with Rangoon in the past. Can you disclose what the extent of this interaction has been? Silverseren 07:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, over his editing of pages on UCL, for his take on it see the ANI thread he posted linked to above. Codf1977 (talk) 07:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• DGG is an editor of outstandingly good temperament, who would never do a thing just to further his own self interests, and has demonstrated an admirable ability to work with anyone. Instead of assuming bad faith or abuse on his part, one would do better to try to understand him as a role model. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I would think that all (or most) admins would want each of there actions viewd on it's own merits and not in the context of other good or bad actions. I also think that admins use of the tools not only should be free of any self interest, but crucially, also free from the appearance of any self interest and that can't not be said for this case. Codf1977 (talk) 08:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment It doesn't seem to be self-interest to me. I think you're reading just a tad too far into things. If you read the entire Update and the following Unblock sections of Rangoon's talk page, he agreed that he will consult with the Col. and DGG on future related article. I think you should give it time and see if he improves instead of bringing this directly to ANI. You seem a little too involved in this issue at the moment. Worst case scenario: We run out of rope. Ishdarian 09:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm trying to find anything remotely problematic? What about an unblock is self-interest? Blocks are about prevention, and never punishment ... if the requirement to protect is no longer needed, the block should be gone. I cannot find any good reason that this review is here... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• DGG is one of the most even-tempered and rational admins on the project and I seriously doubt that his action was carried out with anything other than the most honourable motivation. I hope he will post here to clarify matters and confirm my initial position, but there should certainly not be any rush to judgment. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
• If anyone is to be upset it would be Hersfold but I doubt he will. DGG does a fine job and should be applauded for his work. Advance notice is good but I don't think we should get too upset over this decision. JodyB _talk 11:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Hersfold's comment on this is "Ok... I'd appreciate being consulted before unblocking, but that's fine". It would, I think, have been reasonable to have put a friendly note on DGG's talk page suggesting that it would have been a good idea to have consulted Hersfold before deciding to unblock, but an ANI report claiming admin abuse is a gross over-reaction. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
• DGG's nicer than I am to people who've screwed up. That's not a bad thing. Jclemens (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Um... yeah. If I'd really had an issue with DGG's unblock, I'd have left a more serious note on his talk page (not mine) and then would have brought this to ANI iff I still wasn't satisfied. While I feel like an echo saying this, DGG is one admin that I consistently see exercising good judgment, and I understand and support his reasoning for unblocking here. As Jody said, if anyone would really be upset by this, it'd be me, but I don't much care either way, and there seems to be a consensus here that DGG has acted appropriately. Hersfold 17:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Let's not forget that DGG once was split in a transporter accident and has been spotted with a beard -- truly, which DGG are you talking about? --EEMIV (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

from the picture on my user page, you will see that I have a fringe of a beard. You may classify it either way as you please DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have apologized to Hersfold--I was influenced by the apparent change in attitude and did not want to lose the momentum. And I am not disagreeing with his block--multiple sockpuppettry is a serious affair, and possibly it needed the long block to get some degree of cooperation. I hope it continues. DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Decision is appropriate. Taking into consideration DGG's excellent record and impartial judgment qualities and also Rangoon11's commitment to refrain from the act which he/she was blocked for. The decision to unblock him/her is justified. - Humaliwalay (talk) 05:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

212.219.57.60 / Wikiplayer13

212.219.57.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) vandalized User:Kevin McE () and my own user page (), and used threatening language in both edits. I do not take the threat seriously; I can't speak for Kevin McE. However, I am under the assumption that I am supposed to report the incident. I am fairly certain the IP address is being used by Wikiplayer13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as the vandalism occurs following warnings from Kevin McE (, ) and myself (, ). Another IP associated with this account, 82.46.89.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), has previously vandalized our user pages when faced with various disagreements (for example, , , , ). See also: previous ANI discussion. I believe the editor's net effect upon Misplaced Pages is negative. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked Wikiplayer13 indef, blocked the IP indef (or at least until we get some credible assurance that the administrators at that school are paying attention), and deleted the death threat revisions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You will (I hope) be glad to hear that I survived the day without any death threats being enacted upon me, and I've had far more immediate threats than some sulky keyboard warrior. I fully approve of the new policy of removal from edit histories, but I'd be sort of intrigued to see what he had to say if anyone is in a position to e-mail it to me. Kevin McE (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, let me get in touch with my team of multinational assassins. I think I can fit you in at about 1:30 PM on the 30th; we can have lunch and at some point after you'll be dead. I'll pay for lunch. of course. HalfShadow 17:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

That's kind of you to offer, but I'm busy on the 30th: would the day before be possible? Kevin McE (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It would kinda help if you had your email address set. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I know that used to be set, and assumed it still was. But although I've asked for a confirmation code at two different e-mail addresses this evenings, nothing has come through to my inbox to facilitate me enabling e-mail contact. Kevin McE (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Admin help

Any administrator with a sense of fairness and not a political activist is urged to help. Visit the talk page of AGK for details and get AGK to help fill out arbitration forms. AGK is an arbitration clerk. AGK is not a party to this, just the clerk.

The issue is that there is calculated effort to get Malia Obama off Misplaced Pages, at least her own page. Bo, the Obama dog has clearly survived deletion. Malia was discussed but that was TWO years ago! Since then, much has happened.

Biased activists have removed the article and quickly placed a page protect on it. This despite no fighting (a reason for page protection). The talk page shows support for an article but people falsely claim consensus when consensus is actually for an article.

Some people think the President doesn't want an article so they use phony and specious excuses, like non-notability. Well, Misplaced Pages has determined that Bo, the dog, is notable. Bo and Malia are in the same family. Malia has given an interview, not Bo. She was involved in the oil spill, not Bo.

This article is not just a deletion issue or I would go through that. It is also an unreasonable political activist trying to get their way and using manipulation, such as page protection and falsely claiming consensus.

Those political activists, like the ones listed in the requested arbitration, should be banned from writing about any Obama issue, not just Malia.

ADMINSTRATION REQUEST: One person said that I needed a lawyer. Please, I am asking for an administrator to step forward and take on this case. I will leave it to you. The only request is either arbitration or similar process. Presidentmalia (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you find links for your claims. And BTW, as a talk page stalker of Looie496 I know his take on this.--Talktome 21:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you think it healthy to carry such a torch on Misplaced Pages? Your usernamw suggests you are here to do nothing else. Such one-dimensional approaches to Misplaced Pages to prove a point are severely discouraged. If you want to try WP:DRV you don't need an admin. S.G. _ping! 21:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's the talk page. goes and grabs popcorn.--Talktome 21:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Capsule summary: in response to a request at RFPP I indefinitely full-protected Malia Obama as a redirect to Family of Barack Obama. My understanding is that there is a standing consensus that a separate article is not desirable. I am by no means fully versed in the history here, and if any admin feels that the page should be unprotected, I have no objection whatsoever. Looie496 (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages needs re-routing doesn't it? S.G. _ping! 21:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Well Presidentmalia has been advised to try DRV more than once now to see what the current consensus is. Calling all opponents political activists is unlikely to help the cause though.Fainites scribs 22:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

On the bright side, if they keep it up, they may cease to be an issue. Everybody wins. Well, everyone else. HalfShadow 22:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• It is laughable to suggest that this dispute is ripe for Arbitration, when pretty much no dispute resolution has thus far been attempted. Presidentmalia's understanding of the Misplaced Pages DR process seems to be minimal; if somebody would be willing to school him on the basics, we might avoid a waste of the clerks' time and a pointless RFAR. AGK 23:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Grundle2600 was previously involved in these pages. Am I being paranoid to wonder... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

User first edited on 15 October. Perhaps filing that SPI is not such a bad idea. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Far too aggressive and belligerent to be Grundle, and he is much more interested in the politics of Obama rather than personal vendettas like this. I think the username should goto UAA though. Tarc (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

If I had found that user name, I would have username-blocked it on sight. She's a girl, not a public figure. Bearian (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked last night, so problem solved. Tarc (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Heymid, User:AIK IF 2010

Heymid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

AIK IF 2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Five days ago I blocked Heymid for seven days: the block should have less that 48 hours to run. However, just now Favonian (talk) asked me if Heymid was socking. It sure looked that way to me, and Favonian has indef-ed AIK IF 2000 as a sock-puppet of Heymid.

