Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:35, 2 April 2007

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

User:Paul venter and User:Berks105 engaged in some sort of edit war

It would appear that two users Paul venter (talk · contribs) and Berks105 (talk · contribs) are engaged in a sort of edit war over a bunch of articles related to South Africa. Some of the edits and reverts have started to get incivil, and one of the users has resorted to personal attacks. This probably needs further investigation. I make no statements yet over who is in the "right" and who is in the "wrong", but there are some serious issues going on here, especially regarding ownership of articles, excessive reverting, personal attacks and incivility that need to be looked into. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not wish to pass comments on a fellow editor, but my (and others') previous interaction with User:Paul venter mirrored nearly the exact same situation over the position of the infobox image image in Jonty Rhodes. I found Paul Venter at the time very aggressive, abusive, and generally very resistant to accepting others' views. He also engaged frequently in personal attacks towards individual editors. Further when efforts were made to build a consensus, he declined to abide by the consensus and merely increased his aggression and abuse. Rueben lys 09:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

An argument over whether the image should be placed in the infobox? It seems that Paul venter seems to have acted very stubbornly in that issue... Well,Paul deserves a warning for 3RR, which he seems to have broken, looking at his contribs. As for the image placement, I have no opinion and it should be settled via WP:DR. --KZ 09:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

My impression is that Paul is feeling stalked although Berks105's edits are actually constructive. Paul is reverting Berks's edits calling them vandalism which they are not. There is some WP:OWN here. - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I request 48 hour block on User:Paul venter for WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:OWN, persistent reverting, failure to discuss, excessive size of images, accusations of vandalism at Lionel Phillips. He needs time out to think about his approach. - Kittybrewster (talk) 07:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages and should not be used as a punitive measure.User:Berks105 has disengaged, according to his userpage, so a block would be inappropriate. Aatomic1 10:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

From a quick glance, some of the edits by Paul venter are not just edit warring, but clear reaches of MoS, e.g. . Reverting in order to clearly breach MOS is disruptive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Paul_venter engaged in discussion on his talk page but has now blanked it. - Kittybrewster (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Berks105 has done his best to discourage Paul but Berks has retired and Paul continues to disrupt without discussion. The latest one is persistent removing of Lady in 1st line of Lady Phillips. When I raise it on his talk page, he merely blanks it. He is very stubborn. I request he is blocked 48 hours not as punishent but to prevent damage and disruption. - Kittybrewster (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

All I ask is to be left in peace to write articles without constant reverts and edits while I am busy on an article. For the latest example of this see Charles Collier Michell where Kittybrewster ignored an "inuse" tag and proceeded to edit. She and Berks have dogged my footsteps and specifically targeted me. For Kittybrewster to request that I be blocked for standing up to their vandalism and lack of courtesy, is extraordinary. I would appreciate intervention. Paul venter 17:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Gun Powder Ma at Four Great Inventions and Siege of XiangYang

I have a complaint raised against Gun Powder Ma. He doesn't seem to resort to middle ground and prefers to edit things according to his own sources/POV and throw away contradicting opinions with their own sources as well. He continually edits away any source I pointed out in Misplaced Pages when it comes to "Four Great Inventions". He does not answer the discussion section, and although he argued with me on the neutrality of his source in Siege of XiangYang he now only reverts the edits back to those of his own instead of discussing the neutrality of it with me. I pointed out that having minority sources is against Misplaced Pages's NPOV rule, but now he just stopped replying and only resorted to reverting. So I'm out of luck for better communication.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Battle_of_Xiangyang http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Four_Great_Inventions_of_ancient_China&action=history

] 1:125, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

False accusations and Personal attacks from User:Beit Or

Okay, so I realize that sometimes people take CFD's (and AFD's) a bit too seriously. Sometimes things get heated. Assuming good faith can be hard at times.
However, if you're going to accuse somebody of something, then you need to either be prepared to back it up, or be ready to take it back.

In a CFD for "Anti-Semitic people", Beit Or said, "In addition, you may consider not starting your posts with a brief piece of trolling." (you can find that here). Since he originally misplaced his comment (he later moved it right after one of mine), I didn't know if he was talking to me or BrownHairedGirl, and what 'trolling' he thought he saw, so I asked him (the intermediate revision not shown is because I forgot to use quotes to quote what he said).
Here is his reply. Note that it isn't very helpful.
(By now, I see that he's moved his comment to make it clear that he was addressing me)
Here is my reply to that. I think I was fair. It was a personal attack, since it was an unfounded accusation.
Here is his reply to me. Notice two things:

1. He still doesn't specify what part of my behaviour was supposedly wrong. If someone's going to accuse me of something, then they have an obligation to back it up. I can't start calling Bishonen a vandal without providing a single diff or explanation.

   Happens all the time, you'd be surprised. Bishonen | talk 17:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

2. He actually warned me there. He's the only one who's verifiably guilty of grossly uncivil conduct, and yet, rather than admit that he's made a mistake, he instead has the nerve to warn me!

My reply didn't pull any punches. Nor should it have. The only way I can possibly defend myself from an accusation is if I at least know precisely what I'm being accused of!
Somewhere in the midst of this, I also told him not to make personal attacks in the CFD itself. You can see his diff here, as well as my statement that he was replying to right above it. Note that he's reaffirming his accusation of my 'trolling', and yet still he never once points to a single quote or diff that he actually believes to be trolling.
My reply to that nonsense may not have been with a cool head, and yet, all I did was demand that he either back up his accusation or retract it. And that really is a very reasonable position to take. By all logic, if you're going to keep accusing someone of something, then you should be specific and provide at least a sliver of evidence!
Anyways, he didn't even bother replying to me on his talk page.
At first, I didn't know if it was simply because he'd went offline or something. I didn't want to assume that he was ignoring me (that'd be acting in bad faith), so I waited. And waited. And waited. Until I noticed that he had made comments elsewhere. Still, just in case he was only one for a moment, I waited a bit longer, until I saw that he'd be in wikipedia again. By then, I knew that he was certainly ignoring me.
Then I posted on his talk page again. I didn't insult him. I didn't call him a meaniehead or anything like that. I just said that I knew he'd been on so he saw my messages to him, and that I wanted him to either back up his accusations, or retract them, as well as his "warning".
This was fair and reasonable. If you absolutely refuse to back an accusation up, then you should (obviously) retract it. And any warnings he gave me were certainly uncalled for. (You can't warn a person for conduct that you can't even prove they ever did)
His response was to remove my comment from his talk page! And the edit summary is the real kicker. "rm fresh attack" and "rm latest attack" (it took a couple edits for him to get rid of it all).
So, let me get this straight... Saying, "prove your accusations against me or retract them" is an attack?!? Screw that. He's made personal attacks. False accusations. Given invalid warnings. Put me down on both his talk page and a public CFD.
I want it all deleted, and him told that it won't be tolerated in the future. I don't care about things like 'blocks', because I'm not going to assume that he's disrupting wikipedia in any other way, but this sort of crap has to stop, definitively. Bladestorm 17:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

While neither of you was as polite as you could have been, please try to avoid escalating a minor incident into a major war. Since you aren't asking for "things like blocks", it's not clear what you want us to do - delete his comments because you don't like them? Please, take a deep breath, and count to 1000. Backwards. In pig latin. While drinking a glass of chocolate milk. Then step away from the thoroughly soaked keyboard until it dries off, and the true relative importance of this incident soaks in. --AnonEMouse 18:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Considering he made a direct personal attack/false accusation, I don't think I was unnecessarily rude. Most times, if a person is acting in good faith, and they're called a troll, they won't reply with an ice cream cone. :)

That said, there's still an accusation against me visible in the CFD. His comments are still visible there, and on his talk page. I hate being accused of things I never did.

It isn't simply a matter of me not liking them. They're outright false. They're directed at me. They're entirely unsubstantiated. He's accused me of trolling, and of attacks. He's warned me. I don't want any of that crap visible to anyone. And I don't see why I should have to put up with it. It's very much clear what I want to be done. I explicitly stated it. I won't personally remove comments from a CFD, even if they aren't votes. I won't personally remove someone else's comments from their own talk page (false or not, I have a personal interest in the matter). I haven't unnecessarily escalated things. I never said, "you aren't allowed to call me a troll!" I asked him which part he thought was trolling. I've done every single thing that could reasonably be expected of me. And telling me to take a deep breath is silly. I've patiently waited for two days, just to make sure that he had absolutely every single opportunity possible to correct his mistake. Bladestorm 18:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments like these abound in CFD's where there are ethnoreligionationalist things that are being challenged. In the larger scheme of things being called a "troll" means absolutely nothing. Civility is an ideal, and as one experienced in controversial Ethnoreligionationalist pages, one has to be thick-skinned, or argue in a more flowery style so that one sees who is crasses.Bakaman 18:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I say this in all seriousness, the first comment is full of incivility. The tone of the comment and some statements such as "My reply to that nonsense", "Screw that", "this sort of crap", etc.. are entirely unacceptable. This is a place to report incidents, reports should be made solely on factual content. With that said I suggest you stop trying to confront this user on his talk page. Such confrontations only make matters worse.--Jersey Devil 18:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I must say, I'm rather disappointed. Referring to a warning for trolling from someone who won't even say where the trolling occurred as nonsense is "entirely unacceptable", but actually making an accusation, and repeatedly reaffirming that accusation, while repeatedly refusing to provide a single diff or even rationale, is something I should simply accept? There used to be higher standards here. Bladestorm 18:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It is time to drop it. Does it suck to be hit with vague, unsupported name calling? Yup. But at the end of the day, this is just escalating a situation long past the time it should have been put to bed. Pretty much every admin on here has been subjected to much worse name calling and accusations than this. Remind him of WP:CIVIL (which you already did) and move on.--Isotope23 18:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess this is the 'consensus', but it certainly is a shame, isn't it? Being hit with the same accusation repeatedly... it's irritating to say the least. But the idea that personal attacks are simply accepted as part of the CFD process, well, that's even worse. I guess I'll just stay out of CFD and AFD from now on. At least that sort of conduct still isn't acceptable on normal article talk pages. Bladestorm 18:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been WP:BOLD and removed that part of the argument that didn't seem to be about the category deletion, but more about the persons arguing. If it gets restored, I won't fight any more. --AnonEMouse 19:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess I spoke too soon. You really did come through for me in the end. Thank you. Bladestorm 19:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Starting a response to someone who edits mainly Jewish subjects on CFD on Category:Antisemitic people with "Oi...", as Bladestorm did, is a pretty obvious piece of trolling only meant to bait me and inflame passions. I'm surprised beyond measure that Bladestorm has managed to present my rather restrained response to his baiting as incivility. Bladestorm has been pushing the matter for several days now first on the CFD page, then on my talk page, and now on this board. This editor's behavior only confirms my observation that the purpose of their comment was to distract the discussion from its subject and make it a personal issue. Beit Or 19:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

... That was what you meant by 'trolling'?!? I say 'Oi' all the time! (In real life) people make fun of me for it because I'm not jewish, but it's just a habit I've developed. (I also call people 'schmuck' and 'putz', if it matters. I also say, "holy snappin' crap" too often, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't matter.)

Heh... I guess since the topic was 'Anti-Semitic people', I can see you wondering... (the fact that you edit jewish articles is irrelevant, since I didn't research your background before commenting) but wouldn't it have saved a lot of trouble if you'd just said that from the beginning?

We actually went through all of this just because I sometimes say 'oi'?

Um, in the future, you might want to Assume Good Faith. Simply saying 'oi' isn't an attack against you or anyone else. It's relatively normal speech. And try to look at this now from my perspective. Everything I was doing was in good faith. Then I was accused. And you actually expected me to guess that a single two-letter word was the cause of your offense? That's a stretch.

Incidentally, you've just made another false accusation, when you (once again) said, "This editor's behavior only confirms my observation that the purpose of their comment was to distract the discussion from its subject and make it a personal issue"... but, um, I don't think I'm going to get too offended this time... Now that I know the reason, well, it's hard not to laugh. Seriously though, AGF; it's a pretty important concept here, and would've prevented you from snapping at people acting in good faith. And discussion. Yup. Discussion would've been good. Because there's no bloody way I could've possibly figured out which part you were talking about. Bladestorm 20:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Since Bladestorm's incivility does not seem to stop, a brief block may not be unwarranted. Otherwise, this editor will keep flooding this forum with their incivil postings. Beit Or 20:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious??? You only now reveal that you made me struggle for two bloody days, just to find out that the reason you were insulting me was because I'd said, "oi", and you somehow assumed that was a personal attack... and when I (quite rightly) point out that this whole mess could've been avoided if you'd simply said so from the beginning (or better yet, not assumed that using common english somehow implies trolling), you think that warrants a block? Is this a twisted joke? Or are you suddenly realizing that you were wrong? Bladestorm 20:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you've been harassing me for several days despite all my attempts to cut this incident short. When I stopped respoding to you on CFD, you switched to my talk page, when I stopped respoding there, you moved on this board. All the while you were making uncivil comments like For the last frigging time, My reply to that nonsense... Screw that... ...this sort of crap has to stop you made me struggle for two bloody days. Combined, this incivility and harassment definitely warrant a block. Beit Or 21:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Of all the counterproductive attempts to cut an incident short... You refuse to explain what you mean and then talk superior about Bladestorm getting frustrated into using some vernacular expressions? You'll look better the sooner you stop talking, Beit Or. Don't troll WP:ANI. Bishonen | talk 21:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Your comment was extremely insulting and uncivil. Beit Or 18:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

And true. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Such quips are useless, Bunchofgrapes.

Beit Or is a serious editor from whom I have never seen anything remotely characterizable as "trolling;" if anything he is distinguished by his reluctance to engage in time-wasting discussions like this one. I have to assume that Beit Or's intepretation of Bladestorm's intentions was influenced - and understandably so - by Bladestorm's questioning whether Nazis and holocaust deniers are respectively characterizable as antisemitic (the initial argument about Category:Nazis makes sense, but read further).I find it disturbing that several commenters here seem oblivious to the obvious.Proabivouac 21:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Many people say Oi. "It is not polite, but it is not especially offensive. It is not to be confused with the Yiddish exclamation of dismay or exasperation "oy" or "oy vey"." Dan Beale 17:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)I can't believe people are still talking about this. However, if you insist on doing so, I think I can make it quick: I thought that calling people who tried to kill Hitler automatically antisemitic was a bad assumption to make. And I said that there were different possible reasons to deny the holocaust, including "poor education" and "ignorance". What's more, whether or not people assume good faith in me shouldn't depend on whether I tend to associate holocaust denial with antisemitism or simply ignorance. If it were true that he really was reluctant "to engage in time-wasting discussions like this one", then he would've simply explained his accusation or retracted it. Obviously, anybody who makes an accusation (or any claim, for that matter) in wikipedia is expected to be able to back it up.
As it is, since the original offending comment was removed from the CFD, and since I finally know the cause of the accusation (as peculiar as it was), I'm fine with letting it end here. If you still wish to discuss it, then you're welcome to take it up on my talk page, so the AN/I board can be freed up for more pressing matters. Bladestorm 04:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow. It's interesting to see how people can take such different views on the same acts. You make me wait two days before I find out what you're accusing me of across pages, and you think that shows I'm harassing you for days. I repeatedly ask you to back up your allegations, and when I get upset after multiple refusals, you point out that I got upset. You accuse me of trolling just because I said 'oi' perfectly innocently, and yet you accuse me of incivility.

You know, I have to wonder how things would turn out if the roles were reversed. If I were to have seen someone start a reply with "Eh...", assumed bad faith, jumped to the conclusion that they were taking a jab at my being canadian, and then insulted and 'warned' them for their 'trolling'... would people take me seriously? And if he then pointed out just how wrong such actions were, could I then get away with demanding that he be blocked? For failing to accept that I can accuse people of whatever I like, without ever having to support those claims? Hmm... I suspect people wouldn't take that too seriously. Bladestorm 21:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Oy, vey... the sorts of things people get into fights over on Misplaced Pages... *Dan T.* 17:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Not just on Misplaced Pages. Consider the trouble one politician got into for innocently using the term "niggardly", or the trouble the director of communications at Taco Bell got into for using the term "pedagogical approach". Some people insist upon being offended by even the most inoffensive words. --MediaMangler 10:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:ProhibitOnions

ProhibitOnions (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - deletion log except

Above user has now twice used the admin tools in the dispute over the title of the article Newcastle station, in which they are directly involved and taking a firm side. The dispute is not yet resolved, no consensus has emerged, and the discussion is superseded by a broader one. Chris cheese whine 21:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't blocked or protected any pages. The extent to which admin tools have been used is "deleted to make room for move" -- which wouldn't require admin tools to begin with, if you yourself weren't giving each redir a dummy edit. Move wars are silly and disruptive -- the both of you should cut it out. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for categorising redirects. I started categorising random redirects a while back, I wasn't aware that performing such a useful function was frowned upon. The fact remains that the admin tools were used by an admin to get their way in a dispute, particularly trying to move an article away from a title suggested by a guideline. The merits of the move are still under discussion, but not relevant to this matter. Chris cheese whine 22:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Chriscf appears to be acting in such bad faith, accusing me of "abusing admin tools" (I haven't) or being involved in a "dispute" (I'm not), or quickly adding an edit history to every redirect he creates to prevent it being written over.

As to the substance of his accusation, I simply reverted his attempts to change the name of Newcastle Central Station to something else: first it was "Newcastle Central station", then it was "Newcastle station", now it's "Newcastle station, Tyne and Wear". I opened discussion on the article name, but despite my offering plenty of evidence for the common and correct name of the station , he wouldn't budge, stating, rather ridiculously, that some of the sources I provided were "biased (being based at the station themselves)", as if that somehow disqualified sources such as the Royal Station Hotel (for the record, my list also included local government sources, the BBC, and a report drafted by the British government). User:Dbam pointed him to the plaque on the front of the 160-year-old building , which he also ignored. (I should point out that other than renames and minor edits connected to them, I have not worked on this article.)

The details are irrelevant. You were involved in the discussion, you took a side, and then you used the tools. End of story. Chris cheese whine 01:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

He also made a similar move on Glasgow Central Station (an article I have never edited) and then, when a motion was quickly made to move it back, he claimed "we have a naming convention for this already, in which stations are "railway station", unless they have multiple modes of rail transport on-site", garnering several votes of agreement for the uncommon name he picked. Except that it wasn't true: There is no agreed-upon naming convention, and the disputed one that does exist states "The official name of the station should normally be used with the appropriate suffix, except where this would be ambiguous" - which hardly argues against "Glasgow Central Station".

You were involved in the discussion, you took a side, and then you used the tools. Chris cheese whine 01:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

A further questionable action involved his proposed deletion of graphic station names. Note the use of the royal we in this exchange with User:DrFrench. The dispute in this case involved his proposed deletion of a number of graphics depicting Metro station names in the Calvert font, which was designed for the Metro. Chriscf deleted these from the articles (along with a similar set for the London Underground) and then listed them on IfD without mentioning this on the relevant pages, or even using an edit summary when removing them from the articles, that indicated he proposed to delete the images.

