Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:50, 18 February 2007

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Stop archiving! in re RunedChozo

ref: I'm being harassed by "The Epopt"
ref: RunedChozo Blocked

I returned less than 24 hours after posting a comment, see above (permlink), and the discussion has already been archived. That's a problem. I consider myself fairly active and I come to Misplaced Pages at least once a day, so to have a discussion I started, archived before I got a chance to come back and see what people said in response to my complaint is completely unacceptable.

Even worse, I didn't get a response to my complaint. Please consider this my opening a complaint on this board. I'd like a response from the people involved in the incident, and a comment on what will happen.

I don't know much about RunedChozo's past behavoir. But, after reading everything on this page I am under the impression, and correct me if I'm wrong, that most warnings and notices on user space can be removed, and that's effictively, the response that RunedChozo got here--except that while people here were SAYING that, there were also reverting his edits to his user page to keep warning there and protecting his userpage so that he couldn't edit it. Those are some pretty conflicting signals to send.

If in fact users are not allowed to take warnings off there user spaces, then all administrators had to do, was make that clear to RunedChozo here. They didn't need to go and revert edits on his userspace--they could have waited for him to and if he didn't move from there, and they didn't need to protect his userspace. These actions were hostile and provoctive, especially since that wasn't the information he was being given here. Administrators knew that there was something going on here, they came from this incident report and went to his userpage and took action, and did so without leaving clarifiying messages as to policy. There were a lot of messages about the user, and the user's behavoir on several other issues, but nothing about what the user actually brought up.

This user's user page and discussion page are still blocked, and the sockpuppet warning the user was trying to get removed is still on the userpage. These discussions have been archived riduclously quickly and I haven't gotten a response to any of my concerns. I'd like to know exactly what the policy is about the removal of warnings on userpages and I'd like a response about the action take on the userpage that was provocative and contradictory to the messages that the user was getting here. I'd also like to know what administrators plan to do about the locked status of the userpages and the sockpuppet warning on the userpage, and why all of these discussions have been archived so quickly.

Please do NOT prematurely archive this discussion. As I stated at the beginning, consider this comment my filing an incident report in response to what I consider the overall gross mishandling of this situation and I'd like a reasonable opportunity to respond. Everyone else, please don't turn this into another fight over whether or not RunedChozo is or is not a ______. Thank you. Miss Mondegreen 03:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that archiving is done automatically by a bot when no discussion has taken place for 24 hours, correct? Issues on this board aren't meant to drag out for weeks and weeks. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The last two "archives" done on sections concerning RunedChozo were done by editors, not bots. --Onorem 03:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't catch that because only two bot-archived incidents were linked up at the top. But my below point still stands on solid ground :) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and this is not the place for a formal "incident report". As you can see if you'll read the header, this is not the Misplaced Pages complaints department and this page is not part of our Dispute Resolution process. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I linked to RunedChozo's initial complaint, the discussion on whether or not to ban him, and, in my first paragraph I linked to my own discussion that was still on this page, but that had been closed by administrators. (There's an in page link and a permanent link there, because I knew it would soon be archived). The discussion on whether or not to ban RunedChozo, as well as my own discussion were both archived early by administrators. My comment was created because I didn't get to comment on the ban, and my comment was closed to discussion not 24 hours after I'd posted it, without giving me an opportunity to comment again. It also had degenerated into basic squabbling and finger pointing and was ridiculously off-topic.

The reason I posted again here was two-fold. One was that this whole long thing has stemmed from RunedChozo's first incident report here. I was not commenting on that--I did not really get an opportunity to because the discussion had moved onto his ban, and that discussion was closed rapidly. But I and others still had concerns that we wanted to express there and so we opened up new comments here. We would never have had to do this and we wouldn't be having an issue now of where do I post if administrators hadn't terminated discussions far too early.

The other reason that I posted here is that I'm not the only person involved in, or concerned with this, and I knew that the people who were, were watching this page and the previous discussions. Some of them also posted their own comments in their own sections after something earlier got terminiated prematurely and they didn't get to comment, or reply to a comment. If administrators strongly believe that halfway through an issue it should be moved to a different forum, that's fine; tell me where post and I will. And I'll provide a link here to let the people involved in and following this issue know where it is being taken up. I also want to thank everyone who did post here for not turning this into another fight. I got to come here and read nice succint opinions and get new informations and know where everyone stood and it was really refreshing. Thanks. Miss Mondegreen 22:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this hunt, but, I am concerned that neither RunedChozo nor Miss Mondegreen have received direct answers. RunedChozo did not handle the situation well, and perhaps this user has been disruptive in the past, however, I believe this user came here with a legitimate concern and was provoked into crossing the line. RunedChozo was perhaps not the best editor to try and make this point, but the question still has not been adequately answered. So, I will ask one more time: Must a user leave a Sockpuppet Master warning up after they have returned from their block? Yes or No?--DSRH | talk 16:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I also share this view. I don't have an opinion on the block because that is for sysops to decide on, but the user did come with a complaint and I was hoping that it would have been looked into first. If he had spammed, then he would be stupid to come here with a report which could well incriminate himself. If he had not, then this was the correct place to come to. Unfortunately, due to his past behaviour, the discussion got nowhere - and now he has one more excuse to complain. x42bn6 Talk 16:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Although I supported the indef, having a sockpuppet notice forced on one's userpage like a brand is harassment, plain and simple, and should not be tolerated. - Merzbow 06:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

And when one of the same admins who did the branding is the one who made the indefblock, using the excuse that he'd managed to provoke the user into saying some bad things on their own user page?

POV pushing

User Patchouli has unilaterally added POV edits to Iran/Islam related articles, and has reverted edits that removed the POV. He has used the pejorative term "Mullah-in-cheif" on the Assembly of Experts. Please see for the diff. Please see for the discussion. He has used the pejorative neologism "Mullahcracy" on the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Iran article (), the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists article (see history for reverts , and discussion ), and the History of fundamentalist Islam in Iran article (see history for reverts )

He has pushed POV in many articles. For example he added "It seems without question that the government of Iran is clerical fascist…" on the Clerical fascism article (see history for his reverts and edits , and the discussion ). And has only added blogs and editorials for sources of this.

Another example of his POV pushing is .

He added a section called Nicknames to the Iran article and wrote "One nickname of Iran is Land of Mullahs" . Like most of his POV edits he reverted editors attempts of removing his POV (you will see over three reverts on seperate occasions bases on the "Land of Mullahs" edit ).

When I complained about him making unilateral POV edits without discussion he merely replied "I am proud to have reverted your censorship" .

On the article he wrote of Khatami "He has received criticism inside and outside the Islamic Republic and it is not known how a mullah can bring freedom." (Please see the history for the extensive amount of unilateral edits ).

Many others have had problems with Patchouli's POV, what I have provided is only the tip of the iceberg. See , , , and . Agha Nader 02:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

• I have had a lot of trouble with Patchouli's edits just recently, so I'll be adding my findings as I go along. For one, see Using terrorist opposition group as a 'background information' link. Very misleading to link to a terrorist opposition group's claims as simply "some background." The Behnam 03:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Also, note this series of revert warring. Someone removed an undue weight POV issue about some magazine's opinion of Ali Khamenei (see for the relevant discussion). But Patchouli edit warred over this: , , , , , , , (this one uses a different POV source, Daniel Pipes),, , , , is the full sequence of events.
• Patchouli has explicitly stated his POV goal here when justifying his edits to another user. The Behnam 03:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• A POV re-introduction without any regard for the discussion on talk page . The Behnam 03:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Another POV gem , with edit warring , , . The Behnam 06:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• A 'Patchoulic' article , combining some editorials with OR to make negative assertions about those demonstrations. Perhaps a workable article, but Patchouli's style does not involve neutral writing and presentation. The Behnam 20:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Added a link to a strongly anti-Islam website , on the Religion of Peace article, which talks about the use of "religion of peace" to describe Islam. Adding a link to a very biased website in the article body, as its own section, is very POV. Afterwards added an external link in addition , so nothing was even slightly improved. I can't help but consider the possibility that it is misleading to say "Official Website of Religion of Peace" in the article where Islam is being discussed as a "religion of peace." In any case, the entire addition of that website to the mix was rather POV. The Behnam 10:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Further POV & OR together ... in general, Patchouli's edits at Mutaween page . The Behnam 10:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• I edited a page authored by Patchouli to remove POV . He soon reverted it, no reason given . The Behnam 02:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Patchouli is a very interesting person: His edits does hit one's raw nerves! I used to improve his edits on Iran related topics, but he has accused me of being a spy:

• "Agents of the Islamic Republic need to stop. Despite your salary, the campaign to disseminate falsehood is tough"
• And even on mediation pages that I wasn't participating in, he has somehow managed to get me involved as an example of an Iranian agent:

"Employees of the Islamic Republic who edit Misplaced Pages in their spare time have been dithering & can't decide on censoring Misplaced Pages."

But on the plus side, his edits has helped me to campaign for filtering Misplaced Pages in Iran :-) --Gerash77 03:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If more than one editor has tried to resolve the dispute, you have the makings of an RfC here. Jkelly 03:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the need for an RFC here. This is a consistent pattern of disruption and POV-pushing on Patchouli's part; I think administrative action should be taken against Patchouli so that we don't have to constantly hunt down and remove POV OR additions from what is a very large number of articles. The Behnam 06:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I am also one of the editors that has had to deal with Patchouli's sneaky POV pushing attempts. This is definitely a pattern of behaviour that he has on all articles related to the middle east. I am asking for your help to put a stop to User:Patchouli's abuses and his sabotage of wikipedia middle-east related articles. Please take the time to read the following links for information about his history of misconduct. I now feel that there's no reasonable chance to reach a resolution with him and therefore I'm seeking to present his case at the ArbCom or an RfC for user conduct. Please see User_talk:LittleDan#POV_pushing - Talk:Mohammad_Khatami#Patchouli_edits - User_talk:LittleDan#hello - User_talk:Alex9891#Khatami's reform protection Barnetj 17:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've already written about Patchouli many times before, and I don't want to repeat myself. He is not a good contributor and, in my opinion, should be banned. LittleDan 19:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I get frustrated whenever I see AN/I reports like this. One side, Patchouli, is vehemently ANTI-Iran, but then I see the other side, or a faction thereof, like Gerash77, who seems to have a long history of agitating against WIkipedia and actioning for it's censorship in Iran. I wind up feeling like if we deal with only the one issue brought to AN/I, but ignore the revealed OTHER problems, we're really not much better off, and possibly worse off. Can we address Gerash77's actions against what he calls a 'patchopedia', and brags of helping to censor it on his User Talk? ThuranX 03:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe at a different ANI. This particular ANI is about Patchouli's POV & OR editing, as well as unwillingness to compromise with a number of different editors. I don't think these different editors comprise some sort of anti-WP "faction;" the whole reason that Agha Nader started this and others, including myself, contributed is because Patchouli's disruptive edits are hindering the project. So I think it is unfair to characterize all of us as an anti-WP group just because one member of this group claims he convinced the IRI to filter WP. Anyway, this ANI hasn't really gone anywhere significant, and we are thinking about moving to an RFC or ArbCom. Most of the people who have had these unpleasant experiences with Patchouli consider ArbCom the best choice, including editors who haven't posted here (saving for ArbCom), so I intend to apply for ArbCom once I finally figure out the confusing process. The Behnam 08:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There isn't just Iranian who protest against "Patchouli". For example LittleDan neither Iranian nor Muslim. He's an admin of wikipedia. Please look at his comment on Patchouli's talk page few months ago:

