Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:19, 23 September 2007

Purge the cache to refresh this page

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

User Anwar saadat and TMMK article

Reposted report

• User: Anwar saadat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Article: Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The user's edits to the article have repeatedly:

• added many inline external links to the TMMK website
• added a lengthy ‘Organisational structure’ section with several subsections of tables of ‘wings’ with red linked names of over two dozen ‘officers’
• removed tags (e.g. {{fact}} {{newsrelease}} {{primarysources}} {{POV-check-section}} {{wikify}} etc.)
• removed citations
• removed the references section

He has continued this disruptive pattern of editing (now with misleading edit summaries) in spite of requests to stop. Several editors have invited discussion on the article talk page and have asked him, in edit summaries and on his user talk page, to discuss his changes. He removed such requests from his talk page, and has not discussed any issues on the article talk page since June.

A Request for comments (politics) on WP:NOT#SOAPBOX cleanup issues, listed ten days ago, has so far yielded no additional input in the RFC section on the article talk page.

Because only one editor has been persistently adding non-neutral content and removing references, this is not a request for page protection. — Athaenara ✉ 09:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Chronology

• 09:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC) The report above originally posted here on AIV.
• 18:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Thread among others archived by MiszaBot II.
• 20:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC) User Anwar saadat's next TMMK revert.

(User Anwar saadat's own previous report about reversions of his edits to this and other articles, and npov responses to it, are pertinent — see "Editor on blanking spree on multiple pages" section in archive 299.)

During the approximately 32 hours while the report was on the active noticeboard, the user did not edit the article, but 2 hours after the thread was archived, he again repeated the type of edit reported. I re-added the report in the hope of admin attention for the user. — Athaenara ✉ 12:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This pattern goes back several months — the first time user ‘Anwar saadat’ edited the article (which was originally added in February 2007 by user Ayubkhan2020 in the only en.wikipedia edit from that account) he removed {{ad}} and {{npov}} tags. — Athaenara ✉ 15:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've had problems with Anwar saadat editwarring before. ⇒ SWATJester 17:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)As an aside, has this user been cleared to use a name very close to Anwar Sadat (and does it have any bearing on articles edited)? LessHeard vanU 22:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I wondered about that, too, and username policy on inappropriate usernames does address it. Today I found that a previous RFCN, with a link to an archived discussion which resulted in "Allow," is listed in the RFCU Index for June 2007. — Athaenara ✉ 11:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

'kay. Thanks. LessHeard vanU 20:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The persistent reversion to WP:NOT is a problem. It stopped while this report was first on ANI, resumed after it was archived, and stopped again when it was reposted. Will the user again revert after this second discussion is archived?

The subject itself may be the larger problem: extremely thin results of searches for reliable sources ("Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham" gets 127 hits; ‘"Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham" -wikipedia’ yields 10)—very brief comments in a few newspapers in India—suggest that its notability is marginal or worse. Should it be on AFD? — Athaenara ✉ 13:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The TMMK is notable, that is really not the problem. The problem is that Anwar seems to not want their obvious links to Islamic terror groups noted, which is generally how the TMMK is known. IT is known as a subsidiary group of al-Umma, a terrorist Islamist group in Tamil Nadu.16:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakasuprman (talk • contribs)

Maybe so, but reliable sources of information about it are the proverbial needles in haystacks. I worked on it a bit today for WP:NPOV. — Athaenara ✉ 20:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

And I agree, your work has done quite a bit for the page. However I do believe you are a little too pessimistic about the notability. On a google search I ran, I found no less than 10 mainstream articles mentioning the TMMK in detail, both some charity work and its ties to islamist groups.Bakaman 22:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User ‘Anwar saadat’ again reverted to his preferred version — references gone, references section gone, instead a wholly WP:NOT WP:NPOV mouthpiece for the organization once again— and this time he didn't wait until the discussion was gone from this rapidly archived board.

My sole aim here (I first heard of the article from a listing on Misplaced Pages:Third opinion early this month) is the neutral point of view. Admin attention, please: may Special:Contributions/Anwar saadat be blocked from editing the article at least for awhile? — Athaenara ✉ 12:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I added a report on WP:AIV. — Athaenara ✉ 14:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC) (As per "To report persistent vandalism or spamming" pointer in this project page header.) — Athaenara ✉ 15:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have fully protected the article. However, it seems Anwar has a lengthy history of disruptive editing, not only on this article but on many others. People have been trying to engage him in discussion for months, but he continues to revert without discussion. I would advocate for a block in this situation. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have also blocked Anwar saadat for 31 hours. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Too soft. It isn't only about one page. A pattern of disrutive editing, revert-warring and showing no interest in discussions on the talk page extends to a significant time period. A 31 hours block might not get the message across. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Nishkid, are you sure that you blocked this user? I checked his blocklog, & I'm not seeing that he has been blocked. In response to NHN's comment, this user has been blocked for longer periods up to one month for similar misbehavior in the past, so maybe a longer block is warranted. If he is blocked for more than 24 hours, perhaps the article could also be unlocked -- why make other editors suffer for his misdeeds? -- llywrch 22:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerned about personal commentary from User:A Kiwi

I am very concerned about the personal speculation and commentary made by User:A Kiwi here on Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome , , , , , ' and here on User talk:Eubulides, and .

I feel that this speculation (which is often wildly incorrect, and has involved named third parties) and commentary is an invasion of my privacy that I am not comfortable with, but, more importantly, is utterly irrelevant to Misplaced Pages, and adds nothing to the discussion where it is posted. I wonder could somebody take a look and see what they think? --Zeraeph 15:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing much more than a not particularly decorous discussion, but without any further history I cannot say I see anything bad or actionable. Have you discussed with A Kiwi (on his talkpage) how the debate is making you uncomfortable? LessHeard vanU 21:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

My greatest problem is with the degree to which this is sidelining the real discussion of the article Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome into total irrelevancies. It will be a contentious and complex enough discussion without that.

I'm not too bothered by the personal references yet, but, on the other hand, I have a gut feeling that it CANNOT possibly be ok for A Kiwi to speculate (wrongly), from among article sources, about who my personal physician is (or how familiar he is with my home), while informing the world that she has just got off the phone with him, from thousands of miles away. I will try discussing it on her talk page. --Zeraeph 21:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Zeraeph, you opened the door by discussing those personal details on the article talk page and using personal info as part of the article discussion with respect to the featured article review. Discussion of your personal diagnoses and physicians were less than inappropriate on the article talk page, and verged into Essjay controversy territory anyway. I suggest that both you and A Kiwi could benefit from reading and understanding Misplaced Pages's talk page guidelines (not only with respect to not using article talk pages as a chat forum, but also with respect to proper threading of conversations and NOT HOLLERING and better use of edit summaries); you're a more experienced editor than A Kiwi is, and you should have known that discussing your personal diagnoses and physicians on an article talk page isn't wise. Because you made this info part of the article discussion, I can't say A Kiwi has committed any offense. I suppose you've let A Kiwi know that you're talking about her on AN/I, as a courtesy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, please try to be a little more accurate. I did not "discuss" anything of the kind, I simply, ill-advisedly, made a single passing reference ("I am a fully (Micheal Fitzgerald, no less) dx'ed Aspie" ) which A Kiwi has turned into speculation that Simon (presumeably) Baron-Cohen (who I have never met) diagnosed me and is familiar with my home, and then that Michael Fitzgerald is my personal physician. --Zeraeph 23:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

PS. You still haven't explained how so many personal references and speculations about myself are relevant to Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome? --Zeraeph 23:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

They weren't relavant on the article talk page discussion either, where you first brought them up. A Kiwi has retracted and apologized everywhere for her mixup of Drs Baron-Cohen and Fitzgerald (two physicians with the same specialty operating in relatively close geographic proximity), so that's done. The best thing for both of you to do is to stop discussing personal matters on article talk pages (remember your two Yorkies, your recent car wreck, and so on), and instead focus on reliable sources, and learning to properly thread comments and use talk pages for discussing article improvement. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure; if you use article talk pages and your diagnoses to throw weight into a discussion, you can't expect that info not to resurface later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, I would really appreciate it if you would stop trying to "micro manage" and dictate my editing. It is not appropriate for you to do so. It is also totally irrelevant to the discussion here of User:A Kiwi persistent discussion of what she imagines to be personal detail of my life on Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome. Though I am flattered that you have found the time to trawl through weeks of edit histories to find so many personal references to my life to post here. However, I suggest you read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and remember to discuss content, not personalities in future please? --Zeraeph 00:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Take it easy there, Zeraeph. I don't need to trawl through anything; I remember the posts as they were inappropriate on talk pages, where article improvement is discussed. Reminding you that both of you can avoid taking admin time on these kinds of issues and make talk page discussion easier for everyone by reading WP:TALK, a Wiki guideline, is not micromanaging. It was your mistake to make personal info part of an article discussion; I wish both of you would focus on article content more. Take the last word if you'd like. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I am afraid I have never been interested enough in you to return the favor and keep ongoing mental notes about you in that way.

