Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:24, 18 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 admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

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

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

User:Jaakobou vs. User:RolandR and User:Abu_ali

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

This isn't going anywhere. My talk page is open if there are unresolved issues. – Steel 12:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

For several months I have been subject to continuing abuse by vandals and sockpuppets who object to my edits and my extra-Wika politics relating to the Middle East. To date, some 160 sockpuppets of User:Runtshit have been indefinitely blocked for their libellous and abusive edits to over 130 different articles. In addition to abusive comments, these editors have been adding a link to a weblog set up for the sole purpose of spreading these and other defamatory comments. Following the intervention of several administrators, linking to this hate site has resulted in automatic bans for the perpetrators.

Now, for the first time, an established editor has repeated these libels and posted a link to the weblog. In the course of a dispute at Talk:Shimon Tzabar, User:Jaakobou appears to have trawled through the history of my edits, and has repeated a libellous accusation as fact, including posting the URL of the abusive weblog. Since he has clearly read the weblog, he cannot claim to be unaware of its libellous nature. And since he has studied my contributions history, he must be aware that scores of vandals have been banned for posting these false and defamatory allegations.

The posting of this material is a deliberate provocation. It is a clear and deliberate breach of WP:NPA. If allowed to go unremarked, it could encourage other editors to post such abusive material. I therefore request that User:Jaakobou be blocked for a suitable period in order to emphasise the serious and unacceptable nature of his behaviour. RolandR 10:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:RolandR and User:Abu_ali have been making a tag-team effort and on numereous occassions stooped down to defamatory intonations and accusations with their tag-team reverting. this case was not much different as he accused me yet again (for the umpteenth time) for pushing my POV, an act that deserved a reply that he should quit doing so. after scores of situations where i was "against" a tag team revert effort while trying to make a normative contribution to wikipedia:

a few samples of insults/tag-team efforts:

1. "was in the article for several months until removed by POV editor"
2. Reverting tendentious, POV, untrue, pejorative and misleading edits
3. "RonaldR, any valid reasoning for removal of criticism and POV change of "seperation wall" title ?"
4. cencorship of criticism per "politically-motivated"
5. "Removed hostile POV editsd"
6. Adam Keller warnings on RolandR talk page - part 1
7. Adam Keller mediation attempt i've made - refused by RolandR - personal attacks included: "this highly POV editor, whose good faith in this case I strongly doubt."
8. warning on RolandR talk page per more personal attacks
9. earlier weasel terms warnining he removed from his talk page
10. "I wouldn't be too worried at User:Jaakobou's bluster. He constantly threatens and attempts to bully other editors who do not agree with his own POV" and a little extra sad taunting attempt.
11. Abu Ali, please help me out on Adam Keller
12. "tag team war reverting" warning recieves these: "He simply reverted your POV edits to my neutral formulation. Jaakobou's accusation is so over-the-top, it is hard to take it seriously", "I am shocked at the patronising tone adopted by Jaakobou" and the best attempt to give the tag-team revert an anti-jaako feel: "Quite a colonial attitude, in fact; it doesn't surprise me that you are offended by such remarks."

I could go on and on with smaples of tag team wars by these two and POV pushing. this entire complaint by RolandR against me is the result of his incessant attacks on me which is the resut of a blatant tag-team warring style of editing preffered by the two over a proper talk page discussion debate. off course by now, he's contacted allready all of his other tag-team buddies to add libel against me... but guess who was first? (Abu Ali). evidence from the article of this initial report: a request by Lizrael for RonaldR to not force his opinion into the article, and a second request - both were ignored by RolandR and Abu Ali. The RonaldR attack - "My suspicion is that the deniers want to suppress the link altogether, in order to prevent Misplaced Pages readers from linking to its well-written and devastating critiques of Israel's behaviour.". obviously, i've had enough of the insinuations and the "hidden" nick-naming and i presented that he should stop calling me out on "POV charges" (claiming his view is neutral) cosidering that someone has even made a blog to honor his anti-israel POV. Jaakobou 12:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The above remarks by Jaakobou are irrelevant. The fact remains that he deliberately posted a link to a defamatory website, despite knowing that 160 sockpuppets had already been indefinitely blocked for the same offence. RolandR 12:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

how would i know that 160 sockpupets posted it? i'm very sorry that you have sockpuppets chasing you, but i was only presenting that you are a POV editor and that you should stop accusing me with POV while claiming you're neutral. another note i wish to stress, is that you constantly claim other editors are irrelivant and enforce your POV onto articles. Jaakobou 12:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

please do not POV the title of this incident . Jaakobou 12:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Now it has been made clear, perhaps User:Jaakobou will agree to not post the link again, and perhaps both of you will concentrate on the topic at hand rather than other editors. What does Abu Ali (talk · contribs) have to do with it? He hasn't edited for nearly a year. -- zzuuzz 13:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

thank you for catching that, error fixed - User:Abu_ali what the correct username.

note: i was not the one reporting this "violation". Jaakobou 14:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Then will you agree to not post the offending link? -- zzuuzz 14:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I had no intention of "posting" the offending link, it was placed (via style) to validate my claim that a blog that celebrates his bias exits. To my defense, I am fairly tired of being attacked under "tendentious, POV, untrue, pejorative and misleading edits" allegations by a tag-team that claim other editors are irrelivant and enforce their POV (bypassing 3RR) under the pretnece of neutrality... regardless, i wouldn't mind not reposting that link (when forced to mention it's existance).. but it would be only fair that user rolandR remove the warning from my page and in the future avoid statements such as "silly".."highly POV editor" and such. reverting should be left out and a discussion should be done properly... in fact, i'm surprized that this issue was not dealt with earlier. note: it would also be a good thing if he'd avoid removing my warnings from pages of other users and his own page also. Jaakobou 16:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, i was thinking of archiving this thread but you haven't answered Zzuuzz's question yet. Will you agree to not post the offending link? If yes, then we can move forward and archive this. -- FayssalF - 17:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

FayssalF - , as you can see from User:RolandR's reply, he has no attempt to consider other editors in a respectable manner (per "totally disingenuous and typically dishonest response", "I assume that he is not claiming to be too stupid", etc.). I see no reasoning for me to post the link (and i don't intend to) but a reciprocal reaction would be the removal of the warnning and an honest attempt at resolving disputes without the tag-team reverts per "user is highly POV and untrue, pejorative and misleading" tactic. It's become a major hassle to deal with them every time we encounter a dispute. note: why do you place no regard to the tag team revert and disrespect issue? Jaakobou 18:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a totally disingenuous and typically dishonest response. The link did not place itself; it was placed by Jaakobou, who himself repeated some of the libels from it. It is inconceivable that he can have looked at this site and not realised that it was libellous, abusive and offensive. I assume that he is not claiming to be too stupid to recognise this. Nor can I believe that he was unaware that scores of other editors posting this link have been banned from Misplaced Pages. After all, he trawled through my contributions history to discover some that he could cite as examples of my point of view, so he will of course have seen the dozens of contributions relating to this, as well as the offensive edits made to the pages he looked at.

I have been battling for months to deal with this. Several other editors and administrators have wasted hours of their time removing these libellous edits and links from Misplaced Pages. Zzuuzz is aware of this, since he himself has dealt with this abuse on many occasions. A grudging and half-hearted undertaking not to repost the linbk is simply not good enough -- Jaakobou has acted in a deliberately offensive way, he has breached WP:NPA, he is making libellous attacks, and unless he is blocked for a significant period, then a precedent will have been established and other editors are likely to take advantage of this.

Jaakobou is now trying to divert attention from my complaint by bringing up all sorts of untrue and irrelevant allegations. I do not intend to dignify them with a response, except to note that it is a lie to claim that I have removed his "warnings" from user pages other than my own. RolandR 16:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm placeing the attention at the root. i could care less about some people hassling you about your views. I do care about the blatent disrespect you're repeatedly showing. you're the one jumping on the first thing you can in an attempt to ban me. Jaakobou 18:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou has now twice vandalised my talk page, removing a message from User:Abu ali. He accuses me above of removing his messages from other users talk pages, and now he does himself what he falsely alleges that I have done. This too is unacceptable behaviour. Is there any way to block him from my talk page? RolandR 23:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

the previous comment by User:RolandR was preceded by this one: personal attack complaint and followed by this one: "i removed a personal attack and you've reinstated it"

For a second time, Jaakobou has moved my comment in order to remove it from its context. It's not enough that he vandalises my talk page; now he is also vandalising my complaint about this. His behaviour has passed all reasonable and acceptable bounds -- he seems to believe that he can censor not only messages from one editor to another, but also the resulting complaints. I have the right to make my complaint in the place and mmanner I thoink fit, and he does not have the right to decide that it should be made in a different manbner. If he wishes to respond to my complaint, he should do so here, rather tnam move my complaint out of its context to a place of his choice. RolandR 12:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:RolandR your incessant attempt to portray me as a vandal are becoming increasingly annoying. do you have a proper reasoning for placing a vandalism complaint out of chronological order above the "personal attacks" about those very edits so that a naive reader might think that vandalism came first and personal attacks came later? Jaakobou 13:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. My comment, which Jaakobou has now moved three times, was not a response to his remarks below. It was a continuation of the discussion above, and in particular his false allegation that I have been removing his comments from other editors talk pages. By moving it, he makes me appear to make an irrelevant response to a different comment.

Meanwhile, his (very) frequent posting of unwarranted and extremely verbose "warnings" on my talk page and those of other editors, his removal of other editors comments from my talk page, his repeat of libels against me, and his posting of the URL of a libellous weblog set up purely in order to defame me, certainly warrant the description of vandalism. RolandR 13:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:RolandR, (1) it would be far more factual if you'd be able to link to all of your claims when you make them, as i usually do. (2) i've managed to solve the "comment moving" problem by placing a timestamp and link - i don't think you can really deny the time each comment was made. (3) i have no interest in you or in defaming you - i am however interested in proper conduct when working on articles, something you refuse to do despite many attempts i've made to relay that message to you.. Jaakobou 14:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

recent personal attacks

Please see RolandR's talk page to see Abu ali's subtle personal attacks against me. It's a repeated phenomena that's difficult to work on articles with; a duo that says they "must be doing something right" after they see they have, to put it bluntly, pissed me off. when noted that this personal attack is frowned upon, RonaldR ignored the note and reverted the personal attack back into his page and also made a 4th level warning on my talk page. Jaakobou 22:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The following "i removed a personal attack" comment was preceded by this User:RolandR comment: "jaakobou has now twice vandalised my talk page removing a comment from Abu_ali"

i removed a personal attack and you've reinstated it while ignoring my notice that this personal attack is frowned upon. Jaakobou 23:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou invited me to state my case here. My talk page contains a number of final warings by this editor which I normally shrug off. But I think that this edit edit is libelous and defamatory beyond what is acceptable here. So I think it would be best for User:Jaakobou to apologize and agree not to insert such material here in future. If he is unwilling to do this, some sort of sanction may be appropriate in order to show him the seriousness with which such personal attacks are treated here and convince him not to repeat them. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 06:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

that's an interesting way of mispresenting the warnings you had recieved in the past (and just recently) and ignoring your repeated insinuations, attacks and tag team warring. your rich history of zionist conspiracy claims makes me wonder about wikipedia's ability of dealing with destructive editors who abuse their personal page to catalogue israeli gouvermental officials that have or had issues with the law. Jaakobou 06:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I know you do not like my user page becuase you have raised an ANI about it in the past. Any editor who is interrested in this will have fun trawling through our contributions history. But lets not get distracted and get back to the current issue. The question FayssalF and I asked (and you for some reason ignore) is will you apologize for this edit and agree not to reinsert links to this libelous and defamatory material. Thanks ابو علي (Abu Ali) 06:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

(1) i've answered the question twice allready. (2) will you apologize for all the attacks you've made on me (and erase those which can be erased) including the one made just 10 minutes ago and start dealing with disputes in a proper manner on the talk page without tag-team reverting? even when i've requested your opinion on an article you used it as an opportunity to unjustly attack me . Jaakobou 07:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

(1) If you have answered the question, I would be interrested in seeing the answer. (2) I have made no attacks on you, and find it puzzling to say the least that you demand that I apologize for non-existent personal attacks, while you continue to make personal attacks such as this . ابو علي (Abu Ali) 19:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

(1) look it up, it's on this thread. (2) your name doesn't even exist on the link you have provided. (3) scroll up a little bit and you'll find a few of your personal attacks on me. Jaakobou 20:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

(2) the personal attack I mentioned was against RolandR. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

please see Misplaced Pages:Troll#Pestering. Jaakobou 21:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if anyone is being a troll here, and pestering others, it's certainly not Abu Ali. Jaakobou, on the other hand, persistently posts unwarranted "warnings" on other editors' talk pages. Just look at these, for instance: , , , , , . That's quite enough to demonstrate a consistent pattern. Jaakobou, I suggest you look in a mirror before you make such allegations in future. RolandR 21:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

brilliant effort here. one (User:Abu_ali) bugs me with "If you have answered the question, I would be interrested in seeing the answer." and links unrelating to him. (hence the "pestering" link) and now you're inadvertently accusing me of "being a troll here, and pestering others" - well you did some linking so i guess i should respond to them:

link 1 -

your first link: was a serisous problem with Abu_ali who had not ignored a level-1 notice, but has used it to repeatedly put my username on display on his personal page: and placed again even after it was removed by a wiki admin first removal of Abu_ali finger pointing->Abu_ali putting it back, and second time it was removed by an admin (not by Abu_ali, which is why the all the warning stayed on his talk page). now if you would have taken the time, you would have found it. I actually handled the situation unlike you - i used the proper steps level-1, level-2 to get around to the level-3 warning after a the "protest" activity in regards to the level-1 and level-2 warnings. Jaakobou 08:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

link 2 -

The second link of yours was actually one of your tag-team efforts where both of you were repeatedly ignoring the talk page and reverting the article page.

from that same warning i give this link to the Abu_ali blind revert 9:54, 24 march and the brilliant part is when going over the history of the article :

Scrolling down to the 24th, you can see that i make an edit, and you revert per "Reverting POV edits", I then move the problem to the talk page for discussion 23 march. user Abu_ali reverts the page without regarding the talk page 9:54am, 24 march - i waited around for an hour to see if he does adress the talk page, but since he didn't - and since you two have shown tag-team editing in the past i went on with my warning 10:52am 24 march - perhaps a level-3 would have been better than a level 4 but for both my talk page effort and the "link 1 issues"... and after the warning, i got this response: "Shalom to my friend Jaakobou. The implication of the phrase "what they descrive as the occupation" rather than the simpler "the occupation".... But as this is not a Kahanist blog or an Israeli foreing ministry propoganda site, we should call things as they are, hence the occupation" (then there's a comment about me trying to intimidate him with the warning - which i protest since i was only not appreciative of the "quick revert and ignore talk page" methodology)... let's go on with this one and follow up on the history: the warning and reqest that he self revert were ridiculed by the couple and here's a capture of the changes in conversation on the article talk page since that warning:

summary:

Jaakobou - kahana is outlawed (personal attack), you should revert, second time you call RolandR, article related discussion, tag team warning, self revert and proper discussion request. Abu ali - did not call you kahanist, you will know i'm right if you go to a checkpoint yourself. Jaakobou - regardless you your personal narrative there's wiki terminology, please self revert the tag team reversion and i'll remove the warning from your page, article talk. Abu ali - As you have been a soldier you will know from direct experience that the regime (i.e. attacking me-jaakobou and my country)... "What did the state give you in return for these three unpaid years of your life?"

after this personally orientated discussion (by Abu_ali) and reluctance to discuss properly or self-revert in return to a removal of the warning. i went on with this:

23:27, 25 March summary:

level-2 notice for turning the conversation into a chat about me, POV issues, reply to personal question, notice about refusal to self-revert and warning that repeating on it might result in a block for him, note about being contributive over destructive (with proper linkage)

then i reverted the Matzpen page on 23:29, 25 March - on 06:26, 26 March (the next morning) Abu_ali reverted it again per "as explained on the talk page, we should call a spade a spade" and gave this reply on his talk page "It seems that we will have to agree to disagree.".

user RolandR then continued to make "shocked" comments on Abu_ali's talk page in regards to the complaint i issued so that the complaint would not follow through: "am shocked at the patronising tone", "Quite a colonial attitude", "doesn't surprise me that you are offended" - and it worked.

i could go on with these links... but i think i've illustrated the problem sufficiently. Jaakobou 08:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

other links

link 3 - increasing warnings about removing warnings from other user's talk page (i've later learned that this is allowed?)

link 4 - same issue - with one of the 3 users involved: NSH, RolandR and Huldra.

link 5 - a very much legitimate level-2 notice - with proper citations and links - issue was properly resolved also.

link 6 - the old RolandR initial encounter on Adam Keller that i've linked to here more than once - i've tried to resolve with mediation, but RolandR declined on the attempt... article seemed to be progressing for a bit, but currently it's locked due to the reverting on it (did i say tag-team yet? - the team has actually did 4 reverts together on 11th of April). Jaakobou 08:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

extra talk

This thread keeps popping up in my watchlist and it's getting annoying. Jaakobou, there is no rule that says if someone starts a new (sub)section, people can no longer post in the previous section, so quit moving other people's messages around. Also, I can't see any personal attacks from RolandR, just you constantly accusing him of making them. I'm in half a mind to block you, but I'm holding off in the hope that you start being co-operative. – Steel 13:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Steel359, i've managed to solve this problem without moving the misplaced comment, thank you for the lovely response. all you need to do to find (many of) the details of the situation is to follow it through from the start of the thread. Jaakobou 14:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Steel359, could you please explain the reasoning behind this edit and perhaps present a better title to allow for this mini unrelated conversation to not clutter up the main issue? Jaakobou 14:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Only, it's not unrelated. – Steel 14:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, pace Steel's comments, that Jaakobou could benefit from taking a less confrontational approach towards his fellow editors. He does seem to have a habit of assuming bad faith and making claims of wrongdoing; this seems to be more of the same. It's the kind of approach that just ends up annoying people. -- ChrisO 22:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Chris, i'm assuming good faith regardless of our history. Your intervention here is not very noble. if you feel i was wrongly assuming bad faith on the Pallywood situation/incident, than you can discuss about it properly - personally, i was only alleging that you're insisting on your own opinion on the article and ignoring the other editors. rather than make insinuations on an AV/I that's got nothing to do with me assuming bad faith onto you (and i do believe we were wtill working on the talk page and not on the revert button) but rather with 2 editors tag teaming while ignoring the talk page and making repeated personal attacks/insinuations on me. Jaakobou 06:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Disruption/community block

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

I'm finding User:Jaakobou to be quite disruptive. AFAIK I've never dealt with him before, but yesterday I received an email from him pointing me to this thread (as if I could have failed to see it). That got promptly trashed, of course.

Steel archived this discussion as going nowhere, and explained to him why; Jaakobou undid; I reverted; and now he's visiting my talk page too. I'm starting to see the words "exhausted the community's patience". --kingboyk 12:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

feel free to remove this comment (seem you do that often), but i do feel that your conduct here is very much uncivil. Jaakobou 12:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm an unpaid volunteer; I don't have to waste my time answering questions which have already been answered. Steel told you why he archived (and so did I on his talk page), so there's no need to keep asking me about it is there?

