Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:30, 17 March 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 admin 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

True name privacy outing

(diff) This user's talk page was invaded by an IP editor of dispute-related pages, who outed him. This invasion occurred during an ongoing, simmering debate with another user, who was pressuring the talk page's user to admit some kind of prior involvement with an anti-cult organization off-Wiki. I request adminstrative deletion of the outing from the page history, protection of user's talk page from further editing by the IP editor, and whatever else is normally done to IPs in this situation. (I was a page debater, but not part of this debate, and don't know this IP# editor.) Milo 08:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, delete, toute suite, block IP and semiprotect user talk. Additionally, it would be worthwhile to determine the user behind the attacking IP.Proabivouac 08:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Though, taking another look, outed user seems okay with it. I shall request clarification.Proabivouac 08:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I would indeed like it removed. Xanthius 18:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk page deleted, restored without 4 revisions with personal information, request sent to WP:RFO. -- Avi 00:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Somebody re-added it.. Xanthius 00:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Err- nevermind

User page scrubbed, WP:RFO sent. Scrubbing THIS page will be a nightmare. Let's hope that since there is no last name for the aforementioned individual here, you'll be safer. -- Avi 05:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Xanthius 17:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Pardon, maybe I don't know where/how to look, but I can't find User talk:Xanthius in the (semi) Protection Log. Also, was the invading IP# blocked? Milo 02:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Xanthius, do you want your talk page semiprotected? —Quarl 2007-03-15 16:46Z

Yeah, that might help avoid future problems. Xanthius 16:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Quarl 2007-03-15 18:22Z

Thanks to all who helped resolve this issue, promptly and effectively. This part of Misplaced Pages user protection is working. Milo 02:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Linkspamming Talk:Main Page linking to possibly explicit content

I've seen this at least twice by 2 different users, and I've only been checking at random. See for example: . I've added all the domains to the spam blacklist that don't currently have external links in other articles. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-13 13:48Z

Shifting IP repeats vandalism

Over the past week, various IP's and one user, who I suspect to be the same person, have been repeating the same vandalous edits over and over again despite being reverted, and when a higher level of warning is issued to that IP, they have switched to another. Now, they are using several IP's, each with only one edit. I am unsure how to proceed.

The following articles (as far as I know) have been affected: Leprechaun Ballycastle, County Antrim Carnlough

The following users/IP's are those I have seen to do these edits: User: Bubblesthelegend

IP: 89.240 : Opal Telecommunications, Northern Ireland, Great Britain

89.240.90.61

89.240.172.39

IP: 143.117 : University of Belfast, Northern Ireland, Great Britain

143.117.80.30

143.117.80.32

143.117.80.46

IP: 81.149.128.127 : Static IP, Great Britain

Excessive blocking by Naconkantari

Naconkantari (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been using blocking excessively. An excerpt from the block log:

1. At 16:44, March 14, 2007, blocked 74.102.9.107 (talk · contribs) for three hours after two vandalism edits within the same minute (no other recent vandalism, only a single, low-level warning, no time for the warning to even be read).
2. At 16:37, March 14, 2007, blocked 68.228.133.127 (talk · contribs) for three hours after one recent vandalism edit.
3. At 16:36, March 14, 2007, blocked 70.127.219.53 (talk · contribs) for three hours after one recent vandalism edit.
4. At 16:33, March 14, 2007, blocked 82.198.252.5 (talk · contribs) for three hours after user was given a single, final warning against vandalism in a content dispute and then made the disputed change again.
5. At 16:32, March 14, 2007, blocked 75.6.215.83 (talk · contribs) for three hours after user was given a single, final warning in a content dispute and then made disputed changes twice more.
6. At 16:31, March 14, 2007, blocked 24.178.113.187 (talk · contribs) after one recent vandalism edit.
7. At 16:30, March 14, 2007, blocked 216.178.73.109 (talk · contribs), an educational institution, for three hours after the user made one recent vandalism edit.
8. At 16:29, March 14, 2007, blocked 66.44.130.162 (talk · contribs) for 31 hours, although the user did not vandalize since receiving a recent final warning and had not vandalized in eight hours.
9. At 16:18, March 14, 2007, blocked 72.89.139.135 (talk · contribs) for 1 hour after the user made one blanking/vandalism edit.
10. At 15:53, March 14, 2007, blocked 209.247.5.78 (talk · contribs) for 3 hours after user received just a level 1 warning and a level 2 warning, and then vandalized again.
11. At 15:50, March 14, 2007, blocked 71.243.153.55 (talk · contribs) for 31 hours after user made two vandalism edits, received just a level 1 warning and a level 2 warning, and had not vandalized after the level 2.
12. At 15:50, March 14, 2007, blocked Chyeahitsdiana (talk · contribs) indefinitely after user made one vandalism edit.
13. At 15:48, March 14, 2007, blocked 200.166.185.131 (talk · contribs) for 31 hours after user made one vandalism edit.
14. At 15:47, March 14, 2007, blocked 68.83.247.150 (talk · contribs) for 31 hours after user made one vandalism edit.
15. At 15:45, March 14, 2007, blocked 70.49.76.43 (talk · contribs) for 31 hours after user made one vandalism edit.
16. At 15:44, March 14, 2007, blocked 198.161.37.135 (talk · contribs) for 3 hours after user received a level 1 warning and had not vandalized since the warning.

The log is full of these incidents, but these are sixteen inappropriate blocks over the course of one hour. The log is full of blocks before adequate warnings have been given, immediate blocks upon a single incident of vandalism, indefinite blocks of usernames after a single vandalism edit, and excessively long blocks of shared IPs. I spoke with Naconkantari here but saw no indication that anything would change, so I am reporting it here. TomTheHand 21:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

block 1: Short 3hr block for two rapid fire vandalisms? seems ok to me. Block 2 and 3: Again, seems ok, 3hrs is a short block to cool off vandalism Block 4 and 5: user made disputed edits AFTER a final warning. Short block = ok to me. Block 6 and 7: see block 2 and 3. Block 8-11, again, see blcoks 2 and 3. Blcok 12 registered users should be held to a higher accountability than anons. I disagree with indef, but I haven't looked in depth into it.

etc. etc. None of these blocks is for more than 31 hours, a suitable cool off period. Every single one of those users is a vandal, some repeat times, some clearly violating the rules, others less clearly so, but none of them constructively editing. I don't really see the problem here. If they were all indef blocks you'd have a valid complaint but come on....complaining over 1 hour and 3 hour blocks? ⇒ SWATJester 22:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:BLOCK, "Blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of vandalism." That means that blocking a user who has made one edit is a violation of blocking policy. Per WP:AIV, a user should receive a proper set of warnings, including a final warning, and should vandalize after the final warning, before being listed. That implies that they should be warned, including a final warning, and continue to vandalize, before being blocked. Per WP:VAND, vandalism is NOT an NPOV violation. A user has no business giving someone vandalism warning for a content dispute, and an admin has no business blocking someone for a content dispute. Again per WP:BLOCK, dynamic IPs should be blocked for up to 24 hours, and logged-in users should start at 24 hours. It is implied in WP:BLOCK that blocks of shared IPs, such as those at schools, should be shorter and be given out more carefully. TomTheHand 22:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV is not policy and "school vandalism" is not an isolated incident. Naconkantari 22:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

School vandalism is caused by kids who are bored and in the library on a computer for 45 minutes. Every time there's a one-hour break between vandalism, the next block should be considered an "isolated incident." Any block longer than necessary to get that kid bored and make him or her move on is harming the school. TomTheHand 22:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is far too tolerant of school vandals as it is, and it hurts the project. I daresay that anon users create more problems than they solve. Looking at some of these contribution logs, there remain vandalism edits to be cleaned up, even with as quick as a gun as Naconkatari's. E.g.,. It's safe to say someone making plainly vandalizing edits from a school account isn't likely to start making legitimate edits in the next three hours.

So when did policy change to say it's ok to WP:BITE anon-IP editors? Frankly, I wouldn't mind requiring registration for all editors, but right now, that's not our policy. Blocking for one incident of vandalism, and getting one's back up when challenged, are both abuse of administrative power. Αργυριου (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it was inappropriate to call 82.198.252.5 a vandal, but his edit (twice made) was a fairly violent violation of NPOV, and there was a violation of WP:CIVIL on a user talk page to boot. Three hours isn't inappropriate. -- TedFrank 22:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware that we now block editors for vandalism on sight. Am I honestly being told that this is now standard operating procedure? The whole warning thing... we don't do that any more? Nine out of the above sixteen blocks were in response to exactly one recent vandalism edit, and only one of those was a school. Setting aside tolerance for school vandals, the other eight were the very definition of an isolated incident. TomTheHand 22:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocking on sight is not SOP But if said vandal has certain vandalism patterns then we will block on sight. a new user testing style of vandalism will get a warning. other types of vandalism follows the Revert, Block, Ignore pattern. Betacommand 22:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, but I once got 31-hour blocked for "edit-warring" without a warning for restoring my own talk page three times when someone else was repeatedly blanking it, and my appeal was denied. So Misplaced Pages editors block without warning for a lot less than someone deliberately disrupting article space; someone who makes an edit like this isn't intending to contribute positively to Misplaced Pages. -- TedFrank 22:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

TedFrank, I would like to see a link to the incident you just mentioned. Newyorkbrad 23:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It was here and frankly, it kind of looks like TedFrank was goading the other editor. IrishGuy 23:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

TedFrank was responding to a use who has been indefinitely blocked for the sort of provocation he was responding to. Αργυριου (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that Naconkantari has seen the exact same edits before and is blocking as a preventative measure, which is the purpose of blocks anyway. A lot of school vandals come day after day and make the same changes. Even if the IPs are different, they're still probably the same person. Has Naconkantari been notified that this is being discussed here? They're probably willing to explain themself. Natalie 22:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to ask administrators to please look at the above incidents, as well as Naconkantari's block history in general. I understand that you're assuming good faith on Naconkantari's part, but please also assume good faith on my part: I am honestly trying to bring a serious problem to your attention here. I had never had any encounter with Naconkantari before this. I have explained above how the blocks violate blocking policy, but I'll reiterate below:

1. Blocks have been in response to isolated incidents of vandalism, including blocks without warning of IP addresses that have never edited Misplaced Pages before.
2. Blocks have been of excessive length. Per blocking policy, 31 hours is too long to block a dynamic IP, and an indefinite block for one vandalism edit by a logged-in user is inappropriate as well.

The blocks above are contrary to what WP:BLOCK says explicitly. I would appreciate a response from anyone explaining either why they do not violate WP:BLOCK or under what circumstances WP:BLOCK should not be followed. If, as some people have suggested, these blocks that appear to be of isolated incidents are in fact part of a campaign against an active vandal, I would appreciate an explanation of the circumstances. No pattern is obvious looking at the edits. Please do not simply say "school vandalism isn't an isolated incident", as that can only possibly apply to one of the above blocks. Please explain all blocks that appear, at first glance, to violate blocking policy.