I honestly do not think it is for you to dictate what use is made of admin time any more than it is for you to try and dictate and micromanage my editing and discussion style.

Back to the real point, I am concerned by A Kiwi's personal speculations about and references to myself are monopolising Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome. When I do come to WP:AN/I to seek advice I prefer not to lead, but rather to leave anyone kind enough to take an interest to view the situation with an open mind. It had occurred to me that an open mind might see some advantage in archiving the personal references and speculations in the name of simplifying the discussion, but I am not sure, because that seems like "gagging" User:A Kiwi's opinions on the article and I would be uncomfortable with that. I am not sure, that is why I ask.

I am also concerned as to whether the more personal speculations are crossing any lines. She is not doing me any harm, yet, but, on the other hand WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA clearly specify that content should be discussed, not personalities, and besides, so far her speculations have often been wildly inaccurate, leaving me with a choice between cluttering up an FAR with refutations that are irrelevant to it, or being misrepresented. --Zeraeph 00:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Though I could not fully understand the references in her response (she states she is unwell elsewhere and may be a little muddled), User:A Kiwi does seem willing to desist from the personal references and speculation that I felt were inappropriate and uncomfortable. She has also made a seperate, far more objective comment , and may well now be amenable to the personal speculations being archived to simplify the discussion if anyone thinks that is appropriate? --Zeraeph 17:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User:A Kiwi was happy to consent to the archival of personally speculative text which was done, ultimately subject to her approval , and "all's well that ends well" or should be, except that User:SandyGeorgia took it upon herself to object and revert, in spite of having voiced no objection to the archival here. . I give up! --Zeraeph 22:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding the missing diff, where A Kiwi asked you to please put it back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

She did NOT ask me to "put it back" AT ALL she simply said that I took out more than she wished and before we could resolve that, you interfered. , and if you had not, this would all have been resolved to eberybody's satisfaction hours ago.

I am still wondering why on earth you did not raise any objection to the personal speculation being archived, here earlier (too busy posting about my Yorkshire Terriers maybe?), and also why you feel that erroneous speculation over who my personal physician is and how well he knows my house is so vitally important to Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome that you must insist I be forced to replace it?--Zeraeph 23:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

PS, see WP:BLP "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material – whether negative, positive, or just questionable – about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages". I think that is pretty final? Unless I suddenly drop dead? --Zeraeph 00:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Further Personal Commentary

I am now at a genuine loss what to do. After yesterday's creditable resolution User:A Kiwi posted this . She says she is ill and confused but, even so, that is just a blatant personal attack. Any ideas what I should do? --Zeraeph 19:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

User Lord Loxley making homophobic remarks and being disruptive

In the article James I of England, here, here and in the edit summary here, followed by some edit warring. I think he needs a talking too and possibly a cooldown Artw 22:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually he's turned up the volume a little now, to the point where it's pretty apparent he's a troll. I request a ban. Artw 22:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should read the talk page all the way through. Apparently, people tried to do what you are doing now before, only to be rebuked by others for undue weight and POV pushing. Now that the rebukers aren't paying attention, you are trying to weaselly insert your propaganda in order to make a point, disrupting Misplaced Pages and defying the rules you supposedly care about in requesting assassination of my character. You lot are hoodlums of the homosexual type, that is all. Lord Loxley 22:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you're really helping your case much. Artw 22:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering we now have a WP:3RR violation as well as a personal attack, I also ask for at least a temporary block. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• See here: User_talk:RucasHost#Caveat_on_James Lord Loxley 22:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• • BTW, it is not I who is going around inserting POV to support my personal lifestyle, regardless of whether that may be straight, gay or asexual. Activism and historical revisionism have no place on Misplaced Pages. Please make a not of that and cease your vandalism at once! Lord Loxley 22:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Lord Loxley should be blocked for the insanely intemperate comments in his edit summaries. Calling his opponents "Pansy Division" and "Queer Brigade" should cause him to be shown the door. Corvus cornix 22:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(Oh, the irony! Pansy Division being a major exponent of Queercore; a homophobe namechecking major gay icons by mistake. Precious! LessHeard vanU 13:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC) )

I've indefinitely blocked this user after examination of his/her block log; they were last blocked for 1 month by Neil with the comment, "Attempting to harass other users: stonge and racist personal attacks, final warning before indef block." The behavior has clearly continued here, so I followed through. I invite review of my action. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thoroughly support your action :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I support this block having looked at Lord Loxley's block history and the recent "discussion" on the talkpage in question. I'm not sure it can really be called discussion - Loxley is pressed for explanation of his edit warring and provides none, merely attacking all those with an opposing view. His aggressive attitude, inability to compromise and unwillingess to follow NPOV are unacceptable. Given the block history, reform seems unlikely. WjBscribe 22:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I support the block. This user's behaviour was beyond the pale and he had every opportunity to reform if he was going to. Good job. --John 22:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody please check out what Lord Loxley has added to his Talk page? I can't even see it, my browser just shuts down. Corvus cornix 22:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Very odd. I can't check it either... -- Satori Son 22:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

He has created a 1.4MB wikipedia page -- which obviously causes problems for many browsers. (Can you say "massive buffer overflow"?) What the page itself contains ... I think it's safe to presume that it's not an apology. -- llywrch 23:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering the edits he had just made to his Talk page after having been blocked, and before he added the 1.4 megs, was to call his opponents "faggots", no, I don't think it was an apology. Corvus cornix 23:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's giving MediaWiki problems, since both Lynx and wget download it as a zero-byte file. --Carnildo 23:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If you care, he typed 1.4 megs of "FAGGOTS FAGGOTS FAGGOTS" to replace his page. Anyways, I think this is resolved. --Haemo 00:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hueneme High School

Could somebody please semi-protect Hueneme High School? It's getting vandalized faster than I can revert it. Corvus cornix 22:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotected for 1 day, hopefully that's long enough for them to get bored — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The IPs come from all over the country. They must have been sent here from some board. Corvus cornix 22:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Jvalant and User:Bobby Awasthi tendentious and disruptive edits on Indian Rebellion of 1857 and its talk page

• Jvalant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bobby Awasthi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Filed by: Hserus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Classic pattern of tendentious editing.. they have a right wing indian nationalist POV of the 1857 events, and have at various times -

1. Campaigned - very abrasively - to rename it "First War of Indian Independence" - even moved the page

2. Routinely revert any edits that dont agree with their world view, calling it "communist propaganda" - http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Indian_Rebellion_of_1857&diff=159210070&oldid=158687695 for example.

3. This one here is a crack about me being "a janitor of email inboxes" - well yes, postmaster at a large ISP with 40 million accounts does qualify as that, I dare say. New sig fodder, yay. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AIndian_Rebellion_of_1857&diff=159363026&oldid=159362905

4. This little war where User:Jvalant insists on referring to people from England as "Britishers" -

I suggest we use the term "First War of Indian Independence" which is how we in India refer to our history in the news or in the text books etc. "Rebellion" sounds unprofessional (an American) and Mutiny too sounds racist (British). Jvalant 19:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

5. This discussion too - after their using a hindi language newspaper as a source, with erroneous articles - and claiming "yes it is a valid source as more people read it than people do the Times" http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Indian_Rebellion_of_1857#Hindi_Newspapers

etc etc.

User:Jvalant does seem to have attracted the attention of wikipedia admins before - http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Jvalant#warned for a previous set of edit wars, whereupon he immediately accuses the admin who warned him, User:Ragib of "misusing admin clout". http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Ragib&curid=605324&diff=84141302&oldid=84132125

Ditto User:Bobby Awasthi - here's his view of the edits http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Bobby_Awasthi&action=edit&section=19 and a possibly related autoblock - http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Bobby_Awasthi#Unblock_Autoblock

Hserus - why only the half truths? Wasn't the janitor comment as a response to your comment about me contributing "half-baked history". A completely unwarranted comment since all I had done was ask for a source. And I've never insisted on referring to anyone as Britishers - I merely said that it is a valid term. At least try and make sense when you complain. The "right wing" accusation is classic. As if demanding sources for the British POV in the article makes me "right wing" Jvalant 04:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to make WP:ANI into a talk board, but well - please review this last argument you had with a wikipedia admin User:Ragib here - <http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Jvalant#warned>. You apparently don't see the difference between comments that a point of view you are pushing is naïve and wrong, and comments like the ones where you and User:Bobby Awasthi abuse anybody who disagrees with your edits a communist, racist, imperialist etc, and where you drag in something completely unrelated (such as my day job). srs 01:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: the comments, let me point out that:

1. User:Bobby_Awasthi was NEVER associated with renaming/moving of page. Personally favouring (and indeed voting in favour of the rename/move when the vote was called for) DOES NOT amount to the offence cited. If proved that this user was involved once in the said offence, the user is ready to be permanently banned. This point is hence, inflammatory, libelous and insultive and if proved so, I request that the reporting user needs to be reported accordingly.

