Revision as of 20:21, 14 July 2007

Purge the cache to refresh this page

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Current issues

Heads-up on User: 70.128.41.152

70.128.41.152 (talk · contribs)

This anon has been quietly removing {{trivia}} and similar tags from pop-culture related articles over the last couple of days with neither significant edits nor any talk page consensus to justify such moves. I have reverted where I found them, and warned him once, but keep an eye out in case he goes back to it. Daniel Case 14:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

User:DG

User:DG has been indef blocked a few minutes ago after he started vandalizing. This editor left last August and just went back today. I am a bit uneasy about his support vote on an RfB just before the vandalism. What should we do? Strike the comment? -- lucasbfr 09:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

And strange that he moved the user page of the preceding voter on that RfB. And I blocked him --Steve _(Stephen) 09:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I left a note but didn't strike it; it's bureaucrat discretion. Chick Bowen 20:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This user has now been unblocked by Andrevan: . Chick Bowen 00:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the subject of this speculation and would like to clear everything up. First off, my account is not compromised. I am me, whatever that means. I'm a little bit disturbed at the fact that someone decided that the most appropriate thing to do was actually INDEFINITELY BLOCK ME FROM WIKIPEDIA! The reason given "possibly compromised" is pretty bogus too. Is there a trend of using the reason of "possibly compromised account" as a coverup bogus reason to block users? Not being paranoid, just wondering. Especially given that Stephen over there suggested that I was blocked "until it could be proven otherwise." So now everyone has to PROVE their account couldn't be "compromised" (however you define that) and it is otherwise assumed that they are to be blocked?

(By the way, seeing as my account is not an admin, how exactly does its compromisal pose such a dire threat to wikipedia that I and any IP I may use must be permanently and indefinitely blocked from Misplaced Pages? The whole compromise thing REALLY sounds like a lame excuse. Arr! Conspiracy, etc, etc.)

Okay, anyway. End-of-paranoid-crazy-rant. In all seriousness, Stephen: I'm sure it was an honest mistake, just don't do it again to other people. Pretty silly thing to do if you ask me.

Anyway, the move of User:Silence was done in something like good faith. I have reason to believe that User:Silence would have appreciated the humour behind that move.

Okay, so I vandalized Otherkin in a minor way. Mea culpa. That was unjustifiable. I didn't know we permanently blocked people from Misplaced Pages for that now though.

If you wish to disenfranchise me and remove my vote at RfB, go ahead. I'd rather you didn't, but I guess that is the prerogative of those mighty bureaucrats who grok the zenlike nature of consensus.

By the way, I haven't had edits for months because I've been changing computers and consequently my edits for the last few months have all been through anonymous IPs. I finally logged in again because User:Silence told me that Andre was on RfB. Seeing as I votes for him last time he was on RfB, I was delighted to encore. I hardly thought it would cost me my user account under rather ridiculous pretenses.

Anyway.

PS: The above few paragraphs may contain plenty of sarcasm and thinly veiled anger, etc. I hope you won't take it too personally. In all seriousness, like I said, I'm sure it's just an honest mistake.

Kind of stupid mistake though. Can you justify yourself?

D. G. 05:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's protective measure to preserve the integrity of a user's account, and their contributions. When someone vanishes for months, after being a productive editor, then returns making vandalistic edits, then most people think "compromised account", and an admin will protect it to ensure that that person's reputation is not destroyed. --Haemo 05:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, indefinite does not mean infinite. We had some problems with users that got their accounts compromised, and that's what came in mind first when we saw your contributions. You could have requested an unblock, the explanation you provided above would probably have been enough :). Since that got cleared up, of course your account shall remain unblocked. Just keep in mind the usual laius about vandalism... -- lucasbfr 09:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

DG, try looking right there on the login screen: "If your account is compromised, it may be permanently blocked unless you can prove you are its rightful owner". You don't login for months and then make vandal edits; that points to a compromised account as we've had many examples over the last months. So, thanks, I can justify my actions. The only stupidity was yours. --Steve _(Stephen) 12:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry. I think I may have made a complete fool of myself, and you are indeed right when you say that the only stupidity was mine.

The intention of the block clearly was to prevent someone else from ruining my reputation. What it was unable to do was prevent me from ruining my own reputation. I am really quite embarassed at how badly I've blown it here. You were just trying to do your job. Thank you, and sorry. D. G. 00:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to say that if I could retract the above crazy rant I made, I would. D. G. 01:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: 24.225.244.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has requested a new account at Misplaced Pages:Request an account#VfD. From this edit, 24.225.244.250 and DG are apparently the same person. DG posted a message at User:DG saying he was going on a long wikivacation and then shows up at WP:ACC the same day requesting a new ID. This seems like a pretty clear case of avoiding scrutiny from other editors. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

User:TREYWiki

TREYWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked "based on a diff which has now been oversighted, in which you purported to state the first name and geographical location of another editor." I can find no diff, but even so, an indefinite block, which was given, is a tad excessive. 12 or 24, yes, but indefinite, no. I request that admins take a look at this and would kindly request that Trey's block be overturned outright or knocked down to 12 to 24 hours with an apology to the editor whose name and "geographical location" was given and let all be forgiven.

Trey is a very hard-working editor who keeps his nose clean and has a track record to back it up. He was only blocked one other time for something I got him in the middle of and we both apologized to the editor after our blocks expired....which is what I think should happen here.

Again, I request an admins attention, Trey's block reduced to 12 or 24 hours or overturned outright and the request of an apology to be issued to the editor whose name and "geographical location" was given.