What is to be done with Heymid? I don't trust myself with resetting Heymid's block - I had felt Heymid was making progress, and I feel really let down. So... throwing it open to the community.

I'll let all parties know straight after posting this. TFOWR 22:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I have followed this sad case from the sideline. I'm afraid we must conclude that Heymid just doesn't get it and an indef block is called for. Favonian (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

At least, even by sock standards, he isn't very smart. He might as well have called his sock "Heymid#2"... HalfShadow 22:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* Sorry to say it, but I concur with Favonian. —DoRD (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching this drama for a few months, and I must sadly agree with Favonian. Access Denied  23:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You're certain enough it is him, right? I've seen a few banned users pretend to be socks of other users in order to get them in further trouble. HalfShadow 23:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) WikiChecker seems down right now, but I have to say that the time this occurred is starting to trouble me: it's just barely consistent with what I know of Heymid's timezone (UTC+2) and edit habits. Is it worth getting a checkuser to confirm before we make a huge mistake? TFOWR 23:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm just saying, I've personally seen false-socking done at least three times. It may or may not be worth the effort, but it can't hurt to check. HalfShadow 23:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

We have 48 hours before the change to make an indef makes any difference, so I don't see any cause to undo my block yet.—Kww(talk) 23:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Better safe than sorry, so yes: let's request a CU. Speaking of timezones, I'm in the same one as Heymid. Goodnight! Favonian (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it's noted that the sock was named after Heymid's 7th most edited article, AIK IF. Not a good way to not get caught... Doc talk 23:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Indefed. If he protests and someone wants to run a checkuser, that's fine by me. Heat to light ratio with this editor has never been good, and I don't see any loss in losing him.—Kww(talk) 23:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• I think an indef block is too far, yes he did the most obvious sock violation I ever seen, but I think one last chance would be good. If he violates his terms, he could just be reblocked indef. I could tutor him. Thanks Secret 23:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "Indefinite"<>"infinite". If you can come to some form of reasonable mentorship/tutoring agreement with him, I wouldn't object.—Kww(talk) 23:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
• Checkuser requested. TFOWR 23:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Checkuser completed. TFOWR 23:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
• I wouldn't be surprised if this is the false flag sockmaster, so I would definitely suggest a CU take a look. –xeno 23:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

CU says it is likely that it is Heymid. The thing with Heymid is that he causes problems without even trying and shows a distinct lack of clue, so this is hardly a shock. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I never would've figured they were savvy enough to use proxies, so I'm still not entirely convinced. Anyhow, I've allowed the talk page access since there has been a length and rationale change on his block. –xeno 00:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Still, you have to admit, it looked too obvious. Generally a socker isn't that...incompetent. HalfShadow 00:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, a surprising number are. People ask how I detect some of them so easily, and the only answer I can give is that they really don't seem to have a clue as to how to cover their tracks. The ones that do generally never get blocked.—Kww(talk) 01:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Could we please show Heymid the door? Too much disruption for too long, no clue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

A "from the sidelines" opinion, been watching Heymid for a while and his behaviour has basically gone like this: do something silly -> get told off -> sort of say sorry, but wording suggest he thinks he actually did ok -> promises to not do it again -> X days pass -> do it again. This has been repeated numerous times, with a little DIDNTHEARTHAT thrown in on top. I think this is a WP:COMPETENCE failure. I mean, he's a nice enough guy (I suspect he is relatively young, which accounts for a lot of the interaction problems) but seems unable to understand the words "Heymid, just go edit articles for a few months". --Errant 07:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Note that Heymid has now left a slightly less than civil request on his talk page to close this thread and mark User:AIK IF 2010 as "impersonating" him instead of being his sockpuppet, though from what I see of this thread and the SPI, it seems that he's trying too late to cover his attempt at sockpuppetry rather than accepting that he shouldn't have done it. GiftigerWunsch 14:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'd be surprised if AIK IF 2010 (talk · contribs) was a sock of Heymid. I agree firstly with what xeno says above: I wouldn't have thought that Heymid would be savvy enough to make use of an open proxy. There also doesn't seem to be motivation for it, considering that at the point when AIK IF 2010 was registered Heymid could just have created a new account via his own IP address. Using an open proxy is standard procedure for someone who wishes to impersonate another user, since it makes any technical links ambiguous, and we therefore have to rely on the behavioral evidence. The behavioral evidence in this particular case, is, frankly, trying way too hard. Kww mentions above that the socks that we catch are often obvious, which is true, but this is off the scale. Heymid even pointed out himself that the account was quacking much too loudly to be a natural duck; he's clearly aware how obvious the link appears, why would he have made it that obvious in the first place?
To speak plainly, I imagine that there are plenty of people who would get a kick out of getting Heymid indefinitely blocked by impersonating him as a sock.
I am aware that there has been a pattern of disruption from Heymid in the past, and if I'm honest I've often found myself muttering in favour of a block. However, although I'm 100% aware that there are users who find the accusation of sock-puppetry credible, I'm worried that the suspicion of socking is being used as a cover reason for getting rid of a user who many find annoying, this seems to be realized in some of the comments above.
Kind regards, Spitfire 23:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. While I do not think an indefinite block is unwarranted ( I have previously called for one), it should not come as a result of this incident. The suspected sock was trying way too hard. decltype (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Death threats on Flint, Michigan

According to User:Finmcaley12 and User:199.8.26.10 on Flint, Michigan someone named Brice Davis is going to get murdered. Should we contact the authorities? TomCat4680 (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• I think is just plain vandalism, I seen plenty of those before, Finmcaley should be blocked indef. Secret 23:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm in touch with the police at Indiana Wesleyan University where the IP is from. Toddst1 (talk) 23:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I have indeffed the account and rev-del'ed the edits that include the name of the threatened party. Looie496 (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

And I've restored them so the cops can take a look. Toddst1 (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If they need access they have ways to see the data. Making it public is a very bad call in my opinion. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you missed this one. SnottyWong  23:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If there's a CU online right now, please ping me via email. I will give you the email address of the detective I'm working with, but he would love to decode Finmcaley12's ip address. You can email it directly to him. Toddst1 (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it necessary -- essentially the same edit was made by IP directly before the account made it? Looie496 (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Toddst hit my talk page, I'm on it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

 Confirmed User:Finmcaley12 and User:199.8.26.10 are the same. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible Death Threat

This worries me. Access Denied  00:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah; that's something that requires immediate action... HalfShadow 00:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Standard WP:RBI. Let's not waste time on these punks. Rodhullandemu 00:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is too vague to be actionable or to be worthwhile reporting. Marking as resolved.--Chaser (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

edits to Mike Francesa edits coming from themikefrancesa.com

the Mike Francesa article has been decimated by vandals from themikefrancesa.com

2 recent users have been editing the article on Secretariat tonight

JLUrbach and RKO36

I suspect they are WP:SOCKs and if not, they only created these accounts to fool around.