2. Re: edit shown in ( http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Indian_Rebellion_of_1857&diff=159210070&oldid=158687695 ) the sentence removed was In any case, as with the Bibi-Ghar butchery, the carnage that followed was entirely within the powers of Nana Sahib and his associates to prevent which was reverted by the user:Hserus. The sentence removed falls into the category of a POV as per WP:POV#Assuming_the_obvious, however, an uninformed, biased, demeaning user:Hserus first reverted it, and then cited it as an example of myself being biased.

3. Re: I am not aware of the issue reported in point number 3. I am not personally responsible for an irritated, uninformed editor's personal grudges.

4. Re: This little war where User:Jvalant insists on referring to people from England as "Britishers" -. I did not know if this was an issue. I think all concerned parties cordially argued and settled on the issue without any say from the reporting editor user:Hserus. My role was only to cite english dictionaries and a book (with references/citations). I did not know it could result into a report to Admins.

5. Re: their using a hindi language newspaper as a source how did they (including myself) contradict Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines. WP:RSUE#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English allows the use of other language sources on conditions which were met as cited at the point quoted by the reporting user:Hserus.

As far as the Autoblock is concerned, thank you for the research, the block occured on my SHARED IP which is because we use a LAN network and the vandalisms reported were from other unsigned users relating to Islamic/Terrorist sites.

Now is the time for me to ask a couple of small questions:

1. :: Reversion of User:Jvalant's edits - poorly attributed with dubious sources cited, highly POV and ungrammatical. Hence reverted. srs 10:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC) , do the reasons given above, qualify as valid for the revert undertaken by the reporting srs. Worst of all, Ungrammatical matter should be REMOVED? Another one here: ]. More can be provided, simply reverting any edit, no discussions, no arguments, no citations, left for others!

2. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Bobby_Awasthi and Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Jvalant were earlier created by the same srs (in March 2007) which have so far not recieved a single comment. Does that somehow indicate on the personal nature of this animosity?

3. There have been numerous wars of words between the three editors in past and now following this one's footsteps, I would like to quote from Your edits are apparently based on some long forgotten history textbooks you read at school, and possibly by watching movies or TV serials on 1857, possibly overlaid with a touch of far right wing hindutva style nationalism, but not on any actual knowledge of history. Please read wikipedia policies carefully, and then please stop editing this article. Neither of you has any capability to distinguish fact and fiction, discussion and vitriolic abuse . Does that classify as personal attack by srs?

4. In fact, I had tried previously to argue with this editor in the spirit of Misplaced Pages ]. The case here is that, everything not fitting in this editor's POV tantamounts to RIGHT WING HINDU NATIONALIST POV.

5. ] The edit comment said Please cite facts. Citing contemporary articles from random hindi newspapers is not a valid source. the world's largest read Hindi daily (and India's top numbered newspaper for more than a decade) which does not classify as a Tabloid, whose online edition (unfortunately still in Hindi - I am smiling) was recently bought by Yahoo ] is NOT A VALID SOURCE on Indian History? Simillar comments were made for the second largest Hindi Daily of India (again for a decade) too. Is this not showing utter contempt and personal disdain towards everything Indian? By the way, this editor srs does not mind referring to a COMIC BOOK when it comes to his arguments. ] and from the Amar Chitra Katha comic book on Mangal Pandey - and ACK drew heavily on Malleson, and is usually quite accurate,

6. 4. This little war where User:Jvalant insists on referring to people from England as "Britishers" though I did not have a role in it, what was so wrong in this war, except from probably wasted hard disk space of wikipedia servers? It was neither spam, nor unrelated? User:Jvalant was giving his counter argument which in the end subsided cordially between the two parties. Why an episode is used as a case against a contributing editor?

7. Please prove the statement, Campaigned - very abrasively since abrasively means harshly, coarsely or roughly. Who was roughed up?

As a conclusion, Misplaced Pages being a mere majority point of view, as strong actions as possible can be taken, and I promise I am not going to respond on this page/section after this one no matter what the level of instigation is, but please keep in mind, an Encyclopaedia has to be all-inclusive, not selectively biased. I am not going to gain anything personally if the reported page become absolutely tricoloured (or worse still, all saffron) given the fact that I live in a place that is neither Hindu Nationalist nor Christian Separatist (unfortunately that is the best synonym that MS-Word Showed for nationalist, and I wanted to have a per se NPOV lest I am reported again) nor do I work for a Hindu Nationalist Grocery/Western multinational. But may be its time to guess what personal ambitions may be achieved by the other parties involved; in favour of everything english, working in a purely internet based organization, owned by a western multinational.

--Bobby Awasthi 08:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and no admin action is necessary at this moment in my opinion. Please launch an RFC or Arbitration case on this. Thanks. --Ragib 10:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack on myself and Jimmy Wales by User:Shutterbug

A violation of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF against myself and Jimmy Wales right here:--Fahrenheit451 01:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not very nice. However, this is not the personal attacks noticeboard — you're looking for WP:WQA instead. --Haemo 01:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, not nice and perhaps ill-considered but a response to clear baiting by F451 and Shutterbug removed it himself without prompting within minutes. This is just more time-wasting and trolling for punishment of his enemies by F451. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive235#Possible Vandalism from User:COFS. F451, if I can give you a word of not-unfriendly advice, why not just stop this disruptive and time-wasting behavior of trying to get your "enemies" in trouble and just edit the encyclopedia? Just say NO to directing negative attention to other editors. --Justanother 12:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If someone's wasting time, being disruptive, and not contributing to the encyclopedia very much, ban them. Why are we so lenient on troublesome users? — Omegatron 12:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Fahrenheit451 has a history of less than civil interactions with people that are believed to be editing in a pro (that is, not anti)Scientology manner, with the frequent accusation that this is because they are Scientologists or otherwise acting under Scientology orders. Fahrenheit451 has previously been advised stop using affiliation as a reason for their comments, and I have also made comments regarding inappropriate edits. While I realise that all opinions have a right to be represented within an article (per NPOV) I do not believe that pursuing that opinion against other contributors within the article talkpages is allowable. I have to recuse myself, but I would appreciate if another admin looks over Fahrenheit451's conduct in respect of this area of WP. LessHeard vanU 13:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I clicked on F's contributions to try to do a little light reviewing per LessHeard's request, and immediately got diverted by something odd-looking. Fahrenheit has posted this complaint and diff which you see here, identically worded, six times: here on WP:ANI, on Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Proposed decision, on Requests for arbitration/COFS/Evidence, on Wikiquette alerts, on Talk:Jimmy Wales, AND on User talk:Jimbo Wales. I don't know whether to laugh or cry, but basically I don't like the look of it. Fahrenheit, you're not supposed to be all over the place. It has the look of an attempt to preserve, multiply, and get maximum impact from a diff which the author himself repented of and removed in a few minutes, as Justanother points out above. Is this how you usually post complaints? Your actions seem to me frankly more disruptive than those of Shutterbug in this particular instance (the only one I've reviewed). I also note that you replied combatively to User:Darkwind, when s/he explained that the Wikiquette board was the wrong place, that because the arbitration case was closing, "this is a Wikiquette matter" . Within minutes it apparently morphed into a talk:Jimmy Wales matter, then a usertalk:Jimbo Wales matter... Famous twins? Bishonen | talk 18:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC).

