Misplaced Pages

Thank you for the comments. Jaranda, I disagree with the notion JzG should be blocked for acting oddly. I blocked him for wheel warring and nothing more. His block might be able to go before 24 hours is up if the conclusion arises that BLP-authorized deletion is right (it's very confusing because it's just a redirect to a name that was already published on the article, but BLP most likely applies). Also, even though Violetriga committed political suicide with that endorsement of wheel warring, I think indefinitely blocking her is a bit much. Let her be blocked for the day, and then we can tell the ArbCom about it. MessedRocker (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I never said that though, but still edits like this is clearly unacceptable Jaranda 01:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see them unblocked. These are two respected, long-term users who got annoyed in the heat of the moment. I feel we should cut them some slack. SlimVirgin 01:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Here, here, SqueakBox 02:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin -- I am as long-standing as the people I blocked. I don't subscribe to that "they're long-term" nonsense; if they're long-term and respected, how come they can't handle a disagreement without wheel warring when they should know very well that it should not happen and measures should be taken to stop it, even if it means blocking? Being able to cope with stress without reacting immaturely (wheel warring is incredibly immature) is part of life. MessedRocker (talk) 02:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocking is no way to respond to wheel warring, if anything a punishment should reflect one's admin status(and only if really really necessary), not their ability to edit. No sense in throwing out a good editor over a bad admin decision. Until(1 == 2) 01:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

They were only blocked for 24 hours. --OnoremDil 01:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

JzG in one of our very best, and should be unblocked immediately.Proabivouac 01:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

JzG is going off the rails as some of his recent actions (before and after the break he is supposed to be on) show. The diff from Jaranda is just one example. Viridae 01:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Saying someone is "going off the rails" is not a constructive comment absent truly egregious action, which this isn't. It's not like he extorted the Foundation or violated 25RR. The sooner all concerned put this incident behind them, the better. Raymond Arritt 03:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked both. No need for any comments on my part. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Blnguyen.Proabivouac 01:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I am asking for comments on your part. MessedRocker (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Overturning a block merits a comment, at the very least. --ElKevbo 05:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Consensus, futility, consequences of the block etc....It's best medicine sometimes to simply ignore things and edit while they die down. Editing and getting on the job is always a good option when the block is likely to be controversial. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. violet/riga (t) 07:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have never been blocked before, for anything, and I think this just shows that Misplaced Pages is probably no longer the place for me. Violetriga appears to me to be one of those who is determined to turn Misplaced Pages into a tabloid aggregator (though not at all the worst offender, to be sure), and I want no part of that. This also appears to be punitive, not preventive. Regardless, I am really struggling to give a shit any more. Guy (Help!) 07:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never been blocked either. I'd thank you for not thinking that you know anything about my edits and contributions, and to call them "tabloid" is offensive to someone that has done so much around here. violet/riga (t) 07:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

JzG: you should have known better, and the fact that you've not been blocked before says you DO know better. Likewise for violetriga. I personally would not like to see any more deletion/undeletion warring from either of you - here or elsewhere. Both of you think you're right, which is fine - but both of you know this isn't the way to settle the disagreement. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't this settled back in May...I see efforts then to ensure the article was redirected appropriately as per BLP issues. When long standing editors are blocked, it is should always be for only the most egregious of reasons. Furthermore, JzG appears to be pretty disillusioned these days, so why are we antagonizing him further. Bad block...bad block.--MONGO 07:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Being "disillusioned" does not give someone carte blanche to wheel war. Neil ╦ 14:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was settled (and indeed further discussed) so the deletion of one part of the picture just seems pointy. violet/riga (t) 07:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I note that multiple admins have both deleted and undeleted that page, and specifically deleted and undeleted the redirect. (deletion log). This is definitely a wheel war, and sanctions on both parties are appropriate. Assuming the redirect to be a BLP violation, a redirect is the least problematic of all possible BLP violations, and is no basis for wheel warring. An even treatment of both wheel warriors is correct. The ArbComm completely screwed up in the BDJ, as despite their claims "to review the behavior of all parties" they only actually looked at the behavior of one side. JzG should have been under ArbComm sanction at least as much as Violetrega as a result of that case, so I oppose differential treatment of the two. GRBerry 13:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear god. It should be apparent at this point that the ArbCom thinks we should delete first and then take to DRVs and there seems to some community support for that. I don't completely agree with it, but waiting to take to DRV is always better if there is any issue. Violet's actions we unecessary, and we shouldn't block for admins trying to deal with BLP issues. In any event, we should all know by now that blocking in these sorts of situations does nothing but create more drama. JoshuaZ 03:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine if it's about content, but when it's a redirect while the redirect title remains in the article and is bold it's a bit daft to have to go through DRV. It would've been different if he'd removed the name from the article too, and the alternative spellings of that name that were also redirects. violet/riga (t) 08:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Violetriga should be desysopped

She was admonished once already by Arbcom in the BDJ case for wheelwarring, and was notably unrepentant.. As I was a party (tenuously as it was) in that case, it would be inappropriate for me to make the request, but I think someone else should. Swatjester 06:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

FloNight has been informed already. As for your call here I wouldn't have expected anything different from you given the way you have responded in all related matters. violet/riga (t) 07:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed, sadly. Seems like it was bound to happen sooner or later, and probably best to get it out of the way before additional damage is done. Andrew Lenahan 12:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Another RfAr in the works? Corvus cornix 18:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The arbitration committee is aware of Violetriga's activities and will take action under the admonishment if it thinks it necessary. It may well be that there are mitigating factors in the most recent case. Violetriga has been told by a fairly representative proportion of the community that her recent activities were neither necessary nor welcome, and will no doubt learn from that. --Tony Sidaway 18:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Tony, I disagree with your last statement. She was told that her activities in the BDJ arbitration were not necessary nor welcome, and stated she does not believe she was wrong. Then there is this block and its circumstances, and she once again has been told by a large portion of the community that wheel warring is wrong, and once again has stated she believes that it is an acceptable practice. She apparently has no intention of learning, from my viewpoint. Now, as you mention the committee is aware of this (which I know individual members were obviously aware of this, but I'll assume your statement to mean the committee en banc is aware of it.) so there's nothing further for me to discuss here from me.Swatjester 03:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If she doesn't learn, and continues to pose a problem, the admonishment will probably use its teeth. --Tony Sidaway 16:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course the arbcom would also have been able to "use its teeth" to react to Guy's inappropriate actions had the case been handled properly. violet/riga (t) 17:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it may have become necessary. A fundamental disagreement over BLP with the project and a propensity for wheel-warring when not getting her way do not a good administrator make. --Cyde Weys 03:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter at all that she was completely right? -- Ned Scott 03:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"A fundamental disagreement over BLP"? You what? violet/riga (t) 07:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how any of this has been helpful. The blocks were late, not preventative, and JzGs was completely unwarranted. If Violetriga disagreed that some content violated BLP, a less destructive course of action would have been to follow dispute resolution. When in doubt, the content stays out until the dispute is resolved. Warring over BLP rather than following DR and/or bringing to a wider forum by posting here was extremely ill considered. KillerChihuahua 15:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

When in doubt that is certainly the case, but when a redirect is deleted while the content remains in the article there's something going wrong, and while there is consensus to include the name and that BLP is not being violated it is not up to one person to simply ignore everyone else. violet/riga (t) 17:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I do feel that violet's apparent feelings on the suitability of wheel wars to resolve a dispute are incompatible with the ethics of Misplaced Pages, and the rules. I've not examined violet's behaviour regarding BLP closely, but a question that has come to the fore of my mind is: "Would she be blocked on BLP grounds if she wasn't an admin?". I don't know. Martinp23 17:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not as there is (was) consensus that BLP accepts the inclusion of this person's name. violet/riga (t) 17:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No excuse! Reversion-limitation (WP:3RR and WP:WHEEL) policies apply to all, no matter what argument they may have to back up their actions. Neither of the parties should have wheel warred, but I think that a heavier burden is placed on yourself, Violet, given the ArbCom's ruling on BLP deletions and that caution they administered to yourself. It may be true that consensus did accept the inclusion of the person's name, but consensus can change - and more importantly the reasons surrounding BLP actions can do also, weakening the previous decision (for example (but not in this case, it seems): OTRS tickets). Martinp23 20:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course consensus can change, but not when the discussions finished over a month ago. Guy didn't try and talk about it before or after his removal of a redirect. And that is an important thing - it was only a redirect. Wheel warring over actual content is different to wheel warring over a redirect when the target includes that exact content. The former is much worse than the latter and I would not have engaged in such actions. violet/riga (t) 08:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Response from my user page

Some people might not have read this, taken from my user page. I hope it explains how the BLP policy was not broken by my actions. In fact, Guy's deletion was after lengthy discussions on the matter:

Wheel-warring significant content is clearly a bad thing. The deletion of a redirect when (incorrect) variations of said name are left and when the name itself exists within the destination article (and does so by consensus of people fully aware of BLP) is inappropriate. BLP, it has been decided, does not apply here as has been discussed. Note that this is a significant reason behind my actions - it was already discussed. Perhaps Guy didn't check through the talk page properly and his first deletion would be understandable, but a second was certainly not warranted when he had sufficient time to comment on the relevant talk page. When citing BLP in a deletion (especially a clearly contentious one like this) Guy should do more than refer to the BDJ case (first deletion) or be rude (second). Guy appears to have gone through the articles in the BDJ case and restarted the crusade to remove them (the other remaining one he tried to AfD).

violet/riga (t) 07:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You have not commented on your actions, except for the rather ambiguous "this is a significant reason behind my actions" stating "it was already discussed". Are you claiming community support for wheel warring with JzG over a BLP issue? Your rationale is unclear to me. KillerChihuahua 15:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have commented on my actions already. I'm saying that JzG twice performed a deletion against consensus. violet/riga (t) 16:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Wheel wars are bad, but so is not correcting what is blatantly wrong. -- Ned Scott 19:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

So in response to wheel warring, you feel that Violetriga, very recently and sternly warned against wheel warring, should have wheel warred some more? There are, contrary to apparent belief, more than just two or three admins on this project. We can afford to discuss something for fifteen minutes before throwing our buttons all over the place. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Wheel wars are bad, full stop. There are authorities higher than admins, if a dispute still exists, appeal to them. --InkSplotch 19:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Once the page was deleted the first time (in this saga), it should not have been undeleted without seeking further discussion. Whether some previous discussion deemed that there was a BLP vio or not is immaterial, because situations can and do change. We have at least a couple of hundred admins active within a reasonable timespan after an incident occurs. We also have a massive community who can offer input. If you, Violet, or anyone else disagreed with the original deletion, the correct action would be to bring it up somewhere, rather than simply reverting. This is most true for BLP violations - whether you think it is one or not, the burden is on the person seeking to restore the page to prove (by consensus or reasoning) that it is not a vio, with appropriate discussion. Blind reversion is a big no-no.

Dealing with BLP problems, whether as part of OTRS work or individually, is an onerous task, made all the most difficult by the vocal few who disagree with your actions, and (although often not in possession of all the facts) decide to make a fuss (usually by reverting). If I may be permitted to express my personal feeling - this has to stop. Now. Users and admins alike on this project need to learn the importance of BLP, and respect the decisions made under it, until a clear consensus can be formed in opposition to the BLP action. It doesn't take long to ask for a sanity check somewhere, and, in all likelihood, being without a redirect for a few hours isn't going to cause the world to end. Sigh. Martinp23 20:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy

DreamGuy repeatedly pushes his own agendas, ignoring consensus arrived at via RfC (e.g. see Talk:Photo editing), using lying and abusive edit comments, ignores and removes warnings and writes abusive replies, etc. See photoshop (disambiguation), Photo editing, Adobe Photoshop (the latter being an example of where he rearranges the page and rewrites the MOS at the same time to support the way he wants it to be). He's been blocked several times, but it doesn't seem to deter his bad behavior. Dicklyon 21:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have used the word "lying", but I concur with the rest of the comment. Today's (since about 1630 UTC) reverts include

• Adobe Photoshop 3
• Photo editing 2
• Photoshop (disambiguation) 2
• Satan 2
• Domain name 2
• Shroud of Turin 2

Some of those really are reversion of vandalism, some others seem to be reasonable reversions, but the photo ones are just wrong. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Every single one of those reverts is completely justified, and if you wanted a more accurate description of my edit style you could have shown a lot, lot more edits where I am doing badly-needed clean up. You've been upset at me ever since you started edit warring on domain kiting and didn't want it redirected, and abused your admin status to give out false warnings. After other admins cautioned you, you backed off, and clear consensus showed your position to be wrong, and ever since then you've been trying to find articles to "win" on. You just blind revert edits just to be contrary, and you've been warned on it more than once. You apologized for your actions at some point in the past, but I see now that you are up to your old tricks. DreamGuy 23:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What part of "per the old discussion -- photoshop contest already linked in see also, no need for it here, image not representative and gives undue weight, refs not reliable and unneeded" is not a lie? He is the only editor who believes any of these things, and refuses to participate in the discussion that he says supports him. I would actually support 90% of his edits, if his summaries weren't so abusive, but he's been obsessed with the whole photoshopping think since 9 March (this diff), when he blanked the article and made it a redirect, and he seems to be unable to tell, or to admit, so nobody is on his side; it gets tiring. And the claims that the references in support of the thesis that "photoshopping" is slang for photo editing are both unneeded and unreliable; how can that be anything but desparation when the evidence is against him? Dicklyon 22:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Egh. I'd like to act on this, but I have too much bad feeling from an old edit war, I recuse myself. Nihiltres 04:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, all the photo-editing related edits seem odd, or combative, some of the others are likewise combative. Especially odd is his removal of citations at Photo editing#Photoshopping. ThuranX 04:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

They're not "citations" they are unreliable sources being linked to for no reason when the later reference (to a real reliable source: Adobe's site) already cites what needs to be cited. This was already fully explained on the talk page of the article in question, and was agreed upon by other editors until the gang of harassers decided to team up again and ignore it. DreamGuy 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I left DreamGuy a note directed here. --Iamunknown 04:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it was left, removed, and then I left it again. Sorry! --Iamunknown 05:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, it was not left, and not removed... The guy has made countless false threats in the past, and just said something about filing a vandal report or maybe reporting to ANI, but no link was made that it was really real. From his past history, and his claim that it was a "vandalism report" it looked like more of the same bullying... especially considering I had already told him thanks to his constant false threats and insults that he was banned from my talk page. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, you missed his fun edit summary on removing my courtesy notification: "removing two harassing messages from long term problem editors both of which have been banned from this page, and comment from one person encouraging them". Dicklyon 05:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that, especially in regards to the photo editing article, DreamGuy no longer appears to be participating in the discussion on the talk page. His last post there was on July 12, 2007, even though he's made numerous edits since then, nearly all going against what would appear to be an established consensus on the talk page. Having your opinion is all right, but not bothering to discuss it with other editors before imposing it on an article goes completely against the spirit of Misplaced Pages. --clpo13_(talk) 06:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I discussed there in the past, then people agree with me, then Dicklyon and Arthur Rubin go revert and it got useless as things had already been discussed and agreed upon, so I stopped looking, since it was the same old going in circles. "Discussion" involves not, as Dicklyon has always done, reverting any and every change I make... and to think *he* is filling a report about *me*, it's laughable. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

He seems averse to discussion in general. I know I would certainly like to hear his opinions on how the MoS is written by idiots with too much time on their hands and it just generally isn't right anyway. There's also the issue of using WP:DICK as a general term of abuse for edits he doesn't like. I don't really think that's what it's meant for. Chris Cunningham 07:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Pointing people at WP:DICK generally means you're being a fucking douchebag. Seraphimblade 07:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

So what's WP:DICK for then? Oh, so when people are harassing, break policy, uncivil, and pointing them to the appropriate other policies doesn't work, pointing them to a page that was created exactly for that purpose is bad...? And so telling someone not to be a dick is bad, while calling someone a douchebag is not? Do you even think about what you say? Come on, get serious. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I keep seeing complaints of rudeness and bad faith by DreamGuy. Are all these editors out to get him, or is this a case of "where there's smoke there's fire"? If we need to do something about this long term problem involving many parties, perhaps AN/I is the wrong forum. Last time I suggested WP:CSN for a problem like this one it ended up at arbcom. Maybe DreamGuy and his detractors can agree to chill out and stop baiting each other before external solutions are imposed on them. Eh? Jehochman 07:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Seriously? What it is is that there are people who try to get their way by bullying, citing policies they don't follow, leaving threats, acting like they WP:OWN articles despite knwoig little about the topic. And whereas other editors might just leave them be and run off because the harassment isn't worth it, I stand up to them. If you want to solve the "long term problem" then stand up for the editor doing what other editors should be doing. I clear out massive amounts of spam and POV-pushing all the time, and these guys following me around like a pack of rabid dogs trying to get at me. So, by your argument, that means *I* am the problem user? Give me a break. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of his edits are generally all right, but the main beef (at least the way I see it) is the way he deals with edits and editors he doesn't like, usually through his edit summaries, where he often accuses other people of being problem editors and harassing him. DreamGuy would probably say I'm out to get him, but I've noticed his rudeness, especially to Dicklyon on the photo editing article, before I even got involved in any disputes with him. I don't much care about his edits, but he can be rather rude (and even bullying, such as when he threatened to get me blocked when I hadn't violated any policies). --clpo13_(talk) 07:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If you'v notived my being "rude" to Dicklyon, then certain you should have also notived that he has, in fact, left threatening and harassing comments on my talk page even after he was explicitly told more than once never to post there again, and you've also seen him say straight out that he will always reverting any and all changes I make to any article dealing with Photoshop in anyway, and you've ALSO seen people agreeing with me on the talk page of the articles in question and be completely ignored by Dicklyon so that he blind reverts the whole thing. This stuff is nonsense, it's just schoolyard kids running around pulling stunts, and then being upset when they get told not to. If I threatened to try to get Clpo13 blocked, then you can be assured it was for something he was doing that was a blockable offense. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I will concede that Dicklyon hasn't handled this the best way, but that's really no excuse to be rude and uncivil right back. As for harassing comments, I don't quite follow. Notifying you that you might be violating WP:3RR isn't harassing unless it's done completely out of spite, and from what I've seen in the photo editing article, it's not entirely spite driving such accusations. Even if you consider his edits wrong, reverting them more than three times is still in violation of the three-revert rule. That's where discussion comes in. Now, I know you've been discussing photo editing for a long time, but there is still (new) discussion going on. A solid, unchallenged consensus was never established. For instance, if you'll look on the talk page, there's still the issue of what image should be used in the Photoshopping section, if one is to be put there at all. There is no solid agreement about that. Discussion isn't something that happens once and isn't done ever again. (And while people do agree with some of your edits, they don't all agree about the way you're going about implementing them. It's right there on the talk page.)