Fatandloud (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

don't know where they all originated from, but they have also moved onto Jon Heyman and a bit of Evan Roberts as well. A bunch of blocks (or one IP block) may be in order.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's more with diffs NKC2228 98.116.0.67 24.151.80.130 70.23.207.102

Fatandloud (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Remove Inka 888 from twinkleBlacklist?

A while back Inka 888 was added to the twinkle blacklist for misuse and a high level of incompetence. Since then Inka has made huge progress with the help of mentor Intelati (talk · contribs) and a few talk page stalkers, myself included. So I'm proposing that Inka be removed from the blacklist. Let's see what everyone thinks. Access Denied  04:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I would Say Inka has made incredible progress, and has just a short mentoring term left. As his mentor I would say let him get acquainted with Huggle and rollback for one week, then on 10/25/2010 UTC time, remove his name from the blacklist. This is to alliviate any overload of "New things".--Talktome 04:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I have taken a look at his edits since he started using Huggle on the 17th and it seems he has been doing a good job, no mistakes. I do believe, though, that Inka already has TWINKLE with this edit, which could possibly be a go around of the blacklist or him using Friendly (since it is being merged with TWINKLE). In the last three days, this is the only instance of TWINKLE use, so I am guessing (and hoping) that it is Friendly use.

Otherwise, I do believe the wait to get "acquainted" with Huggle and rollback should wait a month. I also believe that mentorship should not end at a specified time, but should be until Intelati feels Inka is ready. When I was under mentorship, it didn't end for almost 6 months. We don't want Inka slipping back into old habits. I also feel that once mentorship does end, Intelati and others should check in periodically to see how Inka is doing, check for mistakes, problems, make comments, even give barnstars if needed. My mentor still does that with me from time to time, but not as often as before. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

For your pondering: When I read this, I checked the blacklist. A large number of the people there are no longer active at all. Some have not edited for over a year, others seem to have retired. We might want to reorder the list so that the active users show up first, as the line goes on for a while. That or cull the list of the inactive users. Either way it was very hard to read down the full list. Then again my screen isn't that large, but still. Sven Manguard _Talk 06:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Per above, the full list. I suggest in the future that new additions are added at the beginning, rather than the end, of the list, at the very least.

1. "Dilip rajeev", active
2. "Jackmantas", last seen Aug 08
3. "Flaming Grunt", last seen May 09
4. "Catterick", indef blocked Aug 09
5. "44 sweet", last seen Aug 09
6. "Sarangsaras", indef blocked Sept 09
7. "WebHamster", indef blocked Nov 09
8. "Radiopathy", active
9. "Nezzadar", last seen Dec 09
10. "Darrenhusted", active
11. "Notpietru", last seen Mar 10
12. "Arthur Rubin", active
13. "Wuhwuzdat", active
14. "MikeWazowski", active
15. "Lefty101", last seen May 10
16. "Bender176", indef blocked Jun 10
17. "Tej smiles", possibly active
18. "Bigvernie", possibly active
19. "TK-CP", active
20. "NovaSkola", active
21. "Inka 888", subject of this ANI
22. "Polaron", active
23. "SluggoOne" possibly active

Sven Manguard _Talk 07:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Aw shucks Sven, now you have to advise every single editor in that list that you have mentioned them at ANI ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it's necessary. We aren't discussing them, only the list they are on. If we go into their individual merits, then it will become necessary to tell them. Sven Manguard _Talk 00:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Aaron Rubashkin

I'd like to ask the admins to have a look at this version of Aaron Rubashkin. Scroll down to the "Family" section. What was the point of that long list of everyone in his extended family? How many of them might be minors? As far as I can tell from the edit history, the editor who added them was Ajnem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). The list has been deleted, but it's still in the history. I think someone should revdelete or oversight all problem versions of the page. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

And could someone rule on the speedy nomination of Rubashkin crime family? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you meant this version of Aaron Rubashkin. All of the Agriprocessors related articles are pretty troublesome and need eyes on them. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Sean, you linked to the same version of the article I did (16:51 UTC, 18 October 2010). And agree that all those articles need eyes on them. That would include Agriprocessors, Postville Raid, Milton Balkany, Sholom Rubashkin, and Moshe Rubashkin. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

...and Aaron, that was the bit I changed. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops, yeah, corrected. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

We also have Category:Rubashkin family. A kosher salami if you can guess who created it... and included it in Category:Crime families. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

<Sigh> Pritzker family has a similar list, including a kid born in 1994. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

HELLO What does it take to get a G10 attack page deleted? This has been here over an hour. Usually this kind of thing is acted on in minutes. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm quite here. I'm not entirely sure how to act: it's been blanked which is good, but I'm somewhat involved, so don't want to act on it. I think the large amount of discussion is what holding it up. NativeForeigner /_Contribs 06:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You're only involved because you made the mistake of commenting on the AFD, an AFD that was filed specifically to derail a clear-cut, BLP violating, G10 speedy. So, you fell into the trap and the disruption worked. I'll repeat here what I said there. CSD clearly says "Both the page title and page content may be taken into account in assessing an attack." No source calls them the Rubashkin Crime Family. That attack was dreamed up by the editor who created the article. This isn't even a tough call. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much. NativeForeigner /_Contribs 14:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

G10 applies. Speedied. --Courcelles 07:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Entirely improperly, during a perfectly normal AfD -- and now non-admins will be unable to see exactly why deletion was inappropriate here. This is an abuse of admin powers and I request that the deletion be reversed so that the AfD can be decided by the community in the normal way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

We don't have AfDs on articles that are deleted as G10, which fairly clearly applies in this case. The correct location is WP:DRV now. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The reason this should still be at AN/I is that it was speedied while an AfD was in progress, in clear violation of WP:GD: "Speedy delete, Speedy or CSD mean that the user thinks the article qualifies for one of the narrow speedy deletion criteria. If there are no objections, the deletion discussion may be closed early. If the decision is contested, the AFD discussion continues." Really, it ought to be obvious that this was improper and the AfD should be reopened, with deletion following community consensus in the normal way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit. The AFD was started on top of the speedy notice for the obvious purpose of derailing a clear-cut speedy. You can't interfere with an obvious speedy by trying to yap it to death at AFD. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit yourself. That's exactly what can be done. Declining a speedy and requesting a full discussion at AfD is entirely normal, and short-circuiting that by interfering with an AfD is explicitly proscribed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Not true: Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to... Furthermore......If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion. . Even if you dispute the plain language requiring deletion, it's not even close to "admin abuse". --Calton | Talk 09:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I mean, if you'd like to take up the fight of your personal interpretation of a bureaucratic procedure -- and your adding "clear" to your term "violation" doesn't change that essential character -- versus Foundation-level policy regarding WP:BLPs, be my guest, but I suspect it won't end well. --Calton | Talk 09:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If the article was G10'd for being an attack page that is entirely proper. Per WP:IAR and common sense. Because it is a BLP this trumps many of the normal rules, and calling them a "crime family" is a clear BLP attack violation --Errant 09:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