I'd also like to reiterate that I have not cherry-picked Naconkantari's block history to find the sixteen worst blocks. I just looked at a one hour period. Please extrapolate out; if a half of these are iffy, it is a serious problem for such an active blocker. TomTheHand 23:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole point in the blocking policy is to prevent further disruption, it is not a rigid set of rules and indeed the section your complaint seems to rely on is a section marked quite clearly as a guide. Admins are expected to apply common sense as to when a block may or not be appropriate. --pgk 07:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If it is acceptable to apply dozens of blocks per day to isolated incidents of vandalism then the guide should reflect such. I acknowledge the need for admins to be able to make case-by-base decisions on what particular situations requite, but blocks should generally follow the guidelines laid out in the blocking policy. I am not complaining about a handful of questionable blocks, but about what Naconkantari spends all of his or her time on Misplaced Pages doing. TomTheHand 09:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

See User talk:Naconkantari#User:Thatsuperguy11. I am surprised that an indefinite block was placed as the first block (though User:Thatsuperguy11 had been duly warned), and disappointed that it was placed without a block notice on the user's talk page. I have replaced the indefinite block with a 48-hour block. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, because this vandal only account needs to be given a second chance. Nardman1 10:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd not have a problem with that block and certainly not enough to go and undo another admins actions without first consulting but merely diving in and declaring myself to be right (the opening of a wheel war if both admins insist they are in the right). The user was warned and continued, the edits clearly weren't of the "test" type, deletions of content from disconnected pages, deleting content from the user pages of a user who had warned. WP:AGF only goes so far and I personally cannot see anyway that user could be perceived as being here to do anything but disrupt. As to the issue of the block notice, I can hardly see it as relevant for an account which had only done vandalism (I know other admins differ on this point), but that is only a procedural issue and since wikipedia is not a bureaucracy doesn't invalidate the block. --pgk 14:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with Naconkantari's blocks. Instead of "blocks should generally follow the guidelines laid out in the blocking policy", the policy should reflect actual practice. I routinely block school-boy vandalism with no or minimal notice, usually for 15 minutes to 3 hours, but longer if it seems called for. I block whenever I think it will prevent further vandalism, and plan to continue unless there is a consensus that I should not. Tom Harrison 14:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that we should change WP:BLOCK to support 31 hour blocks of IPs without warning upon the first incident of vandalism, but as the majority here do appear to support that sort of block, I agree that WP:BLOCK should absolutely be brought in line with actual practice. TomTheHand 15:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of the blocks may have been a bit quick, but for the majority of the cases I will endorse them. I cannot see everything which has taken place here, but one very real possibility is that some of the IPs blocked are vandals returning with a new IP to continue their juvenile nonsense, and blocking those immediately is quite justified. Although a naive look at only the block log and talk page will make those blocks appear hasty, there is frequently a deeper story than just the one vandalism edit. Dealing with vandalism really wastes a lot of our time and resources, and putting the vandals out of action quickly is quite justifiable. I also think that a person subject to a block like this is not going to be upset the same way that a person blocked for, say the 3RR will be. They probably think its loads of fun that an administrator got their attention and they got to test the Misplaced Pages defenses to the breaking point. I think we should be tougher and quicker when it comes to blocking people for vandalism (though I also advocate more conservatism when it comes to blocking people for disruption.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Naconkantari has posted several times and has not said anything about a campaign against a particular vandal, but I've left a note at User talk:Naconkantari to see if there is a deeper story. TomTheHand 15:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Naconkantari has said that the above blocks were not part of any campaign against a particular vandal, but instead is part of a personal policy to block anyone who knowingly vandalizes. TomTheHand 17:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've posted here to try to start a discussion about if we need to make changes to the blocking policy. I think this discussion needs to continue for longer than ANI will let it; it will fall off the top of the page in a few days. If the above sorts of blocks are OK, the policy needs to reflect that. I hope that everyone who participated in this discussion will be willing to move over to WP:BLOCK and work on a revision of the policy. TomTheHand 15:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Note also that contribution histories for people with usernames may be misleading if their vandalism includes creating and re-creating pages that end up being speedy-deleted. The disruption they create won't be as evident after the pages disappear. -- TedFrank 03:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, Naconkantari's stated position is "any vandalism = immediate block", so all of these "well this is acceptable, assuming that there's extra vandalism here that the logs don't reflect" posts don't reflect the reality of the situation. TomTheHand 12:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Ryulong

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

I believe that it is ridiculous on how long this dispute has continued. I, for one, see no possible outcome that can satisfy both parties to the point that the bickering will cease, therefore I am going to step in and close this section. I will strongly suggest that all editors involved grow up and head to the appropriate policy page and get this hammered out. A change in policy, guidelines, or whatever is the cause of this mess is the only way that I can see this dispute being resolved amicably. In all seriousness, Naconkantari 03:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I was called in to a dispute about the naming of Straight Outta Lynwood‎. Our naming conventions had always stated simply that articles, prepositions, etc., shouldn't be capitalised, so I backed one editor, and move the article to Straight outta Lynwood‎. When this was challenged (and my move reverted) I explained the situation, and made the move again. Ryulong (talk · contribs), despite a continuing discussion at the Talk page, has taken it upon himself to move the article and to protect it against moves (on the basis that the capitalisation at other sites trumps our conventions).

Not only does this show a misunderstanding of our naming conventions, but is surely a misuse of admin powers. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• However, this appears to be an actual title. In that case, the fact that "outta" is a preposition is surely irrelevant. I think this is already under discussion somewhere on WP:AN in any event. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• See WP:AN#Page move issue and WP:AN#Page move issue - again. Mackensen (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Our internal naming conventions in the case of something with a proper name need to defer to the most obvious initial criterion for naming something, which is the something's actual name. There is ample evidence, including from Weird Al's official website, that Straight Outta Lynwood with the capital "O" is the actual real-world title of the album. This is consistent with Straight Outta Compton, the name of the N.W.A. album that is being used as a referent, which also is spelled with the capital "O". Newyorkbrad 22:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT × 3) Both of the threads that I brought up at the talk page of the article and that Mackensen brought up show that the moves are questioned, and also that the move protection be done, which I also did. My only actions at the article have been to originally do a histmerge (and then fix the various usages within the article), then I find that the same article is being discussed, again, and I undo the move, fix the usage of the title in the text, and install the move protection per the discussion at the thread. I have also performed a histmerge with the talk page, today. I seriously do not find that my actions are out of line here, as they are in response to two threads at WP:AN, and I also fully explained myself at the talk page of the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This has effectively restored the status quo, if there is still a need to move, the matter can go to WP:RM for consideration. Chris cheese whine 22:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

1. The notion of an "actual title" makes no sense with regard to capitalisation; our naming conventions always override other sources — that's what they're there for. If Dickens had written on his manuscript, and publishers had followed him, A Tale Of Two Cities, we'd still call it A Tale of Two Cities — that's how Manuals of Style work.
2. The notion that Ryulong merely returned to some status quo is also a mistake. When admins protect a page, they should do so according to the protection policy: "The same restrictions that apply to full protection during a dispute also apply to move protection during a dispute (for example, admins should avoid favouring one name over another, and protection is not an endorsement of the current name)."

I find it worrying that admins are unaware of our guidelines and policies in these areas. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you point to any evidence that Ryulong was favoring a given version, except to undo what he saw as the aftermath of a disruptive move war? It's not at all uncommon for admins to restore the last version before an edit war before protecting, and I wasn't aware that this was frowned upon. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Mel Etitis wrote that there was "a continuing discussion at the Talk page", and that Ryūlóng moved it "on the basis that the capitalisation at other sites trumps our conventions". You can confirm that by referring to that discussion. -- Jibal 01:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Any chance of quoting the relevant section of the WP:MOS that states we change the given name of something to suit our own manual of style please.-- Nick 22:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please point us to the Manual of Style page which says our naming conventions overrule what the trademark owner named their own creation. (And once you find it, I wish you the best of luck changing all references to the iPod to "Ipod.") Picaroon 22:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, found it! From Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (books)#Capitalization - "Book titles, like names of other works, are exempt from "lowercase second and subsequent words"." I think we can safely say that an album falls under said conventions, and that "Outta," as an integral and not incidental part of the title, is so exempt. There you are. Mackensen (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOS is certainly lacking in this area (amazing since I counted at least four different MOS and naming convention pages that apply to this situation). An additional rule that I learned is that words with five or more letters are always capitalized in titles, no matter the part of speech. --- RockMFR 23:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

First, when a guideline like Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (capitalization) says "In general, titles of books, films, and other works are also capitalized, except for articles ("a", "and", "the") and prepositions and conjunctions (e.g., "to", "from", "and"). Examples: A New Kind of Science, Ghost in the Shell, To Be or Not to Be.", it doesn't say "follow whatever the publisher of the book, film, or album does"... there's a reason for that. That's the whole point of having a Manula of Style and naming conventions.

Secondly, we're not talking about trademarks, which are treated differently by most Manuals of Style.

Thirdly, the issue of lowercase second and subsequent words is irrelevant here; that refers to capitalisation in article and section titles, and tells us that we don't call an article A tale of two cities.

Fourthly, capitalisation rules regarding titles are not part of English grammar; they're the choice of publications. Some publications capitalise no articles, prepositions, etc., some capitalise all, others use an intermediate scheme. Some Manuals would insist on "Alice In Wonderland" and "Alice Through the Looking Glass", some on "ALice in Wonderland" and "Alice through the Looking Glass", and some on "Alice in Wonderland" and "Alice Through the Looking Glass". We have always gone for the second option.

Oh, and fifthly, the claim that my page move – which is the one that Ryolong reverted – was disruptive should be backed up. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

File a WP:RM. Right now, there are several people here who feel that I did nothing wrong, and before my histmerging yesterday, I had not editted the page once (that I can recall). There has been too much moving of pages being done in the past 24 hours that I protected it from being moved. That and it's blatantly clear that the owner of the copyright does trump the local MoS. If Weird Al used "Straight outta Lynwood", then it'd be where you want it. But he doesn't. He uses "Straight Outta Lynwood" which is where the article had been until sometime last week.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Great smoking jeebus, is this why I joined Misplaced Pages? A title is a title. Star wars? How about Ship arriving too late to save a drowning witch? Since Dickens has been brought up (however tangentially) let me paraphrase, "If the MoS instructs that, then the MoS is an ass;" If you want to push this, Mel, you've got about half million albums, books, films, and TV episodes to go. Better get crackin'. Thatcher131 00:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Your examples aren't relevant, because in both cases the authors' capitalization is the same as that given by WP policy. -- Jibal 02:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It's obviously not blatantly clear to Mel Etitis, nor to WP:NAME, which is official policy, nor to Cyrus XIII, who argues cogently at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Work_titles_with_irregular_capitalization, and you're not supposed to use admin tools to settle such disagreements in your favor. -- Jibal 02:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I had a (friendlier) dispute with another editor about this topic, but a different specific case. Yes naming conventions are a bit lacking on this issue. We tried to spur some discussion but none really happened... Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Work_titles_with_irregular_capitalization. I think an RFC or something still might be a good idea to hammer something definitive out so we don't have this dispute every few weeks. --W.marsh 00:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

YES! This is a growing issue that the Misplaced Pages community should set up something more definitive and cohesive when it comes to Capitalization and article titles. The gross inconsistency that you see with page move disputes like KISS (band), brian d foy, kd lang, eBay, etc gives way too many headaches. As Rock said, there are _several_ MOS pages (and varying interpretations) that all seem to point one way or the other. You also have segments of editors & admins who are either very liberal with capitalization or very fundamental and whoever happens to be most active on a page move wins. It's crazy and it is going to keep popping up till something is hammered out. 205.157.110.11 02:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The rules about "prepositions" and similar words in our and other MOS's are really just proxies for important/stressed versus unimportant/unstressed words. In these titles, "Outta" is clearly a stressed word and hence takes the cap. Even "out" can be a stressed word and need a capital on occasion. Jimmy Piersall's life inpsired Fear Strikes Out, not Fear Strikes out. Mel is right to the extent that in a clear case like his Dickens example we mightn't like an authorial idiosyncrasy override our rules, but this case isn't that one. Newyorkbrad 02:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning that Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (capitalization) stated that prepositions with five or more letters should be capitalized until Mel Etitis changed the rule less than twelve hours ago. --Maxamegalon2000 03:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Damn. And I'll say that I reverted that now. This seems like climbing up a structure dressed up like a colorful superhero.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I know my colorful superheroes—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

First, I'll simply ignore the venomous ignorant answers, and try to stick to replying to good-faith ignorance and to good-faith honest disagreement.