Also, your block threat hails from the incident with KillerCalendar, when I was pointing out that he wasn't necessarily a spammer (even though he eventually confessed to being one). As I recall, you said I was "cruising for a blocking" simply by interceding on his behalf, which you saw as wiki-stalking in order to spite you. Defending a user from accusations that aren't backed up by solid evidence is most certainly not a blockable offense. --clpo13_(talk) 22:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/I is the wrong forum indeed. Remember WP:RFC? You can ask for community input on a user's conduct there. In my experience, DreamGuy is a valuable editor with a no-nonsense approach very much needed on Misplaced Pages, where we often spend pages of debate about absolute trifles that could be solved by thinking for half a minute. dab (𒁳) 07:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

We did an RfC already (see Talk:Photo editing#Request_for_Comment and subsequent sections), and it resulted in a number of editors helping to form an acceptable compromise. Trouble is, he ignores that results and continues to dismantle the section he doesn't like. Dicklyon 15:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd never noticed him prior to his accusing me of being a dick and a vandal last night for the completely innocuous act of moving a template per the MoS. I'd rather not waste my free time getting involved in an RfC with an editor who is seemingly productive most of the time just because he occasionally picks pointless fights with people. I shouldn't have to put up with it, and neither should anyone else. Nor should he be encouraged to continue his "no-nonsense" approach of misleading edit summaries and infantile name-calling by other editors. Chris Cunningham 10:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What one person thinks is an absolute trifle may be rather significant to other editors. Discussion is what Misplaced Pages is all about, unless someone changed something while I was sleeping. Being bold is all well and good, but when people disagree with your edits, discussion is in order. That's the main problem here. Of course, I have no objection to this being brought up on RfC. I'm just putting in my opinion where the current issue is at. --clpo13_(talk) 07:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the gem he left on my talk page when he single handedly decided to change the Misplaced Pages:Guide to layout. Apparently he is not capable of both cutting and pasting during a single edit, as he cut some of the guide without re-pasting it back in. When he finally got around to fixing it, instead of repeatedly reverting, he blamed the whole thing on someone else. “See also was not removed, except perhaps for edit the other editor messed up”

Misleading and bad faith edit comments

You recently reverted an edit I made and labeled it "rv v". For someone who has been on Misplaced Pages as long as you apaprently have, judging from the welcome message, you should be well aware that "vandalism" (what "rv v" is short for) is not an applicable in that case, and that it is extremely deceptive and uncivil to falsely label edits that way. Please actually go read the vandalism policy and specifically the section on what vandalism is not if you are unclear on the concept. DreamGuy 04:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Rv major removal of material from guidelines. I don’t see where you have discussed this on the talk page, it looks to be a “non-constructive edit”, which are also sometimes called “Vandalism” Brimba 04:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh... Did you even look at what you were doing? Nothing, I repeat NOTHING was removed from the article in my edit. I just moved one section, so if you'd bothered to scroll down a little, you'd have seen that the section that went missing from one place showed up exactly same just a teensy bit further down the page. I would hope that you go revert your edit and apologize for your false accusations in your edit comments, because calling someone a vandal for no reason is a major breech of civility. DreamGuy 10:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I did scroll down. If you decide to “cut and paste”, please make sure that after “cutting” you remember to “paste”. The article went from 21,025 bytes down to 19,748 bytes when you editied it, so, yes, something was removed. Brimba 14:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the outcome was that SV had to protect Misplaced Pages:Guide to layout from editing. Brimba 07:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In this case, I was absolutely right... this person falsely labeled edits he disagreed with as "vandalism" even though it doesn't at all meet the definition. That's not an "outcome" that's another case of SlimVirgin took it upon herself to lock the page because she has a history of doing such when I am involved in any edits she happens to see, like when she locked pages falsely accusing me of using sockpuppets (the "outcome" there was admins overwhelmingly agreed that the page was wrong and I was right to object and that SlimVirgin's preferred version was harassment). SlimVirgin also has a history of making extremely drastic changes to WP:EL without discussion and often ignoring discussion when it is there to do whatever she wants, so it's quite interesting to see her trying to claim that I was actually doing what she has a demonstrated history of doing.

But anyway, yeah, it seems like now every couple of weeks every editor who got miffed that he or she didn't get his way comes to ANI whining about it, typically led by the spammers and POV-pushers. This is just a colossal waste of everyone's time, and if people are serious about making changes to prevent this in the future, then there needs to be more support for editors who enforce policy against people who want to violate them for personal, agenda-pushing or advertising-related reasons. When, for example, Dicklyon's comments are not helping matters and only intended to harass, and he is told to stop, when he posts to my talk page for more of the same he should be blocked for it. When people falsely label edits as vandalism they should be told to knock it off. And so forth and so on. Everybody seems to be all worried that I offended them but not that they are doing more offensive things themselves. When a spammer makes his ten millionth edit to add the infamous timtang spam link to multiple articles from rotating IP addresses, and has no moved to trying to claim it's a legitimate news reference and adds a link pretending it's a news story about timtang when it's something else entirely, that guy needs to just be blocked and all the various IPs and so forth warned not to start insulting and lying and swearing at me for it. These little witch hunts are ridiculous, because it encourages people with bad behavior to make more accusations and attacks while their actions go unexamined. DreamGuy 18:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not he's "correct" in the photo articles, he's going against a clear consensus. If he is unable to see the consensus, he probably needs to be blocked. (And edits against a clear consensus, where the editor has been informed of that consensus, are vandalism. Intent is not the entire content of vandalism.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the views expressed here

I have encountered DreamGuy in the past, and have watched him since. He is extremely rude and uncivil to most of the editors he encounters. When he thinks that guidelines are incorrect, he tries to change them without discussion. When he is reverted, he simply claims that the consensus version is wrong. For example, here's a nice little response to another editor on his talk page: . There have been two previous RfCs abou this user: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/DreamGuy and Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/DreamGuy-2. I believe that at the very least, this user needs to be watched more carefully by administrators. IPSOS (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Those two previous RFCs only go to prove my position: They were brought by editors who were shown to be conspiring to falsely label my edits as vandalism, and all three editors involved in the second one were permanently banned for POV-pushing, uncivil behavior, and personal attacks. Trying to use false and old claims against me as proof that I am a bad editor is nonsense... and considering your edits you certainly are not in a position to try to complain about anyone else's alleged incivility either. DreamGuy 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I wipe out a lot of spam and POV pushing and get trolls blocked, but I don't have a pack of users hunting me. DreamGuy, maybe you can be more polite, even to people you dislike. Jehochman 21:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about the impoliteness, or the "banning" me from his talk page after I post a warning that he characterizes as harassment and threat. I just want him to stop tearing up an article that he's been after since March 9, claiming consensus on his side when in fact nobody supports his position. I can keep reverting, but if some way can be found to throttle his behavior, that would be useful. Dicklyon 22:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Dicklyon's version here is, as always, an outright lie, as he just ignores the editors who disagree with him, and they run off after a while and give up due to his harassment. DreamGuy 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're saying that I'm mistaken, and that there are indeed others who support your position, could you point them out? As far as I know, nobody has accused me of harassment, present company excepted. Dicklyon 01:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to interject to say that by trying to discredit or attacking others by using a link to WP:DICK, which is in actuality an essay and not a policy doesn't strengthen an argument in this, or any context. If you continually point people to WP:DICK and remove criticism then it's likely that you'll just accrue a group of people who will monitor your actions in their watchlist. Again, please try to stop using the term "Harassment" as that usually constitutes repeated abuse or offensiveness over a sustained period, rather than just simple reverts that have occured over the same mistake. I just think this is blown out of all proportion over a simple misunderstanding that has somehow been taken as a personal attack and reciprocally has ended as several. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ 00:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Another example

Take a look at this accusatory edit comment . I have in fact been a regular editor of the article since 31 January 2007. IPSOS (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line here is that the same individuals who start up nonsensical and false accusations on this page every couple of months ago are right back at it again, and purposefully working together to try to harass me, both on my talk page and following each other and myself around to blind revert edits I make on any number of other articles completely unrelated to the one that they originally had their complaint on. You can see in the one IPSOS is complaining about above that an individual who moved over to photo editing based upon prior conflict that he lost on domain kiting has now gone to Leviathan to do reverts for him, These editors are also doing the same to a large number of other articles now. If anything all this is is a demonstration of how people out for revenge can band together and cause additional harassment all across Misplaced Pages out of pure wikistalking malice. Every couple of months they complain with the exact same nonsense. What they need to to be told in no uncertain language that any offense they think they see does not in any way give them the right to make personal attacks, to post false warnings on my talk page about nonexistent violations, to continue to harass me on my user space and elsewhere, to go jump into completely unrelated articles and give false edit comments (like on Template:Infobox_given_Name_Revised, where IPSOS edited for thefirst time because he saw a post about it on my talk and did a blind revert with this false edit comment claiming the revert was done without discussion, which is false not only because it was discussed on the talk page of WP:EL but also on my talk page with the editor who originally made it, which he obviously saw). Frankly, any claims any of these people might have about my supposed lack of civility are nothing compared to long term coordinated harassment, personal attacks and highly uncivil behavior of their own. DreamGuy 02:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just stick to the issue? I've never been here before, nor harassed you before. Our only interaction has my defense of "photoshopping" against your dismemberment, and my reporting you as a "vandal" when I didn't realize there was a better venue for my complaint. I can't help it if you've accumulated a lot of ill will from others from disputes like this one. So the question is this: will you stop hacking at the article, claiming consensus, when you're actually the only one outside the consensus? Dicklyon 15:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

AfDs as well

Not to 'jump onto the pile', but I wasn't too surprised to find a complaint about DreamGuy here. There are several comments he's made on an AfD discussion that outright scream incivility, without even the slightest provocation. The article in question is Mermaids in popular culture, an article he created. That, coupled with the reactions I see to edit wars above, makes me think he might have a slight problem with ownership. CaveatLector 07:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Latest removals with untrue edit summaries

DreamGuy is still at it, in spite of civil progress among all other editors. See his with edit summary "back to last good version, per talk page discussion, WP:UNDUE weight policy, WP:RS, WSP:FORK & to undo WP:OWNership issues by people not even trying to follow Misplaced Pages standards", which is at odds with ALL other editors; who has ownership issues here? Dicklyon 20:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Harassment

I feel I am being harassed by ILike2BeAnonymous since he recently stated " It IS a park that allows dogs off-leash; THAT'S WHAT YOUR REFERENCE SAYS. Why are you so god-damned STUBBORN? " Here, after I made this contribution. This user and I in addition to many other people as is evident by the tone and arguements on his talk pages and the Richmond, California talk pages have had many run ins up to this point. But his use of extremely uncivil language which was totally unprovoked is making me feel badly. He is also shouting by using all caps, and refering to me negatively in an edit summary. He has now begun an edit war as he has also reverted another editor's cleanup of my original addition which may be seen here.¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 23:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC) I think he should be blocked for his threats.¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 23:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

He also called my attempts to dialogue arguements as "mini shit storms" here¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 23:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Not that this excuses anything, but why are you guys even arguing about the difference between "allows dogs off leash" and "leash free"? -Amarkov moo! 23:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not, he immediatly alters any edit i make to the Richmond article and i felt his edit in this case didn't make much sense, another editor then altered the text and it made even more sense and i agreed with that, IL2BA then reverted that edit too. I am discussing the issue to avoid another painful edit war which if you flip through the history of Richmond, California are very destructive and time wasting.¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 23:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You've come here because you want him blocked for making threats but you haven't provided any evidence of him making threats. Please provide links to him actually making a threat. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about his intimidating and threatening languge. Whatever you call it, I believe if you make comments such as calling someone "godamn stubborn"hereand calling my discussion "mini shit storms"here does constitue an insult/insulting language, if its okay to talk to people like this, please tell me, but otherwise he should be blocked.¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 00:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely incivil, yes, but not necessarily personal attacks. And arguing about a "leash free" park and a park that allows dogs to be "off leash" is incredibly lame. —Kurykh 00:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What is lame or isn't is irrelevant INHO, since this page is to discuss incidents. Now IL2BA began the arguement not I. And the arguement was over whether it was mostly over whether it was a dog park which he claimed it wasnt, and he claimed souces said it did not when in fact they did.¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 22:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest that Cholga changes that ridiculous signature of hers it makes a mess of the page --Hayden5650 00:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What's so ridiculous about it, does it bother you? Would you be so kind to please explain, funny i noticed it is a bit long.

IL2BA also called my edits mini shit storms here (this is a separate offense and duplicate of the Richmond talk page)see it here

So calling me "godamn stubborn" is not a personal attack and it's okay to say that to people on wikipedia?¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 02:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no intention to repeat what I clearly stated above. —Kurykh 04:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to say something. This is just part of the harassment Il2B has done. If you just look at the archive of Richmond, California, you can definitely found some evidence regarding his incivility and stubbornness. From his tone, I can see that he sometimes thinks like he own the article. For example, he accuses Cholga for "twisting fact", calling his edits vandalism. He has altered Cholga's comment before. He has also came very close to violate 3rr when he got into a very heated argument about a picture. He is definitely uncivil.