At least you're acknowledging that "normal rules" call for a different outcome/process here -- "common sense" indeed.... I did quote WP:GD correctly, right? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm telling you the correct process was employed here. --Errant 09:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No, "normal rules" -- as I've quoted -- call for immediate deletion. Which was done. No "admin abuse", normal procedure. You have a problem with that? Click --> here. --Calton | Talk 09:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

NOW, could someone please go to that version of Aaron Rubashkin I linked to in my very first post (you know, the one that give the names of about 30 members of his extended family) and tell me if anything should be revdeleted or oversighted? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Sent to deletion review. (Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2010 October 19#Rubashkin crime family) A middle-of-the-night rush to deletion deserves review. That article had been up for three weeks and had been edited by several editors; there was no need to rush to deletion. It's worth noting that the discussion here took place with the article already deleted, so those who commented here couldn't see the article or its history. Yes, it makes the subjects of the article look bad, but after five members convicted of various crimes, that may be justified. John Nagle (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Philip Baird Shearer - block review

Block review—Grundle2600 socks

After seeing Gerald Walpin v. Corporation for National and Community Service show up as a blue link, I suspected we had yet more socks of Grundle2600 at work. After deleting the article as a G5, it was recreated by another new account, and edited by another. I have deleted the article again, and salted the title. I also indef-blocked all of the new accounts which created or edited the articles. I'd like to have another admin take a look at xkc125 (talk · contribs), Sarah 227 (talk · contribs), and Romney Wordsworth (talk · contribs), the three accounts blocked. I am absolutely positive about that last one, because of and . I'm pretty sure about the others, but another set of eyes would be appreciated, especially since the usernames don't fit Grundle's pop-culture obsessed pattern. Horologium (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No doubts there - clearly Grundle on all counts. (Is it worth making an edit filter to catch this idiot's obsession?) Rd232 12:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The first two are outside the pattern, name-wise. I'm not sure if he still logs in to watch his original talk page, but if you posted a msg there or send a note via other means and ask "are these your socks?", he'll give you an honest answer. Tarc (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Note: Grundle2600's talkpage is fully protected so he won't be able to respond there even as a sock.TMCk (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

xkc125's only edit is to create the Walpin article linked above, which very closely matches the content pushed previously into Gerald Walpin. Sarah 227's only edits are to add/fiddle with the infobox in that article. Rd232 14:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I know, just sayin it's different/weird, is all. :) Another possibility is either a comrade-in-arms, or someone trying to make Grundle look bad. Tarc (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:MEAT is possible, but trying to make Grundle look bad? The mind boggles. Rd232 16:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

At this point, the best a false-socker could hope for would be that he might make him look better... HalfShadow 17:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Kabong! Well, it's always possible that it's a sock of "Chase me dinosaurs" continuing to try to impeach Grundle with false evidence. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no point. Grundle is buried so deep right now he'd get out of the hole faster by digging downwards. HalfShadow 17:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and the Chinese will fix him up :) TMCk (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Even there, he might run into a wall. I may be wrong, but I think Grundle is only indef'd, not banned. "Chase me dinosaurs" might be playing a game to try and get him banned. We're still waiting for the outcome of an SPI on "Chase me dinosaurs", so we can't say just yet. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No, Grundle went from a politics topic-ban to a site ban in April 2010 (Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive607#Request to modify my topic ban). That was when he started with the industrial-strength socking. As for the possible joe job, I can't say, but Grundle is already site-banned with little likelihood of that being overturned (the socking alone is enough to keep him away, and that doesn't even address the editing issues he presented before getting kicked to the curb). Horologium (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)Nope, he is already banned TMCk (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I see. So, since he's already fully banned, which is the strongest sanction wikipedia can issue, an impostor would have no reason to impostor him unless he's just playing a game (which is certainly possible). ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

All are  Confirmed plus one additional sock. –MuZemike 00:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

False use of "Vandalism" edit summary when involved in a content dispute

I've been asked(1) to bring this matter here. User:Tmorton166 reverted my good faith edit with a summary noting that my good faith contribution, one which reinstated(2) a fellow Wikpedia editor's contribution, was simply "Vandalism".(3)

Tmorton166 is directly (4) involved in a content discussion regarding this very subject and is well aware that my good faith contribution, in support of other Misplaced Pages editors, is anything but "Vandalism". This is unacceptable and should not be excused, it is precisely this type of abuse that degrades the project, injects incivility and turns away both the contributor directly targeted as well as third parties considering contributing. For the record, this is not a "newbie" issue, I am a long time contributor and have for the last several years had a dynamic ip beginning with 99. I am not a SPA by any stretch of the imagination.

The callous lie, application of twinkle and or whatever else has now been triggered in addition to my "revert on sight"(5) vandal status has now caused my edits to be reverted by vandalism patrollers(6), which Tmorton166 himself has noted.(7)

It's easy to Game or wikilawyer someone opposing you on content into a little useless ball of "revert", but it's neither ethical nor does it further the project. My edits were good faith, civil and well supported. 99.144.244.4 (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Good faith or not, I count 4 reverts in less than 24 hours by you between your different IPs, which constitutes as edit warring per WP:3RR. Nymf _hideliho! 15:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It may be good faith, 99, but you're edit-warring to restore a completely unacceptable section header for a BLP. Please read that policy; it's important. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Overview: This IP is persistently editing in a BLP violation claiming (incorrectly) consensus for inclusion on the talk page. I gave them the benefit of the doubt the first few times but persistent re-addition despite numerous requests to desist means I don;t believe he is acting in good faith and the edits are an attempt to BLP vandalise the page. I point out I used Twinkle to revert these changes (not rollback) and although Twinkle refers to this directly as vandlism I used it deliberately to make a point about the escalating severity of my reverting. After the user posted a pretty aggressive message on my talk ending with the words, the utter lack of intellectual integrity you quite obviously possess., I pointed them at AN/I who could weigh in on my actions and hopefully bring more eyes to the article and the header issue. I admit, that on reviewing WP:VAND it may be that this is in fact Tendentious editing (which is no better ;)), however I have no issues reverting it as vandalism with Twinkle - so as a more general question, is this the right approach? --Errant 15:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Everyone needs to go read WP:VAND#NOT, but remember: just because something isn't vandalism, that doesn't mean it's not inappropriate. 3RR is a bright line: do not cross the line unless you understand the narrow limitations for doing so. Jclemens (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The OP's edits are not necessarily deliberate vandalism, so the OP has a point. It would be better to label such edits as "BLP violation", for which the OP will have no defense. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I strongly consider this a bad faith deliberate attempt to vandalise the article, the IP did not seem to "get it", hence escalating the type of Twinkle revert. However, point taken, so I retract specifically calling it Vandalism and instead substitute "Gross and deliberate BLP violation, tendentious editing". --Errant 16:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) That's nonsense, my edit restored another editors contribution and is the current, ongoing and long standing subject of discussion. The ONLY opposition to the addition found on the talk page previously consisted of "Convicted for what? ... Come on. This entire thing is ludicrously blown out of proportions..." ... "He's not going to be convicted. There's no evidence. It's clearly part of smear campaign" ... "same exact type investigation is left out of other articles, with a vengence." These are not substantive arguments on which one can base such an outrageous mis-characterization such as the bullshit, "Gross and deliberate BLP violation, tendentious editing". What was it that Joseph Welch said? It seems it would be appropriate here.99.144.244.4 (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You've got the same problem there, by saying "deliberate BLP violation", unless you can find statements from the OP admitting to it. Whether it's good faith or bad faith, a BLP violation is a BLP violation. There has been an allegation of rape, but there has been no legal finding that a rape actually occurred. The OP may not understand that distinction. So unless you can find the OP specifically saying, "I don't care, the guy's a rapist, end of story", then AGF requires that you regard his position as good-faith but wrong-headed. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the overwhelming insistence is that I retract such an opinion, I will have to do so. But I extremely strongly disagree. AGF is not a license, it is not infinite. The editor reinserted a variation on a header that various IP's (I do not believe this IP) have been trying to get into the article for a while. They were told very clearly a number of times about why the header was innapropriate and they still insisted on inserting it, claiming there was no opposition, they had consensus, it was supported by RS's or that it was censorship to remove it. I was happy to consider it misguided initially, but now (given their clear understanding of WP policy and admission of longer editing history) I believe they are editing in bad faith. shrug, I want them to be aware of why the heading is 100% inappropriate. --Errant 16:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that, for the record, the text I supported, and that was introduced by another editor, read: "Investigation of alleged rape". That is all. .99.144.244.4 (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Make no mistake, that wording was only introduced as your first header was less than neutral. Nymf _hideliho! 16:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand you. Is this now neither vandalism nor a BLP violation? It is the only edit that is at issue, it is the edit that you two have been reverting. The previous one was "Rape investigation". .99.144.244.4 (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no comment on that as I have never reverted you, unless you have any undisclosed accounts or IPs. Nymf _hideliho! 16:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"Rape investigation" is POV-pushing and a BLP issue. "Investigation of alleged rape" is legalistically neutral, as there is an ongoing investigation, and there has been no legal finding that a rape actually occurred. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• If the other editors feel strongly that I should retract all insinuation of bad faith I will do so and apologise
• and will not revert further additions but push it to the BLP board for better discussion.