My change to the naming conventions were because the insertion of the four-letters or less condition was made without consensus (or, indeed, discussion) a few months ago. I asked for discussion on the matter at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions#Capitalisation, which is the main page on this issue.

Prepositions, articles, etc., are always capitalised when they're the first or last words of a title; "fear Strikes Out" is thus not indicative of anything relevant here.

Deciding on stress and importance is subjective; I know of no Manual of Style that appeals to such a principle, and I think that it would be disastrous here. (For example, I'd say that the "out of" in "Straight outta Lynwood" was clearly unstressed, "Lynwood bearing the main stress, and "Straight" a secondary stress.) --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/CMS_FAQ/CapitalizationTitles/CapitalizationTitles14.html appeals to the stress principle. However, following their examples, it seems pretty clear to me that "straight" and "Lynwood" are stressed, while "outta" is not. Also, not only was the five letter rule added without concensus or discussion, but WP:NAME, which is policy, doesn't mention it. -- Jibal 02:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

A quick look at search results for "Outta" shows a fairly large number of albums, books, TV episodes, etc. with Outta in the title, all capitalized. My opinion is that creative works should be titled in the encyclopedia the same way the creator intends and that the style guide may need updating. But I wanted to put out there that there are easily dozens of other entries with capitalized "Outta" in Misplaced Pages, so these will need to be changed if this is to be our convention. In particular, as Weird Al is a parodist, the title of this album should match the title it is a play of (Straight Outta Compton). As well, other tributes to this such as Straight Outta Ca$hville should also be consistent one way or the other. Ryanjunk 16:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree, the title on Misplaced Pages should match the title in a publishers catalogue, unless there is a more popular variation, what people need to remember is we're in the business of providing people with the information that they want, when and where they want it. If we're going to change titles just to keep in line with our Manual of Style, we're effectively telling people they can't have the information they want where they want it, when they search for something as it appears on the album cover, book sleeve or what have you. I find that quite unacceptable. -- Nick 16:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Swell, then vote to change official WP policy, as given by WP:NAME. -- Jibal 02:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Could those who think that we shouldn't have an MoS or naming conventions, and have no consistent style of our own, because (unlike any other publication, printed or on-line) we should simply follow whatever other sites or publications do on a case-by-case basis, please go to the relevant Talk pages and argue their case there? As that isn't currently the Misplaced Pages position, such arguments are irrelevant here. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it the consensus here that it's OK for an admin to move an article, then protect the move, all without discussing the issue with those who disagree? If so, I should obviously have done that myself, when I was called in to look at the dispute. Of course, unlike Ryulong I corrected all the double redirects created by my move (I see that they've been done by someone else — and somewhat hysterically all protected).

So, for future cases: it's OK for me to page move, and protect my move? Yes? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It's OK for you to restore the state of affairs as were before an edit/revert/move war kicked off, and protect it in that state, pending the outcome of any discussion. This is not to endorse any intermediate state during the war. You have essentially been saying that Ryulong reverting your repeated move and protecting is an endorsement of that state - it clearly was not. Chris cheese whine 00:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong has argued vociferously, both there and here ("blatantly obvious"), for the move he made and then protected, so your "clearly" is clearly inconsistent with the evidence. -- Jibal 02:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Picking a version at random and protecting is the SOP. Are you arguing that Ryulong is pushing a particular interpretation and protecting on his preferred version? That's not okay, but I don't see that he really has any opinion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If you don't see it, then you aren't looking, since it is all over this page and the Talk page of the article under discussion. -- Jibal 02:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

He didn't pick a version at random.

I was asked to look at a dispoute over the title; I looked, decided that Phronima (talk · contribs) was right, explained that at the Talk page, and made the move to what I thought was the correct version (correcting all double redirects). Ryulong was asked to look, made a decision contrary to mine, moved the page without explanation at the Talk page and without correcting double redirects, and protected his move.

When protecting pages, admins are supposed to restore pages to their positions before disputes? Where is that in the protection policy? I'll quote the policy again: "The same restrictions that apply to full protection during a dispute also apply to move protection during a dispute (for example, admins should avoid favouring one name over another, and protection is not an endorsement of the current name)."--Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

So, suddenly it's wrong to go back to the beginning of a move war (which involved at least one histmerge) while the warring parties talk it over? At this point, I'd like to note that you have still not filed an RM. Chris cheese whine 10:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Why "suddenly"? That's always been the policy concerning protections, as stated clearly in the policy. And why does my action concerning an RM have anything to do with this question? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong didn't do anything wrong, Mel Etitis was acting in Good Faith. The title should be 'Straight Outta Lynwood'. Wikipeda lacks a sufficient policy on the matter, and thus should default to the Artist's intent. This is an Encyclopedia. We should strive to report about the album. If the artist intended 'outta', he would've used it. As we have no MoS references on vernacular slang which juxtaposes the adverb 'out' with the preposition 'of', use Yankovic's intent, as demonstrated by his interviews promo material and so on. While it would've been easier if he'd ue the MoS approved 'Yeay, I am come to you direct and straight out of the olde Borough of Lynwood, verily and forsooth, tis True!', He didn't. He used 'Outta'. We should too. Consider for a moment that someone abused DuChamp with L.h.o.o.q., when it ought to be L.H.O.O.Q.. DuChamp's use of language in his work was deliberate and precise, and as much a part of the art as any other element. Consider that he mocked language, used language to build a phrase that fit his mockery of language, and then included all of that in five capitalized letters. Artists may not always have such a clear and distinct relationship with language, but where such is demonstrable, Misplaced Pages should acqueisce to the artists' intents and report on such so long as it doesn't actively disrupt (we should not, for example, have winding formatted text in e.e. cummings' article, nor wiggling animated text in Kurt Schwitters').But as to the simple matter of titles of works, we should default to the artist. ThuranX 23:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to E E Cummings, who did not once use the lowercase form once himself? ;-) Chris cheese whine 00:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I knew about it ,cause i looked him up to check o nthe link, and already knew that he'd never done the 'e e', which I did out of the same misplaced respect everyone does, and my comment was bout his text manipulation, not capitalizations, if you re-read it. but thanks. ThuranX 01:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Since WP does have a policy, WP:NAME, why say it doesn't? "outta Lynwood" is a prepositional phrase, making "outta" a preposition, and the policy clearly says that prepositions in album titles are not to be capitalized. And, since Ryulong made an edit in favor of a position that he has loudly trumpeted ("blatantly obvious") and then protected it, which is against policy, why say he didn't do anything wrong? -- Jibal 02:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be confused concerning the issues. They have nothing to do with changing the title, but about the application of the Manual of Style to the title. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes,that's it. I didn't agree with you, so I'm confused. No. I get it, and I'm saying that since everyone's saying the MoS is unclear, it should default to the artist's intent. That's not hard to understad, I think. but then, i'm an idiot who's confused cause I'm not agreeing with you. Try this: No Way Out. A proper name(title), in which Out is capitalized, and should be. As 'Outta' is a slang melange of Out and of, we use the leading word, Out, which SHOULD be capitalized bye any MoS, since Adverbs and Adjectives get capitalized, see A tale of Two, not two, Cities. As such, it is IN keeping with the MoS to capitalize SOL, (hey, interesting... SOL.) as it is botha proper name (title), AAAAAAANNND since the word in question is an adverb, which SHOULD be capitalized anyways.ThuranX 11:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusion (capitalize Outta), but a couple of minor nits to your argument which might tend to confuse people about the MoS. In "No Way Out", out is the last word, and they are always capitalized. Also, the word "out" can be used as several parts of speech, but in this case is used as a preposition and would otherwise fall under the "no capitals" rule. So if we were to follow the MoS exactly, we'd have a lower-case outta. The main argument here being WP:COMMONNAME and artist intent. Ryanjunk 13:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd already made that point; ThuranX has clearly not read the discussion before positng to it. He also thinks that "out" is an adverb, which is... well, peculiar. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to delve too deeply into grammatical discussion, but out can be used as an adverb, as in the phrase "stretched out" or "to eat out". It can also be a noun (as in baseball) or even a verb (to "out" someone about something). Ryanjunk 17:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It's normally accounted a preposition in both the former cases. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Almost certainly not. If so, someone ought to let Wiktionary and Webster's know, at the very least. But again, grammar is only barely on-topic here. Ryanjunk 18:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

--Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

So far, then, the situation is this. The majority of admins here think that it's OK for Ryulong to choose one version of a page name to revert to and then to protect his move (despite the clear policy against that, as quoted above). They also think that our Manual of Style and naming conventions are overridden by other sources' Manuals of Style, so that our guidelines are essentially pointless.

