Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:52, 25 May 2007

Purge the cache to refresh this page

• 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

Merkey, again

Despite allegedly being on "wikibreak", user Jeff Merkey continues to be disruptive. See this diff, where he vandalizes a talk page based on unproven allegations of sockpuppetry against other users. *Dan T.* 16:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not vandalism. Jeff attempted to revert User:RhodiumMiner who was shuffling other peoples comments around the page. Given the name and edit history there isn't much doubt this is a single purpose trolling account. I'm reverting RhodiumMiner's edits and blocking him. --Duk 17:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the user was copying the comments. The comments stayed in their original locations, and a copy was placed in the Straw Poll, and only where they were germane to the poll. There were plenty of other comments that were against the removal of all the tribes, but did not specifically answer the poll, and they weren't copied. The first one copied supported Jeff's case, so it can hardly be seen to be trolling (apparent trollish username aside). The comments that were clogging up the poll were then moved to the bottom of the poll, and they were labelled where they came from. A note at the bottom explaining exactly what had been done was included.

Pretty useful all around, it was certainly much easier to see what was going on. If an individual user had a problem with their comments being copied, then that would be fair enough, and they could pull them out.

It doesn't take much to see that Jeff's wholesale removals aren't popular, and his arguments regarding WP:V are not convincing. His complete dismissal of the validity of anthropoligical evidence and insistance on a single criteria makes it difficult for any consensus with him.

The sensible approach would be to admit his valid point regarding federal recognition, and note those that have it, and include the other tribes where there is other sufficient evidence. SeparateReality 05:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This account is another sockpuppet of vigilant -- the name is from personal attacks "Merkey lives in a separate reality" used by vigilant on SCOX -- another single purpose troll account. These people have access to botnets so checkuser may not reveal much. Their editing patterns give them away. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 14:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It seemed from looking at the diff that Merkey was deleting several users' comments, and made the edit summary "Remove edits of banned user Vigilant", implying that he was being judge, jury, and executioner on an alleged sockpuppet (without actually going through proper channels of requesting a checkuser). *Dan T.* 17:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I assumed the removal was unintentional. The RhodiumMiner name comes from the SCOX message board. --Duk 17:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And your proof is???... I see nothing disruptive in the editing and yet Jeff is allowed to make edits while on a wikibreak and admins are around to support him. Jeff has no idea who the editor is and neither do you without a usercheck. --Jerry (Talk) 00:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser isn't needed for a single purpose trolling account with an inflammatory name that is brought in from an off-site conflict. I note that you are active on the SCOX message board so you should understand how this account name is inflammatory - and yet here you are saying that you see nothing disruptive by that particular username tinkering with a conflict that Jeff is engaged in? Jerryg, you might want to think about this. The only problem I see here is identifying the account as a specific sockpuppet, I'll remove that note. But the block is perfectly acceptable.

...and yet Jeff is allowed to make edits while on a wikibreak' Jeff may edit whenever he wants. He's not blocked or banned. Do you know what a wikibreak is Jerryg? It's when an editor takes a break and puts a wikibreak note up to let people know that they might take a while to respond to any notes left for them. --Duk 02:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Yes, I post on Yahoo! SCOX board. I post on a lot of boards. Jeff posts on a lot of boards, including SCOX, LKML and Wikireview. Jeff tends to make the assumption that *anyone* who disagrees with him is a troll and somehow connected with the SCOX board. Whatever you and Jeff have read while perusing that board means nothing, really. You *really* don't know where and who made the edits. If the name wasn't what it was, would the edits have been disruptive? Jeff's claims of owning a Rhodium Mine are fairly well known within a fairly large group of people, a large number of which have nothing to do with Yahoo! SCOX. In the end, of course, wikipedia admins will have the last say. I hope, for all involved, we don't go down the same path we went down the last time Jeff was here. I've had my say and am done with this --Jerry (Talk) 02:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not RhodiumMiner is a sockpuppet is one question, but it's not just him/her/it that Mr Merkey has been busily labelling. My account got a "sockpuppet" tag (I'm a sock of "Talks_to_birds", apparently). It's not the first time Mr Merkey has labelled me as such, my initial questions regarding his tagging everyone as trolls were instantaneously reverted out of his talk page. here and here. I have since explained my motivations (on Talk:Cherokee) in direct response to a question from Mr Merkey, but he still labels me as a sockpuppet. It would be nice if there was a reason for this other than "Mr Merkey thinks so".Teseaside 08:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This account is a single purpose troll account. The edit history speaks for itself. Also, talks_to_birds, based upon his claims to be the proprieter of finchhaven and his public statements on Misplaced Pages he lives on Vason Island in Washington, "next to T(h)e sea side". Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 14:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Teseaside (talk · contribs) has emailed me in private using his ISP-based email address and I can tell you from the headers that his claims of residing in France are indeed true. I think you're jumping to conclusions with this one. --  Netsnipe  ►  06:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of these folks intent

I am going to take a moment to explain these folks from SCOX and their behavior. They have only one intention, and that's to "ambush" me here at Misplaced Pages and make life so miserable that 1) I leave or 2) I flip out to te point I get blocked. All one need do is review their posts at SCOX (thousands upon thousands) to realize these people are stalking. Their motiviations are blackmail, jealousy, and tortious interference. Several of them have sent letters, called me on the phone, posted demands in online forums, etc. demanding money or jobs or some other garbage to stop their stalking conduct. These gadfly's started following me around after I offered to buy out a Linux license for 50K for Solera Networks. Not for Gadugi or anything else. The most recent incident occurred two weeks ago when one of the more phychotic of the lot sent letters to the attorneys handling the lawsuit over Natural Selection Foods and the E Coli poisoning of my 2 year old son libelling me. This psycho then sent a letter to Randall Spencer demanding money from me or they would keep sending out hate mail. Most of these folks smell the money and that's what they are after. The rest of them appear to be bent on just destroying any enterprise I try to start. They send letters and anonymous emails to business partners, associates, customers, etc. Bottom line, its jealousy, greed, and hate directed at someone who succeeds as opposed to a bunch of has beens, fired employees, and jilted business associates from the Linux movement who tried to stick their hands in my pockets to take money out and got sent on their way. Hope this gives folks an idea. You cannot reason with them, you cannot teach them, most of them are over 40, you can only block them. Don't waste your time with them. Were I am admin here, they would not dare set foot on this site for the purpose of this conduct -- they know I would block them on sight. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 14:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

These gadfly's started following me around after I offered to buy out a Linux license for 50K for Solera Networks. Not for Gadugi or anything else. Really? Then why did you say at http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/501632 "The purpose behind the buyout was to convert as much Linux code over as possible to another open source operating system project which is sponsored at www.gadugi.org. This project is hosted by the Cherokee Nation and is sovereign under US Federal Laws. This project is merging the Linux Kernel with the Open Source NetWare project and distributing the operating system. The site is operational and the full code repository will be posted with the merged operating system after the Cherokee Nation Public License is published in January." Inquiring minds want to know.