"Hi there. Some people have told me that you've repeatedly violated the rules of NPOV in a number of articles that you have edited and created. I just want to tell you as clearly as I can that no article in Misplaced Pages is meant to convey a particular message or opinion, only the truth which has been agreed-upon by basically everyone. When you write an article that criticizes or advocates something or someone, this must be balanced by an opposing viewpoint in the same article. One user wrote on my talk page that you have created issues with the following articles:

*Mohammad Khatami's reforms (POV fork to bash a living person, just look at the introduction and how biased it's worded)

*Mohammad Khatami ( Please see the evidence of some of Patchouli's abuses at Talk:Mohammad_Khatami#Patchouli_edits, it includes links and refernces to his personal attacks on other users' talk pages calling them agents of foreign governments etc)

*Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists (adding Mullahcracy which is political epithet, jargon and neologism, as an alternative to the title of the article by citing political editorials! Also see Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Mullahcracy)

*Association for Defense of Azerbaijani Political Prisoners (POV fork)

*Khomeini's Islamic leadership (POV fork)

*Government-organized demonstration (POV fork)

If you continue to do things like this, I'll be forced to block you. Misplaced Pages is meant to be an encyclopedia, not an editorial page, and when you do this, it just makes more work for other editors who have to delete your articles and revert your changes. If you keep doing this, I'll have to block you from Misplaced Pages or bring this case to the arbitration commit. Another important thing is, Don't delete posts from your talk page. You should let others see what people have previously written to you, even if it isn't always positive. LittleDan 17:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Upon reviewing Misplaced Pages policy, this should actually be refered to the Arbitration committee. I will do that now. LittleDan 17:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)"

--Sa.vakilian 18:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well just have to say one thing about this user that he keep changing OBL lead with The Honored Sheikh Osama bin Muhammad bin Awad bin Laden, I do not think majority called him The Honored Sheikh and it should have any place in the lead of the article but changing it back again and again is not understandable to me. --- ALM 19:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Request assistance

I don't know if this is the right place for this, but I would like to call for a resolution on the matter of User:LexiLynn. At the very least, he is a bully who adds nothing of value to wikipedia. At the most, I have reason to believe he is a sockpuppet of the banned user JuliannaRoseMauriello, among others. He has made harrassing remarks on the topic of Stephanie Adams, as did JuliannaRoseMaurielllo. He has also made edits to the Jessica Lunsford page, as had either JuliannaRoseMauriello or WorkingHard, who I believe to be the same person anyway. He has also made libellous remarks about the user Cumberbund, as did WorkingHard. I'm sorry if this seems long and convoluted. It's hard to keep up with all his banned nicks. I believe a checkuser is in order. I am not an impartial observer as he has made libellous remarks about me as well, using an IP that is clearly not mine. I will submit to a checkuser test myself, to prove that point. Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Ispy1981 22:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That might work except you have about 15 administrators on here that have been following your wikistalking off and on wikipedia over the last few days. While maybe you'll get an admin here caught off guard, you certainly won't impress any of the admins who have already done checksums with you and seen your sock puppets.

While it's nice to pretend to be innocent on wikipedia and throw around terms such as libelous and others, just remember this: It's not nice when a 37 year old man stalks a 10 year old girl, and 4 admins have already seen the court paperwork against you. Good luck! LexiLynn 03:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Implying that another user is a stalker/pedophile goes far beyond acceptable. One more comment like that and you WILL be looking at a long block. --InShaneee 05:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Since LexiLynn thinks I'm Ispy1981 I also take great offense to the despicable attack charges. I'd like to see a link for this imaginary court paperwork or be contacted by an admin who puts any weight to these disgusting charges. What remains available for any admin or other Wikipedian is the ability to compare the edit histories of WorkingHard (banned by JimboWales), JuliannaRoseMauriello (also permanently banned), and LexiLynn to see the similarities. --InstaTornado 07:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

InstaTornado, I never said you were ISpy, please don't try and mislead admins on here. The admins I have been dealing in email with know exactly who you are, they know what is going on, and though some admins who don't know what is going on like InShaneee above, there are enough admins that do know. Some of them even have a copy of the police report. LexiLynn 19:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry. In a post at User_talk:Garion96 you mention an email you mention an email you sent to Garion96 that sounds like you point out we're both one and the same. (under title "Hand In Cookie Jar"). --InstaTornado 21:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If any admin here says it is okay to post the court paperwork let me know on my talk page, it WILL be posted. I didn't want to break any "privacy" concerns Misplaced Pages would have, but just for fun, let me know and it will be up within hours. Any admin here doubting the paperwork can feel free to call themself and verify it. LexiLynn 19:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"Court paperwork" about editors and allegations of this nature should not be posted on-wiki (much less should this be done "for fun"). Is there an administrator who is taking a close look at this entire situation? Newyorkbrad 19:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

LexiLynn has contacted several admins requesting email correspondence, but until they respond here any information about said correspondence would rely on LexiLynn's word. Leebo 19:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer not to be the admin to address this because I have previously edited Jessica Lunsford which is one of the articles in question, but someone needs to be on top of this. Newyorkbrad 20:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be a burr in everyone's saddle ,but, could someone take a look at the user 65.184.20.38? Many of the same sort of threats as Lexi Lynn. Thanks.

Ispy1981 21:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This edit by LexiLynn shows him correcting an edit by 65.184.20.38 so that he gets the credit. I think this is an admission by LexiLynn that he's also 65.184.20.38. --69.106.7.122 00:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

more sockpuppets here then in a sock drawer in a kids room. LexiLynn 21:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If you've already talked to the admins about it, and proven the sockpuppetry beyond any doubt, can you point me to the socks that have been blocked as a result? Surely, admins with this evidence wouldn't just sit on it after hearing from you. Leebo 22:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Several points here. #1 LexiLynn refuses to answer any questions regarding his/her/its various abuses here, just throws out unsubstantiated claims of sockpuppetry and hints at pedophilia. "A 37-year-old man"? Yes, that's why my username is Ispy1981. 2007-1981=37. Must be the new math. I have often said and will AGAIN say it clear, so that LexiLynn may understand, I will submit to any test wikipedia has to offer, to answer LexiLynn/65.184.20.38's outlandish claims. #2. I fail to see why no admin has come forward with a solution to this problem, given LexiLynn/65.184.20.38's history of abuses (check the edit histories). Perhaps Jimbo should be called in on this matter, as he has dealt with this user before, if indeed it is WorkingHard/JuliannaRoseMauriello. #3 If it is true, and I believe Leebo touched on this, that LexiLynn/65.184.20.38 has contacted "several admins" regarding me, why am I still here? Why is InstaTornado still here? Why have I been continuing to post/edit (I edited an article this morning, in fact.) I call pure BS on LexiLynn/65.184.20.38's part and would invite ANY admin who has had contact with LexiLynn to write to me on my talk page. I would like to review any court documents LexiLynn gave you or any correspondence you've had with LexiLynn. I doubt very seriously there are court documents, as LexiLynn does not know my true identity. I know LexiLynn's identity, but due to privacy rules on Misplaced Pages, I have held my tongue. There is more than enough evidence to see who LexiLynn really is, if one looks hard enough.

Ispy1981 01:45, 18 February 2007

I won't comment on the accuracy of her claims, but her manner in dealing with them is completely unacceptable. I've let her know that the next time she makes any such unfounded claims in inappropriate venues, she will be blocked, so let's just put this thread to rest. --InShaneee 04:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiStalking and blind reverting by Smeelgova

This editor has been incessantly stalking and blindly reverting my edits for a while now, depite repeated request that he stop. His edit warring is constant, but it tends to carry over into WP:STALK behavior as well. See (reversing his attempt to restore to an earlier version with miseladeing explanation)(reverting clearly non WP:RD source)here acting in tandem with a team of POV edit warriors--led to article rotection(gain restoring non WP:RS that was ultimately removed)9characterizing removal of non WP:RS as "vandalism")(blind reversion of inappropriate links that were ultimately removed)waits a few days to restore absurdly inappropritae EL) These are just some of his reverts; he generally works together with others in a group of highly vociferous Scientology critics, most notable Tilman (I have been trying to balance the more overt biases in some of those articles--removing clearly non-WP:RS sources, fixing gross misquotes, etc). These editors usually filibuster with absurd explanations in summaries and talk pages (claiming, eg, clearly non WP:RS sourced material should be reverted because it is "properly suorced" is a common time wasting tactic). I have warned Smeelgova a number of times that I would report him, although i am disinclined to take actions of that sort unless extreme, and despite his groups campaign against me (which has included outright false and distorted complaints about me). Anyway, its getting silly, annoying and a bit creepy. BabyDweezil 06:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This clearly is not a case of wikistalking nor blind reverting (as you put it). Smeelgova has edited the subject matter in your diffs for a long time, and his edit summaries appear to be attempting to engage you in a discussion regarding your edits. However, I'd like to remind both of you about edit warring - and encourage you to following WP:1RR; if someone reverts your edits do not simply revert them - discuss the subject and attempt to reach middle ground Glen 07:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This is clearly the editor's own personal interpretation of my edits. I have many if not all of the related articles on my watchlist, and have for some time now. This entire rant above amounts to a vicious violation of Misplaced Pages:No Personal Attacks, especially the allegations that I work in tandem with other editors - which I do not. This is not new, as BabyDweezil (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has a history of personal attacks against other editors. The user has also made a habit of inappropriately utilizing the edit summary space for personal attacks as well - instead of attempting to resolve conflicts on article talk pages and at least try to come to a consensus. Smee 06:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

I don't see anything in the diffs you provided to show you being stalked or otherwise harassed by Smeelgova. I have edited controversial articles with Smeelgova in the past, and have found him to be both hard working and careful in his edits to maintain NPOV. Jeffpw 06:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think BabyDweezil ought to look at his own conduct - as this page history demonstrates, he has a record of edit warring and disruptive behaviour which on this occasion forced me to protect a page. I'd not encountered BD before this week but frankly, I haven't been impressed by his confrontational approach - he doesn't seem to have understood that Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a cooperative project. I note that he's already been cited and blocked for this in the past (see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive163#Personal attacks and formal warnings and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive196#Text removal ban: BabyDweezil). It's unfortunate that he doesn't seem to have taken the hint. -- ChrisO 09:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Given the subject matter at issue, I think we may be dealing with a sock puppet of a known abuser or banned user here. A number of users have been banned outright, or banned from Scientology-related articles specifically, because of similar conduct: repeated personal attacks and revert warring, followed by claiming persecution / stalking / bias by editors who have been working on the articles for months. --FOo 10:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Is that the case? If so, could you give examples of banned editors? I myself no longer edit Scientology, simply because the anti-cult activists, who have usurped that article (in your lingo: have been "working" very meticulously on propaganda pushing), will not allow for their spin being removed from an article. Fossa_?! 10:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No longer editing scientology articles? Then you must have been the victim of a hacker who emulated your modus operandi (delete first, talk later).