Who needs vandals? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There was edit warring. I protected the page to prevent further edit warring. And when the actual subject of an article uses a different spelling or style of capitalization or anything we conform to that version. In fact, I just did some moves myself (that were discussed) to conform to a spelling that no one but the original company seems to use such that our article reflects that spelling.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

What's the authority for "we conform"? WP:NAME is an official policy document for capitalization, and has a specific section on album titles, which says nothing about "the actual subject"; if that policy is undesirable, it should be corrected, but it should be followed in the meantime. And the rest of the guidelines mentioned above are just guidelines, not policy, and when they conflict with WP:NAME should be corrected to match it or, better yet, be deleted. And someone should review just how we got into this sorry mess of having multiple pages describing these conventions. Also, if you both moved the page and protected it, I'm pretty sure that's a violation of admin privilege. -- Jibal 00:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Beg pardon, but if you're pretty sure it's a violation then you ought to be able to explain why it is (cf m:The Wrong Version). Mackensen (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Since I said nothing about the right or wrong version, your cf is highly inappropriate (I happen to prefer the version he protected, although not for the reasons he gives). As for why, I am, like Mel Etitis, surprised that people here don't know. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_how-to_guide: "Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism." I think the principle behind that is clear enough. As Ryūlóng has made it very clear both here and in the discussion page that he favors one version over the other, it was inappropriate for him to both change the name to his preferred version and protect it. -- Jibal 01:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Mel Etitis had already given the explanation above, quoted from WP policy, so your "beg pardon" was off base: "The same restrictions that apply to full protection during a dispute also apply to move protection during a dispute (for example, admins should avoid favouring one name over another, and protection is not an endorsement of the current name)." So if you were going cite m:The Wrong Version to anyone, it should have been Ryūlóng -- Jibal 01:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Jibal, the version I protected was not the one "I prefer" as you state. I had never editted the page until I had to do history merges because of the move warring and as a result of my protection, the page is at the version from before the most recent move war. This whole conversation has gotten onto Misplaced Pages:Lamest edit wars () because of the amount of sheer energy going into discussing how Mel Etitis feels that I abused my administrative tools and how administrators are now discussing whether or not the O in the title should be capitalized because Weird Al uses the spelling or whether we should go with our own MoS that has already caused the article to be moved and cut-paste moved that led me to the original history merge, and then another move that I protected it for. The energy I'm expending in writing up this verbose response could have been better utilized in writing up an article I'm trying to get onto the front page as a "Did you know?". I would really prefer that everyone just drop this subject and get on with their lives.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Such a preference doesn't seem to me to be consistent with being an administrator; perhaps you should give that up. -- Jibal 03:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I'm going to ask you to take a break from this thread, Jibal. You're misfactoring your comments, and getting progressively hostile and confrontational. I'm not an admin, so this is really just a friendly suggestion, but all the same, you should probably go work on the rest of your watchlist. you've added almost a dozen comments, and I've had to refactor a few, despite asking you to reply in the proper fashion on your talk page, though your point of replying right after out of place was duly noted. ThuranX 03:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the majority of editors here think that ADVERBS are NOT Prepositions. Once again, We can look at it like this: Straight Outta Lynwood has an implied verb, with some meaning akin to 'to travel', 'to go' 'to come' or so on. As such, 'straight' modifies the verb, referring to the nature of the path of travel, and 'out' modifies the adverb 'straight'. This makes 'out' a modifying adverb as well. Return to the 'slang terms by the primary word' argument I made above, we're back to 'adverbs get capitalized. Per section 9c, Harbrace college handbook (1986), "In titles and subtitles of books, plays, student papers, and so on, capitalize the first and last words and all other words except articles, coordinating conjunctions, prepositions, and the 'to' in infinitives." As such, Straight and Outta comprise an adverbial phrase/clause, and qualify for capitalization. Finally, the move to talk pages of SOME but not all of those involved (I certainly got NO notice to participate) when it starts to go against you is highly unethical. Bring the conversation back here directly. Thank you. ThuranX 22:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

What Mel meant was that he and I took our more generic discussion of which part of speech "out" could be to our talk pages. We aren't discussing the future of Misplaced Pages vis a vis Straight Outta Lynwood in some smoky back room, don't worry. Ryanjunk 00:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

But that topic was being discussed here. And I think you've reached the wrong conclusion. Consider that, in "pull it out", "out" is a preposition, but in "pull out", "out" is an adverb. So there's a question of whether the context is "drive the car straight out of Lynwood" (preposition) or "drive straight out of Lynwood" (adverb). The latter is more likely, but the ambiguity is yet another reason why the current policy should be abandoned (as it has been de facto on other pages) and titles should be used verbatim. -- Jibal 01:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. "straight" and "out of Lynwood" both modify "drive"; "straight" is an adverb, "out of Lynwood" is a prepositional phrase, "out" is a preposition (as is "outta"). -- Jibal 01:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

uh, no. Out modifies straight. Further, There's multiple citations of wikipolicy and nonwiki sources for keeping it capitalized. But I must still be a confused idiot who is also worried about smoky back room cabalism. Done, do what you want.ThuranX 02:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said, "out of Lynwood" is a prepositional phrase; "out" can't possibly modify "straight". And I have cited the wikipolicy, WP:NAME, that says it should not be capitalized, and that agrees with most manuals of style. If you have "multiple citations", please provide them. As for what you must be, I'll refrain from commenting. -- Jibal 03:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Weird Al's official music index says it's "Outta". And I'm definitely putting this on WP:LAME. DS 22:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Fairness And Accuracy For All

From my Talk:

I just posted this to Tbeatty's talk page.

• In the past two days you have followed me to two seperate articles that I have been actively editing, that you had never edited before. Zombietime and Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_scandal When I did that a few weeks ago I was charged by an Admin with 'wikistalking' and given a 24 hr block. I encourage you to stop wikistalking me. - FREE FaAfA ! (yap)
  

I trust that you will deal with TBeatty's 'Wikistalking' the same way you dealt with mine. Thanks FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 07:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

TBeatty is a decent enough editor, FAAFA is shaping up to be banned by Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic. I am not an univolved admin by now, and would not block TBeatty anyway for this, but if anyone feels that TBeatty is doing something wrong by checking the edits of FAAFA then please feel free to follow this up. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty's 'honesty' on display.... After admitting to 'Wikistalking' me to two articles including the US Attorney article: "You are a disruptive and tendentious editor. As such, I check up on your edits." diff he actually claims on the talk page of the article in question, that I Wikistalked him to said article ! "The other editor came here jjust to revert me. He's about to be banned." diff He was entirely civil in his fallacious and specious claims though, and we know that carries much more weight around here than a mouthy truthful editor ! - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 19:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

FAAFA I have been excessively lenient about WP:NPA, and I have warned you countless times. However, this was your last warning. I can see where this is going, and involved as I am, I have remained nuetral. Therefore, I am reminding you to watch yourself, or you will be blocked. Prodego 19:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I've been having some issues of my own with Misplaced Pages lately, I've been watchign this whole Freerepublic thing spread and spread, and I don't think there's been a day gone by in over a month that some FR-editors-war-related incident hasn't been up here, either a new one or one taking days to resolve. By now, everyone involved ought to be on eggshells around each other, avoiding the appearances of attacks, stalkings, hostilities and improprieties. Instead, I note that Faafa is accurate. He's got an established edit history on both articles, then TBeatty shows up. while I'm also aware that TBeatty isn't a 'subject' of the RfAr for FR/BB/FaaFa/DH/BfP, he's been a highly active participant, and All I've seen shows him leaning heavily to to FR/DH/BfP side. As such, he really shouldn't be out there trying to get Faafa riled up into another violation. I think it's definitely questionable behavior to do what he's doing. This stupid FR mess is so big on Misplaced Pages that it's almost impossible to avoid it if you pay any attention to the Misplaced Pages pages of wikipedia... (or however AN/Policy/VillagePump should be called...), and anyone involved should be trying to look like they're participating in the spirit of the AN/I, not just the letter law. It's mildly unethical, I think, but I'm not sure if it violated he written text of any WP policy, since he's claiming that he's 'checking Faafa', which means with have to evaluate 'check' with AGF, meaning he's just 'reviewing for hte good of the project'. parsing games aside, I think TB should be told to step off.Neither's an angel, and they all need to know that this mess is serious. I jsut hope it ends soon. ThuranX 21:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC) After seeing his below tantrum, and his deliberate interruptive way of initially posting it ... Nuke em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. ThuranX 23:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Prodego: Yeah - I know ! I know ! DECORUM and CIVILITY are the only things that really matter around here - unless you're an Admin (like those in the InShanee RAFr) - MONGO - other Wikipedians who protect 9/11 articles from the 'truthers' - or just a a member of the 'chosen few' - then decorum doesn't matter. Yup - decorum is much more important than sockpuppetry, dishonesty and POV pushing ! I do think I finally get it! Too bad I'm not an Admin or a member of the 'chosen few' and I could tell you all to ____ ___ with impugnity, but since I'm not, I best not insult our benevolent, fair and impartial masters. - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 21:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

And you wonder why even those who think you're in the right with the Free Republic RfAR are pretty much resigned to you getting blocked for a lengthy amount of time. SirFozzie 22:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Your sarcastic and sharp comments are exactly why you are going to be banned for a year. We all tried our best to not let that happen, but you threw your chances and our efforts into the wind. —physicq (c) 23:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but you'll never subjugate me into becoming a brown-nosing 'rent a cop' ass-kisser, as is required for long term success on Misplaced Pages. I'd rather be banned with my dignity than emasculate myself like the slavish cult members of Misplaced Pages Heaven's Gate so willingly did/do. - FaAfA 'Mistakes were made' 23:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No one is telling you to be a naive kiss-up. But you're just convincing everyone here that you are getting on everyone's nerves. You say that you want to be banned with dignity intact. It would be true if only you had any dignity left in the first place. Getting yourself banned for a cause doesn't mean that you will be canonized. We're not in the Greek-hero mindset now. —physicq (c) 00:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

What you term "dignity" appears to be an excess of pride. While you clearly seek to martyr yourself, that doesn't automatically make you noble. IrishGuy 23:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The behavior that I might be banned for is no worse than the daily behavior of at least half a dozen editors/admins who are given 'free passes' by the Wiki 'Ruling Class', for various reasons. (mostly cronysism and really good brown-nosing) I agree with Harriet Miers - Fire them ALL ! LOL! - FaAfA 'Mistakes were made' 00:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

(comment redacted by contributor) - Crockspot 01:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Please, just ignore him. --Ideogram 01:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That form of excuse didn't work on your mother, I'll wager, and it's not any more convincing here. --Calton | Talk 00:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Would it be inappropriate to crosspost Faafa's request to be banned to the RfAr? ThuranX 00:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"Request" ? Such an HONEST characterization ! FaAfA 'Mistakes were made'

Yep. You asked for it, so it's only fair that your wish be given the consideration it deserves. --Calton | Talk 00:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks FAAFA's username is highly inappropriate? Chris cheese whine 23:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I presume he's fair and accurate in the Fox News sense? -- ChrisO

FaAFA's name has been debated at length, and has never been found to be at issue. Dogpiling all possible issues for draggin up again when he's down and being kicked isn't appropriate. Besides, Fox is 'fair and balanced' he's 'fairness and accuracy'. Sufficiently different to begin with, plus a name about one's purported intent here a WP, taken in good faith, shows nothing to see here. move along. (Ironic, yes. Inappropirate? no.) ThuranX 23:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Bingo! FaAfA 'Mistakes were made' 00:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO, WP:NPA. I am getting pretty annoyed about this whole thing. Prodego 00:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting pretty annoyed too. FaAfA, stop trolling or I'll block you. Everybody else, stop feeding him. Picaroon 00:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The arbitration case will be resolved within the next few days. The proposed decision that the arbitrators are voting on, for those interested, is at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Proposed decision. Absent a real emergency, let's try not to invest any more energy or emotional resources in dealing with this group of editors. Newyorkbrad 00:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked FAAFA on the force of this thread alone, plus a cursory look through his contribs. This is disgraceful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is odd. I noticed that in two edits, Crockspot removed both is text and that of other editors in this section: there, he takes out FAAFA, then here, he takes out his own reply without replacing the other. Odd. Further, he calls himselfhte contributor. If it was an oops, he'd have replaced another editor's work ,wouldn't he? ThuranX 02:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It's probably a DB glitch. Have you asked Crockspot about it? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Not wanting to stir things up, . Chris cheese whine 03:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I was attempting to redact my own comment, and when the page loaded, it was still there, so I must have accidentally removed someone else's comment on the first edit. Sorry. Is it something worth restoring at this point? BTW, FAAFA is having a complete meltdown on his talk page. Not a pretty sight. Protection might be called for. - Crockspot 03:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC) fixed now - Crockspot 03:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If he wants to leave this place so much, why can't we just grant his request? —physicq (c) 03:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That last comment has resulted in me restarting the block, making it 10 days, and protecting his user talk page. Just as a FYI to all involved; we shouldn't let crap like that continue. Daniel Bryant 03:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