Please don't add a point-making section header (==civility==), and please don't try and turn the argument towards my behaviour (a favourite t**ll tactic if ever I saw one). --kingboyk 12:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Jaakobou. Quite frankly, I'm fed up with this. – Steel 12:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse, obviously. --kingboyk 12:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Despite the above, Jaakobou was swiftly unblocked, and in the confusion caused by his multiple postings (some 40 edits in three days, as well as countless postings to other talk pages), my original complaint was lost sight of. I was requesting a lengthy block on Jaakobou for his harassment of me, and in particular his posting of a link to a libellous website and his repeating of the libels therein. As I noted, a serial vandal is spamming scores of Misplaced Pages pages with this material, and to date more than 160 sockpuppets have been indefinitely blocked for repeating this. If an established editor is allowed to get away with this, it's open day for all sorts to continue with this abuse of Misplaced Pages. Jaakobou's behaviour warrants a significant response, not simply another warning. I haven't even had an apology, and he has failed to give the requested undertaking not to repeat this libel. We can't just ignore this. RolandR 16:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

look, i apologise for placing the link ... and sorry for revealing personal information about you, I only did so out of frustration in this stressful issue. I will avoid such links in the future. Jaakobou 19:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't block for punishment's sake - it's supposed to be a way of modifying behaviour. I think of it as being like whacking a dog with a rolled-up newspaper to discourage it from crapping on the carpet. If Jaakobou is promising to mend his ways and only crap in the litter box in future (metaphorically speaking...) I think he should be given the chance to prove his sincerity. -- ChrisO 20:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree w/ Chris. The important thing is to see a change in behaviour and it is clear now that Jaakoubou is apologizing, explaining and promising not to do so in the future. I think everything is sorted out now. -- FayssalF - 11:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Durin & his uncivil remarks:

Recently I opposed the user Moralis on his RfA. This RfA is controversial as it is the first to be done with an open format & lack of tally as described on WT:RfA. At first, I commented on the RfA about the use of the new style & how I found it distasteful in an intended humourous way (, which was later supported by an admin ), as well as replying to other's views on both the RfA & Moralis & opposing (, , ). I'm usually used to having my oppose votes respected on RfAs, without someone arguing with them - However, Durin saw fit to do so with both me & other opposers (, as well as others before me - , , , , , , as well as discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Moralis). Durin may have a valid point, but it is lost on because of his uncivil & combative bahaviour. Thorughout my discussion with him he often employed the use of the CAPS LOCK (After which another user politely asked him to stop with , but the advice wasn't taken), the usage of *asterixes* & Bolding, often used all *ALL AT THE SAME TIME*. As per my above links, I grew tired of Durin's high octane approach to the RfA & his overprotectiveness to it, as well as the ever-so-often seen ploy of replying to every single oppose vote. I left a message on his talk page (, User talk:Durin) & stated his actions were uncalled for & I didn't want to talk to him further in his combative mood. He then replied on his talk page (), stating that he had no intention of calming down, & that I was "*WAY* out of line" & that I owed Moralis an apology. He said I should be ashamed & said "If calling a person accusing another of "stunts" way out of line is uncivil, then take it to WP:AN/I and have me banned from the project." I then replied () that if he told me to be ashamed once more (which he had done already on numerous occasions), then I would infact report him. I had no intention of doing so as I had no idea Durin would continue the argument again by replying ( with the edit summary of "Fine, report me." & ) once again that I should be ashamed & that I should go report him. In his second reply he made a personal attack by saying "After reading the intro to your talk page, your attitude makes considerably more sense now. You're argumentative by nature." - this hurt my feelings (I don't know why but it did... sticks & stones etc...). My notice on my talk page is because I don't like arguing & wanted to stay out of trouble, not so that someone could use it against me & critisize me. I never got personal, I never attacked either Moralis or Durin in anyway other than stating that his demenour was combative & that I believed Moralis of subjecting himself to this experiment as a kind of stunt. That is my opinion & neither one had to agree with it - infact, the discussion Moralis & myself was rather pleasant, unlike my discussion with Durin. I don't care whether you agree or not with the RfA style, if Durin had replied kindly to me, I would not have had a problem - I actually enjoy the meeting of two minds & discussing important topics civily. Coming from an ex-admin, this behaviour is unacceptable - Because this is at the lower end in my view of arguments on a scale, I'd settle for an apology. However, I doubt I'd get one out of him & I don't want to post on his talk page in case I get attacked any more. I've managed to stay out of arguments for a while now & I did not engage in this one - I don't enjoy arguing & I remember a time when I did indeed look up to Durin. Any comments would help. Thanks, Spawn Man 06:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the formatting of this particular RfA has led to a significant amount of criticism, warranted or not. Durin seems to have received a great deal of it. I'm sure no ill-will was meant by his statements, which look as though they are borne more out of frustration than anything else. Sorry if you were hurt by things; I'm sure that wasn't Durin's intent 74.12.80.240 07:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the condolensces, but I doubt Durin shares the same view. Frankly, I'd prefer Durin to say it, but thanks all the same. :) It just hurt my feelings by his last personal attack towards me - I've been trying hard to stay out of arguments & haven't been in one for 45 days now. For him to simply quash all that & make a quick judgment of me based on one of my notices is upsetting. I'm a man of far more facets. Thanks anyway. Spawn Man 07:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a small dispute. I doubt any administrative action is necessary, although Durin needs to maintain his civility at all times. It's better if you leave him alone for a while, and I'm sure he will apologize in time. I'm sorry if you didn't mean it, but your discussion with Durin could also be potentially be very upsetting on his part, when warning him of AN/I. --Kz 08:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I thoguht that was common policy (like FAR, where you tell the creator of the article)? Sorry, but this is my first time reporting at AN/I. As I stated before, this is a very small despute & was hardly a definite breach of civility - it just hurt my feelings is all & hoped someone would talk to him. Maybe this wasn't the palce to go, but I provided a well worded & calm argument in any case. Thanks - I'll take your advice & leave him alone for a while (which I've done already...) & hopefully he'll come to me. Thansk, Spawn Man 08:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have no intention to apologize for my remarks and I stand by them. User:Spawn Man ruthlessly attacked the guinea pig (User:Moralis) in the RfA experiment and shows no remorse in his behavior towards him. He's accused him of performing a stunt, of weaseling his way around process, and disrupting RfA to gain publicity. You can see it for yourself . If saying Spawn Man should be ashamed for his behavior towards Moralis is a personal attack, then Spawn Man has made 10 times the personal attack. Subsequent to Spawn Man's "warning" that he would report me, I read the intro to his talk page. I noted that it says, in part, "I get in a lot of arguments with other editors. When I argue, I argue for a long time & don't usually back down". It's no surprise he won't back down and admit his behavior towards Moralis was improper. It's further no surprise that he should go out of his way to attack a person who calls him on it. I stand by my opinions and offer no apology to Spawn Man. He most emphatically owes one to Moralis. --Durin 12:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Seeing the diffs, yeah, it looks like Spawn Man is attacking Moralis, and Durin is just standing up for them. Spawn Man should think about what he has been saying. I do believe Kat Walsh even took the time to correct him . --Kim Bruning 14:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As they say, if you can't take it don't dish it out. Spawnman your remarks and subsequent outrage are part of the problem here. Take responsability for that part and walk away, no one will win this argument. David D. (Talk) 15:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how I "ruthlessly attacked" Moralis? Nor my "subsequent outrage"? I have remained calm through this whole ordeal. I made a point to Moralis, but I was never uncivil - You can't tell me that Moralis had no part in the format of his RfA - he could have quite easily said no, but he said yes, so in a way he is responsible. I'll quite happily say sorry to Moralis if Durin apologises to me - after all, Durin is taking the high road isn't he? Puh-lease... Spawn Man 06:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, Spawn Man, have you read the diffs presented by Durin? I'll post the relevant parts right here just in case: "In my opinion, any editor who is ready to try & disrupt & weasel his way around process in bad news," "This is every bit a stunt. The only reason that a crat hasn't withdrawn it is because of it & the fact they can't be bothered looking for a solid tally in all this mess...," "The only reason I believe this user got so many supports was because he went against the grain & used this format. A user with under 800 edits would never get this far without this stunt Moralis has employed!" I'm sorry, I just can't believe that those aren't uncivil accusations and defamation of Moralis's character. Durin responded to incivility uncivilly. So? Retract your statements or live with it. --Iamunknown 06:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

, , The use of the word stunt and the implications of trying to game the system may not be a ruthless attack but they are outrage. And the latter continues by your presence here rather than sorting it out with Durin on his talk page. David D. (Talk) 06:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Spawn Man's "talked" to Durin before reporting here...so it kinda didn't work. --Iamunknown 06:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess i was implying not enough. There are other avenues too, such as the RfA talk page. I suppose he is there too. But this venue just seems like the wrong place to be discussing this issue. David D. (Talk) 06:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I just don't see how this needs administrator intervention and, as such, why it needs to be at ANI (user talk pages and talk pages directly to the disputed article/project page / the article/project page where the dispute is are usually an excellent place to start!). --Iamunknown 06:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I was only endorsing what numerous other editors had said on the RfA. If anything, it should be Moralis who has the problem - Durin just came charging in making it worse. It doesn't really matter any more, I'm going on a Wikibreak - I'm not going to let Durin stand ther e& judge me, when he isn't telling about 50 of the other editors who opposed for the same reasons to be ashamed. He's targetted me out, & I have bigger problems & things to do in my life than waste it on arrogent editors like Durin. If you all want to defend him, that's fine, but if it was you in my shoes, then you'd understand. I stick by my comments fully & I can make a judgement on Durin on my own - I can clearly see why he denounced his adminship; because he's obviously a very combative & uncivil person & didn't want to be threatened with his adminship. I don't see how he shoudln't be punished any different just because he gave up his privilages - it gives him no right to continuously name call me & provoke me. I'm only taking a break so I don't say something to him that I may regret, but I think I've summed him up perfectly. Arrogant? Check. Combative? Check. Argumentative? Check. Somewhat like myself? Check. ;)... Thanks guys, you've been somewhat of no help, but thanks all the same. Cheers, Spawn Man 06:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat of no help? But you're taking a break and that sounds like a positive thing to stop the escalation. Or are you saying we didn't frustrate you enough with indifference to cause you take a break ;) But seriously, come back cheerful, life is too short. David D. (Talk) 07:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• On my talk page, I suggested Spawn Man just walk away . He chose to ignore that advice. That is still the best advice available. From Spawn Man's talk page, it is blatantly obvious that by his own admission he won't back down. His continuance here on this page with this issue further supports that conclusion. In fact, even worse, he's continued his assault now calling me "pig headed", "acting like a 3 year old" and that I am up on a "high horse". Read it for yourself . And above, he's now calling arrogant, combative, and argumentative. --Durin 12:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Sigh. --Durin 13:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather disappointed with this editor... He was attacking another RfA candidate in a similar manner. RfA isn't easy for everyone, and I'd rather not have someone potentially drive away contributors by continually insulting good-faith RfA candidates. Grandmasterka 10:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Although I have disagreed heavily with Durin in the past, and have had heated discussions to that effect, I must say that I endorse Durin's 12:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC) comment. Spawn Man has a history of acting very immaturely in his pursuit of his ideals (I cite Riana's RfA), and this is just another instance. Spawn Man needs to calm down, or be blocked; period. Daniel Bryant 01:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Spawn Man has a history of acting very immaturely in his pursuit of his ideals (I cite Riana's RfA), and this is just another instance. Spawn Man needs to calm down, or be blocked; period." - I'm not the only one who has complained about Durin & his conduct on the RfA - Check his user talk. I can't believe I looked up to you when you're exactly like all the rest - not looking at facts & seeing that I'm not alone in my complaints about Durin. How dare you cite my behaviour at Riana's RfA - I haven't acted badly at all in over a month & I haven't acted badly here either. I've kept my cool up until now when I saw a respected admin lower himself to what you've said. If Durin's allowed to say it, so am I - Daniel, you should be ashamed! "in his pursuit of his ideals" - I don't know what you're talking about. I've had it up to here - I bring a complaint about his behaviour to AN/I on his advice & you all abuse me because I complain about being told to be ashamed. I've given nearly 2 years of my life to this project & you're talking the side of Moralis, an editor with under 800 edits, over mine. If this is how I'm appreciated, then I'm afraid I can't edit here any more. I have not acted immaturely - If I had, I would have sworn, left message after message on Durin's page abusing him & it would definitely have been reported to AN/I by Durin; The fact is it's the other way around. If I deserve to be blocked, block the other people who have complained to him. He's the one answering every single oppsoe on the Moralis RfA; Does that sound like non-combative behaviour? I'm ashamed that I even bothered briging it to a court of Durin's peers - I might as well have been complaining to Sadam about his the National Gaurd's conduct. Thanks gentlemen, but you've proven my ideals.... Spawn Man 03:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

We're leaving again; I rest my case. "How dare you cite my behaviour at Riana's RfA - I haven't acted badly at all in over a month & I haven't acted badly here either"; how dare I? How dare you try and tell me what I can and can't say. When you attack someone (Sarah) and act like a twat over filing an RfA, and restart such behaviour one month later over a similar issue, I'm not going to forget. I consider Durin to be making a valid point, and acting far better and less disruptively than you were. However, this is my opinion, hence why it is on a noticeboard for everyone to add their input. Daniel Bryant 03:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That argument wasn't about the RfA, but I asume you've read every single post which transpired between us to gain a full knowledge of the situation? Or did you just come in halfway through & asume that's what it was about? I've apologised to Sarah (Geez, everyone has a crush on Sarah don't they?) & this argument is nothing like the one over a month ago - This is about me & other users complaining about Durin's remarks on the Moralis RfA. Don't call me a twat. How was I acting in any way disruptiveley before today? I Opposed the RfA because Morlis had 800 edits - Sure I said he may have made himself a guinea pig as a sort of stunt, but I oppsoed for legitimate reasons. Durin took that I was opposing solely on the grounds of his RfA format. I told him to calm down. He told me to be ashamed 3 times. He suggested I report him. I said I would if he continued to say I be ashamed. He did once more. I reported him & told I did (I thought it was part of the process). Then everyone says I'm being disruptive & that Durin was justified. So I say I'm going on a break. Then Daniel comes in & says I should be blocked!? THat's why I'm leaving. That's the end of story, because it's just crazy how we get from him to me just like that. Spawn Man 03:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I said if you continued after the significant opposition to your behaviour in this thread, then a block may be needed. Again, you continue with the circular personal attacks (regarding Sarah), and fail to recognise the grave insult that you cast upon Moralis by accusing him of using a stunt to try and create a consensus that you believe wouldn't existed. If you're going to leave, just do it; if you're not, then you have proved my point. Daniel Bryant 03:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I never thoguht you'd try & run me off Daniel. Remember when I said I looked up to you? Yeah, I do too. Funny thing respect, you can lose it really quickly. Fine, if you want me to go, then I'll go. I wouldn't want to prove you right or anything Daniel because I'm just so darned uncivil. Spawn Man 03:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The message above forms People's Exhibit B. Trying to play the "respect" card doesn't achieve anything, because my analysis of your behaviour in the last 24 hours, especially the last couple, has made it something I'm not terribly concerned about because it has been devalued. Yes, that was uncivil, and I wouldn't object to a short block if someone believed it justified, but now you'll see how it feels when you devalue someone else's contribution when accusing them of "faking the process" at an RfA. Daniel Bryant 03:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting you were uncivil Daniel, it was very big of you. A lot of people appreciate my respect, you are unaware of it's cost simply becasue you do not have it. I never said Moralis was faking process, merely trying something new. Of course a new format is going to draw attention - If I knew I had no chance of getting through RfA, I'd try using something cotroversial. Heck, & I'd be a bad admin if I couldn't lie & say "No mister, this isn't a stunt, no sir!". "Aw, wellk okay, I believe you now then since you said it wasn't...". Okay I'm sorry for questioning the integrity of Moralis's stunt. It was a very good stunt - As I said, I'd have used it too. I'm interested to hear how I have been uncivil to everyone before this morning, because that is when you made your statement that I should be blocked. You create a list on your comment & I'll create a lsit of how you've been uncivil too & let's see if they compare? If you don't you'd just prove my point... Spawn Man 04:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Durin & Allies: 1)Replied to every oppose vote on Moralis RfA. 2)Told Spawn Man to be ashamed 1, 2, 3 times. Erm, sorry, 4 times. 3)Daniel Briant called Spawn Man a quote "twat". 4)Daniel Briant goaded Spawn Man to leave by saying "If you're going to leave, just do it; if you're not, then you have proved my point...".

Spawn Man & erm, no one...: 1) Your turn...

I gave Spawn Man a 24-hour cool off period. I could be considered mildly involved in this, so it's open to review. But I think many different editors ("Durin and allies"?) have made it abundantly clear what he's doing wrong. Grandmasterka 04:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Persistent POV-pusher

For about a month the articles on Photoshopping, Home of the Underdogs, Abandonware and a few other have been under relentless attack of Special:Contributions/216.165.158.7. The editor has been warned several times by different admins regarding his conduct and after an initial 2-day block made by me, he was blocked for 2 weeks by Durova. The block has expired and the user has returned with the same behavior of POV-pushing, unflexibility and agressive interaction with well-meaning editors. I now bring this case forward so that it can be evaluated by an administrator not yet involved in the case, hoping to reach some kinf of more effective result. Regards, --Sn0wflake 11:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, quite honestly he seems incapable of editing alongside others. I blocked him for a month for POV pushing. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Good to see reason still prevails on the Misplaced Pages... cheers! --Sn0wflake 14:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Correction: I blocked that account for one week, not two. Durova 14:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have changed the block to one week. This partly in view of the error about Durova's original block, which wasn't for the two weeks stated, but one week, thus not a really good basis for a hike to one month. While I have to agree about the POV-pushing (I've written a long warning to the user on his page about what is going to happen if he doesn't change his ways), I also want to stress that this is no vandal. In fact the majority of his edits are constructive and helpful. They're aimed at resisting the ever ongoing onslaught on the encyclopedia of spam, nonsense, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience... Rather than a phasing-out of this useful contributor by means of longer and longer blocks, I would suggest an RFAR and perhaps a mentor. Bishonen | talk 20:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm pretty sure that 216.165.158.7 (talk · contribs) is DreamGuy (talk · contribs), because of very similar editing patterns, taking effectively the same actions at the same articles. For example, the following edits to the Santa Monica article all performed the same action, with similar uncivil edit summaries:

• DreamGuy, March 18, 2007, "this says NOTABLE people, not Misplaced Pages editors with articles and massive egos"
• DreamGuy, March 30, 2007: "...most certainly not notable by Misplaced Pages standards for purposes of a listing here"
• 216.165.158.7, April 14, 2007: "people adding themselves (or getting people to add them) out of vanity... removing them... this is only for famous people"

A quick look at contribs will also show that both DreamGuy and the anon have been posting at List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects. And other activity similar to the Santa Monica edits appear at University High School: 216.165.158.7, DreamGuy.

DreamGuy has been accused of sockpuppetry before, and a checkuser came back "Likely,", though to my knowledge he has not yet been blocked for this type of activity. --Elonka 23:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"Sockpuppetry" in itself is not a reason for a block: sometimes users get logged out through no fault of their own, for example. Does this probable sockpuppetry have any effect on the allegations of disruption? Physchim62 (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, if an anon sockpuppet is blocked for POV-pushing, then the sockmaster should also be blocked. In the case of this particular anon, his block was reduced under some sort of "AGF, he just needs counseling" reasoning. But in actuality the sockmaster has been using this and other accounts (such as 172.147.121.198 (talk · contribs)) to harass another editor for about a year now. DreamGuy's edits to Santa Monica and List of people from Los Angeles were reverted by Admin AnonEMouse, so DreamGuy just came back with an anon to make the exact same edits. Granted, as I am the harassee, I have a bias here, but in my opinion there is clear evidence that if the anon has been blocked for POV-pushing, that DreamGuy, as the controller of that anon, should be blocked as well. --Elonka 18:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

El has asked me to take a look at the edits of DreamGuy and Special:Contributions/216.165.158.7. In my opinion their edit descriptions are identical in style and tone to Wik aka Gzornenplatz aka Nopuzzlestranger - however given the aggressive, abusive, tendentiousness they exhibit, they certainly warrant blocking irrespective of whether this is actually the case or not. --Gene_poole 22:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Bad-faith user page

User:Lewisskinner/trollbox. Andy Mabbett 06:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

He's just keeping track of some diffs. No policy violation that I can see. RJASE1 06:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Try looking at its name. Andy Mabbett 06:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello again Andy Mabbett, I looked at the diffs under your entry on said list and I think I see what you're talking about, possible WP:CIVIL issues:diffdiff2

I'm not trying to beat you over the head, please include the specific issues. The items on his list are ok before your entry, so people may get the wrong idea if they can't find the meat of the issue. (When I say "can't" it probably should be "won't", the admins here have a lot on their plate so it's more or less up to you to show what you are talking about. I hope this helps.) Anynobody 07:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There are indeed civility issues, but in this case I was referring to the name of the user page, as much as its content. Andy Mabbett 10:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The page is a collection of vandalism edits and good faith edits that happen to be critical of User:Lewisskinner, each annotated with a sarcastic comment, and the page title being trolling. I can only read that as Lewis implying that all the edits, including the good faith edits, are trolling. It's pretty minor stuff, but I can't see that the page contributes to the goals of the project. Unless someone believes that it does, I'm going to blank it. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Silence. Blanked. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

At 11am, BenAveling (talk · contribs) suggested he would blank the page in question if there were no objections. 4 minutes later, he informed me , and a further 36 minutes later, he blanked the page. I do not feel that this was enough time to defend myself, especially as I have only now got onto wiki in my lunch break having been workking from 8:30 (yes, LUNCH!)

As soon as I had the above message, I reponded , indicating that I would be happy to rename the page. pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) has said above that this will be OK, and I have now done this, so I hope all parties will be happy.

As an aside, I'd like to ask why Pigsonthewing has reported this? I can only assume it may have something to do with this and this. The user in question has a history of reporting users with whom he has (often unrelatied) content disputes (just ask Captain scarlet (talk · contribs)). Might I suggest that this incident, and in any possible future disagreement, he post a message on my talk page, rather than wasting admin's time (please, by all means check. He has not even once raised any issues with me). L.J.Skinner 14:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"I would be happy to rename the page. pigsonthewing (talk • contribs) has said above that this will be OK," My name is Andy Mabbett, and I have said no such thing. Andy Mabbett 14:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You did Pigsonthewing, here: "in this case I was referring to the name of the user page, as much as its content". L.J.Skinner 22:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

My name is Andy Mabbett. Your refusal to use it is uncivil. Thank you, though, for proving my point: I did not say what you claimed I did. Please do not misquote me. Andy Mabbett 06:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The above is a direct quote from you, is it not Pigsonthewing? L.J.Skinner 11:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"each annotated with a sarcastic comment," - these have been restored. Andy Mabbett 14:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate lewisskinner's cooperation once this was brought to his attention. I wonder if Andy was worried that it would be a more lengthy process following a similar issue with Captain scarlet. In this case it would seem that contacting the user with the concerns would have been quicker. I note Andy's point about the sarcastic comments but think that the name of the page gives context so I'd let it pass. I'm sure Andy will also be pleased to see how helpful Lewis has been and will have more confidence in other editors in future. Lewis, it probably isn't fair to suggest this was raised because of the content dispute. Andy is more likely to notice such issues when the dispute has brought you to his attention. Can we call this issue resolved now? Adambro 20:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I would hope so. L.J.Skinner 23:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It still looks like an attack page to me. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It still is. Andy Mabbett 06:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No Pigsonthewing, it is an archive of disputes, as stated in the title and the lead. L.J.Skinner 10:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"Can we call this issue resolved now?" - No. Note that the sarcastic comments remain and that the word "trollbox" has been restored to the page. Andy Mabbett 06:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Is the page called a 'Trollbox'? No. Does the lead say it is a 'Trollbox'? No. I have simply added a redirect from the old page so that this edit would make sense (with no redlink) and users coming to my talk page could see the dispute, and then added a lead explaining the name-change. I fail to see te issue. L.J.Skinner 10:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

As to the occurrence of "troll" in the title, if the list was only vandalism and trolling by others I would have no problem with it (after all, it would be a trollbox). The inclusion of good faith attempts in such a page though is why I believe it violates WP:CIVIL (and Assume good faith). Anynobody 00:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. There is precedence for deletion. Andy Mabbett 06:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

With one exception, "I requested Captain scarlet (talk • contribs) change the name of this subpage" ( Isotope23 (talk · contribs) 13:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)). You did not request a change of name on my talk page - you ran straight here and did not have the coutesy even to bother informing me (how very civil of you). Additionally, I have already changed the name. L.J.Skinner 10:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I remember the request you cited, from the comments n the page it looks as though most people felt it was a similar content/name discrepancy. As I recall, a similar good faith attempt by you was listed on the page in question. The issue being you weren't trolling so listing your post was an act of bad faith (you weren't the only one either to appear on said page incorrectly, right?)