Banned editors: AI, for example. --Tilman 13:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This complaint by BabyD strikes me as projection from a very aggressive editor. As ChrisO points out above, BabyD doesn't seem to have taken the hint of his recent blocks by myself for edit warring, incivility, and aggravated 3RR vio. Incidentally, Smeelgova was simultaneously reported to WP:AN3RR by User:Justanother, a supporter of BabyD, who produced the 3RR report by daintily picking out Smeelgova's reverts from the much more egregious sea of BabyD's. Smeelgova was found by another admin (as I didn't want to be making all the calls) not to have violated 3RR.. Bishonen | talk 13:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

My feeling is that BabyDweezil came to the Barbara Schwarz article less to improve it, more to enjoy arguing with the editors there. He made some rather scurillous arguments, like that a court document isn't a reliable source, or that there might be several Barbara Schwarz. --Tilman 13:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've had to protect Fred Newman twice because of BabyDweezil's edit warring, and I can confirm that dealing with him is difficult: he seems unable to write neutrally, is very aggressive, and can be very insulting to other editors. SlimVirgin 21:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Aw heck, Slim, and after all the nice things I've said about you... sniff :) But, to state the obvious--if there was an edit war precipitating the protection, obviously there were (at least) two sides in said war? Or lese you would have just sent me out to the cornfield and end of problem, no? So more acccurately then, I was in an edit war, yes, with other participants? BabyDweezil 07:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

BD is spot on about the rampant abuse of in many Scientology articles. Additionally his critics are exaggerating when they say that by voicing his concerns he is engaging in personal attacks. He is being railroaded in an attempt to get him banned by a group of editors that believe that the only rational POV RE: Scientology is a negative, mocking and hateful one. They defend this blatant anti-Scn POV (which, in fairness, they likely do not see.) by happily accepting as valid, heaps of cites from web pages maintained by Scientology hate groups. Anyone that tries to be bold and stand up to the bias gets gang tackled by the Scn despising editors here: witness the above piling on...It is an obvious and deliberate attempt to get him lynched.

Anyway, I think BD is a good editor who is exercising good faith and lots of courage in an attempt to combat the entrenched, deliberate and systemic bias against Scientology (which doesn't exist of course) - the net effect of which is that Misplaced Pages contains almost no accurate information about scientology in its scientology pages just inflammatory, mocking and hatefully exaggerated distortions.

Hang in there BD. There are those of us that agree with you. Don't get frustrated. And tone things down! The mob is incensed and hunting for a rope.---Slightlyright 00:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There are indeed real problems with the Scientology articles, just as there are with many other Misplaced Pages articles - poor sourcing and poor writing in particular. The problems do need to be dealt with. But the way to do that isn't to make the whole thing into a drama, edit warring, deleting content, making accusations against other editors and so on. People with strong views on any side of an issue edit Misplaced Pages all the time - all we ask is that they abide by the core rules of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS, assume good faith and behave in a cooperative and non-confrontational way towards other editors. That's not so much to ask, is it? -- ChrisO 14:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, OK, Stop, enuf, I'm getting cramps laughing!!!

I hereby withdraw any complaint against the unfortunately accused Smeelgova--no official redress can match the entertainment derived from reading your responses! Don;t know which was most precious...maybe it was Wikishrink Bishonen's psychiatric diagnosis (hey, send me a Wiki-bill, and same appointment next week same time?)...or perhaps FOo's worries about possible (shudder) sock puppetry on my part (got any proof of that cowboy, or are unproven personal attacks your sole contribution to my request?)...or there's ChrisO, yet again failing to disclose that off-Misplaced Pages he is a tireless Scientology basher, yet sees fit to perform admin functions on a controversial Scientology related page and consistently side with fellow Scientology bashers in the ensuing discussion, including advocating using non-WP:RS's that suit the bashers POV...or maybe Tilman, whose honed his skills at character assassination over 25,000-odd usenet postings now taking aim at me...or the beleaguered Smeelgova, who, in the best spirit of WP:OWN, notes that he is not blindly reverting me, because he has been wathcing the articles all along, and doggone it, someone's trying to change them!!! Anyway, thanks for the fun, but I see someone's personal webpage being used as a RS--gotta run and "disrupt" Misplaced Pages again now! Cheers!! BabyDweezil 16:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Even more inappropriateness and violations of Misplaced Pages:No Personal Attacks, here: DIFF Smee 21:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
  • And by the way, this entire post by BabyDweezil (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is a serious violation of Misplaced Pages:No Personal Attacks, and I don't speak for the other editors involved but I for one am highly offended at this inappropriate behaviour. Evidently certain individuals do not learn from multiple warnings. Smee 21:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Eeeek! help help!!! He's still stalking me, Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelp!!!!! BabyDweezil 21:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

BabyDweezil, I am this close to blocking you from editing for a while. You need to cool down. Your starting to cause a disruption and it won't be tolorated. Please remain civil with any more posts you make here. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I am quite cool; however, the response to my posting on this board was laced with personal attacks, pseudo psychiatric diagnoses, false and distorted claims about my behavior, and (bs) allegations of sock puppetry. Is that how claims are evaluated? If its without merit, just say so. If I am going to be attacked instead, I will respond as I did. If you wish to join the chorus of those who wish to demonize me, feel free. BabyDweezil 22:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do, J.smith. During his time off maybe BD will take the time to study WP:NPOV and understand what it means. Plus, it will help give many editors a much-needed break from having to constantly revert his rather odd POV edits. -- Big Brother 1984 07:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

Does BabyDweezil seem like a disruptive editor? I honestly have no interest in the validity of Scientology, and was actually looking into FOIA requests when I discovered Barbara Schwarz. Her FOIA related lawsuits and appeals number between 800-1200, many naming specific government employees as defendants. Ms. Schwarz is regretably now a prominant example of how far a pro se person can take a grievance against federal and state governments. The unique reality that drives her litigation is in part due to her views of and experiences with the CoS. It is also her association with the church that led to a violent de-programming attempt by Cyril Vosper, at the behest of her family. Ms. Schwarz has also had many ongoing fueds with groups like AHBL, and even Wikipedian editors on her article's talk page. Barbara Schwarz is an article which must be carefully written, and I believe it was before BabyDweezil began editing it. At first I thought BabyDweezil felt sorry for Ms. Schwarz and was defending her. Then BabyDweezil renamed a section of the article labelling her views as conspiracy theories, which is technically accurate but perjorative. I started to wonder if BabyDweezil's motivation was Scientology's image so I searched a few articles about the CoS and noticed BabyDweezil on some of the talk pages. As I have not been editing on those pages I will simply point to a few examples of BabyDweezil's disruptive behavior on the Talk:Barbara Schwarz page. BabyDweezil accuses another editor of COI, after a few editors and myself ask in what way the editor in question violated COI, BabyDweezil accuses the same editor of COI under a new section. Anynobody 07:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I second this report -- BabyDweezil is a highly disruptive editor. He seems to have a particular habit of using a tiny sliver of barely plausible concern for policy and loudly declaring that as justification for edits far beyond what is justified by his supposed source of concern. An excellent example is his action in regards to the following sentence and its reference:

This was in contradiction with police reports that had discovered at Aum's main compound in March, of a sophisticated chemical weapons laboratory that was capable of producing thousands of kilograms a year of the poison. CDC website, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Aum Shinrikyo: Once and Future Threat?, Kyle B. Olson, Research Planning, Inc., Arlington, Virginia

What was BabyDweezil's claimed concern about this sentence? Simply the word "contradiction"; he purported to find it "original research" to note a contradiction between the police reports and other publicly given opinions that had been mentioned previously. Did he suggest any alternate phrasing that would avoid the statement of there being a "contradiction"? No -- he removed the entire sentence. Misplaced Pages needs editors who try to encourage and develop well-sourced text, not editors who look for excuses to delete it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 08:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please also see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, as well as comments by editors and Administrators regarding this user's conduct, at: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Smee 08:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

I was also involved in that one... I remember that I asked him several times what his exact argument was.

My feeling about him is that he edits more because he loves "fighting" with certain people (including me), and less because he wants to improve articles. He came on Barbara Schwarz without bothering to read the sources and inform himself about the topic, and immediately started his usual behaviour, and started arguments that had been discussed months ago already. When told this, his answer was "Yes, but the arguments haven't been made with my silver tongued eloquence!"

Despite being blocked several times, he still hasn't learned to adopt a more constructive modus operandi. --Tilman 09:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

User has been blocked for 3RR on List of groups referred to as cults. This seems to be a worrying trend. Glen 09:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This is BabyDweezil's fourth block for 3RR and fifth block overall (discounting one erroneous block). I think we're getting to the point where we have to start asking what benefit we're getting from BD's continued involvement on Misplaced Pages. Given my own involvement in the issues being discussed I'm not going to propose a community ban, but I wouldn't oppose one either. -- ChrisO 14:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Please also see comments by other editors and Administrators, at User talk:BabyDweezil. Smee 21:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

User:JBAK white supremacist abusive message on talk page

User:JBAK has made some decent contributions including starting the page Bophuthatswana coup relating to white right-wing in South Africa. This page is presented fairly neutrally (although the style needs work). He/she also edits anonymously. Claims to be working with User:Williamdevino who was banned indefinitely for an abusive edit in December, but their style overlaps heavily, so it's highly likely that they are the same person. Related anonymous IP addresses made these abusive edits targeting User:RevJohn. User:JBAK most recently made a highly racist edit to their own talk page. Incidentally they also recently moved their user page to 8298182 in article space with the comment that they didn't want anyone to view it, then deleted it. What action can be taken? Zaian 09:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Not just everyday racism, but incitement to murder people of Sub-Saharan African descent.. Indef block recommended.Proabivouac 09:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the user indefinitely. That's a very shocking edit, and highly similar to the one that got the other editor you mentioned blocked indefinitely... This is weird though, because JBAK has a solid contribution history. Everyone else, please jump in and review... I think I'm going to bed soon. But I think this qualifies somewhat as a "death threat" and we shouldn't tolerate this kind of behavior under any circumstances anyway. Grandmasterka 09:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block, based on the severity of the comment, his editing through other accounts, and likely sockpuppetry (which is even more likely now). I've got no tolerance for shit like this myself. However, the edit almost makes it sound as though he wanted to be blocked, which might imply some sibling rivalry or something. That shouldn't be our problem, though. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd have given him a week's vacation, enough for him to see what happened and claim that the rogue edit was made by a retard who happened to come across a computer from which he hadn't logged out, or that he has some psychiatric disorder in which (for example) one personality is embarrassed by and apologizes for the behavior of the other personality. If that claim were made, I'd read it very sceptically; if such a thing happened again, I'd ban him permanently. One thing's for sure: the author of those comments (whether a child, a retard, or a mock-retard) isn't worth anyone's time. -- Hoary 09:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... But If that's the case, I'd rather have the real owner of the account come back whenever and have to say "OMG I'M SORRY" to get unblocked, personally. Grandmasterka 09:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If there's a good unblock reasoning given, I would probably be okay with giving him one more shot. Along those lines (i.e. to inform him of {{unblock}}), I just sent a uw-block3; hopefully you don't mind. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I also endorse the decision to indefinitely block.--Jersey Devil 19:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

He has now left me this friendly message on my user talk using an anon IP User:82.2.84.255.Proabivouac 21:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

24 hour block of that IP for personal attacks.--Jersey Devil 06:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This user may now be editing under the new account User:BOV1993. There are many common style features (starting a page on a right-wing South African topic, spelling mistakes "Viljeon", "Bophuthatswana Defense Force", and others). No abusive edits yet. Zaian 07:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Using an appropriate sequence of vandalism warnings

This message here has been prompted by the actions of User:James116, and the single warning this user got from User:SpuriousQ. James116 indulged in multiple incidents of vandalism today, and, although by the time SpuriousQ gave him a warning message on his talk page, he had carried out 4 such incidents, only one, non-specific warning was issued. I took some time to look at James116 contributuons today, and so could see that a total of 6 incidents of vandalism had occurred, including two after the warning given by SpuriousQ. If each incident had been separately logged and warned, the threshold for logging James116 at WP:AIV would certainly have been passed, and appropriate action could have been considered by the admins there. As it is, I feel an opportunity of prevention and stopping has been lost (until perhaps now), and a appropriate sequence of warnings has been "thwarted a little" (as I wrote in a message on SpuriousQ's talk page). I have, however, noticed that this failure to log each act of vandalism is very common and, in my opinion (though I'm only an editor) it subverts, almost certainly unintentionally, the means that are in place to combat persistent or "binge" vandals.