He has another account, User:NBGPWS... Just sayin'. - Crockspot 03:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

He hasn't used it in almost three months. It's not impossible he might log on to it, but for someone who's given the impression they're 'leaving forever', it wouldn't make much sense. HalfShadow 03:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If arbcom does ban him for a year, simply block the FAAFA and the NBGPWS accounts. I still haven't figured out why my name seems to always come up wiht this fellow...I actually lessened a lengthy block I had placed on him for gross incivility a while back, even though most felt he should remain blocked for the duration. Oh well.--MONGO 04:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like to say that while I usually think FAAFA treads the line this time he was way over it, and I am very disappointed. --BenBurch 15:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible return of User:Barringa

User:Sluzzelin suspects that User:Leasing Agent (who signs himself "Diligent", not to be confused with User:Diligent) is a sock of indef blocked antisemitic User:Barringa. Sluzzelin has notified EL C, the blocking admin. NB User:Jfarber has oddly confused my name with Leasing Agent. Leasing Agent has made a post at the Humanities Ref Desk that seems antisemitic and has so far declined to retract it (he made a minor amendment). His pattern of behaviour to date is similar to, but more subtle than the more obvious trolling of Barringa. Sock or not, Admin intervention gratefully received as there is (at least) disruption to the Humanities ref desk and some discomfort being experienced by a number of editors in good standing. --Dweller 11:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

For now, I'm only capable of adding two special pages showing the contributions of 71.100.171.80 and 71.100.166.228. Other version of 71.100... posting similar questions and comments on the Humanities and Miscellaneous Reference Desks can be found. Thank you, Dweller, for posting this notice. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Two more I dug up: 71.100.0.252 and 71.100.169.228. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This user is the great Shape-Shifter himself, coming in manifold guises. I have encountered him in the form of Barringa or Nocterne or Rabbi Benton and now Leasing Agent/Diligent, that is if he uses any name at all. But it's always the same relentless and tiresome manifesto. Clio the Muse 14:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• I blocked User:Leasing Agent (and protected the user pages) as a sock of User:Barringa. El_C 21:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

And User:71.100.12.76 posted on my talk page because I told him Diligent is an existing user and his signature shouldn't be the same as an exising user name as said in WP:SIGNATURE. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Jacob Peters avoiding block again

Permablocked user and sockmaster extrodinaire Jacob Peters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is editing from IP 69.110.128.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This looks like a fairly obvious case with the same IP range, POV, and article interest as normal. Can some one please block the IP for a little while to slow him down? Thanks, C 19:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, they don't quack too much louder then that. Seraphimblade 20:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

He's back again this afternoon on the Korean War article, this time from IP 68.126.253.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Typical JP IP range, and he reverted right back to the previous edits from the IP described above. Thanks in advance for the help. C 00:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

What Seraphimblade said. Keep us posted. Picaroon 01:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

BLAST!! It's been a while and I really thought we'd seen the last of Jacob. Oh well. Spotting his socks is child's play these days, so there's no point bothering the checkusers. Personally, I think we should just go by the rule that if it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, fucks like a duck, and pushes pro-Communist POV like a duck, it's probably Jacob Peters. No need to waste RFCU time, blocks after ANI reports should be the norm. Like here :) Best, Moreschi 10:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh... as even the fate of his namesake hasn't deterred him from his pro-Stalinist revisionism, I doubt we've seen the last sockpuppet making edits along the lines of "... most historians now agree that no one was killed in the Great Terror, and only three kulaks were slightly injured." MastCell 20:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD

I would like to ask the opinion of administrators if it is OK to nominate the article for deletion 5 days after the previous AfD closed with "keep"? This is what happened here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Khachkar destruction (March 14, 2007). I was the one who nominated the article for deletion first time, but then deletion did not get a consensus because of the position of users, who nominate the article for deletion now: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Khachkar destruction After that the article was expanded, and apparently some are not happy with the outcome and renominated it for deletion 5 days later, claiming that both sides agree to deletion, why it is not so. I don’t know if this is the right place to ask, but is there a certain policy on how often an article can be nominated for deletion and is it OK to renominate the article for deletion so soon after the previous AfD closed? Grandmaster 20:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It is discouraged to quickly relist, with two exceptions. Those are when the closing admin of the first AFD decides that a relisting is needed or when the first AFD is taken to DRV and the article is relisted there. I've generally maintained that the delay needed after a no-consensus AFD is shorter than the delay needed after a keep AFD. The usual thinking is that a second nomination ought to be a few months after the first. If the new AFD is better interpreted as challenging the close of the first (your description does not sound like this), then closing the second and taking it to DRV would be the thing to do. But if it is those who opined keep in the first that think it should be deleted, what the heck, let them change their mind, it doesn't cost that much. GRBerry 22:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, it should have been created at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Khachkar destruction (second nomination). Moved and fixed links/transclusions as appropriate. Daniel Bryant 03:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Unicorn144 (talk · contribs)

Well, this is my fourth appeal at this noticeboard for attention to the above user - see this, this, and a mention here - previous reports have all been ignored and archived. User creates nonsense pages, is self-publishing work, pushing some sort of POV. It's beyond my ability to handle and numerous editors have had problems, see the talk page. Will someone please, please, please not make me return here a fifth time? I really appreciate any attention that can be spared here - thanks! RJASE1 01:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense page deleted, and user warned. If he continues, let me know (preferably on my talk page). ⇒ SWATJester 02:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I already gave him a final warning for creating pages (even that page specifically), but I'll keep an eye on his contribs. RJASE1 02:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This diff shows some rather POV editing, along with soapboxing and snide comments about 'open minded christians' and so on. This guy really needs to review policy. ThuranX 04:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Request to ban Keltik31

This User has a long, long history of disruptive editing, contentiousness, and other behavior unbefitting Misplaced Pages, despite repeated warnings and requests to stop. --DavidShankBone 04:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible PR firm editing

I believe Weimpact (talk · contribs) New2007york (talk · contribs) and Rfbinder (talk · contribs) are all employees (possibly the same employee) of the Public Relations firm RF Binder. The articles they have written have all been POV ad copy masquerading as articles. These are RF Binder, David Finn, Harry Lipsig - The Lipsig Law Firm, Lemon Tree salons, Homeric Tours, and Stratford Career Institute. What would people think about blocking these accounts as meta:Role accounts? From messages left on my talk page you can see that they intend to continue editing. I worry about the message we are sending otherwise about WP:COI and paid editing. Mak (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Based on IP evidence, I don't think Weimpact is an RF Binder employee, but New2007york and Rfbinder are, as well as two others - Katefarber and Cmo2007 Raul654 04:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• And I was just about to suggest a checkuser. If it looks like corporate spam, smells like corporate spam...I think our zero tolerance policy on the issue is appropriate. Teke 04:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• But do we block the editors? Mak (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'd say give them fair warning that we're on to them, and what/why their actions are wrong, and don't do it again or gone. That would be for brevity's sake. They will either spam again or not, I would think as there's not much other use for those accounts. Other takes welcome. Teke 04:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Block them all. Block the 4 that Raul pointed out indefinitely, then block Weimpact pending confirmation from him that he's not an employee (we'll have to AGF that he is telling the truth) and if Weimpact disruptively edits again, reinstitute the block. Of all the users, it looks like only Weimpact has any chance of positively contributing. ⇒ SWATJester 07:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with SwatJester - block 'em all. Natalie 13:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not give them an opportunity to show that they understand what they've done is wrong, instead of just a knee-jerk block? 216.234.128.8 20:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Teke; give them a warning and then block if they do it again. An immediate indef block seems a bit harsh. Veinor 20:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Justanother restoring edits made by a banned user

Justanother (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • rfcu) was mentioned by me here a short while ago (see Archive 214) for reverting edits made by what is clearly a sockpuppet of the banned User:The Real Barbara Schwarz.

Again, Justanother has restored an edit made by a suspected sockpuppet of this banned user on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination)‎. There is no privacy issue involved this time, however I do not believe my actions in reverting the sockpuppet are inappropriate; if so, I would appreciate a warning to that effect, and administrator intervention with the sockpuppet. Citations to follow shortly. Orsini 04:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations and DIFFS

• The sockpuppet User:Wickimicki appears
• User:Justanother labels the sockpuppet as SPA
• I revert the edits
• User:Justanother restores the edits - "Little different this time Orsini, no personal info - you are not an admin - we just tag it and report it."
• I revert the edits again which I believe were inappropriately restored by User:Justanother

The sockpuppet has had the template for this banned user placed on the User and Talk Pages. If my edits and reporting this here are inappropriate actions, please let me know so I don't repeat this mistake. Orsini 04:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please also see: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive206#BabyDweezil_redux:_proposing_a_one-month_block - Comments by Admin Bishonen on his inappropriate behaviour. And also please see: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive214#User:Justanother_restoring_harassing_edits_made_by_a_sockpuppet_of_a_banned_user.2C_and_growing_incivility - Comments by user/respected editor Athaenara on his inappropriate behaviour. Also posted the abusive sockpuppet of User:The real Barbara Schwarz to WP:AIV, in addition to this user. Restoring a banned sockpuppet's disruptive edits is vandalism. Smee 04:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Oh good, I would really like an admin to set us straight here. Let's forget the other possible sockpuppet post earlier please. Apparently there was some personal info concealed in that one that no-one would notice unless they knew what they were looking for. So I admitted that, had I known there was personal info in there, I would have removed it myself, not restored it. Honest mistake.
  • Now on this one - My understanding is that if you suspect a sock then you tag it somehow, maybe with {{spa}} then report it and let the normal admin and checkuser process take over. You would not remove a simple posting just becsue you suspect it is a sock. Am I right? Because Orsini, an inexperienced wikipedia editor, thinks that he should get rid of non-threatening posts that he thinks are socks of Barbara Schwarz. Can an admin please provide us fellas with some guidance. Thanks. --Justanother 04:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • No, not in this case, and you know better. And you were warned that the editor was a banned abusive editor, but restored anyway. This is a special case because if we went to WP:SOCK every single time that User:The real Barbara Schwarz creates a new sockpuppet, there would be complete disruption and abuse all over the place. Smee 04:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