However, I do feel my actions were reasonable and appropriate, if my use of the Vandalism revert a little strong. --Errant 16:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Though a long standing technique, misdirection does not make a thing so. Your claim, "this was agreed on the talk several times", is false and has been demonstrably shown(1)(2) to be so on the article talk page. But then, unsupported allegations, mis-characterization and empty rhetoric seem to be a recurring theme here. They do seem to work, but then they're based upon your abuse of AGF, people just assume what you say is supportable. I prefer sourced ref's. 99.144.244.4 (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Funny you should say that. Looking at the talk page I see Talk:Julian Assange#Hypocracy and Talk:Julian Assange#Section "title" for section dealing with the Rape allegations/investigation/charges. Your diffs "demonstrably showing this to be false" appear to be <ahem> nothing of the sort. There does appear to be a talkpage consensus, it doesn't appear to support your assertion, nor your belief that this heading - in either of the forms you've used - should be used. And what do sourced refs have to do with section headings? TFOWR 16:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Also there is quite extensive discussion of the whole section in the archive, that plus the edit history from the time shows we hashed this out quite extensively. There have been various attempts to re-insert a pointy header in that section but it has been reverted as a BLP issue each time. There are also a couple of threads from the ] but I don't have much time to hunt them down now. --Errant 17:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"Investigation of alleged rape" is the only edit at issue. It is the contribution of another editor that I supported and is the edit reverted as "Vandalism" under discussion here. There are no additional content edits under dispute.99.144.244.4 (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"Rape investigation" is also an edit at issue. TFOWR 16:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No it's not. It's a Red Herring, textbook application. No one is seeking to reintroduce that edit, you're simply acting as an auctioneer taking bids from the Chandelier. Consensus appears to be for "Investigation of alleged rape". 99.144.244.4 (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

My point was that the text I supported, and that was introduced by another editor, read: "Investigation of alleged rape" gives the impression that you didn't introduce the heading "Rape investigation". TFOWR 17:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually Sherlock, I was trying to neutralize previous headings, "Rape Charges" and "Rape Arrest", it's the Wiki-Way. I change text, others tweak me, we arrive at consensus. The other editor's tweak on me was an improvement. My edits also improved on the past. Your point? 99.144.244.4 (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The editor who introduced the new wording only did it as a way to compromise. It does in no way imply consensus (or a specific stance) for mentioning rape in the header. Nymf _hideliho! 17:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "Sherlock", no. You added a heading. Describing that edit as "neutralizing" is disingenuous. TFOWR 17:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• • (ec)If consensus says "no heading", then it should be safe to delete the heading outright, with the edit summary "as per consensus". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The ONLY opposition to the addition found on the talk page previously consisted of "Convicted for what? ... Come on. This entire thing is ludicrously blown out of proportions..." ... "He's not going to be convicted. There's no evidence. It's clearly part of smear campaign" ... "same exact type investigation is left out of other articles, with a vengence." This is not the basis for either a supportable argument or a consensus. It is however a strong argument for lack of neutrality, POV and WP:OR. Bias is not the sole province of IP accounts. And the abusive mis-characterization of my honest, good faith, neutral and well supported edit is still troubling, the underlying content dispute is minor - the Gaming and beatdown attempted there is not. 99.144.244.4 (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, even if there is issues over good/bad faith, I don't think you can support the edit as neutral and well-supported. If you review the history of the article you will note it is not well supported, and it is definitely not neutral. It is, in fact, very pointy. I'd also point out that the thing you keep quoting is not any part of the rationale for removing the header - it was a reply from another editor to a wider discussion about the section. Several of us made it very clear the policies and guidance under which the header was removed/disputed --Errant 17:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The OP's contrib history indicates that he re-introduced both versions of the header at different times. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to neutralize previous headings, "Rape Charges" and "Rape Arrest", Rape and Assault, etc, many of which passed through multiple edits and contributors without question until a tweak or change, it's the Wiki-Way. I change text, others tweak me, we arrive at consensus. The other editor's tweak on me was an improvement. My edits also improved on the past. I simply support the last change made by another third-party editor, and have done so unequivocally since his addition.99.144.244.4 (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

So until he's at least arrested or something, why is a heading needed at all? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

99, you have not used this argument before, so I'm afraid to me it looks like an argument in retrospect. When you re-added it on the 18th with accusations of apologists and spin etc. your rationale (on talk) was as follows: "Section title "Rape investigation" or "Rape allegation" or "Rape charges" and topic are notable, well ref'd and quite significant - and accurately surmises the section - a header summarizing section contents is quite standard. Topic is simply what it is.". I believe this states a clear aim to add a section header with this content come what may. --Errant 17:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I'm going to have to stand by my apparently controversial claim, at least according to you, that, "a header summarizing section contents is quite standard.". It's like Red Herring Fest here today. But the Game rewards a furious offense doesn't it? Substance is over rated apparently.99.144.244.4 (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The section is extensive, notable, well supported and properly summarized by the succinct heading noted above:

On 20 August 2010, an investigation was opened against Assange in Sweden in connection with an allegation that he had raped a woman in Enköping on the weekend of 14 August after a seminar, and two days later had sexually harassed a second woman he had been staying with in Stockholm, but within 24 hours of the investigation opening prosecutors withdrew the warrant to arrest him saying the accusations against him lacked substance. The chief prosecutor Eva Finné said there was no reason to suspect he had committed rape "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape". He was still being investigated for harassment,which covers reckless conduct or inappropriate physical contact, a charge not serious enough to trigger an arrest warrant. The second woman belonged to the Brotherhood, a Christian affiliate of the country's Social Democratic Party, and was acting as Assange's spokeswoman. Assange said "the charges are without basis and their issue at this moment is deeply disturbing"; his supporters claim he is the victim of a smear campaign. he acknowledged having had sex with the women, but said it was consensual. He was questioned by police for an hour on 31 August, and on 1 September a senior Swedish prosecutor re-opened the rape investigation saying new information had come in. The women's lawyer, Claes Borgström, had earlier appealed against the decision not to proceed.