But he does make a lot of good edits around here, and doesn't deserve a block just yet. I think what admin should do now is to give him a warning and tell him to assume good faith. Chris! _{my talk} 18:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Dreaded Walrus might be able to comment on this. Chris! _{my talk} 18:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Personal Attacks clearly states: "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." calling me "godamn stubborn" and saying i cause "mini shit storms" are clearly insults at my person and writing. "godamn" is very offensive to many religious people aswell. IL2BA has a history of disruptive editing as is evident by the talk pages of Richmond, California, and his own talk page. I request a second opinion. I feel he should be at the very least warned that if he does this again he may be blocked temporarily.71.142.91.34 22:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC) (was signed out)¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 22:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but it seems like I have to say it: get a thicker skin. While his/her comments were, of course, inappropriate, your apparent oversensitivity in this minor incident and your inability to drop it when appropriate is not helping matters. —Kurykh 22:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"get a thicker skin?" are you serious? If i were to start calling people goddamn this or godamn that i would with no doubt be warned and if i called peoples comments shit storms the same would happen. Is there anywhere i can appeal this desicion? He should be warned or it should be policy that you can call peoples comments shit storms and refer to other users as godamn stubborn. I have a thick enough skin, but he should be punished as fairly and consistantly as anyone else, or the Misplaced Pages Personal Attacks page should stop reading as follows, ""Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done."" REGARDLESS OF WHICH MANNER IT (AN INSULT OR DISPARAGEMENT) IS DONE. This is not a minor incident this is a persistant problem with this editor. Check his discussion page he's been warned many times for this sort of thing, consistantly. He has a very agressive, dismissive and cavalier tone. He doesn't apologize or acknowledges his mistakes. If someone insulted you and no action was taken when would you drop it?¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 00:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This is also not a minor incident because he did it on three separate occasions linked to here. I don't think its fair that he gets to insult and disparage me anywhere he wants and there are no consequences, he should be warned and i would like an apology.¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs}

Harden up a bit. He is obviously a straight-shooter and you can't handle it. Mini shit storm is hardly an insult, in fact I find it rather humorous. --Hayden5650 22:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not the time or place to make such ridiculous insinuations, about what i can and cannot handle. As for him being a straight shooter, I didn't know straight shooter now inlcuded people who's talk pages are full of warnings for misbehaving. If I called the way you talk a mini shit storm I hardly think you would enjoy it or find it humorous, its was obviously not a joke but a term of disparagement.¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 00:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

IL2BA's inability to works with individuals here is indisputable. Also protecting a user who is uncivil is extremely bad practice, I think, because it encourages user who has a history of disruptive editing, to continue his incivility and editing in bad faith. Chris! _{my talk} 23:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

And Hayden5650, go read WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:NPA if you really think personal attack directing at an user is funny. Chris! _{my talk} 23:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Cholga, I see you are still adding to this discussion, some what obsessively. You have alerted us to your problem, we all now know about it and are aware of the situation. You now need to let it rest and then if it happens again, an admin may intervene. You seem to have come here hoping an admin would block IL2BA at the drop of a hat, it doesn't work that way. Not when he wasn't downright attacking you. Please, for now, just let it go. Have a cigarette and calm down. You have laid the groundwork now for any future 'attacks'.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayden5650 (talk • contribs)

Are you an admin? And why didn't you say that in the first place instead of say you found what he said about me funny? I am just talking, don't call me obsessive. I didn't know there was a limit to dialogue.71.142.91.34 05:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary

Is this an acceptable edit summary? SqueakBox 00:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

<------- how about that one? accusations of trying to harm a family I don't know. Fighting for Justice 00:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Not so, FfJ has reverted 4 times, I have only reverted 3 times. Yes it is acceptable to say that categorising a non public figure as a rape victim is unacceptable and distressing to the victim's family while giving graphic details of some nut pedophile's actions is not acceptable, SqueakBox 00:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Squeakbox, have you read WP:POINT? You should probably limit your action in this area to the "Rape Victim" CfD, your actions across the wiki are becoming disruptive (just my opinion). Videmus Omnia 00:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Facts don't stop being facts because they might "distress" somebody. Stevie is the man! 00:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If the article is so bad, then check it meets WP:BIO. If not, including it in its proper category is hardly distressing to the family. I'd say getting raped was the distressing part, not the damn wikipedia category. --Hayden5650 00:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:ENC, I can't believe that the attitude of some editors here, is to degrade the information within the article just in case the deceased' family might not want it there. I was actually quite surprised that you would chose to delete what looks to be a very notable murder victim, Leslie Mahaffy, and yet keep an utterly inconsequential half-hour radio program on Radio 4, The Misplaced Pages Story. It should be about whether a subject is notable and encyclopedic, not whether we can crowbar in a BLP "concern". And no, they're not the best of edit summaries, but he does have a point. And you know when you're arguing over how many reverts you made, it's not good on both sides. - hahnchen 01:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The wikipedia story does no harm but outing rape victims does, SqueakBox 01:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Squeakbox - While I sympathise with your cause - 25 million people already know this about Mahaffy - I'm not sure it's fair to call this "outing". WilyD 13:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks from his contribs as if SqueakBox may be wikistalking Fighting for Justice. Videmus Omnia 01:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I feel like he does. I've had all these crime victim articles on my watchlist for the past 2 years. I wrote a few of them myself. I would never have encountered SqueakBox had he not removed the rape victim category. I felt compelled to give that graphic description, because I can't believe SqueakBox has the audacity to claim he's no rape victim after everything the child went through. I think it's more insulting to the victim's family to omit the category then to remove it. Furthermore, the victim family saw the very pictures of this crime. Just the visuals must have been way worse then my words. In my opinion the victims family must be a lot stronger then SqueakBox is willing to give them. Fighting for Justice 01:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Give those descriptions agin and you wwill be blocked, as promised by admins, SqueakBox 01:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Did I say I was going to give one again? No I did not. It was one administrator not administrators, so there's no need for the plural form of the word. Fighting for Justice 01:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh? How did you conclude that, Videmuus? I was looking at the rape victims cat not FfJ's contribs. That accusation is out of order, and yeah FfJ is right that we met re the rape victims cat, which is completely unacceptable given we are writing an encycloipedia and nothing else. Facts being facts does not justify us outing rape victims and there is certainly policy that says we should, SqueakBox 01:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue seems to be your near unilateral attempted depopulation of the category while it's still undergoing discussion at CfD. (Note I haven't commented there.) The category has existed this long, can't you wait another few days for the consensus/decision rather than causing disruption? Videmus Omnia 01:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Cfd does not affect our policies and to claim we must ignore BLP, verification and other policies because of a Cfd is absolutly contrary to the wikipedia spirit, and to claim my action is unilateral is incorrect, SqueakBox 01:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Samantha Runnion's categorization as a rape victim falls under WP:BLP? Videmus Omnia 01:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Same for Mia Zapata, who happens to be dead. Stevie is the man! 01:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Tragically not but somebody murdering her doesnt mean we stop protecting her reputaion and she is not a public figure, please read the rape victim cat page and talk page where we have agreed that only public figures nshoudl eb included. I dont beleieve weither of you really mean that because some nasty murders somebody that we shopuldnt take that person and their family seriously, SqueakBox 01:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If Mia Zapata is notable enough to have an article, she can be classified appropriately. If you don't find her notable, then submit the article to Afd. Stevie is the man! 01:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll also add that "well known" is an un-wiki requirement for category placement -- if a subject is notable enough to have an article, they are well-known enough to use any appropriate Misplaced Pages classification. Stevie is the man! 02:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No there is no agreement yet. That's false. There is 4 or 5 comments about it and most of them are from you Squeakbox. I think it's important to also note that Samantha's mother, Erin Runnion, has a very public foundation in her child's memory. you might want to check it out So Squeakbox you are wrong that her family doesn't want her name and story out in the public. Fighting for Justice 02:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I would also agree that it seems like SqeakBox is trying to discredit and harass FFJ. He even filed a RFC about his username, which was closed very quickly because no one thought there was a violation. As for the category, how does categorizing someone as a rape vicitm cause any more distress when it will invariably say they were raped in the article? i  02:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually that wasnt my suggestion, see above. Fighting for justice, with its implication that the user is in the right, isnt a POV name? Any stalking claims re me are well out of line as FfJ doesnt own the rape cat or the articles in it. All I an trying to do is impose policy, if you dont likre our policies you should try and change thenm but to create policies that out victims isnt going to get very far, IMO, SqueakBox 02:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

POV doesnt appy to usernames...? He doesn't your correct, but neither do you. And what policy are you imposing? The one that says we cant out rape vicitims by putting them in a category? Well, the article says they've been raped so the only thing that would be any more outing would to put a huge notice on the top of the article that says THIS PERSON HAS BEEN THE VICTIM OF RAPE in red flashing letters. As said below, most people don't think the cat violates policies. i  03:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You are trying to impose your view of policy. Given how the Rape Victims CfD is going, it would seem that your actions are hardly supported by consensus. Resolute 02:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh if the community has no problem with his name nor do I, and I made very clear I was looking for him to change his name not be blocked. You can taccuse me of having a PIOV name and the use box controversy indicates your claim that POV is only for main space isnt backed up by reality. Having a list of rape victims is not a good idea and that only happens in the cat, hence my description of this cat as outing rape victims. IMO there is no consensus either way on the cfd but anyway perople's opinions dont pre-empt policy. We arent here to stalk people as most of the responsible admins well realise. Nobody has answered Slim's question on this page as to how this cat improves this encylopedia, I guess criticising me takes less effort than addressing the real iisues, eh? SqueakBox 03:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, This page in a nutshell: All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias. Nothing about usernames. The userbox war wasn't really about POV is was about it being polemic. And why is having a list of rape vicitms not a good idea? As for the CfD, I think there's consensus, but I'm not the closing admin. And why did you pick out SlimVirgin's question? i  03:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox you know perfectly well that my user name wasn't a problem. Because you have looked at my block log and you know only administrators can block people. Therefore, you know this name wasn't a problem. You reported me because you dislike the fact I endorse a category you hate. Fighting for Justice 03:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Iwas following Swat's suggestion, nothing more, see the thread above with my name on it, SqueakBox 04:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• I suppose everyone should know this battle has moved to the 3RR noticeboard, where SqueakBox was not blocked but the argument continues. Videmus Omnia 04:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That isnt so actually, see this, please feel free to leave me a message if you have anything to say to me re this issue, SqueakBox 04:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment/question - Squeakbox, can you please explain how including somebody in the category "rape victims" is harmful to that person IF its ALREADY public knowledge? I would say that if the person's name has not been reveled, then it should not be "outed", but in this case, the material is already "out" there? thanks, --Tom 15:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Because if they are alive, it is a BLP issue and a WP:NOT violation.⇒ SWATJester 16:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't really anwser the question. Anyways, no biggie to me.--Tom 20:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked FightingForJustice for 48 hours for repeatedly making incivil, bad faith accusations against SqueakBox here. Ffj's self avowed POV of "always for the crime victims and their families" is becoming disruptive to the project and will not be tolerated. ⇒ SWATJester 16:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

HistoricDST

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

I have been editing the article Delta Sigma Theta in order to get the article to quality standards. HistoricDST is a member of Delta Sigma Theta and has been editing the article as well in order to match it to the orgnaization's website and has not made any effort to improve the article's content. In addition, I, as well as other people, has warned her of this conflict of interest. In my opinion, HistoricDST is in violation of WP:COI and is owning the article. Now, I have given up in improving the article because she is "policing my edits". Please see this regarding problems in content, this as a problem with content, this where she "accused me of being a member of another organization" and where she says that I am a member, when I am not and the argument which started it all. I just need a third opinion on this. I am not trying to bite the editor, but she is not understanding the whole concept of Misplaced Pages. All imput would be helpful. Thanks. Miranda 04:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Administators,

I need assistance on deleting my account. Thanks in advance. HistoricDST 05:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Place {{subst:speedy|User requested}} on the top of your user page and talk ::page. If you do ever decide to create another account, reading the welcoming message is crucial in order to understand core guidelines of the site. Thanks and best wishes. Miranda 05:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Userpages and talk pages may be deleted, but accounts cannot be officially deleted, due to licensing issues. User:Zscout370 08:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Just what I was about to say, I think Miranda must have mis-read it, . — Rlest (formerly Qst) 12:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I meant for deleting your talk page content, not your account because that never may happen. It was late at night when this incident occurred. Might want to assume good faith QST. Miranda 12:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that approaching the other editor in another manner may have been more appropriate here. Specifically, Miranda, you have made many contributions to that area of Misplaced Pages and have a possible appearance of ownership yourself. Perhaps, less of an attitude expressed by putting so many phases in bold text, piping policy links at the newbie and instructing them how you are such an experienced editor (with 6+ months and 14K edits....) may have been helpful. I do notice that HistoricDST did seek assistance at WP:EAR, while you chose to come to ANI to basically settle a content dispute, which could have been more easily settled by invoking some of the ideas at WP:DR. Also, WP:COIN is well equipped to handle possible issues with COI matters. I don't see any evidence of vandalism or incivility attributed to the new user. New users may have much to add. This user claims to have books and per the help at EA, may have been able to make a number of reliable, sourced edits. It appears that we will never know. --After Midnight 12:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't own anything. She was reverting information that I included in the article as well as was a member of the sorority who said that the Misplaced Pages's article DST must coincide with the national website of the organization. This is a serious violation of neutral point of view and of advertisements of companies. Believe me, she was warned by me, Nick, as well as others that her conflict of interest would interfere with the article's development, but she didn't listen. She was confused by policies as well. And believe me, AM, there was incivility (hint: look at the links). As for WP:OWN, I don't own articles and realize that many different editors can improve articles. However, at that point, I was the main one updating that page as well as AKA's page. Hence, your argument about me "owning" anything is a moot point. Look at the argument from both sides instead of one side. That is why I came here. Miranda 13:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Miranda, the facts don't add up here. The HistoricDST account has made a grand total of 6 edits to the article (compared to 98 for you). The last one was more than 3 weeks ago. The account has made a total of 4 edits to the talk page of the article (plus 3 more edits to correct their typo and add signatures). None of those edits are uncivil. Nick made one edit to HistoricDST's talk page instructing to use the talk page which is exactly what happened here. I read every post the account made to your talk page, only 1 of the 14 approached incivility, and appeared no worse than the messages they were receiving from you. I encourage others to look at this objectively, but I find your claims to not be accurate. Looking at this account, I see no egregious offense. --After Midnight 13:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I am/was not asking for you to block her. I was asking for someone else to explain to her what she was doing was wrong. She was critiquing all of my edits to her sorority's article, nearing own and conflict of interest. For me, this topic is resolved because 1.) the editor has left and 2.) a serious conflict of interest and ownership was made to the article. Miranda 13:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

More piping links and bold text I see. I disagree that this issue is resolved. No COI was made to the article, obviously, since they didn't edit it. The fact that this user left Misplaced Pages is not necessarily the good thing that you make it out to be. As I said above, this editor may have been able to a positive contribution to this or to other articles, but you have run them off with what appear to me to be false accusations. You told me to look at the links, I did that and more. I now ask you to re-examine those links yourself as well as your behavior in this matter. Perhaps the problem lies somewhere other than with that user. Finally, please note my comments about better venues than this board for asking for help with editors that may be used for COI issues and dispute resolution. --After Midnight 13:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Having examined some of the contributions, I agree with After Midnight. People bandy about "WP:COI" all the time without being careful about it. In this case, the user was a member of the organization but not necessarily employed by them or anything like that, and was following policy by providing sources, and was met with WP:BITEs. I have undone Miranda's marking of the user's pages with speedy tags, BTW: in my opinion, the user wanted to close her account, not necessarily to delete her user page (and certainly not her user talk page, which is often not done even with a request). HistoricDST, if they want their pages deleted, should at least make an explicit request. Mangojuice 14:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: Delta Sigma Theta is an organization where women are initiated. It's not a corporation. Delta Sigma Theta is a sorority. You don't have to be employed by the sorority, unless you work in the sorority's offices. And, I am sorry AM, but I have a habit of linking information in order to back up my points because I don't believe in heresy. I haven't "ran off this editor", so again, please quit making accusations which merit no content. For example, what happens if someone from Donald Trump's Miss Universe pageant came and told you that you couldn't edit their article because it goes against company guidelines and have not done anything to improve the article. That would be a blatant conflict of interest. As far as the conflict of interest board, I did not know about it. Thank you for pointing that out. I thought that this is a board where you report users who were potentially disruptive or going against policy. Miranda 15:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So to extend that point, are users who live in a particular state unwelcome to assist in improving the article about that state? Are Americans not welcome to edit United States? --After Midnight 15:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No, of course not. That's not what I meant at all. I meant that she placed information such as, Miranda don't put this in our page, because it goes against our policies. Miranda, do not put the shield in the page, because it goes against the Grand Chapter of DST. (hence the shield is protected under fair use). That's blatant conflict of interest and ownership. Miranda 15:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it is typical behaviour for a new editor who does not understand our policies and should be welcomed, treated respectfully and guided to become a member of the community who makes positive contributions to the project. Also, as a side question, when you sigh in your edit summaries, should I treat that as if you are looking down at me, or as if you are rolling your eyes at me, or as if you are exasperated by my or others behavior and believe that we are somehow inferior? I would like you to clairify that, because not knowing your intent, and while I like to assume good faith, I perceive that I am (subtly?) being insulted. --After Midnight 15:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