Posting the same complaint simultaneously to six different venues is forum shopping, and the only reason I didn't block for this was because the arbitration case was still technically open. Now that it's closed I'll be much less circumspect about that. Durova 17:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Demonesque

Demonesque has engaged in a long-term pattern of abuse at Caturday. The user has continually changed the target of the redirect, despite an overwhelming consensus from the discussion on the talk page. Demonesque states on his talk page that I won't back down until I'm blocked. What is the next step here? The user is totally uninterested in dispute resolution and I honestly have no idea where to take this. —BurnDownBabylon 01:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Worst edit war ever. The statement of "overwhelming consensus" is 2v1, and not particularly compelling. Tell you what; you file a request for comment, and I'll protect to page for two weeks until you can get some resolution over this essential and critical issue to Misplaced Pages. --Haemo 01:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Judge Judy article

The Judge Judy article and Judith Sheindlin article have the attention of User:ByeNow, who reverts every cleanup template I add to the page. I suspect he is a sockpuppet of User:EverybodyHatesChris - other socks editing the page include User:Tratare. I suspect that User:BirthdayBank and User:Lormos are also sockpuppets (because over several days they reverted many of my edits, not through reverts but simply readding material) - see also User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite#Sockpuppet. I think this person is reverting my edits personally because I had attempted to clean up the article extensively. Also - I had asked on the Help Desk where to post this, and they said here, so if I'm not in the right place, I'm sorry. Kat, Queen of Typos 07:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Now they are removing my talk page comments on why the article needs to be edited. Kat, Queen of Typos 11:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see content removal, pls provide diffs. It's also confusing when your sig says one name but it's really something else.Rlevse 12:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The edit warring is clear in the history; I've weighed in over on the talk page, and will keep an eye on the article. ➪HiDrNick! 14:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to convert some of the references to the formatting suggested by Dr. Nick, but my changes are being reverted, and my talk posts deleted. I'll be right back with some diffs. --Bfigura 18:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Diff showing removal of my comments (which, ironically, were about my previous comments being removed). . --Bfigura 18:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

24 hour block. If sockpuppetry is suspected during the block, file a request for checkuser. Durova 03:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry very much suspected. I've blocked a second account for blanking a complaint at my user talk. Possibly both are sockpuppets. Durova 04:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Long-term vandalism on List of current world boxing champions and related

I've identified the following IP ranges and being behind the vandalism which plagues this article and several of its kin... this vandalism's been going on for over a year now. From what I see, none of these IPs have any constructive contributions.

• 88.207.202.0/24
• 124.107.71.2
• 222.127.55.167
• 222.127.228.6/31
• 222.127.228.8

I selected the ranges carefully only to hit the few vandals that have been attacking this set of articles... review and a possible block is welcome. east.718 at 11:48, September 22, 2007

JzG gone again

See  :( 86.137.127.139 16:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Meh. Judging from changes to his essay, something's happened that pushed him over again, and he's asked for desysopping at this point. (Can't figure out if he's received that yet or not.) Sorry to see him go again, but perhaps some time will help him with his concerns, and he'll be back in the future. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think he's PO'd about the same things that many of the rest of us are PO'd about. Especially the community's insistence on giving disruptive users a second third fourth fifth chance because they might, eventually, someday become constructive users, while holding people who are constructive users to the most exacting standards. Raymond Arritt 19:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

So I'm not the only one tired of the Wikiredemption and Reclamation Project? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, let's waste a bunch of time on jackass editors, and push away the good ones. Jim, I'm very tired of it. OrangeMarlin 20:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I am all for tightening the screws here. Should we allow trolls to make us lose the most committed editors we have? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I am deeply saddened at the loss of Guy. He's been a sane voice and a great member of the project, especially when dealing with trolls who others were willing to give a slap on the wrist. I am tired of people interpreting AGF to mean, "beat us, and the project, with a stick and we'll keep smiling about it because, really, lots of people with personality disorders straighten up and become productive contributors if you let them get away with acting like monsters for long enough." I will miss Guy a great deal, and hope he comes back. *shakes head sadly* - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't take me as insensitive to the difficulties our sysops face, but why do we need to have an announcement here every time someone deletes his or her userpage? If they have something they would like to say to the community, they can say it themselves. Broadcasting their departure here seems unlikely to be helpful. Can anyone inform me as to the benefits it could have? Picaroon (t) 19:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Because JzG did not suck. A bunch of pathetic POV-losers pushed him out the door. So what do you have? A crappy encyclopedia. I'm going to fight back. This pisses me off.OrangeMarlin 20:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You can start by helping change the rules at WP:CSN so that the decision to ban a user is made by a consensus of uninvolved parties. WP:CSN gets tons of flak, but it's a very useful way to show long-term disruptive users the door. Unfortunately, by allowing the disruptors to participate in establishing a consensus, it often fails. We really need to be more effective at dealing with bad faith users. - Jehochman 21:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman's proposal is under discussion here. Everyone is welcome to opine. --Ghirla 16:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this the way that we recompense committed editors? What a pity. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah no! JzG is such a great guy...a rock of impartiality. I like knowing that an email to JzG will not yield a reply, but rather a fair result. --Zeraeph 21:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

In that essay linked to above, he writes, "There are people out there who are batshit insane and will genuinely try to get you fired from your job, call you at home, solicit burglars to raid your home, and invite predators to look at your kids. They might even think it's not serious, that it's only a bit of fun. Only one of the above has not happened to me, and that one happened to someone else." Is all of that true? If so, that is extremely unsettling. How much dangerous is it editing this site? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 21:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

OM: Me too. I tire of the overuse of the AGF nonsense that forces us to extend some semblence of good faith to a user who has shown himself/herself repeatedly to be nothing more than a tendentious, troublesome, user, or a POV-pusher or a troll. Bah.

Jossi: Apparently it is.