There are few paths to proper copyedit available when faced with such prose. Misdirection and obscuring are not within our remit. The subject is not pleasant, but it simply is what it is.99.144.244.4 (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems I've allowed myself to be derailed. This is not a content dispute, this was User:Tmorton166 reverting my good faith edit with a summary noting that my good faith contribution, one which reinstated(2) a fellow Wikpedia editor's contribution, was simply "Vandalism".(3)

Tmorton166 is directly (4) involved in a content discussion regarding this very subject and is well aware that my good faith contribution, in support of other Misplaced Pages editors, is anything but "Vandalism". This is unacceptable and should not be excused, it is precisely this type of abuse that degrades the project, injects incivility and turns away both the contributor directly targeted as well as third parties considering contributing. 99.144.244.4 (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No, a report at ANI runs the very real risk that your own conduct will be scrutinised. Tmorton166 should not have described your edit as vandalism. You should not be claiming a lack of consensus, when the talkpage shows a clear consensus. You should not be edit warring against consensus. Tmorton166 deserves to be slapped with a {{trout}}. I don't believe blocking you would be effective: I'd recommend another admin give consideration to protecting the article - if you persist. TFOWR 17:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Side note: Since I'm the unnamed editor in question who changed the IP's POV header to a more neutral version I would like to say that I'm not supporting my own or any other heading in this section. The main header/section title does indeed cover it well enough and there's also no separate header for the first paragraph in this article's section.TMCk (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus? Numerous editors have introduced, reintroduced, supported, or tweaked a variety of direct summarizations of the section. No substantive argument has been presented in opposition. Most of the argument for silence comes from apologists and partisans on record as supporting obscuring or removal based upon, "Convicted for what? ... Come on. This entire thing is ludicrously blown out of proportions..." ... "He's not going to be convicted. There's no evidence. It's clearly part of smear campaign" ... "same exact type investigation is left out of other articles, with a vengence." Not quite the Wiki-Way. Multiple long term edits by numerous editor's to support concise accurate summarization are not trumped by screams of Vandal or empty reverts by a couple of partisans.99.144.244.4 (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

BLP rules are the wiki way, and they do trump many other considerations. TFOWR at 17:40 above summarizes the situation well. The article should neither make a big thing of this nor try to bury it. The separate heading is a step in the direction of making a big thing of it. Now, if he gets arrested, that's a different matter. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"No substantive argument has been presented in opposition." In your opinion. Above, you presented diffs of two of your talkpage edits as "proof" of the lack of consensus; I then linked to the actual talkpage threads. Multiple editors on the talkpage disagreed with you. Dismissing editors who disagree with you as "apologists and partisans" - I can tell you for free: that's not "the Wiki-way". TFOWR 17:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I did not dismiss them. I quoted them, "Convicted for what? ... Come on. This entire thing is ludicrously blown out of proportions..." ... "He's not going to be convicted. There's no evidence. It's clearly part of smear campaign" ... "same exact type investigation is left out of other articles, with a vengence.". There was a time when such public proclamation's of pure partisanship were noticed, and rejected for what they were. I guess this is just another milestone in the ever-evolving set of acceptable standards as we whittle our contributors down to the last man standing. .99.144.244.4 (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Your being disigneous when you say Actually, I did not dismiss them. I accused you of Dismissing editors who disagree with you as "apologists and partisans" because you said Most of the argument for silence comes from apologists and partisans. The standards here are consensus and WP:BLP. Neither of these are new, neither should come as any surprise. TFOWR 18:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP supports reporting notable events, as is the case here. consensus includes all those numerous editors that have contributed, or supported, section headings as noted above. It is not I that am turning a blind eye to the contributions and discussion regarding the article. And it is not I that have claimed this to be a closed topic no longer up for discussion - nor have I rejected contributions as Vandalism. I have honestly supported a civil and substantive discussion of the issue(1) The record is clear and supports my contention that I am not a Vandal and have engaged in a GF effort to substantively discuss the issue. The same an not be said for all participants.99.144.244.4 (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The event is reported. The issue (which you are misdirecting this from) is that the header is undue and a BLP violation in drawing attention to the event. It is not particularly significant in his biography, and the addition of it is quite pointy. I have a groundswell of patience, but you used it up very quickly by being aggressive, rude and ignoring points we were raising. Classic example: your persistent quoting of a badly worded reply on the talk page which was actually unrelated to the header we were discussing and ignoring the points I (and another) consistently raised with you. However, AN/I is not for disputes. I was wrong to use the Vandalism revert, that has been made clear to me, I have apologised. I suggest we take the content dispute to the article talk again and involve editors from WP:BLP/N. Otherwise this looks at risk of going downhill -Errant 18:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) You are indeed not a vandal, and I believe I had already made that clear. WP:BLP does indeed support reporting notable events: that is not at issue - what is at issue is you adding a header. No one is attempting to prevent the reporting of notable events, and I am surprised you would describe this as such. WP:CON involves discussion, not drive-by editors dropping by to re-add their favourite header while ignoring talkpage discussions. You're to be commended for at least participating in the talkpage discussion; however, edit warring against the obvious consensus there is far less commendable. TFOWR 18:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

If you check back, most of the headings along the lines of what you added were added by IP or new editors - and were reverted by long term editors under BLP policy. This is consistent in the article history. You, on the other hand, have consistently mis-characterised a consensus for including the header, quoted that above text which is unrelated to the header issue (and I agre badly argued), heaped abuse on my talk page, the article talk etc. and made wide accusations of "apologists", gaming, wiki-lawyering, censorship and so on. This is the main reason I don't find your work on this article constructive. --Errant 18:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, TFOWR is someone I very much trust over this (along wiht BB and Jclemens), so I do apologise for using Vandalism revert on that edit. It was a decision made in the heat of the moment in light of the attitude exhibited by this IP, I am sure that others will attest that I am not usually so vindictive. However, I still feel that the IP is pushing to have the header for POV reasons, as backed up by his comments/language --Errant 18:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'd say that if the IP makes one more harsh and/or disruptive edit with one of their IP's let's go for a wide range-block as far as technically possible of not less than a month (like one of their IP's already received today).TMCk (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The edit I believe you're referring to, and referred to in this edit summary(1) from the article mainpage as "Excessive sock puppetry: IP hopping vandal persistantly adding WP:BLP material" is not from me - nor does the coincidentally 99.* prefixed IP address geo-locate to the same area as mine. The two quick incidents of juvenile vandalism hardly rated a ten-day lock, especially as a block was made and appeared to stop the offender. 99.144.244.4 (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Noelemahc