And what precisely is wrong here? I put forward the reasons for removing them, and nobody presented a solid reason for keeping them there. All of which is irrelevant: You were involved in a dispute, you took a side, and then you used the tools. Chris cheese whine 01:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems that discussion with this user leads nowhere, and daring to revert him gets one reported here. WP:POINT, anyone? ProhibitOnions 00:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There patently is a dispute, and you patently are involved in it. You also patently did use the admin tools during the course of the dispute. You have stretched by ability to WP:AGF too far. Chris cheese whine 00:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that I have trimmed the above, as it relates to the substance of the dispute, which is not at issue at ANI. The issue is that of an administrator making use of the extra buttons while engaged in a content dispute, and would be the same regardless of the actual dispute. Chris cheese whine 00:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

All I see are deletion of redirects to ake way for a move; a move that was then reverted. Not exatly admin tool abuse. The only real action I see that possibly needs to be taken here is adding this name dispute about a single train station to WP:LAME.--Isotope23 01:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

If that is all you see, then you are missing the fact that the user was actively involved in the dispute. I would not have moved the pages back to the until-recently-accepted form, had this user not insisted on using the "delete" button to enforce their position. Chris cheese whine 01:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Luna had it right above. Look, if Prohibit was blocking editors in a dispute or page protecting then we would have a problem... but this is much ado about nothing. I expect at this point ProhibitOnions will not move the page a 3rd time until the discussion on the talkpage is complete. Other than that, there is nothing here that requires another admin to intervene.--Isotope23 01:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Highways and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Naming conventions for discussion of what happens when disputes like this can't get settled in a reasonable fashion. Please find a way to resolve this issue several miles of there. Newyorkbrad 01:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

So, was "stop using the tools to forcibly move the page until the discussion reaches conclusion" not a reasonable aim? Chris cheese whine 01:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't studied the specific dispute, but ordinarily that's considered a reasonable request. Newyorkbrad 02:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

So why am I being shouted down for trying to achieve that specific aim here? Chris cheese whine 02:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is shouting you down Chris. See what I said above. I expect at this point ProhibitOnions will stop moving this page and continue discussion on the naming. Other than that, I'm not exactly sure what you are expecting here.--Isotope23 02:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My expectations were twofold - that the user stop using the tools while engaged in a dispute, and at least acknowledge the fact that they are in fact involved in the dispute (as opposed to turning up here and lying about it). Oh well ... Chris cheese whine 02:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Second the motion that WP:LAME applies here. I am accused, essentially, of disagreeing with the above user; I opened up discussion on his moves, and reverted them after a time, in agreement with other users, when he failed to provide substantial reasons for them. The renames were his only contributions to the articles in question. Note that while he bizarrely accuses me of a "personal attack" above, he has no problem calling me a "liar" in the paragraph above. He is still insisting I used "the tools" somehow against him, despite other users demonstrating that I did not. This, sadly, has been the tenor of previous discussions with him. ProhibitOnions 07:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The move history suggests otherwise. According to the move history, you moved it to Newcastle Central Station. This "undiscussed" (as you put it) move was reversed. You then used the "delete" button twice to repeat your original move. As for personal attacks, I am not saying that you are a liar. I am saying that you have lied (verifiably) in this discussion, in saying you are not party to this dispute when the evidence clearly does not bear this out (I guess that can't be you editing the talk page, resolving to "just move it", and then doing so). Chris cheese whine 20:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Not taking sides as I dont believe in move wars but I agree with ProhibitOnions (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), the name of the stations were correct as they were, for example, Newcastle Central Station is not Newcastle Station, Haymarket Metro Station is not Newcastle Haymarket as it was moved to, this is stupid this, the names were fine as they were and these users who keep moving the pages seem to be trying to cause trouble, I everyone including me needs to calm down here and leave them as they were, I mean who cares what the article title is? as long as it has sourced and factually accurate information like an encyclopedia article should have. Regards - Tellyaddict 19:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

So, you are taking sides, then. Chris cheese whine 20:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

In principle, I don't see a massive problem with admins reverting stuff when involved if they are on the "undoing" side of things, but PO was clearly not "undoing", but "doing". All I want here is some confirmation that (1) admins using the mop and bucket to resolve disputes they are directly involved in (whatever form that dispute may take, and whatever extra button they may have used) is wrong, (2) if an admin wants to perform a controversial obstructed move, they have to go to WP:RM like everyone else. Do I get this confirmation? Chris cheese whine 20:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am trying not to take sides but I do agree with ProhibitOnions (talk · contribs · count), I am not doubting or ignoring anyone elses opinion but I have to say I agree with him, Regards - Tellyaddict 11:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• You can add me to the list of people who don't really see the issue here. -Hit bull, win steak 14:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Potential WP:BLP issues with WP:BJAODN

Is BJAODN expected to follow the BLP policy, despite the disclaimers? I ask this because, upon reading the archives, I found at least one statement that clearly violates this policy. Since it wasn't even very funny, I removed it There are probably more. If this is a concern, the BJAODN archives should be vetted for particularly problematic statements of this nature. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of BLP is that it applies across the project, not just articles. Weren't we talking about deleting all that at one point anyway? It might be a good idea if there's a lot of bad stuff. Frise 03:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It was talked about and, IMO, examples such as this (and possibly other) BLP violations are examples suggesting that deletion is warranted. There appeared, however, to be consensus that culling the totally un-funny and policy-violating content and history merging it all into five-or-so archives would be appropriate. It probably should be done sometime. We need to be able to actually manage the content and monitor it for violations. --Iamunknown 03:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of junk in there. Sorting through it all looking for BLP vios probably isn't worth the effort. Frise 03:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The effort expended isn't worth protecting us the Wikimedia Foundation from claims of libel? I think that it is. --Iamunknown 03:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I mean it isn't worth sorting through when the whole mess can just be deleted. Frise 04:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) IMO, yes without æquivocation. They should also be vetted of fair use images and images with patently false licensing. I currently have watchlisted every fair use image I found in all 61 main archives but, as my watchlist is rather large, they have been swallowed up. BJAODN has several complications that really need to be addressed and were brought up in the recent mfd. I originally meant to bring them to the forefront on the talk page and link there from the VPs, but have not mustered up the energy yet. Any help with removing the stuff that blatantly needs removal would be sorely appreciated. --Iamunknown 03:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• There is a LOT of stuff that needs to be removed, and most of it isn't even funny. A lot of "OMG HE IS GAY!!!" childish vandalism (aimed at living people) seems to have made it in for some reason, and it will have to be taken out. This ultimately should be gone over and culled, with only genuinely funny and non-defamatory info left in. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No, really, a lot of stuff in there simply are not funny. We do have the liberty of removing lame entries, right? —physicq (c) 03:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Um, yes, I believe so. Grandmasterka 03:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes indeed. --Iamunknown 03:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Those pages are full of violations. _InBC 03:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, just delete it. Frise 04:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have removed about a dozen violations so far. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...I might end up deleting over 2/3 of the content because they are exceedingly lame. Shall I proceed? —physicq (c) 04:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• That sounds about right to me. I'd enjoy the pages a lot more if the unfunny crap and vandalism was removed. And there is a lot of it. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• I have removed some WP:BLP-offending content as well. I think before we proceed more we may wish to notify users on the main talk page of the BJAODN page cluster. --Iamunknown 04:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oi vey. COME ON people. --Woohookitty 08:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Don't just go deleting stuff just because it's not funny... they're called Bad Jokes after all... --Edokter (Talk) 13:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• While I wont argue that most of BJAODN isn't funny, the fact that its clearly labelled as humor, not serious articles, and in most cases can be classified as satire/parody/opinion (pick one, depending on case) would easily remove any libel/slander claim. Just make sure they actually are funny. I'd even reccomend reinstating the bush one only for the revert edit summary. That made me laugh. -M 23:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Remember: under US law (where the servers happen to reside), you can say or write whatever you want about a public figure without fear of lawsuit. So making fun of the president's sexual habits is permitted, & common sense would lead to the conclusion that public figures are excluded from the concerns of WP:BLP -- although we obviously don't want any errors in Misplaced Pages for any reason. (BTW, yes I know what day it is; but I am not joking here.) -- llywrch 20:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Not true at all. The standard is higher for a public figure, but not non-existent. You have to have A.) known the information was untrue and B.) intended to cause harm, not just inform. Contrast this with average joe, where the standard is just untrue negative things. Where the hell the 'write whatever you want without fear of a lawsuit' comes from, I dont know, but you might want to talk to the dean if it was a school -M 21:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Can I remove the WP:NOT violations of BJAODN? (that would be all of it) _InBC 21:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Did we get no further in plans to zap most of it as a copyvio then? I thought interested parties were going to be given some time to salvage and source the "funniest" material and the rest was going. --kingboyk 21:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

My talk page

Sorry if this is the wrong place for this, if it is please point me in the correct direction.

On my talk page user Widefox has posted a slanderious lie stating that I have been banned from Misplaced Pages and other unnamed forums for a dispute with someone else. There is no factual basis for this. The reason I believe that he has posted this lie is an ongoing dispute on the Swiftfox article. He is doing this out of spite, in an effort I believe to use one lie in one place as a basis to start problems in another place. He did that in the past, by saying an unsigned edit was a sockpuppet, even though I have a static ip. He then took that lie and used it in other areas. Is it poossible to have user Widefox blocked from my talk page as he insists on posting lies, slander, and starting arguments with me there? Thank you Kilz 17:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Kilz is wasting your time - he was banned Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Kilz and is lying. In his own words User_talk:Kilz/Archive "I was banned, because you filed a sockpupet case against me for a not loged in edit. I think whoever banned me had no idea that I had a static IP. Kilz 00:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)"

Kilz is currently edit warring on Swiftfox and I'm looking at whether User:Loki144 is his sockpuppet (I don't know yet). He has been banned on other sites re: Swiftfox - see User_talk:Kilz/Archive. Now might be a good time to warn him about wasting admin time, 3RR, and investigate his other problems. I'd like to see a ban of him editing Swiftfox for reasons above. Widefox 22:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

per WP:ATTACK personal attacks are not allowed. This is a pure example of a personal attack. False accusations, lies, slander. Widefox isnt interested in editing or working togher. He is interested in attacking, accusing and belittling me instead of working togher. Instead , he attacks, he slanders, he has false accusations. Kilz 22:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Can either of you explain why this requires the intervention of administrators in 100 words or less?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Edit warring Swiftfox. 2. accusations of vandalism and personal attacks Widefox 23:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

100% agreement with Ryulong. If you have issues with each other, try WP:DR. --KZ 23:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Widefox, I think that you might be confusing the series of events. At Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Kilz it appears that the IP address listed as Kilz's sockpuppet was only blocked (not banned) for 48 hours to prevent Kilz's from bypassing the 3RR rule (c.f. anon block log). Kilz, however, is not currently blocked or banned (c.f. Kilz's block log). Your interaction with Kilz is not beyond reproach itself. I suggest you give it a rest, that you both try to cooperate civilly, assume good faith, and content on content, not each other. --Iamunknown 23:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Widefox is violating WP:NPA with personal attacks on me. My talk page and the Swiftfox talk page have accusations from Widefox that I have been banned from wikipedia and mutiple other sites, that I am a sockpuppet, that I have broken the 3rr rule. This is slander. Widefox knows that none of it is true. Even if some banning happened in the past, he should not be useing it to try and silence me. He also has a history of posting lies, then refering to the lies in complaints he later files. Kilz 23:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Kilz, please just assume good faith. No need even to respond to this. I in no way doubt that Widefox has every intention to improve the encyclopedia. Nor do I in any way doubt that you have every intention to improve the encylcopedia. Dragging an editorial dispute out will only create more tension between you two. Please, to both of you, be civil, realize that the other editor is trying to contribute productively to the encylcopedia, and talk about content and not each other (that means no personal attacks). --Iamunknown 23:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I have done my best to assume good faith, but Widefox's actions are starting to make me wonder if he is assuming good faith. I am wondering why he is posting things on my talk page that have no buisness being posted. Posting things that can only be seen as an attack. I would like to have him blocked from my talk page. He posts nothing there of any value and seems to see it as an oppertunity to cause me problems and as a place to slander me. Kilz 00:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Iamunknown - yes agreed he was "blocked" 48hrs. Actually, I used "banned" because that's how I remembered it and I'm also quoting *his words*. How can Kilz object to his own words? I followed all advice for cooperating with Kilz before - Kilz rejected 3rd opinion as opinion, up until mediation. I left him months. I'm always doing the work. Other forums banned him for his behaviour re:swiftfox Please check links and compare our editing histories. Widefox 23:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Except that Kilz was neither banned or blocked. Users can misinterpret actions taken against them, but it doesn't make their misinterpretiations fact. --Iamunknown 23:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

he was blocked wikipedia 48hrs! He was banned swiftfox forum permanently, he was told to take his argument elsewhere on other forums. Links in his talk archive. facts. Widefox 00:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for showing your true motives here. You dont seek to work on the article, you seek to slander me, seek to post things about me, seek to spread as much vinager as you can. Seek to dreg up as much dirt as you can and assume bad faith.Kilz 00:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me - Kilz came to this page to try to get me blocked! He did not inform me - as stated at the top of this page. I have defended myself by giving links about him being blocked 48hrs, banned from Swiftfox forum and warded off elsewhere. His claim was slander, but he does not dispute these facts, and I quote his own words "banned" (meaning blocked)! Widefox 01:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You were warned in the same section you posted the attack "I take that back, I have gone to an admin, this is going to far.Kilz 17:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)". Your continued defense of your actions show that you see no problems in your attack on me. That you think its ok to post personal attacks. That so long as its what you remember happening months and months ago you can dreg up anything and post it. What makes it even more unbelievable, is you know the sockpuppet case you filed was for a logged out edit. So now you seek to build upon a false accusation by posting it again, and again. What is the purpose of posting it again? What good can come of it? Kilz 01:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Just cool down for a minute. Stop making accusations at each other and think about what you are doing. --KZ 02:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Solution - grant both of us our requests - he is permanently barred from Swiftfox and me from his talk page. Sorry that he brought this here. Widefox 07:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

After a night to cool down as suggested. I ask the admins to please look at what Widefox is asking for. He is asking for me to be banned from the Swiftfox page. For what? This is what he was seeking by posting the attack on my talk page in violation of WP:NPA. He thinks personal attacks are a way for him to win disagreements over editing an article in violation of WP:NPA. His solution is rewarding him for bad behavior. I have not attacked him in any way. But simply ask to be protected from more of the same. He sees nothing wrong with what he has done. He will do so again. His request shows he does not assume good faith. His actions on my page show he does not assume good faith.His actions on the Swiftfox page show he does not assume good faith. Maybe he should be blocked from my page and from Swiftfox since he attacked me in both places. At the very least, I believe he (Widefox)should be told that his actions were wrong. To stop attacking me and focus in on the issues and not me. That he should not repeat them, that he should assume good faith, and that a repeat of his actions will have consequences. Kilz 12:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The original problem of reverting my edits / calling vandalism is after I left Kilz to calm down for 3months. Widefox 13:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

But you did vandalize the page, you removed tags without fixing the problem the tag was placed there for. While there was a discussion on the section. You also removed requests for citations on areas that were inmho original research by you. Reverting vandalism is an approved practice. I did it once a day. You also tried to put words in another editors mouth, and told me to be quiet on the subject as you sought to influence the discussion. Then when you saw that you were not winning, you posted a smear on my talk page and the Swiftfox page , in violation of WP:NPA. You did not seek help from an admin, you took it opon yourself to make a personal attack. Dreging up the most dirt you could think of, to smear me. You have used lie upon lie and imho you will do it again without at the very least, a warning not to do it. Kilz 17:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sadly I now have attacks and lies about me that cant be removed from my talk page. Something Im sure Widefox knew would be the case, so he placed them there. Kilz 12:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

OK then. Second offer - we work together on the page. Normal civil rules apply. Widefox 13:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You had that option, but instead you chose to break WP:NPA and attack me with a personal attack on both my page and the Swiftfox page. This was not sticking to the content, debating the content of the article. But a personal smear directed at me, dredged up dirt from your memory of the past. It had nothing to do with the current events. Exactly whats to stop you from doing it again? Kilz 17:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

admins - please see my 2 offers and Kilz responses. I close my defence now. Widefox 19:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

My take on this is that Wildefox should not be posting on Kilz's talk page unless it is absolutely necessary because it clearly irritates Kilz. And there is nothing to stop Kilz removing stuff he does not like from his talk page. - Kittybrewster (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer Kittybrewster. I have been told that I am not allowed to delete things from my talk page. That I must archive everything. Are you suggesting that the attack be deleted. Secondly, if I do that doesnt it remove the record of what Widefox has done, and if he does it again I wont have proof to point to? Kilz 21:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Kilz, you should archive most things, but you may certainly remove and not archive what you consider to be personal attacks. The evidence will still be there, just provide a diff link. --Iamunknown 22:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Iamunknown, I just archived the last few days of my talk page and removed the section that was an attack. I provided a link to the diff in its place on the archive page.Kilz 03:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

While Kilz diverts you with his user page, he is using 2 sockpuppets User:IDontBelieveYou User:Loki144 to edit war Swiftfox. FYI he is banned from Swiftfox forum (I can provide more links to his swiftfox licence dispute he is in with the author of swiftfox - this in itself means he should refrain from editing Swiftfox). Please take action before this edit warring gets worse. Widefox 09:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a new tatic of Widefox. It appears that 2 other editors have in some way agreed with me. So widefox has labeled them as puppets of some kind so he can write them off. He is now ignoring consensus. Secondly, what may have happened in the past on the Swiftfox forum in no way changes my ability to edit the swiftfox article on Misplaced Pages and make sure that it is as honest and up to date as possible. As you see Widefox is using one tatic after another to win a content argument. Kilz 11:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I Opened RfC. The content dispute should be taken there now. I do want the start of this edit warring looked at - Kilz actions labelling and reverting my edits as vandalism is not acceptable. I am not a single issue editor unlike him and his possible sock/meatpuppets. Widefox 13:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that your baseless accusations against me (using puppets) is a now reaching a personal attack level. It is an unfounded lie. You are using the accusation to win a content disagreement and to disregard the opinions of other editors who dont agree with you. I find I must respond to this in each place you place it and refute it, least you say that I agree with it in some way by silence. I suggest you stop accusing me of this before I open another incident report, using all the baseless accusations you have made against me as proof of malicious intent. Kilz 15:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

new sockpuppet of Kilz 130.111.76.121 - total 3 single issue editors +Kilz. Evidence weak - 130.111.76.121 has 2 edits 1. edit of Pabst Brewing Company of Illinois, Kilz state is Illinois 2. Swiftfox. These 3 sockpuppets show similar creation and editing patterns. Kilz has "restore edit of idontbelieveyou" . Widefox 19:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, so? If I edit anonymously, does that mean I should be indefinitely blocked? No. Same with Kilz. His or her browser lost session data, easy as that. --Iamunknown 19:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Iamunknown - going along with you...that means 130.111.76.121 is Kilz's IP right? no, it's University of Maine. Kilz said he has a static IP of 67.175.233.209 (Comcast Illinois). Either coincidence about Illinois/Swiftfox or sock/meatpuppet. 4 single issue editors is quite a coincidence! Widefox 21:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Iamunknown - please see 1. Kilz admitting he is slurring Swiftfox out of spite "Maybe it is spite." ...end of that thread he was told to take the argument off the forum mozillazine forum 2. Kilz was forced to takedown Swiftfox binaries for license violation involving Ubuntu forum staff. 3. Swiftfox forum ban . 4. complaint about Kilz bickering over Swiftfox in Ubuntu forum . More links to more problems in Kilz talk archive. Widefox 22:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Two editor war

I've noticed two users, Mudaliar (talk · contribs) and Venki123 (talk · contribs), battling ceaselessly on a number of articles. At this point, I'm not quite sure what to do about it. It has been going on for quite some time despite previous warnings and interventions. Any help from people here in dealing with these two warriors is appreciated. Thanks. The Behnam 18:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

These two may need some forced dispute resolution - they seem only interested in getting the other editor blocked. One of them only recently stopped harrassing me to block the other, and they have bothed filed checkuser cases against each other. Natalie 19:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

We could give both of them what they want, if their behavior is egregious enough. Αργυριου (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to work with these users, but their actual responses to my questions are usually rather incoherent or begging the question. On the other hand, they are repetitively battling across a variety of articles and there has been no success in stopping this dispute. I give Venki some credit for trying mediation, even though he listed an absurd number of people as parties, making his attempt futile. Anyway, overall, I don't think giving both of them what they want would be a bad idea. Of course a number of socks would follow, but from what I can tell, they should be fairly easy to catch; these two users have very specific things in mind for these articles. Do what you think is best here. Thanks. The Behnam 23:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Block 'em both for a couple of weeks so they can calm the hell down, and make it clear that if they continue to lose sight of the "build an encyclopedia" concept, those blocks will be lengthened. We've got like 1.7 bajillion pages around here; seriously, can they not find different articles to edit? EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

A mid-length block for both might work. I would suggest that someone with some experience with dispute resolution keep a long-term eye on them: they were both blocked for 3RR in mid February and it took about a month for their edit war to heat back up again. Natalie 01:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Require both editors to read "Br'er Rabbit and the Tar Baby" and watch the Star Trek (original series) episode "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield", then collaboratively write a 500-word summary of the stories' thematic similarities to each other and to their own situation. -- Ben /_HIST P.s Federal Clowns On WHEELS! 03:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, is anything going to happen? They keep going... The Behnam 23:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism concerns

Something strange going on at Turtle Creek Chorale. This isn't so much of a content dispute as a plagiarism concern. The history section of this article has been copied verbatim from the website of this organization (this is approximately half od the article). I have removed it twice, and stated on the talk page that it violates Misplaced Pages policies to simply copy from other sites. It has now been readded with a little note that We have their permission to use it . I don't think this is an appropriate way of writing an article, but don't want to revert again. The editors who are adding this do not respond on the talk page. Cheers. Jeffpw 23:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no notice on the website granting permission. On the contrary, it states: © 2007 Turtle Creek Chorale. All rights reserved. Reproduction of this site in whole or part is strictly prohibited. I'd say remove it. And I will do that now. IrishGuy 23:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, IrishGuy. I didn't want to get into an edit war about it. Jeffpw 23:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Also give them a warning for {{uw-copyright1}} --KZ 23:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged the article as advertising, and unreferenced. Hopefully that will give them an idea how to improve the article. Jehochman (/_Contrib) 00:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it is that I am a mere neophyte in comparison to individuals such as yourselves. My humble apologies for not reading all of the Talk pages as I am still learning this marvelous entity called Misplaced Pages. My adding information and editing information to the Turtle Creek Chorale article was to improve the overall completeness of the Misplaced Pages. I have requested that the TCC add a notice granting permission to release their rights to Misplaced Pages for educational and informational purposes. This is of course to add more accurate and completeness, which is what I hope every contributor wishes. As they are a US 501(c)(3) Not-for-profit organization which seeks to educate, unite and uplift their audiences and members, it would be harsh to state that they are advertising on Misplaced Pages. In fact, you could view almost any article about a person, organization or corporation as a living advertisement. KZ, I love the superscripts on your Talk & Contrib, perhaps you can teach me how to use them sometime. Happy writing...see you in a couple days after we work this out with TCC website. Michael T McGary 22:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Question on deletion of controversial userbox