I've gone through and given James116 separate warnings for today's vandalism attempts (with the times at which they happened), but I thought it useful to raise this issue here, rather than log a report to WP:AIV, because of the mix-up over reporting that I think took place. This has meant that the vandalism is now more then two hours old (arguably not recent enough for action now to be taken). What is the recommended course of action? I know that flexibility should be allowed, but the amount of flexibility shown here has been, I argue, sub-optimal. Am I correct? What should be done about User:James116? Finally, it has made me think that perhaps a "cheat sheet" could be produced which gives a more clear sequence of actions editors might follow if they detect vandalism. This would only consist of guidelines, but it may be useful, and I wonder what the reactions would be to this? Thank you.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Long story short, I noticed a vandalism from James116, checked his history and saw he had committed a few others since his most recent warning (he had two priors), so I gave him a final warning that he would be blocked if he vandalized again. There's no reason to issue separate retroactive warnings for each prior vandalism that went unnoticed; in fact it's just more confusing both to the user and anyone reviewing the talk page. I've already reported to AIV, since DDstretch informed me he vandalized twice after the final warning. -SpuriousQ (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks or the summary. I personally find it most confusing to not have any indication of which vandalism attempts the warnings refer. It also makes it difficult to see whether any report to

Perhaps the AIV guidelines can be better explained somewhere, if they are not already. The basic idea is that AIV is to stop immediate future vandalism from happening rather than punish for old vandalism; i.e., the user must show a strong likelihood that they will vandalize again even after being told not to and informed that they may be blocked. That's the purpose of "proper set of warnings" and "vandalized after a recent last warning" (though the latter is more for IPs than for vandal-only user accounts). Given the blatant vandalism of James116 before and after the final warning, reporting to AIV was appropriate. -SpuriousQ (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If there is a multiple, obvious, string of vandalism, I see no issue in going right to level 3, 4, or 4im if necessary. -- Avi 16:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Deb 14:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, sometimes a vandal clearly knows what they are doing, in which case I think it's appropriate to jump right to level 3, 4, or 4im. For example, a vandal who is marking their edits as minor and giving an edit summary of "spelling" and then replacing the page with some all-caps screed obviously knows what they are doing and that it is wrong. Natalie 22:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with people jumping levels of warnings - I have done this myself on many occasions when i have warned people of vandalism. In one case, an anon IP (probably a sockpuppet) introduced some vandalism which a non-anon user apparently reversed, but which, in fact, added new and much more disruptive vandalism which had obviously been pre-planned given its nature and the additional resources, uploaded by the anon user, that had been later used. I obviously and correctly immediately reported them - as I said, there has to be flexibility. However, I do have a problem if there is a whole set of vandalising edits, and one warning is issued with no clear indication that all edits are covered by the warning, or which edits are covered. In some cases, there is also no clear indication of the level of warning that has been issued (this has happened a few times in my experiece) This latter situation could be easily corrected by a parenthetical comment in the warning itself, such as "(level 4, immediate)", but does rely on the correct warning templates being used, which also does not always happen. A further issue is, of course, where no warning is ever issued, and I have seen this happen far too frequently recently.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Saberscorpx (talk · contribs)

I originally listed this at WP:RFCN but they said this was a better forum. Saberscorpx is not exactly a vandal, but his sole contribution to Misplaced Pages has been to create and defend the article Saber's Beads which is a vanity neologism he created. He recreated it after a first AfD and I listed it for AfD a second time. I've also tried to get the image associated with the article deleted. Since then he's been doing slow scale spamming of my talk page with minor edits to the comments he's made on it, causing me to get the new messages link, sometimes several times a day . I asked him to stop and his response was an odd accusation that I had deleted his comments. I have done no such thing. He's been at his game of adding nonsense to Misplaced Pages for months now as seen here. Given his obvious COI I think the time has come to do something about him. I will admit I initially listed him at WP:RFCN after being annoyed with yet another useless edit of his to my talk page. And yes his talk page is mostly made up of warnings from me. I'm on my PDA now but later I'll link to diffs explaining things like why I warned him over the New Moon article (for adding his neologism to it several times after his article had alread been deleted.) Nardman1 17:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

On a random note, there was a strong consensus to allow this username based on username policy and the evidence presented at WP:RFCN. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Right, here's the amplification of the case I promised. First, here's the link to the user's defense at WP:RFCN:. You'll notice he's so consumed with his COI he ignores the fact that submitting information about yourself on Misplaced Pages is simply not allowed. Instead he accuses me of being jealous he came up with a new astronomical discovery. As to the diffs I promised for New Moon, he added his link twice in a day in January and and again a month later even after the second AfD started. He added this link to New Moon another time before and added a link about himself to "Lunar phase" 2 times. , and moved it up the list of links so it was almost first .He even once nominated his neologism for featured article status . He's also variously attempted to create a personal article about himself and add info about himself to various articles such as List of drummers and Illinois too many times to list all the diffs. More recently he's edited his comments on my user page several times in minor ways I believe is just calculated to annoy me. . Nardman1 20:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Wheel war at Category:Wikipedians born in 1993

There's a wheel war going on at Category:Wikipedians born in 1993 between numerous admins. There's a related discussion going on at DR regarding the 1992 category. All sysops involved seem to be well aware that they are wheel warring and there appears to be absolutely zero discussion going on regarding the matter at any talk page. --- RockMFR 21:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. Do these admins want to be desysoped or something? Because that's the road they are traveling on. Yuser31415 21:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Where's the list of stewards? Yuser31415 21:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Stewards don't have the authority to desysop (without the ArbCom's authorisation) unless it's an emergency... which this isn't. -- Steel 21:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

DRV has endorsed the deletion - crisis over.--Doc 21:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Good, I had just gone into the steward's IRC channel. However, wheel warring, in any shape or form is completely unacceptable and does not look good for the project at all. Yuser31415 21:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Not so much "numerous admins" as 1ne vs. all comers. I re-deleted per WP:DRV#Category:Wikipedians born in 1992 and the associated TfDs. If he undeletes again I think we might have a problem. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  I think this edit shows that 1ne has (albeit reluctantly) accepted the WP:DRV result . WjBscribe 00:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• 6 restores of the same repeatedly-deleted-by-community-consensus article is ok, but seven restores is the mystical number of doom? Proto ► 00:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I see 1ne has now deleted Category:Wikipedians born in 1989. That looks at little pointy as Wikipedians in this category must be 17 or 18. Can someone take a look? WjBscribe 00:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I will not restore, as I don't want to get dragged into the RFArb 1ne seems hellbent on, but I have asked him. Proto ► 00:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It has now been restored by Ryulong in any event. Undelete summary was: "9 revisions restored: This is a bit much, it passed CFD not five days ago". WjBscribe 01:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Which is a shame ... all of these unencyclopedic age user categories should be deleted. --Cyde Weys 01:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

And it is a redlink again... Titoxd 04:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Is someone readying the WP:RFAR case statement yet? – Chacor 04:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This is just stupid. Who cares how old a Wikipedian is anyways? Can't they just state it on their userpage anyways? I don't think any of you should be deleting/undeleting anything when there has already been a XFD on anything. — Moe 18:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

Elsanaturk is edit warring already, i suspect he is obvious sock of Atabek, he has had two socks recently and they both have been blocked, he is edit warring here, Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, check user states, "Obvious, disruptive sock puppet" = "Block. No checkuser is necessary." any admins i urge you to look into this before the edits get worse. These users keep on popping up its getting old and its disruptive to our article contributions. Nareklm 03:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: Diffs, please. Yuser31415 04:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

and Nareklm 04:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not seeing anything wrong with those edits. If you want, you can file a RFCU code letter "E", but otherwise you have a content dispute, and I would encourage you to move on to dispute resolution. Yuser31415 04:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Nareklm edit warring hiself on multiple pages, undoing other peoples edits without any explantion. I'm really concerned that no action was taken against Nareklm, who was proven to use sockpuppets (See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Nareklm) and who is edit warring again. He reverted all of my edits to the articles about Caucasian Albania and History of Nagorno-Karabakh without giving any reasons back to the versions of the banned sock User:Tutmoses8 and banned anon sock. I suspect that this disruptive activity is coordinated outside of Misplaced Pages, because a few users, including Nareklm follow my edits and undo them without any explanation. Anon IPs and socks are also used for this purpose. Those users are not known as contributors to the pages they are reverting and most probably are not even well familiar with the topics of the articles they revert. I would appreciate if someone looked into this issue. Grandmaster 06:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually was blocked and this doesn't concern you unless you have any confessions to make? you edit war much more than me, you know why i reverted i only reverted 1 time per article is that against the rules? no, i didn't see anything behalf of your part adding the info, and removing info and making it suitable to your needs.Nareklm 06:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Nareklm, you say "you edit war much more than me, you know why i reverted i only reverted 1 time per article is that against the rules?" In which case, you are violating the spirit, even if not the letter, of edit warring and should be blocked. Is that clear? Yuser31415 06:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Erm, i mean revert basically the same thing, and i have not edit warred since i have been blocked the user is stalking me and replying everywhere with my sock puppet case which admins have closed. Nareklm 07:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You "revert basically the same thing"? What do you mean? Yuser31415 07:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I meant when i said edit war to reverting comparison, i never reverted more two times on any article these past days since i was blocked, yet grandmaster is bringing up groundless accusations, him adil and dacy have been bringing this up hard these past hours, even though this case was closed bringing up irrelevant things since this has nothing to do with him. Nareklm 07:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You've heard what I said. Edit warring again will result in an immediate restriction of your access to the site. Furthermore, I suggest you do not be hypocritical and throw baseless accusations of sockpuppetry around when a checkuser case regarding your own was closed positively only three days ago. Yuser31415 07:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I provided references for all of my edits, but Narek reverted each and every one of them without any explanation. And I was reverting socks of User:Ararat arev and Nareklm, helping the admins to clean up the mess. Grandmaster 07:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: Diffs, please. Yuser31415 07:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You can't get over the fact that i wasn't blocked right? stop adding nonsense to articles and start discussing you added it you discuss i don't revert for fun i was obviously not satisfied with your edits and you removed alot of references to so stop with that. Nareklm 07:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

And quit arguing, you two. Yuser31415 07:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Here I reverted a proven sock of Ararat arev: and edits by this vandal account: . ANother sock here: And I rvd some more socks earlier. I did not make more than 1 or 2 rvs anyway, but these edits should have been rvd. Grandmaster 07:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

What's your point? those aren't even me. Nareklm 07:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this IP yours: Grandmaster 07:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No it is not. Nareklm 07:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Also I find it strange that the sock accounts rvd in parallel with certain established users, supporting their actions to supress the info they did not like. Grandmaster 07:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Another scok I rvd: Grandmaster 07:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Again stop bringing up irrelevant users, go do a check user on ararat and me please. Nareklm 07:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Here: Grandmaster 07:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying you are each others socks, it just looks very strange that you rv activity is so well coordinated with that banned user. Grandmaster 08:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Diffs of Nareklm reverting your ref'd edits, please. Yuser31415 07:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention him and Tabib are very similar, rv to Grandmaster, his last edit was well-referenced. Nevertheless, putting totallydisputed tag..., rv to last version by GM, rv POV to last version by Grandmaster, rv to GM. Stop edit warrying and deleting referenced material.,rv to last version by Grandmaster. Eupator, pls, stop edit war, and how many is that ? and still counting. Nareklm 03:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Here: Grandmaster 07:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

And can Nareklm state why he did so? Yuser31415 07:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

As one could expect, no explanation has been provided. Grandmaster 12:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Elsanaturk and Atabek are not the same people. One lives in Azerbaijan, the other does not. Khoikhoi 07:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Khoi what a person huh, he just closed the discussion in one sentence. Nareklm 07:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Please check this: . Edit warring is continued by another user. Grandmaster 08:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

And your pointis? who is Atabek? you dacy, adil always revert together another thing to point out you guys never message each other even in edit summaries you guys would simply say revert. Nareklm 19:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Most of Atabek's and Elsanaturks edits are pointless edit warring. They simply go around removing information they dont like on several pages. They start needless and pointless edit wars, which then drag other users in to stop the removal of sourced information.Azerbaijani 15:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the above pretty accurately describes what you do. You go around and revert the articles to which you never contributed a single line just to undo the edits by Azerbaijani users. I can illustrate my point by examples of such behavior. Grandmaster 16:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Not true, basically anything you add contains POV.Nareklm 03:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Block log problem?