After Midnight, no, I am not insulting you at all. Where did you get this from? "Sigh" means that I am tired of harping on this point and providing evidence where a conflict of interest is made. And, yes, she was pointed in the right direction many times. I provided her with links of policy as well as told her to read her welcome message. Miranda 15:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Er Both those edits were on talk pages - that's what people with a possible COI are supposed to do. Did you actually read the guideline before you brought this up? Spartaz 15:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did, but she did those after making edits to the article with her IP address as well as other instances provided above. To AM: And, the only contributions that she made to the page was to critique my edits to her sorority. Yes, she was a member of a sorority, true. We have members of sororities and fraternities who edit their articles, which is a WP:COI. But for her to tell me what to put in her sorority's article is WP:OWN. Miranda 15:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What exactly was the problem with the user making these comments on talk pages? I can't see one and since you cited them perhaps you can help me out? Thanks Spartaz 15:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh and by the way Miranda, in a respectful way I have been on Misplaced Pages for months longer than you as both Tellyaddict and Qst and with my contribs from the accounts and my current I have over 20,000+ contribs and almost 11 months experience, so see its not very nice is it to be downgraded by somebody who thinks they rule the world as they have more edits, is it? So please stop emboldening text as you're getting annoyed and slapping editors with policy citations, and your repeat citation of WP:DISRUPT is also annoying, oh and it was not QST, it Qst. — Rlest (formerly Qst) 15:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind I am beating a dead horse here. Miranda 16:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should move this thread to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Give me attention please or Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Ego clashes? -- John Reaves 00:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with John. It's a newbie, Miranda, they don't know how to say things; they just say things. Perhaps what HistoricDST meant to say was "I don't like the way you're editing the article", and wanted to reach a compromise. Another thing, Rlest is right. You've told me and countless others to assume good faith a googleplex too many. Read the policies before you accuse people of violating them and emboldening them. Also, your repeated use of *sigh* is getting quite old; your rebuttal to AM's comment sounds as if it is to say that we are ignorant and do not understand. —« ANIMUM » 00:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I will make an effort to e-mail the user in question in order to reach out to her to continuing editing Misplaced Pages. As far as the other comments in general, I will make an effort to improve my behavior. Regarding Animum's commment, I have already explained myself above concerning the usage of my "sigh" comment. There is no use in order to bring up this moot point again. Please don't try to make this a battleground of who's ego is bigger, because that would be a waste of my time and others time. We are trying to build an encyclopedia. Thank you. Miranda 09:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of tags

Repeted removal of tags. // Liftarn

Casually thrown tags are expected to be removed. Please don't clutter this page with wanton complaints. This is not a Misplaced Pages complaints department. --Ghirla 13:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It's also not a page where you are allowed to be rude to folks. RxS 13:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

A stern request is different than being rude. My only concern would be that it appears English is not Liftarn's native language, so he may have been uncertain of how to address the issue. Leebo /C 13:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I was talking to Ghirla. Please don't clutter this page with wanton complaints.... is rude. RxS 13:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I know you were talking to Ghirla. I disagree with you. It's a stern request -- the instructions are pretty clear that this page isn't for disputes that don't require administrator attention. Leebo /C 15:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You can read my response to Ghirla here. Basically it's about how we talk to each other here, and how, by example, we teach newcomers what's expected when communicating with each other. It's counter productive to "sternly" warn someone about something they rarely do...RxS 18:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Liftarn is not a newcomer. He's been editing Misplaced Pages since 2002. --Ghirla 18:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC

From the looks of the article discussion page you guys need some help. Have you considered WP:30 or informal mediation? I'm not sure this needs to be here. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 12:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Reverting Images

user:Nakagawa0 is constantly reverting images in the Resident Evil 5 article to make a point about alleged racism in the video game. Users on the article's talk page have already addressed the issue, and decided to keep it removed since there are no legit sources to verify any of the claims. The User and reverted mine (and another users') edits over three times. We've asked him to stop, but he keeps persisting. I informed him about WP:A and WP:3RR but he did not bother reading the polices, and parroted the warning I have him onto my talk page. What should I do? --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 13:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you are looking for dispute resolution guidelines... --Aarktica 19:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Imdanumber1/Sandbox

I'm about to get pissed off, so an admin please review the violation of fair use on this userspace. — Moe ε 15:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Change the images to image links, and it'll be fine. --Eyrian 15:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, without the fair use images this is fine, hence I have added {{Resolved}}. Regards; — Rlest (formerly Qst) 15:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That was the problem, people were readding the fair use images. Whatever.. — Moe ε 16:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Moe, the route map doesn't seem to be fairuse, only the one sign. I've replaced it with a placeholder image - if problems persist, people can be stopped from adding unfree images to the userspace - I'll keep an eye on it. WilyD 16:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize this. If you check the fair use image it appears to be nearly identical. — Moe ε 16:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Which fair use image? Surely you don't mean the sign one? WilyD 16:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

See User talk:WilyD. — Moe ε 17:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. it looks to me as if this user is working on an article in his sandbox prior to moving it to mainspace. If that is the case why remove fair use photos? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I tend to think WP:NONFREE stating that fair use images only being used in the article namespace means one thing. Users can comment out the images and whatnot which aren't appropriate for the userspace. This page has almost been in creation for 11 months, a little long to assume it's going to the main namespace soon, don't you think? Well, thats when the sandbox was created, my mistake. Still, images presumed under fair use shouldn't be used under the userspace regardless, policy strickly says the article namespace is only permittable. — Moe ε 17:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to interpret the policy using some common sense. The reason for the stipulation is to prevent people using non free images to decorate their userpages. Creating a sandbox is a whole diffferent matter as that page is clealy an encylopedic no matter what the actual namespace is. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think then we need to bring it to WT:NONFREE for a rewording then, because as it stands it clearly says, "article namespace" and gives no exception to a permittable sandbox, unless I'm missing it (like always :p). — Moe ε 17:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really need to list every possible exception. As it says on the top of the page:This page is considered a guideline on Misplaced Pages. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.. That is all I am advocating here. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm reading from the policy portion, not all of it is guideline. — Moe ε 17:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So you are. I didn't notice that. Actually having had my dinner, and thinking on it some more, I'm making an issue of of nothing. If somone intends using a sandbox, they can easily leave out all nonfree images until the end of the process. If they want to tweak image placement and such, they can do it just before the page goes live. It's no big deal to do that. Most people who use a sandbox do so because they want to make sure the text is perfect before letting it loose on everyone. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

People really should leave adding things like categories out of the userspace anyway, so it's even less of a big deal. JPD (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to the admins for resolving this issue. At some point, some jerks blatantly removed content from my user subpage, and the worst part is, they didn't bring up the issue to me. I reverted, because I only ask that people edit my subpage to prevent conflicts. Where the heck did the guys come from?

Anyway, the page is going to go live tomorrow. And as for Moe, I suggest you calm your attitude down, seriously. People like you are a bad example to WP, and it is ugly. And please don't edit my sandbox without my permission. That goes for all. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 02:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't own your userspace, see WP:UP and WP:OWN, it belongs to the community and you have no choice as to whether you can violate policy on it or not, you just can't, thus I don't need your permission. — Moe ε 12:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

How about you fix your attitude before you make any other comments? And it is MY userspace, I don't need ignorant people like you getting my say-so in my business. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 13:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No, Moe is correct; it is not your userspace, and, yes, you are correct in that other people should not edit it outside of WP rules and policies. Of which, WP:NPA is considered very serious around here, and the term "ignorant people" violates it. Uncivil language brings nothing to the discussion, and can even result in warnings being posted and blocks issued. It would be better if everybody just chilled a bit here. LessHeard vanU 13:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria

The article Transnistria has been in the past subject to a bitter edit war. This spring, the ArbCom agreed to review the case: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria. After the imposed bans on 3 former users (which was enforced when the ArbCom started to review the case), the article has enjoyed a period of return to normality, with very helpful and productive contributions from several editors (having occasionally different personal political viewpoints, but all determined to hold serious, constructive and very civilized discusions, to edit very mindfully and avoiding any rv to each other): Alaexis, MariusM, Ilythr, Dpotop, Mcarling, Icar, Lexicon, Monegasque, ClockworkOrange. This process was partly supervised in the first weeks by a couple admins, e.g. Future Perfect at Sunrise. They did not edit the article, but helped establish a very good working atmosphere between editors. There are many delicate issues that the article covers, but the discussions (and edits) have been almost like accademic ones until recently.

Unfortunately, however, recently there appear new editors, who are less committed to this delicate process: Dikarka, Ursul pacalit de vulpe, Daniil naumoff. I am not saying they are bad editors, I am just saying they interpret the expression "edit boldly" as liberal as they imagine in respect to this article. Up to now, their contributions have been successfully scrutinized in the talk page by all sides to provide sourses and citations, to write in neutral tone, and controversial versions have not been the case.

Unfortunately, recently, we have the involvement of an admin, Mikkalai, who instead of supervizing the civilized character of the discussions and edits, as previous admins supervizing this article before him did, started taking sides with respect to these new controversial editors, and make reverts to controversial versions (the latest edit). The problem is that these edits are not commented in the tak page at all. They contradict the established "consensus"es and jeopardize the lengthy and delicate process that went into scrutinizing every word, esp. in the introduction.

Because of the volatile history of this article, I believe it is imperative to report any potential problem. My request is:

• Would it be possible for 1-2 other admins to supervise the article (1-2 times a day) and prevent any rv war before it could even start?
• Would it be possible for some admins to suggest in the talk page that the unwritten rule that has been uphold in the last few months ("no edit without comment in the talk page") be used by the new editors, as well as by the admins?
• Would it be possible to ask the admin Mikkalai to avoid spelling his conflict with Ursul pacalit de vulpe to this article? The article would really do better without the "boldness" of both of them, no matter how "justified" they think it is.

Thank you. :Dc76\ 17:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody on this page is going to solve your ages-long content disputes. And it is somewhat cheap to accuse your opponent of revert warring, when it was you who made the first revert from the stable version and introduced POV-tinged stuff. If you have some specific suggestions (as it seems you have), you are expected to discuss them on the relevant page, rather than here. I don't see what admin action is required in this particular case. --Ghirla 17:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, read the article history before accusing. The latest show of controversial edits started on 24 July by Ursul pacalit de vulpe. The problem is that Mikkalai used the pretext of reverting Ursul pacalit de vulpe to rv to a version on the opposite extreme, an equally controversial verion that appeared in reaction to Ursul pacalit de vulpe.

On a personal note, I would like to add, that it would be nice if you, Ghirla, could stop seing me as your personal enemy. I had disagrements with you in the AfD of 2 articles. Our disagrements can stay in those 2-3 artilces. Why are you spelling it out in all WP articles? Please, read the content, don't assume everything I say is bad b/c I once had a long disagrementing discussion with you on a particlar subject that has nothing to do with this article! It is very rude to show your fists every time I write something on the board. Please, be civilized. :Dc76\ 17:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't even recall your name and I don't recall an article where I have had a "dispute" with you. That's why I don't buy into your claim of "spelling it out in all WP articles" as you term it. This page is supposed to be a place to seek promt admin intervention in urgent cases. Lengthy diatribes against one's opponents in content disputes are not welcomed. --Ghirla 18:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Soviet occupation denial and Soviet invasion of Poland (1939). Remember? By "spelling out", I mean that since then, every time I posted anything on this board or on 3RR board, you were among the first to comment (just check the archiv), and you never missed a single one to comment. Prior to that, you never commented on my posts, not a single time! If you can do this without remebering a name, that is totally up to you.

I should also add that IMHO your comments on secondary issues derail the subject of this notice on the board. I hope this is not your aim.:Dc76\ 18:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

FT2, Attachment Therapy Advocates for Children in Therapy and block of User:DPeterson

This editor has been actively involved in working in User:Fainites on the NLP article and many other related articles. FT2 then involved himself in the arbitration case regarding attachment therapy, etc. His block of DPeterson is uncalled for. If anything the articles should be frozen because of the constant reverts by editors working with Fainites. Specifically, FT2 objected to: 1. "'Attachment Therapy' is not a term found in the American Medical Association's Physician's Current Procedural Manual, 2006. It is also not found in Bergin and Garfield's Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change, fifth edition, edited by Michal J. Lambert, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 2004

2. "The group is led by Linda Rosa, RN, Executive Director; her spouse Larry Sarner, Administrative Director; and Jean Mercer, Chairman of Professional Board of Advisors" the text "none of whom are licensed mental health providers."

both of these statements are facts and were supported by verifiable citations or references.

I believe FT2 is abusing adminisrative status here. RalphLender 18:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with his edits on Attachment Therapy, haven't looked at the other one. You have your own POV here, and it looks to me like he's trying to keep it neutral. ⇒ SWATJester 19:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Basis of block is re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-adding of problematic pointy/subtle attack text (OR, POINT, NPOV, CONSENSUS, TE, DISRUPT, etc), despite numerous warnings on what policy says if disruptive editing continues, and requests to more fully address concerns over neutrality and OR. Full details on WP:RFArb/Attachment_Therapy/Evidence#Blocks_issued_pending_arbitration_decisions, including details of arbcom clerks who were requested to double-check the decison to block. The rest is a bad-faith claim also discussed there.

Note that the decision to block was discussed openly and reviewed in the presence of around 45 admins and 2 arbcom clerks (neutrality/appropriateness check), and is fully documented on the arbcom case page. This is because DPeterson (a proven POV war sockmaster facing probable long term ban at arbcom) has a distasteful habit of untruthfulness, and not much compunction at arguing by fabrication and smear. RalphLender is a behaviorally-evidenced sock of DPeterson himself. FT2 12:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Quigia (talk · contribs)

Could an admin remove a couple of his edits (he's only made 3), but two of them contain serial keys for products.--Crossmr 19:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. ⇒ SWATJester 19:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Argyriou (talk · contribs)

Can we get this user blocked? His recent edits are either to harass me (see "add userbox from Jmabel to annoy Sceptre") or to attack me. Will 20:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

See thread immediately below, which deals with this very issue. MastCell 20:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Another userbox conflict

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

In reference to the above sub-thread on Jmabel's userbox, Argyriou has decided to add the userbox to his page "to annoy Sceptre". Not cool. Sceptre has responded by repeatedly removing the userbox from Argyriou's userpage, citing variously WP:UP#NOT, vandalism, and harassment (see page history and my talk page). They've now gone back at forth at least 3 times each. I asked Sceptre to drop it, but he feels he's being harassed. Personally, I think:

• The userbox is, at this point, acceptable and not overly polemic
• Argyriou is being, at best, childish and attempting to provoke Sceptre
• Sceptre is allowing himself to be provoked and is edit-warring by removing a legit userbox from another user's userspace, leveling unfounded vandalism accusations to boot

Given the unwillingness of both sides to back off, I'm tempted to hand out 12-hour WP:POINT blocks both ways, but they're both longstanding contributors and I'd prefer not to sully their block logs. Can I get some constructive community assistance in defusing this? MastCell 20:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Sceptre harms the project and should be dealt with. You should not act on a user who protects the right that was given to him by Wiki to his userspace. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Your userpage isn't quite yours. Please read Misplaced Pages:User page. --Eyrian 20:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

My userpage is not mine at all. Where did you see me say that? --Thus Spake Anittas 20:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"You" in the general sense. A person's userpage isn't strictly theirs. If they are using to be unnecessarily disruptive/offensive, others can (and should) modify it. I just don't happen to think that's necessarily the case here. --Eyrian 20:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Remove the userbox. He's not using it as a statement, just to annoy me. Will 20:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, no one told you to stare at it. —Kurykh 20:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest a toothy-warning to eachSceptre. The userbox is an acceptable statement, and I don't think that you can harass someone through a generic userbox on your own page. --Eyrian 20:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

But you can through an edit summary. Reinserting the content is still harassment. Will 20:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

As I stated when removing the speedy-delete tag, this userbox serves a much greater purpose than annoying User:Sceptre. Ultranationalists are probably the biggest internal threat to the integrity of Misplaced Pages, and most of the conflict I've been involved in here is a direct result of ultranationalist POV-pushing. I'd encourage all users sick of ultranationalist POV-pushing to place this userbox on their page. Argyriou (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I am tempted to get some user boxes just to add this one. I completely agree with you Argyriou. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell and Eyrian that the issue just needs to be dropped. If you're annoyed by the userbox, don't view his userpage. Edit warring over its inclusion/removal is just ridiculous, and gives Jmabel Argyriou the reaction he wanted. - auburnpilot talk 20:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Jmabel did not ask for any kind of reaction, but to be left alone. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that; I copy/pasted the wrong name from the above comments. - auburnpilot talk 20:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the issue of nationalist pov-pushing is important to me, I've changed the text in the userbox on my userpage to more accurately reflect my beliefs, and to remove the specific text which offended User:Sceptre. Argyriou (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me, then. Just don't disrupt that way again. Will 21:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing accusation

Please see Talk:Misplaced Pages community#Proposing un-merge> Three was recently an Rfd on Misplaced Pages community (now a redirect following a merge) In that RfD discussion, some editors suggested that the merge had been unwise. Therefore i started a discussion on a proposal to undo the merge. So far, the only other editor to join the discussion is QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who apparently opposed the idea of undoing the merge. To obtain more input, i placed a carefully neutral msg indicating that the matter was under discussion on the talk pages of each of the people who commented in the RfD, with the sole exceptions of myself and QuackGuru (since we obviously did not need to be informed). QuackGuru promptly made these two edits implicitly accusing me of improper canvassing, and threatening any editor who I notified of being reported for meatpuppetry should that editor comment in the current discussion. Note that at least one of those editors had commented on the previous discussion on the merge here and so would be considered naturally interested. The others, by commenting in the rfd, at lest implied interest in the merge, on which several of them remarked during the RfD. I request confirmation that my notification of a small number of editors who had previously expressed interest was proper, and that QuackGuru's response to that notification was not proper. DES 21:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I've recently commented on the WP:CANVASS talkpage that that policy needs some refinement, and this is a good example of why. QuackGuru's reaction was, at least to my taste, excessive and the threat to report contributors for "meatpuppetry" is an odd misuse of that term. However, since you have mentioned QuackGuru by name, you should let me know that this thread involving him has been opened so that he can present his side of the story. Newyorkbrad 21:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Before starting this thread, i had posted in the thread linked above that I was going to raise the matter on ANI, giving a link here. QB was obviously following that thread closely, and in fact came here almost at once. I presumed that that notice would serve to alert QB to this thread. Had he not appeared here propmptly, i would have put a msg on his user talk page.DES 22:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

In the recent redirect discussion some editors suggested that the merge had been unwise. That is the position of DES. Then he contacted those editors to help him in the discussion.  Mr.Guru  talk  21:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see why there is a problem with contacting editors who have shown interest in a matter, and letting them know that there is renewed discussion of the same or a related matter. In any event, in no circumstances should editors be told that they are disallowed from participating in a particular discussion, and the loaded term "meatpuppetry" should not have been used. Newyorkbrad 21:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that I was careful to contact every editor who commetned in the RfD in any way, no mattter what opnion that editor did or did not express on the merge issue. That is the proper way to inform people of discussions. I also placed a note on the talk page of the merge target. If there are other places where you think editor who might be interested should be informed of this discussion, please indicate what it is. DES 21:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This reminds me of the recent MfD for Misplaced Pages:Policy shopping. Blaxthos (talk · contribs), who initially authored the essay, contacted everyone who participated in the previous MfD with a neutral message asking them for their input. The user who initiated the second MfD then accused Blaxthos of improper canvassing. I believe this sort of thing, when an XfD occurs just one month after the previous XfD, is not only proper, but falls into the "friendly notice" section of WP:CANVASS. DESiegel's edits appear to be in the same "friendly notice" manner. - auburnpilot talk 21:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a problem because some of the editors he contacted support his position. DES said in part above: some editors suggested that the merge had been unwise. DES's position is that the merge is unwise. Who did he contact. Editors who support his position.  Mr.Guru  talk  21:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you deny that I contacted every editor, no matter what views that editor had or had not expressed, who had commented in the RfD discussion? (With the obvious exceptions of myself and you, because we were already aware of the new discussion.) Are you implying that I would have acted differently had more of those editors expressed support for the merge? I can't act more neutrally than to contact every interested editor that I was aware of at the time. I also posted a notice on Talk:English Misplaced Pages, the merge target. I knew of no other logical place to attract interested editors, regardless of the direction of their interest.

Since I sent the notices you provided me with a link to another, somewhat older, discussion on the topic. I would be glad to contact every editor who commented in that discussion with a similar notice. By my count those editors were pretty much evenly divided on the issue. Continuing to accuse me of improper actions, as in "Who did he contact. Editors who support his position." is to continue to fail to assume good faith. Please stop. DES 22:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Guru, I think its the consensus here that you were a little over the top. He notified all participants. Do you disagree? JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 22:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• See this edit for after-effects of QG's comments. DES 03:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

University of Phoenix employee deleting criticism from University of Phoenix

User:Poweroverwhelming is repeatedly deleting the entire #Criticism section from the University of Phoenix article. He is an employee of the University of Phoenix as he states here. Obvious conflict of interest. I wrote the section, so I'm a little too involved to be the one warning him. Reswobslc 21:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The editor's actions are a clear and obvious violation of the COI policies. However, the actual critique offered in the diff you reference is actually a good reason to remove the section as well, and the editor is correct in that the site cited is a smear website. It's not a viable resource or citation. As such, I'm going to go remove the section until it's sourced properly, but I'd also support a block against Poweroverwhelming on the COI grounds. ThuranX 22:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

COI is a guideline, not a policy. ⇒ SWATJester 05:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Reverting someone who's trying to undue libel, or blocking them, is a terribly stupid thing to do. Don't do it. Ever. WilyD 22:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

There are no grounds for blocking re COI. Poweroverwhelming has been quite candid regarding his position, and the grounds for removing the content, and is continuing to discuss the matter. LessHeard vanU 22:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This seems to be a content dispute. Since the source of the negative criticism is from two internet sites, one not known for their editorial control and the other with user driven criticism, it is pretty fair to say that Poweroverwhelming has some argument. Since this argument is ongoing at the UoP talkpage I don't think admin intervention is required. LessHeard vanU 22:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and in general, we should probably be careful about using FooSucks.com as a source in an article about Foo. With Foo, in this case, being the University of Phoenix. MastCell 22:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You guys are all right about this. I felt the article already referred to the majority of the sources and I didn't need to tag every sentence. I suppose I'm clearly wrong as I can understand it's especially important with publishing any sort of criticism. So, the appropriate cites have been added. As I was going through it to put a specific ref to every point, I found more strong (non-"sucks") sources for the exact same allegations that weren't even in the article. The article is that much stronger because of it. Reswobslc 23:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. MastCell 03:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Kiev/Kyiv issue

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

There is a long standing issue over the proper English name for the capital of Ukraine Kiev or Kyiv. There are three pages of the talk archives entirely devoted to the issue. In short Kiev has significantly more widespread English usage including encyclopedias, news services, google hits, etc. while Ukrainian government prefers Kyiv. This is a perennial problem that sparks now and then, but for months was dormant.

A few days ago a new account User:Hkdd that later started to edit as User:Horlo started an edit war changing all the mentioning of Kiev to Kyiv (without moving the article). He was reverted by a number of editors (including me) asking him to first start WP:RM, get a consensus and then make the desired changes. The user was blocked by Kafziel for 48h for the 3RR violation. After 24h after the block an IP account repeated the same edit. I am quite confident that it was Horlo so I have reset his block. Then a number of IPs and new accounts started to repeat the same edit (I guess there was an advertising on an internet forum). I have semi-protected the Kiev article. Then a number of IPs and new accounts started to create a fork on Kyiv redirect. A few minutes ago I have protected Kyiv redirect.

I personally never participated in the naming discussion and would be happy to enforce whatever consensus editors interested in Ukrainian topics will have. Still I think it is important to enforce correct procedures in the important issue.

Since I appeared to be involved in both editoring and administrative actions can somebody review my actions Alex Bakharev 22:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say right off the bat that Kiev is definitely the more common English version; as for blocking for 3rr and taking the possible move through the right channels, I don't see how you were out of line in any respect. David Fuchs 23:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I've only ever seen it spelt as Kiev, never as Kyiv and let's remember, this is the English Misplaced Pages, not Ukrainian.

Hence that Kyiv is an alternate English spelling, if it was in Ukranian, it would be in Cyrillic. Reginmund 01:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that 'Kiev' is the Russian spelling/pronunciation of the word. Kee-yef. Ukrainian it's Kih-yeef, which is most accurately spelt Kyïv. Alcarillo 05:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I will take a few minutes to tell you why that argument won't gain consensus, therefore cannot ever be used as policy on wikipedia. There are worse etymologies than that ... e.g. Gaelic and Welsh people and words are known throughout the world by English forms. Check the interwikis for Ynys Môn (Anglesey) - almost entirely English derived despite the fact that the island's language is not and never has been English (unlike Kiev and "Russian"). It's just what happens, and, whether "imperialistic" (as its called on Kiev talk page) or not, it is independent of wiki policy. At least Celtic languages are entirely separate from English, whereas Russian and Ukrainian are very similar varieties, or as one person once put it, recently conceived standardizations at two separate points on the "Eastern Slavic" dialect continuum (even though Russians and Ukrainians are now supposed to be coherently separate peoples, they still haven't, for instance, worked out who Rusyns are). Besides that, Kiev is a predominantly Russophone city in any case, and the rise of Kyiv as an English spelling is a response to the Ukrainian government's internal and international policy of Ukrainization in the attempt to give a semi-convincing national identity across its borders to what is in all fairness a fairly historically arbitrary SSR created and extended by gifts in the Soviet period. In reality it's a bilingual, or more accurately, diglossic land with no pre-WWI historical precedent as a state much of whose southern territory was taken by Eastern Slavs from Turkic peoples in recent centuries. I just say that in order to show why the moral argument for the Kyiv spelling is rather unconvincing to some. Having said that, there is precedent for ignoring English use and slavishly following the discriminatory dictates of Ukrainian government on wikipedia. E.g. the Russian-speaking city of Kharkov, for instance, already has the less common (in English) and Ukrainianized spelling Kharkiv. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Kiev is universally accepted amongst english speakers as the correct version. I understand that it may be different in transliteration or in other languages, but it's Kiev for english speakers and as noted, this is the English wikipedia. ⇒ SWATJester 05:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

However, English-speaking governments (US, UK, Australia, Canada) refer to the city officially as Kyiv, as in 'US Embassy Kyiv'. Alcarillo 05:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Must be a recent decision:

• Google search Kyiv site:state.gov - 324 hits
• Google search Kiev site:state.gov - 1330 hits

Besides, Misplaced Pages isn't an instrument of foreign policy: "Kiev" is the longtime standard spelling in English. --Calton | Talk 13:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This is entirely a content dispute, and unless user misconduct is actively involved, please refrain from debating here. Archiving this now. Circeus 18:53, 28 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.

Cult

Re: persistent linking by a cult on http://en.wikipedia.org/Dudjom_Rinpoche

Nyingma.com is a site setup by the cult of Aro (http://www.aroter.org/). This cult is run by an Englishman who claims to be a prophet (Terton) and his group has been denounced as a fake inauthentic lineage (masquerading as Tibetan Buddhism) by high lamas. Furthermore there have been shocking behavioral accusations about the practices of this cult by former members. Links to Nyingma.com will be contested. Sylvain1972 and members of the the cult keep reposting the link and have reported my editings as vandalism. They hope to recruit unknowing people interested in the holy Dudjom lineage with this link as they have done in the past. Can I have some action by an administrator please. For more information and evidence please contact any moderators on the largest Buddhist forum, E-sangha (http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/). I await your decision.

Multivariate testing

Not sure why this is happening, but Multivariate testing is a long series of edit reverts right now. --65.78.213.96 23:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears that User:204.15.3.211 is going nuts here, and that nobody has given him so much as a welcome or a warning about it. Dicklyon 23:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I warned the two users who mostly are doing this. i  23:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Temp semi-protected. Sorry 65.78.213.96, since you won't be able to edit it either, but stopping the edit wars is the bigger issue.⇒ SWATJester 05:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Blatant linkspammer and self promoter needs blocking

Dcs1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continually inserts self-promotion into the Syd Barrett, Pink Floyd, and Roger Waters articles. The linkspam directs people to his personal blog which advertises for his upcoming "tell all book" about Barrett. This person claims he lived next to Barrett for years and spread a bunch of lies to a sleazy tabloid over in the UK. Now he is here, placing unsourced OR repeatedly in these articles, despite repeated warnings from several editors and constant reverts by several editors. He has now, on my talk page, threatened to Wikistalk me. This person has no intention of behaving and I think it's time to block him. The Parsnip! 01:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

He has also threatened to wikistalk another editor and claims he has an "army of helpers" to vandalize. , . The Parsnip! 01:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

User has been blocked. IrishGuy 01:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Why can another user remove my WP:Citing sources, WP:Verifiability#Sources without substituting WP:Citing sources?

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

In article Dissociative identity disorder, I improved and corrected WRONG text according to WP:Deletion_policy: "content not verifiable in a reliable source", and replaced with text WP:Citing sources, WP:Verifiability#Sources: "-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals".

Please let me know why another user (DreamGuy) was allowed at "22:28, 27 July 2007" to 'undo' my text, when there was NO reason for deletion according to the WP:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion.

Please let me know why, when I reinstated it, was my original text removed again at '00:06, 28 July 2007' with the threat of me 'being blocked'. Why I am not allowed to add or reinstate text according to WP:Citing sources, WP:Verifiability#Sources? Thank you Standardname 02:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, not an admin dispute. It's clear from the history that he objects to your gutting of a controversy section, and systematic removal of all mention that the medical condition is controversial. I'm not here to say either way, since I know about boo on this topic, but this is not something for this page. Try dispute resolution instead. --Haemo 02:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a dispute about guidelines: WP:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion, WP:Citing sources, WP:Verifiability#Sources. There are reasons for guidelines. I followed the guidelines, the user who 'undid' my text did NOT follow the guidelines. Could an administrator clarify under what guidelines, can the original guidelines be broken, please? If there are none, could my original text be reinstated, please. Standardname 02:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it's really not. You both are interpreting the guidelines in a different way, because you disagree over the content on the page. If DreamGuy had posted this request, it would read very similarly, but with all the accusations reversed; because you disagree over the validity of your contributions. That's a content dispute, and admins can't help you here -- they aren't grand arbiters of what is, and is not, controversial with respect to your article. --Haemo 02:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus "Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus": my edit was 'information be verified' WP:Citing sources, WP:Verifiability#Sources.

No, I'm not DreamGuy. Your answer to why this isn't an admin issue is in the source you just quoted; specifically neutrality. DreamGuy reverted your edits because he thought they biased the article. You object, because you believe it is accurate. That is what a content dispute is. No admin can help you here -- at best, they can offer their opinion. I would, however, note that when your edits are objected to the best reaction is to start a dialog on the talk page; not to request admin help. --Haemo 03:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

(ECx2) This is not the Complaints Department, and, yes, you do appear to have a content dispute. If you can't work it out on the talk page, Dispute Resolution is the next stop, not AN/I. Wait, I think someone suggested this exact idea above....you might consider trying it. -- MarcoTolo 03:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Guidelines

According to Misplaced Pages:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus "Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus". Why, is some text which covers the three key policies, still NOT non-negotiable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Standardname (talk • contribs)

What part of "This is a content dispute" do you not understand? A content dispute involves different interpretations of rules in conjunction with article text. This board is for conduct disputes, which deal with the actions of editors that may have broken our rules regarding conduct. —Kurykh 03:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

User:RUReady2Testify

• RUReady2Testify (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I marked for CSD two inappropriate articles Southpaws Unite! and Scott Morgan (rock musician); an administrator agreed, and speedy deleted one and redirected the other. The user who created the article is very very unhappy and persists in leaving lengthy "warnings" on my talk page accusing me of vandalism because of the CSD, and refuses to listen to reason on his talk page, such as how he can address his grievance. (And is now continuing the vendetta to insults in four-month old conversations on my talk page.) Since I was once blocked for "edit warring" on my own talk page the last time I had to deal with an unhappy editor repeatedly disrupting my talk page, I'd appreciate it if an administrator could deal with this user. Many thanks. THF 04:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It is your talk page and you can remove what you want from it. You should consider that some editors see this as bad form, but that doesn't mean you are not allowed to do it, nor does it mean that it is good form for another editor to replace info you removed from your talk page. The fact that you removed 'warnings' shows that you have read your talk page and received the messages. If RUReady2Testify wants to take it further he should use other dispute resolution processes - not your talk page as it is disruptive. I can remove his warnings from your talk page if you like. --Merbabu 05:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Note to THF... the policy on removing warnings from one's talk page being considered vandalism was changed quite a few months ago. It's no longer considered vandalism to remove warnings from one's talk page. So feel free to remove them if you want, especially if the're badfaith warnings. ⇒ SWATJester 05:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. A few months ago, I had been blocked for 31 hours for reverting an editor who repeatedly blanked my talk page on grounds that I was "disruptively editwarring", and didn't want to run afoul of another strange interpretation of 3RR. An administrator gave a short block to this user for disruption, so the matter is at least temporarily resolved. THF 16:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Dispute with User:Dreamlover13

I've never been in a situation like this before, so I hope this is the right place for this. User:Dreamlover13 and I both frequently edit articles related to BeForU. Particularly on the BeForU article, he/she frequently uploads copyrighted images of the band with no fair-use rationale, and when they're deleted, he/she just re-uploads them. I tried to offer some help on the user's talk page (see here , I was under a different username then), but my post went ignored. The user has in the past reverted useful contributions from other members on the BeForU article, but I figured it wasn't my dispute so I stayed out of it.

However, recently this user and I have begun an editing conflict over BeForU discography. This was the page before I edited it, this was the page after my first edit, this was the page after the user's first revision of my edits, and we've gone back and forth a few times since then. This page shows the basic source of our conflict. I attempted to contact the user to resolve our dispute here (the last edit on the page), with no response. I can provide sources for all of my edits, but I cannot find a way to discuss the issue with the user, and they continually revert my changes. If the article is not important enough for this to be a major thing, I can understand that, but the whole thing has me really frustrated as I would like for the information on wiki to be as accurate as possible. アンジェリーク★Angelique 05:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is your solution for the edit content. WP:DR. The fair-use image repeating is troubling. I've left a final warning regarding it, and if it continues I will block the account. ⇒ SWATJester 05:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Anatolmethanol

I would like to draw the attention of the admins and preferably the members of the arbcom to User:Anatolmethanol, which is a self-admitted sock of the banned User:Fadix:

I want to know if it is OK for the banned users to bait others with a sock account and then report them to the arbitrators and present evidence to the arbcom case. I don’t know what the best way to draw the attention of the arbitrators to this issue is and since urgent clarification is required, I decided to use this board. Grandmaster 07:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Never okay. Any action instigated by a banned user is inactionable. Will 07:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits reverted and his evidence section removed per WP:BAN. Block forthcoming. Will 08:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by Seraphimblade. —Crazytales  15:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Malicious editing

Grettings:

My name is Greg Felton and found out recently that "eternalsleeper" (<redacted by Ryulong>) had started a page about me. The page consisted of libelous unsubstantiated commnennts about me being a Jew-hater drawn from the Jewish Defence League website.