According to this deletion log, the template was deleted for being inflammatory and no longer exists. However, I have noticed that it has been subst'ed back into the pages of some users . Is this circumvention of the deletion appropriate? The Behnam 23:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I now note that the subst's were done by Khoikhoi in the minutes right before the deletion of the template, who also deleted the template. However, I do not yet know the significance of this observation. Tell me what you all think. The Behnam 00:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"Substitute and delete" is one possible outcome at TfD discussions, even for controversial userboxes. I do not know of a citation, but I'm sure a user more familiar with the circumstances could find one. --Iamunknown 00:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Under CSD T1, "divisive and inflammatory" templates are not permitted. This prohibition does not extend to user pages per se ... although personally, I think that userbox is probably an all around bad idea anywhere. In any event, that photo is a non-free image and cannot be used on templates or in user space. --BigDT 00:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I judged this particular box to have been deemed too controversial to exist in the special UBX space too (as it doesn't exist there), so I figured that it shouldn't exist in subst form either. Should I remove them? The Behnam 00:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The only question here is: does the content contravene the user page policy? Answer that question and act on the answer. --Tony Sidaway 00:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It unquestionably violates WP:FAIR#Policy #9 and CSD T1. Beyond that, I'm not going to jump up and down screaming either way. ;) --BigDT 00:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoa Fairuse violation, yes, but as this is now code on the page, not a template, it does NOT violate T1. Nail it on fair use, and dig thour the Userpage rules, but these ceased being templates after they were sub'd. You can embed a template, and you can substitute the code of the template onto the page, two different things. Watch out for the over reaching instructions, it sets bad precedent as subing T1 UBX's before deletion has been somewhat commonplace, and it can allready be easily handled under other rules violations allready -M 19:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Note - I cannot figure out why Tony crossed my post here . I have undone this. The Behnam 01:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I brought it here specifically to get that question answered since I haven't dealt with it before. I see at as roughly equivalent to having a userbox saying, "This user is opposed to international terrorism" and including a picture of George W. Bush on it. It is definitely divisive and inflammatory, like the deletion log said. I believe they should go and I am not sure why Khoikhoi subst'ed them right before deleting them. Kind of odd actually. The Behnam 01:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, for good or ill, "substitute and delete" is currently an acceptable decision at TfD. I'll remove the fair use images for now. --Iamunknown 01:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Nvm, BigDT beat me to 'em. --Iamunknown 01:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I really question the purpose and validity of substituting these before deletion. If they're bad, which this one was, just delete it. Don't keep it around on people's userpages. --Cyde Weys 01:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry about that. I just thought that people were going to yell at me if I started editing everyone's userpage, but it's probably justified in this case. I'll delete the userbox from everyone's userpage if there are no objections. Khoikhoi 01:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems best that you do. Thanks for clearing that up. The Behnam 01:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Important

The Wikimedia foundation Misplaced Pages Announcement In private talks with long standing wikipedians including Jimbo Wales, Angela, and past and present members of the Arbitration Committee the Wikimedia Foundation has decided there is no other option at the present than to charge people to edit the English Misplaced Pages. "Advertising on Wikimedia® has been roundly rejected by the community," said Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikimedia®, "even though we're missing out on about sixty thousand dollars each and every day by not having two Google text ads". "For too long people have been free to hack this website. It's about time they paid" states Theresa Knott the new funding officer. "Allowing free access to all simply encourages vandalism. By asking for a quid an edit we stop kids vandalising, spammers spamming and edit warriors warrioring (unless they are very rich, in which case we can think up special rates)." Minor edits will naturally be cheaper, although the exact pricing details have not yet been fully worked out. Debate on this is welcome. All users should register their credit card at Misplaced Pages:Credit Card Registration by noon on April 1, 2007. Otherwise their editing privileges will be suspended. Members of the cabal are, of course, exempt.

On a personal note. I would like to thank the foundation for giving me this exciting opportunity to increase funding. I have been given no salary and instead take a percentage of the funds raised, which I think is fair. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Congrats Theresa- we all knew this had been in the pipeline for some time. And can I say that I could think of no one better than you to fill this exciting new position. WjBscribe 00:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Please please don't. ^demon 00:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh god, Ere We Go again! SirFozzie 00:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It is about time. Can you accept PayPal? I don't have international card and want to continue editing here. -- ReyBrujo 00:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Give us a few mins to set it up. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little biased against it since I don't have a credit card, but it had to be done. I support it.--Wizardman 00:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And what if some idiot was dumb enough to post it? Then we'd need it oversighted... ^demon 00:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Add temporarily @aol.com to the black listing at Meta and you prevent 95% of those idiots to post it :-P -- (yes, this is a joke!). ReyBrujo 00:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No one will do that. The page says there is an error on it. Lighten up a little. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No one will do that. The page says there is an error on it. Lighten up a little. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm disappointed. I really do have an IBM 5250 terminal emulator on Windows 1.0 here, and it's not working! --Carnildo 01:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Can I use my credit card with debit overhaul? (Or is that debit card with credit overhaul?) --Iamunknown 00:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I put a little notice at the top in case anyone actually does think this is serious. I should make it a bit less aggressive though. I am one of those boring, "this is a serious project" people. :) Prodego 00:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing it. This conversation at the bottom makes it perfectly clear. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

True. Prodego 00:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I hereby invoke Provision 41(k) in my Rouge Administrator Contract of Rights and Responsibilities on the English Misplaced Pages with the Wikimedia Foundation, which allows for admins under the age of 18 to be exempt from any financial liabilities or payments which may be requested. —physicq (c) 00:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Now hang on just one minute there mate! Did you read what I wrote? I get a cut! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This will last until the Fair use cabal invokes WP:FUC#9 to remove the logos from that page ;-) -- ReyBrujo 00:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I am seriously going to blame you guys if I get a heart attack...That's about the seventh time today...paying for editing..grrr... --KZ 00:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

My contract takes precedence over the financial troubles that may be result from the Wikimedia Foundation's usage of funds. And, in turn, over your commission. Complain to Jimbo for lavishing me such benefits. —physicq (c) 00:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey KZ, addicted to the wikicrack are we? That's how the drug biz works, free at first, then … Hey Theresa I'm part of the Cabal right, I still get my fix for free right? RIGHT? Paul August ☎ 00:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Paul you're fine don't worry. For everyone else - if you are in the cabal you know it, otherwise (unless your < 18 & an admin (grrrrr!!)) pay up and look big. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of grrrr! I think it might be wise to make sure Bishzilla get's an exemption as well. King Kong ☎ 18:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Paul, anything wrong about being "addicted?" --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 01:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want any money outta me, you'll have to talk to the guy who handles the trust I set up for myself after having received that MacArthur grant not too long ago. -- llywrch 01:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I tried to pay in jelly beans,but this was deemed an 'unacceptable payment method' :( Lemon martini 10:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think £1 per edit is a bit steep. Can you make it 1p so when people want to throw in their 2p (2c) worth, they could have two edits?--SlipperyHippo 15:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet more sockpuppets (addition)

Per this case that was moved to the archive, user:Lyzka, which I had assumed was banned for sockpuppetery, has resumed editing the Recovered Territories article. The original sock has spawned others, including 131.104.218.123, user:Garnekk, 190.47.233.156, 131.104.218.123, 131.104.218.46, and user:Garnek1. I propose semi-protection status to the article to prevent the sock puppets from vandalizing the article for a period of a week to see if the vandal is short-term or is here for much longer. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

yet another sockpuppet here, I have counted well over 20 or 30 sockpuppets of user:Serafin. When will we learn and ban him like the Polish and German wikipedias already have?

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

check Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Serafin, 17 known sockpuppets and 20+ suspected. --Jadger 01:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. I had no idea it was that widespread. I only saw this after seeing the case on WP:ANI. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yamla extended Serafin's block to six months. Considering that Serafin has shown little desire to reform his ways, I have no objections to it being made an indefinite block. Olessi 16:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA violation

User:216.99.60.104 has violated the WP:NPA policy on Talk:Muhammad after being informed of the WP:NPA policy:. after being informed:--Sefringle 01:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This individual has used a number of other IPs in the same range to engage in harassment, vandalism and personal attacks, and has evaded at least one previous block:User:216.99.56.235, User:206.126.80.107, User:206.126.80.68, User:216.99.60.136, User:216.99.52.133, User:206.126.80.121, User:206.126.82.92, User:206.126.81.88, User:216.99.60.104 (at least).

Proabivouac 01:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

After edits like this I gave him a warning. He did it again so he now has a 24 hour block for disruption. IrishGuy 01:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Neither warnings nor blocks will do any good: he is obviously aware that he's violating policy, and in the past, he's just resumed editing from a different IP in the same range.,.Proabivouac 01:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The following diffs suggest a connection between anon 206/216 and User:130.113.111.214, either as the same individual or as a meatpuppet: ,. ,, . Due to mutual involvement in some fairly obscure articles such as Battle of Yarmouk and Islamic socialism (along with less-obscure ones such as Jihad), coinvolvement in Talk:Muhammad/images representing the same POV, placing successive votes as shown above, and a very close geographical location, it is reasonable to assume User:130.113.111.214 to be connected to User:Bless sins. As the connection (or identity) of User:130.113.111.214 and the individual posting under the 206/216 is obvious, I had at one point guessed both to be anonpuppets of Bless sins - a conclusion I was not happy to reach, as Bless sins, while at times quite difficult to work with, had always proved civil. It may be that they are distinct individuals whom Bless sins had recruited onto Misplaced Pages, or at least to the depictions discussion. I am inclined to accept Bless sins’ word that 206/216 is not actually him; however his studious and repeated refusal to deny a connection by this time constitutes a virtual admission: , , , . (same direct question, four times in a row, evaded each time.) I am therefore inclined to ask Bless sins to prevail upon his associate (who evidently cannot be blocked) to cease this disruption.Proabivouac 02:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A ranged anonblock may be called for here. -- Avi 03:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It turns out that many of the edits from this anon are happening at the same time Bless sins is editing but on different articles. See for example the edits by this anon IP , at the exact same time Bless sins is editing another article while logged in, if you check Bless sin's contribution log. This suggests that they are different people, but in all seriousness if you make both ranges wide enough you can probably get a match anyhow. --64.230.123.126 03:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to note that racist language being used on Talk:Muhammad in this post:

"The fact that Muslims become unsettled when we say that Muhammad founded Islam, but Buddhists have no problem hearing or even saying that the Buddha founded Buddhism (though the Buddha also claimed to have predecessors) says a lot about the Muslim psyche. Arrow740 00:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)"

--64.230.123.126 03:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly I'm tired of this. In this edit I stated: "I AM NOT INVOLVED IN SOCKPUPPETRY WITH ANY ANON LIKE YOU'VE ACCUSED ME OF". How much clearer do I need to make myself? At different points in time Proabivouac has accused me of bieng this anon. After he has realized the error in accusing me of sockpuppetry, Proabivouac is now accusing me of of bieng this anon's "associate". Is there some place where I can report Proabivouac for his/her constant lying, baseless accusing and mudslinging at me?Bless sins 17:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Gwen Gale by User:Dmcdevit

User:Gwen Gale was blocked by User:Dmcdevit for having reported a 3RR violation by User:Blue Tie. In addition to having done basically nothing wrong here at all, Gwen Gale has been very active in discussions re the controversy surrounding User:Essjay and the resulting policy questions. Dmcdevit's unorthodox response to an otherwise straightforward 3RR report was unfair, and prevents Gwen Gale from continuing her productive and responsible input on foundation-level questions. Indeed, it appears to have led her to question the wisdom of her involvement with Misplaced Pages in general. I ask that this ill-considered block of a good-faith, lawful and productive user be reversed as the earliest possible opportunity.Proabivouac 07:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

All of my former comments are hereby redacted—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect; Gwen Gale did not violate 3RR.Proabivouac 07:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And your further reversion of the article in question is Gaming the system. – Chacor 07:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

All of my former comments are hereby redacted—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That's an absolutely pathetic attitude for an admin, truly. Derex 09:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

All of my former comments are hereby redacted—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Examining a dispute and making a well-considered call does not constitute "gaming the system."

Re "her loss," my ass. We're lucky when serious responsible adults take time out of their busy days to contribute to Misplaced Pages. It's not at all desirable that/when they're driven off by clueless college kids.Proabivouac 07:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Her choice. We don't care either way. People contribute of their own free will, after all. – Chacor 07:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I object to characterizing Dmcdevit as a "clueless college kid". For my part, my previous unblock of Gwen Gale was conditional on refraining from future edit wars, and she then edit warred not too long after on an article regarding the same subject. I'm failing to see what you consider so unreasonable here. I would indeed be sorry to see her leave, but even good editors are not allowed to edit war or break 3RR. Seraphimblade 07:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this comment I ask that you watch your tone. It is needlessly hostile and I will enforce policy if it continues.--Jersey Devil 07:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You suffer from the misimpression that edit warring is acceptable as long as it doesn't exceed 3 reverts in a page. Please reread the pages on WP:3RR and WP:BP; it is actually quite clear. Unfortunately, edit warring is prohibited, certainly not "nothing wrong at all", and a blockworthy offense, especially in light of a block a little more than a week ago for 3RR, which was reversed upon her promise not to edit war. Dmcdevit·t 07:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

To both sides, tempers seem to be getting out of control, all those who contribute to Misplaced Pages should be respected and thanked for doing so, but from a quick look at the contribs, both sides did break 3RR. Sometimes it's just best to walk away, and sometimes it's necessary for someone outside of the situation to remind that to those inside of it.Just H 07:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what happens when you click the old block button against established users on a judgement call with no clear rule violation, tempers flare. Does anyone really believe that's a constructive response? It's seems to me considerably more harmful than edit warring in the first place. Derex 09:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

My comment was not made in bad temper at all, simply explanatory. Was this misindented? Dmcdevit·t 07:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the confusion, I was talking to everyone in this section, not directly to a single person. I don't find the colons to be that big of a deal. Just H 07:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong and Seraphimblade have above claimed that Gwen Gale herself violated 3RR, along with the violator she dutifully reported. That is simply false. To ask for diffs proving the contrary would be mere formality: they do not exist.Proabivouac 07:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Kindly do not mischaracterize my statements. I did not say she "broke 3RR", I said she "edit warred". The two are similar but not the same. Seraphimblade 08:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It was not my intention to do so. When you wrote, "but even good editors are not allowed to edit war or break 3RR," this suggested a violation of policy on Gwen Gales' part which did not occur. If you did not mean to suggest that, declining to add "or break 3RR" would have made this more clear.

Ryulong wrote, "They both violated 3RR," which is plainly false, and should be retracted.Proabivouac 08:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

All of my former comments are hereby redacted—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous, Ryulong. Your statement suggested that Gwen Gale violated 3RR in this recent incident, not on some other occasion. What is so difficult about admitting that you were wrong?Proabivouac 09:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

All of my former comments are hereby redacted—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I took it that way because otherwise your reference made no sense: we do not block editors for alleged past infractions. It is obvious that you erred in your assessment of the issue at hand. You should admit this, and apologize to Gwen Gale.Proabivouac 09:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It is true that editors are not again blocked for infractions in the past. It is not however true that those won't be taken into account if a future block is considered. Seraphimblade 09:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

All of my former comments are hereby redacted. I'm tired of being being attacked for all of my statements. I recuse myself entirely from this situation, but that does not mean my original review of your unblock request for Gwen Gale is invalid.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Protecting her talk page so she can't respond is a hell of a way of recusing yourself, Ryulong. Given that you've already admitted that you are taking this personally, it's an abuse of administrative tools to use them in a dispute in which you are involved. Particularly as you objected to her using the word "trolling" with reference to you. Derex 10:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Will you read below? My recusal is gone now, except for the next 8 hours or so.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Gwen Gale's response

The following is a transclusion from Gwen Gale's talk page so that he/she can respond to this thread: (→Netscott) 09:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Even though I had recused myself, as a result of these edits, I have temporarily protected Gwen Gale's user page for her personal attacks against me, in which she twice mentioned me as "trolling."—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching this develop and want to state that I support the block - edit warring is bad. And I support the page protection - footstamping is also bad. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

{{User talk:Gwen Gale}}

Might I suggest you block yourself for abusing administrative tools by using them in a dispute in which you are involved? In particular "for her personal attacks against me," emphasis added. No, well I suppose the rules do only apply to little people. (edit conflicted, was to Ryulong) Derex 10:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Amusing that someone who is screaming about the rules doesn't know about the rule against self-blocking. --Golbez 10:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course I know about that rule. Do you know about sarcasm and irony? Derex 10:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh that's just great. Now he protected his own page as well, so no one can talk to him. Ryulong seriously needs to get the clue that admin tools are not a personal toy. Derex 10:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And you need to get a clue that he's stressed and stop attacking him. – Chacor 10:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You know who else was stressed? Gwen Gale. But it seemed just dandy to block her rather than speak to her respectfully. But, as you helpfully noted above, "we don't care" if she leaves. But if someone criticizes an admin, it appears that's definitely worth caring about. Derex 10:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Per , and Derex' comments above, I am now convinced that Ryulong lacks the integrity and maturity of character we should expect from those we entrust with authority, a.k.a. "the tools."Proabivouac 10:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I can see that you are directing that message to me, clearly. The fact of the matter is that she was abusing the editting on her own talk page. And she also attacked Seraphimblade a second time, stating that Seraphimblade's a teenager when he/she clearly stated his/her age on Gwen's talk page. Also, my talk page is only semiprotected because there's an IP user who's being a dick (and move-protected because no one should be moving those pages). You can very well give me a message there, but I probably won't answer as I should have gone to sleep a couple of hours ago and I will be within the next 10 minutes. Consider that the block on myself.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that this is not the first time that Ryulong has blatantly misused the admin tools. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And I'm not surprised that you have referenced Straight Outta Lynwood.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And on both accounts, I am supported by established editors.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I tend to trust Ryulong's reasoning when it comes to Misplaced Pages matters however I do not agree with this statement he made: "And it also seems that Gwen Gale has left under these circumstances. His/Her loss regarding a respected Misplaced Pages editor. That is really poor form and is sooner a demonstration of contempt and lack of good faith. Editors like User:Gwen Gale who make valuable contributions (as an co-editor on the Essjay controversy article with her I should know) should not be spoken about so flippantly/non-chalantly. (→Netscott) 11:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I redacted all of my statements. That was one of them—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Can someone please add this war to WP:LAME? I mean, seriously, a dispute resulting in two blocks and a biggish thread on this board over whether to include the fact that two pilots appeared wearing bomber jackets? Do we always note when court witnesses appear in casual attire? Please! Guy (Help!) 11:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that it was appropiate to block both users, it is inappropiate to reach 3 reverts so as to not go over the 3 revert per day limit, that's edit warring and gaming the system. Dionyseus 17:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Pending RFCU

Blue Tie is now listed in an (apparently--why?) long delayed RFCU:

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/IP_check#However_whatever

As IP info is only good for 30 or 31 odd days, can someone get this before it gets too late? - Denny 06:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive user User:LionheartX

Some admin please take a look at LionheartX's repeated, very disruptive moves to article Chonji. At the talk page, there was a discussion and a vote to keep it at Chonji, against moving to Tianchi. LionheartX keeps moving without any discussion or consensus.

Then he give me a 3RR warning for undoing his moves, and then vandalizes by user page with a "suspected sock" tag. This is very disruptive trolling.