PLEASE NOTE: This discussion was originally posted by 204.153.84.10 on the WikiProject Comics talk page. I've moved it here, as this seems like a much more appropriate place to discuss the situation. Friginator (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this editor is learning English, or if they just have bad grammar problems, but most of what they have been adding to articles has been difficult to read at best, and incomprehensible at worst. A few different editors have come along and tried to fix what they have written (not an easy task, guessing what they are trying to say), and I was content to help out. Then today, they began making comments like this, which seem to indicate that they feel other editors should be relied upon to fix the mess. I don't know about anyone else, but while I don't mind making corrections and fixes here and there, I don't have time to be checking all of someone's edits, especially when they respond with my criticism with a revert and somewhat rude edit summary. Just please, if you have the time, keep an eye on this editor's contributions, and help them understand why it is important to write intelligibly. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that the writing quality of the original text ("When Spider-Man has been away, Chameleon got the infant"?!) I'm not sure what the problem is. GDallimore (Talk) 06:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, that poor text was added by the same user. I have no solution. Ignore me. GDallimore (Talk) 06:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I've seen a new user adding equally bad blocks of text. Is this a WP:DUCK case, trying to avoid scrutiny, or just a coincidence? 204.153.84.10 (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If it was someone learning English or who had bad English education I don't think you would see the confrontational attitude that editors have already posted about what he puts in the edit summary. Can this be considered vandalism and something he can be blocked for? Or do we as a group have to stalk his posts to try to correct his work, and hopefully correct his behavior eventually? Spidey104 13:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't personally think this is vandalism, but it's certainly not constructive. I admit I've been watching his contribution history very closely, simply because many of his edits need to be reverted. This isn't a new problem, though. I've run into several other editors (mostly on comics articles, actually) whose English is deplorable. Whether this is a case of sockpuppetry, I have no idea. Also, it's important to note that Noelemahc's contributions aren't all nonconstructive. Friginator (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

A user whose name is "Chameleon" spelled backwards might be a sock? Ya think??? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hah! I hadn't even noticed that. :) 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Allegation of antisemitism

User:Nomoskedasticity has accused me of being an anti semite, I totally repute this and commented as such and as I know he simply doesn't like me and has attacked me personally before with comments such as I have no reading comprehension and other comments I struck the allegation and left him a note on his talkpage letting him know and informing him that I would report him if he repeated it and he has un-struck the antisemite allegation and replaced it. I should not be personally attacked in this way by a user, I would like the accusation struck, it is completely false and attacking. The section is here and the history here. Off2riorob (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

its out of line most likely and should be struck but it seems lost in translation. It looks like Nomo misinterpreted when Rob said the term "Jew" was kinda derogatory (Which i have certianly heard used that way). Nomo Seems to have over reacted by assuming it is he meant calling some one Jewish is Derogatory and there is nothing wrong with being jewish. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing at all out of line. I specifically did not say "Off2riorob is an anti-Semite". I said that believing that someone has to be protected from being called a Jew is to hold the view that being a Jew is somehow a problem and "verges on anti-Semitism". If one is not allowed to make that kind of observation on Misplaced Pages then this place has real problems. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You "specifically did not say x" is terrible way to defend your self as it translates to "gosh i was careful with the way i said it so I could avoid being call out on it." Implied statements often say alot more than explicit statement. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The issue that turns up in many, many biographies here is whether someone's religion or ethnic group "has anything to do with anything". It certainly would be fair to call Myron Cohen a Jewish comedian, since much of his work centered around Jewishness. It would be less fair to Jack Benny, because all or most of his work was religion-neutral, i.e. he was a comedian who happened to be Jewish. I admit to sharing Rob's uncomfortableness with the term "a Jew", as opposed to "Jewish", but if you, who are Jewish, are OK with the term "a Jew", then we might be oversensitive. However, it calls to mind the Nazis painting the German word for "Jew" on Jewish storefronts. Except that does not necessarily impeach the word itself, but just the Nazis' usage of it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Whilst Off2riorob's statement was clumsily phrased, it clearly wasn't anti-semitic in the slightest. It's fairly obvious what point he's trying to make. I would suggest that Nomoskedasticity strike that allegation. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

And editors opinions on these issues don't really matter do they. Content is based on sources. The time would be better spent improving Jew_(word)#Changes_in_use based on reliable sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate the comment striking as I am in no way an antisemitic at all and where I work my account is known by people and such a weakly claimed allegation could well have real life issues, it is illegal in my area. Please retract it, if the user refuses to retract it imo it is a personal attack and he should be blocked. The discussion and issue has brought up points that we have unclear issues with at wikipedia and I fully intent to discuss the issue on a policy page, when I find the best location.Off2riorob (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You haven't shown any awareness that there is a problem in your attitude, and frankly I was thinking of starting a thread on AN/I myself about it. You have clearly implied that there is something wrong with referring to someone as a Jew. There isn't, and it isn't something to protect someone from. If you don't get that, then there's a problem. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, my binary friends. Is it offensive to call someone a Jew? Yes. Is it an honorable and inoffensive thing to be called? Yes! Consider the following: "That Jew lawyer cheated me." Appropriate or inappropriate use? Or, "Mayor Bloomberg is a Jew who isn't particularly devout." How bout that one? Context kids.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Or Groucho Marx, in reference to himself and his brothers and their stage and film work, "We were just four Jews trying to get a laugh." That statement at once contains elements of pride and self-deprecation. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well precisely. And to make it clear what is at stake here, Rob has a problem with the notion that Ed Miliband is a "British Jew". Context indeed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Bali ultimate ia heading this in a rational direction. Let's summarise. There is absolutely nothing wrong with BEING a Jew, but some racists and/or bigots DO use the term in a derogatory way. The second part of that sentence is NOT anti semitic in the slightest. It is anti racist. HiLo48 (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I had a similar concern before when an unreferenced statement that an individual was gay was removed as an attack on the individual; it's unfortunate that calling someone gay could be considered a personal attack, but it's used as one frequently. GiftigerWunsch 19:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sadly the first meaning most kids learn for the word gay these days is the negative one, long before they have any understanding of sexuality. It would be much rarer, but would still happen in some circles for the word Jew. And I still hear occasional use of the word to negatively (but sometimes humorously intended) describe someone who is tight with their money. It's all in the context. HiLo48 (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

A wise person many years ago said, "Meanings are not in words; meanings are in people." It's not the word necessarily, it's how it's used. Kids nowadays say, "That's so gay!" the way kids in my generation said, "That's so queer!" So as a word, "gay" can be either good or bad, depending on who's using it. An extreme example is to hear one black person greet another with, "How you doing, you old n*gg*r?" in an affectionate way, but something very hurtful if I were to say it. (And by the way, "black" is also both pejorative and prideful, depending on how it's used.) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, we had a misunderstanding. I think Rio and Nomo should both acknowledge they spoke in a way that was taken wrongly by the other person, whether they truly believe that or not. All in the interest of eliminating more drama. I can understand Nomo's point of view as a Jew (and yes, I use the word Jew for that is what I am, ethnically and religiously, being "Jewish" I personally hold for those that are religiously Jewish but are not ethnically, such as converts). As a Jew I get frustrated with individuals, who always are non-Jews btw, who think Jews need special protection and everyone needs to be on their toes and look out. We have survived your hatred on our own, so thanks but let us defend ourselves, if we dont want to be called something, if we find something offensive, if we dont like someone being labeled a Jew, trust me, we'll tell you; we aren't shy about telling those that do things we dont like where to shove it (just ask the Jordanian army, or the Syrian airforce, or the Lebanese, or the Egyptian, and so on and so on, so many wars in 52 years). I can also understand Rob being insulted by being called an anti-semite, I understand that would hurt and be quite insulting especially if you were trying to be helpful. I'm sure Rob understands there are REAL anti-semites here on Misplaced Pages whose only edits are to create or expand anti-Jewish propaganda pieces and he does not wish to be lumped in with them. Just as Im sure since Rob understands those editors are quite real that it is understandable the heightened level of security that Nomo may be editing under. So, in the words of the 20th century's greatest American philosopher- Can't we all just get along?Camelbinky (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Range of bad IPs