Full disclosure, I am a friend of Trey's (online) but I was not asked by him to post this. Thank you for your attention. - NeutralHomer 20:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a neutral comment, but oversighting means no one else but oversights can see the diff. Kwsn 21:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

What I was trying to say is this diff was not included in the block summary...and more so, indefinite is still too harsh for what is claimed. - NeutralHomer 21:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No. No unblock. Outing someone is the worst type of misdeed. I worked with Trey a lot as well, and ever since the outrage with H, I believe anyone who outs someone's real-life identity should be indefblocked and stay that way. Blueboy96 21:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Trey could apologize and say he won't do it again, any time he wants to. I don't see that he's made any attempt to do so. Hard-working or not, I see no reason to even consider lifting the block until he at least does that. Friday (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: see also User_talk:Nick#User:TREYWiki_Block, the blocking admin's talk page. Apparently this is going through ArbCom via email. Just sit tight. Flyguy649 _contribs 21:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"I've only submitted a summary of the situation to ArbCom via e-mail, there's no case open as yet, and indeed, there may not even be a case." It has only bee submitted via email, that is why I brought it to AN's attention. I am unfamiliar with the situation, just Trey...nor am I familiar with User:H. But, don't some of us kinda tell where we live on our userpages? In some cases, our real names. I will wait for ArbCom, but I think this block should be reduced considerably. - NeutralHomer 21:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Some do. But that should be our decision, not that of someone who doesn't like us. If I deal with trolls a lot, I do not want them being able to search for an identity I never made public and then harass me in real life. That will seriously impact my real life, in a way I can only partially deal with by ceasing activity on Misplaced Pages. Driving people away and causing real life problems is TOTALLY unacceptable. -21:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it should NOT be an indefinite block offense, especially for a user who has cause no trouble in the past, with the exception of the problem I got Trey caught up in, which should not be held against him.

For a user with such a clean track record, he should be only blocked for 12 to 24 with the stipulation that he apologize after the block expires and does not do it again or the punishment will be reinstated. I think that is reasonable. - NeutralHomer 21:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have received e-mails from both the blocking administrator and the blocked user and forwarded them to the Arbitration Committee mailing list. Inasmuch as the arbitrators have Oversight access and can see blocked diffs, it struck several administrators that they might be the best people to review the unblock request at this time. Newyorkbrad 21:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

An update, Trey has apologized to the editor in question (without naming names). I think the apology is enough to lift this block. - NeutralHomer 00:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It was kind of a backhanded apology. He was apologizing that the John Doe wanted anonymity moreso than apologizing for his actions. --Hemlock Martinis 01:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It kinda upsets me that I am the only one willing to assume good faith and give Trey another chance. He has apologized (which if you add a comma to one part, it sounds better) and has no history of problems, I think we should give him a second change and assume good faith here. - NeutralHomer 01:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Once ArbCom sorts it out, then we will see what action is needed. Until then, it is useless to waste oxygen on this topic. User:Zscout370 01:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom hasn't even taken up the case and what if they don't? We continue to show bad faith? :S - NeutralHomer 01:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If ArbCom doesn't take up the case, we will cross that bridge if and when we come to it. I also disagree about showing bad faith, I believe, that by continuing to block Trey, we are taking an appropriate precaution at this time. Nick 01:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This is now moot point. Trey has left Misplaced Pages. You all should be ashamed, you tell everyone to assume good faith, you have done the opposite. Trey apologized, you continued to assume bad faith. Trey was an editor who was not a trouble maker, but you all treated him like one. Pathetic. - NeutralHomer 03:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Will you stop pouting in our faces? What makes you think that you are the only one assuming good faith here? You think I wanted him to go? I did not, but I did not say anything because this matter was out of our hands, and therefore of no use. —Kurykh 03:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is important to assume good faith, but what good faith explanation is there for posting personal information? --bainer (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Bainer. Admittedly, it's unfortunate that Trey had to be made an example, but we simply can't tolerate outing people's personal information here. We learned a hard lesson from what happened to H--when someone's privacy is involved, drop the hammer and drop it fast. Blueboy96 20:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

For my part, this is one of the least forgivable things one can do to Misplaced Pages. Outing users who have made efforts to remain private compromises everything we're about, and 10,000 productive article edits don't change that. (ESkog) 22:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

DeletedContributions

Just a heads up that the DeletedContributions extension is now live here. Administrators can access it at Special:DeletedContributions. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice. Prodego 22:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Is this going to be integrated into the UI? To show, say, deleted contributions above or below normal contributions? Or perhaps a link from the toolbox?  ;) --Steve _(Stephen) 22:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there will be a link from Special:Contributions; no plans currently on incorporating deletedcontribs in with regular contribs though. Expect the link to be up within a week on Misplaced Pages. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Really nice! An edit counter at the top of the user's contribs, or even the contribs showing up would be even greater, but that's very nice. -- lucasbfr 23:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely excellent - thank you devs! Kuru 23:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't use it but this'll help with things like renamings and vandals. Thanks! R Contribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: the edit counter thingie: this is really easy to do, as there is already a field in the user table that store's a user's editcount (approximate, but good enough). The devs won't do it unless there's community support for it, due to editcountitis and stuff like that. Raise it up on WP:VPT or another Pump to get approval for that addition. Titoxd 23:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet. Viridae 13:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• I've updated {{vandal}} and {{IPvandal}} to include a hot link to this, to make research before blocking easier on WP:AIV. — xaosflux 03:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Awesome! Viridae 03:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow! Just - wow. Excellent work. Looking forward to pwning even more people using it wisely. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Useful for all kinds of things. Next question: would deleted diffs be possible? Chick Bowen 03:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The parties to the case are strongly encouraged to enter into mediation arrangements regarding any disputes over article content that may still be outstanding. All parties are reminded in the strongest possible terms that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and not a forum for conspiracy, personal attacks, nor the continuation of ethnic disputes by other means. "Parties who continue such behaviour, and parties who consider it their moral duty to call out such behaviour, will be hit on the head with sticks until the situation improves."

Rama's Arrow (talk · contribs) is desysopped, but is welcome to apply for reinstatement at RfA at any time. As always, administrators should not use their administrative powers in conflicts or disagreements they are involved in. Administrators who are parties to this case are reminded that they should find an uninvolved admin to determine if blocks or other actions against any other parties to the case are appropriate, and should under no circumstances take such actions themselves. Any party that violates the ban on admin actions imposed in this case will be summarily desysopped once the violation is brought to the attention of the Arbitration Committee.