If the page in question was called a trollbox, and only blatant trolling (Posting to say a person is stupid, etc.) or vandalism was listed, the impression seemed to be that such a page is ok. (again with the caveat that adding regular disagreements is not appropriate.) Anynobody 07:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, even if all the contents were trolling I would still think it a bad idea. Reason being that trolling can be subjective, so even a good faith attempt to collect examples of trolling can misfire. Who knows, this may be a case in point, though it doesn't feel like it. Certainly, Lewisskinner's insistence on keeping the page even after the above discussion suggests a disinclination to play nicely with others. Further, the note on the page that "it gives me an idea of if/when I nee to ask for help with a certain user" also suggests that he believes that in a dispute, any problem must be on the other side. (Not to mention the signature, probably WP:SIG compliant, but still distracting.) I practice 1RR so I won't blank the page again, but I encourage any previously uninvolved user or admin to do so. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, ""it gives me an idea of if/when I need to ask for help with a certain user"" means "if the same users keep cropping up, I can assume we have a personal problem with each other, and I may need to request a third opinion in content disputes earlier, rather than allowing it to excalate into an edit war or 3RR situation. Could you suggest better wording for me? Oh, and what's this about a sig? L.J.Skinner 11:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that determining the difference between a bona fide "troll" post and an attempt at feedback can be difficult, but not impossible, see this link to a recently archived incident. Given the difficulty I think editors who attempt to create a page should do so understanding that their own POV could end up causing the page to be deleted. To ban a word because many people can't use it neutrally seems un-Wikipedian. Anynobody 10:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

user:Bear and Dragon and Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin

Admitting to be a sockpuppet of banned User:Daniel575 in Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575 (5th), User:Bear and Dragon has been making edits to this article and its talk page, which has been causing User:Historian2 difficulties. --Shirahadasha 15:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking into it.--Isotope23 16:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Bear and Dragon (talk · contribs) for using this account to block evade. The block is indef right now, but I'd be open to discussion on this. The original account has a ban tag, but as far as I can tell, this individual isn't actually banned, just indef'd and evading. Anyone care to link a ban discussion? If banned then all this editor's additions need to be reverted per WP:DENY. If just indef blocked, then we can discuss what needs to be done here more long term.--Isotope23 16:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't look good, does it. If the user had been editing inoffensively, I'd be more inclined to lenience. I would suggest that this is taken to the Sanctions noticeboard, where Shirahadasha's post above should be looked at, before a decision by consensus is taken. --Dweller 16:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me find out if he is actually banned and then if he is not this can go to WP:CN for some informal input. If he is already banned then it is sort of a moot point!--Isotope23 16:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the tag he was banned by Grandmasterka --Historian2 17:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that Grandmasterka can't "ban" anybody... any more so than I can. A ban is a social construct that is imposed by ARBCOM, by the community at WP:CN, or by the Foundation. It looks to me like the individual behind the accounts is not banned, but most of his accounts are indefinitely blocked. I'm following up with Grandmasterka to see if there was indeed a ban discussion that I'm just missing. Otherwise this is just a mistagged indef block. It's kind of an important distinction because a banned user's edits are subject to immediate reversal per WP:DENY. An indef blocked editor just can't edit with that account.--Isotope23 17:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

See WT:BAN#Deletion of text from WP:BAN#Community ban, and note the deleter's claim that "Any uninvolved intelligent good-faith person can enact a community ban".... -- Ben /_HIST 18:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

... Apparently he wasn't technically banned and I jumped the gun a little soon 5 1/2 months ago. He should be given a very short leash at best however, after making what I consider to be a death threat against a group of people. Grandmasterka 22:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive151#Daniel575_.28talk_.C2.B7_contribs_.C2.B7_logs_.C2.B7_block_user_.C2.B7_block_log.29 -- Y not? 18:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Harassment and stalking

I at one point had a good relationship with User:TxMCJ (under her previous username Mandaclair). However, our relationship has deteriorated and she is now engaging in uncivil and disruptive behavior toward me.

Hi -- that's me. This mediation could be helpful, but I'll say upfront that I'm not wiki-savvy enough to provide all the imbedded links to support my own case, like Gnixon has below. There's a lot of commentary to be sorted through for sure, and I hope you will read all the interactions from both sides, even if I am not really knowledgeable about how to provide imbedded links to specific exchanges, here on this page. Thanks, TxMCJ 22:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

*First positive interaction: TxMCJ's first edit to Evolution was reverted by another user. I welcomed TxMCJ and encouraged her to stick around. When TxMCJ and the other user got into an argument involving accusations that TxMCJ was "arrogant" and "thin-skinned", I successfully mediated. After TxMCJ and I commiserated about the sometime painful process of editing here, she thanked me for our conversation and invited me to email her. In another early, friendly conversation, she signed her full name, which was how I learned her identity. The conversation among TxMCJ, the other user, and me may be difficult to follow because TxMCJ often erases posts on her user talk page, including warnings.

This is all true except for the final accusation. The only time I have ever erased posts on my user talk page was during my first 2 or 3 days as an editor on Evolution, and it was only done as housecleaning and not an attempt to hide anything. I was advised that it's preferable to archive instead of erase, and I have not erased any user talk since then. I will also note that under the Misplaced Pages "rules" as I understand them, it is not unethical or disallowed to erase one's own talk page, although -- as I have stated -- I do not make regular or "often" practice about this, as accused. TxMCJ 22:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

She's correct. She last blanked the page on 3/30, three days after she began editing (excepting a handful of edits months ago). Gnixon 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

*Next positive interaction: Since TxMCJ described herself as a professional biologist teaching at a university, I made a substantial effort to encourage her to contribute to Evolution. She made a number of helpful suggestions and edits, but spent about an equal amount of space complaining about how anyone, even non-experts, could edit at Misplaced Pages.

I improved the article significantly during this time, based on my professional background, as any other editor there would likely attest. Also, I will note that voicing a complaint about the Misplaced Pages process is not unethical nor inappropriate content, and I will also note that some very common complaints of Misplaced Pages include "TOO open access" and anti-elitism -- both of which I view as counterproductive to producing quality scientific articles, especially about something as volatile as Evolution. It is not inappropriate to voice complaints or concerns about those topics if they are relevant to obstacles encountered while editing. TxMCJ 22:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

*Strife: After being away for awhile, TxMCJ returned to Talk:Evolution and expressed shock at aruments on Talk:Evolution related to disagreements I had with another user. We engaged in what began as a friendly conversation about editing at Misplaced Pages, but it quickly degenerated after I left a comment at her user talk page. I assumed there was enough good faith and friendliness between us that she wouldn't take offense when I wrote I'm not sure what your specific complaint is. Surely non-experts can contribute to articles in some ways and experts don't need to have their holy authority worshipped at every turn? I was wrong. She also took issue with the fact that I had come across some of her personal interests when Googling to find out about her research, and would not believe me when I insisted I had only mentioned them to be friendly. Conversations at Talk:Evolution#More comments from TxMCJ, her talk page, and mine quickly deteriorated.

I will be the first to agree that I was highly offended -- not as an individual, but as an intellectual -- at hearing any editor on a science article voice the opinion that "experts don't need to have their holy authority worshipped". I did not take this as a personal insult, I viewed it as an astoundingly counterproductive attitude coming from someone who actively edits (and arguably monopolizes) a very high-profile science article on Misplaced Pages. Furthermore, Gnixon did not merely Google and post my personal interests without asking, he also apparently tried to Google my professional background, and publicly posted an inaccurate "expose" on my years of experience (also without asking) in a failed attempt to discredit me to other editors. In my opinion, THAT is true stalking -- not me investigating his prior edits on other science articles.TxMCJ 22:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Since TxMCJ had repeatedly made reference to her professional experience in order to support her opinions, and since she had made no secret of her identity at that point, it seemed entirely appropriate to review her experience, which in my mind she had inflated. Happy to discuss the details. My first post about her experience was based on memory, and referred to her "one or two years" as a postdoc. She corrected me, pointing out she has been a postdoc for 5 years. I thanked her for clarifying. Regarding personal details, I learned about them while researching her stated credentials since she advertises several unusual personal interests on her (professional) university webpage. I had no idea she was sensitive about interests she advertises so openly (in fact having even alluded to them in an edit of hers many months ago), I used them only in good humor and friendliness when we were still on good terms, and I have not mentioned anything personal since then despite my temptation to raise issues of personality. Again---TxMCJ provided me with her full name, invited me to email her, and has made constant reference to her professional experience---that's why I committed the sin of typing her name into Google. Gnixon 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Gnixon specifically posted an inaccurate count of "a few years in grad school and a 1 or 2 as a postdoc" as a specific attempt to discredit my experience. That this was a (failed and inaccurate) attempt to discredit should be clear upon examination of the context in which he posted this comment (not that it matters, but I was 6 years in grad school and have been a postdoc for 5. When I corrected him, he countered by telling me to "come back when I'm a tenured professor". Thus when he found his discrediting attempt failed, he attempted to raise the stakes by implying that only tenured professors in their fields should be regarded as experts. All of this just seems a bit unreasonable (and hilarious) to me...TxMCJ 23:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

*Aftermath: Since then we've had a number of arguments at Talk:Evolution about who should contribute there, the value of our respective contributions, and the value of the credentials TxMCJ uses to justify her special ability to edit Evolution. This has been an unfortunate but mutual argument in which I've admittedly participated too much.

None of the abovementioned interactions constitute abuse, stalking, unidirectional personal attacks, or misuse. They were all arguments of principle, all related solely to my interest as a professional and educator to see a quality article at the Evolution page. TxMCJ 22:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

:::The principle she was arguing here was that I had made "stupid" comments, that I was incapable of disagreeing with her on editorial issues, and that it was appropriate to address me as "my dear" and (!) "sweetcheeks." In any case, although tempers flared on both sides at this point, her behavior detailed below is simply unacceptable. Gnixon 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't help smiling at this complaint... I will honor the request not to "address in diminutives" in the future on the article talk page, but I sort of feel that all bets are off on user talk pages, particularly in cases like this... please correct me if I'm wrong about that. TxMCJ 23:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Unacceptable behavior: Since then, she has harassed me on Talk:Evolution, responding negatively to virtually every single post I've made, regardless of whether she agrees with me or not, and nitpicking details to attempt to discredit me (see Talk:Evolution#Discussion of structure 2 under "Genome projects." More importantly, she has teamed up with the other editor who was previously warned following a |WP:ANI post by me, with the intent of labeling me some sort of undercover creationist in order to discredit me among other editors of Evolution. She has implied I am a creationist, baited me, repeatedly, to prove that I am not, and posted the accusation on Talk:Evolution#My Apologies In Advance, where she hopes to discredit me. (Edit: Previous valid complaints in this heading have been resolved or made moot. The following has not. Gnixon 14:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)) Moreover, she has tracked me to unrelated debates where she clearly has no interest of her own, and has attempted to discredit me among others there. Please in particular review that last example carefully. Finally, she in every way refuses to maintain a WP:CIVIL tone with me, and in particular has addressed me with diminutives even after I asked her to stop.

Although I am not technically savvy enough to provide the imbedded links, even a cursory examination of the above interactions will show that Gnixon has participated equally and fueled the fire through his own unwillingness to "back down". I am sorry if Gnixon is offended at what he views as attempts to "discredit him", but every counteropinion I have voiced to his (highly limited) contributions on the scientific content, have been solely scientific counteropinions, as a close examination will show. Close examination will also show that a number of "uncivil" statements and personal attacks have come from the other direction as well. Also, please DO look at the exchange we had under "Genome projects". I am bewildered that Gnixon would have any objection to my contributions or tone during that conversation. He was simply wrong about the subject, and I explained why, in civil and specific terms. That is not "discrediting", by any definition. He suggested a bad example to use in the article, I countered about why (scientifically) it was an incorrect example. End of story. How is that "discrediting"? Gnixon's mere *attitude* that is threatened by expert knowledge and that views such intellectually valid exchanges as "discrediting" him is, I believe, a central problem in this whole issue. TxMCJ 22:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Close examination will certainly show that her arguments have not been scientific and impersonal. Please do look at the tone TxMCJ adopted in that discussion and consider whether it was civil. Gnixon 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do look at the "Genome projects" discussion. Perfect example. While Gnixon loads his rhetoric with comments such as "Sweet Baby Jesus" and "I set off your 'don't let this jerk have a say ' button", every single one of my comments in that discussion was scientific, civil, reasonable, and factually correct. Gnixon is the only one in that exchange being combatitive and defensive. I agree wholeheartedly that this type of discussion is a good example of (one of the many aspects of) the problem. That aspect being: Gnixon has a very hard time accepting when he is factually and conceptually wrong about something he is not an expert in, and even goes the extra mile of accusing people of "discrediting" him when they are only explaining in perfectly sound, sensible, and civil language why he is wrong. TxMCJ 23:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The opinion (shared by longtime Evolution editor Orangemarlin) that Gnixon operates under a POV-tainted agenda, is in my view a very sound one, based on what Orangemarlin and I both view as a very biased strategy on Gnixon's part of archiving/refactoring the discussion page in a way that is most consistent with his POV (i.e., emphasizes objections to evolution and archives scientific information). Perhaps as bad is the fact that despite his lack of sound understanding on the subject, Gnixon seems to insist on spearheading the editing of the Evolution article ("subtle ownership" as Orangemarlin put it, as I will agree). All together: monopolizing the article talk page, contributing inaccurate content, demonstrating clear lack of understanding of core concepts in Evolution, along with what seems to be a fairly apparent agenda (subject to opinion, of course, but Gnixon is also very active in the Intelligent Design article) -- these things together all contribute to what I view as an extremely counterproductive and maddening editing environment over at Evolution. Not that any of *THAT* constitutes abuse or violation of Misplaced Pages policy, but I feel that it is important that any administrator or mediator recognize what the real issues here are. Gnixon has been accused by Orangemarlin, and I will concur, of "owning the article" and "POV-pushing", and I will add to that, that his understanding of Evolutionary science is abysmally poor. Doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to participate, but THOSE are the issues that have fueled the frustration, debate, and dispute at the Evolution article. And I would argue that the situation is SO counterproductive to the Misplaced Pages process (and to any intelligent mind) that it was worthy of posting my objections (initially voiced by Orangemarlin) to the article talk board. I agree that it is ugly and unfortunate, but for the sake of fair process and progress, I felt it was necessary. Again, although I do not know how to provide the imbedded link, I encourage you to read over recent interactions between Gnixon and Orangemarlin as well, particularly on Orangemarlin's talk page.

It is telling that she would bring up User:Orangemarlin, who was warned by administrators from this page to stop his rude speculation and commentary about my supposed personal beliefs, which speculation I reluctantly indicated was wrong. Labeling me a secret creationist on an article talk page where creationists are widely reviled is akin to insisting in a 7th grade locker room that a boy is a secret homosexual---I found it highly offensive when Orangemarlin did it to me, and I now find it highly offensive that TxMCJ has joined him. It is impossible that a review of my edits to Evolution would suggest I'm "subtly owning" the article. My edits to the talk page have consisted largely of archiving old conversations on that high-volume page as well as attempting to limit recurrent flamewars with creationists that distract from editing the article. I've been complimented for both of those efforts. Gnixon 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Although it will be time-consuming (since I've corrected the situation), it is pretty apparent that Gnixon has in the past made a habit of swiftly archiving/refactoring the scientific content of article talk, while leaving wide-open (for all to view) any user POV comments that express doubt or attacks against Evolution. Orangemarlin observed this as well, and while I am not necessarily demanding Gnixon admit it's intentional, the pattern is a real one and in the sake of neutrality it must be stopped. I have begun addressing this a bit on my own (see edits to article talk involving archiving/refactoring changes I made, and why I made them.) TxMCJ 23:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

And although I can (and will not) speak for other editors, I would like to note a comment made very recently by another editor, Silence, directed specifically toward Gnixon (on the Evolution talk page). That comment reads: "The thing I understand least about this entire exchange is how you can so consistently and unwaveringly misrepresent what everyone else wants." Only that editor (Silence) can elaborate or justify that statement, but I will concur that this is precisely the sentiment that has driven Orangemarlin away from the Evolution page, and is behind most of the conflict with Gnixon that I've been involved with. TxMCJ 22:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

She refers to a simple misunderstanding that was resolved amicably. Gnixon 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact that there is a pattern in Gnixon's behavior and frustration of others. TxMCJ 23:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Finally, the accusation of "stalking" is thoroughly absurd and hypocritical, as on several occasions Gnixon has taken it upon himself to investigate who I am and what I do (I am not an anonymous user), and he has on multiple occasions posted personal information about me, both correct and incorrect, in attempts to discredit my experience and expertise. Because these attempts have failed and I view them as basically silly, I have not complained about "stalking", but if either of us is guilty of "stalking" it is Gnixon who began such actions long before I ever did. All I ever did was investigate other articles he has edited to see if he is as much of a menace (in my opinion) on other pages as he is at Evolution. I cannot comprehend how that constitutes stalking more than his previous investigation of my non-anonymous identity, and his unsolicited broadcasting of his findings to Misplaced Pages and the world. TxMCJ 22:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've addressed the issue of TxMCJ's professional and personal information above, and frankly, given how often she boasts of her professional experience, I'm proud to have gotten out the facts about her slow career progress. Another user has commented below about the inappropriateness of her stalking me to other, unrelated articles and attempting to discredit me there. Gnixon 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If this isn't a personal attack, I don't know what is. Firstly, I have never "boasted" of my experience as much as I've sadly found that I am desperately required to cite it in order to defend myself whenever less-knowledgeable and less-experienced editors insist on debating endlessly about issues that are elementary, trivial, rhetorical, or off-topic -- or when editors are simply wrong about a topic, yet continue to waste time and space debating about it. Second, I cannot fathom how anyone could possibly view my career progress to be "slow" (Harvard Ph.D., Co-PI on an NSF research grant I authored, invited NSF speaker on seminars and colloquia on education in Evolution, several years experience teaching Evolution at top universities... this is not BOASTING, it is a counterargument to an absurd opinion that is clearly based on Gnixon's feeling of being threatened). Third, it is completely inappropriate that even if a person had that opinion of my "slow career progress", what the purpose of publicly posting that opinion could possibly be other than to gain leverage and discredit others. Gnixon consistently refuses to provide his own experience, career specifics, or credentials: thus, this constitutes a personal attack (imagine that! right on the administrators/mediation page!) -- as well as a flawed, failed attempt at discrediting my background. TxMCJ 23:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Although I've repeatedly made efforts to bury the hatchet, she refuses to reciprocate. It's reached the point where her behavior is violating policies on civil interaction and disrupting my ability to contribute here. I request intervention. Thanks, Gnixon 16:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to burying the hatchet on matters of personal differences or civility, but the true root of the problem is that Gnixon has frustrated me and other editors by overbearing/overmanaging/micromanaging and monopolizing the editing of an article on a subject he has demonstrated poor knowledge of, and worse, seems to be motivated to edit, confuse, and complicate the process via what Orangemarlin and I view to be a creationist POV-driven agenda. Thank you for your time and understanding, and I am willing to participate in any sort of mediation process if (and only if) it results in a healthier and more neutral editing environment over at Evolution. TxMCJ 22:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, the edit histories will show no record of me "monopolizing the editing" of Evolution, nor will they show any more than the usual frustrations of editing here, with the notable exceptions of Orangemarlin and TxMCJ. As I've stated before, the baseless and maliciously-motivated labeling of me as a creationist with a hidden agenda is both highly offensive and entirely inappropriate, and I urge the administrators to warn this user to stop these attacks and stalkings, or to block her if necessary. Gnixon 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocking is certainly not justified -- and if "stalking" is the offense, I'd have to maintain that Gnixon's stalking (Googling my personal info and posting the results on more than one occasion) has been far worse and more invasive than my own (in which I merely researched his prior edits). TxMCJ 23:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of what TxMCJ has written is at best a misrepresentation of the facts, but uninvolved parties will have to judge for themselves. I'll make no further responses here to TxMCJ or Orangemarlin. Gnixon 23:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The above is a perfect example of Gnixon's approach, demeanor, and I daresay strategy on the Evolution page as well. He presents points, erects arguments, and gives complaints, taking up an enormous amount of space and time with them. Others respond to these points, arguments, and complaints. When he finally finds he is at a loss for words, he dismisses the entire situation while still clinging tightly to his dissatisfaction with it, thus providing no chance at resolution or consensus. This is neither a rational nor a productive approach to editing. TxMCJ 23:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Outside comment by User:Christopher Thomas

As I noted in a dispute between these two users at User Talk:Enormousdude, TxMCJ (talk • contribs) appears to be a single-purpose account dedicated to editing Evolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), active since 27 March 2007 only (barring the first 7 edits out of 417 as of 16 April 2007). This user seems to have followed Gnixon (talk • contribs)'s editing of other topics (Special relativity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) enough to be making posts disparaging Gnixon's edits to this article . These comments do not appear to reflect anything resembling the actual situation, at least in regards to SR WPP thread; scroll down for other editors' views. The small fraction of the interaction between these users that I have been exposed to is consistent with malicious wikistalking on the part of TxMCJ. --Christopher Thomas 20:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: In the interests of expediting any useful purpose this incident report may serve, I invite all of the participants to consider the following:

• AN/I is for reporting incidents that require administrator attention. In your own sections, please state briefly what you want any administrators reading this to do, and why. They'll either do so, or not, and give you some indication as to why.
• For discussion and comment, rather than reporting, please consider either hashing things out on your own talk pages, or pursuing the steps of WP:DR. The most appropriate stage of DR at this stage would seem to be either a user-conduct RFC or mediation.
• AN/I is not a court. The closest thing Misplaced Pages has to that is WP:RFArb, which is the very last step of dispute resolution. If you feel that further discussion to solve any disputes amicably is not possible, start the WP:DR process, from the beginning, to show due diligence.

--Christopher Thomas 23:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Outside comment by User:Orangemarlin

I am going to comment in opposition to User:Gnixon’s complaint.