I have asked Eternalsleeper repeatedly to refrain from posting these libelous statements, regardless of their prior publication, yet he persists. This action is not only a defamatory attack upon my character, but it violates Misplaced Pages's rule that encyclopedic content be verifiable, a fact which eternalsleeper deliberately ignores.

I respectfully request that eternalsleeper be censured and blocked from making any alterations to my page.

Thank you,

Greg Felton

Voxveritatis 07:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears that you have already contacted OTRS about this matter. Perhaps this is something that another similar ticket should cover.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing against you, but I've deleted your biography as it does not conform with our guidelines on inclusion based on notability.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You removed the middle man. I was just about to tag it db-a7. shotwell 08:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Might not cascading protection be applied to the page so as to avoid further inconvenience to Mr. Subject here? -- Zamkudi 09:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Mbz1

Hi,
I could be using this space to complain a little about this user's lack of civility, but what I really wanted a second opinion on is her insistence of blanking her user talk page. I've tried to raise this up with the user, but she (as per standard) deleted without answering. Now I really dislike this, but before going all heavy handed with block threats or whatever I wanted to find out how others feel about this sort of thing, and whether or not anything can be done about it. --Fir0002 09:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:USER#Removal of warnings says "Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages" -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 10:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I closed the FPR nomination concerned. MER-C 11:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare

There are group of editors who are removing cited references at Vedas. If any thing goes a bit out of the way there are multiple editors who are falsely voting a majority instead of answering to the context. They are taking advantage of my previous ban as a shield and don't try to answer to the point. Upon asking why a cited reference from Arthasastra is being removed, I am being told I am edit warring. None of the replies at the talk page are to the context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Vedas&diff=147634861&oldid=147634284

On the name integrating a stubby section. Editor decides to remove a citation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Vedas&diff=prev&oldid=147141174

Looks like they editors want to distort the truth and are taking things personally. BalanceRestored 10:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Content disputes such as this should be settled using the dispute resolution procedure. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 10:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

For those who may not have the background on this situation, a while back BalanceRestored was put on indefinite block for disruptive behavior, but that block was unilaterally lifted by Vassyana, supposedly on a zero-tolerance basis. Since then BalanceRestored has resumed the pattern of soapboxing and failure to comply with WP:RS. Unfortunately, Vassyana does not perceive any violations of the zero-tolerance arrangement, and thus has not re-instituted the block.

Abecedare and other editors, including myself, have been trying to deal with the disruption, but it is tiring. The current content dispute on Vedas involves WP:FRINGE claims of a religious nature made by BalanceRestored. When asked to provide better sourcing for the claim that an additional "unknown Fifth Veda" of Hinduism exists, the reply is that it is secret, like the methods for making an atomic bomb: ]. That would explain why this novel claim is unknown to academics, and considered patent nonsense by other regular editors of the aticle. The personal attacks ("editors want to distort the truth") and claims of a conspiracy to cover up the "truth" are red flags for WP:FRINGE claims.

The current ANI is similar to this previous one along the same lines. Note that some uninvolved editors had difficulty even understanding what BalanceRestored was saying at some points because the line of argument was so incoherent.

I hope that editors who are not familiar with the block history on BalanceRestored will read the conditions under which the block was lifted: . The current edit warring is a violation of those conditions, as are the personal attacks, and I think that the block should restored on BalanceRestored. Even if the pattern of disruption is not clear to editors outside the Hinduism project, BalanceRestored violated one of the terms of being unblocked by reverting the article twice in a period of less than 24 hours and , which should earn an automatic block under the so called "zero-tolerance" policy. Buddhipriya 05:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Self-promotional spam

User:Theo777 has been repeatedly inserting a spam link into Song of Solomon, despite the efforts of a number of other editors. The external link is to a publisher's website for the works of one Colin Leslie Dean, who has a long history of self-promotional spamming on the web under various assumed identities, many of which have been banned by other websites for that very reason. (See Talk:Song of Solomon#Evidence of spamming.) There is every reason to suppose that User:Theo777 is yet another of his avatars (the style of writing is identical, and the pretence of being a "third party" extolling Dean's work.) Another editor has already issued Test-3 and Test-4. I'm on 2 reversions and don't want to push it, so we need admin intervention, please. Vilĉjo 10:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

He's blocked for 31 hours for 3RR. If he's a sock we can make it indef. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 11:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If you think he is a sock we would need more information, diffs, etc. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 12:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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

I've just blocked Rlest for 24 hours for incivility. He's been warned god knows how many times over the past few days, and then proceeded with this. Thought I best post it for review, I would like to see him come back (with the same account this time) with a more constructive attitude, but I very much doubt this will happen. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly endorse. He knows he's supposed to be civil, and he knew what to expect if he wasn't. --Deskana (banana) 12:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I see he has been incivil, but he is a good editor, and has usually been friendly and civil in my experience with him. He says he has left; what can be done? Lets just hope he doesnt deicde to leave for good. -- Anonymous Dissident 15:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

What is this? The 17th time he's left? Don't worry, he'll be back. As far as the block goes, sure it's endorseable, but it seems to me he was pushed to the brink having to deal with Miranda (not that he is innocent). These two seriously need to banned from interacting with each other, nothing good seems to come from it. -- John Reaves 21:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

John, I am staying away from that person as best as possible. Besides, this notice didn't help in order to calm the situation. Yet, to inflame it. I don't want to work in a disruptive environment. Miranda 04:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Qst (Userspace) (talk · contribs) for the duration of Rlest's block, after seeing this edit summary and this disruption. - auburnpilot talk 16:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is this user's disruptive conduct continually tolerated? The problem here isn't Miranda. This is his fifth account that we know about, and he was grossly insulting and extremely disruptive in his flame-out as Qst (talk · contribs · block log), and now he is continuing the same misbehavior and personal attacks as Rlest. He violated his disappearance conditions from the Qst debacle, which were to avoid all association with his previous accounts. How many more second chances does this guy get? --MichaelLinnear

• I blocked a suspected Rlest IP at SSP for the length of the current block. To answer MichaelLinnear, we tolerate him because he generally behaves and does lots of work. He is prone to these flare ups but I'm not personally persuaded that his bouts of disruption outweigh his contributions just yet... Spartaz 22:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Michael Linnear. This is ridiculous. Especially given the attitude of "I have 11 months of editing and 20,000 edits so I'm better than you", which is ridiculous and disruptive, and now outright attacking Miranda. ⇒ SWATJester 23:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well - according to his userpage, he is going to return under a new username, one he does not want to disclose. I wander if who he is will be apparent when he does come back. -- Anonymous Dissident 01:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh, it usually is. -- John Reaves 01:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

He just never seems to learn...He was formerly Qst, then got blocked and started sockpuppeting with Rlest... It's going around in damn circles, and he's not changing one bit. --Dark Falls 01:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget, he was Tellyaddict (talk · contribs) before Qst. - auburnpilot talk 02:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Wasnt he 1.Tellyaddict 2.The Sunshine man 3.Qst and now 4.Rlest? -- Anonymous Dissident 02:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) He was also FPT, too, see this. Yes, I do agree that he was a good contributor, but so was User:Encyclopedist. Encyclopedist got banned for personal attacks and trolling on different user's pages. I was thinking about a proposal to ban, because I see a pattern of 1.) creating an account 2.) making edits to that account 3.) running for RFA 4.) personally attacking others when the RFA fails, etc. I was thinking about a proposal to ban, but decided against it, because of conflict of interest and time concerns. Miranda 05:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Folk-blues musicians request for review

I thought I'd ask someone to look at this other than me. This list was at AfD here Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Folk-blues musicians. It ran its course and I closed here . I closed as not having consensus to keep because I felt the community wanted something else done with it. I offered to move it to a user space for work which I did upon request. At the moment, I feel like I did a reasonable thing. One involved user is quite passionate about the list and posted at my page here after I moved it to his userspace. Another user recreated the talk page here with an inaccurate closing AfD tag. I could use some guidance/criticism about this case. BTW, I am not offended at the postings on my talk page, just curious what you guys think. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 12:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I would direct them to WP:DRV and tell them that until then your decision stands. Until(1 == 2) 00:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Editor removing tags

Jamakra77 (talk · contribs) is removing DB and article issues templates from Imam Zakaria Badat. Reinis 12:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Now 81.98.105.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) removed them. Reinis 12:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Mind meal

Mind meal (talk · contribs) has been a little hot under the collar over the past hour or so, I think s/he's been frustrated by several things but the straw that broke the camel's back may have been a dispute with Viridae (talk · contribs) at WP:DP. In addition to the spat over the policy, there has been incivility and lecturing towards Viridae , and Violetriga (talk · contribs) on their talk pages. After warnings from myself and Violetriga, Mind meal left me a nice long message which basically said "block me" . Resisting the temptation to do just that, I'll throw this one for someone else to look over. Deiz talk 13:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

See above on List of Folk-blues musicians as Mind meal is also frustated, though not out of line, with me. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 13:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of that message, any block for that would look like a Cool down block, which are more trouble than they are worth. — Moe ε 14:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Some patience is needed. He sounds frustrated, but the edits I've seen have been well on the hither side of disruption. --Tony Sidaway 16:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

PrisonPlanet attack site

Alex Jones decided to write an attack/outing piece on a Misplaced Pages editor and encourages vandalism of Misplaced Pages. . The vandalim has already started. Since Alex Jones and PrisonPlanet.com are synonomous, it seems that PrisonPlanet.com should be treated as an attack site. --Tbeatty 14:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. If specific attacks (and I mean attacks, not honest criticism, however misguided) on that site are linked on Misplaced Pages, just remove them. Block persistent offenders if necessary. --Tony Sidaway 16:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

While I do not like the contents of the site, there is clearly no "outing" going on, unless they are in fact "disinformation agents", which is highly doubtful. It seems to just be an overly harsh critique. Treated as an "attack site" seems a bit harsh, but I do not think PrisonPlanet is used other then in discussing itself. Unless of course this is an end run around getting the Alex Jones (radio) article deleted by labeling it as such. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

See external links to prisonplanet.com.

Yikes. A while back we had some hyperaggressive POV-pushers insisting it was a reliable source for global warming articles, but I had no idea that links to it were so widespread. Raymond Arritt 17:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Didn't know you could do that external link search thing. But anyway. All those links are on talk pages, except for a few which are links to interview mp3 when the person in question appeared on the Alex Jones radio show. Eg. Greg Palast article has a link to an interview on Alex Jones. That should obviously stay. ... Seabhcan 17:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That is alot, oddly it seems it appears heavily on Morton's page, the irony. The links also seem to appear mainly on talk page, or when citing interviews with people, most likely those who have done interviews with PrisonPlanet or on Alex Jones' radio program and those interviews are being used as sources, which is fair. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Those are primarily talk page links. Even IF we had a policy against these links, I don't think it would affect links outside articlespace. Circeus 18:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There also seem to be a few linked Reuters and agency articles which are hosted on prisonplanet. If someone wants to track down these articles hosted on another subscription-free site, be my guest - but it seems a little unnecessary. ... Seabhcan 17:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: It seems Tom Harrison is going around stripping out all links to prison planet. This may be ligit, but I wonder if he would be so kind as to explain his reasoning here? ... Seabhcan 17:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

eg. Tom removed some material here that could have been easily resourced to Fox News. I have done this in that case, but I don't want to be chasing Tom around wikipedia cleaning up after him. ... Seabhcan 17:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I started reverting the ones that are republishing of other articles. Hopefully Tom will be careful and only remove ones that are PrisonPlanet articles if that is his issue. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

He is now removing cited interviews, can we get another admin to rule on this. Thank you. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Prisonplanet.com is not a reliable source for anything except what its operator thinks, and we have no way of knowing that they correctly "republish" the work of legitimately reliable sources. No article should cite them for any matter of fact. It cannot be used to support controversial material about any living person, except maybe Alex Jones, and even then only as a primary source. An external link to the site might be useful as a primary source or in articles about conspiracy theories, subject to other policies about linking, undue weight, etc. Except in these rare cases, links to prisonplanet.com should be removed. Material cited to there should be cited instead to a reliable source, or removed. Controversial material about living people cited to prisonplanet.com has to be removed until a reliable source is provided. While many of these are from talk pages and archives, there are over 300 of them. I suspect this is a reflection of the enthusiasm of the site's fans. I took out those that failed our standards and those that violated blp. I left in those I thought were appropriate. Comments are welcome, but they probably belong on the blp notice board or the individual talk pages. Tom Harrison 18:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you attempted to see if any of them are incorrectly republished? You do realize that most links you removed are not citing PrisonPlanet, they are citing the republished article. Instead of re-citing these you simply removed them entirely as sources. Can you please go back and re-cite them as sources. Thank you. If you choose not to I will work on readding them tomorrow, your goal should be to fix material, not remove it, and if you did not even verify if any articles were republished incorrectly, I am not sure why you would make that judgement. I know Morton is your friend, however this unilateral action which is removing citations, is not the proper way to vindicate him. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

"Can you please go back and re-cite them as sources." Hell no. If you want that conspiracist nonsense in the article, you put it in and source it. If it is about a living person, it better be sourced well. Tom Harrison 18:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes the Washington Post is conspiratist nonsense? I will revert your removals tomorrow, it seems you did not even read any of them before going on your way. In the furture be more careful regarding citation removals. Thank you. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Tom, you have been removing links to mp3s of interviews with the article's subject. When Greg Palast is interviewed, and that mp3 is available, that is certainly suitable for the Greg Palast article, regardless of your personal dislike of the Alex Jones radio show. ... Seabhcan 18:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what encyclopedic purpose is served by giving our readers convenient links to mp3's of Jones' radio show, except from the page about Alex Jones. Tom Harrison 18:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Or about the person being interviewed and their quotes from that interview, which you removed. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Tom, it is clear from that reply that you have personal issues with this particular radio show. But it is not policy to remove links to interviews - wikipedia has thousands of links to interviews. Perhaps you should consider refraining from making edits on this topic. Your personal bias is clear. ... Seabhcan 18:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not think Tom is actually paying attention to what he is removing, just removing everything he can find. Unless a consensus forms on this issue here I will go through the links tomorrow individually, those not related to BLP issues in anyway will be reverted. Or unless of course Tom properly recites the material of the republished works and interviews without the links. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If I understand it correctly, Prison Planet is just some weird conspiracy website run by this guy. It is always good practice to pull unreliable sources from Misplaced Pages. It surprises me that they were ever used here in the first place. Tom should continue. --Tony Sidaway 18:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It is that, but its also a radio show that attracts several big name interviewees. Eg Noam Chomsky, Greg Palast, etc. Further, it has good resources of news agency (Reuters, etc) reports without subscription needed. This is handy for many articles which may be reprinted elsewhere, but with subscription. ... Seabhcan 18:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Instead of just reverting, why don't you recite it? I've seen cases where the conclusion drawn from the Alex Jones cited stuff was 180 degrees from the actual material. They are not reliable sources and restoring them when you know there are legitimate sources available is spam and possibly vandalism. --Tbeatty 18:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty, Actually I think we should never use an option piece from Alex Jones as a source (except on his article page, maybe) but we are talking about reprinted agency sources and first hand interviews. Those are certainly RS (but if you can find a different, subscribtion free copy of the article, I say use that instead.) ... Seabhcan 18:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

PrisonPlanet is not reliable enough to cite as a primary source for interview transcripts. It is not clear that PrisonPlanet has a license agreement with the copyright holder, as reliable source newspapers do, to reprint articles. Especially fee based articles that the web site is circumventing. This is the difference between linking to a reliable source using reprinted material and an unreliable source such as PrisonPlanet. It is not acceptable to cite except in reference to itself. --Tbeatty 01:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have asked Tom to fix his mess, his response was "Hell no", Will you do it? Asking others to correct sloppy work is not appropriate, do it right, or do not do it. However if you want to take up the task, that will be more then better then me reverting, will you? --SevenOfDiamonds 18:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

While it is conspiracy focused, many academics and even governors have given interviews to Alex Jones. It would be like removing all information of Newton and gravity from Misplaced Pages as well as his works because he attempted to find codes in the bible or transmute materials to gold. Further the interviews being cited as reliable sources, and further the republishing of articles is not being fixed, Tom is effectively removing sources instead of re-citing them as asked, his response was "Hell no." because he believes Reuters and the Washington Post are "conspiracist nonsense" Again I will revert the citations tomorrow since they are valid republishings, and only Tom who has not checked them, states they are false and inaccurate republishings. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

How does this 'republishing' process work exactly? Tom Harrison 18:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Tom, Most articles in all newspapers are republished agency pieces, as you know. Reuters stories are printed in newspapers from here to Iran. That Alex Jones also prints them, does not make those stories unreliable. ... Seabhcan 18:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

So why should we link Jones' site instead of a reputable newspaper? Tom Harrison 18:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to. For example, while you just deleted material on Loose Change, I went and found the same story on Fox News and restored it. Do that in future rather than disruptively blanking material, please. ... Seabhcan 19:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict - Nonsense. This is not an interview with Jones. THey have clearly stated an intent to disrupt and manipulate Misplaced Pages and have attacked individual editors. WP:BADSITES was formally rejected but the arbcom decisions cited there are useful.

This site did none of the below:

1. Compiles or sponsors efforts to obtain evidence that may be used to discover the real world identities of Misplaced Pages contributors;
2. Harasses or sponsors harassment of Wikipedians;
3. Makes or sponsors legal threats toward Wikipedians

Therefore it is not an attack site by Arbcom's standards. Further one article on it, does not make it fit any of those either, as we all know a certain admin was outed, that publication did not become an attack site. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on. You don't think that this sort of nonsense is the type of thing Arbcom has in mind? How is asking people to vandalize his user page not sponsoring harassment? Pablo Talk | Contributions 20:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

A page which contains an attack on an editor and provides a handy link to his user page is an attack page. How many such pages a site must have to become an official AttackSite™ might be debated - several other undisputed attack sites have interesting material alongside the attacks - but when the user pages of our contributors are defaced with obscenities alongside "Internet smear info" and a link to the attacks, the distinction seems somewhat academic.Proabivouac 02:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, Tbeatty's original accusation that this is an "attack site" appears to be a little bit of an overstatement. An "attack site" is a site that exists purely to attack people. Prison Planet is probably better characterized as an alternative-press news and opinion site; most of its articles are reprints of news articles elsewhere. It doesn't appear to be any more of an "attack site" than, say, Fox News -- another news site that also carries aggressive opinion articles.

The article in question, written by Alex Jones and another contributor, expresses concern (in language that would on Misplaced Pages be considered uncivil, yes) about the alleged systematic introduction of bias into Misplaced Pages by an administrator deleting articles that they disapprove of. While we may disapprove of the language, this is a serious issue. If an administrator is really unilaterally deleting articles such as Movement to impeach George W. Bush -- a well-sourced article on a highly notable subject in current events -- that's a freakin' huge problem. --FOo 18:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Look at Morton's page: what is listed there is "Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (deleted & redirected to Movement to impeach George W. Bush)". Alex Jones need glasses. Circeus 18:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not an attack site, it's a conspiracy site, and currently it contains a vitriolic personal attack on a Misplaced Pages administrator in good standing. If that attack is linked to, it should be removed as an attack. If other items are linked to in articles, they should be removed simply because we don't regard conspiracy theorists as reliable sources. --Tony Sidaway 18:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

So Issac Newton needs to be purged from Misplaced Pages? Jessy Ventura? Do I need to go through the wealth of people who have believed or currently believe in conspiracy theories? How about History and Discovery, they often cover conspiracies, there is also PBS. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The conspiracy theories are not reliabe for anything you mentioned. Since PrisonPlanet is only known for conspiracy theories (unlike the other people you mentioned), it is wholly not reliable. --Tbeatty 18:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure why you have yet to get what is being repeatedly stated here. Alex Jones is not being used as a source for most of what was removed, the site is simpyl holding republished articles, that are being removed. The citations are not being fixed, simply chopped out. Care to fix them? Is it too much to ask of someone to fix the mess they made? I will go about fixing it tomorrow as I stated, if noone has by then. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

NuclearUmpf...it would be best if you want to continue editing here if you moved on and stopped confronting those you had prior disagreements with. As a ban evader, you're very lucky to still be here editing at all.--MONGO 20:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this a new accusation, file another RFCU, this will be your third accusation to fail. Fairness and accuracy for all, then I believe it was rootology, now nuclearumpf, I am sure you have more once that one fails. --SevenOfDiamonds 21:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understood the wikipedia definition of "attack site" as defined in previous ArbCom decisions. If the sites stated goal is to disrupt Misplaced Pages and harass contributors, it is an attack site. This is what Alex Jones wrote and that's what his minions are doing. Read the comments, compare the commentators to contributors on User:Morton_devonshire talk page and you can see the disruption. Morton is not an administrator. No administrator is unilaterally deleting anything as the target of that article is not an administrator. Like everything there, it is full of misinformation and lies and that is also why it is not a reliable source. --Tbeatty 18:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

So when they republish a Washington Post article, they are lying about what? Since the sources being removed are not Alex Jones articles, but republishings of WP:RS sources. Are you going to fix the citations? --SevenOfDiamonds 19:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

When they republish a Washington Post article, they are committing a copyright violation, and in general we can't use that as a source either. Misplaced Pages:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. "If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States."--AnonEMouse 20:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse, you do not know they are committing copyright infringement by reprinting a Washington Post article. They may have a license to redistribute the article. Removing links to the website based upon alleged copyright violations is fallacious. --Iamunknown 20:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

For that matter, the Washington Post may be reprinting the article from AP, UPI, or Reuters. If the Alex Jones site has a license to reprint wire stories, than it is perfectly fine to link to those stories, particularly considering that lots of newspapers eventually take their old articles down or require payment for them. I agree we shouldn't be linking to his opinion pieces, unless we are citing his opinion in the article about him, but it sounds like that isn't actually happening. Natalie 21:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this analysis. PrisonPlanet is a partisan, fringe site that cannot be considered a reliable source for factual information of any type. The best parallel I can think of is with LaRouche-related articles, where (according to Arbcom) LaRouche publications are citeable as sources on the LaRouche movement itself but not for other purposes. We can cite PrisonPlanet for discussing Alex Jones' views as such, but cannot consider it a WP:RS for factual materials. As for wire stories, we'd have to check that the stories are being printed verbatim and not being edited to support a particular viewpoint. Since this would require a second, more credible source for comparison, why not simply link to the more credible source? Raymond Arritt 21:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That we don't know how to tell if it's licensed is an excellent point. I found an email address on the washingtonpost web site, and asked. Let's see what they say. --AnonEMouse 21:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself (and another user is attacked there far more harshly than I am) I care less about the issue of attacks than the unreliability of the site as a source, and the misuse of Misplaced Pages for promotion. I think there are some other websites run by the same guy: infowars, prisonplanet.tv, jonesreport.com, maybe others. Tom Harrison 19:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really concerned about the personal attacks -- I've had Wikipedians call me worse things, and have a pretty thick skin about it all. But keep in mind that it's Alex Jones who is asking for the vandalism, and Prisonplanet.com is his site. So yes, I think it's fair for us to remove all links to an attack site, as we have done with the infamous Encyclopedia Drammatica.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 02:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Very frustrated!

Who can help me? I placed the page John Baselmans in the English Misplaced Pages. It is a translation of the Dutch Misplaced Pages page. The reason was that Dutch moderators wrote in some briefings that maybe it is interesting for placing this article in the English version. It was for me an honor to do that and so I placed the exactly translation in the English version. After a week this page was tagged by the user FruitcakeNL and I did my best to change the article. I asked for help because I'am new in this world of Misplaced Pages. Till today nobody is helping me and the article is still tagged! Is there anybody who can help me with this article? The Dutch version accepted the first version but it looks like the English version has other rules. Please help me. Makako8 15:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Tag removed and explanation for why added to the talk page. Given the number of exhibitions, published works and references, the presence of this tag mystifies me. AKRadecki 15:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes people get a little trigger happy with CSD tags. Natalie 17:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Akradecki and Natalie Erin. Thank you so much for helping me.20:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem with new user

Zachery93 (talk · contribs · logs) has been vandalizing Dylan Patton multiple times. The user has, obviously, intentionally vandalized the article three times, being reverted each time. It even caused a minor confusion of the article's real name because he had edited so much in the article that I thought the article was mistitled. Anyway, that problem has been fixed, but the user is still making these changes, and I believe needs to be blocked. Thank you for your help. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 17:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe you're looking for AIV. The Evil Spartan 18:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, thanks for your help. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 19:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandal blanking pages

Edi43 (talk · contribs) is a vandal user that has blanked several pages in a row. Could someone look at it, please? Reinis 19:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Misza13 has sorted this out. LessHeard vanU 19:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Please direct future vandalism reports to the correct place, Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

User SurvivorsHope

The main page of User:SurvivorsHope seems a blatant violation of WP:SPAM, or am I wrong?. I am sure that this user is in good faith, but I am afraid that he/she/they can't have such account and user page.--B J Bradford 20:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I tagged it with {{db-ad}}. Pablo Talk | Contributions 20:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

User:84.43.29.130

This IP user had a couple of previous blocks for vanadlaism and personal attacks and the urge to vandalise seems to have over taken them again see here, here, here, here and here. I would like to assume good faith but despite warnings I don't see this account being used for anything other than vandalism. I think another block may be appropriate. Darrenhusted 21:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This IP was previously blocked in 2006 for a period of six months and just earned the same honor today. ˉˉ╦╩ 21:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Protecting pages

Is anyone else having trouble move-protecting pages but not protecting them? Try a random page (where the move permissions are not already unlocked) and try to unlock them. It doesn't work for me. —METS501 (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not working for me either. I believe this was mentioned somewhere once before, but I can't recall if a bug report was filed or not. It sounds like a reoccurring issue. - auburnpilot talk 22:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

User:SevenOfDiamonds personal attacks and incivility

Has made repeated attacks:

I have informed him of the policies several days ago: ]Ultramarine 22:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you mention your lying about reading a source? Then arguing the source did not contain something? I have ceased assuming good faith, but have made no such attacks. Myself and numerous other editors are just getting tired of Ultramarines refusal to read sources across numerous articles he posts on. The first post is the culmination of Ultra lying, then admitting to it, then 2 minutes later stating he found a source, read the entire thing, and still did not find the information, meanwhile still not knowing who the group was that held the tribunal even though its the first thing mentioned in the source. --SevenOfDiamonds 22:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for NPA of calling you McCarthy when you stated One presumably is the article by a member of the Communist National Lawyers Guild. The connection was drawn when you decided to call the National Lawyers Guild a communist institution. --SevenOfDiamonds 23:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. If there has been some breach of WP norms of civlity with UltraMarine, it has a lot to due with the frustrations he creates among editors with whom he argues with. This is because of some rather classic tenacious editing, in particular in circular and repetative arguments on the talk page that just go around in cirles, repeating over and over, and enaging in lines of unproductive argument that seem more to provoke frustration than to settle any honest disputes. This takes several forms, including pretending not to understand (despite being explained cleary over and over), pretending not to see what the source says, claiming to have read it, but showing ignorance of what the source says, or just denying that is says what it clearly does, and bringing up diversionary issues, such as provoking old, settled arguments (or creating silly new ones), and generally creating a confusing mess on a talk page that makes it hard for anyone else to follow (and the original issue gets burried). Eventually it gets resolved but only after other editors tell him to stop, and a huge effort and waste of space, over a small matter that would be resolved normally by a normal editor in just a few back and forths. If the tactic is to create frustration, in doing so it certainly succeeds. Editors do assume good faith until the breaking point when it becomes obvious that the arguments are artifically maintained, seemingly, for its own sake. I'm not saying being uncivil is ever justified--its not--but sometimes there is some responsiblity and a clear role being played that generates it, among an otherwise very civil editor.Giovanni33 02:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Agree with Ultramarine. These editors continually try to add unsourced, POV and non-consensus material to articles. They have admittedley thrown WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA to the wind because they are unable to achieve their personal objective of original research and biased articles. This is an encyclopedia, not their personal blog space. --Tbeatty 03:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Funny, UltraMarine never said any of this sort. That has been your song and dance, and your claims have been proven false. You just don't like certain encylopedic topics, and call them "OR," in order to justify your blanking well sourced material against consensus, I might add. WP is not censored, and the threshold is verifiablity.Giovanni33 04:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Dustin Mitchell

This site is no user friendly at all, so please help me if this is not the right screen to place this. I recently reposted a press release about this guy. I have a lot of other sites to cite, but I do not know how. The press release that I posted was blocked. Something about it being an advertisement? What do I need to do about that?

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Outlookstl (talk • contribs) 23:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I added heading since user did not specify which article. I believe they are talking about Dustin Mitchell --SevenOfDiamonds 23:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, that content is copyrighted; it may therefore not be posted on Misplaced Pages, unless the copyright holder grants permission for it to be reproduced here. If you are or represent the copyright holder—I presume from your message you aren't/don't—, this page may help you. It also helps if you sign your comments on Talk pages or noticeboards by adding four tildes (~~~~) to the end of each comment, so we can track who made each comment more easily. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Rayiscreepy

User:Rayiscreepy appears to be an account created solely with the intent of vandalising Ray Evernham and Erin Crocker. Could someone check it out? Theirishpianist 23:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. By the way, the warning on the above user's Talk page was the only message I've ever seen that violated BLP while telling a user to stop vandalizing :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Bah. Nanoed. ⇒ SWATJester 23:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Someguy0830 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Someguy0830 was blocked for 3RR on Ben 10, what do other think? Given this this user's histroy of harrasing and atagonising other editors, I feel this block is justrified until he promises not to do it again. 144.139.85.56 00:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

So you are just voicing your opinion here for some reason? -- John Reaves 00:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think lovely sunsets are a good thing! Until(1 == 2) 00:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes they are...(pointless discussion) --Dark Falls 00:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I like chocolate milk! HalfShadow 06:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm only reporting it, and I was hoping that it would just be assumed. 144.139.85.56 00:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright then.--Atlan (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT

I am concerned that these edits here and here (these are the most recent two, there are more in contribs) to RFA by Kmweber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are appear to be disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point after warnings to the editors talk page. Will an administrator take a look into this please. Best regards, Navou 01:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

He's as entitled to his opinion as much as anyone else is. -- John Reaves 01:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be what the nigh-interminable discussion at WT:RFA#Disrpuptive_editing_by_Kmweber boils down to. Raymond Arritt 01:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT violations require bad faith, I consider it very possible that this persons opinions is sincere and that he is not trying to be disruptive. I personally think it is a foolish reason to oppose anyone for anything, but that person can have a different opinion than me without violating policy. Until(1 == 2) 01:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

TBH, and in my own opinion, which can be taken or discarded, I think Kmweber may be manipulating this policy of "everyone is entitled to their opinion on RFA, however foolish it is" to allow himself to troll without violating policy. Thoughts? -- Anonymous Dissident 01:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Very possible, but short of any sort of evidence which makes it unreasonable to assume good faith, I am going to assume good faith. Until(1 == 2) 01:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand one can not compel participation, however, after attempting to engage the editor in discussion of this here at this RFA and here on the talkpage of the editor I have a difficult time finding the edits in good faith after the non response to my concerns of the edits. Navou 01:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I myself don't find the opposes to be made in good faith either. But, really, please, if it bothers you so much, don't look at it. Pretty much everyone disregards it now, and if it turns up on your own RfA, ignore it. We block people because they are harming the encyclopedia, not because they are making frivolous opposes on RfAs. —Kurykh 01:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If that same approach was taken on all trolls, who attempt to disrupt the building of this encyclopedia, we wouldnt get very far would we? -- Anonymous Dissident 02:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

"Harming the encyclopedia" naturally means including the community and the article- and community-building processes. —Kurykh 02:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

His opposes are not particularly severe in terms of causing harm to the encyclopedia, in my opinion. Because they don't appear to have any substance to them and look like an automatic response to any self nomination, they lose most of their weight. Engaging him appears to feed the trollishness, which isn't improving any situation. He feels a certain way, likes to remind everyone ad nauseum, and it can be left at that. Hey, I almost saw it as a badge of honour, being opposed by Kmweber!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 04:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

"Suspect" edits on Talk:Straw-bale construction

I am becomming concerned about Sunray's persistant refactoring and moving of comments during this active discussion on Talk:Straw-bale construction. several nonsense edits such as '&ot to topic headders such as this edit, and unnecessary renaming such as this. Comments were purposly replied to in specific locations in response to questions/comments and the coninued refactoring of other peoples comments, such as this and this edit can significantly can change their meaning and is dangerously becomming close to a WP:POINT and WP:3RR violation. Talk pages comments are meant to be a record of a discussion; moving or editing these comments is a concern as it can significantly can change their meaning. I am an Admin, however I am involved in the discussion and am requesting that Another admin please monitor this discussion. Thanks--Hu12 02:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam and libel being inserted into article

After a nine-month hiatus, Wikiwriter100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have renewed his drive to insert a link to www.etvscandal.com, a site detailing a supposed asbestos scandal at South Carolina Educational Television, into the SCETV article, along with a related section on this "scandal." The problem with this is that this is not only linkspamming (it is primarily a vehicle to sell a book), but the site contains potentially libelous material, and even linking to it could expose Misplaced Pages to legal problems.