This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 15:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Have the arbitrators issued an implementation notice about what kinds of sticks to use, and how hard to hit people's heads with them? Is it the kind of hitting that typically necessitates 24 or 48 hours off editing afterwards, on doctor's orders? ;-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we're allowed to hit pretty hard and fast. The "summary desysopping" bit counts as a stick, of course. A couple of arbitrators commented that it was with difficulty that they'd restrained themselves from banning everyone in sight for wasting so much time: personally, I would have banned everyone in sight :) Sticks may be applied fairly liberally, right? Certainly, several of the parties appear to need wood applied to wood. Moreschi 16:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Much as I thank ArbCom for handling this difficult case, I note that other than the guidance to use sticks the decision gives no guidance to admins on how we are supposed to enforced this ruling. In particular how is someone to apply sanctions to an editor who "continues in such behaviour" without falling into the category of those "who consider it their moral duty to call out such behaviour"? WjBscribe 16:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I took that to mean that the sticks ought to be applied by outsiders. That's a good idea in theory, but it's going to be difficult to implement, because outsiders are unlikely to notice disruptive behaviour, and insiders, as you say, are going to risk contact with the stick themselves for notifying the outsiders... Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, our goal is to stop the stalking of edits and admin action between the parties (especially admins) in this case. If they continue the disruptive behavior towards each other it will be obvious and any uninvolved admin should bring it to the attention of ArbCom so the admin can be desyopped. FloNight 18:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Request clarification

I don't get it. Reading the conclusions, this says that (1) there's no real evidence, (2) Rama blocked some people, and therefore (3) Rama is desysopped. It seems to me that (3) does not follow, as none of the findings of fact gives a credible rationale for the deopping. Now I'm not saying this is wrong or disagreeing or anything, but reading the outcome of the case it is entirely unclear why the outcome is like that. I'd like to ask the ArbCom to clarify their findings.

Furthermore, (4) henceforth, any admin using their power when involved in a conflict will be summarily deopped. I'm not saying that's a bad idea, but it would appear to be a new policy, since it does not specify any case or limit or whatnot, and is worded to apply all over the Wiki. >Radiant< 09:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Having lived with the case for the past 2-1/2 months while clerking it, I think that what may appear as gaps in the reasoning of the decision are pretty much a by-product of the drafting-by-committee process that is used. If one takes a look at the /proposed decision page, one will find a detailed rationale written up by one arbitrator in support of desysopping. The other arbs voted against the proposed findings of fact but in favor of the desysopping, but did not propose substitute wording, probably because in the meantime Rama's Arrow had desysopped voluntarily and has (hopefully temporarily) left the project, making it unnecessary to spend time honing precise words of criticism. I don't speak for the arbitrators on this, but it seems pretty clear from talkpage discussion by the arbitrators that a major factor considered was Rama's Arrow's behavior during the arbitration case itself.

It is also pretty clear that the remedy and enforcement regarding administrators, particularly the comment about summary desysopping, relate to the parties to this case (though the general principle of not taking admin action in a dispute one is personally involved with applies more generally, of course). If there is a genuine and material uncertainty as to the meaning of the decision, clarification can be requested at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration—but please, given the turmoil that this case has caused already, this should be done only if there is a very substantial issue to be raised, and not simply to raise semantic concerns about the wording, even if meritorious. Newyorkbrad 12:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Editors interested in this ruling may be interested in User:Bakasuprman's post at User talk:Dbachmann, here. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason that you unblocked AOL Europe?

Please show me the links to the decisions concerning blocking and unblocking AOL Europe. Thank you 195.93.60.102 20:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Range was unblocked on 8 July by Sarah, who cites an OTRS ticket; we'd probably have to ask her or another OTRS volunteer for details, beyond that. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Er, okay. Sorry about that guys, obviously it was a mistake. I'll reblock if it hasn't already been reblocked. I was trying to help riana clear a block that came from an OTRS unblock request. Sorry. Sarah 08:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Woah, sorry about the trouble. And it didn't even help the OTRS customer out. Sorry for getting Sarah in strife :| ~ Riana ⁂ 10:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Downstream copyright violation

How can I investigate and correct (if necessary) a downstream use copyright violation. The situation is that this article uses text taken directly from this version of Christ the Redeemer (statue). Sancho 22:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it just that two sentances, or are the descriptions for the other "wonders" taken from here too? /wangi 22:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Machu Picchu's lifted also. I didn't bother checking the rest. Bladestorm 22:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I checked Taj Mahal and Great Wall of China... those are lifted also. Sancho 22:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

See WP:MF for information on sites that copy content. This one case may be too minor to be worth any effort. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This happens all the time. People plagiarize from Misplaced Pages or vice-versa. Sometimes it takes a little sleuthing to see who really copied from whom. Sometimes the same person wrote both, or both plagiarized from a common third source. If you are sure that the newspaper is just cribbing parts of Misplaced Pages articles without attribution (and claiming they have the copyright to the material), it still doesn't mean the site itself is trying to get away with it. Sometimes it's just one reporter who would rather copy stuff than write their own copy. In that case the editor in chief would probably like to know one of their reporters isn't writing their own material, so if you write an email directly to them on your own behalf you'll get action a lot faster than a formal Misplaced Pages violation notice. Of course if they're doing this on purpose as an organization they'll probably tell you to get lost no matter what you do. Wikidemo 04:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a pretty respectable news organization I think (a main newspaper in India), so it's more likely that just a single editor yanked the material and claimed it was their own. I did end up sending an e-mail to the editor. I'll keep track of developments at Misplaced Pages:Mirrors_and_forks/Ghi#Hindustan_Times. Sancho 05:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I checked the timestamps against the reported time of first publishing of the article and it does look like the material was first on Misplaced Pages, then in the news article. Sancho 05:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Curious to see how it turns out. The timestamps aren't conclusive, though. Sometimes a newspaper reprints an article or cannibalizes an old article when writing a new one, so the Misplaced Pages entry could be from the old article. And sometimes you find something really funny, like turning out that the newspaper reporter themself is the WIkipedian who wrote the language into the article. In that case you would scratch your head and have to think through who owns the copyright and exactly what if anything they did wrong. Wikidemo 06:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Strange how these things happen. I've seen articles on certain UK government websites that were copied from their Misplaced Pages articles and placed their by their webmasters (I know because I personally know the editor and he is of good standing). Anyway they've been copied onto the UK government websites and placed under crown copyright with no attribution. But hey I don't think we want to go taking on the crown. Ben W Bell talk 14:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