I bring this here because I see he has a history of disruptive behavior. BAmonster 07:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The page was originally titled Tianchi. There was never consensus to move it to Chonji. The status quo before the move should be restored until disagreements are settled. BAmonster (talk · contribs) appears to be a sock. He has cut and paste moved the page to Cheonji lake which destroyed the talk page history.. He then reposted a 3RR warning for undoing his moves. BAmonster appears to be a sock because he has made very few edits and seems very familiar with the site. LionheartX 07:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I recommend a user conduct WP:RFC on LionheartX. When I unblocked I gave a strong recommendation to enter WP:ADOPT, which this user disregarded. WP:DE would be good reading. Durova 22:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Tricky

File:Boa.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has now been deleted seven times (in a couple of different versions) as having no copyright information whatsoever. In every case I can recall the image was uploaded by a single-purpose account with no other edits at all, a different account every time. Someone is not learning. Now, I could protect the title but I suspect that they will then upload it with a different filename, and then I will not spot it (I see the bluelink in my deletion log). Clearly someone is not getting the hint, do you think CheckUsers will help to flush the main account out? Guy (Help!) 07:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see with the popups preview, that looks to be an album cover. Is it? If it is then it shouldn't be hard to track down the copyright info, though asserting fair use for it as the primary image on BoA (singer) would be another matter. --tjstrf talk 08:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No, they aren't album covers, they are publicity headshots, probably uploaded in an attempt to fill the infobox on BoA. Since that expressly requires a free image, that ain't going to fly. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sigh

Is it just me, or will all of the contributions by Someboth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have to be oversighted? Titoxd 08:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Someboth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been identified as a vandalbot and indefblocked. UnfriendlyFire 08:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

DavidYork71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) needs a wikibreak avoiding block

This user is going about canvassing for someone to do a GA review of the Islam and slavery article utilizing talk pages that have nothing to do with it. After having removed this talk per WP:TPG, I warned this editor that what he was doing was disruptive and to cease at once. He responded with a flat no and proceeded to re-revert me. This editor is exhibiting very odd behavior today as he has been linking an article that he's written entirely upon original research about Autosodomy to Yoga and Yoga as exercise both of which where "rvv"ed by another editor. In addition to all of this editor has been severly anti-Islam propaganda POV pushing (this addition to his user page is rather indicative). Could someone kindly prevent further talk page disruption on this part of this individual? Thanks. (→Netscott) 08:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Gave him a warning about it. Hopefully he will stop. --KZ 09:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed all of his reverted messages. He seemed to have stopped... --KZ 09:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

(Shaking my head in disbelief) The guy has just gone from putting the GA request in articles, to putting it on user talk pages. He definitely didn't read WP:CANVASS... I'll let someone else deal with this... --KZ 10:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep I see one two three since the last warning on his talk page ... It's clear that this user is not going to stop despite two clear warnings. In addition, the person in question made a rather strange edit to the Hezbollah article in the purported role of a GA reviewer. Orderinchaos 11:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've enacted a 24 hour block on the basis of the above. Orderinchaos 11:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This is editor is on the way to destruction. He may have no chance to make his time. But seriously..... constant and disruptive/problematic editing on his part is not encouraging for Wikilongevity. (→Netscott) 12:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

User:DavidYork71 is avoiding his block using IP sockpuppetry as User:149.135.84.72, this edit and this revert (to his version) on a DavidYork71 favorite article → Islam and slavery demonstrates. This is not the first time he's edited from this IP range as this edit shows (there he was commenting via that range on a 3RR report against himself). (→Netscott) 13:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

He's now requesting an unblock. Please be aware as this additional revert illustrates he knew he was blocked when he made that revert. (→Netscott) 14:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Unblock declined by Yamla. I wonder if a longer block might be appropriate, given the sockpuppetry as well as the canvassing. --cj | talk 15:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Especially as we're now looking at a repeat offence - the block around the 22nd attracted similar behaviour. Orderinchaos 18:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I have extended the block to 48 hours, in the sense that this is the next logical extension upward from a 24 hour ban. Orderinchaos 19:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

DavidYork71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) continues to utilize IPs for sockpuppeting. His latest IP: 149.135.34.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). (→Netscott) 07:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

(Above copied from my talk page) Have blocked the IP. What action would be most suitable for this one given it appears he will keep doing it? He is, for the record, blocked for another 35 or so hours under his primary nick. As I've taken the basic actions thus far I'd prefer someone other than myself review appropriately and make the call on any extensions. Orderinchaos 08:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Prior to his block this editor was engaging in other disruptive behavior. He wikilinked an articled he created called "autosodomy" to Yoga and Yoga as exercise (both edit were rvv'd by User:Buddhipriya). This combined with other problematic edits makes me think that the project would be better off without the input of this individual. (→Netscott) 08:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Blatant abuse of speedy deletion by Jayjg

I created Image:Israel and occupied territories map.png a few days ago from an existing UN map (under a PD license) to provide a high-resolution overview of Israel, the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and chunks of the neighboring countries. It replaced an earlier version of the same map, Image:Israel.png, which I also created from the same UN source. That map was the subject of a dispute between Timeshifter and a number of other users concerning the classification (was it a map of Israel alone or a map of Israel plus the territories occupied by it?). I sought to resolve that dispute by retitling the map and renaming it (plus making some unrelated formatting changes) to make it clear that the map was indeed supposed to be of the entire region, not just Israel. I explained the changes and the rationale at Image talk:Israel and occupied territories map.png, and asked for an independent review at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Maps#Request for review of map classification. Nobody there saw any problems with it.

Three (presumably Israeli) users raised questions about the nomenclature at Image talk:Israel and occupied territories map.png. (The term "occupied territories" is taken from standard UN usage and is also replicated in the CIA World Factbook map of the region, which uses the term "Israeli-occupied" - see Image:Cia-is-map2.gif. Misplaced Pages uses "Israeli-occupied territories".) In response to their concerns, I suggested renaming the map again to eliminate the term "occupied territories" (see Image talk:Israel and occupied territories map.png#Alternative proposal). The discussion was ongoing and there was every chance of finding a solution that was acceptable to everybody.

Regrettably, Jayjg has decided to abuse his administrative powers by speedily deleting the image's placeholder from the English Misplaced Pages with the edit summary "enough is enough; restore the original image without your added commentary" . He also posted to the talk page (addressed to me): "Your actions regarding these images are becoming increasingly abusive, and enough is enough." Jayjg had previously played no part in the discussion on Image talk:Israel and occupied territories map.png - this was his first edit to the talk page. (Added: the thing that has been deleted is a placeholder page categorising the image in two categories, not the image itself. The image is on the Commons. See my comments further down this thread for a detailed explanation.)

This is a blatant misuse of deletion authority for presumably POV reasons and is a completely unjustifiable personal attack as well. The map was not created for POV reasons. I've taken the time to explain every aspect of its creation and rationale on the talk page. As the talk page also shows, I've been working with the objecting editors to find a common solution, and I've directly asked them for their views () - how on earth is this "abusive"?. Instead, Jayjg has decided to short-circuit all of that by speedily deleting the image page, posting a personal attack and attempting to shut down the efforts to find a compromise. The deletion policy was ignored, bad faith was assumed and an unpleasant personal attack was posted out of the blue. As a former arbitrator (!) he of all people should know that isn't acceptable. -- ChrisO 08:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The term "occupied territories" is the official term for these regions, and it is a term used by the UN to describe them - therefore it is by definition a NPOV term. As you describe the facts Jayjg speedy-deleted the image, failing to satisfactory explain why he did that. But I would also like to listen to what he has to say.--Yannismarou 08:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The UN does indeed appear to refer to the territories as "occupied", discussion did appear to be happening in the talk page, and the speedy did appear to be out of process and non-AGF. The highlighting of the Palestinian territories makes the title change seem reasonable. I don't like the look of this at first glance, but would like to hear Jayjg's side as well. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we sum this up as "If it may be questionable for you to use admin tools in a given situation, request that someone uninvolved do so, just like a normal editor would do, and go from there?" I have the idea here that a speedy tag on the images in question (on either side) would have been declined, and I believe rightfully so. Seraphimblade 09:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I would definitely like to hear Jayjg's comments on this. --Golbez 08:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Chris, Jay wasn't involved in the dispute and took admin action to sort it out. You were involved, yet you also speedied two of the images the dispute was about. On March 27, you speedied Image:Israel.png; Image:Israel annotated topographic.jpg, and their talk pages, the first of which had posts about the dispute on it and probably shouldn't have been deleted.

I'm not saying you were wrong to do this, because I don't know the details, but I'm wondering why it would be wrong for Jay to take admin action when he's not involved, but all right for you to do it when you are involved. SlimVirgin 09:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Aaaaand here we go. Replacing a map with another (and certainly not a duplicate as was claimed) using admin tools? Oh there's fun on every side. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Not so. I originally speedied because I uploaded it to the wrong place - en: rather than Commons. Following the dispute over the categorisation, I modified the image to make the subject matter explicit (as explained at Image talk:Israel and occupied territories map.png) and de-linked the original image on en:. I requested on the Commons that the image be deleted as it had been obsoleted; this was actioned yesterday. There was no need to retain a "placeholder" for a deleted Commons image here on en:. I also created File:Israel annotated topographic.jpg and uploaded that only to the Commons. Following comments on en:, I realised that the image name was both ambiguous and inaccurate - it isn't purely of Israel, and it isn't a topographic map (it's of the entire SE Mediterranean region and it's a satellite image). To resolve this I re-uploaded it to the Commons as Image:Southeast mediterranean annotated geography.jpg - the same image with a different filename and some more annotations - along with an explanation of its purpose (Image talk:Southeast mediterranean annotated geography.jpg). The original deletion requests are at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Israel.png and Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Israel annotated topographic.jpg. My preference would have been to move the images to new names and overwrite them with the updated versions, but the images had to be deleted rather than moved because the Commons software doesn't support moves (see Commons:FAQ#Technical questions). I did specifically ask about this - see Commons:Village pump#Image move request.

The CSD reasons were (1) author request (i.e. mine); (2) transwikiing in the case of the first image; (3) deletion of the referenced images on Commons in both cases. None of those reasons applies for Jayjg's action. No rationale whatsoever has been given for Jayjg's action and it certainly isn't covered by WP:SPEEDY. Just to clarify, neither image is a "duplicate" - I don't think I've ever claimed this. I've been very explicit about why they were created and why I asked the Commons to delete the first versions. They were misnamed, the first image had some technical problems and neither image was clear enough about the subject matter. -- ChrisO 10:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You deleted the Israel image twice; it's the March 27 deletion I'm talking about because the dispute was underway by then, and I don't really follow what you said above. CSD by author request where you're the author is fine, but only if there's no ongoing dispute. Can I ask why you speedied Image talk:Israel.png, which contained parts of the dispute? SlimVirgin 12:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

See below. (Could you possibly post questions just in one place? It's a bit confusing if they're asked and answered more than once. Thanks in advance.) -- ChrisO 12:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I see. I will cease commenting when half asleep. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

here's my personal perspective:

1. ChrisO, has been rigorously involved in the last month and a bit or so (over 150 related edits/talks/reverts/deletion requests/requests for support/etc. within that time frame) in "taking an article Pallywood hostage" via an AfD suggestion, a blanking attempt, a 3RR evasion and general ignoring of any wiki editor with a different opinion/perspective.
2. this apprears to be a similar case in regards to Israel related editing, where user appears to be adamant on anti-israeli presentations. As such, i think it is very much appropriate to firstly remove the bais presentation, and return the information only when an approved version is accepted upon - rather than doing it the other way around - misrepresenting events until a resolution is achieved. Jaakobou 09:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you've added your personal perspective, let me add mine. I've been creating maps for Misplaced Pages since 2004 for places as diverse as Greece, Ukraine, Niger, East Timor and Azerbaijan. Dozens of my maps are in use across numerous Wikipedias. I've never in nearly four years of editing had to face such a barrage of hostility over a map as I have over this one: "blatant idiocy" (sic) (); "POV" (); "attempt to place a POV" () and "increasingly abusive" (). There seems to be a tendency among some users - you, Jaakobou are one, Jayjg is plainly another - to constantly assume bad faith on anything to do with edits on Middle Eastern matters that don't meet their personal POV. It's more than just inappropriate - it's creating a hostile and intimidatory atmosphere concerning the entire subject area on Misplaced Pages. I know people have strong feelings about the issues, but that isn't justification to constantly assume the worst of your fellow editors. -- ChrisO 10:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

please explain to me the text i just highlighted from your statement in the following order:

(1) how does "What did you change other than the new POV title?" (by user User:Eric1985) was turned into just "POV" ?

(2) how does "was somewhat an attempt to place a POV (though I am not accusing you of taking a side, but rather you interpreting the situation in your own personal way), but then you emphasized this change with the 'occupied territories' bit." (by user User:Shuki) was turned into just "attempt to place a POV"  ?

(3) how does 150+ of your edits/reverts/etc. on Pallywood makes me an "allways assumes bad faith" ?

(4) do you feel an aggressive hostile environment when being requested by a multitude of numereous editors to treat Israeli matters with a little less of a bias presentation? Jaakobou 11:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that User:Jayjg is in the wrong without question. It has been noted before that Jay abuses his admin powers(although probably with good intent) - but whatever the intent, power abuses can't be tolerated and policy must always be followed. Perhaps an apology from Jay would suffice - if not maybe we could think about consulting ArbCom (by the way I'm really glad to have found this page, it's brilliant for helping with the more mundane tasks!) --I'm so special 10:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User:I'm so special has been blocked 48 hours for trolling ...--MONGO 10:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm restoring the deleted image. No opinion about which of the two is better, but as long as there are no copyright problems or anything there's no harm having both of them on the server and leaving it to the editors of the articles in question to decide which they are going to use. There clearly was no valid speedy criterion. Sorry for IAA'ing in taking this discussion in lieu of a formal DR. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to Image:Israel and occupied territories map.png? He has already uploaded it to the Commons, a restore is no longer necessary. -- Consumed Crustacean (run away) 11:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice that. For some reason it was showing as a redlink for me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There's evidently some confusion about exactly what's been deleted. The first version of the map, Image:Israel.png, was uploaded here by me by accident, but I deleted it immediately and re-uploaded it to the Commons. A placeholder page for that image at was used by Timeshifter to categorise the map in the existing English Misplaced Pages categories Category:Maps of Israel and Category:Maps of the Palestinian territories. After it became clear that I had misnamed the file and the caption was insufficiently clear, I created a second version of the map, Image:Israel and occupied territories map.png, and uploaded that to the Commons. I requested the deletion of the original image on the Commons; this has now actioned and the original image no longer exists, which is why it shows as a redlink. I deleted the redundant placeholder page for the first image and created a new placeholder for the second one at . This placeholder is what Jayjg deleted. -- ChrisO 11:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you say why you speedied Image talk:Israel.png? SlimVirgin 12:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

CSD G8 - Talk pages whose corresponding article does not exist. Don't forget the image was deleted from the Commons. I didn't think there was any point in keeping a talk page for a deleted image. -- ChrisO 12:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think maybe as there was a dispute on it, it might have been worth keeping. SlimVirgin 13:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - at worst it should have been substed onto the talk page for the new image Orderinchaos 14:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg's response

ChrisO was involved in a dispute about an image, and, from what I could tell, proceeded to delete the image and upload a different version, to further his own POV about what the image was about. I was not involved in a dispute regarding that image, but viewed ChrisO's actions as an abuse of admin powers, similar to his abuse of admin powers last week, when he protected the image while involved in an edit war over it, and subsequently deleted it. ChrisO seems to be playing fast and loose with his admin powers here, protecting, deleting and re-uploading modified versions of images when he gets into conflicts over them. Jayjg 18:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, as far as I can tell, the image is already on the Commons, and Future Perfect at Sunrise has since restored, then deleted the image, and Timeshifter has then restored it. Jayjg 19:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's get this clear. First, I deleted the image from the English Misplaced Pages on 20 March, before all of this blew up, because I'd uploaded it to the wrong place - en: rather than Commons. The subsequent deletion of the same immage from the Commons was done by a Commons admin following an unopposed request at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Israel.png. As the author of the image, I have an explicit right to ask for its deletion. Second, the accusation of "furthering my own POV about what the image was about" is utterly wrong - I said right from the start that the image was a map of Israel and the occupied territories. I then had the bizarre experience of users ignoring my stated reasons and in effect claiming I didn't know my own intentions. That's why I added an explicit rationale and statement of intent at Image talk:Israel and occupied territories map.png - to make it crystal clear why the image was created and what it was about. The change to the image caption and filename were similarly intended to make this clear. Third, you're mistaken (I'm assuming good faith here...) about your own previous involvement. I pulled this revert out of the edit history for Image:Israel.png: 03:17, 25 March 2007 . . Jayjg (Talk | contribs | block) (don't need a cat for one map).. Finally, the deletion of the placeholder page (not the image) at Image:Israel.png was undertaken because of the deletion of the image on the Commons. We simply don't need to have placeholders for deleted images.

But let's also get past your smokescreen and get to the heart of what this is about. You speedily deleted a page without giving any rationale beyond what I can only describe as an order directed at me. You were involved in a dispute over the previous version of the image. You issued a personal attack: "Your actions regarding these images are becoming increasingly abusive." You assumed bad faith. You plainly had a POV objection, but didn't try discussing it with me or any of the other users on the talk page, who were trying in good faith to reach a common solution. I'm still not clear what your objection was, because you've never bothered to explain it to anyone (and still haven't). That sort of conduct would be unacceptable coming from any admin, but coming from a recent former arbitrator it's mindboggling. A few months ago you were voting to ban people who did exactly the same sort of things. -- ChrisO 19:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

As a fellow mapmaker, I think I agree with ChrisO on this; he replaced an image he created and he uploaded with what he perceived to be a less POV version, and I personally agree with that assessment. My prescription for this is that we all sit down, calm down, and realize that after all of this discussion, deletion, reversion, etc., we seem to be exactly back where we were after ChrisO uploaded the new map and before Jayjg deleted things. In other words, I say we start over and discuss the merits of the new map, without getting into immediate accusations of POV and deletions. So, peace, y'all? --Golbez 20:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, frankly. :-) -- ChrisO 21:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think ChrisO's latest version of the map may solve all the problems people had with the labeling and coloring of the map. Please see:

• Image talk:Israel and occupied territories map.png#Proposed new version. The new image is Image:Is-wb-gs-gh.png. --Timeshifter 20:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Chris, much of the discussion on the map was editors telling you why it is not proper to unilaterally create a new map with an altered name to fit your new filename (the original UN map was titled 'Israel', which you reproduced in the first image, and altered to '...and the occupied territories' on the second), and then replace the original map across WP. That your response was to then delete the original both on WP and on the Commons (by proxy) is at the very minimum an improper use of your admin tools for the second time this week. For the record, between the new discussion and the still active one that you deleted, six editors objected to your move (Ynhockey's comments were deleted with the first page). I don't see how it is at all relevant to make presumptions of anyone's nationality (Three (presumably Israeli) users, your words above). I requested last week that you be more careful in using admin tools in content disputes - I can't say that these events show promise in that direction. Tewfik 20:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat myself indefinitely here, so let me do it once more for the record: I created both images as an overview of Israel and the territories. I stated this explicitly at the time. Because the filename and caption were ambiguous, it promptly got jumped on by several users. I changed the filename and the caption to make the subject of the map explicitly clear in the image itself. -- ChrisO 21:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That is the crux of the issue - you decided to modify/label/name the new images as "...and occupied territories", which is a content decision, despite the original UN image only being titled "Israel". That would be fine if discussion then formed a consensus declaring that a better description than the original UN image's, but instead you unilaterally enforced the change (with admin tools - deletion, hence AN/I) while the discussion was ongoing (Talk reflects that your changes are what "promptly got jumped on by several users"). That this comes on the tail of a previous misuse of admin tools on your part a week ago (on this very image) is why there is so much concern. Please show us that you realise what the problem is and that you'll be more careful about it. Tewfik 22:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Tewfik here. ←Humus sapiens 10:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well stated by Tewfik. Jaakobou 14:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I might take your comments more seriously if they didn't come from three members of a POV-pushing clique, the activities of which are well known to and deplored by a number of admins, not just myself (see also ). I suggest you take a look at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Proposed decision as a cautionary lesson. -- ChrisO 18:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you look at WP:CIVIL; your intemperate remarks are most unseemly. Jayjg 21:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Chris0 for your side of the story, and the very enlightening links. As a participant in most of this, I must be seeing something completely different from what Tewfik is seeing. Tewfik's characterizations of what happened seem very inaccurate. To sum it up, you, Chris0 have been trying to create content, and to modify it at the request of discussion on talk pages. Tewfik and Jayjg have not been creating content. Tewfik has been trying very hard to eliminate this map category, Category:Maps of the Palestinian territories. That has already been discussed on the incident board on March 26, 2007. Until recently that desire on his part to eliminate the map category is all he clearly discussed on the talk page for the map in question (Image:Israel and occupied territories map.png). On April 1, Jayjg deleted that modified UN map with the cryptic edit summary of "enough is enough." His comment on the talk page was, "I've deleted the image; restore the original, without your added commentary. Your actions regarding these images are becoming increasingly abusive, and enough is enough." That was his first participation on the talk page for that map. This was several days after Chris0 had asked, "Would it be more acceptable if the map was recaptioned 'Israel with the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights' - eliminating the collective term 'territories' altogether?" So I see great effort by Chris0 to discuss changes and to accommodate people, and little or no effort to engage in current discussion from Tewfik and Jayjg. It is all on the talk page: Image talk:Israel and occupied territories map.png. Tewfik and Jayjg seem to be mad about some perceived problems from days before. I thought that was taken care of in a previous discussion on the incident board here:

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive219#Use_of_admin_tools_in_content_dispute --Timeshifter 21:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Jay, I call it as I see it. As I see it, many of the Middle East articles - not my normal subject area by any means - are being used as soapboxes by a group of editors (including a few admins) who are seeking to impose a specifically right-wing American/Israeli POV. In the process, WP:NPOV and WP:ATT are frequently being ignored or bent; bad faith is assumed of anyone who doesn't share their POV; attempts to fix problems with articles are being reverted without discussion; fringe sources are preferred over the mainstream; editors who aren't part of the clique are denounced as biased, disruptive or abusive. I should add that there are of course editors who are biased, disruptive and abusive in editing Middle East articles, but accusations of such conduct seem to be made at the drop of a hat.

As an example of a grossly bad article produced by this clique, I'll point to Muhammad al-Durrah - I've never edited it but it's plain from the article's history that the clique has been fighting off any attempts to make the article conform with NPOV and ATT. The entire article is written from a conspiracy theorist's POV, using fringe sources, with POV-pushers removing references to The Guardian and BBC News on the grounds that neither organization is a reliable source (!). That's comparable to writing Barbara Olson exclusively from the POV of a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and junking anything CNN says on the subject because it doesn't suit the conspiracy theorist's POV. This sort of behaviour is totally at odds with our aim of producing neutral, reliably sourced articles, and it's going to end up in an arbitration sooner or later. If you'd like to improve Misplaced Pages in a small way, might I suggest that you try fixing that article so that it conforms with our basic policies? -- ChrisO 22:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Chris, in fairness, you edit from a strong POV yourself. You're currently trying to suggest at Zombietime that only the United States regards Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations, and that the views of people who support those groups are only regarded as extreme in the context of U.S. politics, which is demonstrably false. Hamas is listed as a terrorist group by Canada, the European Union, Israel, Japan, and the U.S. Several countries other than the U.S. regard Hezbollah or its external security arm as a designated terrorist organization. SlimVirgin 22:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Blatant Abuse of Images and POV by ChrisO

i've just had the idea of inspecting the original UN file attached on the image in question:

Image:Israel and occupied territories map.png

the original PDF was not only altered in the "green areas" but also in the "UN Title" which was changed from "Israel" to "Israel and the occupied territories".

perhaps, there is a case non the less for all the fuss around ChrisO's editing? Jaakobou 12:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You miss the rather important points that (a) from the start I explicitly created the map as an overview of Israel and the occupied territories, not just Israel, so the caption needed to make that clear ; and (b) more fundamentally perhaps, we're not allowed to use unmodified UN maps. They have to be modified else they don't comply with the UN license, which I negotiated with the UN in the first place - see Template:UN map and Template talk:UN map. -- ChrisO 12:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would the UN not allow us to use maps unless modified? SlimVirgin 12:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

They don't mind derivative works, but they have a strict policy on the original maps: "We do not permit posting of our maps into your web site (if the map is not part of a specific publication, book or article) because we revise the maps very often and want to ensure that only an updated map is posted on the Web." Derivative works are OK as long as they don't claim to have been authored by the UN. -- ChrisO 12:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Thank you. SlimVirgin 13:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Do explain how you personally overviewed the designation to disputed territories (a.k.a. "somewhat an attempt to place a POV" - User:Shuki) without abuse of this image and POV. Jaakobou 12:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Administrator harassment from User:Guinnog

After AumakuaSatori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made highly POV edits such as changing collapse to demolition, etc., and here as well then libeled a person here for which we have a bio in a seperate article (Larry Silverstein), I reverted this vandalism and posted a vandalism test level 2 warning on AumakuaSatori's usertalk. AumakuaSatori changed 7 World Trade Center collapsed to 7 World Trade Center collapsed in an obvious, controlled demolition, ordered by owner Larry Silverstein. This wasn't an innocent mistake, it was an overt effort to defame Larry Silverstein and vandalize the article. Guinnog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) then reverted my warning and instead added a welcome template to this same editors talkpage with the edit summary "replace inappropriate warning with welcome template". Guinnog then proceeded to my talkpage to warn me claiming he didn't see anything wrong "I don't see any vandalism in the user's edits but an attempt to improve the article."...as if libel is now an improvement I suppose.. Guinnog has harassed me for about a day now about this, seemingly unable to see that there was nothing inappropriate about me warning another editor about obvious vandalism. It should be noted that Guinnog has made threats to further escalate what is much ado about nothing, I guarantee that I will take this further if you do not correct your well-meaning error...in fact I did zero wrong and his removal of my vandalism warning to instead welcome an editor who libelled another person is highly inappropriate. His ongoing badgering about a lot of nothing is certainly not becoming in an administrator...his "guarantee to take it further" is also highly inappropriate and I see it as a threat to make a poor administrative decision on his part, especially since this is an article that he has had disagreements with me in the past, and his behavior in regards to this same article was a major issue by those who opposed his request for adminship. Perhaps someone can ask him to stop harassing me about a whole lot of nothing, and stop falsely accusing me of vandalism yet he does nothing about AumakuaSatori who libelled a third party. Guinnog was cautioned here about making threats of admin action during this ongoing nonsense.--MONGO 09:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Great, not only did a conspiracy theorist finally get admin status, but it was by the thinnest of margins. This is making me rethink my current abstention from RFA. I don't quite know what to say, except that if Guinnog does this again (among other things, justifying libel - I notice that Guinnog, while adding a welcome template to his new buddy, chose not to actually warn the chap for violating BLP, which was the main reason that warning was there in the first place), you should take this straight to RfC and/or Arbcom. I like how Guinnog is inviting this person to 'add their thoughts' to improving the article, as if anything they put remotely belongs. Sad. --Golbez 09:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Guinnog did nothing wrong here and acted in good faith. I would suggest that you do not just try to get rid of every administrator who doesn't follow your instructions, it could lose us valuable wikipedians - Guinnog has tirelessly reverted vandalism since he got here - just see his contribs. I don't think there is any question of his commitment to the project. Please MONGO... just move on for god's sake --I'm so special 10:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

By removing the warning and welcoming someone who added libel without any warning, nothing wrong was done? Commitment is not the only requirement to be a good administrator. --Golbez 10:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Guinnog absolutely did do wrong, in that these edits were in blatant violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Any administrator intervention should have been in support of warning the editor never to repeat this grossly inappropriate behaviour. Whether a polite note to MONGO would also have been appropriate is immaterial. I have blocked that account because (a) every edit appears to violate one or other of the two policies noted above and (b) if it's not a sockpuppet then I'm a monkey's uncle. Guy (Help!) 11:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note, the user who reported is removing comments in support of Guinnog under the guise of "RV Vandal" see this diff —The preceding unsigned comment was added by I'm so special (talk • contribs) 10:23, 2007 April 1.

User:I'm so special has been blocked 48 hours for trolling ...--MONGO 10:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with MONGO, and I'll state that I have handed out similar warnings in similar cases myself (on articles in the domains I edit). Even though these cases may not technically match our standard definitions of vandalism perfectly, there is a point where reckless POV-pushing becomes so blatant and so disruptive that an anti-vandal response is legitimate. Nobody in their right mind can possibly believe that the statement "7 World Trade Center collapsed in an obvious, controlled demolition, ordered by owner Larry Silverstein" fairly and accurately reflects the current state of commonly accepted human knowledge. Even if you happen to believe that the statement is true, you simply must know it's not commonly accepted and not "obvious". A user who makes edits like this is either not acting in good faith, or so clueless about the purpose of Misplaced Pages they really shouldn't be here. Come to that, there's the very real BLP issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Guinnog told me it would have been better had I done a BLP warning instead of a vandalism warning, but seeing that the editor has such a very limited contribution history, his edit appeared to be clear vandalism. User:Tbeatty later placed a BLP warning template on his talkpage. My biggest concern about this entire affair is to wonder why I would be badgered for the entire editing session about a whole lot of nothing when I had hoped to be working on other things of interest to me. It appears Guinnog was trying to goad me into saying something nasty.--MONGO 11:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Guinogg exercised poor judgment in reverting MONGO and leaving a message on MONGO's page. Guinogg was involved in the article. It is inappropriate to act as both a contributor and an administrator as it has a chilling effect on contributions. At most he should have simply expressed his viw as an editor on MONGO's talk page without reversion and without an administrator warning. That would have given MONGO the choice of amending the warning to be more specific or taken no action. Guinogg's next choice should have been to bring it here for comment. But ating unilaterally was inappropriate considering his involvement. --Tbeatty 15:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

AumakuaSatori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been indefinitely by User:JzG for blatant violations of POV and BLP. Clearly MONGO acted correctly and User:Guinnog was wrong to defend him. --rogerd 18:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, AumakuaSatori made edits which were POV and BLP violations. No, MONGO did not correctly deal with those as POV and BLP problems, but rather incorrectly as 'vandalism'. No, Guinnog did not defend AumakuaSatori and was not wrong to tell MONGO to stop misusing the vandalism template.

Guinnog was acting, correctly, under the guidance of things like WP:AGF and WP:BITE... new users doing things they shouldn't may simply not know / understand. The proper response is to calmly inform them of things like NPOV and verifiability. It is certainly possible that this was a sockpuppet, troll, or new but equally intractable user who would never comply with policy... but usually we tell them about those policies and block them after they continue to violate them, not before. If we've reached the point where it is wrong to give new users the benefit of the doubt / tell them what is actually wrong with their edits we should ditch WP:BITE and rewrite WP:AGF to make clear that in only applies to 'established contributors'. --CBD 11:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It was a standard vandalism warning....indeed, the editing hisory of this probable sock account has at least one other BLP violation and vandalism as well. Replacing my warning with a welcome is ridiculous. AGF didn't seem to apply to me...so obviously "admins" such as yourself and Guinnog would rather AGF of vandals than established editors...how interesting.--MONGO 16:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just belatedly come across this thread (I'm travelling with limited internet access this week). The violation of WP:LIVING, WP:VERIFIABILITY/ATTRIBUTION, and common decency involved in posting that Larry Silverstein obviously blew up his own building on 9/11 is extremely serious. I don't care precisely what warning template is used, but assertions of that nature must never be allowed to remain posted on Misplaced Pages, much less being restored by an experienced editor or administrator. Newyorkbrad 22:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem

My comments at the above dicussion are being reverted for some reason by User:Chacor and User:MONGO - it's highly innapropriate for the user who reported on the noticeboard to remove other users' comments in opposition - please see DIFF 1, DIFF 2 and User talk:I'm so special for further evidence. --I'm so special 10:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

See User talk:I'm so special - MONGO says I am only here for abuse and he will run a checkuser. I need admin attention urgently. Thanks --I'm so special 10:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Obvious. End-of. – Chacor 10:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User blocked for 48 hours. Now, I'm really going to go to sleep...after a final comment.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose block. Let's see, I'm so special voices an opinion that is removed twice. When he complains, Chacor fishes up an edit that is a day old and you decide that warrants a 48-hour block? Blocks are preventative; your block prevented nothing. --Edokter (Talk) 12:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The account is an obvious single-purpose trolling account - the diff was to prove that it's just another troll. – Chacor 15:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPA and WP:TROLL are esseys, not even guidelines. I still fail to see how this block is warranted, especially since I can't even see any incivility from I'm So Special. I still think MONGO and Ryulong are out of line here. --Edokter (Talk) 18:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The unjust blocking of Fenian Swine (talk · contribs)

Administrator Gaillimh (talk · contribs) has indefinitely blocked long standing contributor FS for having an "offensive username". FS was previously blocked in August 2005 for the same, but was almost immediately unblocked by another administrator as they didn't find it offensive enough. User:Gaillimh has attempted to get FS to change his username, but FS refused and has been indefinitely blocked. This is a clear breach of the WP:USERNAME policy, which states that if a user will not voluntarily change their name it should be brought up at WP:RFCN. I have raised this matter with the blocking administrator, who has summarily ignored me. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a good block and urge unblocking. Long-standing users have always been asked to go to RFCN and such. It's not a new user. Even then, question, how is it offensive? – Chacor 10:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

As for how it's offensive: Fenian = Irish Nationalist. So I can see how some would see bad in this username. --Golbez 10:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I am reversing the block, Misplaced Pages:Username policy is clear on this: Where a change must be forced, we first discuss it. If the user will not voluntarily change their name, bring it up at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Usernames. The user should also be made aware of the discussion. The time this discussion can take varies upon how active the user in question is.--Jersey Devil 10:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I do believe the username is inappropriate, however, but the block was not helpful.--MONGO 11:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

He has been asked to change it and absolutely refuses. He has pretty close to absolute contempt for admins. This will not have improved that. Guy (Help!) 11:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The blocking was forewarned by User:Gaillimh but not 'discussed' in any meaningful sense. It was strictly a 'do it or you are blocked' ultimatum. Play Brian Moore is what the user signs signs all his edits; which was (I think) the compromise reached in 2005. In order to see the "Fenian Swine" you must go to his Userpage. Furthermore, as an avowed Fenian himself (a claim supported by his contributions) he states his use of "swine" is ironic. In this case, given all the facts and previous compromise two years ago, it seems to me that this blocking is totally OTT and not in the spirit of Misplaced Pages. (Sarah777 12:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC))

close to absolute contempt for admins. I resent that comment. There have been far more friendly administrators here than unfriendly. The name is just not offensive in all fairness though. An Irish pig, lets face it lads, thats fairly weak.--Play Brian Moore 13:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I apologise. This was based on what was said to me last time this was mentioned. Whatever, I see no problems with your editing, and that is probably all that matters after this much time. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I find this whole issue ridiculous, Fenian Swine is not offensive in this case as the editor is obviously a Irish Republican supporter, I think the admin has over reacted.--padraig3uk 13:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

As the blocking admin, I'll note that the name "Fenian Swine" is indeed blatantly offensive (and he was, in fact, originally blocked for just that reason). With regards to the username policy, and the aforementioned section in particular, Usernames that are recognised as slurs or insults are disallowed. Such usernames fall under the scope of what is labelled Inflammatory usernames on the policy page. This applies to this user, as a "Fenian" is sometimes used as an insult directed at Catholics and nationalists. However, if someone is a member of Sinn Féin, he might identify himself and his mates as Fenians, where no insult is intended. It's a bit confusing if you're not from Ireland, and the only similar comparison I can make is that it's a bit similar to when African-Americans use the word "nigga" as a substitute for "mate" or "friend." Conversely, when those outside of the African-American community use the word, it's usually in a disparaging tone. One can see that this user is attempting to use the word "Fenian" as an insult as his full username is "Fenian Swine." As you may already know, swine is a term for pig, which is almost never used in a flattering term. Ironic or not, the username is ridiculous and disparaging towards Catholic nationalists. In addition, if one looks at my discourses with the user, one will see that I had asked him to change his username beginning eight days prior to the block being issused. During this time, I attempted to work with this user and was rebuffed several times. I also ignored his incivility in the hopes that he would change his username. That is, the block was used as a last resort gaillimh 19:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

For a 2 year old user account, blocking is not the correct answer, and its certainly not the last resort. WP:RFCN is the right place to go. Disagreeing with you on changing his username is not appropriate grounds for blocking unless there is community consensus per WP:RFCN. For an account just created, I can understand blocking and posting to RFCN upon the user's request if this were a new account, but this particular block was very much the wrong action to take. --Auto 04:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Nominated for discussion at WP:RFCN. RJASE1 19:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Gaillimh, this block should have been discussed first. There is absolutely no excuse for blocking a long-standing contributor in good standing without at least some discussion here or at WP:RFCN. Ral315 » 07:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

There's something suspicious about Poemswheel's contributions. The first thing he does is to create his user and talk pages, and then they make edits with the false edit summary of "rvv" which are actually vandalism, such as and and most curiously . Should this user be blocked? Resurgent insurgent 11:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hells yes. I've blocked the account. The "rvv" and immediate creation of userpages seem to indicate that is an account created solely for vandalism. Looks like User:Wbwbr / User:Accountready / User:Enlighter1 / etc. -- Consumed Crustacean (run away) 11:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Armando12

Throughout the discussion at Talk:Evanescence (specifically Talk:Evanescence#Band_photo), Armando12 has been repeatedly uncivil, issued personal attacks ("you are totally ... brain damaged"), and shown a general level of immaturity in holding a discussion, punctuating almost every comment with exclamations of ridicule ("Hahahahaha! Lol! rofl...the actual consensus was reached after that image!! hahahahaha!"). He has repeatedly stated his opinion that the only possible reason I could want to remove unnecessary fair use imagery from the article is through a deep hatred of the band in question, despite the fact that I have told him a number of times that I have no interest in the band whatsoever (I've never even heard their music) beyond their article. ed g2s • talk 11:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Another weird one User:Anynobody using Editor Review as a back-door User RfC on me

Misplaced Pages:Editor review/Anynobody. Really sorry to be here again but his relentless creepy preoccupation with me just seems to have no end! Looks like clear misuse of the Editor Review process. Suggest a block so he really gets it that he should go edit articles or something and leave me alone. (He does edit mostly naval articles, I mean also better invest the time he wastes being preoccupied with me and misusing the processes here to pursue said preoccupation) Other than Barbara Schwarz a while back, he and I do not edit together!! Unlike User:Smee and I who do edit in the same articles and who have a beef over that editing that we are actually maybe getting somewhere with (see my talk). It has been suggested to me privately that, due to his name being analogous to mine and his preoccupation with me, that he might be an SPA with the sole purpose of getting me, the sole Scientologist that actually does anything in the Scientology articles, the hell off Misplaced Pages. Given this latest and his continued activity at User talk:Orsini/Sandbox3, I am starting to agree with that unnamed Wikipedian. Also, there are also indications in his talk that he was also misusing the RfA process to "get answers". See Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Anynobody and User talk:Anynobody#Comment on your RfA

"I've actually been trying to get people to notice the first WP:RfC and how it got deleted anyway, so even if I don't get accepted I can get some feedback about issues I've wanted for a while. It's kinda hard to explain, so if this isn't making sense I apologize. For now I'll wait to blow up on my Death Star to get some answers."

Now I clearly see the pattern. (Pattern of harassment, I should mention. (add 14:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC))) --Justanother 13:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC) (add 13:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC))

• Well, I won't block Anynobody for trolling, and I doubt anybody else will either. But otherwise I agree with Justanother: this Editor review is a mere troll. I was just thinking of taking it to ANI myself. It's an attack page, lightly disguised as a request for review of Anynobody's dispute resolution skills—and guess what, the example dispute turns out to be that between Anynobody and Justanother— very inventive! And as JA points out, it comes on top of some very strange use by AN of other processes, notably a rather frivolous RFA devoted to attacks rather than any realistic attempt to attain adminship. I should declare an interest here: I'm one of the people attacked, see especially the RFA talkpage. Anyway, I recommend people to take a look at this request for editor review, it's quite a document. In my opinion it should be deleted as misuse of process. Being one of Anynobody's targets, I won't delete it myself, but somebody might like to. Anynobody, please stop all this, leave Justanother and the other people you resent alone. Abandon the idea that you must triumph over your "enemies" at all costs, walk away. I honestly think you'll feel better. Bishonen | talk 15:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

I concur with the above opinion. It was my feeling that, even if the user is gaming the system, the system needs to be honored somewhat. If there were 48 hours without actual progress from someone other than Anynobody at the editorial review, I was going to delete it. If there were 24 hours without any comment from another party, then I would delete it. The point is that this is trolling, but trolls are best starved, not whacked. At the peril of again being misread, I suggest that these are virtual tarbabies: the more you strike them, the more you stuck you are, and so few people are listening or interested in what Anynobody is saying that I suspect it can fail with a whimper. Geogre 15:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have speedy-deleted Misplaced Pages:Editor review/Anynobody as an attack page. Tom Harrison 15:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Justanother's attack page

Upon recommendation from Admin Tom Harrison, I tagged User:Justanother/Smee (formerly Smeelgova), and User talk:Justanother/Smee (formerly Smeelgova) as attack pages, with {{Db-attack}}. These were promptly removed by Justanother (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • rfcu), with edit summary: Smee, take it to AN/I if you have a problem. In light of the discussion and subsequent speedy deletion of material relating to User:Justanother, it is in-line with this same sort of thinking to delete this attack page as well. Smee 01:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

• The User was most recently blocked for: "Violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:DISRUPT and WP:NPA" Smee 01:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Below is the entire exchange from Tom Harrison's talk page. As you can see Tom recognized my draft for what it was, preparation for a formal action on User:Smee. My comment below sums up my position. Thank you. --Justanother 01:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Your recent speedy deletion

• You recently speedily deleted Misplaced Pages:Editor review/Anynobody, saying at WP:ANI: "I have speedy-deleted Misplaced Pages:Editor review/Anynobody as an attack page." I would appreciate it if you would do the same for another attack page, User:Justanother/Smee (formerly Smeelgova). Thank you for your time. Yours, Smee 19:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

I don't see complete similarity - it looks to me like preparations for an RfC, but I could be missing something. You might nominate it for deletion with a {{Template:Db-attack}}, or take it to misc. for deletion. 20:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Smee 00:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Hi Tom. Thanks for your help with the phony Editor Review. Yes, you are right, that is the beginnings of an RfC or ArbCom on User:Smee (formerly Smeelgova). Certainly my user space is the appropriate place for me to work on it. It goes without saying that those are charges against Smee that I intend to pursue. Another editor has already added his experience. After Smee's promise to reform and as a sign of good faith (please see my User Talk) I have put it on hold. If I see a turnaround then I will save it off-wiki and delete the page. I must say, however that, so far, reviews are mixed on Smee. A couple positives but a few negatives too including misrepresentation on my talk page and her unwillingness to accept that I will not delete the page until I see some change. She very much wants the cart before the horse. But I remain hopeful. Thanks for your time. --Justanother 01:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please see Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Justanother/Smee (formerly Smeelgova)‎. --Justanother 04:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF?

Tom Harrison:

• Why do you see my attempt to get feedback on my behavior as an attack on Justanother?
• I was asking for a review of how I've dealt with Justanother, how can you see that as a back door RfC on him?
• Why did you delete it without contacting me?
• Did you even read it?

Please restore my WP:ER, asking experienced uninvolved editors for feedback on me isn't a personal attack because the comments are supposed to be about me. Anynobody 02:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 2 --Justanother 04:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Tag-team trolling/harassment

Please note tag-team trolling/harassment of me by User:Smee and User:Anynobody. Wherever one goes with his frivilous trolling activities the other follows in support and vice versa. --Justanother 04:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

QUESTION Justanother how is asking for a review of my behavior towards you either A) Trolling or B) Harassment? Anynobody 04:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: - This was the edit summary of Justanother: Smee, take it to AN/I if you have a problem - DIFF - Therefore, my taking it to AN/I is not "trolling" in fact it was simply respecting Justanother's wishes. Smee 06:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Basta

Honestly, this is one of those occasions where we really need to feed no food. People can prepare RFC's in their private spaces. People abusing the rules in order to simply say the same things over and over is no good. In fact, abusing AN/I for "tell me again and again and again" is abuse. Tom, don't answer. Smee and Anynobody, let go of your grievance. Justanother, archive your evidence, if those guys do as they have been urged/admonished to do. If folks keep going, we're going to escalate to blocking stages, and that would make me very unhappy. Geogre 11:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Geogre, your recommendation of archiving is an interesting idea. It should be noted that User:Justanother could be said to be abusing AN/I for "tell me again and again and again", as well... Yours, Smee 11:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Draft deleted by author

As a sign of good faith and in the hope that User:Smee can make her promised changes in behaviour, I have {{db-authored}} my draft RfC/ArbCom User:Justanother/Smee (formerly Smeelgova), and User talk:Justanother/Smee (formerly Smeelgova) --Justanother 20:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:69.201.182.76

Reposting old thread, as I've done some research into it.

This user has been tagging many newly created articles for either proposed or speedy deletion, and many of those same tagged articles have been expanded into viable aricles by other myself or others(usually the creators). I though he/she was just overzealous; but eventually, his/her prod/speedy tagging of The KLF(well beyond stub-level)drew a vandalism warning from User:Kingboyk who reverted it back to the last pre-tagging edit. I then realized that he was clearly causing trouble; so I started monitoring his recent edits regularly, and have to revert or de-tag about dozen of prod/speedy tagged articles(none of which I created) a number of which again were expanded to decent articles. To top things off, earlier today he/she vandalized devil's advocate by inserting c's into the middle of several interwiki links. Because a registered user made a good faith edit and failed to notice it, I had to remove the c's myself. Based on the fact that he/she has clear knowledge of prod/speedy deletion policies and abusing them, I'm not ruling out the possibility that this IP may be a sock/meatpuppet of a more prolific deletionist vandal... Ranma9617 01:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

14 March, anon IP proposes speedy deletion of a recent FA

20 March 01:58 Ranma9617 (talk · contribs) posts a message here about the anon IP

20 March 19:14 The same IP supports an RFA

1 minute later, YechielMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims the IP's edit as his

20 March 19:50 the IP archives YechielMan's talk page

22 March 19:55 the anon IP leaves a personal attack at User talk:Ranma9617

Concidence? Maybe... --kingboyk 14:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit war on Katie Melua

There is an edit war happening on the Katie Melua page. The dispute is about whether an article from the News of the World newspaper, stating that she has had a lesbian affair, should be used as a source on the page. Hera1187 14:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

With one more revert, the anon can be blocked based on 3RR. Rlevse 14:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes but I'm not sure if the anon user is right or wrong about the validity of the source. What is the policy on newspaper's allegations and their place on Misplaced Pages? Hera1187 14:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A tabloid newspaper that has been frequently successfully sued for libel shouldn't be used as a reliable source for that allegation. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

blatant violations of WP:BLP by User:Zero0000

This editor has a content dispute with several other editors at United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, over the inclusion of some criticism of UNRWA. The criticism is sourced to a reliable source - the Weekly Standard, and to one of their journalists - David Tell. User:Zero0000, who does not like the criticism, has taken to describing the journalist as a "liar", an "unrelaible extremist" and "gutless", and decribing his work as "blood libel", "lies" and "trash"- all based on nothing more than his personal opinions. He has been warned to stop this behaviour several times. Isarig 14:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The Weekly Standard is not a reliable source but a trashy extreme-right rumor mill. Just because it publishes obvious lies about someone doesn't mean that we have to quote them in Misplaced Pages. Note that this rubbish appears in David Tell's vitriolic attack on a named UN official (a LIVING PERSON, just like David Tell, but that is fine, apparently). I'm entitled, indeed required, to maintain standards, which is what I am trying to do. I've asked repeatedly for a reliable source for these wild assertions, which is supposed to be an official document of the United Nations but for which not even a vague citation has been given. That's because it doens't exist. --Zero 14:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Zero, you need to be careful about calling the work of a journalist "lies," especially in edit summaries, because they're hard to get rid of. SlimVirgin 23:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinions of The Daily Standard, but it meets all the requirements of WP:RS, and is a reliable source. David Tell is a journalist , with a WP article. Do you think it would be OK to edit his page and add a paragraph that says 'David Tell is a a gutless liar and an unreliable extremist, whose work at the Daily Standard consists of publishing blood libels? ' If so, I submit you do not understand WP policy, and should not be editing it until you do. If it is unacceptable to write those things at David Tell, it is unacceptable to write them in edit summaries or Talk pages discussing him. Isarig 15:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if you don't accept that I've provided sufficient sourcing, labelling The Weekly Standard "trashy" and its reporting "lies" or a "blood libel" from an "unreliable extremist" on Talk and in edit summaries is extremely unhelpful to any discussion, especially since the damning evidence consists of it being a "neoconservative political magazine" , in addition to BLP concerns regarding the reporter in question, David Tell. Furthermore, it is not at all accurate that myself or Isarig included any "vitriolic attacks" on anyone in the entry or Talk, and I take offence at that assertion. I truly hope that you will return to dispassionately discuss content on its merits alone without any of these kinds of statements. Tewfik 16:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Paul McCann, Chief, Public Information Office, UNRWA Headquarters Gaza, writes, in part that: The Weekly Standard's characterization of Peter Hansen, UNRWA's Commissioner General as an anti-Semitic "peasant-in-chief" is pure slander and an insult to the intelligence of the magazine's readership. David Tell responds in part that: One of the books in question, for instance, turned out to include such evocative lessons as this: "Treachery and disloyalty are character traits of the Jews and one should beware of them"; UNRWA's researchers advised the State Department that the phrase could not fairly be considered offensive because it described actual "historical events." Perhaps this unsourced statement in good enough for the standards of the Weekly Standard, but I hardly see why they should be good enough for Misplaced Pages. Which researchers; what role do they hold within the organization; how did UNRWA leadership respond to this, and so on, are rather pressing questions considering how damning that passage is. It is well known that the PNA curriculum has taken an antisemitic turn in par with the Syrian one, but we do need more conclusive evidence than unsourced statements by WS alleging UNRWA's complicity, complacency, or whatever. El_C 18:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The Weekly Standard clearly meets WP:RS; in terms of accuracy, it's much better than many British newspapers that are freely cited by Misplaced Pages without controversy. Zero has severe problems with the Misplaced Pages NPOV policy, and has had similar tendentious edits in the Israel Shahak article. Include the Weekly Standard cite and McCann's rebuttal and let readers decide. -- THF 18:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It's hardly "clear" and scarcely responds to anything I said. And at any rate, "McCann's rebuttal" is absent from the entry. El_C 18:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The TWS piece quoted is a response to that rebuttal, and no one ever requested it be included. This isn't really related to the post here, which is concerned with the disparaging language that is really out of place in any context, what appears to be the demands beyond those required by RS standards based seemingly on this publication being right of centre, and the removal not just of the "offending" sentence, which could easily be replaced with one of several phrases, but the whole passage, including parts sourced to additional references. Tewfik 19:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not seeing it. El_C 19:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

What is it that you don't see? Do you not see the disparaging nature of of calling a reporter a "liar", "gutless" and his work "blood libel"? Isarig 20:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that; I don't see how it "includ parts sourced to additional references." El_C 22:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

what does that have to do with anything? I'm complaining about a BLP violation, not discussing the content dispute here. Isarig 22:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

McCann is alleging "slander" on Tell's part, the journalist whom you are quoting without qualifications. El_C 22:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

McCann is not a WP editor, and didn't make these claims on WP - I couldn't care less what he writes. WP editors can't make these kind of comments, or do you think I can go and edit David Tell and write "He's a slanderer", because some UNRWA official alleges it? Isarig 22:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It dosen't look like particularly rigorous scholarship, at any rate. El_C 23:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

again - what does this have to do with my complaint? Is it your opinion that it's ok to violate BLP, so long as we do it to people who allegedly don't exhibit particularly rigorous scholarship? Isarig 23:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No, but I'm no longer going to respond to this line of questioning. El_C 23:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm really puzzled by this response. You seem to agree that it is inappropriate to call journalists "liars", "gutless" or describe their work as "blood libel" - why do you find it so hard to say this? Isarig 23:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have already said it is inappropriate. El_C 23:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

But I also find it inappropriate to use that quote without applying more rigorous scholarship into what it alleges, while citing WP:RS as the deus ex machina for wer'e-not-going-to-bother. El_C 23:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies everywhere on Misplaced Pages; Misplaced Pages editors shouldn't describe journalists as "liars", "gutless", etc. Jayjg 19:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Nor should Misplaced Pages editors hide behind the RS policy to insert unchallenged personal attacks on article subjects. NPOV, remember? --Calton | Talk 02:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any Misplaced Pages editors hiding behind the RS policy to insert unchallenged personal attacks on article subjects on that article. On the contrary, User:Zero0000 has been encouraged to make the article NPOV, by adding whatever counter claims he can source to WP:RS. Instead, he chose to continue his inappropriate violations of WP:BLP. Isarig 03:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, there is no substance to the claim that any personal attack was issued on anybody except for David Tell. His sourced piece being removed because he was "gutless", a "liar", committing a "blood libel" etc. undermine RS as well as BLP. Tewfik 03:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Pointing new users to external sites advocating wikipedia POV pushing

I'm not sure what policy this would fall under, but it seems like a really questionable thing to do. One editor here has been unable to insert his point of view into a particular article (COI as well) and has written an article on his website detailing what he thinks is wrong with wikipedia in general, and this specific article, as well as instructing readers to come to wikipedia and "fix" these things. That's his business, he has every right to do that.

But recently an editor sent a newcomer a welcome message that included a link to this advocacy page ("For a perspective from another author on paranormal coverage in Misplaced Pages, go here."). This seems like a big conflict of interest and encouragement to do POV pushing (both the new editor and the one have already engaged in some blatant POV edits, and this seems like an attempt to recruit potential bodies to help in revert wars and such). I'd appreciate if an admin would take a look at this and either make a recommendation or take whatever action is appropriate. At the very least, is it appropriate to remove the link to the advocacy site? --Minderbinder 14:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That is advertising, pov pushing, biting(good way to get a new user in trouble)... I am sure it violates more rules if I think harder. _InBC 14:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

We've had editors use modified {{welcome}} templates and other messages to new editors in the past to recruit for POV pushing, editing conflicts, or policy disagreements. I haven't yet seen a case where such spamming is useful or acceptable. Warn, and keep us posted here. If he keeps it up, he will be blocked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the EVP thing again. There were three or four EVP related AN/I sections in the last month or so, and it's Tom Butler's POV-Pushing again, after he got smacked down for it before. It's all COI, it's all bad faith agenda oriented mavericking, he's been tlaked to before, ban him and be done with it. ThuranX 20:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if article probation can be imposed without ArbCom, but if so, Electronic voice phenomenon would be a good candidate. I don't edit there, but there have already been 3 checkuser-confirmed abusive sockpuppets, a clear WP:COI, meatpuppetry and ongoing recruitment of meatpuppets, recurring AN/I threads, 3RR violations galore, etc... MastCell 21:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Community bans can be topic specific, right? --Minderbinder 22:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it'd do any good at all. He's been warned, over and over, discussed ad nauseum, and he continues. He won't stop because of a community ban. For the record, here is a list of those previous discussions (in part, there are porobably more on talk pages, etc.): , , . ThuranX 01:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

To answer Minderbinder's question, yes they can. Durova 09:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

While Tom has caused problems and still is advocating for changes on EVP (and now Psychic, at Martinphi's request), he has limited himself to talk pages recently. The new editor was pointed to Tom's anti-wikipedia page by User:Martinphi. After the message was removed, he defended the post ("And if I want to do it again, I will. It is not against the rules.") and reverted the removal of his advocacy link, calling it vandalism (he later self reverted this). For any editors or admins who have had to deal with Martinphi, there's a user RFC starting up over his POV pushing and disruptive editing: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Martinphi. I'd encourage people to give their opinion there. --Minderbinder 12:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom has specifically ruled that using new-user welcome messages for advocacy or wikipolitical purposes is completely unacceptable. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Karmafist. Newyorkbrad 23:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User: Drieakko

This user keeps pushing biased versions in certain articles, for example leaving out Finnish names, and names in other languages too, in Finland related articles, wrongly using the word Finnic instead of Finnish or using the Swedish name of a unilingually Finnish speaking city. It seems to be pro-Swedish vandalism. --Jaakko Sivonen 15:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Jaakko_Sivonen (talk · contribs) has been blocked 12 times, and four for violating NPA. Last time was Jan 20, when he was blocked for one month. He started editing in March again, again aggresively targetting the same set of articles with the same arguments. Isn't it time to take some further actions?

Fred-Chess 16:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Argumentum ad hominem: you can't use my past to argument against my actions in the present time. You have to direct your arguments in my recent actions which have been, unlike you say, reasonable, even user: Jdej said so. I think Misplaced Pages should take actions against you, for example permanently banning you. --Jaakko Sivonen 19:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Bot making supremely trivial edits

EmxBot (talk · contribs) is making a large number of trivial edits (removing the flanking spaces from headers); it's not doing harm, but it's a waste of time and resources. What's our attitude to this sort of thing? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be operating outside its approved tasks. I'd agree it's not doing harm, though I can't see it doing any particular good either. By the letter of the policy it can be blocked for operating outside its approved tasks, though it may just be better to tell the operator to stop and seek approval for the task. --pgk 16:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Someone else got there first, though, and the situation has been cleared up. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Danieljake123456 (talk · contribs)

For the entire night this user has been uploading blatant copyvio (ie manga scans) (I gave him 4 speedies ) and engage in weird kind of vandalism (Changing interlanguage links and copying the trivia section of an article to paste it again in elsewhere in the article ) I have gave him 4 nothanks and 2 vandalism warnings; should I do any more action? _{--Especially I wonder if he is a bona fide editor who mistook WP as fan page space...} --Samuel Curtis-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 16:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:SunStar Net

I protected this page for one hour, the editor appears to not be around and it was getting vandalized as fast as I could revert it. Dina 16:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

changed to sprotection. Dina 16:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Since the accounts are obviously related and seem to be a rehash of some older vandalism, I've indef blocked all those involved so far. --pgk 16:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• I was on wikibreak last week, so I wasn't available to respond. This is probably the same vandals who caused my page to have to be delete/restored (ask Luna Santin and Newyorkbrad, they know the full story). --sunstar net 17:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible BLP issue

I need some people well versed in US politics to review the contributions of 69.249.195.232 (talk · contribs) please, following an OTRS complaint. OTRS volunteers can check . I'd say this is one who is skirting the margins of violating policy, but I don't know enough about the subject area. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User:OttomanReference for WP:NPA and turning Misplaced Pages into nationalist battleground

For the past few days, this user has consistently attacked me because of my ethnicity and made disparaging remarks about people my people as a whole, precisely due to my additions on the Mustafa Kemal page which he instantly reverted. And while attempting to "explain" to me why my additions were wrong, he referred to me as an "Armenian joke" . He furthermore continues with accusations that I am a part of fringe Armenian political party (the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, (ARF) ) whose sole purpose is to essentially terrorize Turkish related articles, that the party supposedly terrorized Turks 100 years ago, and continues to do so now on Misplaced Pages: "ARF members are attacking everything they found honorable around, this time Ataturk, They are constantly deleting significant information that proves they made mistakes." One successive attack after another, all because he believed my additions were too insulting to the person in question the article is about.

Later, my propositions on the Van Resistance talk page turned hostile when the same user became indignant about them, and again attacked my people as a whole: "When history is written by Armenians with Armenian lexicography it is nice, but rest is bad and ugly. Truth has no value in these arguments" , "MarshallBagramyan says: ""LETS get rid of it" Of course. There is a group of Armenian soldiers which votes to get rid of even the name of these activities" , "It is so dogmatic that the people like MarshallBagramyan 's view of history ; if the answers of these questions are not in his/her history book (lets say the bible of the truth) the questions are not (or should not be) valuable questions."

All these comments and yet he still feels that it is necessary to add the comment "thanks" at the end of his messages. This user is well-versed on Misplaced Pages's policies and hence reminding him of so elementary rule seems redundant. I hope the proper action is taken. Thank you. --MarshallBagramyan 17:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Unban and mentorship for User:Daniel Brandt

Yesterday evening Daniel Brandt e-mailed me with a proposal to allow him to begin editing again. Brandt has been banned for a while now due to spats with some of our administrators; he has been editing Misplaced Pages since then using a number of sockpuppet accounts.

The premise of Brandt's proposal was that he has a lot to contribute to Misplaced Pages. He runs NameBase, a comprehensive database of biographical articles citing thousands of reliable sources. Brandt is an "old-school" researcher who would be invaluable to our biographies of living people. Although some people may have old fights to pick with him, he suggested a mentorship to prevent personal disputes from disrupting his editing.

I have decided to take a WP:IAR action in the interest of improving the encyclopedia and allow Brandt to start editing again. You can discuss this decision on his talk page. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 17:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant. Moreschi 17:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Hopefully he will be able to contribute with useful edits. Who's going to be the mentor though? --Cyde Weys 17:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine anyone taking issue with that. _InBC 17:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Has to be Jimbo for mentorship, right? Moreschi 17:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Editing with socks while blocked is further disregarding our rules. I strongly oppose allowing someone who did that, any second chance! Per WP:BAN, the quality of the person's edits with the socks does not matter. Nardman1 17:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa! Do you really think this is wise? I think we need two mentors, not just one. I have two perfect candidates in mind for the job. Friday (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

God I hate 4/01/07. :) SirFozzie 18:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice one! It got me. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Just saw this section and I think it's a good idea but you forgot to unblock him, so I did it for you, but I don't think this guy was too happy about it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I fell for that completely. *blushes* Majorly _{(o rly?)} 19:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's evil. Nice one. ;-) -- ChrisO 19:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The only word covering this one is D'oh!. 10 points for creativity :) Valentinian 21:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, to anyone who unblocked me, thank you! I know I'm not the most liked person here, but I promise to at least try to not cause any trouble. I will of course continue my work off-wikipedia, but I welcome any constructive criticism, and I will certainly take the mentorship under concideration. Cheers all, and here's to a mutually productive relationship. Daniel Brandt 23:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

↑ This was added by an IP. You know I've never been involved with Brandt and all of the nonsense surrounding his article but understand many many folks consider him a troll, etc. but I will say one thing... the project learned a valuable lesson on the Essjay controversy and from what I understand Brandt was instrumental in all of that. (→Netscott) 00:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Orane Community article and user

This user edited the article Orane Community, which I placed a speedy tag on (I later noticed that he did not actually create the article, but it still seemed non-notable). Then he removed the speedy tag four times, getting a full set of warnings from me, and then placed the hangon template on the article. I did not revert that, but then he removed both the speedy and hangon tags. Should he be blocked and the article deleted, or have I done something wrong? Macintosh User 18:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Choolabuuulba and User:Booooomerang. Sockpuppets of User:Danny Daniel and User:Choolabuuula (2nd repost)

Before I could get on to reporting these two users, you probably should know who Danny Daniel is. Danny Daniel is a user who vandalized pages related My Gym Partner's a Monkey and Zatch Bell!. His confirmed sockpuppets like to create hoaxes and vandalise articles related to The Fairly OddParents, My Gym Partner's a Monkey, Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends, Re-Animated and anything related to anime. He created a hoax article called Monk (Cartoon Network). All of this would eventually get him blocked indefinitely for vandalism on December 21, 2006. See this Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Danny Daniel for more information about this vandal.

I already notified User talk:Persian Poet Gal about this, but she says that she can't log on right now, so I decided to report this here. Anyways, I found two possible sockpuppets of Danny Daniel. They are Choolabuuulba (talk · contribs) and Booooomerang (talk · contribs). Both of these accounts have similar editing patterns to that indefinitely blocked user. In fact, Choolabuulba even edited a page created by Booooomerang adding on to the hoax with more misinformation and lies. Choolabuulba also edited List of characters from My Gym Partner's a Monkey, which is a page Danny Daniel's sockpuppets seem to edit frequently (, , , ). Danny Daniel's edits can be traced back as far as September 2006, three months before the name Danny Daniel was registered.. Both seem to be vandal-only accounts. To top it all off, Boooomerang has created a hoax page called Jeanie Meanie Minnie Mo. Note how it seems to relate to the television shows The Fairly OddParents, Ed, Edd n Eddy (see the parts about Jib), and Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends. Danny Daniel's sockpuppets seem to "like" creating hoaxes like that.

Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Danny Daniel shows some other suspected sockpuppets of Danny Daniel that were reported to a checkuser, but most of them were considered "inconclusive." Even User:Jibbity was considered to be inconclusive. Squirepants101 00:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are some more edits directed at My Gym Partner's a Monkey. , , , .

I originally posted this on 00:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC), but no admin had resolved it then. About two days later, User:MiszaBot II archived it and it still has not been resolved. Squirepants101 14:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The same bot removed it after only a few hours. Squirepants101 18:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hoax articles deleted, users blocked. IrishGuy 23:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Edits no longer appear in contribution list

I saw and reverted this but when I went to check the contribtion list there is noting after the 26 March. Makes it hard to warn for vandlism. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the server is backed up. The contributions will appear...it just takes a few minutes. There is a serious lag between action and that action appearing on the contribution list. IrishGuy 19:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed something similar: I reverted some vandalism, but the history said MartinBot had reverted it. Macintosh User 19:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No, that just means the bot got there before you. Happens a lot :) Moreschi 19:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The bot has gotten to an article before me before, and then Twinkle showed an error message about it being reverted already. I guess that's because the bot fixed it just a tiny bit before I tried to. Macintosh User 20:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been noticing the same server lag. Maybe the devs are playing a vast April Fools joke on us. Or the servers themselves! Natalie 20:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A.

Misplaced Pages:B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A was created by Sue Rangell (talk · contribs), speedy deleted by me (as an attack on Britannica), and userfied by DRV to User:Sue Rangell/B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A.. The user page was subsequently MFD'd by Xyzzy n and its current version was recently kept. That's all well and good, but Sue has been trying to add links from Misplaced Pages:Primogeniture and WP:ROUGE to this essay as it exists in her userspace. She doesn't seem to understand that there is a distinction between User space and Misplaced Pages space and that cross-namespace linking is bad. I've tried to say as much, but she doesn't seem inclined to listen to me given my previous involvment. Could someone else talk to her? She is a new user and aside from questionable taste in humor seems well-intentioned. Dragons flight 19:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's by far not an established practice for projectspace essays not to link to userspace; many do. -Amarkov moore cowbell! 20:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Really? Name three examples of user space essays being linked in the body of Misplaced Pages space content. Some broadly used resources are kept in User space, and linked from other places, but I can't think of any that are essays. If any time content is "userfied" the creator can just replace all the links to the original with links to the User subpage, then much of the point of the process is lost. Dragons flight 00:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not common, to my knowledge, and I'd like examples as well. ThuranX 01:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Several of my essays are linked to from project space, and linking from AFD discussions (that are in the project namespace) to user-space essays has been a common practice for several years. See Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Raul654/Raul's laws and Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Silensor/Schools, for examples. "Cross-namespace linking is bad." is superficial and wrong, which is probably why you are having a difficult time explaining it. A better statement would be a specific one: We don't link from the article namespace to other namespaces (except the category namespace), because it causes problems for mirrors, and causes articles to make no sense anywhere other than on Misplaced Pages itself. (See also Template:Selfref.) But links between the project namespace and user namespace are not prohibited for those reasons.

  Now whether a link to this particular essay is appropriate is a different matter. My essays and User:Silensor/Schools are not humour, and linking to them is not a matter of "I wrote a humourous essay, too!". So the consideration is not the namespaces but is, in part, whether the link is an aid in the effort of working on the project, and how far it is across the threshold beyond which user space starts to turn into Uncyclopedia. Uncle G 15:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Pejman47 gaming WP:3RR

For the past several months User:Pejman47 has been trying to remove any mention from the article lead that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is infamous for his alleged antisemitism and Holocaust denial. The lead itself uses multiple impeccable sources to merely state that he has been accused of it, and also includes his own defense that he is not; it was difficult consensus hammered out amongst multiple editors. After finally giving up on deleting the material, more recently Pejman47 has decided to insert an argument that Ahmadinejad cannot be antisemitic because Persian Jews aren't officially persecuted, and because his office once donated some money to a Jewish hospital. It has been pointed out on the Talk: page that this argument is original research, and that he has misrepresented his sources. However, rather than dealing with the issue, he insists that he can insert whatever argument he wants to invent for the sake of "NPOV", and that he will revert 3 times a day for that purpose. His most recent Talk: comment states "I have done my 3rr today, take care till tomorrow!". I am requesting a block under the following WP:3RR clause:

"The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system."

I am hoping that such a block will convince Pejman47 to respect policy, and use the Talk: page, rather than assume that 3RR is a game where you revert 3 times, then wait for the next day. Jayjg 20:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

First "For the past several months User:Pejman47 has been trying to remove any mention from the article lead that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad" is frankly a lie (see my contributions in that article) and almost any where that I had done anything to that article is accompanied with a note on the talk page. And some of them has remained with consensus in talk page. Again Jayjg, is paraphrasing my edits in talk page to support his own POV. Another user also that I have not heard his name has supported my view. I think, every thing else is clearly in that talk page--Pejman47 20:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

"Frankly a lie"? Here are some of your "contributions": Jayjg 21:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion of content, but of your stated aim to game 3RR. That kind of attitude is antithetical to productive editing on Misplaced Pages, which should be the product of consensus-building etc., and not one of wearing down your opponent. Tewfik 20:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have placed a stern warning for this user in talk. I do not think that it will help, but if he persists he will be blocked for disruption ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This user was warned by me for much the same behavior not very long ago: User_talk:Pejman47/Archive1#Azerbaijan_.28Iran.29_2. He sees edit warring and combative behavior as a legitimate editing tactic, and I think the time for simply warning is already over. Dmcdevit·t 23:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see that. Considering that he has been warned for gaming 3RR twice before and has dismissed those warnings I've blocked him for 24 hrs to get his attention. FeloniousMonk 00:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Good. This sort of behavior occurs all too often throughout WP. Raymond Arritt 02:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Dynamic ip vandalism at Muhammad Iqbal

I request advice on how to do deal with this continuing vandalism - for over a month, an anonymous ip has been attacking this article with precisely the same kind of vandalism. I had blocked the ip a few times - most recently, for 1 month - but using dynamic ips, this person is returning to vandalize. Article protection doesn't work, as this vandal keeps coming back.

Relevant diffs

, , ,

Rama's arrow 20:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it. Let's leave the semi-protect there for a few weeks, and hope the IP editor gets bored and moves on. Featured articles in particular should not be persistently defaced. Jayjg 20:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Block urgent

This user: User:Columbia Pictures needs to be blocked urgently - he has created many articles as part of an elaborate April Fools Day joke (see the AfD of the articles: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Columbia Pictures (Sony Pictures)) and he is creating new articles every five minutes. Baristarim 21:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, done.. Baristarim 21:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Another User:TorchLady71 sockpuppet. This isn't an April Fools Day prank, he regularly tries to perpetrate this hoax on Misplaced Pages. JuJube 23:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issue

On cool wall, we had the list of cars on the Top Gear Cool Wall. Leaving aside the question of whether show segments are actually encyclopaedic, the list of cars form the cool wall is, as far as I can see, copyright of the show, just as the script is copyright, the lists from "top 100 foo" shows are copyright, and the singles chart is copyright. I removed it. I'm sure some examples would be fine. I could of course also be wrong. More eyes, please, at Talk:The Cool Wall. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 22:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A list of facts is (by US law, maybe different elsewhere) ineligible for copyright, only a list based on opinion is protected. If these cars where in fact shown on the segment (verifiability may be your real problem) Then the list is fine. Otherwise, if theres no verifiable list, then its an opinion-generated list, and not allowed. The reason music charts are copyrighted is because its not a simple list of how often a record was played and bought, its a complicated procedure involving equations that arent public, estimation and research. -M 23:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:BassPlyr23 removing ifd tag from Image:1972 Israeli Olympic team.jpg

I would like someone to volunteer to communicate with User:BassPlyr23. He has removed the {{ifd}} tag from Image:1972 Israeli Olympic team.jpg three times . Based on the tone on the messages he left me, I believe he would welcome a third part opinion more easily than he would welcome my opinion. --Abu badali 22:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

What the image needs is the good fairuse rationale since this historic and non-reproduceable photo certainly qualifies for the specific article. It is hard to expect a newbie user to be able to come up with such rationale and Abu badali, an experienced image handler, if acting in good faith for the good of Misplaced Pages, should have helped a newbie user to write a good fairuse rationale rather than act in a way that would likely discourage the newcomer and turn him away from Misplaced Pages. IMO, Abu badali actions qualify as newbie biting and it is Abu badali who is to be taken to a woodshed about this, not a user who tries to contribute and does not know the wikilawyering rules yet. --Irpen 22:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

To Abu badali: meh, I don't watch the images I tag with {{ifd}} to make sure tag stays on them. I just watch the IfD page to make sure the section isn't blanked. --Iamunknown 22:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't know how to write a fair use rationale for this image because I see the rationale for using it (unless our own convenience). Feel free to fix the image if you can see more than I do. I did tried to explain the user what he needed to do about the rationale, and about removing the ifd tag, even after he suggested that I want the image removed because I wanted to praise "Palestinian terrorists ". --Abu badali 22:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ya I saw that and was pretty disgusted. Good job on remaining civil, though. :-) --Iamunknown 22:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The image seems to be at a pretty high resolution (1000 px width) - I rather doubt that this qualifies per the requirements for "web-resolution screenshots". Do we define anywhere what "web-resolution" means? I've always taken it to mean thumbnail-type images of up to 400 px width or so. -- ChrisO 22:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarification - is it from the film? Was the film based on a real photograph of the atheletes? Can we claim {{fairusein}} rather than {{film-screenshot}}? Hbdragon88 23:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reduced the quality of the photo and provided a fair use rationale. I still do not understand what prevented all the good people involved to do it earlier Alex Bakharev 00:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Kudos Alex, you beat me to it. That what the experienced user should have done in the first place rather than hit the newbie with templates and threats of all sorts. --Irpen 00:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"rather than hit the newbie with templates and threats of all sorts" - This is a baseless accusation, Irpen! When did I threatened this user (or any other)? Provide diffs or retract this accusation. --Abu badali 01:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, stop it. Now. You have lodging baseless ad hominem attacks against Abu badali all over the place. It's disgusting. --Iamunknown 05:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

IMO, baseless accusations in ad hominem is indeed ad hominem. --Irpen 05:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No its not. I'm addressing the substance of the argument, not the person making the argument. --Iamunknown 05:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please point out what exactly in my entry is an ad hominem. --Irpen 05:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, I'd love to. Per the Misplaced Pages entry, ad hominem, "An ad hominem argument ... consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument." Your statement that "That what the experienced user should have done" is directly commenting on Abu badali, the person making the argument that this particular image should be deleted; in other words, you have directly replied to Abu badali's deletion argument an ANI post not on the substance of Abu badali's argument, but on Abu badali him(/her)self. Thus ad hominem. --Iamunknown 05:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the wikipedia article ad hominem is neither a reliable source nor a Misplaced Pages policy. WP:NPA is a policy and my entry did not violate WP:NPA in any way. I describe the matter as I saw it. My description was harsh but WP:CIVIL. Abu badali posted a complaint asking for a helping hand in the conflict. However, the conflict would not have escalated had Abu badali himself acted properly and courteously towards the users.

The experienced user greats the inexperienced one with a series of arrogant templates at her talk and posting the newcomer's contributions for deletion. This is not exactly the best way to engage the user, not familiar with a labyrinth of our image policy pages, into productive work. The contributor tries her best and she needs to be gently encouraged. The images, that she failed to properly tag, need to be examined, retagged when possible, deleted when necessary, with a friendly and helpful explanation on why we have to do the former or the latter. Instead, the user is communicated through templates that she, not used to the level of courtesy of some here, perceives as threats and intimidation. The user feels unwelcome as instead of a helping hand she gets the messages from what seems like someone who instead of developing articles like she does, goes around from user to user telling them what to do and claiming policies as an excuse to do that with impunity.

The inexperienced user starts looking for an explanation of such an unfriendly attitude and, since the particular topic is greatly politicized, mistakenly attributes the tagger's motives to the political agenda since she can't believe that someone would deal with her this way for any other reason (she was wrong at that and I don't think Abu badali's motives here are politically motivated.)

The bottom line is that should Abu badali have acted courteously and reasonably we would not have had the cause to discuss this incidents at WP:ANI. Stating this is not an ad hominem but simply an opinion on the matter. I am merely pinpointing the root cause of many similar conflicts in the past and want to prevent similar conflicts in the future. This is the reason of my post rather than, as you imply, some outstanding issues with Abu badali of which I have none. --Irpen 07:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I though the user would know what the templates messages mean, as he/she already has a couple of them in his talk page. Sorry if my judgment didn't lead to the most productive outcome. But is think that saying that I didn't act "courteously", "reasonably" is a little bit overreaching (considering I have even been linked to "Palestine terrorists"), but you're entitled to your opinion.

But you forget to address the main point being questioned. When did I threatened the user, as you accused me of in ""rather than hit the newbie with templates and threats of all sorts""? Threats are not WP:CIVIL, and accusing me of engaging is such behavior requires strong diffs. --Abu badali 11:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, this might be relevant now. Your statements referring to Abu badali's person as opposed to his arguments are still ad hominem arguments and are thus irrational, irrelevant and false. Regards, Iamunknown 16:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:FictionH

FictionH keeps refusing to take the fair use images off his talk page. He has reverted users who have tried to take them off and has accused them of commiting vandalism. , , , , , , . The user has repeatedly been warned about citing sources (see his talk page) and received a final warning about personal attacks. Squirepants101 22:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This all rings a bell - isn't this likely to be banned Sockmaster ForestH under a new name? --Fredrick day 22:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm father of Replay7. Check my IP if you want to confirm this. And BTW, images are no big deal, and besides, your report was too late, just check my userpage. FictionH 22:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You removed the images five minutes after I reported you. Squirepants101 22:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images are a big deal. They are part of copyright law and by principle, the only space where fair use images are permitted are the mainspace. Not the Misplaced Pages namespace, any part of the userspace, or the talk pages - only articles. Either way, do not put images into your talk page (or your userspace, for that matter). Constantly putting the images back is disruptive. x42bn6 Talk 22:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Time of reporting: 22:21 (UTC)
Time of image removal: 22:22 (UTC)
Also, why didn't someone tell me that? FictionH 22:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the time for reporting was 16 after, not 21 after . Which means it was five or six minutes after this report that you altered your page. IrishGuy 22:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Tell you what? If it's the images, User talk:FictionH#User page told you twice the images were illegal. x42bn6 Talk 22:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Besides that, your response to politely being informed that you were violating a policy (in this case it was having your userpage in mainspace categories) was to demand that the user not "*@^k" with you. So even when you were informed, your reaction was incredibly impolite. And the rest of that conversation continues in the same vein. Natalie 00:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Those first 3 symbols are the "fuc" in the f-word. FictionH 15:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm keeping my eye on this user. --Deskana (ya rly) 17:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Administrator inaction toward 3RR Talk Page Vandalism, or clarification of User Talk Page policy

I am posting here regarding a dispute with administrator User:Rlevse.

Background: User:Brain40 vandalized my talk page, reverting it 6 times. He was warned and continued reverting. He finally stopped when this 3RR dispute was opened.

However, despite the wording of WP:UP saying otherwise, User:Rlevse has proceeded to take no action, close the 3RR complaint, taken WP guideline pages out of content (using a section that applies only to other users' talk pages to apply to edits performed against a user's own talk page), and even stated on User_talk:Brain40 that he is going to willfully ignore the matter.

I would like another administrator's opinion on this matter. This is what WP:UP currently says about editing one's own talk page:

"On a user's own talk page, policy does not prohibit the removal of comments at that user's discretion, although archival is preferred to removal. Please note, though, that removing warnings from one's own talk page is often frowned upon."

I read that to mean that removing warnings (which is also sketchy, since "warnings" are not defined) is frowned upon but there is absolutely no rule against it. It's not considered vandalism, so one cannot revert removal of warnings by oneself under the vandalism umbrella for WP:3RR.

I don't believe that a block of User:Brain40 will be necessary unless he continues to vandalize my user page, but this matter ought to be straightened out and the administrator should be informed of correct WP policy. If the policy in practice disallows removal of warnings from one's own user talk page, the guideline page needs to be changed to make that clear.

I became aware of the policy as written when a warning I left on another user's user talk page was deleted by that user. I checked the rules to see if he could do that - and it's allowed. If the rule allows a user to revert, ad infinitum, another user's talk page to re-insert a warning, then an administrator ruling to this effect entitles me to do as much to this other user's talk page. I highly doubt that is the case. --Tjsynkral 23:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the new consensus was that it was okay for editors to remove warnings from their user talk pages and that said removal was considered ackowledgement by the editor that they had received a warning. If so, it could be that not everyone has gotten the "word" on this. Cla68 23:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think it would be a good idea if the guideline page was clarified, either way. Even though I think it is perfectly clear right now that removing warnings from one's own UP is allowed, some people need it spelled out in black and white. --Tjsynkral 00:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the procedure is for rewording any of the guidelines, but if someone could point me in the right direction, I could try to "get the ball rolling" on it. Cla68 02:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I resent these remarks made by tjsynkral, as soon as I made a comment on his talk page he blanked it before he probably even read it...though it is true I was in violation of the 3RR rule it was only to revert vandalism and repost my warning (ironically about 3rr) on this man's user page. Once the edit war got out of control me and another editor reported tj to an administrator. One is not supposed to remove warnings from talk pages as clearly stated by User:Rlevse TotallyTempo 02:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Rlevse does not make policy; Misplaced Pages policy pages define policy, and policies are made by consensus. Furthermore, you had no contact with User:Rlevse at the time you made the reverts, nor did User:Brain40. He was only introduced to the issue when the WP:AN/3RR issue was opened. --Tjsynkral 02:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The policy certainly needs clarified and announced, it's too open to interpretation. Let's say User:ABC123 gets a valid vandalism notice, removes it from their talk page, gets reported to AIV and the admin checks to see if they have been warned and then has to dig through history pages to find it? Hardly conducive to admins fighting vandals. Note the case in question was 3RR, this is just a theoretical example.Rlevse 02:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That's sad... as an admin it is your responsibility to check the history for removed warnings, and you've revealed that apparently you are loath to check up on these things. Even if it were against policy to remove warnings, it would still happen and you would be expected to look for that. Also, we are still left with a problem in defining a warning. If I went on your user page and warned you for vandalism, without any basis - would you be forced to keep it forever? --Tjsynkral 03:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Rlevse is trying to apply the guideline's consistently and it isn't his fault if they're vague. If no administrator action is required here, then I think the next step would be to take this issue to one of the community forums such as the Village Pump. Cla68 03:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines don't mention anything about removing warnings being prohibited (only that they are "frowned upon" - much like racism is "frowned upon" but not illegal). The best word to describe Rlevse's actions is arbitrary. --Tjsynkral 04:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

And what is your point? State it succinctly, preferably, in less than 30 words. —physicq (c) 04:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Can a user delete warnings from his own user talk page? Can another user revert the warnings back onto the page 4, 5, even 6 times, despite WP:3RR? Wiki policy says yes and no, but User:Rlevse says no and yes. This is a problem. --Tjsynkral 04:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It's ok to remove warnings, although it's better to leave them then to edit war about their inclusion. You should never revert a page more than 3 times in 24 hours. You should never characterise an edit as vandalism that is intended in good faith. It was a mistake for other editors to assert that the 3rr did not apply, but it was equally wrong for you to revert the page more than 3 times. If anyone should incur the penalty here, it would be you, since you reverted the page more than any other individual. So be glad for the inaction on AN3. Guettarda 06:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Not so. Read WP:3RR. I may edit my own user space as often as I wish. The sole exception would be if my edit violated WP policy, which it clearly does not. --Tjsynkral 22:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I doubt 3RV applies to one's talkpage when removing warnings. --Thus Spake Anittas 13:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Guettarda and User:Rlevse. TotallyTempo 18:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Emergency measures on Richard Warman

Earlier today, I received a private complaint about libelous information being added to this page by User:Imstillhere. I reviewed the matter, and found the edits in question to be inflamatory, potentially damaging, and cited to a non-specific source: a clear violation of BLP. A few minutes ago, I took the emergency step of deleting the page, restoring it without its edit history, and imposing page protection.