I blocked a user over half an hour ago and it doesn't show in my log or the user's block log, but it does show up on Special:Ipblocklist. Has anyone seen this happen before? (Time of block: 11:30, 17 February 2007, user: Kilda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) NoSeptember 12:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I tried to block the user, but it said they were already blocked, although there's no log entry. Grandmasterka 12:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I blocked myself and it worked. I've always wanted to read what the message blocked users get looks like and now I have. Grandmasterka 12:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahm ... MediaWiki:Blockedtext. Viridae 13:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

But do you get the heart-pounding thrill without experiencing a real block? ;) NoSeptember 13:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

That's the second MediaWiki page I've found out about that I never knew existed, today, before I even start my day. But anyway, the original problem only seemed to happen on that one block. Grandmasterka 19:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Power level (Dragon Ball)

Power level (Dragon Ball) (talk · contribs) has made what I believe is a veld threat to another user, TTN (talk · contribs), in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Raditz. Apparently, the two, along with Dark Dragon Flame (talk · contribs), have been in a dispute about whether to merge/redirect Raditz into List of Saiyans in Dragon Ball prier to this coming to AfD for a "larger opinion". I have already issued a warning to Power level (Dragon Ball), but further admin actions may be needed. --Farix (Talk) 12:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Is that first diff the one you meant to post? --Onorem 12:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing this was what you meant to post? --Onorem 12:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops, that's what I get for having several tabs open. But yeah, that's the right diff. --Farix (Talk) 12:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I deal with the user a lot, I'll handle it. --Deskana (request backup) 12:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I have to go out now, can someone else handle it and I'll take a look at it later? Thanks. --Deskana (request backup) 12:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe any further action is required at this time. Farix did the correct thing. Yuser31415 20:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Continued abuse of admin privileges by Darwinek

A previous incident involving admin Darwinek was discussed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive182#Improper blocking by Darwinek. That involved his block of me, reversed by another admin.

Now User:Darwinek continues to abuse his admin powers in relation to a different article, Zoran Petrovic.

On 17 February 2006 15:57 UTC User:Darwinek moved Zoran Petrovic to Zoran Petrović with the edit summary "moved Zoran Petrovic to Zoran Petrović over redirect: Serbian name".

In the same minute, Darwinek protected the page "Protected Zoran Petrović: move protected unless dispute is solved "

If there is a dispute, however, User:Darwinek is one of the two disputants, and just as he did in abusing his blocking power to gain advantage in a content dispute, he is now using his page protection power to gain advantage in a content dispute.

Furthermore, is there really a dispute? There is no discussion of any dispute on the talk page; in fact, Talk:Zoran Petrović and Talk:Zoran Petrovic remain redlinks. There is no discussion of any dispute at User talk:Darwinek nor at User talk:Gene Nygaard, and there aren't any other participants in any dispute as far as I know.

Darwinek has also not requested a move under Misplaced Pages:Requested moves, so there is no dispute under discussion there.

Prior to this, on 17 February 2007 at 12:27 UTC, Darwinek had moved Zoran Petrovic to Zoran Petrović with the edit summary: "moved Zoran Petrovic to Zoran Petrović: Serbian name".

Three hours later, at 15:40 UTC, I (User:Gene Nygaard) reverted that move with the edit summary: "moved Zoran Petrović to Zoran Petrovic over redirect: revert undiscussed, unreferenced move by User:Darwinek contrary to all cited sources."

It remains a totally undiscussed, unreferenced move by Darwinek.

In fact the only substantive edits Darwinek has made to the article were the early addition of a stub category, and since the first renaming his only substantive edit was to change one Petrovic to Petrović, and at the same time delete the Category:1952 births and Category:Living people entries, in an edit marked minor with no explanation of why he was doing so.

It remains true that all references cited in the article use the "Zoran Petrovic" and that none use the "Zoran Petrović" spelling. It isn't even established by any citation to any Misplaced Pages:reliable source that "Zoran Petrović" is an acceptable variant spelling deserving of mention in the introduction, let alone that it is worthy of consideration alongside the verified "Zoran Petrovic" spelling in choosing the proper name under Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions.

As an admin, Darwinek is also presumably aware of the Misplaced Pages:No original research policy. When it has specifically been pointed out that there is no source for a claim, then it is his obligation to provide one if he wants to continue making that claim. Gene Nygaard 17:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected the page. Use the talk page of the article or dispute resolution to resolve the problem. — Nearly Headless Nick 17:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

After posting this, I see that Darwinek has also protected a series of other pages (Damir Matovinović and several others), but once again only after making similar moves on his part to gain unfair advantage from his admin powers. The only difference in most of those cases is that, unlike this one, the earlier unreferenced undiscussed moves were made by a different editor, in most cases User:SndrAndrss, who not only has a propensity for making unreferenced, undiscussed moves, but also completely fails to address the various attempts by several editors to discuss his various headstrong actions at User talk:SndrAndrss. Gene Nygaard 17:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, in the interest of fairness, the page protection should not only be removed as Nearly Headless Nick has done for

Is it you, Eugene, who is generally not liked by the community, and is it you who will be definitely blocked for life sooner or later. - Darwinek 17:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Your chauvinist vomits are clear as always, you obviously don't fight against "unreferenced moves" which didn't stress diacritics. I can easily move e.x. Ramon Brown to Roman Brown and you will be OK with that. - Darwinek 17:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Darwinek, please don't get provoked. This can be sorted out by dispute resolution. — Nearly Headless Nick 18:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You are hoist on your own petard on that one, Darwinek. You didn't mess with my reversion of the unreferenced move of Valery Medvedtsev which didn't involve diacritics. Quite clearly, it is you who are the disruptive fanatic. Gene Nygaard 18:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

OK Nick. I don't know how far you know this user but in a few words I can say that, he dreams about Misplaced Pages pure as a Lebensborn, Misplaced Pages without diacritics and "strange foreign characters" (citation) at all. This is NOT a content dispute, this is vandalism by his person, vandalism aimed to whitewash all diacritics. He actually don't care about my edits but he stalk them every day, cause he knows I am one of the strongest and firmest hard-liners trying to stop his destructive edits. - Darwinek 18:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have known this user to be disruptive on Cricket-related articles. However, making attacks on another user will make others assume bad faith with you. Start an RfArb or an RfC, if there hasn't been one, in the first place. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick 18:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Nick. I have been considering that long time ago. I will start RfArb soon with other users, probably. Best regards, - Darwinek 18:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (Nearly Headless Nick) has unprotected the Zoran Petrović article with the edit summary: (Unprotected Zoran Petrović: Please do not use admin tools on articles when you are involved in content dispute.)

But it remains a half-finished job. Darwinek was using his admin privileges to gain advantage in a content dispute. He was protecting his own changes in spelling, in deleting categories, and in moving the article. What he was protecting, to improperly gain advantage, remains there. Somebody still needs to level the playing field by restoring the article to its original name, before the undiscussed and unreferenced moves, and then if Darwinek wants to make a move, he can make his case for doing so. Gene Nygaard 04:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The protection was clearly inapropriate... However the argument over the move is a Content Dispute. This page is NOT for resolveing content disputes. If you disagree with the move, take it to WP:DR. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue here isn't a content dispute. It is about continuing to allow Darwinek to retain the advantage he sought by the improper abuse of his admin powers.

Further, the procedures in WP:DR are clearly not an appropriate forum in this case. Misplaced Pages has a well-established process for this purpose in Misplaced Pages:Requested moves, and that is where Darwinek ought to take it if he wants to make this disputed move. Gene Nygaard 14:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Gene, please request a move at WP:RM. This will probably form a consensus on what the appropriate title is. Conscious 15:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Further moving of pages around, while the dispute is pending, will only increase the dispute and rancor and confusion, and will not be done. Proceed from here. Newyorkbrad 15:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion, continuing copyvio

Top Gun (talk · contribs) was blocked for the second time for putting copyvio material into articles. The block is still active. Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Top Gun confirms that 87.116.171.227 (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of Top Gun. This IP is making contributions despite the block and is presumably still identical with Top Gun, cf. . The IP is continuing the pattern of copying copyrighted material, e. g. in from . The modus operandi is such that the copyvio material is hard to find and to remove. I ask for administrator action to make it stop. This is a repost of yesterday’s complaint; if the request is unwarranted, I would appreciate somebody noting so. —xyzzy_n 19:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I was the blocking admin the second time around. This user seems to have a troubled history; given this socking I suggest extending the block to indef and making it a community ban. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I already gave this my best shot. Why this user is evading a ban in order to insert copyvios into our articles I will probably never understand, but that is clearly what is going on. Block anything that looks like this until this person decides to take a different approach. Jkelly 04:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I definitely support a block. Despite the fact that he has good intentions, he has stated that he is unable to do edit these articles without inserting copyvios (see edit summaries that are most likely deleted). I originally discovered his copyvios on new page patrol and brought the original complaint against him on AN/I after many, many copyvios and subsequent deletions and I can't see any way to deal with him. Even after some very tolerant and good faith intervention (by Jkelley), I really don't see any other solution. John Reaves (talk) 05:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion, continuing copyvio (Version 2.0)

Oussma (talk · contribs) was blocked for the second time for putting copyvio material into articles. The block was indef after a dozen of warnings. I had executed an earlier block of 1 week. Oussamama (talk · contribs) came back evading the block days later. I decided to leave him edit and give him a second chance while keeping an eye on their contributions. Alas, same old stories again. Many warnings followed. I had to block their account again. Oussamama5 (talk · contribs) has just appeared on Feb. 16th. They've already made it again. They just don't care about the Copyright policy as they did here.