Well, it's a good thing you're not an admin then... it's never a good idea for somebody with a personal involvement in a conflict to be exercising admin powers over people in it... that's too much of a conflict of interest. Can you actually prove such assertions as that people are demanding money from you to stop hassling you? I seem to recall that you made such assertions in the course of some of your legal cases, and never did back them up then either. *Dan T.* 15:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, but that's ok. As for your other question, yes, Randall Spencer has copies of two letters, one sent to Mordeci, the firm representing Natural Selections Foods, and another letter from this person sent to him, and he represents my son (not me). This person also called Randall Spencer on the phone. My wife and I are no longer involved in the case since its about our son. The first letter was a smearing attack on me and offer to "help" nsfoods "defeat" "my evil claims" about my baby boy being hospitalized for a month, nearly dying, and my wife in a state that is indescribable. The second letter demanded money from me for this person stopping "use of free speech" to continue these attacks. He then followed it up with a phone call the Randall Spencer making more forceful demands for money. All of this was reported to me about a week after it happened -- I did not witness it directly. My son has some permanent health issues from all this. For an individual, group, or community like SCOX to do such a thing over issues with an innocent 2 year old just to demand money from me is beyond evil. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Those who are interested in seeing what type of a person Merkey is, and what degree of credibility any claims of his should be given, should read his complaint in a past lawsuit, where he goes on and on about how the open source community is supporting Al Qaida and other terrorism (while also noting that he tried, and failed, to launch an open source project himself), and makes bizarre accusations of conspiracies to murder him (apparently one such case actually consisted of somebody saying in an online forum that Merkey should be put in an e-mail killfile, which he interpreted as a "list of people to be killed" physically). Thus, nobody should put the slightest scintilla of credibility in any assertion this guy makes. *Dan T.* 16:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Dan T. your last edit to this section doesn't belong here. Do you understand why that is? --Duk 16:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess it might be seen as a personal attack... though it's only a link to his own legal filing, not anybody's attack on it. *Dan T.* 16:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not it. The reason it doesn't belong here is that it's unrelated crap that you are dredging up to run down another editor. It doesn't have anything to do with the post that started this section. --Duk 16:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If Merkey can bring in stuff from other places, forums, and situations to justify his own attacks on other editors, why is it wrong when I do it? Are you going to give Merkey a warning for his "Explanation of these folks intent" section? *Dan T.* 16:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Because Merkey isn't stalking people who are honestly trying to do work here, it's the other way around. He's defending himself. He didn't open this door. And most of the stuff Merkey brings up is relevant to the stalking. Dan, I've assumed the best intentions from you so far, but that's starting to run out. --Duk 16:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)--Kebron 18:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No, Merkey is accusing ANYONE who disagrees with him of trolling, sock puppetry. It is irrelevant if the corrections are true or not they are removed. It is irrelevant is one has proof of sock puppetry, it is irrelevant that no check user has been done, Merkey is right. Sorry, this premise is unacceptable. According to a sitting judge, "Merkey is not just prone to exaggeration, he also is and can be deceptive, not only to his adversaries, but also to his own partners, his business associates and to the court. He deliberately describes his own, separate reality."

This is from a court document. A judge said this in an open court room. Merkey has been banned before for behavior similar to this. I fail to understand why now that he begins again EXACTLY as before, why it is NOW acceptable. --Kebron 17:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That document is a preliminary ruling in a case that was settled and never went to trial and that happened 11 years ago. Its also the work of a Judge who was removed from the case by the Utah Judicial Conduct Commission for conducting secret meetings with Novell and its attorneys. It was also written by attorneys at parsons, behle, and latimer and not the court (hence his removal). Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

To Kebron, Merkey was reverting a single purpose trolling account that was shuffling talk page comments around. What does some unrelated lawsuit have to do with that? Your last post doesn't belong here either, Kebron. I've assumed the best intentions from you so far, but that's starting to run out.--Duk 17:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again, why is HE allowed to accuse everyone and puppetry and of trolling without proof. --Kebron 18:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Kebron, are you honestly disputing that RhodiumMiner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single purpose trolling account? --Duk 18:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yet I was accused, where is the proof? DTobias was accused... once again... where is proof? I stepped away... watching the madness continue and it just gets worse and worse. It would not surprise me if HE would be doing it himself... has someone actually done a checkuser... on ANY account? --Kebron 18:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question, Kebron. This section is about RhodiumMiner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It's also now about your trolling. Tell me, Kebron, what does some court document from more than a decade ago have to do with Jeff reverting a blatant troll.--Duk 18:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the people demanding that checkuser be run are often people who know how to circumvent it. --Duk 18:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

OK... I agree... he is one troll.... but has anyone checked THE IP address of said troll, against the others or against Merkey. Court documents also give a personality of the person concerned. Merkey has been banned before as well. This has no relation at on on him? My edits were simply removed... why??? Because I was a troll according to him. It was irrelevant if my edits were correct or not. I gave up. I stopped. Now... DTobias is the next. As an admin could you do a checkuser on all the users concerned please? What are the results?--Kebron 18:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have check user authority, but you can request one at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser. My edits were simply removed... why??? Because I was a troll according to him. ... Well, you've been following him around on this website for a year and a half. --Duk 18:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Best method to ascertain who is who is to use ocams razor. Accounts which are dormant for months then all of sudden become active again simply to follow me from article to article and revert, argue, straw poll, etc. are single purpose accounts here to harrass. Kebron is one of these. You can simply review their utter lack of useful contributions. As I stated previously, trying to reason with these people is pointless. If you block them they just come back with a plaethera of sockpuppets. They also have insiders in the Community to act the same way they do. If they appear to be stalking, they they probably are. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Part of my taking the time here is for the benefit of the admin community. I mean, just look at it! Jeff reverts a simple troll and it brings down a hailstorm of indignant chest thumping that goes on and on and on -- by a never ending stream of sister trolls! Utterly amazing. --Duk 18:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If I was acting like Merkey, I could accuse you of being a sockpuppet of Merkey. But, I won't... Now, comments from Merkey like : "...I will remove any content about them placed into this article under WP:V. They are not indians, they are not Cherokee, and they make false claims they are Federally recognized. They may have their own article titled "Southern Cherokee Wannabees" or "Southern Cherokee Fake Tribe who claim they are Federally Recognized are are not" or some other title that drops the Federal BIA desgination "Nation" as unverified. Wikiality does not work with unverified materials. Sorry. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)" A debate the continues in the "real" world. It is not resolved in the "real" world. Yet... in comes Mr Merkey stating THIS is the authority, end of story. Unacceptable. Like I said before, I have had it. Y'all decide what you want. I am done. I have said my piece. Misplaced Pages and Merkey. A match made in purgatory. Enjoy each other. --Kebron 19:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This section is about Merkey reverting a simple troll. Did you miss that part, Kebron? -- Duk 19:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, one more think Kebron. This is at least the second time you've promised to be done with Merkey. here is you previous promise. Please try to be as good as your word this time. --Duk

Duk, you're somewhat wrong. User:Kebron isn't a troll in the manner that the User:RhodiumMiner etc are, or even the manner that I supposedly am (i.e. someone who watches this mess with interest and therefore is subject to the wrath of Jeff from time to time) . You have to seperate the very few people here (maybe just one) solely for the purpose of taunting Merkey, such as User:RhodiumMiner or User:SeperateReality, with people who are genuinely worried about some of his more pisspoor and self-aggrandising edits, his agenda-pushing, ignoring of consensus, his habitual assumptions of bad faith, his ridiculous accusations of vandalism, trolling and even spambotting and use of bizarre legal sort-of-threats to get his way. Jeff is just one big ball of Misplaced Pages disruption, even if you do disregard the actions of the one or two bona fide trolls deliberately goading Jeff (Jeff's vanity does make that an endlessly entertaining sport, alas). Kebron is a good faith editor who just happens to be embroiled in this saga. --Aim Here 09:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Duk, you're somewhat wrong. User:Kebron isn't a troll... Hmmm ... Jeff properly reverts a troll; Kebron responds with seething personal attacks and - you just can't make this stuff up - dredging up old court documents from some lawsuit. And you guys think Jeff is a little odd? As for the rest of your post, there are some grains of truth there, rolled up in trolling, personal attacks and intentional disruption. --Duk 18:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, since someone suggested a CheckUser, RhodiumMiner = SeparateReality = ThreeVryl, which was pretty obvious already. Dmcdevit·t 20:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What about the others? Merkey seems to be happily throwing accusations of "botting", "sockpuppeting" and "trolling" all over the place with blatant disregard for WP policy, and nobody is picking him up on this. His latest set of accusations are over on the Mountain_Meadows_Massacre page where he appears to be trying to get the mormons all riled up. Honestly, the biggest troll of the lot is none other than Jeffrey Vernon Merkey.