A wikipedia article I contributed extensively to has been plagiarized by a newspaper writer at least once that I'm aware of; whole sentences I wrote were cut and pasted with minimal (and sometimes no) attempt at rewording and no attribution. I didn't take it as a big deal (it's GFDL so it's not like I felt I "owned" it, even if technically they should have attributed 'pedia for it); if anyone tried to flag the article as a copyvio, the timestamps on the article vs the newspaper copy are pretty clear. I just saw it as an indication that I always have the option of a second career as a local newpaper writer if what I do now doesn't pan out.--Isotope23 16:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this sort of thing is a really big deal. We on Misplaced Pages might be used to the concept of GFDL, but media outlets take any sort of plagiarism extremely seriously (usually, if someone is willing to copy from WP without attribution, then they're doing it from other sources too). People have lost their jobs for copying from WP before. It's extremely unkosher to go copy text from WP without attribution and place it anywhere. The fact that the crown did it is even worse. But for newspapers, I would heavily suggest popping a notice to the editor. The Evil Spartan 17:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I was quite amused to see several sentences I wrote about the history of the UK railways in the Privatisation of British Rail article reappear in a massive report by the Railway Pensions Commission this past month. My phrasing isn't actually still in our article, but I recognised it on sight and looked it up in the old versions! -- Arwel (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The UK's Daily Mail got picked up for this kind of thing, lifting content from website TV Cream, a couple of times in 2002, as did its freesheet sister paper Metro in 2003. (See relevant NTKs here and here, item 2 of "Hard News" in each case). Journos often get used to lifting a lot of copy from press releases (a good press release should make this as easy as possible), and/or paraphrasing competitors' scoops. Some it seems may sometimes mistreat the web as an extension of this. Properly the sources should be acknowledged, of course, but they often aren't. WP's headline emphasis on "free content, freely reusable" may (if we AGF) sometimes eclipse that, per GFDL, WP as a source still needs to be cited. My impression is that the U.S. tends to be more prissy about this kind of thing, and generally more apt to raise the sanctity of "Journalism" onto a pedestal than the rest of the world, rather than seeing journalism as a rough-and-tumble business of getting copy out by deadline -- possibly because by world standards most U.S. newspaper markets are unusually uncompetitive. Jheald 19:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That's copyleft for ya. This becomes an issue at Misplaced Pages when zealous but insufficiently clued editors label Misplaced Pages texts as copyright violations, because they've seen mirrored texts: Talk:Arch of Titus and Talk:Église de la Madeleine record confrontations, with some self-justification on the one hand and some understandably cross remarks from contributors of content on the other. --Wetman 19:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Smatprt violations

I claim that this user is acting in the Shakespeare Authorship without consensus and for the past year has taken complete ownership of the article. He has already been blocked twice for 3RR violation ]] and he has a reputation for non-consensus in his editing on other forums. For example, on 13 May 2007 we find under the Shakespeare heading that "Smatprt is trying to delete all the arguments and information from Kathman's site while retaining all material published by non experts in non-scholarly, purely commercial presses" ] and this one from a google search "You might like to take a quick look at the Shakespeare plays, where a certain Smatprt has taken it upon himself to perform mass restoration of the tags ..." ]. It is his custom when confronted to file a report on the Administrator's noticeboard blaming his accuser. The following example resulted in no block.] You might like to obtain the testimony of the following users mandel, barryispuzzled, Paul_Barlow, alabamaboy. I should like to see a substantial block inforced. (Felsommerfeld 11:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

I think it important to note that this complaint was in retaliation for my listing a complaint about Felsommerfeld on this same page several days ago.. In actuality - the accuser is far more guilty of this - See Feldsommerfeld's deletions here: , , , , , - all properly referenced material apparently cut because they support the Oxfordian viewpoint or mentioned the word "Oxford".Smatprt 13:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried briefly to help at Shakespearean authorship earlier, basically with copyediting, but found the unreasonableness and stonewalling of Smatprt too disheartening to continue my efforts, even though they were appreciated by everybody else there. Smatprt also seems to be a tireless pest at William Shakespeare, where he edit wars to make the classic crank Shakespeare-wasn't-Shakespeare theory as large and as undue-weighty a part of the article as possible. His intentions are no doubt good, but his practice is destructive, and he makes the lives of the other Shakespeare editors wearisome. May I recommend the new Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard (mentioned below) to your attention, Felsommerfeld? I don't feel I'm knowledgeable enough about the Shakespeare articles to list the case on that noticeboard myself. (I gave up editing them in the face of Smatprt's obstructiveness.) Bishonen | talk 22:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC).