• Pattern of activity: As another editor attacked with an ANI by Gnixon ANI Complaint, I feel compelled to defend someone else, because I failed to defend myself. This user accused me of stalking User talk:Gnixon#Some thoughts, even though he eventually apologized for the accusation. It appears that he thinks that only he can watch all of the Evolution/Creation articles and not others. These accusations of stalking are just not appropriate.

My accusation of stalking by Orangemarlin was based on a misunderstanding, and I rightly apologized. (There were much more offensive behaviors by him.) The user above has commented on TxMCJ's stalking, which is certainly not a misunderstanding. Gnixon 23:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Single purpose account: I don’t know why it matters that User:TxMCJ should be criticized for being a single-purpose account dedicated to editing Evolution. This editor has a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology, and, as we know, that doesn’t really matter on Misplaced Pages because we should ignore credentials, but as a scientist (and I won’t ignore my own credentials), she appears to be one. She is an expert on Evolution, and has contributed significantly to the article. In fact, Gnixon’s first point about the revert of the very first edit TxMCJ did on Evolution was totally unfair, because it was her first time, and we all have an opinion that for controversial articles like Evolution, one should discuss major edits. It was a newcomer mistake only.

I'm not sure what unfair point I made about that edit, since I supported it at great length. Gnixon 23:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Perceived slights: This is a perfect example where Gnixon gets upset over any edit of his WP:OWN writing, and makes accusations. User:FeloniousMonk, an administrator and someone who has been editing these articles for years, gets hit with an accusation. Another unfounded complaint

For the record, the user he refers to immediately reverted an edit of mine on a physical science article which was totally unrelated to another article where we were having a disagreement at the exact same time. My edit to the physical science article was made in good faith on expert knowledge, and was perhaps the 20th of similar edits I had made to the article within a couple weeks. He reverted it with no comment explaining what was wrong with it, and that revert constituted his first edit to the article within the last many months or couple years. I accused him of following me from the other article, he denied it, and I apologized. Gnixon 23:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

My point is that this user continues to be uncivil and complains about anyone editing ‘’his’’ articles. Can TxMCJ be a little nicer with Gnixon. Maybe, but from my own experience, Gnixon is difficult as an editor, and someone with whom simple conversations are manipulated to the point where it is difficult to have a civil discourse. If anything, what should be done with this ANI is a small recommendation to TxMCJ to calm down, but a stern warning to Gnixon that he cannot continue his behavior of making accusations against everyone who may not agree with his article. Orangemarlin 22:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have never once expressed any claim whatsoever of ownership of an article. Orangemarlin is obviously not a neutral party in this dispute, as a brief review of his talk page will show. Gnixon 23:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"Expressing" claim of ownership is not required in order to behave and operate as if you think you own the article. You've got two editors now with biological backgrounds who feel that you behave and edit as if you "own the article", while it doesn't seem that any other editor over at Evolution has been accused of such. TxMCJ 23:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested action

• Warn TxMCJ that wikistalking, as in the diff provided above, is absolutely unacceptable, and block her if it continues. Gnixon 01:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Consider the circumstances of the "secret creationist" accusations and consider them to constitute a personal attack and a form of harassment. Warn her, and block her if necessary. Gnixon 01:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Christopher, for good advice, and I apologize for misuse of this page. Gnixon 01:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no evidence of either harassment or wikistalking here, and the suggested actions seem way out of porportion for the situation. FeloniousMonk 05:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

FM is not a neutral party here. Gnixon 14:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested action -- Response

Please note that I did not bring this issue to this page -- however, in response to the above:

• I request administrative acknowledgement that researching an anonymous editor's prior editing history on other articles and posting valid concerns about them (valid concerns being good faith and neutrality, no POV-pushing), is not wikistalking. This will vindicate both me and Orangemarlin, who has also been accused by Gnixon as "stalking" him.... WHEREAS, Googling a non-anonymous user's personal information and posting the results publicly without permission, in clear attempts to discredit that editor (as Gnixon has done to me on several occasions now -- amazingly, including on this particular page and administrative request) is *undeniably* stalking. I request no action on this, other than agreement with these principles, and a warning if deemed necessary. TxMCJ 05:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Before passing judgement on the appropriateness or non-appropriateness of "secret creationist accusations", I request that you make an effort to fully comprehend the arguments Orangemarlin and myself have made regarding the POV-pushing that to us seems evident in Gnixon's archiving and page refactoring choices, as well as a fair acknowledgement that this is a reasonable (although possibly wrong) hypothesis, given Gnixon's involvement on other articles such as Intelligent Design. I request that you think carefully about accusing me of "personal attacks and harassment" while Gnixon has clearly been responsible for at least as much, if not more (given his actual-stalking, rather than wiki-stalking). I request no action on this, other than agreement with these principles, and a warning if deemed necessary. TxMCJ 05:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Finally, I request no blocking of anyone (please note: I am not the one requesting a block or administrative action here! Gnixon is!) However, I might suggest 1.) a stern warning to Gnixon that *his* stalking (as described above) is truly unacceptable while my own actions do not constitute stalking; 2.) that his reputation as a difficult, POV-pushing editor is growing fast and becoming apparent on a number of different articles (apparently even including the Intelligent Design article now); and 3.) without actually accusing Gnixon of creationist agendas, provide via this page and anywhere else appropriate, a public, *general warning* that if *anyone* (including Gnixon, or not) has any creationist POV leanings, that being heavily involved with the Evolution article (a science article) while simultaneously making the editing work of professional scientists difficult, constitutes *vandalism* and a lack of *good faith*. I request no action on this, other than agreement with these principles, and a warning if deemed necessary. Thanks for your help, and I'm sorry that Gnixon dragged you into this. TxMCJ 05:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no evidence of either harassment or wikistalking here. What I do see is one user, Gnixon, who's been an aggressive and overly assertive editor on a number of topics and all too quick to accuse others and be incivil himself, making allegations that appear to be exaggerated against an editor he appears to be in a simple content dispute with. If Gnixon is genuinely so unaware that he considers the behavior he's described to be harassment and wikistalking, then my advice to him is to become more familiar with the terms and grow a thicker skin (being unwilling to get as good as he gives). But if he thinks he can use this venue find clueless admins to waylay opponents in simple content disputes, then he may find himself hoisted by his own petard and the community's goodwill rapidly diminishing for any future claims he may bring here. FeloniousMonk 05:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. Apologies for the hassle. TxMCJ 07:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned above, FM is hardly a neutral party here. Gnixon 14:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And as I have noted, your spectacular refusal to EVER accept or consider any opinion that is not *exactly* what you want to hear and what you personally believe, is precisely what this whole business is all about. TxMCJ 18:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Update

I've removed mention by me of issues that have been made moot or are inappropriate for this forum. The issue of stalking remains unresolved and I would appreciate action from a neutral administrator. Gnixon 14:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

As would I, although it's not clear why Gnixon is rejecting the opinion of FeloniousMonk. But if any other administrator gets involved, please review the record above for Gnixon's precedence in user stalking that far exceeds my simple review of his edits elsewhere. TxMCJ 18:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking

Editing similar articles should not be considered wikistalking. It is also natural that an editor who finds significant POV from one editor would look at other articles edited by that editor. In fact we should be encouraging people to track down POV edits, if not, why do we have a 'user contributions' option in the tool bar?

Accusations of wikistalking should only be considered when the 'stalker' is not commenting on the other users edits, rather is harrassing the other user. Critical comments on content is not harrassment. In short I do not see any evidence that Gnixon is being stalked outside normal editing.

As an aside, why is it inappropriate for someone trained in evolutionary biology to ONLY be editing articles in that field? David D. (Talk) 15:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi David, thanks for your comment. However, could you review this, this, and this? Those discussions about Special Relativity were in no way related to TxMCJ's and my disagreements related to Evolution. Of course I have no problem if she as a biologist only edits there, but I object strongly to her following me to unrelated pages and attempting to discredit me there. Thanks again, Gnixon 17:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Hi David... Gnixon simply refuses to drop this issue. If you really want to delve into the history of this mess, it will take you some time to comb through the exchanges (and I don't know how to imbed immediate links like Gnixon has above)... but I think you will discover, quite clearly, that unlike Gnixon's failed attempts to specifically discredit *me* by publicly touting inaccurate estimates of my academic experience within clear contexts of trying to maintain some sort of power and control over the article (a thing I've never done) , I have not tried to "discredit" Gnixon -- I have merely tried to justify my own presence at Evolution to Gnixon, based on my background, and have tried to shed light on Gnixon's attitude and a pattern of counterproductive editing behavior that he has brought to other articles, as agreed by myself, Orangemarlin, and FeloniousMonk (all of which in Gnixon's argument are not reliable sources on this subject, because we are "impartial" and not "neutral"... I strongly urge you to consider the... ahem... possibility that Gnixon simply *rejects* any opinion that is not in line with his own, and that this maddening behavior within an editing environment is *precisely* what this whole business is about. TxMCJ 18:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I admit i did miss those edits. I don't think it is good etiquette to disparage an editor rather than their edits. I think you'd agree, TxMCJ, that is not going to win you friends. On the other hand, Gnixon, to deleve into a users personal history is even worse. I'm not going to look into the history of this interaction to see how this was all initiated because it seems you should both be able to take and step back and rationally see that both parties have been wronged. In reality, the best way forward from now is for you both to avoid each other as much as possible and keep your relationship strictly professional i.e. just comment on the edits and not each other. Do that and i think you'll both be a lot happier. David D. (Talk) 18:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Lovely -- great feedback -- and thanks, TxMCJ 19:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

TxMCJ has repeatedly demonstrated her refusal to interact with me professionally, despite numerous attempts by me to reconciliate. However, since her edits seem confined to Evolution, I'm willing to let her chase me away from helping at that page in the interest of avoiding her altogether. David, it's completely understandable that you wouldn't attempt to examine the full history, and in that light your comments are totally reasonable. In any case, your advice is irreproachable. Thanks. Hopefully this entire ridiculousness is over. Gnixon 19:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk's and David's comments and advice are reasonable, period. Don't try to downplay the dismissal of your accusations by implying that the administrators did not do their research. I'd be offended by that, if I were one of them. Accept the comments and advice as given, and move on, please. TxMCJ 20:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record I'm not offended but i would be if either of you post here again.  :) For both of you, your time is more valuable if it is spent enjoying some productive editing. David D. (Talk) 20:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock discussion - User:Spammyou

Hi guys! Just wanted to check in regarding an unblock I did. Spammyou (talk · contribs) was brought to WP:RFCN for a discussion about whether or not the name violated WP:U#Trouble. The discussion was in progress when HighInBC (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked the user. I felt that the RFCN discussion was still quite active at the time of the block and discussed it with him, asking that the user be unblocked pending the results of the discussion. He asserted that he had used his own judgment (which is absolutely A-OK, btw, that's what we're supposed to do) for the block and deferred unblocking the user. I let him know that I planned the unblock the user for now so we could finish the RFCN conversation, and he asked that I mention it here. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

First off, you said it was a valid block. Secondly, I asked you to bring this up here before unblocking. Rather than wheel war with you, I am just going to let it play out here. A lack of consensus at RFCN does not make a name "unblockable". RFCN is a request for comments, it is not the end of decision making. I ask you to reinstate the block, as you have already agreed it was a valid block. _InBC 17:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I am a little confused as to why you would revert my administrative act and then go get community input? _InBC 17:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked the user on my own judgment after speaking with you, then posted to AN/I as you requested. I'm not certain where wheeling comes in, is there something else? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, a clarification, I'm not judging your block as 'invalid' or 'abusive' or anything else pejorative, I'd just like the RFCN conversation to last a bit longer as it had just gotten started. The user can always be reblocked, I'm thinking a little WP:AGF is in order in the meantime, especially considering that the user's edits have been pretty good. This is all fodder for a healthy RFCN discussion. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

RFCN does not do block reviews, that decision has been made on the talk page and has been enforced for a few weeks now. _InBC 18:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Traditionally one would seek some sort of agreement with the blocking admin before unblocking or go to a wider audience. I did not mean to imply that you were wheel warring, more that if I reverted you that I would be wheel warring. This puts me in a rather bothersome position, as you said the block was not invalid, but reverted it anyways, so really only you can revert yourself without a big long consensus here. _InBC 17:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that I would have expected the discussions here to occur prior to any unblock. As to the username, definitely borderline. HighInBC exercised his judgment. His block isn't insane and is grounded in policy so I don't see why it shouldn't stand. WjBscribe 18:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I would personally have preferred HighInBC to have waited a little before blocking given there was an ongoing discussion at WP:RFCN but he was perfectly entitled to block as and when he did using his judgement of the policy involved. Will (aka Wimt) 18:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Traditionally one might even seek to persuade a non-vandalistic editor to change his name voluntarily before imposing a block. Notice that the user has not in fact edited anything since 20:37, 15 April 2007, seven minutes before the first suggestion that there might be a problem with that username. The current instructions on WP:RFCN say, "Do not list a user here unless they have refused to change their username." The user hasn't refused, agreed, or said "boo" as far as I know. The user may not yet have seen the request; or the user may even now be editing under another name, in compliance to what he thought was required of him; I don't know, do you? -- Ben /_HIST 18:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The user can still change their name, the template kindly explains how. I agree though, that for RFCN there is a consensus that people should be notified before a discussion starts. However, I did not block under a consensus at RFCN, but under my own judgment. _InBC 19:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. I must confess that I had not realised that the user hadn't been asked to change their username before the debate was instigated at RFCN. Nevertheless, as HighInBC states, he is still entitled to block the user using his own judgement of policy. Will (aka Wimt) 19:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: the user had been asked to change their username, about 11 hours before the debate was instigated at RFCN. However, the user has made no edits since shortly before that request, so we don't know whether the user saw that request. -- Ben /_HIST 19:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, a confusing situation. I think the unblock was not the best idea here, and the name should probably just be reblocked. First of all, the argument as to why WP:U is being violated is pretty clear, and I do think "spammyou" implies an intent to cause trouble. HighinBC made the call, and it wasn't way off base or anything, although I can understand that not everyone would have responded the same way. However, once the block was laid, I think things become different. If the user were requesting unblocking, that would be one thing, but the user has not done so. To me, now, not only is the question of whether the user should be blocked still up in the air, but it also looks like Misplaced Pages admins can't enforce their own decisions, which is sort of bad. Once a user is blocked, whether they become unblocked is a decision that should really involve that user unless the block was a mistake or clearly inappropriate. And the second factor here was the RFCN discussion, which was frankly pretty irrelevant all along because block decisions aren't up to a community consensus (except for community bans, I suppose). Mangojuice 20:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

One thing I'm a bit concerned about in the above is that it seems to suggest that our blocks are sacrosanct and set in stone, and some of HighInBC's comments in the discussion on his talk page about this have given me the same impression while also suggesting that a disagreement with him is the same as an attack on his character. When we put 'be a united front of admins' ahead of doing the right thing and exercising our judgment in a way that hopefully demonstrates the ideals of the project, then we're in trouble. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

They are not set in stone, but you should get some sort of consensus or the agreement of the blocking admin before unblocking. And once again, I must point out you said it was not an invalid block, so what are you fishing for? _InBC 21:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Fishing? I'm not sure I understand. You made a judgment call to block, and I consulted with you before making a judgment call to unblock. As you mentioned, group consensus is not required for blocking, why would it be required for unblocking? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Because a) you are reverting an admin action, which needs some sort of justification, and b) you have said yourself the block is not invalid! So why are you unblocking? For kicks? _InBC 01:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree the name should be re-blocked. I don't want to do it myself, to avoid appearance of wheel warring. _InBC 20:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to just let this go, the username is against policy and should be blocked, but it is not the end of the world if it is not. I do wish you had some sort of reason why the block was invalid before you unblocked, and I certainly wished you got consensus first, but it appears you are not progressing in this conversation and I am confused at your goals and a little sick of the whole issue. So, just try to do things differently next time. _InBC 13:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If by "progressing in this conversation" you mean validating your use of inflammatory language like "For kicks?" and "what are you fishing for?", then I absolutely will not "progress". Please keep some perspective on this, as admins we're held to a high standard of civility, and this isn't an attack on you. We've both been entrusted to do janitorial work to help keep the project running smoothly. You felt a username was bad and blocked it (even though a discussion was in progress about it), I consulted with you about it, then unblocked the user because it appeared you were OK with it (only asking that I create a thread here too so we could get external review) because the assumption of good faith suggests that a good user (who has made good edits and hasn't responded yet to a request that he/she change their name) need not be 'punished' with a block while the issue is still alive. Your reaction to this has been pretty aggressive. Some of your comments here and in other threads related to this conversation seem to suggest that you're arguing that administrator actions are immune to review or disagreement. We're not a Star Chamber or Cabal, we're janitors with mops. If Janitor B thinks that Janitor A threw out a work rag too early, Janitor B can grab it out of the dumpster if he wants without Janitor A tearing into him for having the audacity to disagree. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Chairboy and I have gotten past our communication problems and settled this matter. Much of this seems based off of a misunderstanding. _InBC 15:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, when reading a response from HIBC, I saw what I expected to see instead of what he actually wrote, and it just spiraled from there. I think we've worked out the crazy missteps that followed, and neither of us is the evil monster the other person may have thought at one point. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Question about personal attacks

Can this be considered a personal attack?

This was made by my former AMA Advocate (he was my AMA Advocate from January 21, 2007 to January 23, 2007) regarding me:

"My own feelings are that she uses advocates much as she used her sockpuppets in order to gather support for herself. I feel she is manipulative and exploitive and is quite volatile and hurtful. I am personally hurt that she has been leaving negative comments about me on Misplaced Pages when I tried to assist her in a patient and supportive manner. I bitterly regret that I tried to help. She appears to be rather self-obsessed and detached from an awareness of how her behaviour and words can be hurtful to others. She is possibly in need of professional counseling."

I wish that someone would evaluate for me whether this sort of statement is a personal attack or merely a "blunt" statement. Help would be appreciated on understanding the difference. I know this is an unusual request but I would like to understand. (In the interest of full disclosure, there were sockpuppets on my computer for a short time last summer/fall. The sockpuppets were stopped. I was punished. There have been no sockpuppets since.) Sincerely, Mattisse 17:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It could be considered a personal attack. Regardless, IMO without a consistent check of what actually led to that statement, it's not punishable. --Sn0wflake 18:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you clarify what "a consistent check of what actually let to that statement" means.? Like diffs and emails? Or general description of situation? Sincerely, Mattisse 18:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is one diff from the former AMA Advocate's archive on me. Replier User:999 was banned indefinitely shortly after. Replier Neigel von Teighen is another AMA Advocate Sincerely, Mattisse 18:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

- diff from my archive - about half way down under and signed by User:SilkTork - this is only posting I received from him. Sincerely, Mattisse 18:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That link is wrong, maybe you meant this one? Thatcher131 19:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindent to interject) Thatcher, could you tell me how you got that diff as I could not figure out how to do any better than I did. Sincerely, Mattisse 19:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Matisse, that comment is part of a discussion in which other AMA members express frustration with you. As far as I'm concerned, the last sentence should not have been said and the second-to-last could have been phrased less personally. However, unless this is part of a pattern by the editor in question of making questionable personal remarks against other editors, the only remedy would be to politely ask him/her to avoid making such remarks in the future. Meanwhile, some introspection on your part as to why several AMA members seem to be frustrated with you might be in order. Thatcher131 18:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131, starting with my first AMA application and to each AMA Advocate subsequently I have repeatedly asked for feedback on my personal behavior and how I could improve it but have received none on my talk pages or via email. I have an advocate now and have asked him also. My first Advocate was probably frustrated but did not say so, dropped out because of computer proplems he said, and complimented me later on my behavior in an Arbitration and events surrounding it. My third AMA Advocate "took over my case" and put it under investigation. Then told me not to contact him. Two months later, after he made "blunt" remarks about me because I posted some general criticisms of AMA on the MFD page he accused me of harassing him and other negative behavior. But he never emailed me feedback or posted feedback on my page. Do you have some suggestions how I could better go about this? As I said, I have an AMA Advocate now and have asked him for feedback also, as I did the others. Perhaps this time I will get some. But I have been asking since November and have gotten somewhat frustrated over this, so I apologise for that truly. Sincerely, Mattisse 19:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this a personal attack? How do I respond to an AMA Advocate who says this to me publically, provides no proof of lies etc.? Please inform me how to handle this? He did not give me this feedback when he was my AMA Advocate.

"Not quite sure what point you are trying to make, or even if your comment is in reference to my comment or Steve Caruso's, however I have said the above simply as a matter of record of my feelings about working with Mattisse. In case it is not clear to anyone reading this, let me explain that I don't like her. I don't like her dishonesty. I don't like the way that she lies about what happened. I don't like the way that she complained about me here while at the same time sending me messages pleading with me to help her. I withdrew from the case because I felt I couldn't trust her. I withdrew because I felt she was unstable. I withdrew because I found her tiresome. I was, however, polite with her, and I communicated with her, and I explained what I was doing. She claims that my emails went missing, so I sent her more message to another email address which also went missing. Apparently somebody gained access to her email account and diverted my messages or deleted them or some other strange happening. Anyway - I withdrew politely. She told lies about what happened. And continues to do so. I am here simply giving my side of events. I am here giving an account of how annoyed and hurt I am. Exactly what part of my experience do you feel I should withhold from any other advocate considering getting involved? Bear in mind I am only writing here because Mattissee feels it is OK for her to complain openly that I behaved badly. I have asked her to amend her statements, to apologise to me, and to refrain from spreading any more lies about me. She hasn't done so yet. And I suspect she won't, because in my opinion she enjoys the attention. SilkTork 22:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)"

• How do I answer a personal attack like this when I do not know what he is talking about, what lies I have told, etc. as he provides no diffs. "I withdrew because I felt she was unstable. I withdrew because I found her tiresome." What lies did I tell? Ask User:WeniWidiWiki if you wish to know about the email. Please provide me with the lies. I have not gotten feedback about "lies" except from the sock puppets and User:Rosencomet supported by the sock puppets that Blnguyen (bananabucket) shut down. Have you checked Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Ekajati. A Sincerely, Mattisse 22:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Walton

I am Mattisse's current AMA advocate and am in the middle of attempting to resolve this dispute. Although I advised her strongly not to take this to ANI, she has done so (understandably, as she was very hurt by some of SilkTork's comments about her), so I think it's best if I attempt to provide some background to this dispute, without taking sides.