Mountain Meadows massacre

Mountain Meadows massacre is again facing protection because Merkey is perpetuating an edit war there, re-adding disputed edits almost immediately after the article was un-protected yesterday, and labeling the subsequent reverts as vandalism. He is also attacking editors (mostly via edit summary) who dispute his edits. I can provide diffs if requested. I personally feel that his behavior is disruptive, and I invite admins here to take a look and judge for themselves. Thanks, alanyst 17:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a large number of editors failing to observe WP:OWN on that article. They roost on it and revert edits with a remote spambot based at BYU. Anyone who edits the article gets accussed of being an anti-mormon (they are all LDS church members) and accussed of disruption. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

These are extraordinary claims. (A remote spambot based at BYU???) They should be accompanied by extraordinary evidence to support them; else they are simply baseless attacks. alanyst 22:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I live 20 minutes from BYU. How many times have you been in the LDS Church data center? I've been there several times. I sold tons of equipment into there. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 01:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that non-sequitur translates to "I have no evidence". alanyst 02:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The edit history on the article is the evidence. Rotating IP addresses accross wide IP ranges and proxy servers with the same statement "remove anti-mormon POV" at regular time intervals, like a timer is going off. Excuse me, but I know LDS culture and the term "anti-mormon" is a vulgar stereotype and inappropriate personal attack. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Please be more specific. Which diffs in the history? What is the regular time interval? Which proxy servers are involved? I see no edits like the ones you describe, so I need your help in identifying them. alanyst 03:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

alan, lets move on to discuss the content. The article should remain semi-protected IMHO. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Then I see no reason to pursue this further on this page, for my part. If you are not going to acknowledge that your attacks were unfounded and apologize for them, then I leave this conversation for others to judge and take action, if any is warranted. alanyst 04:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Alan, Here are some diffs for you.

• 07:06, 21 May 2007 207.179.28.20 (Talk) (42,254 bytes) (rv anti-mormon POV changes. Please discuss these changes on the talk page before making them again)
• 06:37, 21 May 2007 65.54.155.43 (Talk) (42,254 bytes) (enough "anti" POV -- revert to earlier version on 20th May. Take all future changes to the talk page.)

Two accusations of "anti-mormon" edits. How about "pro-truth" and "pro-WP:V" instead. At 30 minutes appart no less. I believe a person posted them, after getting alerts from a monitoring system (like the ones we build). The IP Addresses of one of these comes from a known spam proxy in CO that appears to edit predominantly LDS Church articles. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether they are "Pro Mormon", they do not back up your wild accusations of coming from BYU, or being remote spambots. 65.54.155.43 is located in Ocala, Florida, and 207.179.28.20 is owned by Virtela Communications, Inc, and may well be located in Colorado. Neither are at BYU.

Now, as to whether they are spambots or not, I would suspect they are, in fact, merely people who disagreed with your somewhat radical edits. The diffs, which I note you didn't link to, support this hypothesis. and . These edits merely form part of an ongoing edit war, the combatants in which seem to be you vs everyone else. Again, what we see is Jeffrey Vernon Merkey not getting his way and flinging mud at all who stand in his way. If you think someone is a troll or a sockpuppet, report it. If you think an IP address is a spambot, report it. There are procedures for this. You're not making any friends here with your current behaviour. But you knew that.

Note to administrators: This appears to be resolved -- at least, it's now being addressed at an RfC regarding Merkey's behavior. alanyst 22:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive Pattern of Behavior by AKliman

The same editor, Andrew Kliman Akliman (talk · contribs) - who just a few days ago demanded that another editor place $10,000 in an escrow account as a precondition for him re-filing a request for mediation (which was discussed in this forum) - has continued his pattern of disruptive behavior. More recently, he deleted the RFCs posted on RFC/ECON posted by another editor. He did this to 3 different RFCs, one of them twice. RFCs are an important part of the dispute resolution process at Misplaced Pages and their deletion was a very serious offense as it was an attack on the entire Misplaced Pages community. The same editor then altered the content of WP:SHUN so that it now allows for the questioning of "disruptive" editors in an effort to get those editors to "reveal" their "motives" and as a "behavior modification technique"! The same editor then used that changed guideline on the TSSI talk page as a rationalization to ask aggressive and disruptive questions and thereby harass WP:HARASS another editor. Watchdog07 12:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

J.smith J.smith (talk · contribs) suggested writing a 'user conduct RFC'. What's the point? He has already repeatedly deleted RFCs which I have authored and no administrator has done anything about that. Why should I - or any Wikipedian - continue to author RFCs if other editors can simply delete them? If no action is taken against Andrew Kliman then you will be sending a message to Wikipedians that the RFC process no longer means anything. If that's the case, why have it as a part of the dispute resolution process? Watchdog07 23:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

First, long story short, Andrew Kliman did not "demand" any money. I discussed this with him and I will attest to this in detail if necessary, but it's a dead horse now so let's stop beating it if we could, please. On the current matter, User:Akliman is not an admin so he can't "delete" anything. What exactly do you mean? Did he blank RFC requests somewhere? If you could provide diffs that would be a big help. It's very difficult to follow up on your statement without diffs. Finally, his edits to WP:SHUN were allowed; in general, anyone may modify a Misplaced Pages page according to editorial discretion. Other users disagreed with him and reverted his changes. No big deal. Separate from that is any questioning, itself. If you feel that Akliman was disruptive in questioning you or other editors, diffs would help. ··coelacan 00:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

First, he did demand that money be placed in an escrow account of his attorney as a pre-condition for his re-filing a RFM. I have read all of what transpired. Have you? In blanking the offensive paragraph, this is what he wrote: "blanked para because I was compelled to, under threat of being blocked". He was referring to what you allegedly had written when he wrote "compelled" and "threat". I, of course, did not view what wrote as a "threat". You can call it a "dead horse" if you want to - I will continue to cite it as evidence of a pattern of disruption and bad faith. Next, the editing of WP:SHUN was also part of that pattern of disruption as the other editors of the essay clearly saw. Lastly, as I wrote previously, he blanked three different RFCs which I sent (one he blanked twice) to the RFC/ECON page. It's all there in the history of that page. Watchdog07 11:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I should have checked on his latest messages before replying: there is yet another example of disruption by Andrew Kliman: he demanded that Giano II Giano_II (talk · contribs), who may or may not also go by the user name of Bishonen Bishonen (talk · contribs), blank a part of his user talk page and implied that if he didn't do so Kliman has a right to blank, i.e. vandalize, a section of his talk page. Watchdog07 12:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Giano and Bishonen, a pair of socks? Snort. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

While I have been patiently awaiting responses from others, Andrew Kliman's harassment and disruptive behavior continues: he actually had the audacity to remove the 'neutrality disputed' tage from the TSSI article. When are you going to do something to stop his abuse of Misplaced Pages? Watchdog07 17:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Depending on the level of misrepresentation or abuse present in a message, blanking it from someone else's talk page is not inherently vandalism. Again, for pretty much everything you want admins to look at, you need to provide diffs. It is not obvious to me which edits to which pages you are talking about, without diffs. As to the "demand" you claim happened, it was not a demand. Kliman said he was not interested in taking the time to file another request for mediation if you were going to back out of it again, and he wanted to be assured that you wouldn't do that. He completely left open the option for you to file the request for mediation instead. A "demand" that leaves a person completely free to pursue another option entirely, or no option at all, is simply not a demand under most people's understanding of the word. I suggest you drop this one, because it doesn't imply what you seem to think it implies: disruption. Kliman removed this language entirely when I pointed out that per WP:NLT, we prefer that there be no mention of lawyers 'round these parts. Quick compliance with reasonable request = no disruption. For your other complaints, please provide diffs. ··coelacan 20:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone awake on this board? Andrew Kliman - yes, him again! - continues his abuse of Misplaced Pages and Wikipedians. New references include his comments on his own user talk page and the comments he made on the talk pages of Giano II and Bishonen. Then, there's the TSSI article which he reverted once again. He claims that he can revert the article as many times as he wants to and not violate the 3RR rule. The reason he gives is that the article supposedly violates WP:BLP and he has the right to unilaterally blank out anything he thinks is in violation of that rule. What he claims to be in violation of BLP is the expression "New Orthodox Marxists" which he himself introduced into the article and properly sourced! Then, he has the audacity to claim that "New Orthodox Marxists" is the "N-word equivalent" (yes, you read that right) - despite the fact that he introduced what he now calls the "N-word equivalent" into the article to begin with! While he was reverting the TSSI page he also (repeatedly) took out all of the tags, including the NEUTRALITY tag, and removed links without justification. WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO DO SOMETHING TO STOP HIS ABUSE OF WIKIPEDIA? Watchdog07 20:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You know, if you tried to sound less like a pundit, maybe someone would pay attention. JuJube 20:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be about whether proponents of the Temporal single-system interpretation of Marxism can/should be described as "New Orthodox Marxists" (whatever that means) or not.