Does this user needs more explanations re copyright issues? If yes, than can someone please have a word w/ them? If no, is there any solution to this evasion of blocks? Or would be sane to keep blocking them every since and then? -- FayssalF - 19:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked through Oussamama5's contribs, 90% of them were adding wikilinks to other articles. I didn't see any copyvio in those.⇒ SWATJester 20:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The articles are probably deleted, so they won't show up in the contribs. Daniel.Bryant 22:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh argh, I remember dealing with this user back in December. Yes, he posted and reposted a lot of copyvios, both images and articles. If you're really interested, you could probably find many of them by checking my delete log for 9 December 2006 (and probably a couple of days afterwards too) for articles and images about aircraft and military equipment. He never responded to the numerous messages I left for him, and I had the impression that English might not be the best language for communicating with him. Maybe someone could try in Arabic and/or French? Anyway, yeah, he really did not seem to understand about copyright. FreplySpang 00:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Conflict between two users

There has been an ongoing conflict between the two users Messhermit and Bdean1963 on Peru-related articles. Their edit warring had caused the Tacna Region and the War of the Pacific article to be protected. They then went on to edit war in the main Peru article, when I saw this I warned both of them to stop. They said they would stop but instead the user Bdean1963 tried to sneek around this by making the same edits to the History of Peru article and Messhermit responded the same way by reverting. So I blocked them both for 24 hours on that occasion. Today I saw that they were again edit warring in the List of Presidents of Peru article. They had been doing so for maybe three days now. So I gave them both a 48 hour block. I would like the advice of some administrators on how to handle this situation because it seems that both users think they are in the right and are unwilling to stop their edit warring.--Jersey Devil 20:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been observing proceedings for a while from the sidelines. The pair of them should agree not to edit any Peru articles until these disputes have been resolved through mediation on talk pages etc. They have been raging for months and causing a lot of disruption. If they continue to edit any of the affected articles without going through the dispute processes, they should be blocked for increasing periods. Actually, wasn't Messhermit already banned from article mainspace by arbitration?-- Zeitzen 20:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an admin, but I was making a small effort to get agreement on the War of the Pacific spat. As to the background, Messhermit was banned from Alberto Fujimori and articles regarding the Ecuador-Peru dispute at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Messhermit; the ban expires in May. On the up-side, Messhermit and Bdean1963 have made some attempts to undertake dispute resolution. There's a case at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-08 War of the Pacific opened by Messhermit. Bdean1963 created Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/War of the Pacific, but that was rejected as Messhermit didn't sign up. As with many multi-article content disputes, it's very difficult for an outside observer with a fuzzy grasp of the topic(s) to understand what's actually disputed, and where, and why it should matter anyway. In general, Bdean1963 isn't terribly communicative, while Messhermit is rather the opposite. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin either, but I regularly edit Peru-related articles, and have had some run-ins with both of these guys. I've had very little actual user-to-user contact with Bdean1963 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I have, however, had a lot of contact with Messhermit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). For purposes of full disclosure, I will bluntly tell you that most of my experience with Messhermit has been extremely negative: he frequently calls me a communist, a terrorist sympathizer, a Shining Path member, etc. That being said, he has engaged me in civilized conversation on Talk:List of Presidents of Peru in the past few days. I still think he's wrong on the issue there, and is in violation of policy by refusing to provide sources for his own claims and deleting sources provided by me, but at least he's avoided calling me names, and I'm quite thankful for that. Frankly, I'm willing to deal with anyone who is at least somewhat polite.

I'd also like to point out that neither one of these users actually violated 3RR on List of Peruvian Presidents. In fact, Bdean1963 just arrived at the page shortly before JerseyDevil blocked him

For some background information, Messhermit was banned from editing the article Alberto Fujimori, a former Peruvian president who Messhermit thinks very highly of. Messhermit has never really respected the ban, however, and was blocked for five days for massive violation of the block proven by checkuser (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Messhermit). He claimed that he'll never edit that article again, but was actually blocked a second time for violating it.

I hope that this information is of at least some use, although it probably won't be. --Descendall 06:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I asked Descendall to participate here because he regularly contributes in the types of articles in which these two users are having their edit wars. I will say however that WP:3RR does not give user's the right to three reverts and I will say that the user has been told to stop edit warring with Messhermit in these types of articles and that is why he was blocked.--Jersey Devil 06:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Trolls/vandals/sockpuppet out in force

This started yesterday and is starting up again. What seemed to start as User:Marshalbannana adding unfactual information to an article, which was reverted by myself and User:Looper5920 and others, has become a directed vandalism effort by a person/group of editors from IP addresses in Marietta, Georgia. I'd appreciate help in identifying the IP origins and blocking them.

Common editing elements;

• Adding penis images to user pages and subpages of admins who have reverted or blocked the IPs. See this edit to User:Yandman's talk page.
• Soliciting users (both registered and IPs) who have been reverted or blocked by myself and others to track my contributions and revert them.
• Reverting edits made by admins and others in apparent retaliation:
  • Special:Contributions/68.219.3.133
  • Special:Contributions/68.219.13.118
  • others

As another admin noted, there are more RC patrollers and admins who will prevent this type of trolling. Thanks in advance for the additional help. — ERcheck (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I was gonna block, but I saw you did it already. Looks like a disgruntled editor is trying stir up some trouble. Revert, Block, Ignore. They will wonder off eventually and be forever forgotten like so many others. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree on the R, B, I; the help of a number of RC patrollers and admins yesterday made it manageable. Hope for the same today. — ERcheck (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Oop. Didn't notice this discussion. Whether it was an individual or a group, they had access to a very wide number of IP ranges, including multiple ISPs. After sprotecting a fair number of pages, I realized they were trolling through the contribs of most of the users reverting or cleaning up after them -- finding this entirely unacceptable, and considering their apparent refusal to take a hint from narrower blocks and protections, I laid down some pretty heavy rangeblocks for a few hours. I haven't seen a sign of them, since then, but if anybody sees it pop up again, let me know. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... on further review, I see that they've just run away from anywhere I was watching. I am fully prepared to block those ranges again -- any objections? – Luna Santin (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please take care of it with "extreme prejudice." Thanks, Cla68 01:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Luna Santin. I completely agree with whatever range block measures you can apply. — ERcheck (talk) 04:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thank you to all involved with reverting the vandalism. You never truly appreciate the vandalism police until they help you out. Cheers--Looper5920 04:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Saikano (talk · contribs) - problematic user

I was on MFD earlier and noticed this particular MFD, for Saikano's user page. The user page is a soapbox against various things, particularly American anime and lolicon, and he has had several outbursts about it despite being warned about incivility. However, this user seems to have a history of soapboxing on various related talk pages and articles, as well as Saikano-related articles and images). For instance: , , , , . The user has been warned about all these various things and continues to post to various pages in a disruptive manner. --Coredesat 22:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Steve block and civility

I'm not sure how to precede here, but Steve block (talk · contribs) has taken exception to the term "webcomic warriors" which I used to describe those who have been fighting over webcomic articles on AFD and DRV and was starting to spill over into an edit war on Misplaced Pages:Notability (web).

I would normally issues a civility warning, but I fear that that would just inflame things with his passion in defending webcomic on Misplaced Pages to the hilt. So I request for someone who is not involved to chime in on this one. --Farix (Talk) 22:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any incivility problems here. -- Steel 22:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Must say I agree with Steel. I don't see any incivility there. Apparently he disagrees with you, and he disagrees with your creation of a particular term, but he's not being incivil about it (at least in those two diffs). —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"I don't disgree, but remember, I am a webcomic warrior so I must cleave your head in two with my broadsword." We block indefinitely for death threats. Yuser31415 23:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Good thing that wasn't a death threat then. -- Steel 23:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yuser, if that was serious, please accept this WP:TROUT . A better example of the ridiculously liberal interpretation of supposed death threats around here would be hard to find. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The only thing wrong with Steve block's statement was that he misspelled disagree. — MichaelLinnear 01:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

24.168.32.207 (talk · contribs) - Vandalism

This IP address vandalized the Slam Dunk article twice today. TJSwoboda 00:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I gave him a warning. If the problem continues, see WP:AIV. The Behnam 00:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Punk and EMO

I've just got a message from a user on my talk page about a revert debate going on at Template:Punkbox. Apparently edit comments should be able to fill you in on what the hassle is, and there's discussion going on here. Sorry to cut and paste and dump and run, but it's past my bedtime and I'm not sure when next I'll be on. Steve block Talk webcomic warrior 01:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Threat

I received this threat on my talk page in reference to a nonsense page that I speedied earlier today - Special:Undelete/Rommywood. I have blocked the user indefinitely. The IP under which he left the message maps to "Ocean State Higher Education and Administration Network ", so I have blocked the IP for a month and left a message on its talk page asking for the system administrator to contact me via email if it is a shared IP. Because I am obviously involved in this situation (the object of the threat), I am requesting a review of these actions. Thank you. --BigDT 01:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like that person was hoping for the response that they received for their actions, i.e. baiting Misplaced Pages. I believe your actions in response were appropriate. Cla68 01:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Several accounts

Hello all, I can't remember if this is the place to request this, but can we see if the following accounts were created from the same IP range, and if so can we find out all the accounts that have done 5 edits or less and that have existed for more than 2-3 months?

• User:Saikogrrl
• User:Mikegaycraig
• User:Marslando

All of these accounts have been vandalising Ed Kavalee, and all appear to have been created some time ago just to get around semi-protection. This means that there are probably more of them, in which case I think we should proactively work out which ones were created and then decide whether to indefinitely block them or at least come to some sort of solution to prevent further vandalism. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• WP:RFCU. – Chacor 02:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The alternative is? Sorry, it seems to have been cut off! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I removed the comment from the trolling account, don't wory Ta bu shi da yu.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Barringa, engaging in racist trolling

User:Barringa is violating several WP policies by using the Reference Desks as his conduit for antisemitic propaganda. On February 10, he asked the following "question" on the Humanities RD:

"Beginning with the gold looted from Egypt and eventually formed the Golden Calf all the way up to Howard K Stern's persuit of money via a having a relationship with Anna Nicole Smith? -- Barringa 17:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)"

The question was removed for violating WP:SOAPBOX.

On Feb. 17, Barringa asked this question:

"Both Moses and Jesus condemned Jews who demonstrated their love and worship of money, wealth and possessions above God. (Moses and the Golden Calf, Jesus Christ and the Money Changers). Is not then the worse possible condemnation of Jews demonstrated when a person or group possess, loves or worships wealth, material possessions and money above God? -- Barringa 00:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)"

Two hours later, he made the following response to a question on religious prophets:

"::Yes and Jews who have a greater affinity for worldly possessions than for God are greatly in need of the first . Whereas true Christains have been saved from being swallowed up by the Earth through their faith and belief in Jesus Christ as God. -- Barringa 02:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)"

When confronted, he has tried to rationalize his behavior and refused to change. However, he has demonstrated a consistant pattern of abusing WP. -- Mwalcoff 03:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely, userspace protected for reasons which should not be spelled out. El_C 03:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

40 Anonymous IP Address Vandals

I am reporting the following 40 anonymous IP Address users which are listed here. Each of these anonymous IP address vandals have been involved in removing WikiProject templates from related pages, leaving a statement which links to this page.

I have had similar problems like this with other groups of anonymous IP address vandals in two phases which has been documented here and here.