• SilkTork previously served as Mattisse's AMA advocate, working on the dispute relating to Rosencomet and the Starwood Festival. The original dispute has now been settled by an arbitration case.
• At the time of this case (January of this year), Mattisse was having problems with her email (through no fault of her own), and was not receiving the email correspondence sent to her by SilkTork. As a result, she thought that SilkTork was ignoring her, and complained about his lack of attention to the case. Clearly this was neither Mattisse's fault nor SilkTork's, it was just a misunderstanding.
• SilkTork collected evidence from other users involved in the dispute. The archive of evidence collected can be found here. SilkTork was following proper AMA procedure in collecting such evidence; however, because of the problems with Mattisse's email, Mattisse felt that he was ignoring her and listening only to her opponents. Again, neither SilkTork nor Mattisse did anything wrong in that instance.
• SilkTork also withdrew from Mattisse's case. Although he presumably did notify Mattisse that he had withdrawn, she did not receive this notification, probably due to the aforementioned problems with her email.
• Mattisse lodged a complaint on the AMA talk page here about the lack of assistance she'd received from her Advocate. SilkTork's later reply described Mattisse as "dissembling and deceitful". This is the part I don't understand, and I have emailed SilkTork and asked him to retract the statements.
• On the same day, SilkTork posted the negative comments about Mattisse which are the subject of this dispute. They can be found here. They described Mattisse as "manipulative" and "in need of counselling", comments which appear to violate WP:NPA.
• Mattisse found these comments highly upsetting, and announced her intention to go to ANI. I advised her not to, but she did so anyway. Personally I do not think this is the right forum in which to address this issue.
• Yesterday SilkTork posted these comments on Mattisse's request file. Like the earlier comments, these appear to be personal attacks against Mattisse.

My intent here is not to take either Mattisse's side or SilkTork's. I just want to provide a narrative background to this dispute, so that the remarks are in context, and other users understand what this is about. Walton 13:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Update - Mattisse has told me that she will not pursue further action here at ANI. Walton 17:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Requesting WP:POINT and WP:HARASS blocks

Several editors continue to pester me about two weeklong blocks I issued over violation of WP:MEAT. Neither editor posted an unblock request, several uninvolved editors have supported my decision, and both of those blocks have long since expired. I had to block one of these people from gmail chat after he ignored my repeated explanations and referrals to WP:ADOPT. I have treated this matter quite conservatively until now, but this amounts to WP:HARASS and the "clarification" they request looks like a query into what methods two people who volunteer at the same workplace could use to manipulate WP:AFD and other voting discussions without getting blocked. I hope that decisive action will prevent a need to repeat the same remedy that the community imposed here. Durova 18:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• User_talk:Durova#Need_Clairfication
• User_talk:Durova#Conflict_of_Interest_re:_User:William_M._Connolley
• User_talk:Durova/Archive_25#Zeeboid_block
• User_talk:Durova/Archive_25#COI_Opinion
• Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_6#William_M._Connolley_.28talk_.C2.B7_contribs_.C2.B7_logs_.C2.B7_block_user_.C2.B7_block_log.29

Durova 18:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's probably also worth noting that one of the editors in question, User:Mnyakko has a link to an off-wiki attack page on his user page, and now states on his user talk page that he fears real-world stalking by his on-wiki opponents. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Said attack page being here. Reading the edit summaries (and, of course, the context) here also is enlightening. --Stephan Schulz 18:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that link just went login-only. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps one reason they keep inquiring is because Durova never answered them. Just my thoughts. ~ UBeR 19:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Durova did, however, suggest that they get an outside opinion at AN which, IMO, would be a lot more satisfying. I wonder why they never did? --Iamunknown 19:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It can still be examined via the Google cache links. --Kim D. Petersen 02:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Kim, thanks for the link. I was able to look over the "attack page" and I certainly did not see anything wrong with it. They are simply tracking and categorizing actions they felt were inappropriate based on Misplaced Pages policy. I am still learning about this stuff but it seems to me this is exactly the kinds of "diffs" administrators look for when they want to evaluate a claim that people are not complying with policy. I am not certain that ALL of the entries will be found to be inappropriate but I am certain some of them are. So, how is this a problem? RonCram 14:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

User:uBeR was doing a similar thing in his userspace. The pages were deleted, you can see the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBeR/WMC. The consensus there was that it's fine to collect diffs in preparation for an RfC or arbitration (or other attempt at dispute resolution), but a page collecting a user's "misdeeds" with no specific end in mind is an attack page. That's what Race to the Right is doing, with pages on 8 separate users. If this stuff were on wikipedia, it would be speedy deleted just like uBeR's pages were. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus, what makes you think they had no specific end in mind? It looked to me like they had several possible ends in mind. Was it just the fact it was extensive that it was a problem? If so, what does that mean? Is it okay to build a case but not okay to build a good case? If this is spelled out somewhere, please let me know. I don't understand the thinking here. RonCram 01:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I also am unclear on why they were blocked. In the quote below, the reason given was WP:POINT. I had never seen WP:POINT applied to a discussion board like COIN before. I thought that was reserved for articles. Above, Durova says she blocked them for WP:MEAT. I am very unclear on the concept of Meat Puppets. It appears to apply only if one of the people is not a real person, which is certainly not the case here. Tony and Zeeboid found key evidence that Durova cited when she ruled that Connelly should not ignore COI. I truly believe Durova is doing her best to remain fair, but I also think Durova is under a tremendous amount of pressure from the AGW crowd to punish those who oppose William Connelly's edits. Since I posted the complaint about Connelly on COIN, it makes it difficult for me to speak out in behalf of Tony and Zeeboid. But I do not wish to look like a coward. Isn't there some way we can bring this to a resolution without further blocks that will only open Misplaced Pages up to additional criticism about suppressing valid viewpoints? RonCram 00:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

RonCram, you should probably take a closer look at WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets, which begins "A related issue occurs when multiple individuals create brand new accounts specifically to participate in, or influence, a particular vote or area of discussion." --Akhilleus (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, so Could someone please (like the person who blocked us) point out how they believe how multiple individuals (we) created brand new accounts specifically to particibate in, or influence, the particular vote that Durova banned us for violating WP:SOCK for? Also, I can provide the gmail chat if you want to see it.--Zeeboid 01:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's see. You both work on the radio show Race to the Right, and both voted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Race to the Right. In fact, Zeeboid, your first edits were to a related discussion, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/ThePete (a page about you, apparently), and on the same day you edited Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Race to the Right--a pretty good indication that you began editing "to influence a particular vote or area of discussion," to wit, to promote (or document, if you prefer) your radio show. After that time, you and Mnyakko supported each other in controversial discussions, namely on Talk:Global warming controversy and related discussions.

Furthermore, you and Mnyakko are maintaining an attack page together on Race to the Right's wiki--the link is above. Obviously, that site didn't play a role in your previous block, but in my view it ought to play one in any future block you may receive. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Akhileus, I was looking at this. But the citation you provide, while different, still does not apply. They did not create brand new accounts to vote on the issue of Connelly's COI AfD. I do not know anything about the attack page you mention, so I cannot comment on that. I am only saying that I did not understand exactly why they were blocked and I still don't. RonCram 01:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Define (a) what specifically qualifies a site as an "attack site" so we all can work from the same definition instead of demogoguery, and (b) what policy gives jurisdiction over Gmail chats, private websites, etc? I noticed she did not provide these "harassing" chats. Zeeboid, you should post them. I also noticed that the questions I asked to better understand the foundation of this retalitory request are still unanswered. Frankly, considering how vague everything is in Durova's complaint the questions will not be directly answered for the very reason that this whole process was started: because someone (durova) really did not like being asked to clarify her blocks. Arbitrary decisions are indefensible, thus questioning them results in retaliation. Truth is, she was begging for 'someone' to take action against me as more solid proof came into the COI discussion against the subject...knowing that there was more to come it was becoming too difficult to achieve the protection of fellow admin, so specious blocks were performed. Of course, the protected admin and clique applaud, but ask an objective editor to explain precisely what was infraction was made and I doubt one could. As a result, the questions build up and all the while she knows there were no solid answers to give. So, how do you stop the questions? First by inviting Zeeboid to open a request in AN...no doubt in my mind his doing so would be the justification she would use for claiming POINT violation ('using AN to prove a point, yadda, yadda). He didn't take her bait so she did it instead and for what reason? "open a thread at WP:AN where you can see whether administrative consensus agrees that I did a reasonable thing and I can see whether administrative consensus agrees that you deserve a new block for WP:POINT. That would satisfy both of our concerns in an impartial forum." First, this is not an impartial forum. Second, since we have not been given any clear and specific indication from Durova how she concluded a violation of POINT, her comment AND her actually opening a request in AN was clearly an action specifically purposed to "prove a point" rather than "stating" it. I'm not sure, but I think that might be important when considering a block for a guideline where a section is titled, "State your point; don't prove it experimentally", but, I'm not an admin so I'm obviously missing some nuance to explain why Durova is not close to violating POINT while providing the proof she claimed to require in a COIN is a violation of POINT. In fact, I would almost bet my mortgage that some juicy rationalization will fabricate some reason that hypocritical double-standard is a justifiable 'exception'. Makes objective wonder if other's assertions have more merit than initially thought. And, of course, when one side is making a valid point, a valid case, a valid justification...they are accused of 'wikilawyering'...which means, "You're right, I cannot refute what you have said, but I still have to find some way to denigrate you so people will not pay attention to you." -- Tony G 03:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The "Harassing" conversation. Everything is included here except the origional e-mail I sent Durova asking for her help in clairifying what she had done. Durova, could you please provide this to make this conversation complete? Also, I too would like to know what you are defining "Attack Page."

Durova to me - April 12

There's no need to discuss an infraction of WP:MEAT as obvious as that one, yet I did discuss it at the COIN thread. And yes, if you showed me evidence of other users who voted within 5 minutes of each other and who also both admitted to doing volunteer work together and who also both actively pursued the same side in edit disputes I would also block them. Durova

ThePete to Durova - April 12

So as this informaiotn is well known of tony and I, would a 6mn gap between votes be enough to keep us from being banned in the future?

ThePete to Durova - April 12

Also, COuld you please forward me where this was discussed in the MEAT thread? Thanks for your help.

Durova to me - April 12

I don't advise you to try that.

ThePete to Durova - April 12

Its not about trying, or your advisement. its about knowing the rules. If two people who know eachother get banned for voting within 5 mn of each other, then what to the rules state is the acceptable amount of time two users who know eachother can vote? Clairify for me please. Also, Could you please direct me to where this bann was discussed in the MEAT thread? Thanks for your help. Pete

Durova to me - April 13

The amount of follow-up that you have requested regarding this block is unreasonable. Direct your questions about rules to the WP:ADOPT mentorship program.

April 13th

9:49 AM me: Hey, Could we talk here to clear up the questions I had?

10:01 AM Durova: I doubt there's anything left to be said that a mentor from WP:ADOPT couldn't do equally well.

10:01 AM me: I am looking to find out form you what the accaptable amout of time for two people who know eachother is to vote on the same topic

10:02 AM Because I can not find a polocy that voting within 5mn of each other violates

10:03 AM Durova: You can find that out from any mentor.

10:04 AM me: I am looking to find out from you, the person who banned us, as such, you should have that info available. I just want to understand it better

10:04 AMDurova: And I have given you that information in sufficient detail ad nauseam.

10:04 AMme: no, you said it would "take too long to explain"

10:05 AM Durova: My responsibility as a site administrator is to apply policy, not to explain its principles in minute detail. For that we have other volunteers.

10:07 AM me: I just don't want to break policy in the future, and not to break policy in the future, I need to know spicifically what I violated. What specifically warranted the block? you listed the polocy, but didn't go into it any more then we admited to know eachother. I just want to understand better here, as from what I understand from the info listed, we were banned from voting within 5mn of eachother.

--No Reply by Durova--Zeeboid 12:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• There really is not much point addressing any of this. I have no faith in this process of being fair and objective, the aforementioned block being the latest example. Seeing that making quick and incomplete links/quotes is the preferred method of response or support, there is no legitimacy in the belief that this process seeks the facts. Providing complete context is called wikilawyering and ignored (in the case of the referenced block by Durova, that was one of the reasons listed for the block). So, this will be a partial list of relevant items...and they will be shortened as well.

For the record: the text that Durova refers to as "explanation" for the blocks:

This subthread, however, is...about the actions of two of his accusers. Zeeboid's defense is a false analogy: Connolley and Mann do not participate in the same Misplaced Pages WP:AFD discussions, but Tony and Zeeboid both voted within 5 minutes of each other at the same AFD and both admit to being close associates. Whether that work is volunteer or paid is irrelevant to the meatpuppetry and vote stacking clauses of WP:SOCK. Also, unlike Connolley and Mann, Zeeboid and Tony have aggressively pursued an editor with baseless claims of malfeasance and have extended this...discussion to absurd lengths through logical fallacies and wikilawyering. That's WP:POINT and you're both blocked for a week.

So, rather than give a defense that is not going to be considered anyway, I will pose these questions (and hope these are not ignored by Durova).

1. Obviously there is not a distinction between private and public correspondence (based on Durova posting a private e-mail on a public page), in light of such strong allegations that she makes which include off-wiki chat, can you provide the full text of "harassing" chats?
2. Where is the exact wording that you interpreted to mean that 5-minutes between votes is SOCK? Would that include reverts done by different people on a regular basis within minutes of each other?
3. Is one week standard first block timeframe when the justification is so broad that understanding the specific violations are difficult to determine?
4. When was the opportunity to "defend ourselves" offered? Was it after I mentioned I would be offline for about 2 days (which was posted at 18:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC))? The only one I see was posted at 04:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC) with the block occurring at 15:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC) (which, btw, would be overnight for me had I even had access to the internet at the time).
5. The five links provided with bullet points are to demonstrate what? One is to the archive containing the COI where the blocks were announced. The other 4 are talk pages, one started by Zeeboid, one by BlueTie, one by Childhood's End and the other started by UbER. What is the harassment? Who are the harassers again? If that many different people do not understand a rationale, shouldn't that be an indication of how poorly it was explained?
6. Does GMail chat count in a Misplaced Pages discussion? If the supposed harassment exists outside of Wiki then that is a police matter...or does Misplaced Pages policy include non-wiki e-mail? If you are not starting some off-wiki complaint for harassment then it must not be harassment to begin with.
7. Based on what you have presented here how is my or Zeeboid asking an admin that block us to explain why "behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person"?
8. If the 4 links Durova provided above are examples (and as of the writing of this the ONLY examples) of harassment, why are only Zeeboid and I the only ones with notification of this request?
9. It seems that this is request from a defensive posture with having a number of people (not just the two who were blocked) asking for clarification on the blocks. Why we are being targeted? The reasons, patterns and connections are pretty clear...but I would not want to be accused of violating AGF without providing proof and then blocked for wikilawyering for providing proof. However, a partial summary was sent to Durova at the very outset of the COI where this all originated to help keep the page from being cluttered with background information. That message was ignored leaving no choice but to try and explain online everything that was relevant.
10. Final item...this one is rhetorical. The COI was against an admin that was, at the very root, editing article text about a colleague and then requesting the article to be deleted outright. The result of the COI in a nutshell was (1) The initial COI was baseless as the connections were not strong enough (co-authoring a blog, presentations, research papers, etc), (2) the connections between two people providing the links to the blog, presentations, etc (and providing responses to every "evidence presented does not meet newly stated nuance" by Durova) were enough to block them simply for voting within 5 minutes of each other, and (3) the same two people, upon seeking clarification from "the horse's mouth" being targets of a selective request for action. -- Tony G 20:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this gives some relevant perspective on Tony's contributions. --Stephan Schulz 07:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

How so? What relevance and how does that matter at all? Is there a policy that says what portion of a person's edits must be where? Tony G 12:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC) (Corrected signature since I did not notice that I had timed out before saving page previously...an offense I have no doubt will be somehow warped as a blockable and disruptive offense, like asking for understanding why someone blocked me. Interesting reaction, obviously designed to imply denigrating claims without being held accountable for such personal attacks). -- Tony G 18:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Was that Mnyakko or Zeeboid just now? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless they share IPs, Tony. --Stephan Schulz 14:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Zeeboid's behavior towards User:Durova is one instance in a larger context of his ongoing disruption, personal attacks and the like in articles related to global warming. He hae a long history of abusive or dubious comments in talk pages and edit summaries (some examples of the latter here ). He has persistently attacked User:William M. Connolley regarding Connolley's affiliation with the Green Party and environmental organizations. Such attacks are in blatant violation of the injunction at WP:NPA against "using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views." He also filed a clearly vexatious WP:3RR complaint against Connolley This is only a small sample of an extensive history of harrassment, abuse, and attacks. The patience that Durova, Connolley, and others have shown in the face of Zeeboid's disruption is commendable in a personal sense. But allowing such behavior to go unchecked is damaging to the project. Raymond Arritt 15:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Quick clarification...THIS complaint is about harassment by "several editors" (still, Durova has not clarified any specifics and all of the following commentary and attacks are presuming who she specifically means by "several editors"). This has nothing to do with anything before the alleged harassment. And, as you (Raymond) and others engaged in personal attacks here have previously demonstrated, prior history is not relevant...and is in fact nothing more than Wikilawyering. Or did the standards of what is acceptable change? -- Tony G 15:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I can only learn by using the examples of you, the more seasoned wiki editors. When I lay out examples of what I feel are violations of rules, and relevant history you call it "wikilawyering" and say i'm attacking people and history does not matter, we should AGF. so by using your previous examples you are attacking me personally and you should stop wikilawyering. i mean, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, no?--Zeeboid 15:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh oh...those 2 edits were within 15 minutes of each other. Does THAT violate whatever policy we were blocked for? I do not know because there was no explanation to show the timeframe was not created by Durova. I saw nothing in her text or the text she claimed her actions were based on that mentioned or implied anything about a specific timeframe. How can anyone know? Yet is it somehow "harassing" to request such clarification of the person who fabricated the vague criteria. -- Tony G 18:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You're focusing too much on the timeframe, and too little on the fact that you and Zeeboid work together. Try reading WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets again. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus, after reading the guideline it appears to me that the fact they work together and are friends is only pertinent if they are truly single-purpose accounts. Do you think I am reading it wrong? RonCram 01:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Mnyakko and Zeeboid look a lot like single-purpose accounts to me, but that isn't the main issue here. You might want to read the CN discussion that Durova linked to in the post that started this thread. If two users are coworkers/friends/family members and vote the same way in AfDs or advocate the same position in controversial discussions (like, say, making frivolous and absurd arguments that an editor should be restricted from editing because of an alleged conflict of interest), they're going to be seen as meatpuppets. When two users jointly contribute to a website whose stated purpose is to collect "data about admins abusing their power, etc." it's clear that they're communicating off-wiki about editing Misplaced Pages; such users are going to be seen as meatpuppets.

In my opinion, the meatpuppetry alone merits another block for both users; add the on-wiki harassment and WP:POINTyness, plus the attack site, and I have a hard time seeing why we allow the users to stay around. To be quite frank, I'd block them myself, except that I've been in several discussions with these users, and might therefore seem too involved. So, would someone else like to step in here? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech massacre

The article on the recent virginia tech shooting was moved to Virginia Tech massacre from 2007 Virginia Tech shooting by administrator Golbez. There are some people who disagree with this move, and i have posted a request ont eh talk page to discuss it. I would appreciated some administrative or other input here on the talk talk:Virginia Tech massacrepage of before any action is taken to prevent the possiblity that there be a wheel war. The page has been move protected to by admin only. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

NVM, somebody else moved it. Bolder than I am. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotection of the talkpage

There's currently discussion on the talkpage over continuing semi-protection thereof. I don't know if the admin who locked it down is still active in the discussion - if an admin has an opinion maybe s/he can drop by? Anchoress 04:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've unprotected it. John Reaves (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The talkpage was originally protected by Mackensen (prior to the article move) and then by myself. Numerous revisions were contaminiated with vast levels of personal information about an alleged perpetrator of the attack. These revisions required oversight so are no longer viewable in the article's deleted history. I am surprised neither Mackensen or I were consulted prior to the unprotection. Although we were both offline, our talkpages (his in particular) contain discussion of the need to semi-protect that page. WjBscribe 13:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Damaging Misplaced Pages's reputation

I think the subject under discussion here , where the possibility of banned editor has bad mouthed the project in a major British newspaper needs addressing. Giano 19:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you going to do? Ban the user further? ~ UBeR 21:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• No that would be rather futile - wouldn't it? We need to have an official policy of countering, answering and refuting such public attacks on the project - from someone authorised to do so - rather than just keep sitting back and seeing the project dragged repeatedly through the shit. Giano 21:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As a UK citizen, I can tell you that Misplaced Pages's reputation is certainly not going to be harmed by one letter in the Times. A couple of weeks ago, I was at a meeting with one of David Cameron's most senior Front-Bench colleagues (i.e. Conservative; the Education Secretary is Labour) who publically spoke of it in the most glowing terms. 172.212.75.134 02:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your username, why not just do what Giano did? Check out his sig. Or mine. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Odd Portal for music group

I noticed that there is an entire portal for one band: Portal:Rush (band). Is it just me or is it odd to give a band an entire portal? I've never even heard of them, but I need to know whether or not they should have a portal on Misplaced Pages before I make an sort of MfD nomination. Thanks for any help. The Behnam 19:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about portal policy, but don't start your MFD by saying you never heard of them. Rush is one of the biggest rock acts of the 80s and 90s, at least in the US and Canada. Thatcher131 20:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about portal policy either... but agree with Thatcher131; they are extremely well known among rock aficionados and musicians, particularly drummers.--Isotope23 20:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I know better to than to reason an MfD involving music based around personal ignorance as I don't follow such things, but it still strikes me as quite odd that there is a portal just for that band. What could possibly be useful about it, and why does the band deserve an entire portal. The Behnam 20:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

At one point we had a system set up for approval of portal creation which was designed to prevent portals with such a narrow focus. The system was rejected, so there is now no limits as far as I know on what portals can be created, except the MfD process. I suspect that any good faith portal which is well-formed and well-maintained, and which has an adequate pool of articles to showcase, will survive MfD.-gadfium 20:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I guess it is fine then. The Behnam 21:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of unusual portals and mfd's, although this isn't really the place to bring this up, is this new portal: Portal:Genocide a good idea?-- Zleitzen 01:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Rouge admin edit reversion

User:Geogre reverted John Arbuthnot with the explanation "Consistent US orthography is superio(u)r to spotty and petulant conversion to Brit(t)ish orthography (and Noah Webster rulez anyway)". My sympathy is with the previous editor. Is Geogre expressing policy? - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say it is a matter for discussion on the talk page. _InBC 21:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the MoS calls for consistent spelling on any individual page, but also that the appropriate spelling varies by page, under the following rules: 1) for an article on a nationally associated subject use that nation's spelling rules (so the article on Tony Blair should use British spelling, the article on George Bush should use American spelling), 2) for other articles use whichever spelling was already there, and 3) don't edit war over it. GRBerry 21:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

With point no. 3 being, IMHO, the most important. Natalie 22:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This admin is now describing other editors as "nonce accounts", which may nor may not be intended to mean nonce (slang) . . . whatever the correct spelling might be on the page, could someone suggest he be a little more polite? Hobson 01:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it's like nonce words--he's saying they're disposable accounts. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:: I wasn't aware of that meaning. Thanks for setting me straight. Hobson 18:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Ernham editing as anon while banned

68.187.115.195, which appears to be User:Ernham, is revert-warring and POV-pushing (eg here) while indefinitely blocked since 11 April 07. Can someone take this through Checkuser and then block the IP address? Ta, JackyR | Talk 22:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

duck test Navou 01:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Ernham editing from 68.187.115.195 and then logging in a few seconds later to sign his post. But I guess it's real effort for you to click the link rather than be facetious. JackyR | Talk 23:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think he was agreeing with you, and that there is no need for a checkuser because if it looks like a duck etc, then it is a duck (Misplaced Pages:A spade is a). --Ezeu 03:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That's him alright. Blocked. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this the sort of editing we aspire to here?