WP:CALM, please. Tagging as a SPA is sufficient to alert administrators that the comment is possibly an extraneous sock- or meatpuppet. It's a dumb thing to get into an edit-war over, given that AfDs are not head-counting exercises. -- TedFrank 04:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Ted. Please note also the sockpuppet also edited on her favorite places to cause disruption. I agree it's a foolish reason for an edit war. However, is it appropriate or inappropriate to leave edits by a banned user to stand? This is a point on which I am uncertain, and I hope you can set me straight. Best, Orsini 04:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's where WP:CALM comes in. The suspected sock edited made one comment each on two talk pages and an AfD. Where's the disruption? Add the SPA tag if you have a good-faith basis for doing so, and it won't be the end of the world if an administrator gets to it on Friday instead of Thursday. It's not going to influence the AfD decision any more than it does when a newspaper columnist encourages readers to flood in to vote in an AfD. -- TedFrank 04:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with you about canvassing in that way. However it may be worth noting the Talk page archives of Talk:Barbara Schwarz available to admins only, or the previous 3 AfD discussions to see the degree of disruption which this one abuser can cause in a very short time. But I take you point; I do need to remain calm myself. Best regards, Orsini 05:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate for me to restore? yes? No? my choice? Thanks. --Justanother 05:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

whats the official policy on this, out of curiosity? I saw this come up on Brandt's afd as well, where certain admins supported his posting, others RV'd it out, and one even threatened to ban anyone who removed his commentary. - Denny 06:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to know this. My understanding of policy is 1. a banned user doesn't get to edit Misplaced Pages at all; 2. edits from banned users are treated as vandalism; and 3. dealing with vandalism can be done by any editor by reverting. However I've been over-ruled here and the banned edits were restored. I don't understand why. Please point me towards a clue, since WP:VANDAL is what I've based my actions upon and I must be missing something. Orsini 06:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

(1) is true. I see no basis for (2) in WP:VAND. And, once again, we're talking about AfD-space, not a substantive article edit. A sock or two with an SPA tag isn't going to make a difference; a hundred socks are going to be obvious and counterproductive. In either scenario, a reversion isn't necessary. Moreover, given that this is a suspected sock, rather than a confirmed sock, WP:AGF militates against reversion. -- TedFrank 06:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the sock allegation even confirmed in this case, or is just suspected because of the SPA? -- TedFrank 06:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The puppetmaster has used a huge number of sockpuppets. Her style can be easily identified by those familiar with her editing paterns and writing style. As normal users, we do not have the tools (like IP checking) available to admins, and they only confirm the suspicion. As Smee stated, if we went to WP:SOCK every single time that User:The real Barbara Schwarz creates a new sockpuppet, there would be even more disruption. Usually User:ChrisO spots her sockpuppets quickly and deals with them since he is familair with the pattern. Orsini 06:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

So if a sympathetic and knowledgeable admin is already involved, I don't understand why an SPA-tag + wait-for-a-few-hours isn't sufficient, and the aggrieved parties feel the need for an edit-war and a lengthy AN/I thread. Especially when the sock's only role is to make unpersuasive AfD and talk-page arguments. It makes me want to create a WP:WOLF essay. -- TedFrank 06:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Ted, it wasnt my intention to waste ANI's time or fill up space with a frivolous matter. I reverted edits in good faith which I reasonably suspected to be from the banned user's sock, and which were edits made in bad faith. User:ChrisO has dealt with this in the way I did, and Justanother didn't see fit to complain or restore those edits, only mine. History shows the sockpuppets' inciteful comments soon begin a flood of disruption, so doing a fast revert has minimized this impact. AGF policy also covers those situations where there's evidence to the contrary of good faith, and trolling by a banned user is not GF; I hope you and Justanother can AGF in my judgement that the sockpuppet is a banned user. I also believed Justanother's actions were inappropriate, and so I apologize for wasting your time. I note your comment in the AfD itself, and will take that comment on board with regards to my own behavior. Regards, Orsini 06:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I sympathize with your plight. From personal experience, when one is dealing with a disruptive editor, the most effective strategy is to minimize one's own disruptive actions so that third-party editors can quickly see who is at fault. If the other editor is truly disruptive, they'll hang themselves quickly; if they're not truly disruptive, then hanging back and avoiding provocation can save both parties tsuris. -- TedFrank 07:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

We are up to 30 plus socks not counting the many that were just plain IP addresses. There are numerous editors and admins that aware of this issue and they will remove her comments as soon as they appear. She has made legal threats and she attempts to "out" anonymous editors. He latest comment adds nothing of value to the AfD and it contains material that is against Misplaced Pages policy, namely it accused other editors of bad faith and even suggested that Misplaced Pages editors "wished her harm". These are personal attacks and they should not be permitted by anyone anywhere, let alone a user that is indefinitely banned. Vivaldi (talk) 08:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Djwatson not adhering to WP:CIVIL

User:Djwatson posted in a move discussion, and I replied arguing my reasons against the move, to which he posted a personal attack against me. I reverted it on the ground that it's personal attack, and he reinstated it and added more uncivil commentary. For fear of acting out of line, I would like some intervention. Thanks. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 04:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the personal attack part of his comment but left the rest alone. Hopefully that will resolve the matter. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

71.112.7.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) disruptive editing

This user is systematically deleting "Academy-Award winning" or "-nominated" from every actor article. -- TedFrank 04:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked due to repeated vandalism. Thanks. ···日本穣 05:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure all those vandalism warnings left by a single editor for a content dispute were appropriate. 71 is being disruptive with an unusual POV-push, but it's not quite vandalism. -- TedFrank 06:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that this user is requesting unblock via their talk page ({{unblock}}). I'm on the fence-leaning towards endorsing with this one, but given there is already a thread here, might as well get the second opinion from an ANI reader :) Cheers, Daniel Bryant 09:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Something is wonky in the coding on that page. I can't see half of it (anything below the "Cool (aesthetic)" section), but I can't see anything which would do that. I'm guessing it was something that BaseballDetective did as it was fine before his multiple edits of the page. Anyone want to look and see if they can figure out why the page isn't showing half its content? I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.2 on Windows XP SP2.

Also, I've unblocked as I think about 24 hours is good enough. ···日本穣 22:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Help needed with Academy Award Winner Page Vandalism

Can someone please help me with this problematic anon IP address: 71.112.7.212. Scroll down to 'Academy Award Winner Page Vandalism' to see what I am talking about. The user barely knows how to use Wiki and despite multiple warnings, continues to engage in various forms of vandalism and page blanking. His current 'kick' is the bizarre concept that saying someone is an Academy Award winner is somehow 'advertising' and randomly editing various Academy Award winner pages to remove this reference. Additionally, he/she is blanking out warnings whenever he gets the chance: See his/her log Special:Contributions/71.112.7.212. I'm exhausted trying to revert this trolls constant vandalism and I truly need someone else to step in. There is also a long history of this IP address simply engaging in similar behavior on other articles. The IP address traces to a Verizon address, but it seems static; same person, same behavior. Help! Please :(

Thanks in advance for the help! Best, BaseballDetective 05:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've left him a note. Let's see what happens. - Mgm| 12:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• This absolutely screams WP:POINT (and indeed WP:SOCK). Look at recent blacklistings at m:Spam blacklist, and recent reversion of spamming campaigns, and I suspect we will find the individual behind this IP. Guy (Help!) 12:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Hop two sections above this to find another thread regarding this IP's behaviour. Daniel Bryant 12:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Smee

I know that WP:DR is that-a-way but I think this is moving over to WP:DE. Quick details:

• I asked User:Bishonen to help address Smee's WP:DE and detailed the then latest episode of Smee's WP:DE here. She politely declined and suggested asking User:Jossi.
• User:BTfromLA, a respected neutral editor had just returned so I asked him to mediate. He offered and experienced, in his words, "abrupt rebuff of my attempt to address the problem". I asked Smee nicely to reconsider BT's offer but he did not respond.
• Smee then continued his WP:DE at David Gaiman, edit warring with me over a simple {{notability}} tag for an WP:BLP that clearly, IMO, has notability issues.
• Smee then continued his WP:DE at The Bridge (film) with two rude reverts (likely his 5th or 6th reverts there in 24 hrs) to BTfromLA, a respected neutral editor; behavior that prompted BTfromLA to agree "I certainly see the problem." Smee also likely violated 3RR on that article but the WP:DE is more obvious and is blatant.

Will some admin please help me? This has been going on for a while but this recent is just over-the-top. Thanks. --Justanother 05:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Abusive/disruptive pattern of "Justanother"

• The user in question Justanother has a pattern of abuse and disruptive editing. Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive206#BabyDweezil_redux:_proposing_a_one-month_block, for Comments by Admin Bishonen on his inappropriate behaviour and disruption of a previous ANI discussion. Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive214#User:Justanother_restoring_harassing_edits_made_by_a_sockpuppet_of_a_banned_user.2C_and_growing_incivility, for comments by user/respected editor Athaenara on his inappropriate behaviour. The user likes to engage in off-topic insults, name calling, and inappropriate language and behaviour, restoring edits by banned sockpuppeteer User:The real Barbara Schwarz (twice now), and other inappropriate behaviour too numerous to count. Thank you for your time, I am glad you are looking into this matter. Yours, Smee 05:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Please also see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination), and TedFrank comment on disruption of Misplaced Pages by Justanother: This is a disruptive AfD, and Justanother should withdraw it. But the supporters of the article do themselves no favors when they recursively comment on every single input, and both sides have problems with WP:CIVIL. Thanks. Smee 05:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Since the "accused" in these situations usually says the same thing and is hardly ever believed, it seems worth mentioning that more than one editor feels that Justanother is a disruptive editor himself. I have only encountered him directly on the Barbara Schwarz article, but in doing so found myself with serious WP:COI concerns about him which he as gone to great lengths to avoid discussion of. He also appears to bait his opponents at any opportunity, an example can be seen on my talk page: User_talk:Anynobody. There are at least a few others who would agree, however it is not my place to speak for them. (However it would not surprise me if others posted similar feelings.) Anynobody 06:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur with both Anynobody and Smee, and will keep my comments here brief. I note Smee quotes TedFrank's comment in the AfD, and I must confess I have bitten the bait laid out for me too often, as indicated by Ted's response. However there are numerous instances where User:Justanother has indulged in WP:DE himself. Orsini 11:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Third party observations