Jehochman: whatever it takes, but see my comment to OM. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Alas, hardly a day passes on this noticeboard without an incident of this sort. The current practice of infinitely extending good faith to most odious disruptors at the expense of established editors is a sad testimony to low qualifications of our sysops. --Ghirla 14:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Another option would be to start fighting back against POV-pushers by adopting the remedies at User:Moreschi/The Plague. That's about nationalism, but most of it applies to all POV-pushing types. Shameless spam, yes. I hope JzG has not given up on WP entirely. There's always the good old right-to-return-via-the-back-door. Moreschi 21:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I hate to interrupt your love-fest, but my experience with JzG hasn't been particularly great; in fact, over in the attack sites ArbCom workshop he was saying that I ought to be banned. In my opinion, labeling dissident voices as "trolls" does more damage than the trolls themselves. *Dan T.* 22:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Except for the fact that JzG's one of the large number of people who dislike (or at the least disagree with) you Dan T. That doesn't make JzG's forcing out any less reprehensible. I'm not saying you're one of the trolls, but don't give them the credit of being "dissidents." Stalking fails to impress me as a "dissident." ⇒ SWATJester 23:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think dan was suggesting that stalking JzG was a good idea. Personally I think that if Guy was more tactful with his language, and restricted himself from calling people names in the first place he might not have got himself into the position of pissing off people so much they felt compelled to harras him in real life. (at no point am I condoning that harassment) In at least some cases like this it appears that the abused wikipedian has been frequently less than civil (ie MONGO), and that pisses some more insane people off to the point of turning to real life harrasment to exact their revenge. Guess what people, Misplaced Pages is high visibility and therefore attracts some less than savoury people. We can't change that, we just have to deal with it. However if you stop calling people names it makes the wikipedia environment a lot easier for everyone to work in, and you are less likely to attract unwanted attention to yourself. Viridae 23:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• It's certainly not acceptable to drive people away by harassment. But think about it. If I had gotten the treatment that some trolls have gotten from Guy, I would have been pretty annoyed. So before we start blaming everything on the evil trolls, consider if it's all their fault. -Amarkov moo! 23:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• They're responsible for their own behavior: trying out that argument before a judge -- or a high-school principal -- wouldn't get one very far. --Calton | Talk 00:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Erm, no, it's not that simple. People repeatedly (and, even in my opinion, sometimes justifiably) excused HIS behavior on the grounds that trolls were annoying him. If we're saying "everyone is responsible for their own behavior", then we can't turn around and ignore that when it comes to some people. -Amarkov moo! 02:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about stalkers, who I don't condone... but I'm talking about how everybody who dares to oppose a few favored people gets tarred with the same brush as the worst of the stalkers, and demonized, and this is used to justify ridiculous policies like banning links to entire sites that meet the disapproval of the clique. *Dan T.* 00:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Everybody? Dan, I'm the sysop who gave JzG a civility block warning in January. I started Category:Eguor admins afterward to promote self-regulation among sysops. I was perfectly serious about that warning and took some heat for it, but the only folks who tarred me with that great brush are the ones who populate the attack sites you defend. This hyperbole of yours is getting tiresome. Durova 03:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No such block on his block log...? Thanks for the cat, added. Viridae 03:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that particular axe sharp enough by now? --Calton | Talk 00:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe some of the things I'm reading here. The real problem is not being nice enough to the trolls? Pathetic. Raymond Arritt 00:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You insult trolls they will become more troll like - what part are you missing? Follow the civility guidlines (like every admin should) and you are less likely to be come a target.. what is so hard about that? Just because someone trolls you doesnt mean you have to stoop to their level and return the favour - that makes YOU a troll too. Viridae 00:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Labeling people as "trolls" when you disagree with them is a way of dehumanizing the opposition and getting your way in whatever dispute you're in. People who throw around "troll" accusations are the ones causing the toxic atmosphere here. *Dan T.* 02:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Amen. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh please, this community demands that people speak in the tones Guy uses. I know I'm better off on Misplaced Pages now that I assume bad faith--it makes it easier for me. Guy's had a few nasty comments to me in inappropriate situations (on his part, not mine, no matter how hotheaded I've been), but it didn't make me interested in him personally in any way--sure as hell not his home life. And when I needed a quick solution to a problematic BLP, I knew he'd do it. I've opposed the Misplaced Pages favorite stars, and I still do, and I think there are many problematic admins on Misplaced Pages because other admins are lazy at dealing with problems with other administrators. And I've been called a troll by various administrators, but I can't really be demonized because I'm here to edit--one silly little editor takes a moment to always come up with some nasty comment about me, but nobody takes it seriously, least of all me. She just looks as silly as she's behaving. I'm not a demon, just a hothead--and I contribute well. If you're being demonized successfully you might not be spending enough time editing articles and doing useful tasks on Misplaced Pages. You might be spending too much time on intrigue. And there are plenty of real demons to be found among the intriguing little intrigues all over Misplaced Pages. I've never had an interesting troll on my page. KP Botany 00:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• I want to say how sorry I am to see that Guy has left. He was one of our best admins, and people with Guy's common sense and intelligence are thin on the ground. I know that the silent majority on Misplaced Pages don't support the harassment and toxic atmosphere that causes admins like Guy to leave, and I hope you'll start to speak out against it. Write to Jimbo, no matter how pointless you feel it is. Write to Anthere, the chair of the Wikimedia Foundation. Please make your voices heard. SlimVirgin 01:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who has had epic battles with Guy, can I just suggest we close this thread and let him be? He's stated his unhappiness with how things are here, let's just respect that and let him decide what is best for himself. This kind of thread can serve no good purpose: those who hated Guy come out of the woodwork to reopen wounds, while those who liked him get all worked up into a frenzy and beg him to stay - neither of which helps Guy or the project. ATren 04:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's simple. Misplaced Pages's OFFICE doesn't do enough to protect good editors, and bad editors demand we AGF beyond credulity on a weekly, if not daily or hourly, basis. We get absurd POV warriors demanding things no civilized human would demand, and when they don't get their way, they offer to attack our children. We lost H to that, and no one stopped the hostile parties involved; in fact, we welcomed them back with special concessions to their POV. In return, they've bullied all over the place. IT gets ridiculous to AGF when people ignore discussions, notifications, requests and warnings. IF it's on their talk page, they demand it be kept on the article talk, where they can ignore it in the name of WP:BOLD. Guy's loss is a big one to the project. THe threats he's recieved need to be brought to the attention of Jimbo Wales, and frankly, he ought to DO something. The 'This is the internet, it's not REAL LIFE' meme only lasts till some troll takes it to the real world, posting names, addresses and phone numbers, along with exhortations to rape their wives and children, which at least a few offended parties here have done or attempted. Until the OFFICE shows that they will support the good over the bad, this will continue. Wales needs to make discipline a presence here, it's not here now. When the pro-pedophilia tribes coem on demanding we never address Pedophilia as a disease of the mind, or as a crime, and PJ comes on offering to 'out', to the police, and the jobs, of any editor who doesn't cave to their demands, no one except those two dares touch the articles related to that topic. and so on, across many of the religion articles, gun articles, and so on. If it hasn't happened yet, it's only a matter of time till some editor is hunted down and killed for defending core principles of NPOV and Citation on Misplaced Pages, by some deranged extremist(s). The OFFICE and the Bureaucrats can do more, but don't, instead insisting 'the community can handle this'. No, when editors are harrassed off jobs, leave the project, and find harrassments continuing despite their abdication of the project, what else can be done? This is becoming an untenable situation. I hope soemthing can be done to resolve the attacks on Guy that led him to this; he's a strong admin, and a much-needed one, as he's long been willing to take on hard topics here. ThuranX 05:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

But ThuranX, surely you should know that if someone threatens harm, it's only because they were driven to it because someone called them a troll. Anyone can see it's the so-called victim's fault.</end sarcasm mode>. Raymond Arritt 05:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. Don't get me started on the similar abuse of the CIVILITY policy. CIVIL and AGF get invoked by the biggest trolls with a frequency appraoching a Godwin proportion, that it, as one can perceive, if not factually derive an algorithm regarding the parallels of Naziism invocation and futility of further discussion, so can one find a relationship between the frequency and immediacy in any conversation of AGF/CIVIL and the trollish nature of the invoker. CIV and AGF are good principles to keep in the back of one's mind, but the difference between bluntly calling a fool or jerk what he is, and calling anyone you don't like the ideology of a troll are different, and the project and community both would do well to have a far stricter policy on both. Possibly a policy called WP:CRYWOLF, which can be invoked during incident reports, mediations and arbitrations to ban someone who repeatedly brings frivolous 'violations' to admin attention. Even Good Faith reporters who are just too sensitive should be subject to the brief blocks CRYWOLF would demand, thus ensuring that people too milquetoast to be here leave, and that those who still want to be here start thinking twice. 'Fuck You, ' is a violation, 'you're too liberal/conservative to understand what I'm saying and can't look at this from any view but your own' is 99% of the time here a fact, not an insult. (well, maybe both, but deserved). Such a 'don't waste our time' policy might help us all. ThuranX 05:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, has anyone actually said that everything here is his fault for not being nice? -Amarkov moo! 05:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud, noone is suggesting that it was all Guys fault. We are suggesting he and certain other people who have been harassed have exacerbated the situation to the point it got to by being extremely incivil. Nor is anyone suggesting good faith should be taken with regard to these said trolls - if they clearly are here to do ahrm, so be it abandon good faith. However civility should NEVER be abandoned regardless who you are dealing with. Viridae 05:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The loss of civility is the loss of effective communication that can possibly lead to a resolution of dispute etc.. Remember that, even when dealing with trolls. -- Anonymous Dissident 05:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Arritt, your use of sarcasm above plainly demonstrates the problem here. Never consider an balanced response, simply heed your emotions and witty sarcasm to remedy all situations. HydroMagi 05:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry; believe it or not, that was out of character for me. I'm just getting more and more disgusted at the insistence on giving near-limitless chances to trolls, POV-pushers, abusive sockpuppeteers and outright lunatics while refusing to stand up for the highly constructive (if imperfect) editors who are their targets. Raymond Arritt 06:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The lunatics are definitely running the asylum these days.--MONGO 08:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree to the fullest. People who research and continuously add information to the project should not be driven off or harassed by people who come here to disrupt the encyclopedia or do naught for the encyclopedia. It's a waste of time for all parties involved. M. 08:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There are hundreds of admins and experienced users who have put their careers, their reputations and good names, in some cases their personal safety and privacy on the line fighting for and defending this Project. When has this Project ever defended us? The arbcom is out of touch, the board is a joke, the foundation, toothless and inept. This is endemic of much larger issues, mainly that the hippie peace and love bullshit Jimbo espouses DOES NOT WORK, that AGF is broken, and that maybe, just maybe, letting anons edit, and putting so many restrictions on administrative discretion is not a good thing. This project treats us like shit, yet we fight for it tooth and nail. We are lucky we haven't lost more like Guy, and unless something is done, we will lose more. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jeffrey's every word here, including "and" and "the". ➔ This is REDVEЯS 08:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You have the choice to leave or attempt to change it. Viridae 08:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