“Four editors with strong personal or religious prejudice control this Topic. Please drop by periodically and revert back your preferred writing ... send other editors ... break this cabel!!!” TipPt 01:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure how to quantify this, but it appears to lack the spirit of any number of our policies/guidelines. -- Avi 01:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please, let me explain. Two established editors comment on how crazy the Circumcision topic has become, and I suggest that they check in periodically and see how it might be better. Please see the Topic history some of Avraham's recent edits! He seems to deny the reader important facts for personal reasons.

• I am simply encouraging participation, because most editors give up faced with these cabels.TipPt 01:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

TipPt, you joined Misplaced Pages for the express purpose of "saving" the world from circumcision, and since then you've done little but edit-war on circumcision-related articles, attempting to insert your POV into them. To make things worse, you have compounded that by frequent violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and by projecting your own agenda onto others. You may find it simpler to post on the various anti-circumcision websites and blogs out there; I understand there are quite a few, and they don't insist you abide by WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Jayjg 02:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggesting a user post on blogs instead of editing Misplaced Pages is uncivil, especially when considering the rest of your comment. KazakhPol 02:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A better suggestion might be that the user reads, understands, and conforms to policies such as WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. Unfortunately such suggestions have been made numerous times already, and are often interpreted, perplexingly, as personal or religious bias. Perhaps it is time for an RFC? Jakew 12:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Help needed

At Faith Freedom International, there is a dispute over the inclusion of a 'notability' tag that has lead to a revert war. I'm not sure what the best thing to do in this situation is so I'm asking for help here as admin action may be needed. Thanks. The Behnam 02:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFC and WP:DR are the most appropriate places to sort that mess out. The edit warring has existed since we had the article about Ali Sina. -- FayssalF - 14:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Jeffrey Newman

I spent a little time with Misplaced Pages a couple of years ago, using my real name, and now want to resume my identity. However, the password does not work. I am happy to give my e-mail; I am happy to meet an admin in UK; I just do not want to start all over again with a name that is not me, please! I actually do not believe, with a little common sense (qv Hannah Arendt) that it is difficult to judge that I remain the same person with the same interests! I shall look for replies here, please. 85.210.255.81 02:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have an email address set on your account, you can click on the "Email new password" button at the login page. Naconkantari 02:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid if you cannot recover your password using the e-mail function then there is nothing we can do. This is a technical restriction. Apologies. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 02:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Regaining_Identity.21_User:Jeffrey_Newman (would there be a simpler way to make an internal link to this?) gives me some further suggestions and help. I am still not prepared to give up as 'impossible' but I will accept 'very difficult', 'highly unusual', 'nearly impossible', 'pain in the xxxx' etc. Who, what, where, is 'a developer' and is it possible to contact one? That appears to be a route that might be necessary. And I do apolgise for all this but I believe Joe Mabel user:jmabel (who suggested I tried here), perhaps User_talk:Gadfium and User:AmiDanielpossibly understand why it is important - and I do apologise if I have quoted them/you inappropriately. Perhaps if I could find one or two other senior Wikipedians with a similar outlook, we could find a way through. Thank you. User:Jeffrey Newman 85.210.255.81 08:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• See m:Developers. Uncle G 11:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I want to know what exactly I can and cannot do

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

This is getting persistently silly. the doors are closed. Matthew 13:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, you have to put the archive template under the section header or else it will get munged by the archival bot. Thatcher131 19:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I was recently blocked (and it was mentioned here, yet I was not informed of the issue) for "once again asking for inappropriate pictures". I objected to the block, of course. But the past is the past. I would like to know what exactly I am allowed/not allowed to do. I have checked WP:SEX for guidelines regarding images, but I haven't found anything specific to entail my block. But that is besides the point. Basically, what I want to know is where my current standing is. Am I allowed to request pictures? Comment on other users requesting pictures? Request drawings? Comment on other pictures requesting drawings? I would like to know this so that an unfortunate misunderstanding doesn't occur a second time. Thank you.--Kirbytime 02:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

How about this... stop asking for child porn. Thanks. The Behnam 02:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are truly having difficultly understanding the line between child porn and !child porn, you should probably refrain from asking for images at all. And probably you should withdraw from editing articles on the subject. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Several images, all of which are allowed on Misplaced Pages:

• Image:Cambridge tondo.jpg Is this child porn? It certainly depicts a child in a sexual act with an older man.
• Image:Virgin Killer.jpg Is this child porn? It is nudity, but no sex. Title suggests violent crime.

Seeing how those images are allowed on Misplaced Pages, that is what I used to claim that "Florida's laws permit Misplaced Pages to host pictures of simulated child pornography". Also it should be noted that Pedophilia_and_child_sexual_abuse_in_films contains many pictures albeit not of pornographic variety.--Kirbytime 03:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears you were blocked for this edit, in which you suggest that Child pornography could be improved through the addition of an image (possibly, barely reasonable) and that "Florida's laws permit Misplaced Pages to host pictures of simulated child pornography" (trolling or cluelessness). Given the rest of your comments on Talk:Child pornography, I would strongly advise you to abandon this thread here, before you get blocked for a longer period of time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So even questioning the circumstances of my block is trolling?--Kirbytime 03:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Consistently asking for a dainty selection of child porn on a silver platter, please, is, however. Or so that is the sentiment I am gathering from this thread. —physicq (c) 03:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about child porn. I just want to improve the article by having a picture of an example, per WP:GA? and WP:FA?, both of which say that having a picture which illustrates the subject is a very good idea. If I wanted child porn, <link redacted> there are plenty of places besides Wikimedia Commons from which I can obtain them.--Kirbytime 03:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Kirbytime, as a courtesy to people who might be at work or in a public place, please don't post a link to Google Images with the search query "pedophilia"; or, alternatively, at least write in bold NOT SAFE FOR WORK or something like that. --Iamunknown 03:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize.--Kirbytime 04:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The article surely does NOT need a picture of a naked child engaging in anal sex to illustrate the article of child porn just to gain featured article status, thank you very much. —physicq (c) 03:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

When the news covers a child pornography case, they don't show the pictures. They instead show the families, pictures of the criminals, and so on. We don't need to explicitly show a picture of child pornography.--Kirbytime 04:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Then how does that illustrate child pornography? I'm not purposely creating a Catch-22 situation here, but the reasons you give are not substantial enough. —physicq (c) 04:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Sexual_intercourse, which does not have a picture of the act, but does have drawings, as well as a drawing of sodomy, which again seems to depict a child.--Kirbytime 04:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess I concede that point. If you want that piece of art as a description of child pornography, then by all means take it to the appropriate talk page and discuss. —physicq (c) 04:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In any case, this sort of discussion is off-topic and should be discussd on the talk page. I am here asking what exactly I am allowed to do with respect to sexuality articles.--Kirbytime 04:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This does smell of trolling, but I can't help but roll my eyes to hear he was blocked for this. zOmG, aren't you all heros and looking out for the childrens :P Block him for being disruptive, maybe, but don't play the moral police, it's lame. -- Ned Scott 03:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

How is opposition to child pornography 'lame?' The Behnam 03:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Violates WP:NPOV and WP:COI.--Kirbytime 03:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There are many reliable sources that refer to child pornography in a negative light. — MichaelLinnear 03:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between an RS which opposes child pornography, and an organization which actively tries to eliminate it. If a person is part of an anti-child pornography movement, it would be a COI for them to edit related articles.--Kirbytime 04:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that if anyone has any opinion on anything, they shouldn't edit articles related to those things? JuJube 04:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm saying

This page in a nutshell: Avoid writing or editing articles where your close connection to the subject may cause a conflict between your agenda and Misplaced Pages's goal of producing a neutral encyclopedia. Please contact us if the article contents causes you concern.

--Kirbytime 04:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• You're talking past us. We're asking you to stop requesting that a federal crime be committed. — MichaelLinnear 04:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I have never asked for a federal crime to be committed. What you said is equivalent to slander.--Kirbytime 04:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Slander is spoken and libel is written.— MichaelLinnear 04:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I used the word "said", not "wrote". But you're dodging the issue. What you wrote is character defamation. Please strike it out.--Kirbytime 04:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Defamation? You mean personal attacks, do you not? Defamation is a legal term, if you did not know. —physicq (c) 04:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say, Ned, that he wasn't blocked out of moral outrage – zOMG kiddie porn! – but rather because he was trolling and being deliberately WP:POINTy on the talk page of the article after repeated warnings. And he's doing it again here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

When did I disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point? Did I ever add pictures of child porn into mainspace pages? No. As an established user of Misplaced Pages, I took the right choice and discussed it on the talk page before adding any pictures.--Kirbytime 04:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It is becoming exhausting that he keeps bringing the issue back up in new ways to try to press for something that will not be granted. He should be blocked like last time he did this. The Behnam 04:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Why won't it be granted? That's exactly what I'm trying to find out. Since you seem to say this with much definitiveness, I'd like to know why it won't be granted, from you. Thanks.--Kirbytime 04:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Two other editors have given you pretty clear advice:

• How about this... stop asking for child porn. Thanks. The Behnam 02:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• If you are truly having difficultly understanding the line between child porn and !child porn, you should probably refrain from asking for images at all. And probably you should withdraw from editing articles on the subject. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep pushing. — MichaelLinnear 04:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This shouldn't be tolerated at all. Not only is it a continuation of trolling he was previously blocked for, but it happens to be that this guy is literally requesting child porn. It is completely disturbing. The Behnam 04:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Enough silliness. Even 'established users' don't get to troll indefinitely. I'm recommending an end to this thread, and I'm blocking Kirbytime for an additional 48 hours in the hope that he can find a better windmill at which to tilt. I invite other admins to review this block, and to overturn at their discretion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The block seems fine to me. It might be a good idea to propose a topic ban at WP:CN, Kirby seems to have an ongoing problem in this area. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Super-strong endorse. As I was reading this, I was about to do the same thing. Daniel Bryant 04:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Note - He continues to use legal terms and is also being uncivil on his talk page. The Behnam 04:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I remember at least two other posts in the past dealing with his POV towards this... I have no problems with an uncensored Misplaced Pages, but this is going too far... I would support a topic ban towards him. --Kzrulzuall 05:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to assume good faith on the issue and work toward a resolution on the talk page (suggesting one of the censored Masha Allen photos as a possible compromise), but the more he pushes the issue the less patience I have. We don't need a drawing of child porn. -Hit bull, win steak 13:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I cannot believe this warrants a discussion. Anyone who uploads child pornography to Misplaced Pages should be banned and the police called to arrest any user who is breaking the law for possession of this material. Apparently, according to Kirbytime, there is already child pornography on Misplaced Pages. He says there are pictures of naked children and children engaged in sex. Paedophilia is the most despicable act. I don't want to look at those photos and no-one needs to look at them. Who would want to portray it here? Who wants to see it? What educational purpose does it serve? I am disgusted that this is being discussed in terms of this user's apparent breach of Misplaced Pages rules and not his violation of the law and the moral sensibilities of most of human civilisation. Furthermore, we do not need any pornography on Misplaced Pages - pictures of sex or anything like that. There are laws against pornography in many countries and also children could be exposed to it. I cannot believe that Misplaced Pages would host pornography in order to illustrate what are meant to be encyclopaedic articles. It's not necessary.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 13:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any reasonable people would disagree with you about child pornography not belonging here, which is why Matthew closed the section. As for exactly what would qualify as pornography in a non-child context, or whether we should have images with nudity of any sort, this really isn't the place to discuss that (and you're likely to run up against WP:NOT#CENSORED anyway). Re-closing. -Hit bull, win steak 16:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Zomg, archived! Just wanted to say I stand corrected on my earlier comment, as the block was about a disruption and not specific to child porn. -- Ned Scott 21:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Supergear redirected to User talk: Natalie Erin

User talk:Supergear has gone through a whole lot of vandalism by anon IP's (after being blocked), and has now been re-directed to User talk:Natalie Erin - It's a bit beyond me to work out what should be there, and I've got to log off now, just to let someone do this & revert it for Natalie! Thx Lou 06:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Restored the last edit by Supergear (nothing of value since then, I think), and gave it semi-protection for a few days. Hopefully whoever it is gets bored, by then. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't even notice. Thanks folks! Natalie 15:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Verdict sockpuppet account

He has set up another sockpuppet account: User:The Verdict1, his only two edits so far is admitting that he is Verdict (inlcuding telling an admin, User:Yamla, that he can't do anything about it). Even if he isn't a sockpuppet, he threatened to "kick Yamla'a ass", which is block-worthy by itself. TJ Spyke 07:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Something this obvious could probably go to WP:AIV, if he comes back. Grandmasterka 07:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I suspect this was that editor posting to Jimbo's user page as an anon, kvetching about Yamla as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Impersonator Account Created

User:Burgdorf is an impersonator of User:Burgz33, creating a user page with some personal information and some false information, and should be banned a.s.a.p. All of his/her edits have been not vandalism, per-say, but impersonating another person and attempting to make them look bad. I have blanked their user page, but I'm sure it'll be back up. The only solution is to ban the user in my eye, because the account was created for the sole purpose to vandalize ones name. I really don't think it is proper for him/her to have such a user page, considering user pages should be for constructive editors. 70.253.167.161 07:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Now, User:Quartet has tagged the impersonator as a sockpuppet of the original, which is wildly inappropriate, an admin needs to get on this right away. 75.43.136.46 21:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reason to believe User:Yankees76 is the one doing the impersonating. Before the account was created, his last edit was at 3:33. Then, the impersonator account was created at 3:38, and continued to edit Misplaced Pages until 5:08. All the while, Yankees76 never made a single edit. I asked him about this on his talk page, to which he deleted without a response. Also, Yankees76 keeps deleting an IP's edit to the Enforcer (hockey)'s talk page, when all the IP is saying is "Thank You." This user among with two others including User:CambridgeBayWeather have been stalking IP edits, and reverting them even if they're constructive, just out of spite. I hope higher up admins realize what is going on here is wrong, and put a stop to it as soon as possible. 75.43.136.46 21:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The IP address above is that of blocked user Burgz33 the creator of a large number of abusive sockpuppets who has been blocked for personal attacks, vandalism and using sockpuppets to circumvent a block. The user simply edits using random IP's since the puppeteer was blocked and continues to Wikistalk a number of editors with abusive and uncivil edits. See the contributions of any of this sockpuppets and you'll see a pattern of user talk page abuse, vandalism and personal attacks. This is simply another attempt to bait one of the admins who blocked him previously and this has been going on for weeks. Yankees76 22:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You're full of it. Why would I create an account to bash myself? Sorry, but I'm not as feeble minded as you. I edit hockey players, mma fighters, and musicans, CONSTRUCTIVELY. You, STALK my edits, and are very uncivil with me. Please see WP:CIVIL. Large Number of Sock Puppets? Try like 4, and the only reason they were abusive is because you, like you continue to do, stalk my edits and revert them. Even if they're sourced! I continue to edit Misplaced Pages to expand stubs and better Misplaced Pages as a whole. Look at Today (EP), D.J. King, Everlast (musician), La Coka Nostra, St. Louis Blues (hockey), etc, etc. I have tried to improve these pages, yet 9 times outta 10, one of the aforementioned trio reverts/blanks them, without reason. I wouldn't be abusive if my edits weren't closely watched. Please refrain from other personal attacks, and stop watching my edits so closely. If you want to change how I worded something, do it, and then mention why you did such on the talk page, like a constructive editor. I don't care if I'm blocked or not, I will continue to make constructive edits such as the ones to the pages above. I also revert any vandalism when I see it, because I consider Misplaced Pages the best online source for factual information, but when people like Yankees76, Quartet, and CambridgeBayWeather try to revert factual edits, it makes me wonder. 76.213.169.214 23:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I find this a bit ironic, you spend your time abusing other editors to the point where you get blocked for 6 months, create sockpuppets to contine the abuse, return under different IP's to continue and then come and complain about the same thing. As to stalking your edits, well, don't flatter yourself. Every time you return you leave childish attention seeking "look at me" messages on our talk pages like this and this. No one has to stalk you because you spend so much time telling everybody that you're around. As to constuctive and not starting with the personal attacks I suppose you forgot about Talk:Jordin Tootoo#Bias, which you tried to hide? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it because it was spam, if you want it there, say it. Look right under it, it said it was subject to deletion, so I did you a favor. ] isn't me, I love how you assume it is. My user names are usually more clever, and have a three or something related to the word three in them, if you haven't noticed. I find it a bit ironic that you're an abusive admin, revert edits, and blank edits without reason. What is the purpose behind blanking factual edits? Do you have one? No, you don't. Please, refrain from further embarrassment of yourself. See WP:CAMBRIDGE. The Tootoo page, was, I'll admit, my bad. But you saying "He's a hero to his people" is a racist phrase tickled my funny bone for hours. But, he still has a stellar page when other people don't even have one. If I created a page for Jan Von Arx, it'd be deleted, by either you, Yankees76, or Quartet. And thats truth. What I would like to do is create a new account, continue to make constructive edits on that one without you three breathing down my neck every edit. You can watch me, make sure I don't slip up, warn me if need be, but don't just block me without 1000 warnings I see on other vandals page. Show me a Misplaced Pages page that isn't a talk page or a user page that I have vandalized. Please. 76.213.169.214 23:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The IP 76.213 etc.. above is a blocked user using random IPs to circumvent the block if the original account burgz33. According to Misplaced Pages policy WP:BLOCK, "A blocked user cannot edit any pages other than his/her own talk page. An admin may restart the block of a user who intentionally evades a block, and may extend the original block if the user commits further blockable acts. Accounts and IPs used in evading a block may also be blocked. Edits made by blocked users while blocked may be reverted. (Admins can revert all edits from blocked users and re-make the good edits under their own names, to avoid confusing other admins who may be monitoring the same users.)" Currently the user has accumulated 5 registered sockpuppets and has edited under 15 different IP address socks to avoid the original 6 month block. I've reverted numerous personal attacks by this user, removed spam and vandalism from both my and another users talk page, and reverted personal attacks on article talk pages. Even the example above of D.J. King shows the user making abusive edit summaries and attacks against other editors, and the most recent edits by this user on Talk:Enforcer (hockey) are uncivil - as is the personal attack on this very page ("I'm not as feeble-minded as you") If anything the anonymous IP above should be considered for an all out ban. Yankees76 23:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You called me feeble minded first, me calling it back is being uncivil? What does that make you? So because you have a problem with an editor, they should be banned? Wow. Theres this thing, called LOGIC. Use it. 76.213.169.214 23:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I casually mentioned that an anonymous vandal who placed a ban tag on my talk page was feeble-minded and I did this while thanking an editor for reverting the vandalism - so you were either stalking me and assumed it was you, or it actually was you and if that is the case, if the shoe fits.... And it still doesn't explain your 6 month ban, your sockpuppet abuse or your vandalism of CambridgeBayWeather's talk page - and then coming on here an openly lying about it. Yankees76 23:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the person that placed the ban thing on your page was tagged as a sockpuppet of Burgz33, so even if it was or wasn't me, you thought it was, and called me feeble minded. Simple. Lying? You can't really lie about this stuff, buddy. Its all in the history tab. I only did vandalism to his/her(its?) page because I was provoked by blanking/reverting. 76.213.169.214 23:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, show me where I called you feeble minded - if you're basing all of your personal attacks on a passing comment you won't get far here. It's not on your talk page, it's not in reponse to one of your posts - so you have nothing. And a casual glance through CambridgeBayWeather's talk page history shows numerous instances besides the one posted above, of vandalism, trolling and baiting all by you various IP addresses. You call that or this constructive? I rest my case. Yankees76 23:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Not every IP is me, hate to break it to you. I noticed a lot of people vandalize his page. I'm not the only one that has a problem with every single edit of his being reverting. You calling me feeble minded. Put 2 and 2 together. Was your edit constructive? No, it was spam. Stop being so hypocritical. 00:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't make me pull up the differences, we're all a bit smarter than to think that every IP is you, however your IPs are so obvious that it's very easy to point them out. Yankees76 00:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