• Justanother accurately portrays my comments and experiences above, but I have since had a bit of interaction with Smee that was much less contentious than indicated there, and that leaves me much more hopeful that a truce, at least, can be reached when dealing with articles of mutual interest to these editors. My surprise at the "abrupt rebuff" turns out to have been partly due to a misunderstanding--I had thought Smee's edit summary saying something to the effect of "don't post on my talk page" was aimed at me, but I now see that he(?) was responding to Justanother--in other words, his response to my offer to help with the problem was fairly non-responsive, but not hostile, as I had originally thought. I later reiterated my offer, which Smee politely declined. I did indeed experience the frustration Justanother talks about when editing The Bridge (film) and experiencing Smee's instantaneous reverts of my good faith edit. However, Smee eventually did read my rationale on the talk page, considered the edit, and agreed that not only was it worth allowing to stand for comment, but that it actually did represent a small improvement in the article. So, happy ending. He followed it with some friendly words about my manner as an editor. My sense is that this conflict can be resolved with a mutual agreement to assume good faith and to limit disputes to substantive article changes, allowing others to deal with the small stuff. Both editors are capable of working civily. Justanother clearly wants some sort of mutually acceptible understanding to be brokered; if Smee agrees to some sort of arbitration, formal or otherwise, I think it can. BTfromLA 06:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As a pretty much disinterested observer that doesn't have much stake in the issues concerned, I have been shocked at some of the language used by User:Justanother, including the f.word etc, and the way he interacts with other editors who happen not to share his opinion on scientology topics.Merkinsmum 13:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Justanother sometimes not politically correct with edit-warring propagandists and bigots (and yes, I have diffs) that, in addition to relentless disruptive edit-warring with me, engage in further disruptive activity such as that at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination) that prompted one editor to remark "Calling for an editor to be blocked for a supportable opinion is odious", an opinion expressed by others in that AfD. So, yes, I am sometimes short with them or sarcastic and on one noted and isolated occasion almost two weeks ago, I lost my temper and used the s-word (and the mf-word) to refer to myself on my own talk page. Sorry if that offends. PS, I have plenty more examples of Smee's WP:DE pattern if any admin wants to see. I was hoping to handle it with WP:DR but he rejected a good-faith attempt to do so and only increased his WP:DE, hoping, as always, to hide it beneath a mountain of misdirection and "who, me?" This will form the extent of my remarks to misdirection such as that already offered by four editors (Smee, Anynobody, Orsini, and now Merkinsmum) above. Thank you and please let me know if you need more diffs, including any to support my charges of propagandizing (Smee being the main propagandist) and bigotry (not Smee particularly), charges not being brought here except as background, because I have plenty of diffs. --Justanother 13:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh please Justanother, you know the perception "....that prompted one editor to remark "Calling for an editor to be blocked for a supportable opinion is odious", an opinion expressed by others in that AfD" is based upon a false premise used to manufacture a COI issue for User:Tilman, also based on faulty premises, and someone fell for that premise. The reality is somewhat different; Tilman suggested you were blocked based upon your WP:DE behavior and your support of another’s behavior on Talk:Barbara Schwarz, which was also aggressively disruptive. I was tempted to respond to the edit you cite, but recalling Ted's observation, figured doing so there would only add to the noise. Orsini 19:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Shame on you, Orsini. Why not assume good faith and intelligence on the part of User:Shenme that he could correctly evaluate what Tilman was talking about. Let's make it crystal clear what Tilman was talking about by linking to the diffs of Tilman's actual postings instead of to one of you muddying the waters (as you and others continue to attempt here). Here he calls for my block after I began asking seriously about starting an AfD for Schwarz. Here is Tilman making essentially the same call for my block for bringing the AfD (actually he thinks he has a double-whammy reason for blocking me there). You know, Orsini, that your misrepresentation is disrespectful of the board if not downright trolling. --Justanother 19:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, please stop your personal attacks. You were warned on your Talk page, and I note you have removed the warning with a clearly uncivil edit summary. I have certainly AGF on the part of User:Shenme, and I don't believe it is me who is doing the misrepresentation. Omission of pertinent details will lead to faulty conclusions. This diff, including the preceding comments I made which appear at the top, is a brief summary of that which anyone examining Archive 10 of Talk:Barbara Schwarz can clearly see for themselves as to why User:Tilman called for you to be blocked, if they care to examine it. Hint: it was not because you were calling for an AfD; try looking at your previous edit here for the basis of his reasoning, and mine, for that suggestion. Orsini 00:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of "propagandizing" and "bigotry" are not within WP:CIVIL discourse. Criticize edits, not editors. -- TedFrank 13:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree, Ted. Discussion of propagandizing is comment on edits and is entirely appropriate and I accuse Smee of propagandizing but I am not making that accusation formally here; it is more appropriate for WP:DR progressive handling, IMO. Please see Wp:not#Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox which prohibits "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind." As far as bigotry, I am specifically not accusing Smee of expressing bigotry but that is something that I deal with from a few other editors and I can back that up with diffs. I only mention it in the context of my replies to such, which can be a bit acerbic. Thanks. --Justanother 15:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:VANDAL prohibits vandalism of any kind, but that doesn't mean indiscriminately calling editors vandals is within WP:CIVIL. From what I've seen there's a content dispute, often over trivial matters, with both sides resorting to trying to get their way through attrition and every so often making a tactical yield to seem reasonable and stay within 3RR. If there's a propagandizing problem, it's resolved with POV tags and RFCs, not edit wars and repetitious AfDs and back-and-forth tattling about which neutral editor W said X about Y. That goes for both of you: whichever one of you is in the right is playing into the hands of the other by burying the issue in back-and-forth so that no one neutral wants to get involved. Perhaps Smee is POV-pushing, but you've made it near-impossible to tell by your conduct. It's much easier to conclude that everyone is in the wrong. -- TedFrank 16:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

While following a few other outlinks, I fell into the tit-for-tat between both of these editors at the The Bridge (film) article. I find that each editor spends probably 45% of their time undoing the work of the other, another 45% looking for ways to "improve" the article in a way that the other won't like, and the final 10% doing good and useful work. Maybe that's exaggeration, but it is my perception because I have become so exhausted watching the ping-pong and sniping that I have essentially given up on that article, leaving it to them to argue over, and decided to move on to things less stressful. Neither editor is wholly without blame and while Smee's words may be less caustic, his actions are nonetheless just as tiring. My biggest concern with the situation is that it will eventually end up at ArbCom (if it hasn't before, I haven't checked yet). Both users have their trenches dug and are simply hurling their own brands of grenades. ju66l3r 14:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's an exaggeration: these statistics seem to leave out the 60% of the time spent on Misplaced Pages: and Talk: pages. I don't think either side realizes the damage they do to their own case by failing to adhere to WP:CALM. -- TedFrank 16:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I am pretty calm lately, since I gave User:JustaHulk his own account. Smee is calm in his words but frantic in his WP:DE edit-warring as BTfromLA experienced very quickly. --Justanother 16:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Justanother for 24 hours for several reasons. 1) The above personal attacks namely accusing users of being "edit-warring propagandists and bigots" and of "downright trolling" 2) disruptive removal of legitimate warnings with hostile edit summaries , 3) use of single-purpose account User:JustaHulk to mess with User:Smee "remove "welcome" from someone that does not seem "welcoming" at all". I have indefinitely blocked that account as a disruptive single-purpose account as well. Fellow admins, as always feel free to comment on my administrative actions. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 01:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I believe that Orsini did completely misinterpret my comment, which was a face-value opinion. That Justanother did correctly point that out should be noted, though his comment may seen to be tainted. Further, a WP:NPA notice from what should have been noted as a fellow combatant is not a mere notice, but rather is likely to be seen as an incitement. (I believe that has been agreed by many here, something about ímpersonal template 'tags' for non-recent editors?) I worry that there is too much focus on "the lemming in the lead" here. Shenme 03:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Child's personal information needs disappearing

See . Seems like it was always a part of the page. Thanks. MER-C 10:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFO - gets done safer. x42bn6 Talk 11:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Anetode

Anetode violates the civility policy by calling anonymous internet users fukwads and characterizing them by saying things like sh*t and c*ck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Anetode

Here is the policy

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Civility#Examples —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.41.162.51 (talk) 05:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

• I freely admit to having been uncivil to anonymous internet users I have never run across or communicated with. ˉˉ╦╩ 05:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Your logic does not follow. I seriously doubt his intent was to call all anonymous users fuckwads. Its clearly an explanation of the motivation of vandals. Misplaced Pages is NOT censored. —Ocatecir 09:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC

• Nothing to see here, move along now... Guy (Help!) 11:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we really accept this sort of language on an admin's User page? Would we accept it on a non-admin's page? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a cartoon. It makes a valid point. Yes. Guy (Help!) 11:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It's the GIFT. HOly smokes. Are Wikilawyers really going to turn this site into a job? No jokes mimicing in any way WP functions on the pages, and now no humor? We've got ridiculous POV from entire nations of editors out to make their enemies look bad, we've got libelists rampant, and the best we can do is argue the GIFT, when we're knee deep in proof throughout any editing session? COme off it. The GIFT ought to be POLICY, not banned. ThuranX 11:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

For goodness' sake; it's an obvious knockoff of Penny Arcade's presentation of John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory (GIFT). Aside from the fact that it's just a harmless comic, it also happens to be a pithy, distressingly accurate social comment, and a valuable warning to members of internet communities. My only criticism is that it would be best if Anetode linked the specific comic he's borrowing from, to make the source absolutely clear and to give credit where it is due.

Incidentally, there didn't seem to be any effort whatsoever by the complainant to discuss things politely and reasonably with Anetode, who probably would have been willing to explain the joke. Instead, we're seeing a (failed) attempt to form up a lynch mob. The interpretation of this 'dispute resolution' attempt in the context of the GIFT is left as an exercise for the reader. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point, I mentioned the source but neglected to add a direct link. Fixed ˉˉ╦╩ 18:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry and unexplained breaking of MOSBIO rules

Japanese users (most likely sockpuppets belonging to User:ShinjukuXYZ) keep inserting the ethnicity of Joji Obara in the opening paragraph, even though this goes against WP:MOSBIO#Opening paragraph. They keep on changing the opening line to "Joji Obara is a Korean Japanese"... when in fact, his only nationality is "Japanese". I asked for a ratoinale on the talk page, but was ignored. Also, User:ShinjukuXYZ was found guilty of using sockpuppets, but no block, no warning, no ban, no nothing. Mackan 12:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour, Thumperward (talk · contribs) removing piped links

Okay, this is really, really silly and stupid, but I would like to get some input from uninvolved users anyway. There has been an ongoing heated discussion on Talk:Football (soccer) about the name of the article. That discussion seems to have cooled down, and "my side" seems to have "won". This seems to have lead to a user on "the other side", User:Thumperward (signs with name "Chris Cunningham" on talk pages) making a few undiscussed edits to the article to "improve it". Some were good, some were bad, but the main thing I would like to get input on is these edits, and my subsequent (silly) reverts:

• 1st edit by CC
• 1st revert my me
• 2nd edit by CC
• 2nd revert by me
• 3rd edit by CC
• 3rd and a ½ edit by CC

Now, note that he removes working and correct piped links to use unpiped links and redirects instead. Also note the edit summary of the 3rd edit. Now, I know that I should probably just have been cooler and just ignored this, but I really can't understand his behaviour in these edits and I could not stay away, although his edit summary implies that I could not make another revert without breaking 3RR, he's wrong, "I have one revert left", but I'll stay away from using it this time and instead seek the opinion of others. – Elisson • T • C • 13:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

1. The edit summary was intended to reflect that I wasn't going to pursue the matter further today.
2. The link edits are (a) in keeping with MoS and (b) justified both in summary and on talk.
3. The WP:OWN comment was intended to point out that Elisson had, in edit 2's summary, decided to start telling me how and how not to edit articles.