A rock and a hard place? You're too kind! :o) ➔ This is REDVEЯS 08:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well making a choice is better than just bitching about it. Viridae 09:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps the problem is that punitive actions against editors are often based on specific actions rather than intentions. A seemingly well-meaning editor who accidentally goes over 3RR shouldn't be treated the same way as a POV-pusher doing the same. Policy doesn't seem to make any distinction at all. Perhaps if those who spend the majority of their time on Misplaced Pages distruptively editing a specific point of view into a single group of articles were treated more harshly, the program JzG describes would not be as big as it is now. If someone comes to Misplaced Pages to push a specific POV, they should not be treated the same as someone who comes to improve the encyclopedia. —Dark•Shikari 09:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Dark Shikari has got to the heart of the problem. We're fine at dealing with vandals and drive-by trolls but the persistent POV-pushers and other determinedly obnoxious characters take ages to remove - and they're the very people who are the biggest threat to the encyclopaedia. --Folantin 12:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Typical situation: I find a COI, POV pushing or spam-only account. It's never made a productive edit. It's purpose is mischief and nothing else. I ask for a perma-block at one of our boards, and get the typical, "we need four separate warnings in a week" response. Long ago I learned to go to specific admins who understand how to deal with persistent troublemakers. We need to educate our admins how to deal with these situations, because a majority of them don't understand, and that's extremely frustrating to ordinary editors on the front lines. - Jehochman 12:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, well I am not even a good editor though I try my best to do the best I can with my disabilities but has anyone tried to contact JzG via email to see what is going on in his mind about things? I have been following this thread from the beginning and find it quite disturbing to see people blaming this administrator about things including his behavior. For the record, as far as I can remember I have not had any contact with this administrator. I just feel I needed to comment because of the back and forth of trying place blame. Would, could someone email this person and see what is going on? I think the least we can all do is let him/her know that this discussion is going on. But more important, I think everyone first should see if he blanking his page means he left (maybe he plans a redo?) and then maybe see what is going on and see if he can be helped to resolve the situation (s). If my comments are inappropriate, please feel free to remove. I just feel that something is missing here in the details of things. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGal 13:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no point calling a troll anything other than a troll. It solves plenty of problems. I agree with both Folantin and Dark Shikari. We are not flexible enough when dealing with POV-pushers. Single-purpose accounts who are also obvious socks, like MatthewHoffman below, need to be kicked into touch permanently, and straight away. Single-purpose accounts who are not socks (just morons recruited off forums, and yes, this does happen) need to be brutally topic-banned to within an inch of their lives and told in no uncertain terms to get away from their area of manic obsession ASAP. Good content contributors who do the invaluable work on the ground, and who are not POV-pushing, need to be rewarded with sysop buttons. Nationalist, pseudoscience, whatever - the two are often linked - the plague needs to be eradicated. If we do not adequately protect Misplaced Pages and those who seek to maintain it, we will pay a bitter price. Moreschi 13:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I cannot help sympathizing with JzG's predicament. It is no secret that I have lately been more active in Russian Misplaced Pages than here, and the reason is that apathy sets in when you see the same fights persisting for two or three years without any prospect of resolution. Two days ago, I was called "a troll without a specific gender" and the same person demanded on this noticeboard to have me blocked from editing indefinitely. Once an admin reproached him for abusing the noticeboard, all the hell broke loose on him for not extending good faith to the block shopper. A week earlier, an unfamiliar editor referred to me as a "paranoid goon" but, once I asked for an explanation from him, my message was deleted from the talk page and replaced with a Piotrus-presented barnstar for "good deeds". I don't want to continue this screed here, but all the signs are not encouraging, to put it mildly. --Ghirla 17:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The general rule of nature is that the larger that population, the less time one can afford to give people to disrupt the whole. I think we need to continue to assume good faith, but take a very hard line when it becomes unreasonable to do so. People think "Assume good faith" means to give someone with bad motives another chance. That is not what it means. It means to assume good motives till it is unreasonable to do so, it has nothing to do with "second chances", only with judging motivations. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

How does judging people's motivations fit in with WP:NPA's "Comment on content, not on the contributor"? *Dan T.* 14:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

People who are disruptive due to inexperience or accident are not a problem, these people can be reformed and help out, no harm done. People who are disruptive due to malice are unlikely to be reformable. The failure to distinguish between the two is why we put up way too much with jackasses who are only here to be shit disturbers. WilyD 15:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi, our RfA process doesn't seem to favor good editors, nor those who fight to protect Misplaced Pages. Instead, it favors those who go along with the group and don't make waves. Elonka was denied adminship because she took positions on contentious issues and made enemies who harbored grudges. One of them is stalking the articles about her family members right now. People, we need to understand that honorable folks can have lively disagreements, but that's not a valid reason to deny sysop rights, nor is it a reason to persecute an administrator. - Jehochman 15:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

While I share the ethos of this comment, truth be told, I feel that Elonka is herself engaged in a campaign against such a productive editor as User:PHG, unjustly accusing him of original research and fringecruft across multiple venues. --Ghirla 17:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think the first step here is to propose a rewording of policy. Perhaps a bit of the spirit of WP:DUCK should be combined with WP:AGF. —Dark•Shikari 17:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The sheer tediousness and waste of time / digital ink involved in getting obvious troublemakers banned means that we need productive editors like Guy, and to keep them a bit less tolerance of disruptive editing is needed. One improvement might be redefining WP:TROLL – by stating that "Trolling refers to deliberate and intentional attempts" we have to be a mind reader to use the designation, when actions make it obvious per WP:SPADE. Trolling is behaviour, not a state of mind. ... dave souza, talk 21:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, once again, as a user who JzG recently said ought to be banned, I need to object to any such proposal as a possible target of it, once policy no longer distinguishes between intentional troublemakers and people like me who hold strong views and stand up for them. *Dan T.* 21:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Racism At Italian conquest of British Somaliland?

I don't know much about this topic but what is going on here baffles me. Various IPs (or perhaps a single person) is making unsourced edits here, here, here, and here. Always after this is a message on the article's talk page, claiming the article is being racist. Is there POV pushing here? -WarthogDemon 17:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Those edits are vandalism, IMHO. MoritzB 17:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Note, I just went to the WHOIS of the IPs; seems like it could possibly be the same person however I'm not certain if this is direct vandalism as it is disruptive pov pushing. Perhaps this page should be semi-protected? -WarthogDemon 18:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing much to do here. I will welcome these newbies with the hope they make constructive edits in the future. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User:MatthewHoffman

MatthewHoffman (talk · contribs)

I've given him a 72 hour block to calm down. A bit of an odd one - he's only been a contributor a week, has done nothing but edit Irreducible complexity and its talk page, with huge screeds attacking every editor of that page, claiming they lack neutrality, etc. It was hostile enough, in my opinion, to justify a bit of a time out and warning, but, well, I suppose there's some hope he'll turn out to be a reasonable editor. Anyway, judge for yourself, and overrule me if you think it justified. Adam Cuerden 17:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I think an indef would be preferable here. This is quite obviously a sockpuppet, judging by his abnormally well-informed edit summaries and knowledge of 3rr technicalites. Single-purpose accounts that are solely here to push POV (particularly on just the one article) should IMO be shown the egress ASAP. Moreschi 19:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Indef blocked. Adam Cuerden 21:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. There's no need to give multiple chances when the editor is an (abuse|spam|coi)-only account. That's been written into WP:BLOCK: "Accounts used primarily for disruption are blocked indefinitely." - Jehochman 21:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, I was only being nice with him because I really wanted to block him indefinitely. I didn't want my emotions to overrule the correct treatment of a possible newbie with strong views and poor social skills. Adam Cuerden 22:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User 156.34.212.136 is following me, deleting all my discussion threads

Whenever I propose an edit on the discussion page of an article he deletes them for no real good reason at all. Can you please do something about this? This is gettign EXTREMELY aggraviting and annoying.

the user is infact removing my comments from any talk page, calling me a sock puppet. Let's assume I was a sock, my discussions were legit and not vandalism. Shutup999 21:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Shutup999 (talk · contribs) is just another sock for perma-blocked Zephead999 (talk · contribs)... who was just a re-incarnation of perma-blocked Zabrak (talk · contribs)... who was a sock for uber-troll/perma-blocked Dragong4 (talk · contribs)...etc..etc...etc. Shutup999's account will be blocked... but the user will just create another account. And the same familiat talk page trolling will continue on as it always has. Same vandalism, same trolling, same uncivility, same NPA's... but with a different name. It's a repeat modus operandi that's getting way too old and way too stale. 156.34.212.136 21:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Abigail Breslin

Will administrator please remove this edit from the history log??? It is extremely vile and should not be allowed to stand even in the history section. Abigail Breslin is an 11 year old child. If you had a child her age, would you want this in a history section? Please someone remove it. Fighting for Justice 21:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You need to post the request here - admins don't have the power to delete pages from the history. FWIW I agree this should be oversighted out — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how tho. And my mail client doesn't work on my computer. That comment deserves to be deleted ASAP. Fighting for Justice 21:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Submitted. It will be gone within minutes.- Jehochman 22:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on hiding the edit until it's possible to oversight. - Penwhale | 00:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Folks, you need to take a look at WP:Oversight. It is approved for use in three cases only:

1. Removal of nonpublic personal information such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public.
2. Removal of potentially libellous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the subject has specifically asked for the information to be expunged from the history, the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision.
3. Removal of copyright infringement on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel.