How can a number be obvious, a lot of people have very similar IP's, and if I didn't write on talk pages/revert the admin abuse, you'd have no idea who I was. Best believe. 75.59.138.223 00:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No it's only a coincidence that all the IPs that happen to be the perps of vandalism on my, Cambridge's and numerous other talk page are either 70 or 75 IPs coming out of SBC Internet Services in St. Louis, Missouri. Right. I must have a lot of fans there. Yankees76 00:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've had IP's that start with 200 before. And 60-69. All the tagged sock puppets are me, but you've accused (but not tagged) as well as Cambridge other IPs as being me, when they aren't. 2 Million people, perhaps theres more than 1 outta 2 Million that edit wikipedia and have ran into you. The numbers are against you, pal. 75.59.138.223 00:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've "accused (but not tagged)" - show me. I reverted vandalism by the following IPs and users on User talk:CambridgeBayWeather: 70.253.167.161, 70.239.214.39, 76.213.172.21, L--F3--l. All the IPs from St. Louis and the registered sockpuppet is of Burgz33 who is from St. Louis. The numbers are against me huh... They're all you. I'm done. Post here all you want, but I refuse to be drawn further into this. Your 6 month block is more than justified, as are the actions of the editors who have reverted your edits. I can't see ho anything you post here can be taken with any credibility because you're way past the point of assuming good faith. This is as was noted above by Cambridgebayweather, another cry for attention. I won't be drawn into that game any longer. Goodbye. Yankees76 00:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you shoulda gave up a few lines ago. Obviously you have severe trouble reading and comprehending modern day english. 75.59.138.223 00:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Abu badali seemingly stalking again

I'm hoping somebody can help with a problem I am having. User: Abu badali seems to be checking my contributions and removing images from articles that I have uploaded. My feeling is that he is doing this in retribution for my support of the Rfc against him. He has stalked me in the past (Theresa Knott challenged him about this), so I am not surprised. His latest episode has been to remove this image from the article about Princess Maxima of the Netherlands. If one looks at the licensing, it states clearly that the photo is available for use by the public, so long as the RFD (Dutch Information Service) is given credit for it. Its use on Misplaced Pages fulfills this criterion. The notice from the RFD says Deze foto mag worden gedownload, gebruikt en gereproduceerd zonder schriftelijke toestemming....Voorwaarde hierbij is wel het vermelden van het auteursrecht van de RVD.: This photo may be downloaded, used and reproduced without written permission...on the condition that it is stated the rights are from the RVD"

Abu Badil removed the photo with the edit summary "rm problematic commons image (source seems bogus)". I do not know if the source is "bogus" or not, as I did not upload it. I note, however, that it is the image used on the Dutch Princess Maxima article, and has been used for over 6 months (even on the Dutch Main Page) without being deleted. Given that she is as important a person to Dutch society as Prince William would be to the British or Laura Bush would be to Americans, if there was a copyright problem with the image, I think the Dutch Misplaced Pages would have removed it long ago. I'd appreciate it if an admin could look at the image and reach his or her own decision about it. If you don't see any problems with the image, please stop Abu Badil from deleting it again. Thank you. Jeffpw 08:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• One incident isn't stalking. Can you give examples of times where he removes images you added? - Mgm| 12:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I have refered the image issue Husky on commons who is a Dutch wiki admin and should be able to figure out the copyright issues. I'll have a look into the harassment complaint. WjBscribe 12:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• The image license does not mention commercial reuse and derivative works and is thus is Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. It should be deleted from Commons and, I see, a deletion request has been filed. --Iamunknown 16:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • In Dutch and in English it says clearly non-commercial educational purposes. Plus no mention of modifying. It's all kind of obvious. Garion96 (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Ignoring the issue itself, Jeff - how is this stalking? Why do you think this removal has to do with your past history? Mangojuice 17:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • A bunch of arguing. The license is moot; it is not a free license. If the translation is to be believed, it gives no permission for derivative works. The permission is given to copy the image, but not to make modifications. As no permission is explicitly given for derivatives, the permission doesn't exist. The license is not 'free', and isn't a valid license for wikipedia. With derivative permissions, may be considered {{attribution}}. Not sure about the exact translation, but a counter-arguement could be made that one could not distribute printed versions of the picture. I suggest someone remove or make a statement and declaration for it being fair use, with a side note on permission to copy, but not modify. Also looking at the link in the document to an English statement regarding licensing, commercial use is not provided. Kevin_b_er 23:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

cais-soas.com and User:ParthianShot

I came across this web-site when I looked at this users contributions and uploads. See this. Most of the images he has uploaded are taken from cais-soas.com with a note "Permission granted by CAIS". I don't see any ticket from OTRS. But this goes beyond just this. I have a feeling that this user is associated with the website. Please read this discussion. I think all images used by the website are also copyright violations. The website looks official, but does not have any relation with SOAS (University of London). Can someone take a look at this? If the website is a fraud website, then we may have tens of copyvios here. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

At least some of the pages of that website are explicity licensed with the GFDL posted at the bottom of the page. The question then would be, were the photos taken by the web site's contributors or were they scanned from somewhere else and not really released under the GFDL. Thatcher131 11:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Larry Sanger

Larry Sanger is being spammed with vandalism from one guy. --Dookama 12:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Blocked by CambridgeBayWeather. -- FayssalF - 13:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of table of locations from Manchester Ship Canal

Repeated removal of table of locations from Manchester Ship Canal citing a variety of bogus reasons. User had previously been asked to desist on his talk page, by more than one editor. Andy Mabbett 14:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Now also from Netherton Tunnel Branch Canal and Digbeth Branch Canal. Three reverts in each case. Andy Mabbett 14:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that you have participated in this poll. Right Andy? -- FayssalF - 14:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Did you have a point to make? Andy Mabbett 14:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Why did you accept to participate in a poll if you know that its outcome would be irrelevant? -- FayssalF - 14:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

How is a poll about whether to include coordinates on a page about "a 2/3 mile bridge" relevant to the Manchester Ship Canal? Or a narrow-boat canal that spans two Black County boroughs? Andy Mabbett 14:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That was not the point. The raison d'être of that poll was simple: Do we need to keep the table of coordinates in as is. Please also give a valid reason. For your opinion, and only write once in the voting section, so we can keep track of numbers, and sign your posts with (~~~~).

Now, you voted as others did. The result was 1-7 in their favor. I know that Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. I know that polling is not a substitute for discussion but it is clear that a major consensus has been reached. What do you need from admins to do in this case? -- FayssalF - 14:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Acknowledge that consensus by a majority of 6, out of just 8 participants, in one, extreme, example (where at least three nay-sayers referred to the short length of the viaduct) does not form a Misplaced Pages-wide policy (including 36-mile shipping canals). Andy Mabbett 14:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

...as others do. Andy Mabbett 15:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup, i totally agree w/ Martin Cordon on that. The point is that AN/I is not the appropriate place to deal w/ that as i explained below. -- FayssalF

Thank you. Andy Mabbett 15:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Believe me Andy. Whatever the outcome of the poll is, admins can do nothing (except cases of WP:3RR). It would still be considered a content dispute and to sort that out you should refer the case to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/History and geography or to WP:DR as a last resort. -- FayssalF - 15:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

then I think the introduction of this page should be re-written to make more clear what it is for. Andy Mabbett 15:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe though i doubt there's a contradiction between what i've just explained and the AN/I intro. There are plenty of admins and their opinion is welcomed. Probably i was the only one to respond to your request because they thought it is not part of the duty of admins to resolve disputes here at this page. -- FayssalF - 15:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The references to the poll and "consensus" may be bogus, but this is nothing more than a simple content dispute. It sounds like it really needs a discussion somewhere about the general use of these tables. JPD (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Korngod Is vandalising pages next to me in school

He created an account just to vandalise pages on this site. He has said, seeing me typing this, that he is going to create another account if his current one is banned. Firedraikke 14:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Korndog is obviously a vandalism only account. I've been reverting vandalism by him here, and he is also encouraging vandlism of someone elses user page through his own. DarkSaber2k 14:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. Thanks for the report. alphachimp 14:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, User:Korngod is my hero has started vandalising my userpage per this diff: DarkSaber2k 14:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Indefblocked by Cryptic. Thanks again. Michaelas 14:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaroman being disruptive thru vandalisation, bad fair use rationale on images, etc

The above user has continued to disrupt WP in a number of ways. A sample of the issues is through vandalism, uploading multiple images with faulty fair use criteria (CSD I7) Image:Joondalup Giants.jpg Image:North Beach Sea Eagles.jpg Image:Freemantle Roosters.jpg Image:KFC North Perth.jpg Image:Rockingham warl.jpg (Which was also uploaded as Image:Rockingham costal sharks.jpg, adding patent nonsense to articles, copyright violations and removing speedy delete tags and failing to follow proper instructions to hang-on to the articles. His edit summaries have indicated hostilities to other WP users . Additionally, a number of these edits have occurred within minutes of a warning being issued via his talk page. This user may be worthy of evaluation, with consideration to a 24hr block for disruptive editing activities. Thewinchester 14:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Additional The user in question has also just violated WP:NPA with these edits. Thewinchester 14:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• I was bold and blocked him indefinitely. User is clearly not interested in contributing to the encyclopedia, despite many warnings requesting him to discontinue his behavior. I shall put this block up to the review of other admins in case anyone would like to object it. Michaelas 14:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• My sincere thanks for the quick action, and I wasn't expecting a permanent block allthough in the circumstances I could see it was reasonably justified. Thewinchester 14:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

More Cow tipping

Can someone please explain to me how we can justify this caption? Not a dog 14:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Because we're not Encyclopedia Brittanica. Why does it need to be 'justified'? Seems not only harmless, but I'd argue that it makes the article a bit better too, so why not? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There was a long debate which ended with no consensus (which usually means 'leave it as it was') Talk:Cow_tipping#Request_for_Comment:_Inclusion_of_image_of_cow_.26_related_caption. It's probably too soon to invite everyone back for a re-match. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No need for a debate. The article says cow tipping is unlikely if not downright impossible, therefore a caption saying "a potential victim" cannot be considered correct. I boldly reverted to the caption of "A cow". --kingboyk 15:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Bold, sir, very bold... Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There has been so much discussion on this already... just let go. --Sn0wflake 15:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's really okay. It's just a cow. Let it go =)GavinTing 16:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

May be bold, but it's been done before, and rejected as being redundant. Of course it's a cow. Prior to the RfC held on the subject of this caption, there was a good amount of debate, and the general feeling is that the original caption "An unsuspecting potential victim" is the most accurate descriptor. -Amatulic 16:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A lack of consensus (the result of the RfC) is not a "general feeling". Not a dog 16:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree there was a lack of consensus. Get over it. =Axlq 05:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:LAME? Corvus cornix 18:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It has my vote for WP:LAME. It even edges out some of the other edit wars already listed there. =Axlq 05:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: It's already listed. Seems to have been so for a while. =Axlq 05:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This guy has racist stuff on his userpage!

Okay I'm sort of new to this so I hope thisis the right place. I came across this guys userpage and he's got a list of countries hes visited there. But he's got a Nazi flag next to Israel! Thats just totally wrong so I deleted the flag but then he put it back and called it vandalism! He's User:Saintrotter. You have to go to the bottom to see the flag and heres a link to his edit . The Parsnip! 15:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no rule against being an ass on your own userpage, unless it's disrupting the project because it's a personal attack or something. It's a 22px image, and dumb, yes. Does it threaten the stability of Misplaced Pages? Probably not, but that's just an opinion. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't see any evidence that you've tried to talk to him about it on his user talk, did you discuss it with him elsewhere? Fighting it out via reverts always leads to grief, try discussion. - CHAIRBOY (☎)

Are you kidding? For the record I'm Jewish and think it's crazy that someone can put a flag like that next to a country of people whos ancestors were butchered! The Nazis killed 6 million Jews! Hey I went to his talk page and someone else already asked him to get rid of the bad stuff on his userpage and he didn't do it. This is so wrong! The Parsnip! 15:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

While Misplaced Pages isn't The United States, and there is no first amendment here, the country I come from has a celebrated tradition of supporting the rights of other folks to be raving assholes as long as they don't hurt others, so I'm afraid I can't quite muster up the same outrage over a 22px flag on a userpage. If you feel that the image is disrupting the project, or can make a good case for it being a personal attack, then it absolutely should be removed, but I guess I don't see that yet. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI. -- FayssalF - 15:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Per FayssalF's pointer up the page, this is an editor who has a history of disruptive activities. The deliberately offensive little flag on his userpage – and I can't AGF about that no matter how hard I try – is just the tip of the iceberg. Given his history as Rastishka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he ought to be on a very short leash. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to show my disagreement w/ Chairboy opinion about the matter. It is just provocative and has nothing to do w/ the community's mutual respect. -- FayssalF - 16:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No disagreement that the user is a jerk, and his disruptions have been dealt with pretty vigorously. My assertion is that the 22px image on his user page doesn't really disrupt the rest of the project the way his other tendentious editing has. We are still talking about that tiny flag on his user page, right? Because some of the other comments are concentrating on all the crap he's done elsewhere on the project, even though the flag was the origin of this complaint. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem Chairboy is not limited to this user. The real problem is when others would argue (they have done so in fact) about the usage of some infoboxes and stuff which others see as provocative. Some of the cases involve User:Embargo (see the edit warring at his userpage), User:Politicallyincorrectliberal (see the edit warring at his userpage) and the list is long. It is just time consumming if we have to deal w/ each case at a time. My opinion is that we have to be very firm in dealing w/ those kind of problems. -- FayssalF - 16:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The image has been now removed; I fully support this action. Tizio 16:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I posted the original complaint that FayssalF pointed out. I have to state for the record that while the first amendment is a lovely thing, it doesn't apply to Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox for airing personal grievances, which this person's user page is a form of. He pretty clearly feels he has a bone to pick with Jews and with "liberal bias", as well as people who he seems to think haven't posted enough pictures of victims at the Holodomor article. It doesn't make a difference to me what Saintrotter thinks, but I think that if he wants to complain about how "moderators show pro-Jewish bias" and put up deliberately inflammatory pictures, he should go start a blog or a myspace page. The question here has to be: "is this person going to change his ways?" It sure doesn't seem that way, considering his longstanding issues under his Rastishka account, as well as those under his static IP, and now under his "new" account. Like I said above, he's sneaky and , but I don't think there can be any question that his behavior and his userpage are disruptive (complaints to this noticeboard should indicate disruption). TheQuandry 16:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The recent Billy Ego ArbCom case makes it clear that this sort of thing on a user-page isn't allowed, especially pro-Nazi stuff. - Merzbow 18:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. This user put a Nazi flag by Israel, and you are going to say he can do that? What part of WP:SOAP don't you understand? I swear to God, if we don't disallow this, I will quit this encyclopedia in protest. Seriously, if I put on my userpage that "all faggots go to Hell" or "fuck the niggers", wouldn't it be removed? This is ridiculous. Part Deux 18:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that, while the initial complaint dealt with one (small) aspect of this editor's disruptive behaviour, we are not compelled to put blinders on and ignore the rest of his conduct. I'm not sure where the impression comes from that his disruptive behaviour has been dealt with 'vigorously'. Under this account, he's received one block for 3RR; about the only other censure of his conduct has been of the "Stop, or I'll say Stop again!" variety. Given the very WP:POINTy behaviour that has been noted in the other thread, I'd say he's been let off lightly indeed. I will block him if he engages in any further behaviour which violates WP:POINT, WP:NPA, WP:CIV, or is just plain trolling. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll support such an action in case he reverts this. So no big deals about this case. -- FayssalF - 18:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Part Deux already said it as well as I could. This user page is too disruptive. I have given the user fair warning that they will be blocked if they revert to the Nazi flag. If they do, they know what will happen, and I support a block for POINT disruption. I suggest one week. — coelacan — 21:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sock drawer getting full

Just to let you know, there is a guy creating lots of socks today. He started having all his anmes with oompapa in it. He apparently has many disposable IP's at his leasure. Just keep a look out for vandalisim with oompapa in it and block on site. The category for the socks is Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Mr oompapa -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppet impersonation of a legitimate editor

I have just observed that someone is creating sock puppet account names that appear similar to an editor trying to maintain order in the article The Indian Institute of Planning and Management. The purpose seems to be disruption, and the socks have made edits only in that article. The legitimate editor is User:Makrandjoshi. The sockpuppets are spelled slightly different: User:Makrardjoshi and User:Makrandbshi. The socks see to be operated by someone else, not the legitimate editor. -Amatulic 15:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

THese have been blocked indef as impersonators of a legit editor. If we know who the controler of the puppets, see

Previously blocked user continues to vandalize

user:208.40.177.71 recently vandalized white-tailed deer after being temporarily blocked. The user also appears to be impersonating an anonymous IP address, possibly to get the IP address blocked. --Savant13 16:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I don't think they're impersonating an IP address - they are an IP address. Natalie 19:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI on Altimit OS

I hope this is the right place for this, and sorry if it's not, but DarkAkira seems to have it in his/her head that their corporation is the fictional corporation, and that their OS is the fictional OS, for which Altimit OS and Altimit Corporation were created. Their attempts to make these articles about their corporation and OS have been reverted, and a discussion has been taking place about the issues involved, after my reversion. The user seems adamant that their project supercedes the original, fictional OS and corp, even in the face of WP:N and, more specifically, WP:CORP and WP:COI. Their most recent reply to the discussion is particularly worrisome, "And if you don't want me to post, then I'll let my users do it." I would take this to WP:3O or one of the other mediation options, but the last reply there shows, to me at least, that this user has no regard for the guidelines and policies involved and probably wouldn't respond well to a simple third opinion. I've tried to be kind and assume good faith, but their attitude is trying my patience. Any help would be much appreciated! Nique talk 16:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Added another voice to Talk:Altimit OS, for what little it's worth. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but this user still seems to have things a little confused. I've left a reply, this time on the user's talk page, though their entries on the main discussion still seem worrisome to me. Any other opinions or suggestions? This is getting a little ridiculous, they still seem to refuse to acknowledge the guidelines that are in place for just this kind of reason. Nique talk 03:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

And more. User still seems confused as to what I mean, even though I'm trying to explain clearly. I'm trying once again to explain things to them clearly. Mind, they might just not have a full grasp of the English language, though if they're trying to get an office space in the US, that seems unlikely, but it's getting frustrating, I feel like I have to keep repeating myself, but it doesn't seem to be getting through, and they still think they're the corporation, making the OS. This kind of walking-the-line between fiction and reality doesn't seem normal or healthy to me, but maybe I'm just too involved in the discussion. Nique talk 03:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Spamming/autobio/COI issues, admin wanted to clear up mess

Mikeg2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - this chap is spamming quotes from his own works all over the place of dubious relevance and no neutrality whatosever. He's also created a number of peculiar articles, including one on himself. I'm starting to think we're dealing with a typical my left sock pattern here: cleanup help wanted. Cheers, Moreschi 17:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to GT for the heads up, by the way. I've undone some of his more dubious edits but someone with deletion tools might like to look at his autobio. Moreschi 17:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Slow-motion edit war

There's a slow-motion edit war going on at Iranian military industry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Both sides have assumed bad faith (accusing those on the other side of being "vandals" or of "stalking and harrassment"), been uncivil, and made personal attacks. I've given some appropriate warnings to Padishah5000 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count), Ali Soltani (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count), and K1ng l0v3 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count). It is clear from the contributions histories that the latter is also L0b0t (talk · contribs), 70.23.227.99 (talk · contribs), and 24.185.105.199 (talk · contribs). However, I haven't seen any gaming of the three-revert-rule or inappropriate use of multiple accounts. I hope that further action will be unnecessary. Uncle G 17:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on that. -- FayssalF - 17:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible role account

I'm trying to AGF but I think ACBest (talk · contribs · count) maybe using his account as a role account, it says on his userpage that he sometimes logs in at school and if anything bad happens it will be someone from his school doing it, so this leads me to believe multiple people are using that account, because if you dont wish to have your password automatically remembered you can just uncheck remember me, even though your username saves automatically you could not access his account unless the remember me box was checked, any other opinions please? or does anyone like to suggest what we could do? Tellyaddict 18:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Has the user made any particular edits that make you suspect this? I've skimmed his recent contributions and I don't see anything obviously awry. He says on his page "I apoligise in advance, although it probably will never happen". Although he may not tick the remember me box, he could still be worried that people could hijack his account if he left the computer without clicking log out, given that he appears to edit from a shared workstation. If vandalism were to start coming from this account then we could look into it, but at the moment I see no obvious reason for concern. Will (aka Wimt) 18:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you right, I was trying to AGF, it just seemed a little suspicious but I guess I was a little too suspicious, thanks for the quick responses. Cheers - Tellyaddict 19:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

He could also be worred by being affected by an autoblock or something at school. Or he isn't aware that we can't see his IP address when he's logged in, and thinks he will somehow by confused with a vandal that way. Natalie 19:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Indian admin blocking non-Indian user in conflict with an Indian user

Hi, I am new here, but i have been lurking around for the last few days since I am a journalist writing an editorial on the reliability and neutrality of wikipedia. This case caught my attention, because it looks like an obvious case conflict of interests and bias, an Indian admin User:Aksi great pro-actively blocked a non-Indian user User:ParthianShot for making just 1 revert!!!! on two different pages against an Indian user User:Fullstop , to restore sourced information. Now what's alarming is that the Indian user made 2 reverts (far more reverts than User:ParthianShot) on each one of those pages too , but this Indian admin did not even bother warning his compatriot for revert-waring or personal attacks (look at User talk:Fullstop#Stop), I think the neutral non-Indian admins should review this case and either block the Indian editor as well, or unblock the non-Indian editor. cause as it is, this looks like a partisan admin giving unfair advantage to one side of a content dispute. --MedianLady 18:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest? Hardly. It was a dispute. If a white admin blocked a non-white admin it means someone got blocked, not simmering racial hatred. Same thing here. I trust the judgement without going to deep. -M 18:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't buy this. I am sure you are User:ParthianShot. Please do not evade your block. The next block will be for a much longer time. - Aksi_great (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

ParthianShot should have been blocked by Dmcdevit at the same time User:TheBenham was for edit warring and only escaped because he has managed to sanitize his record as Surena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) by deleting Surena's talk page then doing a username change to hide his block log and sockpuppetry. The revert on Shapur I reinstated a copyright violation taken from the Encyclopedica Iranica, and falsely characterized the removal as vandalism. That warrants a block even if it wasn't edit warring, which it was. I was going to investigate last night for blocking but got sidetracked by other matters. I endorse the block, and I'm white as Wonder bread. Are you happier now? Thatcher131 19:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Also blocked. Quack quack. Thatcher131 19:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem editor

I've had problems with Taajir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for some time; he insists on making disruptive edits to a set of articles of which he's explicitly claimed ownership, making unsourced claims, adding non-notable names to lists of notable people, reverting to incorrectly formatted templates, etc. (see, for example, this typical example, and the same, but with a different edit summary, both reverts involving ownership claims; this is in a simiilar style).

This has been going on for a long time; I've tried explaining policies and guidelines such as WP:CITE and WP:OWN to him (not to mention WP:CIVIL), but with no effect. If I weren't involved in the articles I'd have blocked him by now; could another admin have a look and, if you agree, either block him or see if an explanation/warning from a third party will get anywhere? (He's treated other editors who got involved in the same way he does me, though.) --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Formerly urgent help needed

Someone has managed to screw up this page Seung-hui Cho temp. It should be moved back to Cho Seung-hui which is the proper name according to policy but someone duplictaed it there via copy and paste Nil Einne 18:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's worse then I thought. The right version with the history has now been lost somewhere Nil Einne 18:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay I found it here Seung-hui Cho Nil Einne 19:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's being taken care of Nil Einne 19:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be resolved, anything else needed? -- Avi 19:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually while not so urgent the talk page is still missing Talk:Cho Seung-hui lacks the history but it's not at Talk:Seung-hui Cho either. Edit found it at Talk:Cho Seung-hui Cho Nil Einne 19:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's all been fixed now Nil Einne 19:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Serious privacy violation attack

There's an editor, Darkness of meta (talk · contribs), who obviously has a number of sockpuppets and appears to be launching a coordinated attack on the Misplaced Pages attempting to blatantly violate our privacy policy by revealing real names of editors without permission. I have already sent in three requests to the oversight committee and have blocked the main editor account and any other accounts I found. The m.o. is to place the user's real name on the user page and/or user discussion page, or alternatively to move the user and/or user discussion page to a new page in such a way as to violate the privacy policy. I have fully protected my own user page and user discussion page and would strongly encourage any other admins to revert any more instances of this against other people, along with contacting WP:OVERSIGHT to remove the edits from the logs. I consider this a serious threat against my continued contributions to the Misplaced Pages. --Yamla 18:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator but I would like to politely ask, how does he know some editors real names? Does he know them in real life? Tellyaddict 19:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It's not that hard to get access to mine as I participate in unblock-en-l and I use my real name and email address when responding to emailed requests to my username. However, privacy policy makes it a clear violation to reveal my real name on the Misplaced Pages itself without my permission and I have not and do not grant this permission. I need to maintain a separation between my Misplaced Pages identity and my real-life identity. I may well have to set up a new email account so this does not happen to me in the future. --Yamla 19:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the accounts that are committing this attack generally have names like Wikifalls to Oompapa (talk · contribs) or some other variant on an oompapa name. The user may well have other accounts, of course. --Yamla 19:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not doubting your comments in any way and I symapthise for you, if their is anything I can do as a non-sysop, just leave a message. Thank you - Tellyaddict 19:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll wager a guess it is related to this email I received a few weeks ago. He fishes for a response through wiki email and then posts the name on the email account if the individual replies.--Isotope23 19:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh god, I recieved that email, so did User:Netsnipe and a few more. It's rubbish, but somethings up. Plus clicking on the link of that user. It obviously shows the sockpuppeteer is User:Mr oompapa So do we create a community ban or not? Retiono Virginian 19:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It is related to that, I'm sure, but I did not respond to that message. The user got my real name elsewhere. --Yamla 19:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow. That is some deranged shit. Guy (Help!) 20:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Mr Oompapa has already been indef blocked. He has been creating sock puppets all day today. I have been blocking them on sight when I see them. He obvioulsy changing his IP. I have requested a check user on the 20+ sockpuppets so far to determing an underlying IP range and block it for a little while. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

An additional report has been filed here . I see no reason why this user shouldn't be banned. Retiono Virginian 21:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I recieved one of these emails as well. As Isotope23 pointed out above, the idea behind the attack is that the person will email you with a downright strange message, and then waits for your confused reply (something along the lines of "what are you talking about?" etc.). Then, he's got your email address. Once he's got that, he can easily run it through Google and look for connections between a name and that email address (using social networking sites such as MySpace, LiveJournal, Xanga, etc.). Do NOT respond to the emails, and the attacks will stop. // Sean William 21:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Setting up a Misplaced Pages-only email address - even a throwaway hotmail account - can be helpful for security. As long as you don't use it for anything but Misplaced Pages there's no not-paper trail. Natalie 22:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I also received it, as did two other admins I know. Note that my email address is one that only contains my first name & is effectively a throwaway one. I recommend that others use similar for their own protection - Alison 22:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I got it, as well, about two weeks or so ago (I think). I killed it with fire the moment I got it, not that my real name is really any secret :) Daniel Bryant 02:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm on the road and can't fill out the "paperwork," but I trust that this is being checkusered? Newyorkbrad 02:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry on The Dark Knight (film)

User:DCrep, 172.206.223.2, and User:Mst3kevin are all single purpose editors seeking to add that Haley Joel Osment has been cast as Robin in The Dark Knight (film). All edits have been made in the last hour, and seem likely to persist. No searches have substantiated this, and requests for citation aren't being answered. See the page history for more. DCrep made the same change 6 times, a 3RR violation, as well. This seems fairly obvious as a pattern, and not needing a WP:RCU. can someone put in a block with blocking of account creation as well? THanks. ThuranX 19:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

please add User:BabylonKid473 to the list. thank you. ThuranX 19:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I requested full protection at WP:RFPP since this has been going on all day and no one has tried anything but reverts to stop it. Leebo /C 19:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This has been going on for one hour, and vandalism warnigns and talk page requests on the various sock accounts have been left. Not 'nothing'. ThuranX 19:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Yossiea and Avraham

I've been under personal attacks by User:Yossiea for adding information to a picture. For the records, I should say that I've used sourced information that were already in the article. See him, threatening me for my obvious normal edit and calling it vandalism, here on my talk page --217.219.236.17 19:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've requested Avraham to be cool and stop posting rude messages to me, but he deleted my message from his talk page. I can't see my edit even in history of the page. It seems that administrators can do this. I think he's trying to whitewash himself. Now I know that he's an administrator. What a good one. --217.219.236.17 21:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I can see it just fine: here's the history. The last five edits are all from you. Veinor 21:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

He has deleted my message. I've re-posted my request to him. I think administrators can see his deleted things, isn't it? --‍217.219.236.17 21:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The only way to delete an edit from a history (without oversight, which Avraham doesn't have) is to delete a page and then recreate it without that edit. The page has never been deleted, so he never 'whitewashed' himself. I also remind you to assume good faith; jumping to the conclusion that he's trying to make himself look better, rather than that you're not looking in the right place is a bad idea. Veinor 21:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing has been deleted from Avraham's page. Perhaps you thought you had left a message but you had only hit "preview" instead of "save". — coelacan — 21:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think asking for assistance here made him more conservative. Look at his first messages to me and see how rude they were. Now he became more conservative, and he's talking about wikipedia rules. But the fact is that he reverted my edit, thinking that I will never come back. But I'm insisting on my edit, as I've read the sources that were used, and they use suitable tone, in oppositon of what he states. And about whitewashing his talk page: He's responding on my talk page, even when I asked him not to do so, because in this way it's hard for me to respond. I thinking responding anywhere else other than the place that question was first appeared is a bad idea. --217.219.236.17 21:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

217.219.236.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Kindly show where this user has placed a comment on my page that has been deleted? If anyone is deleting proper warnings from their userpage, it is this IP user, with an improper summary, I might add. Further, per Misplaced Pages:Guide to writing better articles#Information style and tone, we shy away from editorializing and storyboarding. Kindly explain how my edit here removes anything but inappropriate posturing. If anything, this user's contribution seems to have a specific agenda. Of course, it is an anonymous IP, and there my be a number of editors of wikipedia at Amir Kabir Technical university, Somayeh st & Hafez st, Tehran, Iran, but this IP has already demonstrated a particular animosity towards me before, which when removed by The Benham as trolling, was deemed so important as to be restored by Lixy with denunciations of censorship. It's still in the archives, I might add. -- Avi 21:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that was not my edit, but I think that that was also a normal edit, that you called trolling. Like my edit that I still support, as it was a sourced content, and you reverted without any description. Now, you're stating different thing, and saying it doesn't use appropriate tone. He called me ipvandal, but as many users on his talk page say, many of his edit are vandalism... reverting and removing others edits repeatedly. --217.219.236.17 22:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oy vey. {{ipvandal}} is the template I remembered off of the top of my head that links to the contribution list. {{ip}} links to {{welcomeip}} and that would not have helped here. Would you prefer {{IPuser}}? -- Avi 22:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, do not assume that everyone that is editing with IP is a vandal. This is not a good opinion. ipvandal is still here. Would you mind changing it? --217.219.236.17 22:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for changing it, but I think I won't edit here again. It was very stressful for me to edit some pages. Have a good time. --217.219.236.17 22:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracies of the IP editor from Amir Kabir Technical university

1. "Look at his first messages to me and see how rude they were." --217.219.236.17 21:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
   • SharedIPEDU template
   • uw-delete2 message due to removal of {{AS}} from article.
   • creating subheading
2. "And about whitewashing his talk page: He's responding on my talk page, even when I asked him not to do so, because in this way it's hard for me to respond."--217.219.236.17 21:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
   • Requested at 17:51, April 17, 2007
   • My last edit on this persons page was at 17:42, April 17, 2007. Regardless, it was only a request.

As I said, this IP has a history of animosity towards me. Compounding with, at best inaccurate accusations, and at worst deliberate mischaracterizations only serves to demonstrate the IP's motives and POV. Perhaps an anonblock is called for?-- Avi 22:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I told him that calling me a vandal is not a good opinion, and because of this I can not assume good faith about him. I still state that he was trying to attack personally on me. He's not even looked at the sources, and tried to revert the page. Isn't it an example of bad faith? Any edit by an IP is vandalism? This is what he thinks, and I don't agree with him. --217.219.236.17 22:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Password hack attempt

Someone from the IP address 217.219.236.17 requested that we send you a 
new login password for the English Misplaced Pages.
The new password for the user account "Avraham"…

Over the line, for safety, I believe this a block, and perhaps a long-term anonblock of the site. I'll be glad to forward the e-mail to the foundation/checkuser if necessary. -- Avi 22:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC). It's just a way to troll admins and regular editors and generally be a nuisan

Maybe It was me, I wanted to create a user, and I used Avraham as name. I tried it ignorantly. Sorry. If I knew, I never would have done this. Do you want to block me for being a new user? --217.219.236.17 22:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I ignorantly played with the page. I promise not to do this again, and I won't come back to wikipedia. Is that enough? Hey, Avraham, I played on that page, but I'm sorry. Is it enough?????? Please, Please..... Why do you think bad about me? Sorry. --217.219.236.17 22:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I was traveling which is why I did not respond. However, as I said earlier, maybe it is not you personally, but the IP from which you edit has already made unsolicited (and in my admittedly partial opinion) uncalled for personal attacks against me before. I hope it won't happen again and you and your fellow students can successfully edit wikipedia in accordance with its policies and guidelines, and personal opinions (which we all have) notwithstanding, be able to reach a consensus in contentious articles. -- Avi 01:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't stop you thinking bad about IP editors. Bye. :-( --217.219.236.17 22:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're a new user, you should probably think about acting a bit more like one. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 23:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Just ignore the email, I get them quite often. Unless somebody has access to your email I imagine your safe. Matthew 23:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reassurrance. I better add another 20 alphaneums to my password -- Avi 01:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I get these password emails on a regular basis, Avri. Sometimes several a day and I know other admins do as well. Some of us have had to set up special emails filters to deal with them. So I agree with Matthew and I'd just ignore it. Sarah 07:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: I've blocked the IP for 3 hours. Using the password change device to harass and try to intimidate an editor is absolutely unacceptable. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Block request

User user talk:71.74.140.36 has been active in vandalism today, including 7 edits to Puppis (the usual vandalism for this topic, the "poop" pun) including vandalizing after reversion repeatedly, and after being given warnings. He has been given a final warning from vandalising Austrailian football, and then he vandalized Music, all today.--Todd 20:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Obvious vandalism like this should be reported to WP:AIV, not here. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use

Hello I recently removed a fair use image I am not sure but is it every article ? or two. The user said I vandalized I am not sure. Ashkani 23:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no copyright on the image, it should be removed. Corvus cornix 23:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jkelly has reverted also. Ashkani 23:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's not vandalism to remove an image with questionable copyright or licensing status from an article. I've indicated what is wrong with the image on its description page. Jkelly 23:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I hate to violate WP:BEANS...

But are the vandalbots not running? I'm not seeing any bot catching lots of vandalism that is occurring today. Corvus cornix 23:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any bots running today either, but that might be because I was editing pages where there wasn't any vandalism caught by the bots. Question: shouldn't this have been posted to Misplaced Pages: Village pump (technical) and not here? Acalamari 23:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. You may be right, I hadn't thought of that. Corvus cornix 01:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat by User:Cosmo25

Please see this.

This discussion relates to a controversy at Washington International University. Could I please request that another administrator review Cosmo25's behaviour, and also look over the original content dispute. CJCurrie 23:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Nikki Giovanni

Apparently Nikki Giovanni recited a poem at the Virginia Tech memorial service today. Several users are adding the entire poem to her article. I have removed it several times now as a copyright violation. I'll stop now as I'm verging on 3RR, but could somebody else explain the situation to the users who insist on including the entire poem? Corvus cornix 23:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

On my "To Do" list:

(Expand this page!)

Userboxes This user has been a member of Misplaced Pages since (June 2006). This user has been on Misplaced Pages for 18 years, 6 months and 12 days. This user has been editing Misplaced Pages for more than 15 years. This user has been editing Misplaced Pages for more than ten years. 18Y This Wikipedian joined Misplaced Pages on June 30, 2006 (18 years, 6 months, 1 week and 5 days ago). This user has created 13 articles on Misplaced Pages. This user was an IP editor in the past. This user has rollback rights on the English Misplaced Pages. (verify) This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Misplaced Pages. (verify) This user has extended confirmed rights on the English Misplaced Pages. (verify) This user is a random page patroller. This user maintains Misplaced Pages with the help of Twinkle! This user uses HotCat to work with categories. This user has access to JSTOR through The Misplaced Pages Library. NEWS This user has access to Newspapers.com through The Misplaced Pages Library. FMP This user has access to Findmypast through The Misplaced Pages Library H This user had access to HighBeam through The Misplaced Pages Library. Q This user used to have access to Questia through The Misplaced Pages Library. APA This user has access to the American Psychological Association through The Misplaced Pages Library EUP This user has access to Edinburgh University Press resources through The Misplaced Pages Library ASP This user has access to Alexander Street through The Misplaced Pages Library. has now reverted for the fourth time. I can't change it, but could somebody else? Corvus cornix 23:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Thatcher131 full protected it for 24 hours. --Coredesat 23:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC) One second thought I dropped it to semi. The violators were all IPs except for X4n6, and I warned him. Corvus, you can revert this obvious copyvio without regard to the 3RR, or report X4n6 for the 3RR violation of adding it. If X4n6 adds it again he should be blocked. (Yes, only semi-protecting the article is kind of a honeypot for X4n6, but there is no reason to lock out 10,000 good editors over one dick.) Thatcher131 23:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Issues with Dcrcort at Vicente Fox This user appears to be a newbie. For the past few days he has been editing Vicente Fox by adding a lot of opinions and other unverifiable data that I have had to revert, delete, or verify and then edit. Invariably, he disagrees with my edits claiming that I am "disrupting" his work. None at all, and I actually don't disagree with some of the things he says, but I don't think that wikipedia is a place to post opinions. I've said this to him and he has responded with insults. A lot of the things he has added have remained, after a lot of checking sources, adding references, rewording, and, in short, painful work. However, he continues to use this, and other, articles about Mexican politics as his personal blog and responds to my edits with insults and attacks. I've talked to him, warned him, plead with him, and even offered edits with references, but he just doesn't understand. Therefore, I am requesting some sort of administrator intervention in this matter. Hari Seldon 23:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC) This sounds like a prime candidate for following the steps outlined at Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes. ···日本穣 00:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Beki Bondage User:Stargtr claims to be a member of the band Vice Squad and be dating the singer Beki Bondage(link). Given his creation of the article Paul Rooney, I surmise this is him. He demands Beki's birthday be removed from Misplaced Pages and has contacted the wiki foundation . Given the obvious WP:COI and WP:NOR violations (he claims the birthday is wrong, but I have a published source and a bad source always trumps no source, according to our rules) I have felt justified up to this point reverting. See also my WP:COIN post. However in his latest edit he claims the redirect is "authorised by wiki mediator" . I have several questions. First, given this user's massive policy violations (auto-biographical writing, COI, OR, edit warring) why hasn't he been blocked yet? Second, how can I find out what the wiki foundation's response to him was? Third, since I have a properly sourced neutral fact about someone (a birthday for God's sake) what can I do to keep the information in Misplaced Pages? Removing a properly sourced fact from an article (he admits the source is valid he just claims it's /wrong/) just because the article subject's boyfriend doesn't like it goes against every policy we have. Nardman1 00:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Inclusion is not recommended for marginally notable people per WP:BLP, so I've been bold and removed it. One Night In Hackney303 03:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC) (edit conflict) Many people are concerned, rightly or wrongly, that publicizing their exact date of birth increases the risk of identity theft or other forms of harassment. Where we receive a request to remove this information from an individual not at a peak of notability, there is little reason not to honor it. Including the year of birth should be sufficient to provide readers with relevant information without implicating privacy issues. Newyorkbrad 03:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC) (edit conflict)That's because you're too young to remember her first band. She reached 32 on the charts in the UK in the 70's. . Nardman1 03:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC) That doesn't suggest a reason to include her exact date of birth in the article in view of an expressed concern about it. Newyorkbrad 03:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC) I'm not sure whether your comment was directed at me or not, but I can assure you I fully remember the band, I spent most of my misspent youth listening to Discharge and Crass. The fact remains that she is hardly a public figure any more, and there is no legitimate reason for including the information under the circumstances in my opinion. One Night In Hackney303 03:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Violation I would like to know the opinion of the administrators on this edit. A.Z. 04:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC) I'm no admin. But the best thing to do would be to empathize with the subject and try to understand the situation. He seems mad but I'm not sure if he goes into exactly what the problem is. I would suggest perhaps asking what exactly the problem is, but I feer at this point, he may feel provoqued and this may exacerbate the situation. The best thing would probably be to ignore it. You may however polity point him towards this message (a third oppinion). Which states that "his comments may be conciders somewhate uncivil and Trollish." Perhaps editing another article and pointing out that perhaps he has been absorbed by one "subject" may help. "Pick a random article and once he has added at least one well sourced information" perhaps this will bring back to light the spirit of what wikipedia is trully about! --CyclePat 05:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC) If anyone finds the comments offencive I would invite you to just say so on his talk page and ask for refactoring. --CyclePat 05:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC) vandalism from IP and related user on Campbell River and my user page the IP address 208.181.172.11, 207.81.94.249, 207.81.93.42, 207.6.82.35 and 205.250.221.173 and the user User:Eirikraude2 have been repeativly vandalizing Campbell River and my user page User:Eirik Raude and extensive list of reverts have been made against these three "contributors" heres a few of them: and these are just the pages i've been watching. some of those IP's have only made one or two vandalistic acts, but in an obvious horse-play manner with the other IP addresses. the other more "involved" IP's have been warned multiple times, and the user was (obviously) just created to vandal my page for my reverts against his vandalism. (what a pain) this is my first request of review for ban/block/whatever so i don't know much about the conduct or anything like that. so if this is in the wrong spot, forgive me. thanks ...Patrick (talk, contributions) 05:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Possible block evasion by Maharashtraexpress I wish to report what maybe a possible block evasion by User:Maharashtraexpress who has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Sarvabhaum. I had a dispute with him over the wording of Marathi_language#Konkani section following which I put up an RFC and waited for a month. Since no one has commented I had changed the content to this version: ] Immediately after that an anonymous user with IP : 59.95.14.73 has reverted two changes on 17th April: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Marathi_language&oldid=123565032 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Marathi_language&oldid=123565321 Today 18th April: another anonymous user with IP: 59.95.29.38 has again reverted back to the same changes: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Marathi_language&oldid=123732896 What is even more interesting, is the comment he left on the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Marathi_language&diff=prev&oldid=123733231 To quote him: The controversial remarks were edited out and the present contents are full-proof. I request Deepak to not speak on behalf of all Konkanis. I am myself a Konkani and like lakhs of Konkanis in Maharashtra,we do think it is Marathi's dialect.The contents are balanced. This is similar to some comments Maharashtraexpress has made on my talk page: However u must be aware that there are sizeable no of Konkanis in Maharashtra who consider themselves as Maharashtrians. There are 'sizeable' Konkanis who are more than happy to accept the 'dialect theory of Marathi nationalists'!! Malwani people are proud to be part of Maharashtra Again stop assuming the patent rights of Konkani. There are thousands of Pais, Kamats, Shanbaugs who feel proud about their Marathiness. but dont think Konkani is wholly owned subsidery of Goa/Goans All I have written are facts backed by source. Plz see the source website which is based in Goa itself. This user has been deliberately trying to evade blocks by pretending to be an anonnymous user(and hence by implication: a new user). What can we do about him. I can block him. That 59.95..... IPs are him. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Blocking IPS has its own set of problems, doesn't it. Well, you know better so I leave the decision to you. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 07:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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