Smatprt is undoubtedly sincere in his beliefs but his one-sidedness is unrelenting and it is seriously skewing the page. He will push and push and push to get in Oxfordian arguments by any means and exclude "Statfordian" ones by any means. What I find mu=ost dismaying is his willinglness to delete statements he knows to be factually accurate if they contradict his POV. Paul B 23:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I also think it important that Paul B above provide a list of my supposed improper deletions and "exclusions". I try to only delete a statement if it is not properly referenced, or if the Stratfordian editors refuse to provide a reference. References to personal blogs and websites by non-experts have also been deleted on occasion, after discussion (David Kathman's website, for example, which has been declared non-reliable.) On the other hand - I do indeed add material as long as I can properly reference it. Felsommerfled left this complaint with dozens of administrators, and those who have responded have not shown any agreement with Felsommerfeld or the users above. It is also important to note that the above editors are clearly Stratfordians, and they are editors who themselves are guilty of mass deletions of properly referenced material. In face Felsommerfeld's contribution list consists of 55 talk page entries and 7 mass deletions.Smatprt 00:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"I try to only delete a statement if it is not properly referenced". That is precisely the point. It is dishonest, or at best disingenuous, editing because you delete information that you know to be true if it is mainstream/Stratfordian. The obvious example is your deletion of the references to the fact that an alleged portrait of Oxford actually depicts Hugh Hamersley. The whole caption was uncited, but you only chose to delete the mainstrean facts while keeping the - also completely uncited - non-mainstream claim that the portrait depicts Oxford. This is a claim that has been rejected even by many Oxfordians. Your comments clearly indicated that you knew full well about the evidence for the Hamersley attribution. You could have added the citation yourself if your editing had been truly honest: that is, aimed at improving the article. Instead you chose to delete facts in order deliberately to distort the presentation of evidence to the reader. Paul B 12:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul -this is where your premise fails - you claim that "I know" certain things "to be true". How on earth do you know what I believe? In fact, I do NOT believe that the portrait depicts Hugh Hamersley. From what I've read, it's unprovable at this point. I do know that I came up with a reference when requested. Considering there are at least 6 Stratdordian editors actively working (deleting) this page, why on earth should I do the Stratdordian referencing? I don't have ready access to the volumes of Stratdfordia that you do - and why should I spend time researching when you guys have that more than covered? I'm filing the need for referencing Oxfordian statements, since most of the Stratfordian editors on this page actively discourage Oxfordain information and delete anything with the word "Oxford" in itSmatprt 13:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Is that it? Out of some 1700 edits you've come up with one questionable deletion? The way you talk I expected a list of at least a dozen diffs to prove your point. In fact - anyone looking over my edit list will find "additions", "cites", "refs", a fair amount of vandal reversions, reformatting of all the SH plays (part of Wikiproject), but hardly any of the wholesale deletions that I have been falsely accused of above.

Yes, you do it all the time. But the sheer tediousness of listing such examples makes it not worth my effort unless this proceeds to a formal process, which at the moment it is not. Also, you misunderstand - or willfully misrepresent- what I said. I maent that you knew the information presented in the caption to be true - that the mainstream view was that it is a portrait of Hamersley. Obvious you don't like to believe that. Even the current caption contains no clear citation of Barrell and uses misleading language (Barrell "determined" that it was Oxford. Other researchers "suggest" that it is Hamersley). In fact no-one other than Oxfordians doubt that it is Hamersley. Paul B 14:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul - here is a list of some of your undiscussed deletions: , , , , . While I would probably agree with several (of not most) of them, that's probably not the point. The point is you are on this "He makes massive deletions" rag and I have asked for a list. You provide one example based on an unprovable assuption (what I know to be true). What you know to be true is the following - I have spent far more time reinserting deleted material than deleting anything. You know this. Just like the unfounded accusations of SockPuppetry, you knew the truth there too. Smatprt 14:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Your list of some deletions I made is pure evasion. Everyone makes deletions. Yes, I knew the truth about the Sockpupptry allegation and I said so didn't I? I notice that you do not deny that you knew the mainstream opinion. You just say that I can't proove that you did. Innocent people do not say "you can't prove it". They say "It's not true". Paul B 16:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Also - a compromise is already in the works on the discussion page, based on the input of several administrators who are taking "no sides" at the present.Smatprt 00:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Finally - Felsommerfeld has just apologized for "doubting my integrity" and for leveling accusations of SockPuppetry, proven untrue, which he also left on about a dozen different administrators mailboxes after I complained about him. . In spite of this, I am ready and willing to move on and I would hope that Felsommerfeld is too.Smatprt 00:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

In August-October 2006, I (a Baconian, who signed as QBrute) spent a lot of time in rigorous debate with The_Singing_Badger (a Stratfordian) balancing the Shakespeare Authorship article. ] Smatprt appeared with the clear intention of promoting his views that the Earl of Oxford was Shakespeare. He was relentlessly one-sided in debate and to my mind had already decided that his changes were going in the article. I gave up and the article deteriorated. I now see (above in Felsommerfeld's report "The following example resulted in no block") that the person who Smatprt tried to block was me!] No editor or administrator has managed to halt his crusade. I am confident that if Smatprt is not removed from these forums he will succeed in destroying the entire Shakespeare project. (Puzzle Master 14:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC))

Barry left this out - See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Shakespearean_authorship_question/Archive_1&diff=prev&oldid=95091606 for his declaration of support for the article after most of my changes were implemented: ""Having left this article for some time and only recently read it again I think it now has a fair representation of all views.... So, well done to those who have worked on this page." (Puzzle Master 14:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC))

And here is the article on that date: . Hyphen para, 1604, etc., - all in. You called it a "fair representation of all views". The only difference now is that the lead para has been slashed down to one of the smallest and most underdeveloped lead paragraphs I've ever seen. Aside from that, and given your earlier statement, I truly fail to understand why you are back in attack mode - unless this is just retaliatory, as your above para implies.Smatprt 15:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

What Barry also fails to mention is that I was part of that discussion (scroll down in that archived conversation and you will see plenty, including my official welcome - an unwarranted attack that was later deleted and apologized for. (This seems to be the mode with many of the editors on this page - attack and make accustions, raise a ruckus with false statements, than "apologize" after being proven wrong, then accuse again. The archive also seems to show Barry using at least 3 different account names. He has deleted critism of the Bacon argument and his discussions and issues have predominantly focussed on Bacon, just as mine have focussed on Oxford. Smatprt 15:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue is this, is the 1604 section which you have fought to keep in the article pro-Oxfordian? You evidently think so "anything pro-oxford (1604 question, hyhenation of name) is being regularly deleted?" ]. mandel thinks so too. ] And my more recent opinion is that I did too "Following a suggestion by Mandel ...".] I would be more sympathetic to you if you could admit your behaviour ... but I don't think that's possible for you. (Puzzle Master 15:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC))