I respectfully request for a speedy block for all of these IP Addresses to prevent further POV vandalism in the future. Thank you. Wiki Raja 06:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If anything, the range is 59.92.32.0/20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), but this is an issue since it is the IP range for the entire city of Chennai, a major city in India.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Does that mean that all 40 of the anonymous IP address users have been blocked? Regards. Wiki Raja 07:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• I temporarily blocked 59.92.0.0/16 over this for 8 hours, but as these all appear to be dynamic IP's there was no way I was blocking that entire country over some template placings. — xaosflux 13:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• • It is probably one guy traveling around with a laptop connection to wireless networks. InBC 13:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Lisa Nowak

This article is currently under a barrage of vandalism by a variety of IP's all posting the same porno image at the top. Please protect this article as quickly as possible. Rklawton 03:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Generally, requests for page protection go to Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

194.90.125.208

I posted this before and it archived without response. So, repost then...

I was wondering if someone could look into 194.90.125.208's edits. I came accross this IP editor after this edit popped up on my watchlist, and I looked at the user's contribution list, and almost all of this users edits are to some sort of link section (extrenal links, sources, etc.)

These edits look suspicious--they all go to the same website, but I can't tell whether or not they are spam because they are all in Hebrew.

Here's 194.90.125.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for your convience, because even though I'm fairly sure there's another IP something that provides info that doesn't label the person as a vandal, I have no idea what it is. Thanks ~~Miss Mondegreen | Talk   04:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's definitely spamming (you don't need to be able to read Hebrew to see spamming). Blocking the IP doesn't appear to be an option right now, as it appears to belong to an Israeli ISP. I would suggest requesting that the page be blacklisted.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Israeli ISPs can't be banned why? Miss Mondegreen | Talk   10:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks shared.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

User:RockyMarky

This user continues to remove speedy deletion tags (dp:repost) from Next Era Wrestling. Mere minutes ago, the page was deleted and within a minute, he had recreated the page. The page was previously deleted as you can see simply by looking at the page's log. EDIT: Nevermind, looks like the page has been locked.

Yeah, it was recreated in order to salt it. Philippe Beaudette 04:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What does Salt mean in this circumstance out of curiosity?

Salting the earth--Hu12 04:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, when an article space is "salted", the article usually can not be recreated there. Philippe Beaudette 04:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

RfC/Personal attacks

I've been under constant personal attacks recently from User:Worldtraveller (, , ), who is currently editing only to launch such attacks and to work on his essay of much recent note about Misplaced Pages's failures. Additionally, he's opened up an RfC against me, which has gone two days of spamming without certification, and I would like to see closed. Though these are clearly personal attacks, I of course would not like to simply deal with this behavior myself, and would appreciate other admins looking into this (I have thus far been unable to receive any input on the situation).

On another note, my now closed RfC is still being edited, and I've been unable to receive any comments on what to do there, either. --InShaneee 04:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

(I confine myself to the procedural questions.) The more recent RfC has remained uncertified for well more than forty-eight hours and so can be deleted straightaway by any uninvolved party (the endorsement of the statement of the dispute by an uninvolved party ≠ a certification of that which underlies the dispute inasmuch, most notably, as the former does not reflect the endorsing user's having tried to resolve the dispute). On the latter issue, an RfC, to my understanding, is generally not formally closed, such that there is not after some period erected a bar to further participation (beyond, of course, the abiding WP:CIVIL, etc.); one can safely divorce him/herself of an "old" RfC, though, I imagine, when its constructive potential appears exhausted (viz., when a consensus of editors has been borne out and contributions tend only to represent unsubstantial endorsements or restatements of expressed views). Joe 05:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

70.113.94.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) * Vandalism continuous attack on the article.

• Bakasuprman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), India Rising (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Soman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 70.113.94.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) continuesly attack the page National Development Front see its history.. I try to correct the article with other user's point of views and help user:sundaram7 to bring more valuable data. But they just change the page to old versions without putting any reason in the talk page or in the discussion page. This is continuing for couple of months. Ganeshco 07:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Tooj

Tooj1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Tooj2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Tooj3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), probably more. All the same user, vandalise only once on each account so I can't report any individual one. Someone deal with it; I have to go now. Thanks – Qxz 07:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, here we go. Tooj117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be blocked already, and is the user behind this. Hopefully that doesn't meant there are 116 more of them – Qxz 07:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I see it has been done. Thanks to whoever did that – Qxz 07:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't that hard—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

My request here, and the links I provide, may be enlightening. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 09:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Report on Sarvagnya's behavior and violations on Misplaced Pages

I am reporting user Sarvagnya in regards to his behavior and violations on Wikipeida. To save space on this page, I have created a separate page in regards to this case here. I humbly request for this matter to be looked into and for a consideration for Sarvagnya to be blocked. Thank you. Wiki Raja 09:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Report on Admin Blnguyen

I am reporting administrator Blnguyen for abuse of his authority and favoritism. I understand that he takes an interest in the Kannadiga culture of Southern India which I admire. However, it does not justify him on taking sides and showing favoritism towards a particular group or individual here on Misplaced Pages. Further information on this situation can be found here. I humbly request for someone to look into this issue and to deal with this accordingly. Thank you. Wiki Raja 10:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Admins don't really have any "authority". They have a set of admin tools. If he has misused those tools then provide evidence because all I see is him not doing what you want, which is not a crime. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a clear incident report. El_C 10:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can take sides (as long as you're not applying it to articles:)). Go see WP:RFA. Bias is natural. Jorcoga 11:07, Sunday, 18 February '07

I understand and am not here to get people in trouble for no reason. Neither do I like doing this. It is understandable that admins have a lot of responsibilities. However, would be of good if he could be a little more neutral. Also, please look into the Sarvagnya case. He is getting away with a lot of things, in broad daylight. Wiki Raja 12:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Per his talkpage, Blnguyen is on a wikibreak anyway. Newyorkbrad 15:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

March Days

Hi, I would like to report that the site to which I and few other users made major contributions with referenced material from NPOV sources, has been vandalized by user User:Aivazovsky and blocked for editing at version which has only one paragraph left. Can you please, investigate the issue? Please, check the full version,

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=March_Days&oldid=108860969

and the version left by Aivazovsky without any consulting on discussion page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/March_Days

I would like to say that few users including myself have put a lot of time to research and edit this site with NPOV references, so it's unfair that the site has been practically hacked in such manner. User:Aivazovsky has done the same thing at Qazakh page, where he simply is not able to come to consensus at Talk:Qazakh and did not provide a single reference to support his point. Please, advise what to do as the edit at March Days looks nothing other than vandalization of that site. Thanks. Atabek 11:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to support Atabek on this. I have to mention that this is not the only example of Armenian users completely undoing referenced edits by Azerbaijani users. They did the same on Paytakaran, Nakhichevan, Caucasian Albania, History of Nagorno-Karabakh and other articles. Check the history of those articles and you’ll see that it is the same pattern of completely undoing all the edits without prior discussion on talk. I think that this cannot go on like this, and something needs to be done to stop it. Grandmaster 11:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I discussed my reason for doing this on the edit history page. I believe that it was unfair that this article (a sensitive topic between Armenians and Azeris) was expanded without the consent of Armenian editors. I don't mind expanding the article, but I believe that we need to put objectivity first. I don't mind working with Azeri users on this.

It also should be noted that when Atabek talks of users who "put a lot of time to research" into the article, he does not note that User:Tengri, a blocked sockpuppet of Atabek, was the biggest contributor to the article.

And regarding this as "not the only example of Armenian users completely undoing referenced edits by Azerbaijani users," I would like to draw User:AdilBaguirov, an Azeri user, to the attention of the administrators here on Misplaced Pages. Ever since his arrival, Adil has attempted to worsen relations between Armenian and Azeri editors by creating non-issues on articles of compromise and delicate balance. He has started numerous edit wars, forced many of these articles to be protected, and his stance on issues when talking to him is unchanging and unconstructive. -- Aivazovsky 12:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Instead of removing other peoples edits, you should be improving them and follow dispute resolution procedures. What you did there and on Nakhichevan is clearly wrong. You do not own the articles and everyone has a right to edit them. Grandmaster 12:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

On Nakhichevan, I just compromised with you on a hot topic (the railway blockade) that led to an edit war between Armenian and Azeri users. -- Aivazovsky 12:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Which started after my edit was removed from the article. Still I consider your response on talk of Nakhichevan a step in the right direction. I would also like to draw admins attention to User:ROOB323, who's edit warring on multiple pages. Just today he made 3 rvs on History of Nagorno-Karabakh article, without making any use of the talk page. Grandmaster 12:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Any admins around?

Then head over to the 3RR board which has been backlogged for over a day. My request for semi-protection has also been waiting for over 12 hours. Catchpole 11:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I don't have the stamina right now for 3RRing (or for talking to people who object to having been blocked for 3RR, to be more precise). El_C 11:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This you get for not adminning Bishzilla, she go through 3RR backlog like knife through butter. Bishzilla | grrrr! 12:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

And what a lovely un-orange talk page she has! Unlike a certain someone... Gah! El_C 12:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

A zilla on 3RR patrol, I tremble with anticipation at the body count.--Doc 15:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Help

I don't wish to get blocked for 3RR on Waldemar Matuska, but other Wikipedians are not carrying the same fight as me. The talk page clearly states that the IP edits are unfounded, but I don't want to be found reverting the page a fourth time. Could someone please advise? Is this "simple vandalism", and thus exempt? Bobo. 12:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Exempt. El_C 12:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Mucoid plaque

This article survived an AfD, unfortunately, because people felt it was necessary to expose this health fraud on Misplaced Pages. Nonetheless one editor, Heelop, keeps removing any reference this fabricated concept is not supported by the medical community. Despite the fact he can't provide any article from a medical journal he removes the disclaimer from the article that it is not described in medical literature.

His actions are not only in violation of policy, but since his only contribution to Misplaced Pages consists of removing sceptical passages from this article I am inclined to think he has a more than superficial interest in maintaining the article as advertisment. Could some uninvolved admin look into this and see if or what action is possible. (RfC? Block?). Nomen Nescio 17:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Policy enforcement & new user

On RC patrol I noticed the creation of the entry Chandralekha by Kalaripayatt (talk · contribs). (Most of) the entry is cut & pasted from here and the Image:Chandralekha.gif looks to be straight off google image search. I prodded the article, but the creator immediately removed the template. As I was explaining the process on Kalaripayatt's talk page I noticed that there were several other warnings for similar things. I'd appreciate it if someone with more astute detective skills could look into this, and perhaps take it from here, because I think the letter of the law is to blank the page(s) and slap {{copyvio}} tags, but that seems to undermine AGF and BITE a bit. - WeniWidiWiki 18:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:HAR---WP:CIV---User:Gene_Poole---User:Gardener_of_Geda

,--- -------Dr. Who 18:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Abuse of Power Complaint: admin Teke

(see: Criticisms of Misplaced Pages#abuses of power)

Here is my letter of appeal (of which i recieved no response):

Dear Sir or Madam,

First and foremost I must say that the reason I appeal in this fashion is because my talk page is protected. For what reason, I do not know. Perhaps an effort to silence me. My silence will not be mistaken for complicity. Thus I present this argument demanding an immediate reversal of this baseless ruling. It is my blind hope that this appeal gets taken seriously as i have taken the time to write out my thoughts and defend myself.

User name: WikiTony Who you were blocked by: Teke The exact reason given above for your block: Multiple warnings about civility and other issue blankings, uncooperative, etc. Your IP address (as provided by this page): yeah right

I was blocked (attacked is a more accurate description) shortly after editing my own talk page (i forgot to sign). What i had written was an open question to any reader asking for help in identifying what i perceived as a curse (or spell) written to me in a language i could not understand. It looked like a cross of Italian and Spanish (y hablo espanol pokito).