This article isn't being allowed to evolve. It's being held in a static state, and now editors who are attempting to be bold and do something other than vandalise it (check the glorious edit history) are being reported for being "disruptive". Chris Cunningham 13:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

How are the link edits in keeping with MoS? Please give a link and citation. You just waste server resources by doing edits that actually does not help the article (and so was I, reverting you...). This is also what I wanted to tell you by the second edit summary, and it is applicable to all edits anyone makes anywhere. I don't see how WP:OWN is relevant in that context. – Elisson • T • C • 13:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The WP:OWN comment was a pithy retort at being told to leave the article as it was. I meant to link to WP:MOS-L#Context, which states: "Don't use a piped link to avoid otherwise legitimate redirect targets that fit well within the scope of the text." this includes splitting Zurich, Switzerland into Zurich, Switzerland (Switzerland is irrelevant except in that it helps place Zurich in context) and expanded instances of things like Fédération Internationale de Football Association where the redir points to FIFA unambiguously anyway. As for "wasting server resources", server resources are less valuable than editor resources, which is why MoS recommends keeping markup simple (to make it easier to edit). Chris Cunningham 14:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOS-L#Context does not give you justification to remove such a pipe link, the meaning of that section is that if you link to for example Religion in Sweden (I created it for this example as it didn't exist), which is a redirect to Church of Sweden, don't do a pipe link ] because 1) the concept religion in Sweden is not neccessarily the same as the concept Church of Sweden, and 2) it hinders the usage of "what links here" on Religion in Sweden to check if it is a good idea to create a more general article on religion in Sweden. It can not be applied on this case, where "FIFA" and "Fédération Internationale de Football Association" mean the exact same thing. I have no opinion on the Zürich matter whatsoever, as it is not the thing I reverted over. And regarding keeping markup simple, I'm not sure that the difference between ] and ] is that big of a thing for anyone to parse... If someone decided to type the first version when writing something new, I don't see any point in changing that perfectly working link to something else, just as I don't see any point in "fixing" redirects as it works just as fine. The whole point about keeping markup simple is to not use HTML and CSS where it is not needed, the point is not to change things that work just because you can make the link five chars shorter. – Elisson • T • C • 14:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My user page has been vandalised by User:Thumperward using a certain sock ] - check out the coincidental intrest in "Cunningham" in recent days by "both" users. This is ironic since I was trying to reason with him about how to describe the Glenn Greenwald Sock-puppetry scandal (covered in the MSM) only gaining a promise that he would "delete on sight due to BLP". I find the homophobic remarks by this user particularly offensive. I thought I should add this here as this user seems to have issues. David Spart 16:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see the point of this revert war. From WP:LINK, "It is not necessary to pipe links simply to avoid redirects. The number of links to a redirect page can be a useful gauge of when it would be helpful to spin off a subtopic of an article into its own page." In these cases, full names & acryonyms are pretty stably connected. It is feasible that the acronym FIFA will become a disambig page if some notable organization starts to use it, so unpiped is marginally better in my opinion. However, mostly this appears to be just a dumb turf war.

The first edit ("fixing" the links) was rather pointless; the reversion was arguably more pointless since it seemed to be picking a fight over an unhelpful, but unhurtful, edit. Thumperward (talk · contribs), "see you in 24 hours", a clear reference to WP:3RR, is borderline uncivil & disruptive, as I interpret it as goading Johan Elisson (talk · contribs). I'd advise these editors to cool off for a while and quit this battle. -- Scientizzle 16:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

He not only attacks my sexuality but is also a sock-puppetmaster.David Spart 18:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added a Uw-upv3 warning to 195.194.68.22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), (after which I noticed that JoshuaZ (talk · contribs) blocked the IP). In any case, if you've evidence to support allegations of sockpuppet abuse, I'd encourage you to file a claim at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets. -- Scientizzle 19:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Revert war at GNAA

Users are reverting back and forth as to whether this disambig page should include the troll group whose article was deleted (and the deletion review kept it deleted). Someone should protect the page (I'm involved so I won't). — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-16 13:43Z

Protected. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Salute (pyrotechnics)

I was happily editing disambiguation pages for Messier objects (such as M82, M90, M110, etc) when I encountered a very upset User:Pyrogrimace and some apparent content disputes at Salute (pyrotechnics) that have spilled into M80. At the moment, Salute (pyrotechnics) contains an italicized warning against "sabotage". Could an administrator please go figure out what is going on and intervene if appropriate? Also, Salute (pyrotechnics) apparently needs a warning template. Does anyone have any suggestions? Dr. Submillimeter 13:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't for the life of me see any dispute that has spilled into M80. There is what appears to be a misplaced comment in the talk page for that disambiguation page, but the page is fine. As for the content dispute on Salute (pyrotechnics), that's not an administrator issue unless policies are violated. I don't even really see much of a dispute. It surely does not need a warning template. Lexicon (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. Maybe I simply had an alarmist interpretation of the various messages at Talk:M80 and Salute (pyrotechnics). Thank you for looking anyway. Dr. Submillimeter 15:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Banned user evading block

Pulvis angelus (talk · contribs · block log) is banned, then a new user - Macedonia.eu (talk · contribs · block log) - turns up and claims to have written a page which was in reality written by Pulvis angelus. Macedonia.eu is then promptly indefblocked. Macedonia.eu has said his IP is from Bulgaria and then lo and behold, an IP from Bulgaria starts making the same edits on the same page, Radoviš. Could an administrator take a look at this, please.--Domitius 15:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Request on WP:AIV and WP:RFC/NAME for User talk:I Want it that way

This User made the following comment on Backstreet Boys discography "Note2:Hi: I want speak with you I don't think black and blue sale just 15 million and this not with mind seven years just sale 15 million and they best boyband in the world, And your digit not true ever . take care before I wiping you from Misplaced Pages and I ravage your computer because you nuisance just here This user is also appears to be using multiple names Micheal-Nicks, Batguy, Richard Jone, Kmnmo, and has been extremely disruptive over the past two months (daily). All attempts to warm him of his/her errors and repeated removal of edits has not worked. Can someone please look into this and please take action. 59.124.99.83 16:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User is referring to -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I Want it that way (talk · contribs), Batguy (talk · contribs), Micheal-Nick (talk · contribs), Richard Jone (talk · contribs) & Kmnmo (talk · contribs) do all have a very similar editing pattern... -- Scientizzle 16:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added a npa4 warning at User talk:I Want it that way, the account that made the attack statement. -- Scientizzle 16:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Jonawiki and sockpuppetry

The person who registered the Jonawiki (talk · contribs) account is causing disruption at Star Wars Galaxies and Talk:Star Wars Galaxies, where he is using his sockpuppet Magonaritus (talk · contribs) (and vice-versa) to circumvent policy and influence an RfC. He has previously done the same at Upper Canada College and the relevant talk page for over a year. His demeanour is generally abrasive, and confrontational. All-together the user has violated WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:NLT, WP:NOT#SOAP, WP:VAND, WP:POINT, and, of course, WP:SOCK, leading to edit wars and the pages being locked. Evidence has been outlined here. This user needs to be blocked. --G2bambino 16:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: User:Jonawiki is now causing issue at Monarchy in Canada to make a point. --G2bambino 18:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I am now looking into this — One of these has contacted me concerning wiki-stalking with regards to the complainant. Will post my findings. WormwoodJagger 19:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I don't mean to sound suspicious here, but User:WormwoodJagger is not listed as an administrator. Nor am I sure how anyone has contacted him about possible wiki-stalking, as I see no evidence of such, unless the intervener has contacts with the user(s) in question outside of Misplaced Pages. --G2bambino 22:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I was contacted inside Misplaced Pages concerning wikistalking. I can't say anything more until I've completed my invesitgations. If you have any further questions, please follow procedure and post on my talk page 74.110.212.198 22:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No - I am not comfortable with your investigating anything. Your anon IP's edit history points towards you being aligned with the user(s) I have identified as disruptive and possibly sockpuppets. An actual administrator should handle this case. --G2bambino 23:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry -- you are not qualified to make that decision. I have been called in; it is too late. Your edits on Star Wars Galaxy have implicated you in a wiki-stalking invesitagtion that far exceeds only your minor contributions. Your assertion that I am aligned with others has been noted, and put on the record. Again, if you would like to discuss this further, please do not compromise this investigation any further, and follow protocol by contacting me on my web page. All best, WormwoodJagger 00:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

User:FCYTravis

He has created an edit war on Attachment disorder and is not acting in a manner consistent with conduct I'd expect of an administrator: trying to build consensus and agreement, not start an edit war. It seems that the problems have been created by User:FCYTravis. Before he entered the picture, there were no problems. His approach to the disagreement on content is to merely blank large sections of the article, despite other editors willing to build consensus by collaborating to improve the article. He has a history of this on this subject (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/FCYTravis ) for example. DPeterson 20:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Social networking

Would it be appropriate for me to request attention to User:Ak-47ck, User:Jesterjokes2 and User:Xiv4show? They are using Misplaced Pages as a social networking site, their only non-vandalism contributions are chatting with one another, and my friendly warning to User:Ak-47ck met only with a not-so-friendly response. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Warnings left. I'll keep an eye on it.⇒ SWATJester 21:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've blocked them and deleted their pages; Misplaced Pages is not a chat client. DS 22:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ombudsman

I would appreciate it if a neutral admin could have a word with Ombudsman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) about the importance of civil edit summaries—he's been removing comments and advice from other editors from his talk page with edit summaries implying that the comments are vandalism. (rv: v, rv: v, rm vandalism).

I don't feel it would be welcome or productive for me to bring the matter up with him, as I was involved in a conflict with him sometime last year (in which he decided I was a pharmaceutical industry 'shill'). Please note that Ombudsman is currently subject to an ArbCom-imposed probation due to his history of tendentious and disruptive editing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Technically (and it's a rule I disagree with), he's allowed to remove whatever he wants from his talk page. His implication that they are vandalism is wrong, but still it's his talk page :( ⇒ SWATJester 22:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, for reference, the probations states"Ombudsman is placed indefinitely on Probation. He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article concerning a medical subject which he disrupts by tendentious editing" so that wouldn't apply to his talk page. ⇒ SWATJester 22:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I read this as the problem is the edit summaries, not the warnings removal. Natalie 23:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Me too; none of the messages he removed were vandalism, so his edit summaries are wrong. Acalamari 23:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Me three; the only time I've ever removed anything from my talk page as vandalism is when it's along the lines of 'U SUCK'; I see nothing nearly as bad here. Veinor 23:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, they're not vandalism like he claims. Nothing wrong with someone telling him to play nicey nice. But think about it this way: He obviously doesn't want anything negative on his talk page right? Wouldn't he just remove your message/warning about edit summaries the same way that he's remove the other ones?⇒ SWATJester 23:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

To clarify—yes, my concern was about the incivil implications of the edit summaries. They imply (pretty directly, and completely inaccurately) that the editors whose comments were removed are vandals. I fully agree that an editor can remove whatever comments he wants to from his talk page, as long as he's polite about it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a shot at it, and if nothing else at least notified him that this discussion about his behavior is ongoing. MastCell 23:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, though I check back later or watch the page to see if it gets removed. Acalamari 23:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that he is of course welcome to remove any comments he sees fit; if he does so with a civil edit summary. Just as long as he takes the advice, there's no problem. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

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