I have indeed apologized for errors in judgement and other offenses. But I should also stand up for what I believe, and be consistant in doing so. To answer you directly, yes- of course they are pro-oxfordian. That in no way makes tham any less "anti-stratfordian" - as you should know better than most. I am sorry that some anti-strat arguments can also be anti-bacon arguments, but unfortunately that is the case. Regarding the hyphen - even you admit that it is not "only" oxfordian, but none-the-less, I have agreed to see that section censored from the article. I am much more interested in having you answer me directly - why did you issue that flowery declaration of support congratulating all the editors in Dec 06? And why now have you seemingly retracted every bit of it?Smatprt 16:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Budapest's one and only real name

Someone is writing the 'name' Buda-Pesth at the beginning of the article Budapest citing a 100-year-old 'source'. It can be misleading, because some English language users may think it is still used. That's NOT true. I don't want an edit war. Has anyone of you seen that form in the real world in the past decades? Come on, it's the capital of Hungary! Squash Racket 18:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe that this 100 year-old source is misleading (the term is still used in English sometimes). Squash Racket is fueling an edit war but he/she doesn't provide reasons as to why the source is not good enough besides the fact that it is a century old. Historia Regum Britanniae and the Domesday Book are a millennium old, should we disregard them? Reginmund 21:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to spelling not in a historical context, certainly. Or are we going to change every The to Ye? Similarly, Korea used to be Corea - the article doesn't use it. MSJapan 22:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ye was you in the formal form, not the.

OT, but I'll correct this; see William Caxton. He used y instead of the letter thorn in printing the word the, hence ye. MSJapan 19:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

But is it still in use? That would depend on which toponym. Buda-Pesth is actually still used, surprisingly. Reginmund 22:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME. --Masamage ♫ 22:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I am Hungarian, Reginmund is not. I've never heard that in my life, but he clamis it is still used. Exactly where? In that 100-year-old book you are citing? Squash Racket 22:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Is that encyclopedic? Is that a RS? Yes or No. The article looks ugly w/ a protection tag. -- FayssalF - 22:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

A quick Google search gives me less than 14,000 hits for "Buda-Pesth", and over 36 million for Budapest. Feel free to mention the alternate spelling, but its pretty clear which one is more common. --Masamage ♫ 23:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

User JzG Incivility

Two options guys. A request for comments or shutting the hell up. Endless complaining on endless noticeboard, talk pages, deletion review, MfD and christ knows elsewhere will not be tolerated. Nick 19:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

David In DC was blocked for an hour for disruption by listing this here. He's clearly well aware of the situation in order to be quoting text so he knows that's the same ultimatum other users involved have received. Nick 19:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Please review my User Talk Page David in DC 19:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a single comment there by JzG...?--MONGO 19:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's one: "Yup, I am an arrogant, high-handed condescending bastard - which is bad, but not half as bad as being the kind of sad, lifeless bastard who carries on whining about trivial grudges for as long as these two pitiful examples have. Guy (Help!) 18:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)" David in DC 19:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's another: "ATren, you have just made a tit of yourself. Perhaps an admin would care to check out Special:DeletedContributions/JoeMaculy and tell ATren why I used that block summary with that capitalisation. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)" David in DC 19:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, agreed. Is this related to the fellow who was wasting our time on ANI earlier, the Anal stretching/userpage lark? Hasn't he fucked off and left Guy alone yet? If not, could he? Please? Moreschi 19:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It would seem that this gripe-fest has spread to every corner of Misplaced Pages except those suggested by the dispute resolution policy. MastCell 19:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

And here's one a target of his venom preserved on my user page before JzG deleted it from his own: "Perhaps I was a little too subtle above. The message I was trying to convey is this: edit some articles or shut the fuck up you whining twat. Guy (Help!) 18:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)" David in DC 19:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Accurate description. Articles other than Anal stretching, I assume he meant. Moreschi 19:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Also worth reviewing are the comments of his targets. Misplaced Pages loses valuable editors when this venom is coddled. David in DC 19:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Where's the valuable editors? All I see is one editor forum shopping for someone to listen to him, over a seven month old grudge. SirFozzie 19:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I post all of this here because I put up the helpme template and was directed here. David in DC 19:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, file an Rfc then...but remember...all editors who sign on an Rfc are fair game to have their contributions heavily scrutinized and discussed. I think the best thing to do is to leave the guy alone...he's obviously debating whether he even wants to continue here, so why beat on him when he's down?--MONGO 19:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Edwin rose

Edwin rose (talk · contribs) - every one of this User's edits has been to his User or Talk pages. He seems to be keeping the pages for call scripts and call tracking. Corvus cornix 23:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

My. Um, there may not be a whole lot we can do, there; I've deleted the history of both, and left the guy a note asking him to contribute or move on. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh gosh, Luna, Geocities or Angelfire? Lycos is probably the single-worst webhost out there, period. Even Blogspot would be better than those two "webhosts". I personally like Sitesled. hbdragon88 00:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

But Blogspot didn't give me a giant sack of mone-- I mean, you're right. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

He just recreated it. How long has he been editing his userpage? hbdragon88 00:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Stale AFD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Maple Lane Elementary School

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Maple Lane Elementary School has been around since mid-June, with two delete opinions, but the AFD has never been closed. Does anyone want to do the honors of closing it? --Elkman 23:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm relisting the article since, for some reason, the initial AfD header was removed right away from the article. Relisting will allow article editors a chance to comment. — Scientizzle 23:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

User:R.J-1337

R.J-1337 (talk · contribs) has vandalized my user page, and I don't think this will be the last time he will be doing such a thing. I know him from outside of Misplaced Pages from a wrestling based chatroom I used to host. It was well known there that I disliked R.J-1337 and he came to Misplaced Pages for one reason, not to become an editor, but for his own personal agenda. He has convinced others to create userpages, and make them similar to wrestler articles so they could have "profiles" on wikipedia to work in conjuction with the chatroom (my old chatroom) which he is trying to bring back. If you look at his userpage, he uses it for self promotion. He will not make any meaningful edits to any page other than his own. --  Jลмєs Mลxx™  Msg me  03:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've warned him and will keep an eye on this user. Thanks. Sasquatch t|c 17:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Bucharest is 'Paris of the East'