It has come to my atention today that a range of IPs in the Philippines have been adding false information to articles on bands and musicans (adding incorrect record labels and labeling J-Pop bands such as FLOW and JAM Project as christian rock bands). All of the edits come from the same range. The IPs are as follows:

• 115.147.230.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 115.147.202.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 115.147.202.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 115.147.230.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 115.147.230.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 115.147.230.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The IPs are all registered as belonging to "DIGITEL GSM 3G IP POOL". And considering that there are only two /24s being used here, I think it would be beneficial to Misplaced Pages to block these two ranges for an extended period of time.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like Gerald Gonzales to me. If any admin is interested, the ranges of the IPs above are 115.147.230.0/24 and 115.147.202.0/24. -FASTILY 19:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the crossover with Gonzales.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

These are DjJosh (not verified via CU). I will note though, that these ranges are far too busy to block. Tiptoety 20:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, I don't see what that connection is. Also are the ranges (the two /24 ranges) that busy that they can't be anonblocked?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Unblock Giano

Admin help needed with fully protected page

User:Rich Farmbrough appears to have logged off immediately after inadvertently breaking the 'Unreferenced BLP' template so that it now displays like this on 20,000+ articles. Could an admin please undo or fix his actions to correct the template display? --Jezebel'sPonyo 20:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody please revert the most recent changes to this protected template? It no longer displays properly in article space, and the editor/admin who made the changes appears to have gone offline. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It has been reverted (not by me). Ucucha 20:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

RevDel needed at Anne Robinson

Recent string of vandalism from IP accounts, some of which manifests in the final, offensive edit summary. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Gone. Ucucha 21:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

TfD snowed

Can someone please check this one Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_October_16#Template:Two_other_uses and tell me if a non-admin closure per WP:SNOW was correct? I disagree with the way this discussion closed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Magioladitis, I think it was a reasonable close. To be honest, I was considering closing it early myself. Obviously, you could list the decision at Deletion review if you want. PhilKnight (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Good snow, well executed. A lot of these discussions go on ridiculously long for no earthly reason. --TS 22:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

 Good close: it clearly didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted, and generally with templates "it's not useful" or "it's redundant" is generally trumped by evidence that others find it useful, anyway. Non-admins aren't meant to execute snow closes, but I don't think it's worth overturning the close simply to have an admin close it the same way. GiftigerWunsch 22:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Kotniski notified. Airplaneman ✈ 23:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

 Good close. If User:Kotniski is looking for a reason to become an admin, to avoid frivolous AN/Is like this one seems like a pretty good one. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Wankers?

Does anyone really believe that's an acceptable closure? Malleus Fatuorum 00:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu notified. Airplaneman ✈ 00:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't. However sincere the sentiment, and whoever about (newcomer through to experienced user, quiet user to drama magnet), the manner of expressing this is plainly not appropriate. I hope the admin will strike that wording out. It's inappropriate in any way. FT2  01:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

((ec)) Whatever. Pot/kettle, kettle/pot. You might live until Christmas, but I am not that optimistic for myself, which gives me a personal perspective on that. Meanwhile, while we can we should continue to build an encyclopedia using the time we have left to us, to the best of our ability. 01:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't really disagree with the close—the thread was indeed getting more heat than light. But it's rather ironic for Rodhullandemu to close the thread with that impolite comment when he has just been arguing against Giano's incivility. I suppose I could block him–people have been blocked for less over the last few days, and with less prior discussion—but that does not seem especially productive. Ucucha 01:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with closure, disagree with choice of wording. Just fans the flames more. That said, closure was way warranted. Block? Please don't. Drama not needed. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 01:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not calling for a block; in fact, I might unblock him if he does end up blocked. We don't need blocks for every naughty word.

But I find it hard to see why Giano was blocked today for calling another editor a monkey (and even that not quite), and Rodhullandemu is not blocked for calling an entire group of editors "wankers". Why is that? Ucucha 01:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

So just another admin fuck up that would have a lesser mortal blocked then. How many more before the light begins to shine? Malleus Fatuorum 01:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a fair comment. -- Hoary (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please close this discussion, too (nicely)?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

How much better does it get than this? I presume all of those calling for restraint here will exercise same next time it's a non-admin who uses a ninny word or term? Hell, I'm half-tempted now to start testing this myself: I've always thought most of the best editors have a block log, so I may as well have one, too. But I doubt that GWH gets it yet. I'm wondering who I can tell to F off and not get blocked? NYB seems to have a sense of humor: perhaps I should start with him? Well, it was good of Rod to prove the point we've been making so nicely. Bbb23, you 'must be kidding-- an admin can call other editors wankers and you wanna close it lickity split? Haven't we seen it all now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, you're always welcome to tell me to fuck off. (I have skin of linoleum.) That aside, it has to be said that: (i) wanking is particularly safe sex; and (ii) it's not entirely clear who the referents of "Wankers" are. -- Hoary (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying not to envision someone with skin of linoleum wanking.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

At this point in time we are unlikely to get anything useful out of such a debate. After the earlier failed block is seems unlikely than anyone is going to throw any more around and I would suggest that people's current moods means that constructive disscussion is unlikely for at least 24 hours.©Geni 01:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

All fine as good- just remember to apply the same standard to Malleus next time, and take note once and for all of just who gets the infamous "free pass". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• What a pile of shite. Here am I, living in extremely poor circumstances, yet using the bandwith I can afford to make contributions here. I could spend that money on food, cigarettes or other stuff but on balance, I pr4efer to donate my expertrise, such as itr is , her54e, Rodhullandemu 01:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

So please block me; I don't have the luxury of a comfortable life at present, but Misplaced Pages is all I have. If I can contribute here, or on Commons I will, as long as I can draw breath. However, I an equally find other stuff to do. Rodhullandemu 01:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages as blog host - block request

Amyxiao (talk · contribs) is using his/her user talk page as a blog; making no other contribution; and not answering any questions on his/her use of wikipedia as blog. The user has been warned that a block is certain to follow. Evidence is found in his/her contributions log and the user talk page history. I'd be grateful if an admin would consider a block. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Cody, Edward (9 September 2010). "WikiLeaks stalled by Swedish inquiry into allegations of rape by founder Assange". Washington Post. Retrieved 9 September 2010.
2. "Swedish inquiry reopen investigations into allegations of sexual misconduct by founder Assange on third level of appeal". Anklagermyndigheten. 10 September 2010. Retrieved 10 September 2010.
3. Dagens Nyheter http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/aklagare-misstankarna-mot-julian-assange-kvarstar-1.1158117. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
4. ^ "Sex allegations against founder derail WikiLeaks' momentum", The Washington Post, September 10, 2010.
5. Davies, Caroline (22 August 2010). "WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange denies rape allegations". The Guardian.
6. "WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange questioned by police". The Guardian. 31 August 2010.
7. "Sweden reopens investigation into rape claim against Julian Assange". The Guardian. 10 September 2010.