Hidden revisions remain accessible to Oversight users through the log, and can be restored by a developer if a mistake was made.

Oversight removal is not used on usual vandalism — even egregious and offensive vandalism — unless it is one of the above. Oversight is for material that should not be available even to an admin.

The case in question is obnoxious and vulgar, but it does not fall into any of these categories. Ordinary revision deletion must suffice. --jpgordon 01:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it's been oversighted anyway. Natalie 15:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Editors Conspiring to Edit War & Avoid WP:3RR

This evening I stumbled across two editors apparently conspiring on their talk pages to edit war, each agreeing to revert twice thereby avoiding WP:3RR. Relevant talk pages and . I presume this fails wiki polices of WP:3RR and WP:CANVASS? Justin talk 22:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The edit in question is, as described in that exchange, blatantly point of view. It is not generally wrong to alert another user to an edit which is questionable; it becomes unacceptable if it is an attempt to 'win' an edit war. Sam Blacketer 22:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry hadn't checked the edit, I see what you mean now that I have. Apologies if I wasted your time. Justin talk 22:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Tag team reverting

What can be do about reverting in a tag-team fashion to circumvent 3RR? Wwefan980 (talk · contribs) just promised User:Hoopsworldscout that he will help revert against me because: "we have more edit reverts combined then just Metros." What exactly can be done about such a tag-team situation? Metros 22:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I would count that as 'gaming the system' of the three revert rule, and it's certainly a disruptive approach and therefore blockable twice over. All editors should seek to avoid edit and revert-warring, not to 'win' them. Sam Blacketer 22:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, what I don't understand is that Wwefan980 had no previous connection to this article (Todd Fuller) and came in to blindly revert without any discussion on the talk page. I'm not sure of his motivation here and would like some non-involved admins to examine the situation at Todd Fuller with this alliance/tag-team reverting further. Thanks, Metros 22:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing can be done. There is no specific rule saying two people can't agree. However I will quit for now..... Wwefan980 22:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. This could fall under disruptive editing, especially if they are making the same reverts. The page could also be protected to force use of talk page to settle it.Rlevse 00:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This is gaming the system and can be considered edit-warring. - Penwhale | 01:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I would be quite happy to block you for edit warring, disruption, or being a prat. Just because there isn't a specific rule outlawing what you're doing doesn't mean it's allowed. --Carnildo 03:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have the right to agree with someone just as much as you. We can both agree on an edit if we please. Quit trying to threaten me before I contact wikipedia. Also you can't block me for doing nothing, that would be abuse of your powers. Wwefan980 11:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Stalker

I need an admin experienced in this area. I have a stalker who persists in letting me know he knows my name, workplace and mySpace address. He claims to be "gathering evidence" against me. I'm not entirely sure what crime I'm meant to have committed (if I had done anything dodgy I'd have been more careful not to link my user page from my personal webpage). Anyway, he's evading blocks through various socks. I'm inexperienced at the technical level of more complicated blocks. Could someone checkout my user/talk page history and help, please :) The JPS 22:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Best thing is to get a checkuser and contact his ISP - we can't block whole ISPs for more than 15-30 minutes (such a pity) Will 23:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just submitted a checkuser. To be honest, it is a little worrying that he's collecting personal information. I'm aware of WR's previous successes. I guess I just need faith in my employers' ability to investigate any allegations. The JPS 23:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Who is the stalker? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm always willing to make a rangeblock if necessary, let me know if I can help. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 02:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm also willing to be contacted offsite through e-mail. The link is at my user page, of course. Durova 03:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm also happy to help. E-mail is probably best -- Samir 06:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, LOTS of idiot accounts from that ISP. The person hints that he knows of you in RL; this may be true, or may not be. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

User:ConoscoTutto

I have had a couple of editors asking me about ConoscoTutto (talk · contribs), who they believe to be blocked user SFTVLGUY2 (talk · contribs). I think this very plausible, and suspect The FinalWord (talk · contribs) (also blocked) is the same user as well-- they have had near identical personal descriptions on their user pages (), edited the same articles, used similar phrases, etc. The two blocked accounts both had long willful disregard of Misplaced Pages practices despite such being explained to them repeatedly and their edits otherwise demonstrating intelligence and good reading comprehension, made false image source claims and blatant copyright violations, sometimes with absurd claims which they defend indignantly when questioned on it (wacky example: Image talk:Petula Clark Grammy.jpg). All the editors seem to have made valuable contributions to articles, although sometimes being rather difficult for other editors to deal with. The final straw which led me to block User:SFTVLGUY2 indefinitely regarded Image:CharlesNelsonReilly.JPG, which SFTVLGUY2 uploaded claiming to be his own work. The apparent actual creator and copyright holder came to Misplaced Pages and called SFTVLGUY2 out on it, with collaborating link. SFTVLGUY2 refused to discuss it and deleted discussion. I've recently been asked if the block on SFTVLGUY2 should extend to ConoscoTutto. I'd like some feedback on that question. -- Infrogmation 01:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• If ConoscoTutto = SFTVLGUY2, it's indef on sockpuppet and extension of block (if it weren't indef) on the main account. - Penwhale | 01:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• SFTVLGUY2 used to routinely delete plot synopses in musical theatre articles and try to prevent the expansion of articles (see my talk page at ] for a list), and ConoscoTutto (know it all) continues to try to prevent the expansion of articles in the same way. See for example ]. ConoscoTutto created his account on October 31, 2006, made only 5 edits (mostly to back up other arguments that he had been making as SFTVLGUY2 (see this) and to support an SFTVLGUY2 argument about an AfD regarding Petula Clark, and then he never used the account again until he resumed active editing on June 13, 2007. SFTVLGUY2 stopped using his account on June 5, 2007 (after a series of image/copyright problems) and was blocked indefinitely for copyright infringement on June 22, 2007. All three usernames above have a particular interest in Petula Clark. See http://www.mind42.com/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_13#Category:Petula_Clark_films Also, their edit summaries are similar, and their talk page arguments are the same. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 03:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I checked the logs, they all seemed to be connected by photos - one would upload a photo, the others would use it or remove warnings about it. Blocked 'em both. Adam Cuerden 22:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

User bouncing a page like a pogo stick using cut n pastes.

Special:Contributions/TRAVIS_LION This editor used multiple moves to bounce this film arond to half a dozen pages. Then an IP cut n pastes it around, in so doing, divorcing the talk page from the movie article, I can't find the talk, and now none of those pages can be sorted out easily. I'm asking an admin to step in. Per the production company's own page, the proper title is Punisher: War Zone, not The Punisher:War Zone, NOt Punisher 2, and so on. We had kept it at Punisher 2 pending citation. I moved it with citations, and since then, it's been pratically under attack by others thinking other things are better titles, despite citations, and despite citations that 'welcome back, frank' hasn't been even a working title for a month or so. Can an Admin please clean this up? ThuranX 01:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• I *think* I fixed it but I need a second set of eyes. - Penwhale | 01:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Following up with Penwhale on his talk. ThuranX 01:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Page move vandal

Ahmedsahalkp (talk · contribs) has made a series of disruptive page moves. I have warned the user, but I imagine it will take an admin to undo the mess that has been created. --Paul Erik 02:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Fixed it. - Penwhale | 02:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-Standard Formatting Edits

Mercedes1 has been warned multiple times against making edits that completely change the formatting of articles. Multiple warnings have been left and we have tried to help the editor understand what is and what is not appropriate formatting. Klein Independent School District has been a frequent victim. Normally we are able to revert the edits, but this time there has been another edit afterwards which precludes manual reverting. An admin is requested to deal with the mess.-MBK004 04:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I restored a version of Klein Independent School District that appears to be in a more Wikificated format. :) Into The Fray /C 04:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Tromaintern and articles related to James Gunn (filmmaker)

No amount of DR will work with this guy, who really hates the relatively minor filmmaker James Gunn and especially his movie Slither (2006 film). He's now taken to using sockpuppets and clever misspellings of my username to emphasize his point. I'd block him myself, but I'm involved in the dispute. I've seen very few productive contributions from this guy; almost all involve adding negative material to these articles.--Cúchullain /c 07:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It is clearly an account with the sole purpose of insulting James Gunn. The name may be a violation of WP:USERNAME as it makes it appear the user is working in a professional capacity for Troma. IrishGuy 17:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Case of abusive sockpuppetry by Mrs random