One more thing: on the page Bucharest you can read it is 'Paris of the East' or 'Little Paris'. That is not surprising, I grew up hearing that all the time. But using it for a neighboring country's capital, Budapest is a bit strange. In fact, most Hungarians would find that pretty offensive after the Treaty of Trianon which was a disaster to this country. Squash Racket 07:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, getting countries to sign treaties does not fall under our jurisdiction. --soum 08:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Forced 'treaty' after World War I (read consequences of treaty). Anyway not the best memory of Paris, France. That's for sure. Squash Racket 08:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I still dont get it; what do you want admins to do? Protect the article? Delete it? Move over an existing article? What?

I suspect this is a content dispute. Please follow WP:DR. --soum 08:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a content dispute. The article is protected after an edit war, partly on this point. There is discussion on the article's talk page. DrKiernan 08:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar

The above named arbitration case has closed. All involved parties are granted an amnesty over the edit-warring that had been ongoing but has given the administrators the ability to sanction anyone who begins disruptive editing again.

You may view the full case decision at the case page.

For the Arbitration Committee,

- Penwhale | 11:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Abuse of vandalism warnings?

User:Rob right, who appears to be a new user created just today, but whose behaviour today seems to indicate some more extensive experience, has today issued a vandalism warning against User:Jza84. A number of users have commented that this warning is absurd, given the nature of the ongoing discussion about Manchester, which is the article whose content prompted this action by Rob right. I and others consider this to be a misuse of the vandalism warbings in some attempt to stifle legitimate debate. Jza84 is a long-standing user who is well-respected amoungst UK-based editors for his work on UK geography articles. Can I ask for some action about this? I would have thought that a traceroute to determine if Rob right is a sockpuppet, and if so, whose, might be useful, followed by appropriate action iof required, but this is of course, not up to me to decide, but I gently suggest it. This kind of misuse of warnings seems to go completely against the spirit of wikipedia.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree it's not a valid warning -- content disputes aren't vandalism. Rob right, whoever they are, strongly appears to be a sockpuppet, and I've blocked them, for the time being, requesting an explanation of how they ran across the dispute. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The following anonymous talk page: User talk:195.212.52.6 might be relevant here if a checkuser has been carried out.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The anon (195.212.52.6) signs as User:Rob right here. Jza84 21:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

212.139.77.181 (talk · contribs) signs as "Prof Rob Right" here. Off-wiki comments at , , , and may provide some background information. Mr Stephen 22:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The 195.212 IP is almost definitely the same person -- edited Rob right's userpage, as well. The other is pretty likely, as well. Some of those comments you've linked might lead me to keep an eye on this person, but if they've been involved in the dispute previously, on-wiki, then this may just be somebody who happened to register an account, today, in which case blocking them as a sockpuppet would probably be out of line; thoughts, anyone? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That's how I read it. Mr Stephen 22:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have just noticed that Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, section 47, also reports actions by this user, and contains some information which might add to the content here. I was unaware of this prior report until just now.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandal identified as Kevin1243

After reviewing many sources of history & discussion on the user with the screen name Kevin1243, other external links should be mentioned also. The use of free internet web sites is becoming very popular with teenagers, and many young individuals are also posting blogs, and creating profiles on dating services. Such seems to be the case with this user... what contributions to Misplaced Pages are not about. For one example only, visit http://www.faceparty.com/Kevin1243. I can't list another, becuase it's a porn site. A poll of other users that have accused Kevin1243 of SNEAKY VANDALISM: 39 AGAINST 5 Undecided 7 Users that no longer exist, with various explainations of growing weary of VANDALISM when trying to contribute. Having a short list only, user complaints on User_talk:Kevin1243 will grow. Administrators should consider appropriate action to deter future VANDALISM. StationNT5Bmedia 18:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I pointed out on Jimbo's talk page: Looks like this is a bit of a dispute surrounding Non-synchronous transmissions, where it appears Kevin1243 has placed a couple of maintenance tags, suggested a merge, and most recently removed a bunch of commercial links quite properly. Looking at his talk page, he's done a lot of new page patrol, from the looks of things, and gathered the usual complaints about articles that were either deleted or later properly developed. I certainly don't see any indication of vandalism there, and StationNT5Bmedia's attempted tagging of Kevin's page with block tags looks a bit odd. Recommending non-notable articles for deletion is not vandalism, nor is removing commercial links. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This is becoming ridiculous, and these accusations are now crossing the line and becoming a personal attack. Anyway, I'm off on vacation in a couple of hours, and so I'll have to let my contributions stand for themselves. Kevin 21:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I will watch your page. Enjoy your break. LessHeard vanU 21:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Now that this has survived MfD, I'd like to spam it a bit. The header basically describes what it's for, but I'm trying to address a growing problem that at the moment is sneaking under the radar. At any rate, it needs some more eyes: watchlist and comment, please! Editors from a humanities background especially welcome, as the maths and science people at the moment don't deal with this issue too badly. Moreschi 18:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

URGENT Billy Blyton, Baron Blyton URGENT

A few days ago I posted the below. Nothing happended, and he has started again. Will someone please do something. He has ignored everyone. He is also vandalising Norma Major's page by ignoring her legal title. Someone please do something! --UpDown 18:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"Urgent help needed at Billy Blyton, Baron Blyton. User:Lawsonrob insists on changing the article title to William Reid Blyton, giving no reason. He has ignored the clear MofS guidelines (at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other non-royal names point 2) regarding peers. He has also moved in 5 times since 0015 this morning, which I believe is a breach of 3RR. On another page, David Clark, Baron Clark of Windermere, he keeps trying to remove the "of Windermere", which is part of Clark's legal title. Please help quickly as he is not listening to anyone, and is very disruptive. --UpDown 18:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I might recommend a request for comment. There seems to be issues with his editing behaviour going back almost to his arrival.--Crossmr 05:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)"