I do not care two figs (one fig) for the argument - I am slightly surprise that people bother arguing about it today; whatever - but the article's recent edit history is just plain shocking. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not feeling very good about Misplaced Pages today. Your inactivity is disheartening to say the least. I have invested a lot of time and effort in Misplaced Pages - and have edited far more articles than Andrew Kliman and his 3 meatpuppets combined - but I will have to reevaluate my participation in this project. This would make at least one person very happy since it would allow him to succeed in his effort to get away with his laughably one-sided edits. Watchdog07 21:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I know Akliman claims he's entitled to revert ad libitum because everything's a BLP violation according to him. I hope you have also read my replies to him on that score. I have now blocked him for 3RR vio. Bishonen | talk 21:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

To the people who reply to Watchdog here, by the way: he's a new user (Akliman is fairly new too). It seems a little bitey to me to keep complaining about his style, lack of diffs, etc. Dear reader, how long had you been here before you knew how to make diffs? Me, about six months. Bishonen | talk 21:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

I am sorry, but for most of these complaints, I do not even know which pages Watchdog is talking about. I linked to help:diff. I don't want to bite, but most of us are unfamiliar with these users. I have had only very minimal interaction with them, and I can't follow the issue without diffs. ··coelacan 21:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I know, but I bet you know how unhelpful help:diff actually is. I'll go offer him a simple diff tutorial. Bishonen | talk 22:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

I thought it was more coherent than most of the Help namespace. If you write a simpler page, let me know so I can add it to user:coelacan/useful. ··coelacan 22:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Will do. It's in process. Bishonen | talk 00:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC).

A quick look at the contributions of these two editors is enough to indicate the locus of this dispute, diffs or no. I posted a link to the edit history of the article in question above.

A more troubling question than the blatant edit warring on that page (which is bad enough) is the constant refrain of WP:BLP from an editor who seems to think that the labels attached to an esoteric branch of modern Marxist thinking, and criticism of his own behaviour as an editor, is a BLP issue. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I find this discussion very disturbing because unsubstantiated charges have been leveled against me here. This may affect my reputation. Unsubstantiated charges have seriously affected my reputation in the past. I use my own name on Misplaced Pages and, in case people can't figure out what "Akliman" is short for, "Watchdog07" tells us at the top of this entry. So I definitely think there is a WP:BLP issue here.

The only reason I am not more upset is that coelacan has told the truth, setting the record straight, about some things s/he knows about, for which I am quite grateful.

WP:BLP says that controversial material about a living figure must be properly sourced. I simply don't see how "Disruptive Pattern of Behavior" can be properly sourced: this phrase draws a very negative conclusion about a living person. It goes well beyond a recitation of facts.

I respectfully ask that action promptly be taken to protect me from damage or potential damage to my reputation. Thank you.

andrew-the-k 01:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You think there's a BLP issue because he uses your real name, which is listed on your user page, and accuses you of disruptive behavior? This isn't biographical material. Phony Saint 01:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that you use your real name on Misplaced Pages, plus you edit in a controversial and high-profile manner. Don't do that then. Ceasing to do either of the two would fix the problem. Bishonen | talk 01:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC).

Misplaced Pages isn't for everyone... thats all I got to say about this whole bloody quagmire. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I examined the phrase "Disruptive Pattern of Behavior" to illustrate that claims are being made that cannot be properly sourced. In terms of the damage to my reputation, however, this is just the tip of the iceberg:

Watchdog07 has repeatedly charged that I have committed fraud in a professional capacity by claiming to co-edit a journal that is non-existent. This could potentially jeopardize my job and thus my livelihood. The journal's website is . For Watchdog07's repeated charges of fraud, see , entries 15, 26, 45, 49, 52, 54, 55, and 67, and , entries 14 and 21. (This is not the first time I am notifying the Misplaced Pages administration of this.)

At , Watchdog07 refers to my "efforts to subvert and undermine Misplaced Pages for own personal benefit."

Watchdog07 placed a comment on the talk page of someone with whom I have never had any contact whatsoever, claiming that I made an "anti-pluralist, logically inconsistent and duplicitous proposal to suppress the YER article." See . (I placed a tag that said the article read like an ad; JoshuaZ evidently agreed, since he removed the promotional language in the article.)

At , Watchdog07 alleged that an article contains an "external link whose only purpose is to sell a book written by one of the two editors of the article." Readers can easily verify that it is my book. The external link is to a page on my website which contains short reviews of the book and its Table of Contents, and which links to pages that allow readers to read the start of the Preface and the Index. The book is not sold at my website.

At , Watchdog07 charged that I am a suppressor of ideas and an opponent of pluralism. At , he charged that I am "opposed to pluralism in economics" (I am a co-organizer of an organization, and co-editor of a journal, that are dedicated to pluralism), and he implies that I am "duplicitous," "self-serving," "petty," and "vindictive."

These charges, too--and there are more--could potentially jeopardize my job and thus my livelihood. Moreover, all of them are certainly harmful to my professional reputation; this can have financial and other implications.

The controversy in which I am embroiled is not one I chose. I was compelled to overhaul the TSSI article because the original version contained many biased, harmful, untrue, and unsourced statements, such as "TSSI claims Karl Marx was literally correct ... and that there are no important logical or mathematical errors in his theory of value"; "supporters of TSSI claim that they have Marxist orthodoxy on their side"; "Supporters of TSSI typically believe that neo-classical economics does not offer any insights or concepts that could be helpful in understanding a capitalist market economy." " an international academic faction of TSSI sympathisers and supporters." See The reason I can speak about these statements being biased, harmful, and untrue is that I am a reliable source for purposes of that article and some related ones. See .

If I request an anonymous replacement username, how will I be able to verify that I am a reliable source with respect to some articles I am editing?

Also, requesting a new username takes time and is not granted automatically. My professional reputation needs to be protected in the meantime. Damage has already been done. There are most definitely WP:BLP issues here. WP:BLP doesn’t pertain just to biographical articles. It states that "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." I ask that the material cited above and similar material be removed immediately, or that it be agreed that my removal of it will not be interfered with.

In my capacity as a reliable source with respect to the TSSI article, let me note again that the phrase "N___ O___ M___," in the particular context and manner in which Watchdog07 inserted it, is also a WP:BLP issue. Specialized knowledge of the implications of the term makes it easier to understand this, but the very fact that proponents of the TSSI object to the phrase as vociferously as we do should suggest that we don't do so for the hell of it. We vociferously object to it because it is indeed exceedingly non-neutral and detrimental to the professional reputations of living persons. For an analogy that requires no specialized knowledge, take the word "pervert." In the body of an article, it is noted and properly cited that X was charged with being a pervert, and X's denial of the charge is also noted and properly cited. Then, near the top of the article, W changes "X" to "X, also called a pervert." W claims that this is ok, given that the word "pervert" is used and sourced elsewhere in the article! X protests, says it’s a BLP issue, and reverts. So then W changes "X, also called a pervert," to "X, known to others as a pervert". X continues to protest, continues to say it is a BLP issue, and continues to revert. That's what took place. andrew-the-k 03:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. This is yet another instance of the WP:WL that I have been subjected to for an extended period of time. As noted by another editor, Andrew Kliman chose to use his real name here. It is not a violation of WP:BLP to refer to someone by their chosen user name(s). This was perhaps an unfortunate choice by Kliman but it was his choice. What is done is done. If he thought that there were violations of Wiki policies then he should have acted in a timely manner and followed the Misplaced Pages procedures for registering complaints. To change what has been written would be to re-write the history of our discussions, a form of revisionist history which would suppress the content of those discussions.

At the risk of being repetitive, the claim that the expression New Orthodox Marxists is the "N-word equivalent" is both absurd and self-contradictory. It is self-contradictory because Kliman introduced it into the article and sourced it. His rationale is similarly absurd - he claims that he as an individual is a "reliable source" on this question and therefore he has the right to have his own wildly silly and contradictory interpretation of the meaning of the expression accepted by others. This is simply not acceptable ... or logical.

Everything else that he comments on has been discussed previously. Don't even think of asking me for diffs - see my comment on that on my user talk page. I should not have to devote my entire life to answering - over and over again - the same absurd claims of Andrew Kliman and/or spend it filing out forms for you. Watchdog07 07:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't think of asking you for useful information for people who might actually want to help? Do you know how impossible to read those talk pages are? 3/4's of it are accusations and the rest is incoherent to outsiders. Read my opinion and review below. MrMacMan 08:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You know -- when both started this (or whenever I saw the huge mess you guys got into) you guys actually wanted to find a middle ground. Now you just want to be 'the winner'. As a request for mediation has failed and since you yourself brought this WP:ANI report here yourself you actually have to provide specific examples so people can understand what is going on instead of PUTTING EVERYTHING IN CAPITAL LETTERING AND BOLDFACE TYPE.

This is what you have to do, you have to show specific changes to the articles in question that were bad or against policy. You can't ask people to read some 90+ KB of talk page that doesn't even include the even bigger archives -- its just not feasible. You have to show specific things so people can clearly understand what you are saying. My personal feeling is that neither of you are anywhere near 'clean' when it comes to WP:CIVIL so don't even try to point the finger -- just bring up content disputes against policy. MrMacMan 08:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I dispute your claim that Kliman et al ever wanted to find "middle ground". Alan_XAX_Freeman (talk · contribs), M.posner (talk · contribs), and Annejaclard (talk · contribs) have all been determined by J.smith "infact" to be meatpuppets who have single-purpose accounts which intervened on behalf of Andrew Kliman in an edit dispute. This was not the action of people who wanted to find a "middle ground". From the very beginning, Andrew Kliman has acted like he owned WP:OWN the article. Watchdog07 12:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It is my belief that everyone involved in this dispute should be blocked from editing that article. I'm sorry, but this proven to me that not everyone gets wikipedia. I blocked a few meatpuppets and ended a edit war and you wouldn't believe the number of emails I got from BOTH sides. If everyone involved was less eloquent I would have called it childish whining and bickering. As it is I'm very close to proposing a community enforced restriction from the article on both parties in the dispute. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Lee Nysted, the continuing saga

Banned user Lee Nysted (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back with more sock puppets (67.163.7.227 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and WhispersofWisdom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). I filed a case with checkuser, but this edit and the edit the IP address made at the checkuser case seem to me to definitively establish that they are the same person. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the letter sent to isotope23 and Yamla. It was also sent to Obiterdicta. It was also sent to the Misplaced Pages office. Mr. Nysted hopes this will end it.

If it does not, the letter will be posted from Aruba; on Mr. Wales' talk page. 67.163.7.227 21:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Isotope23, May 22, 2007

My user page has been altered to reflect a charge of being a Puppet Master. Although the user that has chosen to make this a crusade may be well within his rights to slap the badge on me, I suspect, he could have left the other information about me on said page.

I am hereby requesting, per Misplaced Pages policy, that my said account and all information about said account, be deleted. I have mailed an appropriate number of people (herein) who can bear witness to this request.

I have been the subject of vandalism, harassment, as well as, slander and libel, on Misplaced Pages. My good name, Lee Nysted, and my business associates have been wrongly accused of being puppets of various sorts, shapes and sizes.

I admitted last year to having been involved with Misplaced Pages and in order to use my real name, I attempted to have my name unprotected and unblocked. That happened, only to have the whole thing start again.

It is obvious that vandals and various cabals of administrators are intent on making a mockery of the project so I will not attempt to use my real name or likeness on Misplaced Pages at this time.

Re: Misplaced Pages and Lee Nysted:

I think what started last year as a swarm of vandals from MySpace attacking an attempt by someone to write an article about me, has now taken on a decidedly different tone.

People have been accused of puppetry that have stayed at the same hotel or live in the same community in Beaver Creek Colorado as I do. "Billy Bob Steakhouse." ??? Come on people. People from radio stations and web sites have been accused of being my puppets. The whole thing is really quite insane. It appears that even teens from a local college are involved with this mess. My drummer even took down his web site because someone is harassing him and his team on Misplaced Pages. I suspect there are people in my community (Illinois) that feel a need to tamper with things on Misplaced Pages. I have daughters in Illinois. I am quite sure my daughters and their friends have been active in all of this.

I have been in Aruba and will return to the U.S. for a brief time May 30, 2007. One of my firms has been accused of being a sock puppet? How can 20,000 people be accused of being a sock puppet? (Please see IP addresses of accused puppets.) Am I in St. Louis at the same time I am in Aruba? How was that proven? It was not. You are advertising that it is established.

Please end this. I am working on finishing a new album project and I do not want to have this whole Misplaced Pages issue involved with that, in any way.

Truly yours,

Lee Nysted

Courtesy Copies:

Lee Nysted Senior Vice President, Investments A.G. Edwards and Sons, Inc. Lake Forest, Illinois U.S.A. Established 1887 Over 700 U.S.A. Offices Offices in London and Worldwide Member N.Y.S.E.

Lee Nysted, Owner; Managing Partner NystedMusic, LLC. Colorado, Illinois, Wisconsin (U.S.A.)

Tierra Del Sol, Aruba Dutch Caribbean

www.NystedMusic.com<http://www.nystedmusic.com/> Lee@NystedMusic.com<mailto:Lee@NystedMusic.com> www.MySpace.com/LeeNysted<http://www.myspace.com/LeeNysted> www.isound.com/lee_nysted<http://www.isound.com/lee_nysted>

Legal Counsel:

Frank W. Pirruccello, Esq. www.Musiclaw1.com<http://www.musiclaw1.com/>

Roger White, Esq. and Associates, Ltd. Lake Bluff, Illinois U.S.A.

S.D. 5-22-07

For the OTRS volunteer who has to handle this, some explanation of the above may be useful. Nysted has some idea that "MySpace vandals" participated in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lee Nysted, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Lee Nysted Experience and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nysted Music, even though the sigs on the deletes there are mostly (in some cases almost entirely) from the usual xfD crowd.

His charge that his drummer (I assume he means Matt Walker.) was harrassed on-wiki is simply bizarre. Walker's site has been down for some time, but AFAIK, this has nothing to do with anything that happened on Misplaced Pages. I do not know of Matt Walker editing Misplaced Pages, nor do I know of any editor from Misplaced Pages who has contacted Walker.

Checkuser has established a number of sockpuppets that were used by Lee Nysted. Pretending to be a family member when confronted with a charge of sockpuppetry is fairly common, but I don't think I've ever heard of anyone actually blaming his child before. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Most of these "sockpuppets" are probably meatpuppets. WP:BEANS I don't really want to say too much more about it here... but suffice to say there is a strong likelihood that most of the Nysted stuff is not actually being done by Nysted himself.--Isotope23 16:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Your account can't be deleted. However, you do have a Right to vanish. Sean William 22:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Can this be construed as a legal threat? Corvus cornix 22:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Tell him to send it to OTRS if he has a problem. Until then, he needs to be blocked. ⇒ SWATJester 22:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we perhaps delete the links in there that serve nothing more than to promote his music? Tony Fox (arf!) 22:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I got most of them yesterday. I would have thought that Nysted and his sock/meat puppets would have given up by now, but they tried to readd them less than an hour later. I'm simply fed up with dealing with this, hence the "crusade" (tagging a few accounts, filing a checkuser). He was banned months ago, but just won't go away. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, please? I am just the messenger. Mr. Nysted sent this via e-mail. He is in Aruba. He does not want an article and wants nothing to do with Misplaced Pages. Please delete the account per his request. That is my final statement on this issue. 67.163.7.227 22:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop spamming. End of problem. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser confirmed. I indef blocked WhispersofWisdom and blocked the IP for a week; the IP appears to be static and thus safe to block for a longer time, but I'd like input from other editors before extending the block--I don't want to cause undue collateral damage. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You could try blocking it for a month at a time. The problematic edits are pretty easy to spot. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 13:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Right to Vanish

Per Wikimedia and Misplaced Pages

If you have used your real name, or a longstanding pen name, on Wikimedia projects then in principle everything you write can be traced to that name, and thus to you, as discussed above. However, if you decide to leave Wikimedia projects, there are a few steps that you can take to weaken that connection. They are:

• If you have made fewer than 200,000 edits, change your username to some other name, one which is not directly associated with you (see Changing username).

• Change references to your former username to be referenced to your replacement username (you can do this yourself).

• Delete your user and user talk subpages (contact an administrator). (1)

• Add a brief note indicating that you have left Wikimedia projects and asking that people not refer to you by your name.

You should note that while these measures afford a degree of practical obscurity, they will not stand up to assault from a persistent investigator, and Wikimedia projects has no control over its sublicensees, or over archiving services such as the Internet Archive or Google. Further, these actions require a degree of co-operation from the other users of the project, so Wikimedia cannot make guarantees on this matter. However, a few users have taken advantage of these kinds of measures in the past, and appear content with the results, which is enough reason for us to continue to offer this service.

See right to vanish (meatballwiki)

(1) This is the right Mr. Nysted is expecting to have accomplished per his letter.67.163.7.227 02:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No administrator is required to take administrative action. Nobody is REQUIRED to delete said page. ⇒ SWATJester 09:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You know something? Our Lee Nysted Experience has really, really sucked. We are not just dots in a computer screen. Given this, extra demands are not really clever. Moreschi 13:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I gotta say, I hadn't heard the name Lee Nysted before this saga, but you can guarantee lthought I now know it, the mention brings a displeasurable taste to the mouth. Viridae 13:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I just saw the email this morning (I have extremely limited connectivity right now) & sent it along to the foundation for their consideration because I will quite likely be almost completely offline for then next couple of weeks and the copies to his legal council would denote at least an implied legal threat.--Isotope23 17:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

From Aruba: May 23, 2007

Mr. Nysted has asked politely to have his user name, user: Lee Nysted removed/deleted

He has also asked that his user talk page be deleted. That is all that should be required, per policy. Anything short of allowing Mr. Nysted the right that Wikimedia and Misplaced Pages state above, is a violation of normal policy. 204.212.123.221 02:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

He can have his username changed to something obscure, but his edits nor his account can be deleted, due to GFDL issues. In addition, everyone else is correct, administrative action is never an obligation. Administrators can choose not to take certain action if they wish. --Deskana (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

We are not obligated to delete user pages. Reread our policies; nowhere, absolutely nowhere, does it state that we must delete userpages upon request. Continuing to assert so is absurd, ridiculous, and wrong. Further requests or demands will be denied and/or removed. —Kyриx 02:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted his userpage and talk page per his (above) request. I see no reason to deny his request to vanish. -- John Reaves (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

John, that wasn't the best move to do. The account, to what is presented here, is engaged in spamming Misplaced Pages and by using multiple accounts. On the page you cited, there is a clause at m:Right_to_vanish#Exceptions that says the following: "The right to vanish does not extend to pages retained for the purposes of protecting the website against disruption; for example requests for arbitration, requests for check user, or sockpuppet categories." The user is disrupting Misplaced Pages and doing so by using many accounts. Due to this, the pages are going back up. User:Zscout370 07:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Keeping these pages benefits no one and only serves to glorify a banned user. -- John Reaves (talk) 09:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, if it makes him go away, deleting them is probably for the best. A number of editors have the usual targets of his promo attempts watchlisted, so if he comes back, it shouldn't be too difficult to spot. The RFCU pages et al that were associated with him are still here and not likely to be going away any time soon. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the right to vanish is to permit troublesome users to leave with some dignity and Nysted is the perfect example of a troublesome user who embarrassed himself on-wiki. I would be in favor of honoring his request to the extent of deleting his user and talk pages. Of course, it would be a good idea for the OTRS volunteer who handles this to make it clear to him that "vanish" means you go away, not that you come back to spam and then blame your sockpuppetry on your daughters. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree... I've finally had a bit of time to look at this and IMO, deleting the User/Talkpage history, {{banned}} tagging the userpage, then protecting both would seem to be a good middle ground. Tony has it right... this is on quite a few editor's watchlists so I don't think we are doing much admin hinderance by deleting this. I was going to go ahead and boldly implement this, but then I noticed that the pages were deleted and restored. I'm going to go ahead and be bold here and implement this.--Isotope23 16:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted both the userpage and talkpage. I did so after I saw discussion on User talk:Jimbo Wales but before noticing this thread. Nonetheless, I strongly believe deletion is the correct course here. The deleted content will remain accessible to administrators, and yet by advising this individual that the pages will remain deleted if and only if he stays away from Misplaced Pages, we increase the chances that he will do so. Newyorkbrad 16:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That works too.--Isotope23 16:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If the Big Man (Jimbo) wants the pages gone, then I will agree with him (I been wrong before, so no big deal here). User:Zscout370 18:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad has taken the right path on this. If the users actually vanish then that's good for the project. There have been cases where people have demanded the right to vanish but then have kept returning. Folks need to understand that the right to vanish is contingent on them actually vanishing. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 20:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Creationism POV edits at dinosaur articles

Recent vandalism and Christian fundamentalist POV-pushing on dinosaur articles has gone way up in the last week or so, perhaps due in part to a recent news item which compared Misplaced Pages's article on Dinosaurs with Conservapedia's. I've never seen my dinosaur watchlist this active. I would have posted this at WP:AIAV, but many of the edits aren't vandalism per se, though some come close. List of dinosaurs gives an idea of the number of articles which are getting hit, and which itself has come under some attacks. Velociraptor, Parasaurolophus, Deinonychus, Dinosaur, Gorgosaurus, Acrocanthosaurus, Sinornithosaurus‎, Alwalkeria, Ankylosaurus, Argentinosaurus, others have been vandalized during the past couple of days. Mostly, the stuff is easy to fix, but these incidents seem to be increasing. Might some nice folks add some dinosaur articles to their watchlists? Firsfron of Ronchester 06:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)‎

I've watchlisted all the ones you mention specifically, and I'll add several more from the List of dinosaurs. Thanks for bringing this up; it could use a lot more eyes. Doc Tropics 06:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You know this is like the fourth time this week you've saved my bacon, Doc. I think some award is in order... Firsfron of Ronchester 07:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Also watchlisting. Protecting our dinos! :) --Ashenai 11:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Save them from extinction. ;-) ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 14:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If you let me know on my talk page of any articles you want me to check monitor after the initial surge dies out that the above aren't taking care of I'll be happy to help. jbolden1517 15:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If you run into persistent problems with any specific editors, I would be glad to have a little chat with them and see if we can bring them around to NPOV editing - I have had some success with similar situations in the past (and don't know enough about dinos to really help with the watchlist). Just drop me a note to point me in the right direction. Pastordavid 15:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Much appreciated! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 18:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The interest by creationists in changing Misplaced Pages articles may have been recently stimulated by this new museum which shows animatronic friendly dinosaurs interacting with early humans, and which explains how the Grand Canyon could have been created in a few days by the Noah's Ark flood in Genesis. There is a very well funded effort in the U.S devoted to "refuting evolution and expanding the flock of believers in a literal interpretation of the Bible". Expect much more of the same in any articles which disagree with fundamentalist creationism. Edison 17:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Lovely. Well, we've always had a problem with Creationist IPs adding in random stuff ("THEY DIDN'T EXIST!" or "THEY DIED BECUASE THEY GAY!", etc), but there's been a surge over the past week or so. At one time, all the articles were watched by as few as five editors. Hopefully, that has changed now. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If this gets excessive, semi-protection may be appropriate for a period of time. Georgewilliamherbert 20:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand tagging images for speedy deletion

User:Betacommand used a bot to tag hundreds of fair use images for speedy deletion last night, because they didn't have fair use rationales. While it would be preferable for all fair use images to have rationales, this heavyhanded approach caught many images which clearly qualify for fair use. In these cases it would be far less stressful and uncivil for a human to simply add the rationale, rather than pasting hundreds of threatening messages on talk pages. In addition, the bot's edits broke several articles including here and here. If Betacommand does this for another round, a discussion of blocking him and rolling back the contributions seems to be appropriate. Rhobite 12:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this has been discussed to death already. All fair use images require a specific justification in addition to the boilerplate templates, its not just "preferable." It is neither the duty nor obligation of any user to write these justifications; presumably the people most interested in the articles will be in the best position to do so. Feel free to add specific rationales to the images you want kept, according to Wiipedia and Foundation policy. Thatcher131 12:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Pray tell, what is the point of adding more text to the description page of images like Image:DickMorris RewritingHistory Cover.jpg? Johnleemk | Talk 13:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It does not have a specific fair use rational for each page it is being used on. See WP:FUC. 14:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, this badly-written bot is breaking links when it tries to leave a template inside infoboxes, potentially leaving disputed images as orphaned and liable to being deleted by Orphanbot. This is completely unacceptable, which is why I have hit the bot shutoff button. -- Arwel (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

hay stupid unblock the bot. I made those edits. I dont want to screem ADMIN abuse but that is what your doing. CHECK THE FACTS BEFORE YOU DO ANYTHING. look at who made the edits, It was me and not a bot. /me sighs yet another person who doesnt know policy, and doesnt check their facts before acting and is an admin Betacommand 17:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked your bot. Please remember to be civil, even in difficult circumstances. Thank you. --BigDT 17:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So you actually saw that your edits were damaging the articles, and yet continued editing? Words fail me - we can understand a bot messing things up, but human beings are supposed to have the ability to use common sense. If you saw the articles were being damaged, there is nothing so pressing that articles and images have to be tagged now -- the world will not end if you wait a few days and found a non-damaging way to mark disputed images. -- Arwel (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rhobite; tagging valid images that can be used under fair use only because now they need a rationale is really disruptive. You can't expect to have all the fair-use images uploaded since Misplaced Pages's creation to get a rationale in one week. Many users that uploaded those images don't contribute to the Misplaced Pages anymore, and can't place the rationale to those images. I think a bot-tagging for such images is necessary, but not marking them for deletion. A team of volunteers should try to place a rationale on the reationale-needing tagged images whenever possible, or place a deletion tag otherwise.

Anyhow, Betacommand's edits are far from the ideal way of handling this, and the user has proved not to be open to contructive critic. My 2 cents. --Mariano(t/c) 18:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

we have let these images slide for over 3 years, that is way too long. we need to take action and fast. its not my responsibility for FUR. its the uploader. tagging for deletion gets people off their butts and gets them going. All im doing is enforcing policy. the tagging and letting others come back later is a bad idea. we do the same for pages lacking source with {{nosource}} we have pages tagged that date back to 2005. for copyright violations such backlogs cannot be created. they need to be dealt with quickly. Betacommand 18:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

you still don't get it. Nobody is arguing with you about policy. It's you method at addressing the problem that irks people. Blueshirts 19:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there anybody with the technical knowledge to actually write a good, functioning bot to automatically add rationale to established fair use images like album covers and sports team logos? Where should I ask for this bot? Blueshirts 19:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I could write it if were possible but per policy a bot cannot fill in the details needed for a valid FUR. Betacommand 19:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not talking about a bot that automatically fills rationale for every image without a fair use rationale. The person who runs the bot should be discriminate. I don't know how to run a bot, but the bot user obviously only runs the bot for images that share the same, yet specific, rationale. Like album covers or sports team logos. Blueshirts 19:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Even then a bot cannot do that. bots are not smart enough to write a valid FUR as EACH must be unique and specific to the image. Betacommand 19:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Which policy is this? Also, yes, bots are smart enough to write a valid FUR for certain kinds of acceptable fair use. --badlydrawnjeff

talk 19:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff bots cannot be that smart. Trust me Ive been trying to make a smart bot for a very long time. see WP:FURG we need a detailed explanation of why me must use the image every time we do use it. A bot cannot be programmed to be human. Also read WP:NONFREE Betacommand 19:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I can think of several types of images that could have a highly generic fair use rationale (chiefly: album and book covers). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Betacommand. I've been working on images for the last few months, as have others. The best things that have happened to the image situation in that time have been BJBot and Betacommand's tool. And the reason why is that they wake people up by moving large quantities of non-conforming images into deletion categories so that they are noticed.

I would oppose any attempt at creating a bot to automatically fill in fair use rationales. If a bot were going to do that, what's the point in requiring a fair use rationale for each use? Just put it in the template. Corvus cornix 20:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that he has chosen to improve his tool so that it notifies the uploaders when he tags the images, since technically that is not required. There seem to be some users working hard at WP:NR to address this issue, but it isn't clear to me that they were doing much before Betacommand got his tool working.

It's not like these images are gone forever. If 6 weeks from now, you come across an album page and you think 'This used to have an image on it': check the history, find the deleted image, prepare a rationale for it, and take it to Deletion review.

I expect and hope that the volume of image tagging that Betacommand is doing will drop off in the next couple of weeks because the backlog of images get fixed or removed. After that hopefully the folks working on rationales now continue to monitor new images to help less experienced users bring their images into compliance with our guidelines when they are uploaded. ~ BigrTex 19:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you can provide a valid rationale for an image, I don't see why you'd need to send it to DRV. Just restore and add the rationale. We're not a bureaucracy. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with that, in fact please don't take them to deletion review. (Deletion review requires you attempt to resolve it with the deleting admin first...) --pgk 19:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This has been something that has annoyed me for a while. Orginally, WP:CSD said that an image could be speedied for having no rationale only if it had a generic tag {{fairuse}} or {{fairusein}}. That statement was removed without discussion and for the stated intention that {{fairusein2}}, {{fairusein3}}, etc, should also apply. It was never intended to apply to all fair use images, only to those with a generic tag.

The rationale for using a Microsoft or Virginia Tech logo in their respective articles is obvious and anything you would want to say about them could be stuck on a template. There is nothing whatsoever that you can say about the Virginia Tech logo that you couldn't also say about the logo for Michigan State University or Notre Dame. When you want to repeat text, you put it on a template, so there's no reason that any rationale we would want for a logo couldn't be put on a template and shared for all of them.

If the image obviously qualifies for fair use and is only missing a pro forma rationale, please, just FIX IT rather than having it deleted. Creating extra busy work serves no purpose. By all means, if it is a promo photo or so-called historic photo or something like that, kill it dead and if lack of a rationale is the excuse, that's fine. But we don't need to go around killing logos, screenshots, or other things where there is nothing meaningful to say beyond what is on the tag. --BigDT 19:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

BigDT, the issue is we cant just have the images because it makes the page look better. the images are copyright and we need to explain why me must inculude the image. Does the article HAVE to have that image? if not remove it. Betacommand 19:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no Misplaced Pages policy, standard, or guideline which states that all articles need an image. Free images? Sure. But if the article has a non-free image just so it can be there, or just to show a picture of the thing which is already obviously the subject of the article (and yes, I'm looking at you too, album and book covers) is outside of current policy. The fair-use rationale explicitly requires critical commentary about the image in the article in every case excepting logos. (ESkog) 20:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, every case excepting logos. If any logo can be found to be fair use for the article on the organization that the logo is representation of, then all logos are fair use. It's pretty simple, really: a logo is fair use because it's a logo; a logo is an important visual representation of an organization that serves to immediately identify that organization in the real world and it serves exactly the same purpose on Misplaced Pages. If we can write up a fair use rationale for one logo, then the exact same rationale will apply to all other logos as well. Betacommand, however, is indiscriminately tagging logos along with all the other things he's tagging (actually, he said he decided to start with logos, which plenty of people have explained are the least troublesome fair use images we have). Lexicon (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but for right now, the standard is that in basically every article about a company or school, we have the logo of the institution in the upper right corner of the article. Do we have to do it that way? No, not really. But still, that's the standard. As long as it remains the standard, removing logos piecemeal is silly. For anything uploaded prior to the last six months, at the time they were uploaded, WP:CSD said that only {{fairusein}} had to have a rationale. So deleting these things instead of fixing them is bad. If we want to change our policy and use NO logos unless the logo itself is a source of controversy and we are offering commentary on it, I'm all for that. I think infoboxes would look nicer with photographs anyway. But that isn't how we do things right now, and tagging these things is just creating busy work.--BigDT 22:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems as though the only place where we really, truly differ is on the amount of time it takes to "fix" an image. I believe, and I think Betacommand does as well, that the current system of tagging an image and notifying the uploader is most likely to see results within the first seven days; if it does not, then it is better to delete the image so that someone can start over. We all seem to agree that non-free images need a fair-use rationale, and that we should do something about making sure that happens. This isn't as big a dispute as it would appear, on the whole. (ESkog) 04:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

There's something you are not considering. Take for instance image Image:Cybersix.jpg; from {{comicpanel}}, Cydebot changed it into {{Non-free comic}}, and then Betacommand into {{non-free use disputed}}. The problem here is that we lost the info that this is a comics image without proper fair use rationale. Wasn't it a lot easier and useful to chenge the {{Non-free comic}} template to reflect the new policies, instead of replacing the tag for god-knows how many low-res comic images?

This makes life harder for anyone trying to add rationales to a kind of images of a topic he knows best. --Mariano(t/c) 13:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:NONFREE no template can be a fair use rationale. you cant create a template that is a valid Fair use rationale. /me feels like a parrot repeating himself 10 times a day</rant>. Betacommand 19:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Just in passing, I have added a fair use rationale for one of the tagged images, and would be interested in whether it is considered sufficient. ]. It is not a template, but a similar rationale could easily be developed for a great many images. Euryalus 01:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It is. Lexicon (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in debating Betacommand's effort to require fair use rationale for images. I do want to point out, again, that the bot is leaving garbled posts on talk pages which do not adequately inform editors that images have been tagged for deletion. When Arwel_Parry mentioned that fact above, the only response from the bot's author was name calling. The author of a bot bears the responsibility for ensuring that the bot works before running it, and certainly to respond more appropriately when users point out the problems that the bot has caused. For example, see this talk page for an article which I wrote, on author Hy Turkin. The bot attempted to paste two templates, notifying the editors that an image linked in the article was missing source information and a fair use rationale. The code was malformed, so neither template was rendered correctly. Additionally, the name of the linked image was malformed (the underscore in the file name was transmuted to a space). People who are watching this page see what looks like garbage text, and unless they take the time to deconstruct what this code is supposed to say, they have no idea that an image within the article has been tagged for speedy deletion. The end result is that a change will be potenentially made to this page without adequately informing the editors. The bot puts the burden on them to figure out what Betacommand meant. That's a huge disservice, not just to the editors of affected pages but to the entire wikipedia community. I'm assuming good faith here, that Betacommand wanted to take action to address the rampant problem of images without proper attribution. The burden should rightly be on the people who uploaded them to address the issue. However, by running a poorly written bot, what will happen is that tens of thousands of images will be speedily deleted without the authors of affected pages knowing what's going on. Anson2995 14:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Canadian Royal Family (second nom)

Right guys, I closed the above AfD discussion yesterday as redirect to Monarchy in Canada, and the creator of the article (G2bambino (talk · contribs)) is continuously recreating the article in a slightly different name (Royal family of Canada), he’s basically doing a cut and paste move of the orignal article. Can someone else go and have a nice word with them, because every time I try and redirect the new page – he reverts. Cheers. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The AfD was for an article titled Canadian Royal Family. The result was a redirect, with no decision reached on what should happen to the cited and verifiable content of that article that wasn't, and still isn't, repeated anywhere else. The information cannot simply be deleted, so without other option, it goes in a new article. The title Royal family of Canada corresponds to the topic therein. --G2bambino 15:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was redirect, not merge, or copy and paste into a new article, the consensus was that the content wasn't needed. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Cited, verifiable and relevant content cannot be simply deleted. --G2bambino 16:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes it can, it was the result of the AfD. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if that is the consensus of the AfD, then that is the consensus of the AfD. Pastordavid 16:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that's censorship, and against WP:DEL. --G2bambino 16:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, that's consensus. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't care. The consenus is wrong. If anyone has any suggestions as to where else the content should go, I'm all ears. But there's patently no reason to delete it, what-so-ever. --G2bambino 16:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• You do realise that the above is usually step one on the road to a ban, don't you? Guy (Help!) 16:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so now we're resorting to threats. I can see how the co-operation Misplaced Pages is built on is coming into full effect here. I'll repeat myself, so it's clear: the content is cited, verifiable and relevant information; no part of WP:DL justifies its deletion. If everyone's adamant that there will be no article called Canadian Royal Family, then so be it, but I'm at a loss as to where else to put the contents that aren't currently anywhere else. Got suggestions or questions, please raise them, but don't blindly resort to bullying. --G2bambino 16:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what people believe here, what matters is the consensus of the AfD, in essence, the content isn't required here so you don't have to put it anywhere else, and that includes creating pages with slightly different names. since the history of Canadian Royal Family isn't deleted, you could put content in Monarchy in Canada if there is consensus to do so on the talk page. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

G2bambino: it's not a threat, it's a statement of fact. Asserting that you are right and consensus is wrong, and continuing to go against consensus on that basis, is an absolutely certain route to a ban. Do not ignore consensus, or those who have told you that you must respect it, engage on the talk page of the redirect target and see if there is a way your content can be acommodated. And if it can't, then learn to live with it. Guy (Help!) 17:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Royal Family was re-established precicely because a plethora of content was moved out of Monarchy in Canada after the latter grew to an immense size. Putting it back there - ie. making Monarchy in Canada longer again - is against WP guidelines. Regardless, I'll move it back, for a second time, and start a discussion about it, but nobody besides me really makes major edits to that article. --G2bambino 16:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This was briefly discussed at DRV today. The only reason there was a case to consider was that a merge occurred last year, and we needed the history back. As I commented in the DRV, the consensus of the AFD is blazingly obvious, and any changes to it need to be the result of the formation of a different consensus in the appropriate place. Ignoring the AFD consensus is disruptive editing. My initial opinion was that the redirect should be protected, but others at DRV disagreed. I see that the edit war over the redirect is continuing, so I reiterate the call for a protection. Normally, we would always protect at the wrong version, but since one version has a consensus and the other doesn't, one is more wrong than the other. GRBerry 16:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I completely agree, and have ion fact already protected the redirects. Guy (Help!) 16:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree, G2bambino please respect the consensus in this matter. 16:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Consensus is wrong? Even if it is, you still have to wait for it to change G2bambino. Sancho 16:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes. A number of people involved in the AfD (obviously the majority, but certainly not everyone) operated under the clearly mistaken belief that almost all the content of Canadian Royal Family was already covered at Monarchy in Canada; it was, and still is, not. Poor research before casting a vote, it seems. The consensus can indeed change, but there needs to be a forum where that can happen. Completely obliterating the content under question doesn't allow for that. --G2bambino 17:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The correct forum is Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. You can raise your objections to the outcome of the AfD, especially the one you just mentioned (poor research, etc.) and hopefully a more informed consensus will result. Sancho 17:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:DRV, and if that does not work, then the community has spoken. 17:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

While DRV often rejects disputes over redirecting and merging, instead referring them to a consensus to be formed on the article's talk page, per the discussion here I've opened a new review at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 23#Canadian Royal Family to discuss the redirection issue. I didn't reopen the earlier review as the GFDL history issue should be kept separate. GRBerry 17:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was mulling over whether this would be necessary/useful as I'm not particularly driven to have the particular article reinstated, just to ensure that the valid content goes somewhere appropriate. --G2bambino 17:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, but what I do when something is going to be deleted that I don't think the world can live without is I save a snapshot of the page into the edit history of my own sandbox. Then it can always be retrieved down the road. If it's already gone, you can request a copy of it in your user space, save the content into your sandbox, then have it deleted. - Crockspot 21:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem that all of this leaves is that editors at Monarchy in Canada are more or less compelled to keep doing what Gbambino is doing - it is the right editorial decision. Content gets merged per AfD - article is way too big, so it needs to be split out again, et cetera.... WilyD 12:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

::I thought (aswell) the AfD vote at Canadian Royal Family was to Redirect to Monarchy in Canada, not Merge with it. I also don't like that tone of the consensus was wrong. ALL Afd's should be respected by all editors (majority opinon must be upheld). GoodDay 23:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Resolved – neo-nazi userpage deleted. Editor indefblocked - Alison ☺ 20:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Resolved

Resolved

Resolved

Resolved

Resolved – User(s) blocked. Sean William 17:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved – Blocked for 24 hours by another admin.

Resolved

Resolved – Doesn't require administrator action. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Resolved

The Evil Spartan 00:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

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