The message:

rispondo

            S'io credesse che mia risposta fosse

A persona che mai tornasse al mondo, Questa fiamma staria senza piu scosse. Ma perciocche giammai di questo fondo Non torno vivo alcun, s'i'odo il vero, Senza tema d'infamia ti rispondo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neckrow (talk • contribs) 18:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Did somebody put a curse on me? I have no idea what this is about or what it even means. I can't even tell if it is Spanish or Italian. If anyone knows, please help." Shortly after this request for help I was blocked and here i am now writing this appeal. The "prosecutor," (more accurately, persecutor) "Teke," gave the following reasons:

Multiple warnings about civility, and other issue blankings, uncooperative, etc.

I will start with the easy one. Is "etc." really an argument that can be considered serious? If you cannot take the time to actually list your arguments against me, how can any accusation be taken seriously.

"Issue Blankings:" The only page i blanked was another user's page which i accidentally wrote on instead of that user's talk page. In other words, I left the page the way i found it. If Teke had actually researched this charge he would see what the the truth really is.

All i have left to say about "multiple warnings about civility" is that i personally responded to each person who left me a notice explaining to them my position and explained in rational words the reasons for my anger (see below).

In almost the time it took me debunk all these listed charges, Teke left another message on my talk page. This time Teke changed the charges:

Supplement: I apologize for writing on the fly. The specifics of the block relates to ownership of Portal events, uncivil remarks against Charcor, and the refusal to cease and discuss problems. Nothing but incivility and talk page blankings. Cool off. Teke

Imagine for one moment a lawyer in a court room saying, "Sorry your honor, The charges against the defendant may not be accurate. I filed those charges on the fly. Here are some more charges. I hope one of them works. Cool off."

As much as it pains me to give this illegitimate "supplement" any recognition, I feel i must defeat these baseless accusations to the furthest extent possible. Thus, first addressing the "Ownership of Portal events." I have never claimed to own any page on Misplaced Pages. In fact, Charcor started this whole mess by saying that i could not remove what i considered an irrelevant event from the Current Events page. And i have an ownership problem?

I cannot further address the issue of incivility without submitting my extension to Charcor, in what i called "The Olive Branch:"

Hi, Although the wording i used may have been a bit impolite, i stand by my opinions and edits. The plane crash story is not internationally relevant, and IMHO, does not belong on current events. Planes crash all the time. People even die. Nobody died here. Just because the BBC covers the story does not mean it belongs on the current events page. And by the way i never directed you away from the current events page. i just suggested you learn how to properly write a current events blurb (including proper grammar). i also think it was rather childish of you to run to your admin buddies instead of at the very least attempting to sort the problem out amongst ourselves. I mean you no personal hostility- i just think your selection of relevant news stories and writing style is questionable. If you want to see how current events "should" be written, explore my contribs. I know i do not own the current events page (another cheap shot AND personal attack by you) but i do take pride in making sure all entries are relevant, factual, and grammatically correct. I hope we can put this unpleasantness behind us and work towards continuing to build wikipedia's excellence, which we both obviously care about. If you have any further problems with me please approach me directly so we can handle it like mature adults (if you are one). Peace and love. WikiTony 17:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I honestly do not know if Charcor is an adult, but i fail to see how this extension from me can be considered "incivil."

I even wrote this on the talk page of coredesat, the admin who first warned me:

I apologize for the words i used on your talk page (but not what i meant) perhaps it was "incivil," as you say (still not sure if that is a word) but i hope you can see where i am coming from. I do not believe i am the only one who deserves a talking to. peace and love, WikiTony 22:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

How can Teke seriously say that I "refused to discuss" anything? I INITIATED the discussion. This is just one more falsehood in this litany of lies that has been launched against me.

"Nothing but incivility (there's that word again) and page blankings:" As I already mentioned, the only page i blanked was one that was already blank. I accidentally wrote something on it and deleted it, thus making it blank. There is nothing criminal about this and i reject it as a baseless accusation against me.

Upon completion of this draft i have now learned that Teke has changed the blockage time from one week to 3 days. How lenient. Apparently i do not need to "cool down" that much after all. While this new blockage is of less quantity, it's substance is equally illegitimate as the original decision. I am an active contributor to Misplaced Pages, in particular the Current Events section. I have never claimed to own this section nor any other. I do, however, contribute excellent, accurate, and grammatically correct information to the Current Events page on an almost daily basis. I encourage anyone reading this to look at the quality of Current Events entries that i have edited. Thus, I do believe i was right in deleting the original story from the current events page and the way i defended my actions amid personal attacks against me. Even as I write this, the current events pages is being edited improperly. User: Capitalistroadster just incorrectly sourced a blurb and the whole 88 character http is visible. And I am powerless to fix it. Is this justice?

Is this truly the reality of the Wiki Justice System? Can baseless charges and arbitrary sentences be thrown around by overzealous admins? I reject the baseless charges against me and I reject the notion that a posting asking fellow users to help me understand what i can only interpret as a curse against me on my talk page leads to me being blocked. I deserve no blockage and demand this blockage be lifted immediately, and furthermore request disciplinary action against Teke for baseless personal attacks and abuses of authority.

Peace, Love, and Justice,

WikiTony,

WIkipedia political prisoner

No hay problema sin solucion.

I recieved an email from a sympathizer (not wiki admin) entitled "How Misplaced Pages really works:"

I follow Unblock-en-l and your case appeared in it, hi. Anyone who belongs to the dominant block of opinion on any subject can get anyone else blocked. Misplaced Pages has no policies applied consistently.

All the admins who talk on Wiki-en-l (Unblock-en-l was set up separately from it summer 2006) openly admit counting any shred of personal fairness as mattering less than developing Misplaced Pages as they wish. Blocking of only 1 side when 2 sides have done exactly the same thing that the block is supposed to have been for, is routine. It's what happened to me, and claiming to have any rights against a biased 2-day block actually was the offence that got me permablocked, after only 5 weeks' membership. Look at all these:

a voice from within Misplaced Pages's own system describes how the ArbCom and dispute resolution systems are rigged with discretionary catch-alls that always enable admin to win http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-June/024230.html on how force of group numbers dictates Misplaced Pages pages's content http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/025936.html this is actually called "don't bother reporting abusive admins" http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/025921.html

I was wary of how the umpiring of pages the whole world can fight over could possibly work well, but I was drawn into Misplaced Pages by a friend who was briefly (and no longer is, already!) having good experiences with sharing his medical concerns on a couple of pages on medical subjects. My Wiki name was Tern, and here are 2 administrators saying to me http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-August/027816.html http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-August/027817.html saying "You are not entitled to anything" and "Misplaced Pages is not a democracy."

On the nature of Misplaced Pages: http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/025583.html http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/08/322087.html http://spectrum-fairness.blog.co.uk/ tag "Misplaced Pages"

another recipient of this message contributed: Being unfairly branded a target in the midst of Arbitration, with the Committee turning a blind eye, http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Nobs02#Response_to_comment_on_Appeal http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Dmcdevit&diff=prev&oldid=96730874

and a former admin, leaving Misplaced Pages on 6 Oct 06: http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-October/054949.html " Too many admins whose first course is to insult a new user in order to see if they get a "reaction" so that they can spank the new user for talking back to an admin. I've seen too many admins block accounts for infinite duration on flimsy evidence or mere whim.

I've seen more accusations thrown around of someone being a "sockpuppet" of another user. Time and again, I looked through the edits, and I didn't see it. Instead, what I saw were users who were systematically hounded until they finally broke down and broke the civility rules, and then as an afterthought someone came up and said "oh, it doesn't matter, they were a sockpuppet of X anyways", thereby removing all culpability on the part of the abusive users who had spent time hounding and abusing the newbie...

The Wiki is broken. ... We, the admins of wikipedia, broke it. We broke it by being stuck-up jerks. We broke it by thinking we are better than normal editors, by getting full of ourselves. "

http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-October/054951.html http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-October/054957.html We're actually developing a reputation as a place of arrogance and nastiness, a place of heavy-handed thugishness, a place where people treat each other quite badly. That's bad for the project.

In a case concerning an argument about Crusades history, (http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private/unblock-en-l/2007-January/002824.html if you can access Unblock-en-l archives) where an editor concerned about historical record came up against some strong religious feelings in favour of the Crusades' and was blocked, she has asked me to add her story to this information. "It shocks me that there are still people out there who are so ignorant and closed minded - they don't know the meaning of logic - yet it is they who write the Misplaced Pages encyclopedia: ironic." From her first message to Unblock-en-l, 19 Jan 2007:

" My account name is Agnes Nitt, I was blocked by Adam Bishop who banned me for this reason: troll. I will copy and paste the details: Your account or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Adam Bishop for the following reason (see our blocking policy): troll. On the discussion page of Crusades, after I was banned, he put this just after my debate: Agnes has been blocked, because I am impatient and she *** me off. Adam Bishop 00:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC) As is quite evident from the reason why I was blocked, and his rude comment afterwards, it is clear that I have had misjustice done against me. I didn't expect administrators to be so childish, and unacademic, I mean, just because someone was having a debate with me on the discussions page and I had been proving them wrong, so an admin comes along, disagrees with me, cant counter my argument, and therefore blocks me from editing, and to crown it all, he leaves an abusive message against me and ridicules me (out of context from the debate-he should know that this isn't a regular chat room, where he can poke fun at me, but a discussion page confined to the Crusades and related topics) Just because he knows I cant reply. I broke no rules, I wasn't vandalising, nor was I threatening, and I was banned for no reason (other than troll) except that I have different views. "

She closed "I believe I have put my case in trusted hands, and I hope you reply to me concerning this as soon as possible, as I can no longer engage in any debate." But was told "Please assume good faith regarding Adam Bishop's actions. He may have been overreacting, but is a generally respected administrator. " "I understand your point of view Herbert, but trust me, some people are brilliant and funny and nice etc, but when it comes to certain topics they become different people, ... And what I am saying is true, this whole idea that the crusaders were not too bad is myth, and shouldn't be in an encyclopedia, it's heavily Point Of View, " (you may know of Misplaced Pages's policy "no points of view"?)

A send-up by "Something Awful" of the aggressive tone common on talk pages, that creates these situations: http://www.somethingawful.com/index.php?a=4288

Messages of support: "some of the people on there do seem pretty sarcastic and bullying .... some of the right-wingers on there seem to think mentioning anything negative but factual about Reagan or Bush constitutes bias and there do seem to be some nasty characters on there." - from Aspievision, http://s13.invisionfree.com/aspievision/index.php

"You are not the only one who has had problems with Misplaced Pages taking sides in a dispute, and being blatantly unfair to the other side without even giving them a chance to defend themselves." from FAMSecretSociety, a Yahoo group "Yes ... this is my opinion of Misplaced Pages. It suppresses anything that may be considered 'more than marginally controversial'. It's definitely in the same boat as the mainstream media without any shadow of a doubt. " - the forum of the British anti-ID cards site http://www.1984brigade.com/

" of late I've noticed that some independent contributions have been either radically edited or censored. I've not had time to check articles on 9/11, the London Bombings, the assault on Falluja etc, but judging from the way content was edited promptly out of articles on SSRIs, schizophrenia and Asperger's, there definitely seem to be operatives in place ready to clamp down on anything that may cast doubt on establishment canards." from Medialens, http://www.medialens.org/board/ WikiTony 18:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Non-talk pages automatically signed by HagermanBot