From his talk page this guy ahs been disruptive and at best unresponsive since he started editing, I'm hard blocking now. Circeus 19:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Umm...

needs a deletion. Zeratul _{So be it.} 23:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Why? Chick Bowen 23:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Other than that SysProtect is not an ideally formatted article, both by our standards our fair use policy. . . Chick Bowen 23:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

The unprovoked and continuing attacks upon me at the bottom of Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_review/Intelligent_design by User:Odd_nature and User:Orangemarlin make it very difficult for me to contribute there. I would appreciate some form of intervention. Diffs: here, here directed at someone else, here, here, here, among others. Thanks, Gnixon 23:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Update They seem to have followed me here, where they are reverting my edits, apparently with little understanding of the subject. Gnixon 00:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Update 2 Perhaps only Odd Nature is stalking me, but he's also followed me here and made a very uninformed revert of my edits. Gnixon 00:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I see all kinds of unpleasantness at the FAR, the worst of which is coming from neither of the people you mention. I don't see that handing out blocks would help anything, nor is it justified. All we can ask is that all participants please try to work toward consensus and not post inappropriate comments out of frustration. Chick Bowen 00:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you at least convey such a message to those parties, unless you think I've somehow invited their attacks? Is there any case in which Odd Nature's stalking me to unrelated articles is acceptable? Gnixon 00:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to anyone reading this ANI, Gnixon does this on a regular basis, like here and here. He's accused others of stalking (see both of the previoius ANI's), but the fact is many of us watch these articles. He has been the subject of discussions by several admins in the past, such as here and here. I think this is getting old and embarrassing to the project. If anyone stands up to this editor, he quickly runs to ANI to file a complaint, where he's 0 for 5 or so in getting any action. Everything I stated in the FAR was factual. He did refactor pages without consensus, he edited articles without consensus, and he continues to be a POV warrior. If anyone needs warnings or a block, it's Gnixon. Orangemarlin 07:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested block

Hi, i have run into a slight situation. Will an admin please be so kind as to block my account for 36 hours? Thanks! —ptk✰fgs 03:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't ordinarily block on request. I left a query for the user. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

User: 209.150.54.112

This user keeps consistently removing his block notice from their talk page, and leaving abuse in it's place. Please can you do something about it. Jordanhatch 07:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

JUst leave them go, removing the block notice is not agaisnt policy, elthough many people don't like it. Reinserting it is just annoying them further. Viridae 07:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Calling it "vandalism" and trying to take ownership is a problem, though. hbdragon88 08:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Emberton238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

His password's on his userpage. This is quite naughty, though I've not checked to see if the password's right or not.--Rambutan (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's his password. :P Looks like he could be a potential vandalism-only account, but let's give him the benefit of doubt... · AndonicO 11:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Password scrambled. Viridae 12:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Felsommerfeld

This user appears to be operating a "Disruptive throwaway account" used only for a few mass deletions and accusations. Out of a total 62 edits, 55 were used making false accusations against myself. The other 7 were making mass deletions of long-standing material to the Shakespeare Authorship Question article. As pointed out recently by an administrator - is a minority viewpoint article. Unfortunately, Felsommerfeld refuses to see that. The reasons seem to be as follows:

1) User is a staunch Stratfordian who has stated that the article in question shouldn't even exist. He has made several mass deletions of well referenced material., , ,

2) Because I restored this material, the user has made personal attacks, false accusations and went so far as to make erroneous reports to over a dozen administrators., ,

For full disclosure I have allowed myself to be dragged into 2 edit wars/3Rs, for which I have great regret. In each case it was because staunch stratdordians were making mass deletions of properly referenced materials. I believe this user is again trying to draw me into a 3R revert. Instead, I am keeping my edits light and I am coming here for help.

I request this user be blocked or banned, whatever you feel is appropriate based on the behaviour and the pure mean-ness involved. Thanks for your consideration. Smatprt 15:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

re "Stratfordian"; Could you point me towards the relevant policy page or guideline? In the meanwhile, the rest appears to be content dispute with some pretty unlearned incivility and lack of good faith shown by various sides. As there is removal of referenced material I will request that User:Felsommerfeld refrains from doing so again. After that, it is up to all of you to find consensus of an article on who might really have written, "I have measured it from side to side, tis four feet long and two feet wide." LessHeard vanU 16:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find it was almost Wordsworth, but you've misquoted it. It was only three feet long. "Stratfordian" is a term used by Oxfordians to mean someone who believes Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. There is no policy regarding it. Paul B 16:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

:~) My response was a bit of a leg-pull (although I did mess up on the "Ode to a Puddle" bit) since it appeared that part of the complaint was that the editor held certain views (thanks for clarifying which, though) on who wrote Shakespeares' plays. I did comment at the editors talkpage. LessHeard vanU 19:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

75.211.145.215

This anon (as well as 70.212.198.46 in the past) is writing untrue statements on the Paleoclimatologist entry. Please monitor it and perhaps prohibit this user from commenting. Iceberg007 17:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This user's page is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/75.211.145.215

• Solved by redirecting the article. --jpgordon 18:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks! Iceberg007 18:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion by Indef blocked editor using static IP

I believe that User:Neutralizer who has been indefinitely blocked for using a plethora of sockpuppets (see ) is currently attempting to contentiously edit the article Michael Ignatieff. He was banned by community consensus ANI - see this discussion. This user was making extensive usage of his sockpuppets to edit war on this same article. In the discussion above he was defending himself using a series of rotating IP's and attempting to continue his edit war. Former admin and editor Sarah Ewertt protected the article in order to block him from being able to edit it. However, the article was recently unprotected and now he is back and trying to edit the article until I requested that protection be restored to the article. Protection was restored, but I believe it will only be temporary. Is there a way to deal with this situation in another manner? --Strothra 20:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Neutralizer