I am not an entirely uninvolved party in this matter. I have been active on the Warman page for some time, and have reverted edits by Imstillhere on more than one occasion. Under normal circumstances, I would not have carried out these administrative actions myself; given the existence of BLP concerns, however, I decided that I would be justified in taking extraordinary steps.

Could I please request that:

• an uninvolved administrator review my actions, and determine if they were appropriate?
• an uninvolved administrator review Imstillhere's recent posts in the deleted page history, and determine if (i) they constitute BLP violations, and (ii) deserve some form of censure?

Thank you, CJCurrie 00:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's a ref, but as far as I can tell it's a bullshit source. Has anyone attempted to find the supposed transcripts anywhere? Maybe even online? If the source can't be located by anyone, than I think you did the right thing CJC. Although you might want to restore all of the pre-BLP edit history at some point in the near future. Natalie 00:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Complains should go to the Foundation directly, that is what our office is about. Also, aren't hearings public? I mean, can't you go to some Justice site and download them? I agree that the comments can be considered libelous. I would suggest restoring all the edits that do not contain that information for the time being, and to send this issue to the office so that they can earn their pay ;-) -- ReyBrujo 06:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't that raise GFDL concerns? Better to restore it all, stubify or it to create a stub from scratch. --Iamunknown 06:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Tricky. we'd probably need to either WP:FORGET or Oversight the offending diffs. 62.73.137.190 11:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Block request

WP:HAR, WP:STALK issues. This is not a content dispute. User:Orangemarlin continues to label me as a "creationist" on talk pages related to Evolution and the Creation-evolution controversy in an effort to discredit me among other editors who frequent those pages, many of whom naturally have strong feelings against creationists. I've explained (very reluctantly) that the label is inaccurate and that I find his comments and attacks (e.g., "whiny little creationist") offensive. I've attempted for some time now to resolve this issue amicably, or at least courteously. My attempts to simply remove his personal attacks and labeling from article talk pages, even being careful to leave appropriate content, have been reverted by him. I object very strongly to allowing him to leave those attacks and labels on the talk pages for any period of time, therefore I request a block. I'll provide background and evidence upon request, but I would be very grateful for speedy action. Thanks! Gnixon 00:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Diffs? Need to be able to see the offense before we can block. Heimstern Läufer 01:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm working on it, but it'll take me awhile to identify the highlights. Ambitious admins could pretty quickly see some examples by following the links above. Thanks for responding. Gnixon 02:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and looked at Orangemarlin's contribs, and yes, this complaint is founded: . IrishGuy has warned Orangemarlin , for now, it's probably best we leave it at that. If it continues, we may have to take more action. Heimstern Läufer 02:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As promised, here are some links:

• Talk:Objections to evolution#Intro. OM insists that the intro to an article on mostly creationist objections to evolution go out of its way to marginalize those religions that promote creationism. The context illustrates how much he was willing to disrupt the flow of the intro to do so.
• Discussions between OM and me (among others), archived from OM's talk page, that illustrate the degeneration of our communication. They begin with my misidentification of his reverts as being due to ownership issues. Also includes discussions with others illustrating his anti-Creationist POV and intent to push it in articles.
• A diff where OM removes relevant and appropriate descriptions of authors quoted attacking creationism because he thinks the descriptions may damage their credibility. Comments in edit history are telling. Another editor ] the POVishness of his edits on the talk page while OM and I are discussing.
• OM kindly provides provides a diff on another user's talk page, pointing to a discussion where other users complain about POV-pushing by a group of editors like OM.

Sorry for not giving more links, but OM's attacks and intentions to POV-push in the articles are present on just about every creation/evolution-related article talk page we have. Gnixon 03:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: OM has stated his intent to continue stalking me and pushing his POV after the warning that resulted from this ANI post. I really don't have the time to participate in Misplaced Pages if it means constantly dealing with this kind of nonsense. Gnixon 03:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If he actually continues with it, report it here. In the meantime, please remember to "take the high road" and keep discussion on the related article talk pages impersonal and civil even if others don't. Cla68 03:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. You're absolutely right. Gnixon 04:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Botaylor456

• Botaylor456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I've spent the better part of the past two days trying to deal with this guy. He seems to have created some sort of fantasy persona for himself under the article Bo Taylor, wherein he claims to be a famous Academy Award-winning actor. I put a subst-prod on it, and he removed it twice (although hiding behind an anonymous IP address.) He also created articles about the two characters he allegedly plays on As the World Turns, and vandalized another page (Charles Divins) by editing it to state that this person (who actually does appear on As the World Turns) is his son. He also vandalized several other pages (see my user contributions from 3/31 and 4/1 where I attempted to clean up some of them.) Additionally, he recreated an article called WHAA-TV after it was speedily deleted. This article was a copy of all of the text in the WABC-TV article where he just changed the call letters to some fictitious station. He's done extensive editing on various television news personalities; these may be legitimate, but I don't have the time to check them out. I put two vandalism warnings on his user page, but he blanked the entire page. And someone else also put a warning about removing speedy deletion tags on one of the anonymous IP address user pages that he's clearly using. --Proofreader J-Man 00:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC) (note: moved from AIV ˉˉ╦╩ 01:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC))

User:65.93.75.136

Would someone please block User:65.93.75.136? Corvus cornix 01:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV if you will. x42bn6 Talk 02:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I listed the guy twice under AIV and nothing was done, that's why I came here. Corvus cornix 17:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

New user impersonating another

User:Deathrøcker is a new user account which is obviously created to try and stir up trouble for another user, User:Deathrocker....who does tend to make a lot of enemies on Misplaced Pages...but doesn't deserve to have an "evil twin". Well....maybe he doesn't? 156.34.223.26 01:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked.--cj | talk 01:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Jacob Peters

User Stark1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) bears an uncanny resemblance to permablocked user and sockmaster extraodinaire Jacob Peters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). In the spirit of WP:DUCK, I'm posting here rather than going through checkuser, as it seems rather obvious from the article interest and POV. Thanks! C 01:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

And Stark1 has now blanked this section of the page, also a very JP-like action. I'm a bit hesitant to block without checkuser confirmation, just because I've had a block proven wrong by checkuser in the past. If another admin is less hesitant, go on ahead, otherwise we should request a checkuser. Heimstern Läufer 02:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Has CheckUser been done on Jacob Peters before? If so, by whom? Jayjg 02:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe you're the one with access to the logs, Jayjg. Here's the page. Picaroon 02:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You would probably have to speak to one of the previous CheckUsers who confirmed sockpuppeting. Jayjg 02:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

To confirm that if he quacks like a duck, he's a duck? I don't understand where you and El C are coming from; is this really considered to be beyond the specter of blatantly obvious? Picaroon 20:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Picaroon 02:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Detail? El_C 16:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What details? He's a sockpuppet of banned user Jacob Peters (talk · contribs). Picaroon 20:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm highly familiar with the Jacob Pattern, and I would say this chap is definitely him. He blanked his own checkuser page a while back: blanking the section here is completely in character. We need to be vigilant. I don't say this lightly, but Jacob Peters is deranged and dangerous scum. He tries to come back here, he needs to be kicked out ASAP. Good block. Moreschi 20:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned that any editor deemed to be "Stalinist" is going to be blocked as "Jacob Peters." So, yes, we'll need details. El_C 21:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from calling even a banned user "deranged and dangerous scum." El_C 21:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

When did I call Peters Stalinist? C33, who has found Peters' sockpuppets before, caught this one and requested a block. I reviewed his contribs and it was clear to me that this was Peters. I blocked a sock of his before and this time was no different, save the fact that all of a sudden my abilities at recognizing a duck as what it is are being questioned. If you honestly do not believe that is Jacob Peters, and that C33, Irishguy, Moreschi, and I are wrong, I can request more users who are familiar with him to come verify it. Would you like me to do that? Picaroon 21:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Verdict lawsuit

Banned vandal named Verdict (talk · contribs) states, "i will sue you. I am not kidding." This user is already banned prior to the legal threat (see here). I've made a brief note of this on Misplaced Pages:List of banned users. Am I correct in thinking it's not worth noting this anywhere else? --Yamla 02:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Tell him to have fun being laughed out of the lawyer's office. Actually, on second thought, don't. —physicq (c) 02:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Block for disruption at rfcn

I have blocked for three hours User:TortureIsWrong for disruption at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User names. Besides his comments that bordered on trolling, he listed Merzbow's username and then Cascadia's for review, out of spite or to make a point. Review and undo invited. Tom Harrison 03:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Three hours only? True, his username may not merit a block, but trolling is an indefblockable offense. —physicq (c) 03:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I second the indefblock. The user has been trolling around RFCN all week, and has made decisions based on nonsense, included allowing a user name with the comment "I think it's funny". He has also been incivil (see his user talkpage). He also just made a point violation. --TeckWiz Contribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 03:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Although this 3 hour block is correct, I think indef'ing might be a bit harsh as this user was POINTing after his own username had been nominated for discussion on WP:RFCN. (→Netscott) 03:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Last name was MoeLarryAndJesus. It's not a short-term POINT; that RFCN was about a month ago, and involved some trollery itself. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

File an RFC then... Im wary to indef block without making an attempt at rehabilitation. He seems like he honestly wants to contribute and got sucked into the drama. Maybe get a mentor for him -M 18:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

There is also some question of a variety of sock POINT names based off of his. While it is not clear, they could have been made by him to further his pointy trolling presence on the board. The Behnam 19:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:TortureIsWrong acting disruptively

TortureIsWrong (talk · contribs · logs) has been using increasingly incivil and pointy comments at WP:RFCN. The user has now started nominating other frequent RFCN editors for RFCN , in response to the RFCN nomination of his own name. The latest, for Cascadia (talk · contribs) , is pretty blatantly against WP:POINT since Cascadia is a region, and the User states on her his User page that she is from there. I believe TortureIsWrong should be blocked for a short time to allow the user to reflect on WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT, and on how to contribute without disrupting Misplaced Pages. Flyguy649_contribs 03:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I note that TortureIsWrong (talk · contribs) has been blocked, per the above converstion filed while I prepared this report. I'm leaving this up for the difs. Flyguy649_contribs 03:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Didn't see the Male userbox on my userpage, ther flyguy! I know I'm a big guy and have long hair, but last I and my finance checked, I was still a guy. LOL! Cascadia 03:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Cascadio ... er, Cascadia. Flyguy649_contribs 03:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • Plainly wrong as the referral to an Admin has been found in my favor. I was right, not disruptive. TortureIsWrong 07:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
      • You are trolling, plain and simple. Your first block was short because all first blocks are short. I would highly suggest not pushing your luck. - Merzbow 07:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I would highly suggest that you add that comment to your user page that you're not the REAL Merzbow if you haven't done so already. I would also suggest that if you're going to take shots at other usernames you should make sure your own house is in order first. TortureIsWrong 07:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do stop trolling.Proabivouac 07:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• TIW, you seem to be bothered often by what goes on at WP:RFCN. I really think you will enjoy editing here much more if you avoid that place altogether, and concentrate on writing the encyclopedia. That seems more conducive to your happiness than getting frustrated in a place you don't even like. — coelacan — 08:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It has to be said that, after applying for a change of name and having "TortureIsWrong" accepted, and then joining in discussions at WP:RFCN for some time, his name was suddenly (and without going through proper procedure) proposed for blocking by another regular at RFCN, immediately supporeted by a third. It seemed to me and to others there that this was not entirely a good-faith proposal. It included the claim (though rapidly struck out) that "TortureIsWrong" might be offensive to bondage-lovers, and other absurdities. TortureIsWrong's misbehaviour is not excused by this, but his frustration is understandable. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The nom was per policy; I admit that the trolling drew my attention to the username but the behavior in itself was not the reason for the nom. As far as procedure, the user replied at WP:RFCN before I could put a notification on his/her talk page, so I didn't see the point in a superfluous notification. I suppose I could have requested that the person change their name before nominating for discussion, but given the user's previous behavior and comments regarding their name in previous discussions, I saw the chance of that being a constructive conversation as being exactly 0%. RJASE1 13:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that the user is trolling again by inserting irrelevant POV into a policy discussion. RJASE1 16:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Torture is most definitely trolling on the RFCN. He votes 'allow' on almost, if not all, cases, even if they are clearly against policy. The most recent was Mike J FOX (talk · contribs). Rather than arguing from policy he challenges its legitimacy. In addition to this he has been generally uncivil and caused disruption in the discussions. I don't know what is motivating him; perhaps he has been bitter about the board since they forced him to change his more blatant violating name. But regardless something needs to be done to prevent his continual disruption there. Thank you. The Behnam 17:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • • I'd like to respond to that by referring people to the recent goings on in the article. Am I really the one being "uncivil"? I would also like to point out that my username has now undergone two affirmative reviews and some of the RFCN regulars are still complaining about it. TortureIsWrong 20:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
      • No one is talking about your username, so I suggest you to stop hiding behind the nonexistent "there's nothing wrong with my username" curtain. —physicq (c) 20:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I've already said that I can explain the Bryan Coley thing for you, but you haven't made any effort to contact me directly. We won't distract this discussion with accusations against me anyway, especially since you have made little effort to resolve the 'faith' issue with me. Try my talk page, please. Thanks. The Behnam 20:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that admins look at the discussion for themselves. TortureIsWrong is flailing about, and apparently doing his best to disguise the fact that there's an unpleasant witchhunt against him, mounted by a group of editors whose approach to Usernames is via a narrow and doctrinaire reading of policy, and who reject any disagreement with their interpretation as being based in a misunderstanding or rejection of policy. Early mediæval Christianity offers some insrtuctive comparisons here, as does 20th-century communism. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - yes, I see your point, Mel. Having a civil discussion about the appropriateness of a username is exactly the same as burning witches, the Inquisition, and the gulag. What was I thinking? RJASE1 20:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Serious WP:BLP violation by Truthseekernyc (talk · contribs)

On the article Harvey Bialy, a new user, Truthseekernyc (talk · contribs), has added material which is a pretty serious violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Diffs are here and here. I reverted the edits and left the level-4 BLP warning on the user's talk page, since it's hard to conceive of how these might be good-faith edits. Could an administrator take a look at the situation? Is a block for trolling warranted? Should this go to oversight? MastCell 04:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

They're not NPOV, but they (mostly) seem to be good faith. Obviously, this is an author who regards this scientist as a villain and charalatain, but he added significant laudatory information as well as significant damning information. There was an escalation, of course, with charges that the guy lives on the Internet and posts nonsense, but I suspect that was a complaint about the article. Nevertheless, the matter should be discussed on the talk page. The factual bits, if they can be referenced, would be useful for the article. If Nature did dismiss him, that should be verifiable. If the board did oust him, that would be verifiable. The BLP issues come from the lack of references. Geogre 11:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't see any "laudatory" information added (the parts you're referring to were simply moved from pre-existing text in the article). My impression is that claiming someone's a habitual user of illicit drugs without any reference has gotten us in trouble before. My personal opinion of the subject probably differs little from User:Truthseekernyc's, but this isn't 'Nam - there are rules, and this seemed way beyond the pale. MastCell 16:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour -- misuse of reference desk

I am concerned that Bowlhover (talk · contribs) is causing unnecessary alarmism by posting, on the Humanities reference desk, that media are reporting a toxic spill in Toronto . --Mathew5000 04:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

See my comments there. This user 'just' discovered it is was April Fool's day. Want to check their other 'contributions', at science and elsewhere? Shenme 06:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, Mathew. How does anyone believe such a thing could happen in Toronto (how do you get access to the water system)? Also, what date did I post the warning on? Check what the other users said and see whether I'm alarming anyone. --Bowlhover

You posted it on April 2. A message like that is bound to be alarming to anyone in Toronto with small children. --Mathew5000 15:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Check again, and remember not everyone is living in the UTC time zone. Do you also realize that you're the only one complaining? Why do you assume "anyone in Toronto with small children" is bound to be stupid? --Bowlhover 15:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This may be an attack page User:Pieterkonink.

I was not sure were to bring this. This user page appears to be an attack page. --Masterpedia 05:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. The user created the page October 2004, and edited four more times, progressively adding more self-deprecation three times during 2005. They've contributed three good edits and one user talk page interaction during the same time period. Looks like self piercing expression to me. Shenme 06:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael Richards

Can an administrator, please, take a look at this? . Seems like a pretty blatant personal attack to me (not to mention the use of vulgarity). It looks like the editor, in question, has already been blocked multiple times for similar disruption and he is apparently undaunted. I'm not sure that another warning is sufficient. (his talk page is full of "final" warnings already) Thanks! Cleo123 06:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a blockable offense to me. Cla68 07:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure. I removed the PA from his post, but I will not block him (yet) Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 07:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure??? You are not sure???. Please, explain what exactly it is that you are not sure about, Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn. Is it unclear to you that the user broke 3RR, or are you unclear that he said on the article's talk page : "And to the moron who reverted my removal of this. Fuck you! I'll talk however I want! I'll fuck anything that moves!" What is it, exactly, that you are not sure of? The regular editors on the Michael Richards' article have been patiently trying to work with this very disruptive individual for some time now. If you, or any other administrator is not sure about this user's modis apperrandi I believe you owe us - and the rest of the Misplaced Pages community - some explaination as to why you are chosing to ignore what can only be catagorized as very flagrant abuse? Cleo123 08:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't look at 3RR just the personal attack. I'm not sure that the attack you linked to is suffencient for a block. I didn't choose to ignore it.I did, remove the attack from the talk page, I did warn him about civility, but I'm not sure that a block is needed at the moment. If you feel he is being overy disruptive for an extended period of time then feel free to start a RFC Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

For an outside, uninformed view...come on, that's blatantly an offence that warrants a short block. You can't get away with that kind of abusive nonsense with impunity. Badgerpatrol 10:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

From the blocking policy "A user may be blocked when his/her conduct severely disrupts the project — his/her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia." . (emphasis mine) I feel it's borderline. No one else even bothered to remove the attack until I came along and other editors replied to it. It doesn't appear to have disrupted the debate on the page.Other admins mat very well disagree and decide to block him. I have no problem with that. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's nothing to do with me! I would say as a caution however that frustration often brews when good-faith editors see such abysmal behaviour passing by with little of no action- and problems may subsequently arise that could easily have been prevented. I don't see an editor abusing another editor like this ("Fuck You" and so on) as acceptable. It's a curious system- sometimes blocked are handed out for nothing, or next to nothing, whilst in a case like this- that seems to be fairly clear-cut- nothing is done. Anyway, I shall shut about it since it's beyond me to interfere, even if I wanted to. Badgerpatrol 10:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:PatPeter is making disruptive edits to many userboxes

This user appears to be making disruptive edits to dozens of userboxes, including changing the language used in stable Misplaced Pages:Babel templates like Template:User fr-0. He/she is also adding an aggressive/hostile section titled "DO NOT . . . " to the page of many of these templates. See Special:Contributions/PatPeter for numerous examples of such edits.

I first noticed this behavior when I reverted an edit made by PatPeter (see ), and then his/her response was this very incivil post on the talk page (). All of this certainly appears to be inappropriate and disruptive behavior, and I don't know what to do about it, other than posting here hoping that an admin can help. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (talk) 07:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:PatPeter is also authoring potentially divisive / inflammatory userboxes

In addition, User:PatPeter is the author of this potentially divisive / inflammatory template, User:PatPeter/User_antigay, which appears to be a candidate for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#T1 (and salting?). Several of the other templates PatPeter has authored feature the word "hates" prominently, too. These may violate guidelines in WP:UBX#Content restrictions, but I'm not sure if they do. See the bottom of the userpage User:PatPeter for examples of such userbox templates. --Seattle Skier (talk) 07:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

From WP:AIV

• AntiVandalBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Bot may not be working right at the moment. Take A Look! King

Resolved

Resolved

Resolved

Resolved

Resolved

. This is after of course, viewing the arguments presented before him and noting that Rama's Arrow voted delete. So these are two attacks on Rama's Arrow from Mel in a short amount of time. First call a respected admin a troll, then accuse him of sockpuppetry, then come whining to WP:AN/I. Rather peculiar conduct on the part of another admin.Bakaman 23:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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