After I reverted his attempt to insert this link, 76.26.214.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), an IP registered to Comcast in Goose Creek, South Carolina (a suburb of Charleston), inserted the very same link here, which I immediately reverted. This IP has made several other edits in a similar vein:

Clearly, Wikiwriter is bent on being disruptive. JTRH has had more experience with this person, but asked me to make the initial report since he isn't as experienced in the ways of our little project--we both ask that action be taken. Blueboy96 03:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboy96's comments. The linked Website's content is completely non-verifiable, it contains libelous allegations about a former South Carolina state public official, and a Google search reveals that the alleged "scandal" has been the subject of exactly one article in a reputable newspaper. Thanks for your attention. JTRH 03:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Falsely licensed images

Wneedham02 (talk · contribs · logs) first uploaded images loosely sourced to fansites, which were deleted. I'm not sure if some of the images after that were genuine, but (s)he has uploaded several images which are definitely not self-made. I've found one image that's blatantly copyrighted (a screenshot from a music video whose name was in the title) uploaded after WikiLeon warned Wneedham02, but I don't know which, if any, of the images are genuine. Should someone block the user? Is a {{PD-self}} tag enough to constitute a source, or should they be tagged with {{nsd}}? 17Drew 03:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Survey?

My old user talk page was just posted with a survey asking a bunch of semi-personal questions in connection with work on the VT massacre. I don't recall contributing that much to it, so I'm guessing it's "phishing" of some kind, although it could be honest and legitimate. I just wonder what to do about it, if anything. Baseball Bugs 03:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The red-link user has posted similar questions to many users in the last few days. Baseball Bugs 03:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

By all appearances the guy is who he says he is; the email address and so forth match up as shown here. I don't see anything of obvious concern. People are free to reply or not as they see fit. Raymond Arritt 03:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Folks have tried this sort of thing before -- on the fly "research" about the strange animal that is Misplaced Pages. With a redlinked userpage and no understanding of how Misplaced Pages actually works. I expect the user is legitimate, at least in the sense that yeah, they're probably writing some paper, but misguided, not just about Misplaced Pages, but about researching online communities as well. No userpage is a clear indicator that this researcher hasn't spent any time actually looking into how Misplaced Pages works. My suggestion is to post to their talk page your concerns about their actions, or ignore it. There's no rule against it, so far as I can tell. However, the promises that one's privacy won't be violated, while possibly meant sincerely, are not something I would trust as a matter of course without more information about the methodology, intent, etc. of this survey. Cheers Dina 03:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI, this user has been blocked and some of his edits reverted. I am concerned that this is a rather heavy handed move, as the requests appear to be made in good faith. Obviously, nobody needs to reply to this user's request for email responses to his survey. Was this truly harmful to the encyclopedia?--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 04:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

self-destructive behaviour.....?

ok, so slashdot have an article about Misplaced Pages and intelligence agencies - more aimed at entertaining than being factual (and certainly more than a bit sloppy - with Jimmy Wales saying it's a 'new low' for them).

The article talks about our own User:Slimvirgin and is certainly not as respectful of her right to privacy as the culture here permits.

I'm here though to ask for Administrators to take a look at the on-wiki behaviour that this tea-cup-tornado has inspired, which from my perspective looks like destructive behaviour for the wiki....

• Behaviour on Slim's talk page - I'm concerned because i saw some (borderline) valid questions and comments being removed, and users blocked, by admins (User:Crum375 and User:ElinorD and User:ST47) who determined that this was not on - the page is currently semi-protected against vandalism.

• The Thread on this subject (on this page) started by User:Oleg Alexandrov, here was removed by User:ElinorD with the stated reason 'Is some terrible harm going to come to Misplaced Pages if we refrain from distressing a fellow editor' - I don't really think that some on-wiki discussion will overly distress Slim - I've had some (very) limited contact with her in the past, and she has seemed more than able to respond reasonably and rationally without distress.

I'm just a nosey wiki-gnome and having heard about the slashdot and digg stories was surprised to find the knee-jerk removing comments / banning users thing happening - it smacks of sweeping under a carpet to me, and elephants in rooms don't fit! There's a point at which wanting to starve something of the oxygen of publicity is also pushing one's head further into the sand - not good!

The most serious point here is that this could look terrible to outside interested parties - I don't believe anything that's been written would appear to be a big deal from (for example) a journalist's point of view, expect perhaps our own reaction to it...

thanks all - Purples 03:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

User:71.164.0.121

This user has made repeated reverts to the Fahrenheit 9/11 page, claiming that it isn't a documentary without consulting the discussion page after I warned him/her several times. Reginmund 03:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• I have looked into the claim and anon did make well more than 3 reverts, and has been blocked for 24 hours. I reverted the most recent as a 3RR violation; other edits have been made subsequent to the other reverts in excess of 3, so this was the best recourse. I think that this resolves it for today. Carlossuarez46 06:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Anon relogged in as User:Arcade123, explained situation on my talk page (feel free to read it) as did complaining editor. I unblocked anon IP. That the editor explained the situation on my talk page rather than use the unblocked account to continue the edit war showed a lot of good faith and swayed my decision. If someone sees further edit warring among these, feel free to do what you need, but I think there'll be some resolution. Carlossuarez46 06:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Block of Videmus Omnia

I have blocked Videmus Omnia (talk · contribs) for 31 hours 1 week 48 hours for his harassment of users Alkivar, Mike Halterman, and NeoCoronis. For three hours straight, Videmus Omnia was tagging images uploaded by these users for deletion, and then flooding their user talk pages with the relevant templates found on the image tags. I had to open up the user's last 500 edits to see when the action started (and a few minutes deciding upon a block length that was not too long or too short which lead to what his block log is currently).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page spamming has become a concern as of late, see . I've been trying to discuss this issue with Sfan00 (see User_talk:Sfan00_IMG#Talk_page_spamming). It's no surprise that users may become overwhelmed when faced with over a hundred notices. ˉˉ╦╩ 03:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC) To get back to the topic: get Videmus Omnia to agree to stop, there's no need for a block. ˉˉ╦╩ 03:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

To be fair to Videmus Omnia, you blocked him/her half an hour after she stopped, so the block is quite pointless. —Kurykh 03:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Why did you opt to block, rather than discuss this with the editor in question -- especially after he stopped tagging images? It even appeared to be making a difference, as Alkivar appeared to be responding to them. I've always known Videmus Omnia to be a very reasonable editor, and though I've differed with him before about images, he's never failed to respond in a sensible and reasonable manner when asked. --Haemo 03:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing the point in this block either, and it seems a bit punative. Videmus Omnia (talk · contribs) hasn't edited in hours, and stopped editing a half hour before the block. Also, there appears to be no attempt at discussing the situation before placing the block. Leads me to believe it should be reversed. - auburnpilot talk 03:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It's talk page spamming and harassment. I will agree that I did not recognize the time stamps at the time, but the activity that was occurring was highly disruptive.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it may be harassment, but when it stopped half an hour ago, blocking will do no good, at best. Or backfire, at worst. —Kurykh 04:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

As said, blocks should be preventative, not punitive. I don't think blocking him will do anything, especially without prior discussion, and may just end up disenchanting a valuable editor. --Haemo 04:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I will agree that he be unblocked, but if he persists once he returns to editting tonight or tomorrow, I will reinstate the 48 hour block (given my block message that he would have not received can be perceived as a warning).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If there was consensus that VO's actions constituted harassment, then that would make sense. But leaving some sort of notice on the uploader's talk page is mandatory. Is your only objection the manner of the notices? Besides the extremely long list of image violation notices, it doesn't seem to me that VO did anything objectionable, and even that seems to have been a mere error in judgment. (It's also possible, as I stated below, that he was planning to compact the notices after the tagging was complete, although I don't know that.) Either way, I don't think you should block him without a clear case of harassing. Since you have already blocked this user four times, and reversed yourself each time, I think it would be best if you let someone else judge whether his behavior is worthy of a block or not. – Quadell 04:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page spamming

Now that Videmus has been unblocked, lets discuss the overall issue: are such massive warning campaigns appropriate? I've seen image taggers apply over one hundred no-rationale warnings to several users. Some users managed to address the no-rationale concerns by adding a canned rationale to all images regardless of their current usage. Other editors appeared distressed. Sure, image tagging is basically inevitable, but there is a better way of going about it. Betacommandbot, for instance, did not target individual users. Users saw a trickle of warnings over many days and managed to address the no-rationale concerns. I suggest that we implement some sort of guideline for limiting image warnings to, say, a dozen per day, or institute another measure to limit what has been perceived as harassment. If waiting a little bit before informing a contributor of each and every untagged image will improve image retention and rationale quality, then it is a courteous and appropriate measure. ˉˉ╦╩ 04:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• I've gone through pages and tagged images for cleanup; often, you'll get dozens of images by the same person tagged. Typically, what I do to minimize the "damage" is to post one template of each "type", and then list "Also Image:XYZ, Image:PQR, etc" for each subsequent violation. This seems to work well. --Haemo 04:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

A question arises... If I review some editor's log and found some images that need some tagging (no source, no rationale, replaceable, ifd, etc...), what should I do?:

1. Start tagging the images as I see them
2. Tag only the first N.
3. Count how many image needs to be tagged and, if there are more than N, tag none of them.
4. Some other option

I for one, would follow 1. But it seems it's not the best option here. --Abu badali 04:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Just be reasonable, IMO. You don't need to post the same warning dozens of time. Post it once, then just list the violations after it. WP:DTTR applies here I feel -- it's the spamming of talk pages that causes the problem. --Haemo 04:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact, it appears people have been using scripts to do this. Perhaps they could modify them so they automatically do this? --Haemo 04:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That depends, if the images are obvious copyright violations (free license on unfree images), then you have a responsibility to list them for deletion. If the issue is one of rationale, as appears in this case, then you should consider whether these images were uploaded during the license-tag-only days. Many productive contributors have images in their upload log that they did not add a rationale to, this oversight was not necessarily done in ignorance of policy. I would say that engaging users in a dialog and informing them of a major backlog would be the best way to approach the problem. Then, determine an appropriate timeline for the user to address these concerns based on his/her available time. If a user breaches the timeline, then just tag the images anyway, but I think you'd encounter a much smoother and more productive response by not using a redundant amount of templates. (e/c) ˉˉ╦╩ 04:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Tag the images, yes, but don't spam their page with messages; use existing message templates, and just append further violations. I am strongly opposed to the notion that we should restrict tagging images that have copyright problems because the the uploader's talk pages are "too full". However, I am equally opposed to filling a user's page with dozens of cookie-cutter warnings. I think my solution, above, is the best of both worlds. --Haemo 04:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a secondary concern here: some editors simply don't have the time to create specific, properly-worded rationales to a hundred images in the grace period before deletion. Your approach works well most of the time, others may work better some of the time, the main ideas to keep in mind are flexibility and courtesy. ˉˉ╦╩ 04:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

(partially copied from VO's talk page)

As for the many image-deletion notices, VO uses a tool (which I also use) that automatically notifies the uploader when an image is tagged for deletion. When I see that I have left many notices on a user's talk page, I finish all my tagging, and then I go back and compact the warnings -- simply saying something like "This applies to the following images as well. . ." It seems likely that VO was planning to do this. How would you know without asking him? That's why it was terribly inappropriate for Ryulong to block VO without discussing the matter with him first. – Quadell 04:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that the tool be modified to automatically do this; I know WP:TWINKLE has similar functionality for vandalism warnings. --Haemo 04:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea. But in the mean time, let's not block users for using an imperfect tool. – Quadell 04:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Users are responsible for edits they make. The use of javascript does not mitigate this. If a user's tool(s) are causing them to act poorly, they should reconsider whether their use of said tool(s) is appropriate. It is not acceptable to leave several dozen duplicate warning messages. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong's actions in regard to this block

The drama caused by Ryulong's block included this uncivil remark to a user who originally challenged the block. This shows he does not feel it was inappropriate to tell another user "You stay out of it." Five users commented on Ryulong's talk page, saying that his block of VO was too harsh or not appropriate. Two minutes after the last comment, Ryulong blanked his talk page, cutting off discussion. Anyone can remove comments from their talk page whenever they like, but I think this is inappropriate in light of what's gone on here. I'm an admin too, and I occasionally will find in necessary to block another user -- but I don't do it without prior discussion, I don't snap at users who challenge the wisdom of my block, and I don't try to cut off discussion or remove criticism. I think all of these were inappropriate. – Quadell 05:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocking without a warning does concern me. While I do consider the mass of template messages disruptive, I'd hope we could resolve these things by discussion of some sort, before resorting to harsh action. As for Ryulong's behavior on his talk page, I have a strong impression there's a history here that I don't know about? If that's the first time they've spoken with each other, it seems to be a very unusual response. Currently, Videmus is unblocked, and the discussion seems to have moved to this noticeboard; both are probably for the best. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong, as an admin, tends to be a little less verbose than most when dealing with discussions and decisions. However, his often curt attitude has never really been a serious problem in my opinion, since he nearly always acknowledges input and learns from other users' comments -- even if he is less than expansive in his response to them, especially when there is prior history in the air. I don't think anything else really need to be said here -- anything that can be learned by those involved here, has been at this point. --Haemo 05:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have never been shy to challenge Ryulong when I believe he's gotten it wrong. This isn't one of those occasions in my opinion - I think he had a valid basis to block and was right to dispatch Abu badali promptly from his talkpage. WjBscribe 06:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

To image taggers...

...(me included – I am by no means perfect) please take into account the feelings of others. If you feel that multiple images uploaded by the same editor ought be deleted, leave said editor a custom message, engage him or her in discussion, but don't leave multiple templated messages, and especially do not leave 50 kB of templated messages. Please. --Iamunknown 05:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sage advice. – Quadell 05:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. WjBscribe 06:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

ESkog's view

I don't think the original block was a good idea. Discussion would be a better way to deal with users who are applying policy in ways we may or may not feel is appropriate. However, others above are right that we should move beyond this. Often, when I see a serial image upload problem, I'll make sure that each relevant template gets posted once, then provide the user with a link to his/her upload log, stating that I have processed other issues with those images. I think this strikes a reasonable balance between keeping Misplaced Pages as maintained as possible, and not scaring off contributors who may be valuable outside their misunderstanding of our (admittedly complex) image policy. (ESkog) 06:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

what to do?

Usually in resolving disputes, the question is to how to make a discussion come to a clear consensus. In this case, surrounding the Boerboel dog breed article, I am at a complete loss. Both User:Frikkers and User:Sabt have not made a single talk comment anywhere, and Frikkers has already been blocked once for violation of the 3RR. Now both of them have been warned continously, and I have even begged them to please make some reason, any reason, for their reversions known on the article's talk page. Zero response. Is this persistant refusal to commit to Misplaced Pages's process of consensus-building now mean that their edits are considered vandalism? I'm at my wits end here, and I'm also beginning to think Frikkers at least may not speak English (the article concerns what is largely only a South African dog breed). VanTucky 05:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear that VanTucky has tried to discuss this with both users, both on their talk pages and on the article's talk page. Both have indeed been unresponsive. Changes seem to involve links to breeding clubs, and which picture should be in the infobox. – Quadell 05:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Block Connell66

Connell66 is out of control. Firstly, he keeps spreading WikiLove, to the point where he doesn't contribute much else. Secondly, he seems to lack the understanding of the concept of an online encyclopedia, thinking it's a blog. Why, ust look at his userboxes! And finally, he keeps changing the summary of The Legend of Zelda:Ocarina of Time when it is perfectly fine. Get rid of this worthless user, for he leaves a truly disgusting taste in my mouth!!! MasterSuspicion 06:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC):

... HalfShadow 06:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that having a majority of your contributions as "Welcome" templates and edits to your userspace is probably not the world's greatest use of an editor's time, he does have hundreds of contributions, and I'm not convinced that "loving too much" is a reason to block an editor. --Haemo 06:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Snowolfd4, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV

I've run into a strange issue with Snowolfd4 (talk · contribs) on the article Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka. He's insisting that the JVP and LTTE must be described as "the terrorist JVP" and "the terrorist LTTE", citing WP:NPOV, of all things, as his justification! I've pointed out at length on the talk page that his insertions violate WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:WTA#Extremist, terrorist and freedom fighter, to no avail; his responses have invariably been rude and extremely hostile. I'd appreciate it if others could weigh in here, as he seems adamant. The current discussion is at Talk:Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka#Policy and sources. Jayjg 06:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)