Mrs random (talk · contribs), Yeshivish (talk · contribs), Truest blue (talk · contribs), LAZY 1L (talk · contribs), Miamite (talk · contribs), AmerHisBuff (talk · contribs), and Macallan 12 (talk · contribs) are all the same, demonstrated by CheckUser. All have have at some time of another been used for double voting and/or reverting to each other. Administrator action is requested. Dmcdevit·t 08:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Community ban proposed. MER-C 09:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't fork discussions, again, please.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Mrs random has admitted in an e-mail to me that he/she is behind all of those usernames, and " really have a problem being banned because wasting too much time on WP." The only thing is that he/she has requested that the userpages be deleted, but I don't think that is the case.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sketchy

Could someone just delete and salt this page? It's been deleted and recreated ten times now. Thanks. Whispering 13:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Entire contribs of the editor recreating the page her shows it's a self-promotional SPA. As his articles have been recreated 10 times, that should exceed the need for four separate warnings within one week, and I ask for a perma-ban. See here for more on this. ThuranX 13:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Lots of COI violations from that account. Corvus cornix 20:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but of course no one's doing anything about it, clearly the editor lacks the requisite warning to time span ratio to do anything about it. I've just left him an absolutely rystal clear explanation. Should we ever see anything from him again like Sketchy, then hopefully we can just go ahead and ban him. ThuranX 20:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

User Sinhala freedom

• User: Sinhala freedom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user repeatedly removes, references from the article Kattankudi mosque massacre, he/she is of the opinion they are not reliable, I have requested the person to discuss in the article talk page and build consensus before removing the contents again, but it doesn't seem to be working. Could an admin look at this. NëŧΜǒńğer 14:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What the accuser forgets to mention is that another user is of the same opinion as me in that the sources are unreliable to say the least. The Accuser is repeatedly adding references to known partisan blog type websites from both sides of a bloody ethnic conflict. I have left one of his references behind, since although I am suspicious I will give benefit of the doubt. Also I have supported another user in adding original research tag, since none of the details can be properly referenced to reliable sources such as respected books, journals, news media such as BBC, CNN, Reuters etc. Sinhala freedom 14:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Since then, some other user has added some references to NY Times and Boston Globe. So I am satisfied there is some reliable sources now. Sinhala freedom 16:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like this content dispute has been resolved. In future, not that we have a reliable sources noticeboard for this kind of content dispute. --Haemo 19:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

More eyes needed on Liancourt Rocks

I'd be glad to have a few more admins' eyes on Liancourt Rocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a long-standing dispute between Korean and Japanese editors. (see current Arbitration case). I tried to stop the edit-warring the other day by going WP:ROUGE on them and imposing my own set of behavioural rules on the article (Zero-Tolerance policy on edit-warring). Trouble is, the first three victims of the ensuing blocking spree all were (happened to be?) from one side of the conflict, and now naturally I've got a bunch of them on my hands accusing me of bias. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Page protection? But since it's an arb case, I'd ask the arbitrator folks.Rlevse 16:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what I'm trying is to avoid protection as long as possible, because the article badly needs constructive work and there seem to be some people prepared to do it. I'm testing Dmcdevit's approach, of working with blocks instead. To some extent it seems to be working. But it takes more effort actively watching it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Page protection is not going to solve the root cause of the problem on this article - disruptions on the talk page which has been paralysing the consensus building process. The talk page has been a lot smoother since the blocks. Phonemonkey 17:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

In similar situations I have imposed mandatory 1RR for 24-hour periods upon pain of block. Something similar might work here. Moreschi 17:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's roughly like the approach I was trying, only I gave them a wording that focussed a bit more on content-oriented constructiveness rather than just number of reverts. See Talk:Liancourt Rocks#New rules of conduct. Much of the reaction has been pretty good so far. Thanks for helping to keep an eye on it, just let's keep our criteria coordinated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I've jigged around the hidden instructions at the top to reflect a more holistic approach. Your call as to details and how it should work overall, I'm only making suggestions. Cheers, Moreschi 18:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your comment about the blocks, I still disagree with your blocks against the Korea side editors. We were not making any obvious violations, nor are we disrupting the talk page with nonsense (unlike Opp2, who seems to be getting away with all his original research and claims). I still don't see how our edits were that outrageusly blatant. The blocking of us was, in my opinion, a show of force to others to enforce your rule. Certainly it was done without any personal feelings (I hope). Yet, by blocking only a specific group of editors, you have now isolated us negatively. This will certainly affect the impression of the arbitrators on the "Korea side" and it will most likely go ill with us. Thats where the problem is and that is how consequential your bold move has become. Its not fair, and I want to ask you how blatant, aggresive, ill-faithed our reverts were so that it got all of us blocked.

What angers me even more is that LactoseTI was not given any penalty for edit-warring on Kimchi. His reverts and edits were certainly done with hatred towards Korea (as I have shown in my evidence in the arb case), yet he doesn't get punished. What has orginally been a problem with NPOV and JPOV editors distorting the rule of NPOV, this has now become a race war. Its not Wikimachine or me or melonbarmonster that is aggresively changing Korea-related articles, its the JPOV editors who are turning this into a race war, and then turning it around so that it seems as if we are the ones dividing up teams. I'm certain that this has turned for the worst and as (finally!) outside editors are introduced to the problem, we will all be punished for this so-called race war.

I'm considering taking this further, because as I see it, its totally unfair. Good friend100 18:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, so far I've really only looked at Liancourt Rocks. I must beg for your understanding that it's beyond my powers to keep the same close watch over all Korean-Japanese articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not blaming you for not keeping watch on other articles. I'm just pointing out that what I wrote above is going on. Good friend100 19:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz and Faithlessthewonderboy POV in political article

Hillary Rodham Clinton has been rumored to be a lesbian but clarified the situation once and for all. She said she is not.

If we cover up this, then people will wrongly think she is a lesbian. Tvoz and wonderboy are doing just this, covering it up and smearing Clinton.

Other wikipedia articles, like Prince Albert, Mayor Ed Koch, Larry Craig mention the fact that they have been accused of being a homosexual but said they were not. Treat Clinton the same way, don't smear her.

They are tag teaming 3RR, they need a 24 hour block. Look at their other Clinton edits, they are edit warring socks.

E343ll 21:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You've got to be arsing me. We're not a high school corridor — we don't contribute to unsourced smears to notable politicians, and this is a really silly content dispute, with a dose of bad faith thrown in. --Haemo 22:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Tell me this is a joke... Do you also want to add "She is not an astronaut", "She is not a serial killer" and "She is not a cocker spaniel", in case people assume we're covering up for her otherwise? — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of state terrorism by the United States

Sorry to bother people with this article again, but a number of users have resorted to using their IP addresses for edit warring on this article. There is probably 3RR violation in reality except that, it's never the same IP address or user. The IP addresses have no previous edits outside of this article. Hoping someone can help resolve this, or the article will just end up being protected again, because of this silly attitude. Jackaranga 22:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think someone should block the IPs and see if any of the other registered users editing this article get autoblocked, and if they do, then block them too. Using your IP address or a sockpuppet for edit warring is so lame, and causes articles to become protected, making legitimate edits more difficult. Jackaranga 22:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a possible solution but if what you say is accurate, then I think semi-protecting would be more appropriate. Using block tools to hunt down people's IPs is a little iffy, in my books. --Haemo 22:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, semi-protection would be the best course for right now. User:Zscout370 22:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, well someone more used to this stuff probably knows better than me, I thought about requesting semi-protection, but I though it would put legitimate unregistered users at a disadvantage all because of abuse by registered users. That is to say the problem is not with unregistered users causing a problem, but with registered users, who know very well about 3RR, and are using a technicality, not to avoid detection, but to avoid a block. Jackaranga 22:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Reverted to the last pre-editwar version. Will 22:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Isarig

Due to edit warring and being caught using sockpuppets, User:Isarig was community banned from articles on Israel, the Middle East, media, and anything else falling under "the set of articles where he misused his editing privileges and subjected to six months of mentorship by users Avi and FayssalF. His mentors are both currently absent from the project (Avi for religious holidays and Fayssal due to a care accident), and he has resumed editing contentious Israel-related articles. When reported at WP:CSN, he denied wrongdoing and is wiki-lawyering the specific terms of his community ban despite it being made clear during his last CSN discussion that there was a unanimous exhaustion of patience by all participants, including those who agree with his editorial POV.

I recommend the following as a result of his violating his topic ban:

1) Isarig be blocked for 24 hours for violating the terms of his topic ban.

2) Isarig be additionally blocked until one of his mentors returns to activity on the project.

Please see my user page for concerns about this alternate account. CSNreport 23:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards