Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:09, 5 October 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 admins 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
• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Repeated comment removal on requested move by User:Rex Germanus

User:Rex Germanus has repeatedly (removing anonymous. A: Not allowed to vote B Dutch wikipedia is not a source, nor does it list him as Johann, but Johan) (you are an anonymous IP. You are not allowed to vote.) removed my comments on a requested moved on the article Talk:Johann van Beethoven. The third time he moved the comment to a section titled "False vote by anonymous" . He insists that Requested Moves are a vote, and that new or anonymous users are not allowed to "vote" (as far as I am aware requested moves are not a vote, I tried to tell him so, but he denies/ignores this). I am at a loss on what to do, as I honestly can longer assume good faith here and, to be honest, feel harassed and personally attacked by this behaviour. 84.145.195.64 17:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I've informed Rex of this post. Anyway, you are right. The point of talk pages is to discuss, and anon's are not excluded from this. When you consider that IPs are actually less anonymous than accounts, the whole argument is frivolous. Someguy1221 17:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

(non-admin), I have added a message to rex's talk page informing him that he is incorrect. I find it strange that such a long term editor is unaware of such a core-policy--Jac16888 17:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I never said the anonymous IP wasn't entitled to discuss. They're not entitled to vote. Which is what this anonymous IP kept doing. Rex 17:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Then why did you completely remove my comments for the first two times? Also, again, this is not a vote. 84.145.195.64 17:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

They're allowed to !vote, too. Someguy1221 17:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

They're allowed to "!vote"? What the hell does that mean?Rex 17:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A perfect opportunity to employ the new shortcut WP:!VOTE. Joe 17:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a mere reference to the fact that admins are free to ignore vote counts when deciding the outcome of a discussion. It's the arguments that are important, not their origin. Everyone (short of banned users, of course) is free to engage in discussion. Everyone is free to cast their vote, and admins are free to ignore as many unsubstantiated votes as they want. Someguy1221 17:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Someguy is, of course, correct, but even were Rex's pronouncements accurate, they would nevertheless tend gratuitously toward the uncivil and acollegial. Although I cannot imagine that this behavior, though less-than-ideal, should merit anything more than, for instance, Someguy's friendly corrective—there doesn't appear to have been any significant disruption, and it doesn't seem that a block would prevent any future disruption—I suppose it should be noted that the community have, in the past, looked with disfavor on Rex's occasional incivility and that, in view of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz, the community have, from time to time, undertaken to block Rex for that incivility. I don't expect that anyone should think a block to be in order here (even in view of what some might perceive as a pattern of disruptive incivility), and I surely don't suggest that any broader community discussion should follow, but I raise the issue only in order that those who have in the past suggested that the community consider further action (e.g., a ban, which I would of course oppose) might note anything else that might be relevant. Joe 17:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

And still you keep taunting and insulting me, Rex "Ow, I'm shaking. A Vote, wether concerning a pagemove-poll or arbcom elections is a vote. IPs cant make them. Well... they can obviously, they're not valid.Rex 17:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)" 84.145.195.64 17:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I have warned Rex. If he persists with removal of comments from talk pages, he will be blocked again. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Rex, anons can vote. But the closing admins often discard their votes - the more reason not to get stressed over that.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That might be why I'm confused right now. Nevertheless this whole - tiring- ordeal has inspired me to take some action against this.Rex 18:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Why the heck are we relegating anons to second-class status anyway? Why not just let anons attempt to make suggestions and arguments like everyone else? — Rickyrab | Talk 01:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The real problem is that we as a community seem unable to make up our minds as to whether these things are votes or not. —Random832 12:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

1RR violations

The two reversion of the IP's comments are also in violation of his 1R parole again. Is he limited to one revert per page per week or one revert per page per day? At least here are the other examples I could find of two reverts per page per day within the last seven days. Edit, revert 1, revert 2; edit, revert 1, revert 2; edit, revert 1, revert 2. Sciurinæ 17:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I am entitled to 1 revert per article per week. Which I monitor closely.Rex 18:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, after having checked your 'more than 1 reverts', I advise you to take a closer look. Edits only qualify as reverts when they're (near) identical. Clearly, not the case. Since when is adding a dozen references a revert? Rex 18:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm..... you are cutting it pretty close. One can argue that you are breaching your 1RR parole with these edits, so I would advise you to thread carefully. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

tread carefully. Gtrevize 19:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Two reverts within 24h also means overstepping 1 revert per article per week. Also, there are clearly two reverts (in whole) in case one, while in case two and three you did not only revert but change other parts as well, meaning it is still a revert, or the whole revert parole would make little sense. Here's the link to the parole and another shortcoming becomes obvious: you were to explain your content reversions on the talk page. Sciurinæ 18:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Rex Germanus moves name of Picasso painting to make his point about Potsdamer Platz

Rex Germanus is so eager to delete anything German sounding from Misplaced Pages that he did not hesitate to move the Picasso painting Dora Maar au Chat to Dora Maar with cat to Dora Maar with Cat in order to prove his WP:POINT at Talk:Potsdamer Platz, his desired move to Potsdam Square. -- Matthead      O       21:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The first one is a French title by a Spanish painter. What does it have to do with German? --Golbez 21:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

sigh, it is Rex' obsession that no titles on en-wiki should contain German elements like Platz. He now apparently started extending his campaign to French just so people cannot say "but, there are also French titles, why not German". This is a textbook case of drawn-out WP:POINT. dab (𒁳) 22:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This is unacceptable. Not only he breached the spirit of his parole, he is also disrupting WP with unnecessary moves. One more incident and the user will be blocked for one month (last block was of one month, reduced to 12 days after discussion in this board. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Like I said many times before ... I do not specifically target German. German contributors are just 1000 times more likely to use German titles because they either think English hasn't got the proper word, or because they don't know the words. Also, I only speak English, Dutch, German, and a bit of French so the range I'm able to translate or know whats being meant is limited. The cat painting, was not WP:POINT the IP presented it to me, I found numerous references to the English name and c'est ca. Rex 07:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I stumbled over the move without seeing the discussion here. I have blocked Rex for 24 days, doubling his previous 12-day block, since I believe in the educative virtues of the exponential of base 2. If this goes against the plans of the admins here, do feel free to adapt it to your liking.

I'd like to stress that the block is not only for the blatant WP:POINT, but also to honour the whole career of this contributor. The number of calls for a more civil language, more civil behaviour, more constructive actions, etc on his talk page speaks for itself. I believe that people should be here to serve Misplaced Pages rather than utilise it; from my observations, this user either wants to use WP for a personal crusade, or is so deeply deluded that he mistakes his chronically disturbing edits for constructive behaviour. In both cases, I find his contributions to be more of an annoyance than an asset. The signal/noise ratio is just too small.

Of course, should my block be based on incomplete observations, or should this block happen in an inconvenient timing for a rehabilitation attempt, do feel free to adapt it. Rama 09:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I support this block. This user comes over as a right time-waster. --Folantin 10:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Having been involved in this discussion, i support this block too, especially after seeing this racist comment about the entire German nationality , aimed directly at another user, although Matthead did not help the situation by being uncivil, and by starting an AFD on one of Rex's articles in the middle of an incident.--Jac16888 11:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm the response you quote was a reaction on Matthead (the guy who listed this thread) calling Rex explicitly a racist. I do not seeing Rex comment - "Germans are not a race" being a racist remark; but more as a response on being called a racist. I think Matthead is out there to get Rex, and he seems to be clever in trolling Rex into uncivil behaviour (the deletion suggestion of a harmless article (Lodewijk van Beethoven) and the aggressive response on who-ever dared to comment for keep seems to be merely anact to "get even with Rex, and get him banned". Indeed after calling Rex a racist he came running here to get Rex blocked on losing civility. To be honest, if I look what happened here I agree Rex went too far; but he was provoked by Matthead, who did not even was reprimanded. I would suggest the blocking admin(s) to investigate User:Mattheads behaviour in this case, and block him too; for the same length as Rex. Arnoutf 12:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, the "Perhaps him passing through his Dutch musical genes despite continous adding of German peasant blood is enough of a performance to be mentioned." comment Rex made earlier is also highly inappropriate. That said, it takes two to tango, and both Rex and Matthead showed little reluctance to join the dance; though Rex really seemed to go the extra mile here. 84.145.229.133 12:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Although perhaps the first part of the comment is understandable, but the second part "2 I would be very much offended to be compared to such low lifes" in regard to germans, is undeniably racist. However, i do agree that Matthead should be investigated too, since he seems to have only being trying to inflame the situation.--Jac16888 13:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments #1 and #2 both refer to allegedly being called a racist. Comment #2 means that Rex considers racists "low lifes". No racism there IMO. Avb 00:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Rex's block history I sadly can only support the block. Despite numerous blocks for 3RR, WP:POINT, incivility and even an ArbCom case he regularly falls back into his old rut; Rex has made a good deal of good contributions, but he seems to be unable to let go of some old, bad habits, and I'm at a loss how we could get the message across to him in any other way, as all other means of normal discussions and even ArbCom invocation failed to do that. 84.145.229.133 12:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why he hasn't been banned for good. His admitted anti 'german(ophone)'s and his 'nationalism scale' are both clear indicators that he operates from a POV mindset. A look at his block log shows he's not going to change his ridiculous agenda-driven behaviors. His Dutch genetics are better comment above indicates that he doesn't act against German titles out of genuine concern for the project, but because he's a flat out bigot. Throw him out, lock the door behind him. Why do we keep coddling trolls and jerks? This whole problem of '4 warnings in propmt time' 'steadily escalating blocks and if one's missed we must start over' and all this stuff, it's bullshit. Throw out persistent, unchanging, unchangable trolls, vandals, and POV warriors when it's clear they won't change. a dozen blocks in increasing time lengths and he keeps being a bigoted troll warrior. Throw him off. ThuranX 13:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Warnings are important because sometimes Misplaced Pages's banhammer is misfired and the whole idea is to get users to turn away from the bad behavior. That being said, editors like this one SHOULD be handed a ban, as he did NOT turn away from bad behavior or cooled down even though he was warned. But how would we have known that had we not warned before blocking? — Rickyrab | Talk 01:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ThuranX. Whenever I've seen this editor at work it's almost always been in the middle of a tremendous ruckus, usually over some hair-splitting point. He's clearly got a bee in his bonnet against the Germans and he's here to push his POV. Time to show him the door. --Folantin 14:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User is now demanding an unblock, based on the fact that an uninvolved admin did the blocking. No doubt, if an involved admin had blocked, he'd be complaining then too. ThuranX 14:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Rex history is far from clean, and he tends to be anti German. When he is not involved in German articles his contributions are usually useful and relevant. Also note thatr Mattheads record is far from clean; and I think him listing Rex here (after first calling him racist) is an attempt to eliminate an opponent of his point of view through a nasty way.

In this light I think an indefinite block of Rex would be too strong, but I would not object a topic ban for Rex on Germany / German naming related topics. Arnoutf 16:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've declined the unblock request. Will someone please tell me again why we allow this editor to go anywhere near anything German-related? Moreschi 16:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi, that's easy. some editors and admins insist that no matter how obvious or egregious the editor's actions are, a full set of warnings must be issued in a timely fashion, according to the bureaucracy, and any interruption in their issuance requires that those seeking to 'unduly persecute' the editor must start again at step one. Matthead and Rex ought obth to suffer long blocks, if not permanent bans, but this won't happen, because we're 'better than they are', and must show it daily by enduring their crap, ensurign that if four timely, escalating warnings aren't issued in the requisite 24 hour period, then we must start over at step one. This means any editor can simply insist that they get warned up to and including step three, leave for 24 hours, then begin again. infinitely. They get those of us seeking to improve the project wrapped up in bureaucracy while they push bigoted agendas. ThuranX 16:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Rex was warned for this behaviour before this incident. There's not many warnings that are more clear than an RfAr. Also, there were enough warnings on his talk page as well about the current incident, even though Rex may have missed them because they weren't accompanied by a correctly coloured box and a pretty icon. I don't think the argument that he wasn't warned has any value here. Eugène van der Pijll 17:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless I think Matthead should be heavily punished as well. His behaviour in Lodewijk van Beethoven nomination is abject for much the reasons outlined by several editors in that discussion. The message of this cannot be that you can troll someone into a long block and get away free yourself. Arnoutf 17:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I thorroughly agree. ThuranX 17:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, blocks/bans are intended to prevent/end disruption, not to punish editors. Avb 00:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you know, I might be aware of that, and all the warnings and prior discussions about Rex and his behaviors serve as good grounds for stopping Rex from his continuing pattern of behaviors. ThuranX 01:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Topic-ban

I've proposed a topic-ban at Misplaced Pages:Community sanction noticeboard. Moreschi 19:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the topic is the issue. If Rex Germanus can't revert war on German subjects, he'll just do it on Dutch ones. The fact that he's already been through at least one arbitration case, is on 1RR, and is still being disruptive, as well as the lengthy block log, suggests he is unwilling to abide by our policies. I propose blocking him indefinitely, and unblocking him if and only if he promises to respect Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view and refrain from disruptive activity. Maybe move your topic ban proposal here so as not to split the discussion. Picaroon (t) 19:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The more discussion we have here, the better.--Ea453 07:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Community-ban proposed

As Rex Germanus has continued to show incivility and unwillingness to understand that this behavior is not acceptable on Misplaced Pages I proposed a Community ban on Misplaced Pages:Community sanction noticeboard 84.145.241.203 14:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Potential problem conerning episode articles

I am not certain if this is our expected behaviour or not however I am bringing this to admin attention anyways:

User seems to be mass merge tagging articles and later redirectifying them. That seems to be the case for the past 5000 edits at least. Is this acceptable behaviour? Are episode articles banned?

-- Cat 21:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Individual episode articles aren't banned, but they still have to meet WP:NOTE just like every other article. That is, they don't get a free pass on notability just because their parent show is, if you get my drift. There are currently vast numbers of individual episode articles which could never meet WP:NOTE and thus should be merged into their parent "season" article instead of on their own.
WP:EPISODE lays out the procedure pretty well. Bullzeye 21:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

They are not merged. They are blanked/redirectified. WP:EPISODE doesn't require mass merging. And I see no centralized discussion for such a thing anywhere. -- Cat 21:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it kind of does...there's a logical progression here that has to be met. Series, then season, then individual episode. Each one must meet WP:NOTE. A lot of people assume that since multiple independent sources can be found for the series and the season, that means every individual episode deserves it's own page. This is, obviously, not the case. Merging (mass or otherwise) is the appropriate policy-approved way of dealing with a non-notable episode from a notable season (or notable series). Bullzeye 22:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I see no "policy"-approved procedure for this. Guidelines are there to help us write better articles. They are not licenses for deletion without discussion. -- Cat 01:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm using merge tags, and waiting for discussion, so yes, it's fine. This has been up here many, many times for when I was being WP:BOLD in redirecting, so it has come down to that. To answer your question, by WP:EPISODE, most episodes have no chance of ever needing to exist. We have somewhere over five thousand episode articles (possibly way more) that need to be taken care of, so that is what I am doing. TTN 21:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Your idea of taking care of is removal of over "five thousand" articles without undergoing any deletion procedure. Such AFDs will most likely fail if my experience is any indication. -- Cat 21:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could try something constructive like coming up with a reason that these articles are notable? Otherwise, TNN is just engaging in cleanup. Shell 00:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I am uncertain what to say here. What is the metric for notability for episode articles? If all episode articles are to be deleted, I want to see a general discussion for it. Or else someone, if not me, will mass revert the mass merging. -- Cat 01:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Under WP:BOLD, he can redirect as he pleases. If people push back, he needs to discuss. There is no special notability for episodes- just the standard form. He should, if people revert, discuss individual groups of articles on the List of Episode page. — i  01:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

i disagree. TTN is editing way too fast on tagging and redirecting the episode articles. Being bold is one thing but redirecting an episode without checking if it has sustained its notability is another... TTN, please stop and gain consensus before redirecting any more articles. --D_arkF_alls 01:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no way I or anyone can discuss at the rate of his tagging. I would think any show with the cultural impact as 24 to be notable. I do not know what reason is needed to establish notability... Why is Shakespeare's Hamlet notable? Why is any book or movie notable? The idea that a show itself is notable yet none of its episodes are worth a mention simply baffles me. If something is not notable, why is not AFD used? -- Cat 01:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, the pages are not being merged. "Merge" implies that all or at least some of the content is being moved into the target article; this is not the case, they are just being redirected. For such a large list of articles, there should be some sort of centralized discussion, possibly one discussion per series as to: should they all be merged (some episodes may have notability for specific reasons that others in the same series do not), what content should be merged, etc. I think this is taking WP:BOLD a little too far and bordering on WP:POINT. Mr.Z-man 01:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that this behavior is quite disruptive. Particularly disturbing is the fact that AWB is being used to make controversial edits. IronGargoyle 01:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Notability. There has been centralised discussion about the notability of episodes: WP:EPISODE arose out of one such discussion a couple of years ago, and has recently been rediscussed (see WT:EPISODE). The guidelines for establishing notability of fiction articles is undergoing discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (fiction), and the actual necessity for separate guidelines for fiction is being discussed at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability. As to centralised discussion about the appropriate action to undertake regarding articles which fail the above notability guidelines, then this can be found at the talk pages of WP:TVE and WP:TV-REVIEW, Misplaced Pages talk:Television article review process. If anyone has a concern about any issues about episode articles, regarding notability through to the processes surrounding such articles, then it's probably worth checking out any of those pages and contributing to constructive debate there. Gwinva 01:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:EPISODE does not say that this is what to do. It says how to determine if episodes should get articles. This is just mass redirection of episode articles with little or no review. WP:EPISODE does not say whether or not each of the episode articles redirected was notable or not, nor does it say that episodes should not get articles. Mr.Z-man 01:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Having just randomly reviewed ten of the most recent thousand edits made by TTN (talk · contribs), all the episode articles I saw generally had zero references and no real world context. Likewise they were chock full of things that WP:EPISODE says to avoid, including trivia sections, quotations, in-universe writing, and extremely detailed plot summary sections. Again, this was only a 1% spot-check, but I did not see any issues with TTN`s clean up work. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see why redirecting articles without checking the notability is considered "clean-up work". WP:EPISODE is a guideline on creating new articles, it is by no means a guideline set for deleting articles. WP:NN clearly states that discussion must be present, and that suitable consensus must emerge for the redirection of articles. --D_arkF_alls 02:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed something, so please bear with me. Lets take Indian Summer (Dawson's Creek episode), one of the articles in question that I reviewed during my spot-check of TTN`s clean-up work. On August 25th, TTN added a {{mergeto}} tag on the article that included a discussion link to Talk:List of Dawson's Creek episodes#Episode notability. After 34 days, consensus was determined and two days later (36 days after the article was tagged) the episode was merged into the episode list. Reviewing the final, pre-merger version of the article shows it to be a textbook example of what WP:EPISODE says to avoid: quotes, featured music, zero citations, no real world context, and a decorative fair-use image. Looks like a pretty clear cut case of cleanup to me. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

He also redirected all the episodes in List of 30 Rock episodes, and multiple reviews can be found for every episode. This was discussed and ignored on the talk page. Lots of shows episodes, especially older ones don't have second party information, but some do, and it doesn't seem to effect his redirecting them. - Peregrine Fisher 04:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Some of these articles were really bad before he redirected them. That said, regarding the discussion linked to above he closed the debate himself and claimed consensus despite two people disagreeing with him and only Ned Scott agreeing with him. That's not consensus to merge/redirect. As for articles containing trivia the correct approach is to merge that into the rest of the article and then delete the trivia section, not simply to merge/redirect. EconomicsGuy 04:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Reviews for episodes does not mean you will have real-world information to place in said articles. As for the reviews themselves, they were somewhat questionable, being from http://tvsquad.com and http://buddytv.com . A consensus does not just include the discussion on the immediate talk page, but also what the community at large had decided about excessive plot summary (WP:PLOT). -- Ned Scott 07:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

True but then what is the purpose of starting a debate if the outcome is predetermined per consensus on WP:PLOT? I'm neither jumping on his back nor am I disputing that most of these articles were bad. What I'm disputing is the way he did this. If he was going to be truly bold he could have redirected without wasting other editor's time with futile debates the outcome of which he was just going to ignore anyway. What is the purpose of tagging so many articles using AWB when the debates were futile and the obvious outcome was to redirect rather than merge? EconomicsGuy 07:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

When you have a group of artilces, of which say 10%, 20% or 50% can have their noteability established, do we have any guidelines on how they should be dealt with. Is summary redirection based on BOLDness the correct way to deal with this? - Peregrine Fisher 03:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

And before more people jump on TTN's back, I'd like to point out that he has yielded to past requests, taking more time with these issues, giving fair notice, and starting discussion about these redirections before they happen. -- Ned Scott 07:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Has anyone asked the relevant TV-related wikiprojects what their opinion is on this issue? >Radiant< 11:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • That would be Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage, a Task Force in WikiProject Television. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ignore me if someone else has said this, but TTN is not deleting anything, since the episode articles remain in the revision history. I don't believe s/he's an administrator, so s/he isn't actually capable of deleting anything. Merging is a completely acceptable action for anyone to perform on any article they feel it's appropriate, and is in fact suggested as an alternative for deletion (here and here). There is nothing about TV episode articles that makes this any different, and there is no special guideline regarding editing episode articles. WP:EPISODE is only concerned with notability, so beyond that they are subject to all the normal editing rules, including the deletion policy. So this discussion (which should take place somewhere else, since it requires no admin intervention) should take into account the fact that there is no reason episode articles are special or otherwise exempt from the normal rules and practices. Natalie 13:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit point

Let me reword my original argument since there seems to be a confusion. When an article is low on quality, you improve them. I do not mind several article improvement drives on episode articles. We do not have a deadline so in the course of several years this can lead to multiple good articles. If an article does not immediately have adequate sources, the recommended action as per community approved procedure is written here. In this case that was not attempted. In fact the last three steps were avoided all together. Process is important. There are many low quality articles on wikipedia. Each suffering from valorous problems. Unless an article suffers from an urgent problem such as WP:BLP it is almost never blanked. Blanking is a last resort not the first.

Usage of {{merge}} is entirely improper as nothing is ever merged as a result. I also observe that all these mass merging is preformed by a specific group of editors that impose their consensus to the "local" people working on the articles. An imposed consensus is no consensus by very nature. Some of these users have no other contribution.

The WP:EPISODE guideline was drafted to help guide editors to better write articles and was a decent resource if used for this purpose (I am not madly in love with it mind you). While the guideline was never community approved (no community wide discussion), I think it was adequately worded on the 16 April 2007 version. Between then and 26 September 2007 article underwent a major rewrite, based on what I do not know. It was originally a MOS guideline (and should have stayed that way) and now is been turned into a notability guideline . I am uncertain if there was an extensive discussion by the community as a whole for this abrupt and extensive change. I see no evidence of it. Guidelines and policies are not written by an elite group of people but are derived out of a consensus from the entire Misplaced Pages community as a whole.

-- Cat 18:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

When an article is low on quality, you improve it. When there are hundreds or thousands of articles on very similar subjects (like TV episodes), all with the same problems, all for a long time, you merge them. Nothing is lost, and we get a lot closer to following our content policies (WP:NOT, WP:V) and guidelines. I have redirected episode articles the day they were created, without discussion, as people felt the need to create articles for episodes that wouldn't be aired for two months.... The problem here is not that these stub articles should get more time, but that less of these should be created in the first place. When someone is willing and able to make a better article, with out-of-universe content and reliable independent sources, then the merge can be very easily undone. Until then, these articles are only bad examples for new editors. Fram 19:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

From where are you getting the idea that merging is never appropriate? I note that the very page you linked suggests "if appropriate sources cannot be found, if possible, merge the article into a broader article providing context." The notability policy, which has been derived out of consensus by the community as a whole, is the policy by which these articles are being merged. I would also like to underscore Fram's point by noting that the sky is not falling and all of these articles can be retrieved by anyone, since they are not being deleted. Natalie 20:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

See, I think what we have here is a breakdown of communication all around. In my mind, at least, the problem isn't necessarily that these articles shouldn't be merged; it's that what TTN is doing is not merging them. Merging implies that information from the article being eliminated is incorporated into the article it's being merged into. TTN's standard practice seems to be to simply redirect articles en masse without any effort to incorporate the information into the article he redirects to. I've noted a similar modus operandi by other people who have been redirecting many articles while citing WP:FICTION as a reason, and think that there may be a need to clarify this point, since we end up with people angrily editing and creating lots of AN/I and AIV reports as a result. Rdfox 76 21:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that's the point exactly: it's only a merge when you actually retain some of the content in the article. Many of TTN's edits have not even vaguely been in line with that statement, and even then regardless of the merits of the actions themselves his (her?) handling of the situation has been "counter-harmonious" to say the least. I understand exactly where White Cat is coming from on this. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 11:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

And when there's nothing worth merging, we redirect. So? Fram 15:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

TTN has merged over 5000 articles such that none of the content from the individual article was retained in the merged article. Statistically and logically it is impossible that none of those articles had content worth retaining. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 11:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

A large number of these articles contained identical or near identical summaries from the List of episodes article. Also, summary is easy to generate, and we have no shortage of editors willing to do it. -- Ned Scott 07:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

So what's your argument here? It's okay to completely blank an article because eventually someone else will perform the rest of the merge for you? That's wildly irresponsible, and a crap argument to boot. If TTN is so hard-pressed to merge that many articles then he needs to put in the time to do it properly. Right now he's just wiping out whole swaths of information and dragging the overall quality of Misplaced Pages down, regardless of how "easy" it is to find the original article content in the edit history. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 01:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I notice TTN has been noticeably absent from this discussion, yet he continues to redirect articles. I've asked him to comment here. Mr.Z-man 23:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

User:TTN has said on his talk page that he will not comment here. Mr.Z-man 00:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There's not much more to say, he's not doing anything wrong. -- Ned Scott 07:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Mass removing article content is a problem. Some of these allegedly merged articles contained enough information that disqualifies them from being stubs. So they are "full articles" and not stubs. Altering a guideline and converting it from a "MOS guideline" to a "notability guideline" without adequate discussion is a problem. TTN isn't even willing to discuss the matter which is also a problem. There most certainly is a problem. -- Cat 11:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

TTN is even revert waring over his "bold" action despite the lack of consensus. In this case a discussion was overwhelmingly against a merge or let alone a redirectification. was redirectified anyways despite having enough content to disqualify even as stubs. Granted these articles are not featured they aren't stubs either. -- Cat 11:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

His priorities--his choice of which articles to modify first--seem very shady for someone not doing anything wrong. In trying to determine what the actual, practiced standard for episode notability is, I looked over the television shows which have featured articles (as I take it those are supposed to set the example for other articles in the category). While I did not look at all of the shows, I looked at enough to realize that virtually every featured article for a television show on wikipedia has a full complement of individual episode articles that contradict TTN's interpretation of the guidelines for notability, but from skimming his extensive edit history, he doesn't seem to have even attempted to apply his modifications to shows with featured articles--other than his very recent (10/4/07) attempts to apply those modifications to The Wire, with its famously small audience--although he has applied many thousands of them to articles with lower traffic.

Although I can see how his interpretation may be valid, it contradicts the example set by most or all featured articles in this category, and I am inclined to respect their combined example over his individual objections. If his interpretation is widely acceptable by wiki standards, then it would be more honest for him to apply it to the featured articles first, and have it demonstrated as part of the standard for featured television articles. While I understand his stated objection that he can only modify so many articles at once, it looks like bad faith editing when he attempts to change the de facto standards for the entire category of wikipedia television episodes by altering all of the articles with low readership first, and intentionally flying under the radar of the featured articles with high traffic.

He has also stated explicity that he will sneak in "silly messages" on low-traffic talk pages to prove a point, something wikipedia seems to expressly discourage. Apparently it's an official wiki policy that the number of people interested in a subject does not in and of itself constitute noteworthiness, contrary to TTN's own guidelines for modifying or deleting these articles. The more I look at his history, the closer it seems to systemic vandalism and selective modification of articles where he believes he can get away with it (as shown by his "testing the waters" with silly messages to see if anyone will revert them), rather than trying to apply criteria uniformly across the entire category of articles. Wiki describes bad faith editing as "deliberate disruption just to prove a point, playing games with policies, and vandalism", and TTN's modifications seem to be edging very close to this precise description, although I have the impression that he believes these practices are constructive when he's doing them. --24.90.146.245 11:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed there certainly is a problem. -- Cat 11:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

TTN has stated on his own talkpage in a discussion regarding WP:FICT that he doesn't see much chance of being able to pull off his redirection-without-merging and "discussion is unnecessary, consensus is unnecessary" tricks on high-traffic topics. He specifically says that he plans to mostly stick with "picking off smaller ones," because he feels that "once the weaklings are fully gone, it'll probably get easier to deal with the larger ones." The way I read it, it appears to me that he's trying to establish a precedent of eliminating episode and character articles by working "under the radar" on lower-traffic topics before attempting to do anything to the ones that would attract a lot of attention. Looking through his talkpage archives, I also see dozens of comments and complaints per month about his method of indiscriminately mass-redirecting episode and character articles to lists without any discussion or even an explanation in the edit summary, including ones from before WP:FICT went into effect. I don't know how often he's gotten warning templates put up as a result, because he has a habit of deleting them, and digging through the history to find them is enough of an annoyance that I didn't try it today. Rdfox 76 15:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm missing something... how exactly does TTN have special authority to decide how the standards will be applied, and enforce his decision over any and all objections? I understand that he thinks his application of the notability guidelines is valid, but it is obviously not accepted practice. He demonstrates his awareness of this by avoiding the most popular shows, for instance generously decreeing that all the Simpsons articles can stay, because "they have proven themselves with a few featured articles and around thirty good articles". I don't know how the notability of several articles in a category gives automatic notability to the others, but if anyone can see the hidden sense in that, I'd like to hear it. It sounds more like an excuse to avoid articles where he knows he won't be able to unilaterally enforce his own vision of what wiki should be. If he doesn't need consensus to enforce whatever interpretation he pleases, then does anyone else need consensus to revert his changes wholesale (much as he applies them wholesale to begin with)? And at what point can it be blocked as vandalism, since apparently he is engaging in revert wars in the process? --F.dolarhyde 15:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

After having looked further into the issue, there are several things I want to underline. I can see how TTN feels his interpretation is backed up by the guidelines, but it would be much less offensive, less destructive (fewer people would spend days and weeks typing up information that will only be discarded), and less devious, if: 1) TTN weren't taking it on as his sole responsibility and mission to bulldoze through thousands of lower-traffic articles, but was backed up by other notable contributors sharing this duty; and especially 2) it were applied to the highest profile articles FIRST, not after he's wiped out the pages for hundreds of less-popular series.

If I'm a new user, unfamiliar with TTN, and I want to create a set of articles for a new series; I'm going to read the guidelines, and then look at the featured, high-profile shows to see an example and confirmation of how to construct accepted articles for a television series. If I see that they avoid creating articles for most individual episodes, I'll think twice before doing that for a new show. But what I actually see now, is that they nearly ALL have articles for each individual episode, and that nobody is putting "merge for lack of notability" warnings on most of them. As a new user I'm not likely to go look up one of the several hundred obscure anime series that TTN has seen fit to reshape to his idea of the notability standards; I'll look at the highest-profile series for examples. I may then spend weeks typing up information for individual episodes, thinking that it's in line with the approved, featured, high-traffic show articles, and then have him come along with his back-door bulldozer and wipe most of it out.

This practice creates an unwelcoming (if not outright hostile) environment for new contributors, and without good cause. His talk page shows many dozens, possibly even hundreds, of users he's discouraged by his way of going about this--several who have entirely abandoned wikipedia as a consequence. If he's as sure of his version of the notability guidelines as he claims to be, and does not intend to harm the site in the process, then the high profile articles--which serve as role models for new articles--need to be retrofit first, before the countless deletions he's applying to lesser-known articles.

This would serve both as a good test of whether his reading of the guidelines is a sustainable practice, and serve to spare new contributors: from working hard at finding, creating and contributing content in good faith that will mostly be swept away by his interpretation of the guidelines. The only argument in favor of his doing the low-traffic shows first is that it's easier for him to get away with unpopular changes, even at the cost of substantially damaging the "good faith" of this subset of the wiki userbase. Rather than show any compromise or respect for the community that has created all of these pages, his talk pages show something close to an eagerness to spite most of those creators en masse. It may be a rewarding power trip for him to single-handedly reshape the face of WikiProject Television from underneath; it would be much less destructive for the contributors (and would generate much less destructive ill-will and mistrust in the community) if he joined with notable contributors who share his views on fiction guidelines, and together they approached these changes head-on, starting with the highest traffic articles, where everyone can be aware of the changes from the top down. --F.dolarhyde 17:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

WP:NOT#PLOT is an official policy. WP:EPISODE is a derived guideline backed up by consensus. User:TTN enforces both. If he took all episdes that do not assert notability to AfD, fans would scream bloody murder for not following WP:FICT ("Non-notable information should be deleted only when other options have been exhausted"), and those AfDs usually end in no consensus or keep anyway because there are enough fans to outvote the PLOT policy. Tagging all nn episodes results in complaints about his behaviour at ANI. Going for the "small" shows first to evade major fan outcries results in accusing him of POINTy and biased behavior. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, I'd say. Fans who really care about their TV shows should spend their time in establishing notability and create real world content, maybe write a good episode article, but not create excessive plot summaries. The redirects allow fan-editors to recreate articles with their notability asserted in the case they can. If I had more time and weren't that thin-skinned, I'd support the enforcement of WP:EPISODE much more than I already do. – sgeureka 14:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Timeshift9 trying to "out" User:Prester John

User:Timeshift9 is repeatedly trying to reveal or "out" what he believes is the real world identity of User:Prester John. The latest example is here.

This transgression and his repeated personal attacks such as this and this should earn him a long wikipedia vacation. Prester John 00:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Politely but very firmly warned. For the sake of symmetry I'll keep an occasional eye on your own behavior as well, which a quick check suggests has been somewhat less than exemplary. Raymond Arritt 01:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

PJ has had a long history of firm trolling, and going by his userpage userboxes is totally here to troll. He advocates one position, then totally contradicts with another. I will not make the observations I made above again, but in the same token I make no apologies for having done so. Timeshift 01:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

How is this above comment acceptable? on the ANI no less! This user really needs to be blocked, his incivility is quite astounding. Prester John 02:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's acceptable to me. Your own trolling behaviors have been the subject of previous AN/I threads. I see above a lack of particular repentance, but acknowledgement that futher behaviors will result in big trouble, and an agreement to stop. ThuranX 02:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Further, After commenting here and a few other edits, I went to Recent Changes to watch for vandals, and I found this: ], wherein Prester John is engaged in that same sort of problematic editing referenced about. ThuranX 03:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that, Thuranx. Can another editor politely remind this aggressive fellow Prester John that my talkpage is my talkpage (not his), that he has no right to persistently revert his trollish comments on my talkpage, that he can engage in content debates on the article talkpage, and if he wants people to be respectful to him as an editor that he needs to start behaving respectfully (for example, see this shocking pre-emptive strike against me personally). --Brendan Lloyd 06:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, just look at that history. Prester John is well into harassment territory on your page, and I've given him a serious warning. Bishonen | talk 09:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC).

And now, he's removing legitimate warnings from his talk page... Nwwaew2 (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 11:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwwaew2 (talk • contribs)

Some of the userboxes on his user page are downright problematic, too. Orderinchaos 16:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

More on Prester John

Prester John has a history of being an uncivil edit-warrior. Please see his block log, in which he was recently blocked. Also, "Leftist scum". I have tried several times to add that link to User:Prester_John/slideshow, but he has reverted me. Is that slideshow page appropriate, as its only purpose is to insult other users?--71.141.106.98 17:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Continued Incivility...I find it unusual that someone like 'Prester John' would complain about others' incivility, when he is continually uncivil and has himself previously been blocked for incivility and personal attacks. Prester is famous for leaving snide remarks on article talk pages. However, in recent days I was appalled to see Prester John using the Talk:David_Hicks#Satanic_symbols page to taunt another editor (User:Brendan.lloyd). The practice of taunting is listed as one of the more serious incivility issues, and in this case it has disrupted other editors' ability to use the talk page for legitimate purposes.

'Prester John' filed this ANI report at 00:49 1-October. Prester was warned on this page (that his behaviour is being watched), by admin Raymond Arritt at 01:22. Yet only an hour and a half after that warning, at 02:50, Prester John was clearly harassing User:Brendan.lloyd on Brendan.lloyd's talk page , which continued for some time afterwards.

I'd like the admins to consider the seriousness of taunting and harassment by User:Prester John (both on private and article talk pages), to consider the fact it has continued after an admin warning on behaviour, and also view it in light of the previous history of Prester John, Here and Here. --Lester2 23:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

His badgering of User:Brendan.lloyd was plainly over the top and I sincerely regret not having seen that. Checking in occasionally, I had only seen where he went around changing "Makkah" to "Mecca" and the like (which is entirely correct per MoS). I'm not going to block since the incident was a couple of days ago and blocking should be preventive rather than punitive. Since I can't watch this guy all day long, and he's given to serious incivility and badgering, would any other admins care to keep an eye out? Raymond Arritt 01:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone here consider this to be a violation of WP:CIVIL? Does categorizing another user's good faith edits as a "drive by" constitute civil discussion? I have never met this user before, so I don't know what provoked such a thing. Can someone explain?--Mostargue 01:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this guy has quite a history.--Mostargue 01:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Not being polite is not quite the same as being uncivil. Also being polite or being uncivil does not mean that he's wrong. ---- WebHamster 01:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what that has to do with anything. The actual discussion that I had with him is irrelevant, I only wanted a third opinion on his tone. Also, WP:CIVIL states "Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another.". I am wondering whether or not calling another user's good faith edits a "drive by" is considered civil. Because according to my interpretation of the term, it refers to a situation in which a person drives a car and shoots at people. That doesn't sound like a very nice analogy.--Mostargue 01:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I believe that using the term "drive-by edit" is not something that is inherently uncivil. It's actually quite a common expression and effectively describes a certain situation quite succinctly. From what I've seen from the discussion and what led up to it, I'd say his usage was contextually accurate. In this instance I don't believe his past (or future) behaviour has any relevance. He didn't call you names, he wasn't foul-mouthed. The worse that could be said was he was a little curt with you but WP:CIVIL doesn't say you have to be sickeningly sweet with everyone you talk to. ---- WebHamster 02:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's not any one thing but all things taken in consideration. I hadn't seen much of his behaviour until recently, but his editing at John Howard and David Hicks (a reasonable representation since wannabekate says they're his two most edited) as well as a recent discussion at Talk:Family First Party, and together with the userboxes on his talk page and his edits to Islam-related topics, suggests someone who is not likely any time soon to be able to edit within Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines on a consistent or meaningful basis. He frequently calls for people to be banned, desysopped (eg this) etc merely for disagreeing with him - yet stridently defends those on his side of the POV fence (witness this one) when they inevitably cop a block for their actions. This and this are also interesting reads for sheer non-AGF. Orderinchaos 01:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I would have expected that after 3 days of discussing this, everyone would at least try to be civil, but incivility continues on the Talk:Bill_Heffernan#Climate_Change_.2F_Asian_remark page.--Lester2 03:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigh! I share the frustrations of Lester and others. Prester John and I recently came to an amicable accord over dissatisfaction with each other's language and edit actions. To see that he has gone to other articles and talkpages, continuing with exactly the same tone and language that he well knows, by now, is uncivil doesn't reassure me that his apology mean't anything other than to avoid collecting yet another critic of his aggressive negative behaviour. Closer scrutiny from admin users would be greatly appreciated. --Brendan Lloyd 04:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: For OTRS respondants, see this ticket which relates to this discussion somewhat. Having been on the opposite side of content disputes with PJ, I'm not going to answer the ticket or take any action in this discussion, but if anyone wants to (and has access to OTRS) then that link may be of interest. Cheers, Daniel 05:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of PJ's attitude, outing another editor is unacceptable. This ANI is starting to turn into a bit of a witchhunt. I agree with the warning given to Timeshift. Outing any editor is just unacceptable. Just because PJ may have an attitude problem and/or edit wars, doesn't mean that he can be outed. If there are geniune problems with with PJ, this should be start of a new AN/I or taken to a more appropriate forum. Shot info 06:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This AN/I has moved on from the Timeshift issue - that was resolved 2 days ago when he received a warning. There is no indication that he has been "outed" - the allegations are old and have been repeated on other occasions over past months, although I'm not entirely sure from where they originated - i.e. whether PJ raised it himself somewhere or not. That being said, we're on Misplaced Pages, and the key issue here is on-wiki behaviour which is contrary to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Orderinchaos 11:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In the 3 days since the warning, 'Prester John' has taunted on the David Hicks talk page, harassed on Brendan's talk page, and been generally uncivil in numerous places. Now he's launched some kind of Misplaced Pages campaign called 'FREE MATT'. He's made a new Userbox for it here-> User:Prester_John/Userbox/Free_Matt. It seems to me to be some kind of campaign to whip up dissent in support of a comrade who was recently blocked from Misplaced Pages. He's sent the Userbox to numerous peoples' talk pages. Judging by the reaction on User_talk:Prester_John#Please_stop, some other Wikipedians have objected to being sent these campaign messages. --Lester2 12:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No, an admin has decided it is his business to interfere in that. No one has complained. Arrow740 01:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Page move in the middle of an AFD is OK?

I am just wondering if changing the article name in the middle of an ongoing AFD is allowable? For some reason, I thought is was not. It has certainly confused me! --Mattisse 16:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I am requesting an admin to end the AFD on Psychiatric abuse which was moved in the middle of the AFD to Abuse of the mentally impaired without any notice on the article's talk page or the AFD page. I believe the whole AFD discussion is hopelessly confusing now and misleading. --Mattisse 17:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

As a wise man once said, "You must chill!" I just moved it back to its original title. It was a mistake for User:Jennylen to move it in the midst of an AfD, because it generates confusion. But like most things on Misplaced Pages, it's easily undone with a mouse click or two. There's no reason to end the AfD early (well, except that it's an ugly mess). MastCell 17:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I am confused enough as it is! --Mattisse 17:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the only time I have ever moved an article during an AFD, and the only time I would ever recommend doing it, would be to correct trivial aspects of the title (spelling or MOS issues) that would not need discussion anyway. Someguy1221 17:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

In the past I've also done this once or twice if the emerging consensus on the AfD page has been strongly in favor of "keep but rename" (perhaps with some "delete or rename" thrown in). Of course, the important thing is to note any such actions prominently on the AfD page, preferably both at the top (for new participants) and at the end of the discussion so far (for the benefit of the closing admin). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I've moved an article during an AfD, but only when clearly not a problem. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/International Society for Cryobiology. WP:AfD doesn't provide guidance on this, but the AfD template says: "For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the guide to deletion." And that page has advice at: Misplaced Pages:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion: "You must not rename the article unless you make sure the page still links to the discussion page." etc. It should be made clearer that this only applies to non-controversial page moves. Any controversial page moves should be discussed at the AfD, or wait until after the AfD closes and then be raised at WP:RM. Carcharoth 03:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the part you quoted from Misplaced Pages:Guide to deletion, as it seems to refer to an issue with an old implementation of the {{afd}} template which didn't handle page moves as well. With the modern implementation, moving a page while it's on AfD shouldn't break any links. I've left a note similar to my comment above in its place. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the move during the AFD did break a link until MastCell fixed it. I was caught in the middle of the move and did not know what was going on. I clicked the template on the article page and it did not go to the AFD discussion. --Mattisse 21:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This is most curious, since I can't reproduce the problem you describe. I just tried copying the AfD notice from Psychiatric abuse to my sandbox to simulate a move, and all the links still point to exactly the right place. The only way I can see that this could happen was if the {{AfDM}} tag was somehow missing the page parameter, but that doesn't seem to have been the case here. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As stated above, MastCell "fixed" it. I do not know what that entailed. --Mattisse 13:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User:EffK

User:EffK has just come off a one year block due to an Arbcom decision, and is running around repeating his assertions that only he knows what is true. At least he hasn't edited any articles yet, but it's a good idea to keep an eye on him. Corvus cornix 23:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I, EffK was verified by User:Bengalski, and all my own verifications. You are being conned, I am sorry to tell you, about what is or is not true. I don't all the same appreciate your attitude, and consider it against the smooth functioning and policies of WP. I suggest you learn them, and benefit from my existence here in revealing your real world truths. That Misplaced Pages policies are not enforced is my certain experience, and that admins are human, also. EffK 19:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

His only non-user talk edit today seems to be this, which reads like that autogenerated screed text... I forget the website it's on, but there's a site that let's you put in a few nouns and select a 'point' and length, and it autogenerates the argumentative letter using lots of 3 cent words and hyperbole. If so, then he's trolling from the get-go. If not, then he's REALLLLY off in his own world, and he'll no doubt set off all the alarms and warnings, resulting in another long block soon enough. ThuranX 01:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

18 month block, actually. I fail to understand how policies allow for my entry as referenced to become an 'incident'. I see here an incident in the making, one contrary to WP policy. The ad hominem reappears instantly ('running around', 'at least', keep an eye on', 'autogenerated', '3 cent words', 'hyperbole', 'in his own world', 'trolling', 'block soon enough', 'he'll do himself in soon enough'....). The argument I actually made is that the plethora of articles relating to the verifications I effected, which when and if I am invited I can substantiate, have all either suffered from my blocking, or returned to a parlous un-historical state because of my punishment. How this can be sign of some new ill-will by me against the project beats me. I remind both these users that the project is supposed at this time to defend me rather than attack me. I state that my interest remains the good of the project, by constituting historical fact upon historical articles. I repeat that the good of society is a legally recognised concept, and that therefore verifiability, NPOV and AGF extend beyond the confines of even Misplaced Pages. I suggest users address the actual issues, as stated by me in good faith. EffK 10:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Using language such as "effected", "plethora", "parlous" makes one wonder just how serious you are, and how seriously you want to be taken. Corvus cornix 15:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This is too minor to warrant attention, other than to say that it reminds me of attacks made long ago. I was pleased to see Cc did not quite join with Thuranx' open personal attacks. My advice is- dont. EffK 18:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack? Where? You're admitting to writing every word of that yourself? Sure reads like trolling. ThuranX 04:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Admins, regarding this you might also be interested in this query. PS. I believe he wrote the Village Pump posting entirely by himself. Str1977 15:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Admins, EffK is already beginning to spam my talk page, kicking things off with a personal attack (whether I get paid for contributing to WP - a question harking back to one of the things he got banned for) - I at first let that slide because he was just returning, but as he has not ceased spamming overly long messages on my talk page all revolving around his pet conspiracy theories and insinuations against me I wanted to bring this to your attention. Cheers, Str1977 22:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I wrote to the man as he had taken it upon himself to enter here, he replied, I replied saying if he didnt reply I'd take that as a wish that I not, but he replied. So that's roughly the situation. I also told him I would remove the entire to my page. At no time was I told not to write to him there....so, what does that tell you? EffK 22:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

He is free to post on my talk page when he has something to say as long as he can put it concisely. He is not free to spam my talk page even though there is nothing to say. He is not free to shower me with accusations and his conspiracy theories. Str1977 23:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

At this point, EffK is now hitting my talk page demanding that I apologize for what he percieves to be a personal attack here. By so doing, he's making a point of going after those commenting on this AN/I thread, and should additionally be warned there. His comment above that Corvus Cornix "didn't quite join" my "open personal attacks" is another example of less than stellar behavior towards editors commenting here. It's probably not a personal attack, by it is a snide comment. This brings to three the number of editors getting backlash for this AN/I thread: Str1977, mysel,f and Corvus Cornix. ThuranX 11:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Claimed Defamation and criminalisation of EffK in WP

The thread started because I spoke against distorted Misplaced Pages articles at Village Pump. I can and will soon now prove the distortions, in a list, at my discussion page, for those doubters (or in case I am beheaded again). I believe the seriousness of my above charge now, and others' recently, justifies my expanding this thread as of now, to its real subject, as it is stated. i admit it is unusual, and sub-divide it because I believe the seriousness warrants the maximum attention of admins here on this WP page.

As a previous and wide-ranging bulk-contributor I tell those who do not know me that it is I alone in Misplaced Pages who entered the real essential story of Hitler's seizure of power, and that this remains, but skewed and partial, throughout many articles. Under one username I can prove a 50+% ratio of actual edits to textual verification. I doubt anyone here can claim such a benign record. Due to this effort, which is embarrassing to 'a powerful and popular outside agency', I find myself now (even here) subject to incivil punishment on an intolerable scale, and simply for pointing out that Wkipedia articles are skewed, and more skewed for my banishment and inability to repair them. As a genuine 3rd party attempted and failed to over-turn the apparent assumptions of the original Arbcom conviction of me, I find the constant incivility more cruel punishment just following after verifiable injustice and 18 months extended ban punishment. Since I find myself in a reality of open-season shoot-on-sight, and am banned for life from entire sections of Misplaced Pages, and subject to un-informed admin will wherever I might contribute, I may as well think of taking this higher. My identity now, as all that I have openly chosen, has been turned by Arbcom's inadmission of verifability, into a criminality. This is a measurable loss to my goodness of faith and intentions. I shall perhaps have to seek justice and adherence to the Misplaced Pages policies, wherever- as I do not know, and if I cannot find redress for the (technical term)loss of currency to me and the defamation of me within WP, I may really have to seek it in the real world. I suggest that admins etc of good will immediately step in and pay heed to the 3rd party verifications of me in the original situation, and assist me in seeking redress inside Misplaced Pages against my un-just criminalisation. Advice is welcome in the matter of how to seek a complete overturning of the un-just conviction by Arbcom. I see no sense in beating about the bush here with admins about lesser events such as open anti-policy incivility, charged spamming, poor composition, and any nonsense anyone chooses to fling. Any admins advice for that complete redress would be welcome. I cannot see a sense of social justice within Wkipedia when I believe 3rd party evidence justified me almost absolutely. Original research I entered was confined to one article, wrongly deleted against a vote to keep and presented in an NPOV manner( The Great Scandal); when my soap-boxing was admissable under 'explanation' guidelines; when my supposed personal attacks were admissable under AGF policy; when my obsessive focus ranged over dozens of inter-related articles of history (whilst editors can spend years upon Ebionites alone); whilst no example in mainspace of a POV editing by me was proveable; and whilst it remains the case that my supposed personal 'conspiracy-theory' was in fact NPOV presentation of mainstream verifiability proven by the 3rd party after I had myself repeatedly verified it. All else was provocation against the un-welcome verification, ad hominem attack, straw man diversion, and dishonest cabal anti AGF attack, or anti-verifability article censoring. Thankyou though,to those who have made this necessary. If the Misplaced Pages Foundation is frightened of annoying a certain faith, it should be seen to be the case, as this lies at the root of the criminalisation of an innocent editor of good modern social will. I should repeat that by virtue of the historical facts that the case of 'EffK' involves a subject and reality that far out-weighs that of Misplaced Pages itself. EffK 19:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a legal threat, to me. Corvus cornix 20:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You people should know why you are really banning me, and if you found EffK hard to follow, your consciences probably won't follow this, but I believe I should bring it to your attention as proof of my good intentions, that are entirely Wikipedian. I note also that my request for advice only finds a more subtle abuse. Is there no one here with a free conscience? it may be un-usual prectice to enter the follwoing, but I find that Misplaced Pages is subject to unusual practice.

EffK rapid report of Misplaced Pages problems in modern /IIIReich history

Weimar constitution needs with State of Emergency to take account of an expansion to Reichstag Fire Decree that explains that President Hindenburg when signing the latter either forgot to ask for the separate and thereto always presented relevant habeas corpus protective document or that it was not presented for his signing. It is a question of history as to whether this came about through his mental incapacity. Misplaced Pages pretends that the Reichstag fire decree gave legal force to a one party state, at Rule by decree saying the Nazis were able to constitutionally suppress or imprison opposition. Together with statement at Weimar Constitution(technically remained in force throughout the III Reich) and State of Emergency (wasn't suspended..simply suspended) there is nowhere the verified remembrance of the sole constitutional guarantees; this came in a letter from Hindenburg of c 27 march, sent to the various Reichstag party leaders, and is referred to by the first greatest historian, Sir John Wheeler-Bennett as a letter of most sardonic hypocrisy, and in effect saying that Paul von Hindenburg relied on a promise to him by Hitler that he would respect the Constitution.

This letter returns us to the nub of the history, as this letter was both a substitute for the written guarantee demanded by Heinrich Bruning as his minimum requirement for allowing the dictatorship by vote at the Enabling Act and a traducing of that demand by Ludwig Kaas. The most sardonic hypocrisy lay in what Shirer called was it the cruellest contradiction, as the provisions of the Enabling Act claimed to protect the Institutions of the Reichstag precisely at the moment at which it had been illegally (verified) undermined (by arrests and murders of Deputies). How Misplaced Pages articles can be aligned with that which is known about the rolling opportunistic conspiracy (Nuremberg) should be a matter for precise discussion, however the continued WP situation is to adopt the clean but contradictory route of assuming, against all historians and Nuremberg, that as at KPD (Communist Party of Germany) they were already banned by the Nazi regime or as at NSDAP or as at Gleichschaltung not including Communist delegates as their party had already been banned by that time.

The 'removal' of the entire KPD/ 26 SPD is in Enabling Act that first the Government removed the Communist party by arresting its Deputies and under the Reichstag Fire Decree the Communists were declared dormant.. whereas at the Reichstag Fire Decree there is no mention of dormant, but claim that they were arrested on the basis of that Decree. Elsewhere the KPD leader Ernst Thalmann however was arrested by the Gestapo on 3rd March 1933 although the Gestapo did not exist for another month, and at KPD it is stated The Enabling Act which legally gave Hitler dictatorial control and that the KPD were banned by the nazi regime.

The confusion is multiple and wide ranging in Misplaced Pages, despite Effk verifications having been earlier provided , this confusion reigns on, centreing around an apparent need to see that the Communists were banned ( Alan Bullock verified that they never were0 or that the empowerment of Hitler was 'legal'. Effk was always startled by the presentation of Hitleriam as achieving power through legal means, at Holocaust it was pretended before EffK, that the Nazis had risen to power after a general election success. And to this day, after nearly 4 years since the first Effk corrections, Misplaced Pages still is unable to preserve any un-contradictory view, for as regards the essential Enabling Act, at its passage Heinrich Bruning says he yielded to party disciplie, at Hitler that he remained noticeably silent , at NSDAP that certain guarantees were given to Ludwig Kaas, at Ludwig Kaas there is no clarity, at Nazi Germany the Act was passed, at Hitler that Bruning agreed to maintain Party discipline as silent, at Enabling Act itself that the KPD could not vote..since it had been banned by that time and that certain guarantees to Ludwig Kaas were oral.

Here we return to the Constitutionality and the legality problems of Hitler empowerment. One confusion (and that is not to repeat that this results from intentional skewing despite and against Effk multiple verifications) resolves around the actual guarantees which bought the Monsignor Ludwig Kaas chaired Centre Party Germany and another being the failed Bruning demand for a Constitutional guarantee direct and signed from Hitler. In this useful confusion, that is this one that minimises the verifable historical questioning of and accusation against Ludwig Kaas as extremely close devotee and (verifiably) 'mouthpiece' for Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli later Pope Pius XII and Hitler's Pope, does so by elision of actual and presumably signed guarantees achieved at a Working Committe chaired by both Kitler and Kaas between either 17 or 20 march and 22 march 1933 ( with the final empowerment of Dictatorship on 23 march) into an elision with the bruning guarantees, which are only achieved by the very top Hindenburg letter of most sardonci hypocrisy. This confusion is actively dishonest ( as the winner in the Effk arbcom case knows and allows it still to reign in Misplaced Pages), as the Working Committee guarantees were not the final persuasion of the catholic centre party to empower Hitler, but a formal separate precursor to the final guarantee, the written Constitutional guarantee that Hitler promised, and yet which despite agreement Ludwig Kaas failed to adhere to. the result is that NPOV presentation should but fails to present the true course of events on the fateful day, of why bruning remained silent, because he was tricked into doing so either by Kaas' cowardice, gullibility or connivance with Hitler. The absence of NPOV reports of connexion to the verifiable papal policy to see in Hitler a saviour of Germany and christendom, that end with open and scholarly historical accusation of secret Kaas collusion throughout the Nuremberg defined Common Plan or Conspiracy to seize power, are what drive Effk to consider that Misplaced Pages needs correcting. The realities surrounding the rigging of the reichstag in un-constitutional means, verified, and the contrary presentation that the Communist Deputies were legally banned are the cause of all dispute. All knowledge concerning suborning of president hindenburg through tax and land scandals, despite verification from the Nuremberg Tribunals, is proscribed here, and the hitler article itself jhas the temerity to say that Adolf Hitler gained power during Germany's period of crisis after WWI propaganda and charismatic oratoryAt the linked Weimar Republic we see Hitler's promised guarantee to Kaas' and thereby Kaas persuaded.... All the above articles combine to present what is, because it has all been counter-verified, a massive lie. The constitutionality, the guarantees , the arrests, the voting, the decrees, the previous Weimar history- all were 'counter' verified, and none was properly allowed wikipedia presentation, for the simple reason that the historical NPOV suggestion that there was a stitch up, a conspiracy, trickery, betrayal, would lead to an embarrassment of Monsignor Ludwig Kaas, and his actual legal masters, to whom he could not have said Niet! The explanation as to why he could not, and what the history means to his masters, is the real reason —Preceding unsigned comment added by EffK (talk • contribs) 07:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Propose indefinite block

I propose to block EffK indefinitely. I regret having to make this suggestion, but the history of the arbitration case (see, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/EffK) and the user's relapse into obsessional diatribes on the same subjects as previously, immediately after coming off the ban, strongly suggest to me that Misplaced Pages is not a suitable forum for EffK to be posting his opinions. I am well known as being slow to suggest blocking as a solution to most issues, but indef is really the inevitable ultimate result here, and I see no meaningful possibility of a change in the user's behavior or his making useful contributions in the future. Newyorkbrad 20:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• I don't agree with the resetting ban on the original case (his talk page should have been protected way before October 2006), but that's beside the point. I feel that he's violating WP:NLT at this point, so a long duration block would be necessary here. - Penwhale | 21:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Fully support. His messages on my talk also read like some sort of threat, reserving the right to take all that's said here 'elsewhere'... whatever that means, it doesn't sound friendly. ThuranX 21:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Uninvolved non-admin comment: Effective communication with EffK is apparently... difficult. The signal-to-noise ratio certainly seems to be phenomenal. Maybe this is a smart troll who likes the sound of his own voice (metaphorically); maybe it's us who are wrong. I don't know. Sheffield Steel_stalk 21:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This last comment may show someone with a sense of broad-mindedness, but I see this floating on a tide of incomprehension to indefinite ban, and terminal defamation, only later adjustable in real world justice .Do as you will, the original injustice is simply compounded and WP remains skewed for the exact reasons I always justified. I better tell you which first should have been corrected, or you all just think I do this for Effk. Weimar Constitution, State of Emergency, Power by Decree, Hitler, Weimar, Communist party, Bruning, Hindenburg, Clerical fascism/ Fascism and the RCC, Alois Hudal, Nazism and religion, Causes of WWII, NSDAP, Enabling Act, Nazi germany, Gleichshaltung, History of Germany, Ernst Thalmann, SDP, KPD, RCC's links with Political authorrity, Nazism and religion, hitler and the church, Ludwig kaas. All others I ever listed at my pages ( the which are on hard disk and re-presentable as evidentiary to the real world). The noise ratio was always conditioned by the enormity of the historically NPOV accusation against the Holy See, not little pseudonymous EFFK, for the exact reasons I always recognised. The world will remain a more benighted poorer place given your proposal here., and certainly Misplaced Pages will not be recognizant of the real scholarship regarding why our forefathers fought. My failure again beneath a torrent of intellectual abuse is purely symptomatic of a century long distortion of all USA media, as I verified from your better journalists and commentators. The inability of Jimmy Wales to police or maintain his vaunted principles and policies and control low-grade kangaroo court justice makes of his project an equal failure. The Nuremberg Tribunals abjured us not to forget, but all here are solely concerned with the length of the necessary rebuttals interfereing with the blog-like length of general comments. I warned the founder of serious repercussions, I still do, and these preceding comments are in majority so far but the low-grade and un-accountable anti-Misplaced Pages-principles in action. No one here is concerned with the verifiability as the 3rd party provided, all appear chasing each other to compound the obvious wrong, and a real world action remains as Jimmy Wales was forewarned, the sole likely arbiter in this case. None of you are assisting Jimmy Wales' project, but rather opening it up to full ridicule. Personally I should be very glad to leave this mental iniquity, and only re-entered to see whether intellectual honesty and policy justice was obtainable, by way of correcting articles as they should be corrected. EffK 22:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Another uninvolved Admin comment: what SheffieldSteel said. My eyes glazed over trying to read that slab of text, & I had to read his ArbCom case to figure out just what he urgently wants to tell us -- beyond the fact he feels his ban was unfair & he is not allowed to tell his side of the story. Sorry EffK, but I think this proves that an indef ban is called for. -- llywrch 22:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User indef blocked, based on his previous history, behaviour in the last few days, this discussion, and (especially) the repeated legal threats. Scrutiny, discussion, and reasoned overturn or shortening of block as always welcome. Fram 08:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Support block. Given that he is 3 days removed from an indef and he appears to have returned simply to stir the pot and complain about the unfairness of his original block, I don't see much value in him editing here. Teh Internets is a big place full of forums & blogs where EffK can register his feeling about the unfairness of it all in whatever verbosity he chooses to use.--Isotope23 14:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad mediation and unilateral edits by Omegatron (talk · contribs)

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

The Mahmoud Ahmadinejad article, especially the lead, has been a difficult one, prone to edit wars and controversy. Currently, under the auspices of the chair of the mediation committee, user:Daniel (3rd separate mediator, I should add), we are finally engaging in some meaningful and appropriate dialog at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. However, over the last day, Omegatron (talk · contribs) has been making substantial and substantive edits to the article, seemingly unilaterally changing a number of things including edits that strike directly at the heart of this mediation. Despite being informed of the mediation, his edits, and requested to join the mediation process, the user continues to make unilateral edits.

Furthermore, and more importantly, the accusations of WP:BLP issued were so severe, that a huge list of sources needed to be compiled. These were combined into a few reference numbers. Omegtron has declared interest in paring down those sources.

For those of us involved in editing this article for around two years now, and who are cognizant of the many discussions that required, nay demanded, the long list of edits and various other compromises, it is very difficult to see someone without that background come in and make sweeping changed against consensus, compromise, and mediation that has gone on for the better part of two years.

Furthermore, looking at the users contributions, it seems that there is a significant amount of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH being applied.

Can the article be returned to the structure under mediation, the references returned, and the aforementioned user enjoined from making such unilateral, non-consensus-based, source-removing edits while mediation is undergoing?

I believe it is not proper for me to do anything more than ask here, as I am deeply involved in the mediation process.

Thank you, -- Avi 04:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

My edits speak for themselves. I have done nothing but clean up formatting and add a few neutral bits. — Omegatron 23:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Was it an accident that you made controversial edits like this (adding "though the exact translation is disputed" to the lead) to a protected page? - Merzbow 22:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't notice it was protected (and don't know why it would be), but even so, what's controversial about that edit? — Omegatron 23:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I made that edit to meet concerns on the talk page (Talk:Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#transcripts and this). See Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#Anti-Israel_statements, Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#.22Wiped_off_the_map.22_translation for background. The topic itself is certainly controversial, but pointing out the fact that it's controversial in an article is just normal editing. — Omegatron 23:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are the "substantial and substantive" edits I have "unilaterally" made to this article (the only edits I have ever made to this article, besides routine cleanup and formatting):

1. add "statement that was interpreted as" so as not to imply that the translation is undisputed
2. clarify who made the hostage claims
3. expand quotes about nuclear ambitions
4. add quote about Russia and US bombs being useless
5. expand homosexuals quote
6. change "that was interpreted' into "widely translated as" to emphasize the literal translation of the idiom
7. reword for neutrality, including Avi's concern(?) about the person being criticized and not just the statement, Sefringle's concern about making light of the "anti-Jew" quote, etc.

Judge for yourself. Avi seems to think that no edits can be made to the article while it is undergoing mediation, but I don't think this has any precedent. That mediation case has been ongoing since May(?), and we're certainly not going to lock down the whole article for months while we wait for them to make decisions.

From my perspective, my edits have been completely neutral and verifiable. (I haven't formed any real opinions on the guy, so it would be hard for me to edit in a biased manner. I'm just trying to fill out the incomplete parts of the article with things as I learn them.) If you disagree, by all means discuss it with me on the talk page and we'll try to work it out, like any other article. — Omegatron 00:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe the article protection was because a number of users were engaged in adding/removing parts of the lead in a repetative nature, and Riana protected the page because there wasn't much discussion going on parallel to it. The mediation has nothing to do with the protection (and the article isn't going to be "lock down for months while we wait for them to make decisions"), however the material under dispute is the same in both places. From a personal perspective, I invite you to join the discussion on the mediation page to try and reach a compromise - you seem to be very proactive in suggesting solutions, which is fantastic. Cheers, Daniel 00:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have made some comments on the mediation page, but I don't think there should be a prohibition against changing the article's intro in the meantime. It can always be updated when the mediation discussion comes to a decision on something better. In the meantime, it's not quite neutral. — Omegatron 23:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

overwriting your own images with watermarked versions

can somebody try and talk to Motorrad-67 (talk · contribs)? he is insisting on exactly that: overwriting his previously released unmarked images with inferior watermarked versions. --dab (𒁳) 16:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have let the user know of the relevant image policy, Misplaced Pages:Image use policy#User-created images. Thanks. Tbo (talk) (review) 16:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Elvis has left the building. // Liftarn

I tried to reason with him, but he apparently doesn't understand, or want to understand. I'm deleting the watermarked images, leaving the clean versions uploaded on Commons. FCYTravis 18:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No one reasoned with him or ever discussed what they were doing to his images BEFORE doing anything to or with them. You have his permission to delete all of his "watermarked" images from Misplaced Pages so that they are not available on Misplaced Pages anywhere. Motorrad-67 18:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Moving images to Commons is a standard, uncontroversial procedure, as it makes the images freely available across the entire Wikispace. I thank you for your previous contributions, and I am sorry that you no longer wish to contribute under our guidelines. FCYTravis 19:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Now he's reverting valid warnings and personally attacking people. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Its probably best to just leave well enough alone; he's obviously upset at the moment and the warnings won't disappear from the history. Might be a good time to de-escalate. Shell 20:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. He will be happy now when all his photos (listed below) are deleted from Misplaced Pages.

He isn't attacking anyone who doesn't richly deserve it. Motorrad-67 20:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

{{speedy delete|Subjected to repeated past interference without my consultation}}

Please delete all of the images I have contributed to Wiki. Here is the list: Motorrad-67 20:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Bevel-gear.jpg
• Image:629.jpg|S&W Model 629
• Image:Octabarn.jpg|Octagonal barn
• Image:Barn-and-box.jpg|Octagonal barn and mailbox
• Image:Dual-saddles.jpg|Dual saddles
• Image:Dual-saddle.jpg|Dual saddle
• Image:Craven-panniers.jpg
• Image:Topcase.jpg
• Image:Weiss-800.jpg|Weiss
• Image:Scarlett-800.jpg|Scarlett
• Image:Iowa-800.jpg
• Image:Lucille-800.jpg
• Image:R32-percival.jpg|R32-percival
• Image:R68-700.jpg|R68-700
• Image:R68-opposed-cylinders.jpg
• Image:R68-vcover.jpg
• Image:Golden-arrows.jpg
• Image:Pace739.jpg|Pace trailer
• Image:Pace500.jpg|Pace trailer interior
• Image:Bogey-wheels.jpg
• Image:Cardinal-singing.jpg|Singing Cardinal
• Image:Pyrr-seedblock.jpg|Male Pyrrhuloxia
• Image:Pyrr-juvenile.jpg|Female Pyrrhuloxia
• Image:Cf-card.jpg|Compact flash card
• Image:R68-sidecar.jpg|R68 with sidecar
• Image:R32-front.jpg
• Image:Heated-handgrips.jpg|Heated handgrips
• Image:Cows-500.jpg|Cows
• Image:Feet-forward.jpg|helmetless Harley
• Image:Guzzidrive.jpg
• Image:Astronaut-in-space.jpg

The images in question have been freely licensed and accepted into the Wikimedia Commons. One may not revoke the granting of a free license. FCYTravis 20:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to make clear the policy does not state that watermarked images are not permitted. Perhaps Misplaced Pages should attempt to work with photographers to continue to receive the quality images they have been. This is now the second instance in about 1 weeks time. The policy states images ideally should not be watermarked. However I do not see why letting him add a small identifying watermark would hurt the project anymore then losing yet another talented contributor. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If the policy isn't clear that we don't accept watermarked images, it should be clarified. Photographers can require that they be attributed by using either GFDL or a CC-BY license. We don't put credits on pictures in articles, however, either in text or via watermarks. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The policy does not state it, I am not sure if people are misreading it, or if its wrong and needs clarifying. However its current incarnation says watermarks are allowed, however not optimal. Just to add perhaps the admin who dealt with the last situation would be better suited to handle this as they made a nice resolution with the photographer in question and resolved everything in an amicable fashion. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Watermarks are not allowed, apart from rare exceptions; the policy was just written poorly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit confused, the policy pages determine what is allowed. If you are from WP:OFFICE, please let me know as you would be better aware. However if you are not, the policy page is what determines what is allowed, not your reading, or mine for that matter, of it. Since the page does not, and most likely has never, stated they are not permitted. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What a shock! WORK WITH PHOTOGRAPHERS???? Seven, what is wrong with you? Why ever would any of you want to do that????? Motorrad-67 20:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of "working with" anyone. If you require visible photo credit to be stamped on your images, then this is probably not the right project for you to contribute to. Professional printed reference works do not stamp names on photos - instead, they have a photo credit reference section. Why do you expect Misplaced Pages to be any different? FCYTravis 20:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the policy page in question does not say its not permitted, I am not sure what the issue is. Is it possible to have someone from the "office" or however it is referenced, chime in? --SevenOfDiamonds 20:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't need the "office" here. The user in question provided freely-licensed, un-stamped images to Misplaced Pages. He later attempted to replace these images with stamped versions. We are not obligated to accept these new, lower-quality uploads as replacements for the original photos, because the original free license is still valid. The original versions have all been placed in the Wikimedia Commons. If Motorrad-67 chooses to cease contributing over this matter, that is regrettable, and it is his right. However, he does not have the right to decide what freely-licensed material we use. FCYTravis 20:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Correct he does not own the encyclopedia, he cannot unilaterally decide that we must use those. However we can choose to keep a contributing photographer over a small technical issue, or choose to push them away. Some assets are not so easily replaceable. For comparison the Misplaced Pages community can choose to cast you out for no reason what so ever, however treating contributing people in this manner, only does a disservice to ourselves. As Misplaced Pages leaks contributing users, I wonder at what point the curve begins to slope. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do you consider placing unsightly credit boxes on photos to be "a small technical issue?" Images with credits Photoshopped into them are inherently of lower quality than those without. The box detracts from the image and damages its free-content reusability. Individual Misplaced Pages editors cannot expect to have publicly-visible personal credit for their contributions stamped into the text of each page they edit, so why would we treat the contributions of individual photographers any differently? FCYTravis 21:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well hopefully people find a meaningful way to contribute above, however I tried to hopefully find a middle ground or resolution, however the policy page has changed since I last looked and that worries me greatly. This conversation based on policy is pointless if policy is changed at the drop of a hat. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Policy on Misplaced Pages is descriptive of current practice. In practice, we don't accept free images with watermarks; that's why the policy needed to be changed to correctly match our practice. We can discuss the policy its talk page here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Checking the history of the policy page, it turns out that until today it did say images may not have watermarks, until this edit: — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Seven sez, "However we can choose to keep a contributing photographer over a small technical issue, or choose to push them away." Seven is an unusually sensitive and perceptive man. I have been "pushed away" for sure. Thank you, Seven. All this could have been avoided had someone like Seven simply chose to communicate with me before going hog wild on my photos. Motorrad-67 20:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of being constructive here, let me suggest the following. Motorrad-67 21:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Policy for transferring photographs to Commons

• Before doing anything to initiate a transfer, the photographer must be contacted to discuss the potential transfer. No transfer will ever be made without prior communication with the photographer.

• The person wishing to execute a transfer (transferer) must ascertain the photographer's opinion about making the transfer. If the photographer does not understand the meaning of the transfer or the nature of the Commons, the transferer must explain this to him or her.

• If the photographer agrees to the transfer, the transfer may be made.

• If the photographer does not agree to the transfer, discussion must continue to ascertain the reason(s) for the disagreement in an attempt to implement reasonable and mutually acceptable procedures to secure agreement.

• If no agreement can be made, the photographer will be provided the option to have his or her photograph(s) deleted completely from Misplaced Pages. If the photographer does not agree to deletion and does not agree to the transfer after reasonable efforts are made to secure his or her agreement, the transferer may transfer the photographs 14 days after the initial contact with the photographer was made.

This is not a formum for discussing policy changes. The right place for your proposal is Misplaced Pages talk:Image use policy, where it is also under discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Obtain permission to transfer? Are you serious? The whole point of the GFDL and other libre-type liscenses is the right of the work to be used by anyone, so long as they pass those rights (and author history) on to other users. You released them under a free liscense, for the benefit of humanity. Be proud. And no, those proposed points run completely counter to the spirit of the 'pedia. -Parappathebagel 14:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No, a thousand times no. Perhaps you should have read the disclaimer before you hit the "upload" button. It says clearly, "By submitting content, you agree to release your contributions under the GNU Free Documentation License." Once you hit the "upload" or "save page" button, you lose your rights to the content, and is now free to be used as according to the license. You do not have the right to retract the license, period. --71.141.117.207 02:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not! You are in no way losing your rights to the content by releasing it under the GFDL. Please stop repeating this falsehood, as it will only scare people away from contributing free content. All copyright on images released on the GFDL is retained. No, you are not losing rights, you are simply granting additional, nonrevocable rights on that image to the rest of humanity. One of those rights happens to be that the image can be reused, republished, and modified under the terms of the license agreement, which would include uploading the images to Commons (or any other compliant website) at any time, without notification or added permission beyond the original release under the GFDL. --198.200.171.235 15:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, "losing your rights" may have been the wrong phrase, but the issue still stands: we in no way need to notify the photographer when his/her images are to be moved to Commons, as the image has been released under the GFDL, and for all purposes on Misplaced Pages, we operate within the allowances and confines of the GFDL unless there are other circumstances preventing such. Of course, I do not dismiss notification of photographer as a courtesy. --71.141.117.207 23:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Aishwarya10.jpg

Some admins keep on reverting the cc-by-nc-3.0 tag someone put on Image:Aishwarya10.jpg. I tried to readd it yesterday. The site clearly states cc-by-nc, and people keep using popups to undo the adding of the tag (there's a policy against that, right?). No one's even bothering to discuss, and this is clearly the wrong tag. 71.58.97.225 18:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what the tag currently says. You, and I presume your alternate accounts, keep adding a 2.0 tags, which tags it for speedy deletion. --Haemo 18:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Hindu-Bear came along and added the tag (I am not that person; that should seem obvious as my account relates to Pennsylvania; I am, however, the second person who added the tag). However, you're missing the point; actually, it says cc-by, but the site says cc-by-nc, which brings up the speedy deletion notices. 71.58.97.225 18:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, actually my account says New Jersey, which is blatantly wrong... 71.58.97.225 18:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but apparently someone contacted them and they agreed to a 3.0 released. OTRS has the emails. --Haemo 18:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The site does say cc-by-nc, but they confirmed by email to wikipedia that they released it to us under cc-by-3.0. They also confirmed that they know that means we can release it to everyone else as cc-by-3.0. User:Riana was the person who handled this, I think. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm editing from India, what if the email stuff is false? How can we verify that Bollywoodblog.com released all rights to their site? This is very unusual and hard to believe. If they wanted to do that, they would have changed the license tag on their website, which makes it easy. I think someone found this sneaky way to upload images from their site and using the OTRS stuff as a way for people not to botter checking details of the licenses. Some of the images on Bollywoodblog.com may not belong to that site, they may belong to certain individuals that own the copyrights. This is the big reason why a site cannot allow all their images to be used here in Wiki.--Hindu-Boar 08:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The OTRS stuff is almost certainly valid. However, you're right about them not owning the copyrights; that's complete rubbish. How do we know that bollywoodblog was the one's who took the photo in the first place? 64.178.96.168 17:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Trust me people this has been confirmed by the Director of Caledonian Publishing who I and adminstratirs such as User:Riana have emailed personally and received official confirmation of use under 3.0. I have legal clearance that bollywood blog exclusively owns all of the images published on its site as they employ a large team of photographers in Mumbai. A very strange editor we have encoutered here indeed ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 11:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Goodness, what a fuss. The site very clearly gives us permission under cc-by-3.0 via the e-mail correspondence. I imagine they have not updated their sitenotice to reflect this. I have contact them about this 3 days previously, but have not received a response yet. Once it is received, let's hope they respond soon.

"How can we verify that Bollywoodblog.com released all rights to their site?" The OTRS correspondence. And they have not released all rights - please read up on CC-by-3.0, they continue to own copyright and will receive attribution.

"Some of the images on Bollywoodblog.com may not belong to that site, they may belong to certain individuals that own the copyrights." Please, please, use your judgement when uploading pics from the blog - if it's a really professional looking shot, chances are the blog hasn't created it, but some agency somewhere. Although, at the end of the day, that isn't directly our outlook - we're using their images under cc-by-3.0 but the blog is violating copyright in the first place. ~ Riana ⁂ 15:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Chrisjnelson block by Durova

I was directed here by Durova, an administrator, after a 24-hour block of Chrisjnelson in indirect violation of editing restrictions put forth in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson. This incident occurred Sunday, September 30, on 2007 New England Patriots season. Initially it was a content dispute over the wording of a heading on the article. As a participant in the content dispute, I created a section on the talk page to discuss the differences in opinion between me, ChrisJNelson, and Ksy92003.

Now, it should be said that Ksy92003 and ChrisJNelson have a long history of conflict dating back to around the time of the ChrisJNelson/Jmfangio incident and ruling. I won't get into any of it here, as it has taken place over a period of two months, perhaps, and on multiple talk pages and other discussions. However, one thing I do think is relevant is that Ksy92003, after ChrisJNelson's topic ban/1RR/etc. punishment, Ksy92003 asked ChrisJNelson if he could "monitor (his) contributions, just to see if (he is) following the ban or not." The first actualization of that that, if you will, came from Ksy92003 here. It is clear Ksy92003 is aware of the restrictions imposed on ChrisJNelson and isn't afraid to let it be known if they are broken.

With that in mind, the discussion at 2007 New England Patriots season began as it should. The users involved (me, ChrisJNelson, and Ksy92003) expressed our opinions on the situation. And it just so happened that ChrisJNelson happened to agree with my viewpoint, despite not doing so during the initial edit dispute. In other words, he changed his mind. Without making too much of an assumption, based on Ksy92003's past comments and actions regarding ChrisJNelson's "probation," as well as from other incidents between the two users, it's safe to assume Ksy92003 knew that ChrisJNelson was on thinner ice than he was and also knew what has provoked ChrisJNelson in the past. After three posts of opinion on the content dispute on Talk:2007 New England Patriots season, Ksy92003 decided that this personal attack of sorts on ChrisJNelson was necessary in his next posting: "You are completely untrustworthy because you always lie" Ksy92003 Revision as of 21:37, 30 September 2007. What happened after that consisted of ChrisJNelson defending himself against this attack, yet in a rather uncivil manner delving back into the disputes Ksy92003 has had with ChrisJNelson in the past.

Later, Bjewiki, who also knows ChrisJNelson well, reported ChrisJNelson's incivility in regards to his "probation" on Durova's talk page. Despite referring Bjewiki elsewhere for his/her complaint, and without investigating the rest of the discussion, Durova gave ChrisJNelson a 24-hour block. When I asked why, providing diffs, Ksy92003 wasn't also reprimanded for instigating the incident with a personal attack, Durova told me only the diffs provided by Bjewiki were looked at, and despite the fact that ChrisJNelson was blocked, no action would be taken against Ksy92003 and I should defer any other comments here (ANI).

That is all I have to say. Consider this a condemnation of Ksy92003's personal attack that has gone without repercussions, as well as an "open, informal" complaint against Durova. Pats1 /C 20:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to sound like a broken record. If you look at , in my comment, I emphasized that I wasn’t trying to make a personal attack when I said that Chris seems to be a liar. I said “that's simply what you appear to be,” meaning that based on past experiences, it’s hard for Chris to be trusted. It would be too hard to find the diffs, as Chris’ talk page has been edited so many times in the past couple months, and it would be an incredibly long process trying to find the diffs, but Durova (talk · contribs) can verify what I’m about to say. I will try to provide whatever relevant diffs I may find.

A couple months ago, there was an RfC between Jmfangio (talk · contribs) and Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs). To avoid an enormous punishment, Chris made a pledge that there were only two football-related articles that he would edit: 2007 Miami Dolphins season, and the 32 NFL Team roster templates. Shortly after Chris made that pledge, he violated it nearly immediately by editing other articles () Durova said that Chris never intended on keeping that pledge, ergo the “liar” comment I made. In this diff you can see where Durova says that Chris never intended to keep his pledge.

Additionally, you can see on that same version of his talk page a comment I left him in which he used the word “Nazi” in an edit in which he was reverting an edit I made. I, as well as Durova, Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs), and even Jmfangio, were offended by his choice of words and felt that it was directed at me. He declared that it was just a senseless joke not directed towards anybody. However, about three or four days ago, Chris e-mailed me and said that he did intentionally call me a “Nazi.”

He has lied, it has been proven, and he has admitted that. If that isn’t evidence that he is a "liar" then I don’t know what is. As far as why I used that word in my edit, it was because Chris originally reverted Pats1 on 2007 New England Patriots season in an edit in which he agreed with me. As soon as the discussion actually begins, Chris all of a sudden flip-flops to the other side. I didn’t see anything convincing with Pats1’s comment which would change Chris’ mind so easily, and therefore, I simply stated that it was hard for me to trust him because he has recently lied, been proven to lie, and has admitted to it. I don’t see what’s wrong with making a statement based on my observations and his admissions. Ksy92003(talk) 21:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ksy92003, my arbitration evidence does demonstrate that Chris made and repeated a voluntary pledge while he was violating it. So while your statement might be technically correct, please bear in mind that Chris has also been trying to turn over a new leaf. The other principal named party in that arbitration case was the reincarnation of a community banned editor and Chris was also getting targeted by another disruptive editor - a sneaky vandal who has since been banned. It doesn't bring out anybody's good side to repeat their worst moments in front of a group of people. It would impress me if you struck through those comments as a gesture of good faith. Durova 05:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that you were fully prepared to have the uncertain testimony of this individual on a discussion page, when you expected that it supported your position. It then appears that you only felt it necessary to consider the editors previous record when you realised that their position was different to that which you had... That is, at the very least, an inconsistent consideration.

Further, your failure to see the persuasiveness of the opponents argument, which is of course the reason for the initial dispute, is no grounds to deprecate anothers decision. LessHeard vanU 22:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The ArbComm ruling made no restrictions on which articles ChrisJNelson could edit, only how many reverts he could make. Sasha Callahan 22:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Your first statement isn’t how I viewed the situation. I would’ve been curious if he had agreed with Pats, and then switched to my side. But I don’t care about it. I eventually dropped out of that discussion and conceded because I didn’t want to have any more to do with it. Since Chris and I have had our disputes in the past, and since Pats1 and Chris have been talking on AIM every now and then (something that Chris admitted to) I was curious and believed that perhaps the reason why he had changed was because he has a great relationship with Pats1 and a horrible one with me, and would’ve wanted to side with Pats1 just because he didn’t want to side with me due to our conflicts. That’s why I made that comment: because I couldn’t believe Chris, and I wanted to know why he changed his opinion so swiftly.

And even with that said, the comment I don’t feel was inappropriate. As I’ve already detailed earlier in this section, in that edit which I referred to Chris as a “liar,” I have backed that up with evidence as to why I felt that he is a liar and why it was hard for me to believe why his opinion was changed. I said in that edit that I didn’t mean it as a personal attack and that to me, he appears to be a liar. I wasn’t attacking him. I was saying what his character appeared to be to me. I honestly don’t understand what is the problem with making a comment based on my observations, my experiences, and things that Chris has admitted to. Ksy92003(talk) 22:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This and this may be construed as personal attacks (the first against Nelson and the second against both Pats1 and Nelson). Am I a meatpuppet too? Sasha Callahan 22:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

First: how would that be an attack on Pats1?

And second: how would those be personal attacks? Is it a personal attack to say that disputes that I've been in with a certain user has halted my editing on Misplaced Pages? I haven't edited nearly as much as I have in the past because of these disputes. Not sure how that's a personal attack. Ksy92003(talk) 22:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I entered the same diff twice. I've fixed it, but in the second one you accused Pats1 and Nelson of being Meatpuppets . Sasha Callahan 22:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hehe I didn't even notice that they were the same. I noticed that they were eerily similar, but not 100% equal.

Anyway, I don't believe accusing users of being meatpuppets is a personal attack. If I accused Jmfangio (talk · contribs) of being a sockpuppet of Tecmobowl (talk · contribs), would that be a personal attack? Ksy92003(talk) 22:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

To me, without backing up your accusations, it may be a personal attack (a minor one at that). Sasha Callahan 22:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry isn't even an official policy, partly because it's not something that can be checked. As I've said, Pats1 and Chris have had an existing relationship as they quite frequently converse on AIM, and they always side with each other; I've never seen them disagree. Do I know if they are meatpuppets? No. Can I somehow find out if they are? No. I don't see how this is a personal attack.

I have no opinion on the dispute, but this particular point merits a definite reply. This would make half of Misplaced Pages "meatpuppets" - the amount of IRC, gchat, AIM, MSN and email correspondence which goes on between people in the process of forming a working community probably exceeds the activity on the actual encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos 15:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, look at that comment. "Maybe it's because you and Chris are very good buddies and always side with each other and you want to defend him by making false accusations towards me, or at least that's what it seems like to me." I said "maybe." I said "what it seems like to me." I never accused them of being meatpuppets, only raised the suggestion. Ksy92003(talk) 22:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's do get something straight here, though. I never "recruited" Chris for Misplaced Pages. Chris never recruited me for Misplaced Pages. I know Chris from about 4 years back on a different site. And believe me, we were the opposite of "meatpuppets" back then. Insert "Pats1" for "jmfangio" and you'll get my point. It just so happened that our interests crossed a few years down the line (March of this year) and that's the way it is. But Chris would have been probably the last person I'd recruit to help push an agenda on Misplaced Pages when I first started editing. Pats1 /C 23:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

And I believe that. Once again: I never made any accusation. All I did was raise the possibility that you two were pushing the same agenda. And knowing the way that Chris has always behaved towards me, since you say that you didn't get along with Chris originally, then it makes a lot of sense how you didn't get along with him at first. Not surprising, giving Chris' behavior towards me and others, like Jmfangio.

But one more time: I never said that you two were meatpuppets. I only suggested the possibility. Ksy92003(talk) 23:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, the block I placed on Chrisjnelson was for incivility. That fell within the scope of the ArbCom ruling and was blockable anyway (really, what else can anyone expect for a post that speculates about another editor's pubic hair?) Considering his prior block history and arbitration sanctions, 24 hours was pretty mild. I implemented that without prejudice regarding any claims about behavior by other parties at that dispute. A related quarrel had bled onto my userpage for several days until I threatened to delete the thread and no substantiating evidence had been provided about another editor at the time when I acted on the diffs regarding Chris's behavior, referred the quarrel elsewhere, and announced that I was ready to wash my hands of the matter. Other sysops may wish to act upon the evidence subsequently provided. Durova 04:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey that pubic hair bit was actually a pearl of wisdom. He'd do well to remember that. I never deserved that block anyway, but oh well. (I was told I should strike through this. Consider is stricken.)►Chris Nelson 05:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

A "pearl of wisdom"? You said something to the effect of "being a mature adult isn't just having pubes" or something like that. This is an insult on my maturity both behaviorally and... well, you know. That is just completely rude and quite insulting. Who even thinks about insulting somebody by talking about somebody else's pubic hair? That's just completely inappropriate.

And seriously, what do you mean when you say "that pubic hair bit was actually a pearl of wisdom?" Ksy92003(talk) 05:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Chris, if your intention in coming to this thread was to invalidate my assertion that you're trying to turn over a new leaf, that post succeeded admirably. Ksy92003 struck through a statement as a gesture of good faith. Please earn back some goodwill, Chris, by doing likewise. Durova 07:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

My intention was to tell it like it is. "Keep it real" as they say. I didn't deserve to be blocked and, considering this wasn't the first time I was unfairly blocked by you, I have very little respect for you as an admin. But sure, I'll strike through anything you want. Seems kind of pointless, but whatever floats your boat.►Chris Nelson 19:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Plenty of editors keep it real without violating WP:CIVIL. In the immediate aftermath of the arbitration sanction you've been cut some slack. Expect that the post above and others like it will be presented as diffs if you continue to cross the line. The hammer can come down swift and hard while you're thumbing your nose from the anvil. Durova 23:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Unacceptable user page

Hello, is User:Egyegy/Conflict acceptable? Typical quote:

"Watch out for the Arab nationalist trolls and racists on Misplaced Pages."

I just stumbled across it and it is a bit hostile in tone. Just wanted to get some admin eyes on it. Thank you. • Lawrence Cohen 06:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm open to hearing opinions from others if it's fair and not selective. I've seen pages from other members with a lot more, and it's actually hostile. I created a page for myself where I can vent on the problems that I had here, or that members who come from similar backgrounds as me have on Misplaced Pages. Egyegy 07:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Egyegy, it appears that Lawrence has a point there. That is an attack page and uses acidulous language against another ethnic group of users and will create an even more hostile environment on Misplaced Pages. Please review what Misplaced Pages is not (not a soapbox) and request deletion of the page. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that sort of page shouldn't exist. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

These subpages are unacceptable on Misplaced Pages. If you feel that other members has more unacceptable pages, feel free to list them here. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, and the page has been deleted. --D_arkF_alls 08:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DarkFalls. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox for starters.... SQL 08:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I re-phrased my page to answer the first concern before seeing this. You said you wanted to see other pages, here is one . The other thing is that no one seemed to wanna listen to my legitimate complaint about the admin who keeps blocking me, so that's also why I needed to express my side.... Egyegy 09:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The page still has racism. "Two notorious gangs in this department are some of the afrocentrics and Arab nationalists..." Please keep your views on this elsewhere. --D_arkF_alls 09:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This page has no use/reason to be on Misplaced Pages. It's nothing but racism on a soapbox forum. Jmlk17 09:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop throwing baseless accusations about a situation you obviously don't understand. It's a fact that there are afrocentrics and Arab nationalists who cause these troubles on the articles. Amazing you have nothing to say about this but coming down on me for bringing attention to it and all the hostility it's caused for me and others. And I have a right to defend myself against biased and abusive blocks by someone with a questionable history. Egyegy 00:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Question - does WP even have a policy on racism? I see so much of it in Israel/Palestine Talk (and the use of sources who say outrageous things such as "Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands") that I've assumed we couldn't do anything unless the racism was aimed at individuals. (Please feel free to turn this into a new section or tell me to put it somewhere else). PR 18:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, Egyegy's edit patterns are clearly consistent with that of an Egyptian nationalist. He's been warned numerous times for personal attacks, pov-pushing Egyptian articles with other Egyptians, refusing to discuss and be civil with non-Egyptians, etc.. He has literally followed me merely in an effort to undermine me at Egyptian topics merely because I don't push a view consistent with Arab/Egyptian politics. His harassment of User:Jeeny speaks volumes, not to mention his edit wars at all articles Egyptian, including Race of Ancient Egyptians, Egyptian people, Fayum mummy portraits, St. Maurice, etc. It is apparent to me why this said admin keeps "blocking him", as he has been reported for everything from wikistalking to pov-pushing and is close to arbitration.Taharqa 15:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Userpage deletion review

After careful consideration, I've deleted the user page of Deeceevoice because it shows unprovoked racism and offensive content that is in violation of the arbcom case about her. As with all controversial deletions, I list this ANI post regarding the review of the decision. For the non-admins, the userpage holds POV such as "This has resulted in both misinformation and disinformation; appalling subject matter deficits; and various biases vis-à-vis subject matter treating people of color, the Third World and, most notably, African peoples." "...edit-warring editor, User: Stbalbach, openly and blatantly invited others to engage in tag-team edit warring, a favorite tactic on Misplaced Pages to censor the writings of other editors who don't toe the party line of a numerically superior editorial faction." "Misplaced Pages is a f***ing runaway freight train headed straight to hell. It's downright and despicably dangerous." "In short, Misplaced Pages is all too often an unreliable source riddled with systemic bias." If an administrator has a problem with the deletion, I urge you to explain the problem, or in worst scenario, undelete. Thanks. --D_arkF_alls 10:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversial? This is a pretty straight-forward case. I would have nuked it on sight. Good job. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This deletion was uncalled for. It boils down to deleting her userpage because she criticized Misplaced Pages? Are we really that Iron Curtain around here? Complaints of systemic bias are very serious and should not be hushed up like this. The page should be undeleted immediately. Really, this just boggles my mind . . . . — Brian (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll let you judge this for yourself Brian. "The same dynamic was at work on an article about Black people, where essentially a team of white (certainly non-black) contributors has determined that only they are allowed to define who black people are. Contributions by black editors have been reverted (deleted) summarily and repeatedly -- wholesale -- including corrections of grammar, fact and capitalization. And one of these very same offending editors had the gall to visit my user page to tell me to stop editing, because my edits were "not helping."" She is blatantly stating that other editors are racist. --D_arkF_alls 10:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

So are you going to follow up her accusation with the evidence that she's wrong? ---- WebHamster 10:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere in your quote do I see any "blatant" accusations of "racism". And what if her report there is true? Isn't this something she has a right to be angry about? Again, silencing someone in their userspace because you disagree with their opinion is not something I want to see administrators doing. — Brian (talk) 10:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

She speaks her mind. The last time I looked at her user page, it was angry. I agreed with some of it, I disagreed with some of it, I thought it was harsh about Misplaced Pages. I didn't think it was offensive. I shan't bother to look at the page now, as you considerately supply what you seem to claim is a particularly offensive nugget. I think it's about articles such as this one, and my impression is that it's a reasonable interpretation of the facts, phrased with sufficient politeness. ¶ If you're so upset by this user page, take it to MfD. (It wouldn't be the first time.) -- Hoary 11:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Which is ironically racist in itself. She is specifically making references to "white males" editing this place (soapboxing). Then there is rude and obnoxious commentary on User:Stbalbach which is certainly soapboxing. I am not commenting on the truthfulness of DCV's comments on the particular user, but choosing "not to believe everything I see in print", since I have not looked into that matter. Those comments are against the very foundations Misplaced Pages is based on. We cannot condone a hostile atmosphere for users to work on Misplaced Pages, and that includes contributors of every ethnicity, race, colour, religion. It is not the criticism of Misplaced Pages that is objectionable, but her whole-sale characterisation of "white people" as essentially racist is provocative. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's your opinion. Provocative proposition or not, white people are indeed generally racist (as are black people) to some degree; try this, and/or read the second section of the third chapter of Gladwell's book Blink. You're likely to find that, no matter what color you happen to be, you're racist (most people find that they are, and I'm among them). Whether or not it's a provocative insight, it's a salutary and depressing one. -- Hoary 11:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) "a team of white (certainly non-black) contributors has determined that only they are allowed to define who black people are." I read that as racism. She is guessing the race of the user, dependent on the edits he/she makes. Also when she accuses other users racist, it assumes no good faith at all and is borderline on personal attack. No matter how deserving the users may be, putting a comment on her userpage calling other people racists is not on. I am not familiar with this issue on Black people, but am sure that the comments will be hurtful to whom it was addressed to. Also, userpages are not to be used as soapboxes. --D_arkF_alls 11:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)r

It was one big soapbox for a number of different things, so good work in deleting it. The text had no purpose on wikipedia. Even the top was just a big advert for charities. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with you there. Her commentary is entirely divisive and inflammatory. According to her, there are only two categories of users: blacks and non-blacks which is creating an uncomfortable environment for other Wikipedians. "We are not Republicans or Democrats on Misplaced Pages, we are just Wikipedians" — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I can hardly comment on the inappropriateness of the banner on the top stating, "Justice for the Jena Six!" If you have a quick look at what the article Jena Six is about, it is massively POV coupled with the links towards activism and donations. --D_arkF_alls 11:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, a long soapbox rant, including a long email by a banned user, which is a violation of WP:BAN. This version was correctly deleted, user can recreate a userpage without these problems anytime. Fram 11:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You can't? I'm disappointed. I was looking forward to reading about how a demand for justice is a no-no in our troubled times. I'd have thought that everybody deserves justice, but then I'm old fashioned I suppose. -- Hoary 11:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You can read it on a weblog. For now, please read what Misplaced Pages is not. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

And you can read WP:CSB. Oh, and where's the policy page that says that dissenting opinions on Misplaced Pages can be summarily squelched? — Brian (talk) 11:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

How exactly was that page assisting us in "countering systematic bias"? It was a provocative piece of commentary and nothing more than that. The only solution which seemed discernible from it to protect Misplaced Pages from systematic bias was to get rid of the racists (which quintessentially includes all the whites and some of the non-blacks). — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sir Nick is absolutely right. Nor are we Christians, Jews, Muslims, Bhuddists or any other religion. No, we are Wikipedians. Great first step, now let's see this expanded to the countless other user pages that serve no other purpose than to divide when we are suppossed to collaborate. EconomicsGuy 11:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Why couldn't you just edit the page instead of deleting it? I propose to restore the page and replace it with "In short, Misplaced Pages is all too often an unreliable source riddled with systemic bias.", a clearly completely inoffensive statement. Kusma (talk) 11:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not just that part of the userpage that's the problem. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That part of the userpage is not a problem. Criticising Misplaced Pages is perfectly acceptable. Kusma (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

*cough* Did you happen to read most of the page and what was the locus of the commentary? That systematic bias exist because white people are editing Misplaced Pages. You don't need to restore the whole page just to add these lines, I can say, you can go ahead and add those lines on her page, if you want. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not very interested in editing other people's userspace, especially if those people have been productive editors in the past. Kusma (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I certainly do not condone actions to encourage productivity of one user at the cost of the productivity of other users. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Kusma, I have no problems with that. The racism comments, however, have to go. --D_arkF_alls 11:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You could have just removed those and left the rest of the page alone. See also the MfD: Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Deeceevoice closed just a week ago. Kusma (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Closed earlier than it should have. I don't necessarily agree with those opining on the MfD discussion, assuming that the page was similar to what it was, just before it got deleted. Restoring the page, but removing the offensive commentary is OK with me. Who's gonna volunteer? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The links can go as well. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Same here... Removal will be enough. --D_arkF_alls 11:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(general comment) Given the debate here and that the only votes opinions expressed at the (short) MfD were 'keep' by 2 admins, it is clear this discussion belongs at MfD. R. Baley 12:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

MfD is not a vote, and the page can certainly go for deletion review, but definitely not MfD because that means those comments stay there for an additional number of 5 more days. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of the purportedly offensive content should be sufficient. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Restored with all the soapboxing rubbish removed. I don't see why that wasn't done in the first place. Neil ム 12:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly the reason why I did not want this to be restored in the first place. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This is what happens if you restore the content. Some guy reverts, and we're in a worse position than at the beginning. I'm not going to revert war this, but that revert doesn't reflect consensus in anyway whatsoever. --D_arkF_alls 12:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No, because the next person that thinks reverting to include such content on Misplaced Pages is a good idea will get blocked. Neil ム 12:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(personal attack by User:F Mita removed)

Comment Simply from the amount of debate arising from the deletion regarding the interpretation of some of the language on the userpage I should think it obvious that the content was disruptive. There is nothing that doesn't allow the user to re-edit it in a fashion that both illustrates their concerns and does not contain inflammatory phrases and terms. LessHeard vanU

The deletion was in breach of Misplaced Pages:User page#Ownership and of Misplaced Pages:Civility. If you've a problem, raise it with the user first. If you disagree with their personal opinions, discuss them and don't censor them. It's a very odd idea that setting out perceived problems of racism at Misplaced Pages should be banned because you think that even discussing it is racist. Having read the comments, in my opinion they're within the latitude allowed on a user page. I'm not going to edit war on her page, but even removing bits then inviting discussion is a breach of civility and in my opinion these bits should be restored and the procedure set out at Misplaced Pages:User page#Removal of inappropriate content until there has been followed, allowing time for a proper community discussion. .. dave souza, talk 12:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC) grmr edit dave souza, talk 12:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Dave, if you're going to quote Misplaced Pages:User pages, perhaps you should look at Misplaced Pages:User_page#Inappropriate_content. No polemics. Neil ム

The community owns the pages not the user. True, latitude is offered to users when it comes to their user space, but they have to use them sensitively, while furthering the goals of the project and not to post agendas against other user's colour and ethnicity. This is not the first time this issue has been brought up. DCV has been sanctioned by the ArbCom before for the same very reason. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm defending Deeceevoice, since I believe I have fought with and strongly disagreed with her before, and am quite possibly one of the editors she would remove comments from unread with a snarky edit comment if I commented on her talk page... but I also believe strongly in the use of user space by an editor to explain where he/she is coming from, even if some of that may offend the thin-skinned. I think Misplaced Pages these days is showing an extreme intolerance of criticism that is unbecoming of an information resource; the big BADSITES flap is a perfect example, but not the only one. This warning, treating me as if I was vandalizing her page rather than reverting what I saw as vandalism (something I'll do even on behalf of my enemies just as much as my friends) seems highly uncalled for. *Dan T.* 12:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think removing offensive content and soapboxing tirades from Misplaced Pages is "vandalism"? Misplaced Pages is not an information resource. It is an encyclopaedia. If something does not help us build a better encyclopaedia, it probably should not be here. If it actively hurts the cause of building a better encyclopaedia, it definitely should not be here. A 10kb rant about how Misplaced Pages is biased against black people does not help Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages should tolerate no criticism, of itself or of anywhere else, other than relevant and referenced criticism within its articles. WP:RPA says "remove person attacks" - explain to me how the removed content on Deeceevoice's user page was anything but a series of personal attacks. Neil ム 12:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you being serious, Neil? Look at my user page. Everything you see under the heading "Early American popular culture" (and quite a few articles under "Miscellaneous") — everything — is there as a direct result of Deeceevoice's criticism. I wrote the earliest form of the minstrel show article, and she criticized it, soundly, and in her characteristic fashion. Rather than hide my tail between my legs and complain that she was being "divisive" and "incivil" (or deleting her comments as such), I took them seriously and, you know what? I used them to make the encyclopedia better. I am really troubled by this attitude that no one can criticize Misplaced Pages. I am really, really troubled by this. Are we really that thin-skinned? Are we really that afraid of a revolution by the proletariat? This whole discussion is leaving a bad taste in my mouth. — Brian (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You do know that you restored a very long post of a banned user in "reverting the vandalism"? Fram 12:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, please check what you're talking about. It is not the criticism against Misplaced Pages that was perceived as offensive by a large number of editors (even before this incident), but the blanket accusation that "whites" are editing this encyclopedia, hence Misplaced Pages is biased. Things can be said and done in a better way. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

May I also explain that I deleted what I thought were comments of racism. I have nothing against criticism of Misplaced Pages. She can say whatever she likes about "where she is coming from", but only if it doesn't disrupt Misplaced Pages or be so much in excess that it is more of a soapbox... The userspace in which you reverted to violates both. --D_arkF_alls 13:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not particularly worried about what I see on User pages. I have been somewhat surprised over the months to see people edit out content on other people's user pages. Things like a counter showing the length of time since the US invasion of Iraq were deemed inappropriate, but other user pages containing commercial advertisements are allowed to stand.

However, I have found deeceevoice to be a particularly disruptive and uncooperative editor. When I was editing with her, I did not know the full range of WP administrative tools and remedies for dealing with difficult editors like herself, or I would have called for one or more actions to be used against her. The problem is not her user page with some bitter complaints. It is how she drives away good editors and good content.

On the black people page, she would not agree to any other definition of what a black person was, from anyone else. This included people of color from Africa, or India. She had her own personal idea and agenda. Of the dozens of definitions considered, and justified with citations, she maintained that only her definition was correct. She rejected peer-reviewed scientific references in favor of pseudoscience and her own personal assertions. If you disagreed with her, you were branded as racist. She even refused to accept that there was disagreement among the definitions. She was angry and pushy and insulting and disruptive, and probably used sock puppets and meat puppets to get her way.--Filll 13:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposing taking appropriate action against her regarding things she does elsewhere in the project, but I'm in favor of at least letting her have her own user page as "rant space" if that's what she wants. *Dan T.* 13:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I use some of these as rant spaces. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The irony of a bunch of admins telling an editor they are a racist for pointing out that others are racist. I guess this would have left us to pre-civil rights movement days. The white people who wanted to maintain racial inequity could have just called the blacks racists for calling the whites racist. Does anyone care to investigate the situation they described, or is everyone just upset their race has been slandered, since no white people are racists. They also did not call all white people racists, they called certain ones. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I may have missed it, but who called Deeceevoice (or her userpage) racist? It is an excessive rant (violating not a soapbox), it contains pesonal attacks, and it contains a long post by a banned user (not really a very good idea either). These are the reasons I have seen for deleting the page (or removing most of it). I don't care about the race or colour of any of the people involved, I mainly support the rights of blue people anyway. Fram 13:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

People here in this very section are stating they made racist remarks by pointing out what might be racists on Misplaced Pages. Just to note it seems if I am reading correctly, they never said such a thing, eluded, but did not state. I also like smurfs. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• El C has just reverted Neil's edits to the page in question. This now looks a bit like wheel warring... -Hit bull, win steak 13:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• I protected the page. That means that those who edit warred over it, even if they are admins, do not get to continue the revert war. Thx. El_C 14:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• You should not have protected the page in the first place - there was no edit war. Protection is not a whacking stick to be used to get your own way in a content dispute. El_C, I would strongly urge you to reconsider. Neil ム 14:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Even if that was the case, you should not have reverted a protected page; you should not have unprotected. It looked like a revert war (and I still am not sure it wasn't), so I protected. You still used your admin tools to get your way. That's fine, I want nothing to do with this anymore, or with you. El_C 14:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

She has been subject to racist attacks since she joined the project (does anyone remember User:Wareware?) After 3 years of this crap, isn't it getting kinda old? Guettarda 15:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree, Guettarda. She has had to endure racist attacks for a very long time and this new circus appears orchestrated with the sole aim of humiliating her further. The offensive statement, I suppose, was her opinion that "Misplaced Pages is skewed toward a white, male, under-50 demographic""?! Man, that's rough and hurtful for all those who feel unfairly targeted (which would probably be about 70-75 percent of the people in this thread here). No wonder her user space needs to be erased from the project, especially when she said that other hurtful thing, namely the this demographic has "various biases vis-à-vis subject matter treating people of color, the Third World and, most notably, African peoples". Will I too be censored if I let you all know that I agree with her estimate about the systematic bias and that the actions against her user page appears to prove her point? Pia 00:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

All I'm going to say is that the userpage appears to be having the desired effect, judging by the jousting that's going on up above and elsewhere. Can't we all come to our senses and find something better to do than talking about a userpage ? Nick 20:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Like talking about talking about a user page? Neil ム 23:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

To those who found the page to be polemical: you saw it as being so because it touched a raw nerve and you were offended. However, the beauty of truly free speech is that many will disagree and some will be offended. Oh well, that's life. DeeCee is entitled to her opinion, and having it on her user page is her choice. While I may not agree in totality with her opinion, I'll defend her right to have it. Her other activities and her behaviour on WP are completely separate issues, and should not have been raised here.

Additionally, as I raised somewhere and somewhen else, "polemical" is a subjective term. Where is the boundary drawn? When does something move from being a statement of principle to a polemic screed. When it upsets Bob? When it upsets Terri? When it upsets Mark? I've seen user pages containing statements with which I strongly disagreed, but I'll be damned if I want them banned, bowdlerised, censored or suppressed. If you don't like DeeCee's user page, stay away from it. (just pretend it's a TV and you have a remote to change the channel so you don't have to watch something that upsets, deranges, or unsettles you). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how much of this could have been avoided by talking to her first? She might have been willing to remove it herself if asked. Some of the material that was objected to has been there for 10 months. A couple of days more wouldn't have hurt. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Given this comment "Gee, Animum. Thanks for giving me permission to edit my own freaking user page. The issue you need to consider is what gives you the right to do so? Get a life. Hands off my user page." I highly doubt the user will change anything on the userpage when asked. --D_arkF_alls 23:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Although the rules appear to allow you to delete userpage content in situations like this, please use some common-sense discretion. I used to have a section on my user page that I openly titled "Soapbox" . I'm sure many people saw it, since it was there for awhile and I've been involved in some controversial debates since I added it. But no one who saw it deleted it. After I felt that I had made my point I removed it myself, having blown off some steam, I guess. Anyway, our userpages allow us to vent and express ourselves to some degree. Again, although the rules may or may not allow such expression, please don't be so thin-skinned in these situations. If you don't like what you read, let it go for a few days so you can consider what you're going to do or not do about it unemotionally. Just my two cents on the matter. Cla68 04:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Gross misuse of blocking

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

Obviously there was something suspicious with the account with the blatant vandalism and a questionable username. He can create a new account if he wishes right now. Leave it be. — Moe ε 19:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I was reviewing the deletion log and noticed this unfortunate victim of over zealous adminship. Obviously the rules of being nice and assume good faith toward newbies don't apply to all adimins? This user wasn't even warned. He made a couple of edits in the sandbox, then edited some articles with clear experimentation (which he self-reverted by the way) and was blocked because of his username and vandalism. Not 1 warning! No offers of help. They didn't even know why they were getting blocked. I can't find anything in the username policy that suggests this name was a blatantly inappropriate one, and he should have been asked politely to change his username.

This is one of the reasons I refuse to register on Misplaced Pages. Someone needs to make the blocking admin understand that new users are not expendable. 68.143.88.2 22:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I notified DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs) and C.Fred (talk · contribs) on their talk pages. I share 68.'s concerns about these sorts of blocks, and request that the user's talk page be unprotected and that they be unblocked. I personally volunteer to walk Wikitarded (talk · contribs) though their first edits and get them oriented around the place. Also, I will assist them with changing their username, if consensus shows it to be necessary; personally, I don't think it is. ➪HiDrNick! 23:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

An inappropriate username (clearly a play on the word retarded) and a vandalism only account , . Seems a perfectly valid block to me. If you want to contribute, I recommend a less inflammatory username and constructive edits. WjBscribe 23:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Username blocks don't require warnings. The block was timestamped at 22:08; the user's "why am I blocked" message came in at 22:11. The only thing missing was an explanation of the block--which, rightfully, should have been made in that 2-3 minute interval. I started to ask whether the block should be redone as a softblock to allow creation of a new account; when I saw vandalism in the edit history, I withdrew that question of the blocking admin.

I have no objection to this user creating a new, better named account and immediately editing on their merry way. —C.Fred (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to grant a new, better-named account and a hand-holding. The edits were... not useful, but I'm also willing to grant that they weren't necessarily vandalism. DS 23:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your accusation that this is vandalism. This is clearly experimentation. Read what article it was put into and where; it is an article about the Irish Hunger Strike. Also, the article about the duck sexual behavior is...in fact...referred to in the very same article as "rape flight". I see no obvious reason to suspect this is vandalism. What I do see is a lazy group of admins who would rather just block other then attempt communication with a newly registered user. Additionally, a perfectly valid block is one that conforms to the blocking policy, which states that a user should be warned before they are blocked. This user had no interaction from any Wikipedian both editor nor admin alike and was simply blocked on the spot. Furthermore, his username, according to the policy is not a clear cut case of inappropriateness. It clearly states that, "boarderline usernames need to be discussed, and if consensus is reached that a change is needed, the user should be asked to change".

That editor probably will never come back. This was clearly handled very poorly.

Additionally, the user admitted his username was a play on words. From the way it sound to me it was connotation that he was "new" and reflecting his views toward himself. 68.143.88.2 23:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, we're going to have a hard time seeing if he does come back or not is someone doesn't make with the unblocking and unprotecting already. Obviously it was handled poorly to begin with, but let's fix it now if we can, and then worry about how to prevent this kind of thing in the future. ➪HiDrNick! 23:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk page is unprotected. It was my call on the protection, so I've reconsidered my own action. —C.Fred (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the username is in one of the "big five" categories of unacceptable usernames, as it's offensive: "Usernames that refer to a medical condition or disability, especially in a belittling way." —C.Fred (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"a perfectly valid block is one that conforms to the blocking policy, which states that a user should be warned before they are blocked." - While it is recommended (though not standard procedure for obvious username violations), it states: "Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking." And it also states that: "some types of user accounts are considered disruptive and may be blocked: ... accounts with inappropriate usernames" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Z-man (talk • contribs)

Postmortem

I'm distressed to see so many administrators saying that this kind of block is appropriate. If it fit the letter of the policy is irrelevant, it clearly does not go along with the spirit of the 💕 that anyone can edit. Obviously usernames like "JimboSucksCocks6969" should be blocked on sight, but what good are you really doing Misplaced Pages in the long run to drop in banhammer on borderline cases making test edits without so much as a polite word on the talk page? Let's everyone try to be more cautious and welcoming in the future. ➪HiDrNick! 04:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The block was fine, the username policy is clear on this. More communication may have helped. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 04:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No it was not. I don't think that "Wikitarded" is a "username that refers to a medical condition or disability, especially in a belittling way." At worst, it's self-sarcastic, and it doesn't display any sign of attention to derogate others. And the recent incident with "shoot first" attitude led to WP:USERNAME policy change, which now states that "In borderline cases, it should not be necessary to immediately block the username but rather to attempt to discuss the problem with the user."
In sum, I don't think we lost a valuable contributor: Wikitarted was experimenting and playing, and the result was borderline vandalism, but apparently in good faith. But I'm not happy with the "shoot first" approach. Duja► 08:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Those blocking should stop and think first. And they should be prepared to unblock and apologise in the spirit of the policy, instead of tenaciously defending the letter of the policy. Even better, they should discuss before blocking. Carcharoth 12:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the block itself, but I'm puzzled as to why the talk page was protected. -Chunky Rice 14:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled about the page protection and the block. I notice admins love to take random sentences of pure policy (out of context I might add) to justify poor judgment. I don't understand why one can't simply apologize -- both blocking and page protecting admins were in the wrong on this. Additionally, I would like to make a page for consensus on the username Wikitarded. I personally do not feel it is appropriate to classify this as a "ban on sight username" as it is clearly not an "attach username", as defined by the username policy (by the way, that was a perfect example of using a policy sentence in context; which is the essence of Misplaced Pages). I don't even think it's a bad username (I've seen worse on here get by without a word). Look at the connotations of Wikitarded. This entire username symbolizes the users feelings of inadequacy towards not only his understanding of wiki's, but even emphasizes how dismal his experience is with the word "tarded". It's not directed to others in anyway. It's not "yourretarded", or "retardkiller", or "OMGuRetard", or anything like those name. Perhaps you should look at more than the general definition of the word "retarded" and "medical". This thinking is fundamentally flawed. One must take into account the cultural significance regarding the use of the word. The word "retarded" is used more often by demonstrated something that has been impeded or slow moving, (hence, slow mind), or a casual term used to describe a stupid action, "dude, ahhh man, that was retarded". My point is, I believe if this over zealous admins have a problem with "Wikitarded", they'd also have a problem with "Wikiblind (medical condition--blind), Wikideaf (medical condition--deaf), Wikimute (medical condition--mute), Wikicrazy (medical condition--psychosis), Wikiinsomniac (medical condition--insomnia), Wikisniper (act of violence--attack anme), Netsniper (act of violence--attack name), etc. Notice how ridiculous it seems now? Wikitarded, wow, big deal. I'm willing to bet if we had a vote on this username in regards to being personally offensive toward any one person, the majority of editors would answer they are not personally offended. If more admins and editors alike would just use some common sense and avoid these personal vendettas to administer the supreme rule of Wikipeida policy to it's very definition, and not get their panties in a wad about really insignificant things, WP:ANI would be a much, much shorter page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.143.88.2 (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

<sarcasm>You were uncivil by linking to a page with an offensive name. Please retract that or you will be blocked. No, rather, I'll block you straight away.</sarcasm> Duja► 14:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

English College Dubai

This article has obviously been vandalised and requires cleanup.82.110.109.210 08:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral admin requested for sockpuppetry report

I'd like another administrator to look at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Mightyms and decide whether to reset the block, warn, or do nothing. I was involved in the unfortunate discourse that led to the block, so I'm recusing myself.--chaser - t 08:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reset the block and extended it to 48 hours due to block evasion. Ryan Postlethwaite 08:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Haizum and Blackwater USA

User:Haizum has blown a gasket overnight over what he feels is POV in the Blackwater USA entry, which is currently featured on the front page, and keeps adding a POV tag and making uncivil remarks on the talk page. Can someone look into this? --Pleasantville 09:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

See also his edit summaries for Blackwater USA arms smuggling. --Pleasantville 09:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I welcome it. My POV tags were clearly explained - I even made a point of noting that they were explained on the talk page. The evidence will show that Pleasantville deliberately ignored my supported concerns with unsupported reversions. Again, I welcome it. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You objected to factual, verified information about the company and its executives as being "irrelevant." That was all your argument -- "it's not relevant." The facts in question were: 1. CEO interned at the WH during Bush 41. 2. VP Black volunteers for the Mitt Romney campaign. I asked you repeatedly to substantiate your opinion, by quoting WP policy for example, which you never did. Instead you insulted me, calling me "misogynistic" for some reason that escapes me (the discussion hasn't involved talking about woman even once). Basically, not once have you contributed anything but personal opinions about sources or other editors' bias. Niczar 07:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC) This was in the main Blackwater USA article, not the weap smuggling article. Niczar 08:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Your initial volley on Blackwater USA arms smuggling may be misthought, though... there is only going to be largely "negative" news related to this, as it's not exactly a happy topic for Blackwater or their supporters, given the subject matter and Congressional investigation, and Congressional investigation of confirmed cover-up attempts. It's rather unfortunate, but there isn't any positive news to offset the allegations besides Blackwater calling them "baseless". On others, I'm curious how statements from Blackwater employees aren't credible? I'm sure Pleasantville will agree with me that we just want these articles to be as fully detailed and sourced as possible

I'm happy to work with you, as I hope you are with us. I saw you have been blocked

Ongoing by User:Haizum

Would an admin mind reviewing this? I don't know how this person is being helpful unfortunately and he seems to be attacking the editors.

"I reject your response. The references are coming overwhelmingly from left-leaning media sources (generally accepted as being so), and that is the fault of the editors of this article. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)"

But we only have those sources to work with, which he won't accept. Then,

"...coming from the one that's been launching misogynistic insults and this entire time. Why don't you tell me how I'm being "emotional" again? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)"

And,

"A similar Blackwater USA article could have been written entirely from conservative sources, but it wasn't, and it never will be. The community simply will not allow it. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)"

I'm not sure how to approach this given his block history and hurling insults. Its not a content dispute, really, since he's not adding or removing any, just railing against the fact that all RS around Blackwater USA tend to be negative and how no one will allow a conservative article to be built. Or something. I'm not sure. Please help. He has been on ANI before. • Lawrence Cohen 22:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

About his block log for nearly every block except the most recent he was later unblocked. Besides this is a content dispute anyways. 65.102.7.201 22:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The unblocks were to extend blocks? I see blocks for "abusive emails", "user repeateadly assumed bad faith and was uncivil on several talk pages", "particularly venomous email I recieved", "abusive emails", "Massive incivility and edit warring on Laura Ingraham", "personal attacks", and "repeat offender" with blocks of 5 to 8 days. How is this a content dispute? He is just railing against editors. • Lawrence Cohen 22:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I've commented in the hopes of calming it down. Not optimistic, though. --Haemo 22:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User:68.54.56.198

User talk:68.54.56.198 is personally attacking me and an admin on his talkpage. I tried to get the page semi'd, but it was declined because the admin there said he didn't see how it violated WP:NPA. User in question called User:Haemo a "damned fool" and labelled me as a page owner. USer is also abusing the unblock template by claiming they didn't touch the page in question (First person shooter), when they have a long rap sheet of adding spam links. NASCAR Fan24 10:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The user has been blocked and offensive comments removed from their talk page. --Ben 12:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

USer is also abusing the unblock template by claiming they didn't touch the page in question (First person shooter), when they have a long rap sheet of adding spam links. To be completely fair, that might not have been the same person. IP addresses change hands regularly, and suddenly discovering you're blocked for something you didn't do is not necessarily conducive to civility. —Random832 13:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC) I read the page - he did NOT claim he didn't touch the page, he claimed he didn't add anything new (i.e. only reverted removals of stuff that was not originally inserted by him). This isn't spamming, it's a content dispute, he should only have been blocked for 3RR (if he did, in fact, violate 3RR, and in which case that should have been spelled out.) —Random832 13:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"I didn't add anything to the page (First person shooter)." That is dishonest as they did add about 20 spam links tot the page. They also were blocked for 3RR, that notice was removed somehow. The fact that they mentioned me and the declining admin by name, and the way the initial unblock request was worded, makes me think it was the same person. NASCAR Fan24 19:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

He claims he didn't add them. There is a legitimate argument (one I do not personally agree with, but that is reasonable enough that I can believe he sincerely holds that opinion) to be made that reinsertion is not the same thing as addition. That may not have been clear from his claim, but it was certainly clear from my explanation. There is a difference between "He added these links, that were never on the page before" and "He reinserted these links that had been on the page forever before being removed a weekmonth ago", and, regardless of how worthless the links are, he perceived your claims an accusation of the former, and correctly defended himself against that accusation. I'm willing to AGF and suppose you either didn't realize he meant that (though the way you rephrased "didn't add anything" to "didn't touch the page" seems like you were trying to mislead) or didn't realize the links HAD been there in the past, added by other editors. Are you willing to AGF and accept that by "did not add them" he means he was not the one who first put them in the article? —Random832 13:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Boricuaeddie / lots of bots.

both user and bots indef blocked --slakr 11:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Just an FYI, User:Boricuaeddie is currently creating lots of suspicious-looking bots. --slakr 11:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

... and it now appears they're vandalizing random rfas. --slakr 11:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

All blocked. Kusma (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is very curious. I don't think I've ever had dealings with Boricuaeddie (now renamed User:Agüeybaná, according to this), but he appears to have been a productive editor in the past. Could these bots possibly be the result of a compromised account?

More relevant to many editors who have been renamed: is it possible for someone to usurp the prior name for malicious purposes? If so, perhaps protection of former account names is in order.

Thanks. --Kyoko 13:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, people should recreate former accounts after being renamed if there is a danger of impersonation. WjBscribe 13:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see this notice regarding what happened with the name yesterday. A vandal somehow re-created the name, and should be blocked now, but if someone could get that name back to Aguey I'm sure he'd appreciate it. 13:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I sort of agree, but that should really be achieved by technical means. I don't see the reason why should we allow old accounts to be reused; that could only lead to ugly impersonation incident. Similar thing already happened to another user I know (I can't sort out the logs at the moment to demonstrate it). Bugzilla, anyone? Duja► 14:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That part, I don't understand either. Nor can I explain how the vandal is even able to create accounts, when the Boricuaeddie account was blocked on the 2nd. I'm sure someone with more insight into the inner workings can figure it out, but it seems quite odd to me, lol. 14:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused. I was User:Pedro1999a and that now just redirects to existing name. So I assume no-one could usurp that account, and indeed my older one which was (more worringly) my RL name? I'm probably being thick here..... Pedro :  Chat  14:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You assume wrongly. Now there is User:Pedro1999a, and I consider the feature a serious security breach. Now I'm in possesion of your old identity—you're pwned :-). Of course, as a matter of courtesy, I'll block it forever. Duja► 14:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent) was not blocked with account creation disabled. I've corrected this. SQL 14:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL Omigosh Duja, that's pretty funny (in a scary, how could that be, kind of way). Definitely something that should be looked into, I'd think. And I'd suggest that anyone who renamed go and create their old account again (or have an admin do it) to avoid this sort of thing. Poor Agüeybaná :( I hope nobody thinks he was doing this. (And ahhhh that makes sense SQL. Still the bottom line is the names are there for the taking, scary) 14:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think it was him, but, I figured either his old account was compromised, or, he was being impersonated... Shot him an e-mail this morning to let him know :) ArielGold brings up a good point, that even I didn't think of until recently... If you're renamed... you need to create your old account again! :) (And, if you can't, we're always happy to help at WP:ACC...) SQL 14:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense for that to be part of the procedure for the renaming, so the admin does it immediately after renaming your account?  — Timotab 15:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I hope that's what is decided, as this is pretty disturbing. I mean, a vandal creating the account is easily dealt with like this one was, but imagine if an innocent user ends up with someone's "released" username out of coincidence, and does a lot of editing under the name, and people think it is the other person not realizing they've renamed? I mean, it seems like it should definitely be addressed in some way, either through tech modifications ("locking" the account name after re-naming/moving) or by adding in that step as part of the renaming process, to create the old username again. 15:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Don't forget admins can't rename accounts, that requires a bureaucrat - who I suspect will say they already have enough to do without having to recreate accounts as well. I must say I am surprised users haven't been doing this themselves - but I guess what seems obvious to me as someone involved in organising the rename pages may not be obvious to everyone. I've added a note at WP:CHU advising people to recreate accounts . WjBscribe 15:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent thing to add, WJBscribe, thanks. I hope that will help for future folks. And yes, bureaucrats are the ones to rename users, so perhaps they would not want to deal with re-creation, I'm sure they have tons of things to do. At least this way, the information is out there until (if) it is fixed. I'd have to say though, that the average user who was renamed, probably would not even consider this as something that happened during the re-naming, since the userpage and talk pages redirect. It makes it appear that the username is still in existence. 15:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This might prove interesting and/or relevant... Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 16:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and modified WJBscribe's note further, to stress that even though redirects are created in the renaming process, the old account can be taken: 1. I had assumed that simply having the redirects would prevent impersonation, but this incident has taught me otherwise. --Kyoko 18:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ooooookkkkkkkk...... Weird. Just for the record, this was not done by me. Also, I don't entirely agree with the recreation of previous usernames. Part of why I changed my name was so that others could enjoy my previous one. Unfortunately, it didn't work out as expected :-) Thank you all for your help. --Agüeybaná 21:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

repeat offender

this user is a repeat offender who never listens to warnings. ] Realist2 11:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No need to worry this has now been resolved. Realist2 11:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

racism and homophobia

Also this user finds racism and homophobia acceptable. Words like negro and faggot (this user is so stupid he/she spells it figet) are not acceptable.]Realist2 11:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please report this to the appropriate message board, Administrator intervention against vandalism in future. For now I have given them a final warning --Ben 11:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, at the same time I have reviewed the contribtions and blocked for 24 hours ;-). --Stephan Schulz 11:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

yes i noticed well done, its a sufficient block, please notice my above report on the repeat offender check that user out as well he is a different user. sorry if this has caused confusion, they are two different people. Realist2 11:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that this is an IP address, not a logged-in user. The IP address is used by a Norwegian ISP for DSL, i.e. it is very likely not a static address. Various people can use it over time, which is why we do not block such addresses for long periods. --Stephan Schulz 12:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

sure thingRealist2 12:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Kimbell2.* (and variants)

Over the last few days, a number of accounts with the same user name format were created. So far I can see:

• User:Kimbell4.MichaelL
• User:Kimbell2.emelyh
• User:Kimbell4Zoobia
• User:Kimbell2.gina
• User:Kimbell2.JoelL
• User:Kimbell2.JiannaG
• User:Kimbell2.CobyA
• User:Kimbell2.deysia
• User:Kimbell2.AnmolS
• User:Kimbell4.katherinec
• User:Kimbell2.chelseas
• User:Kimbell2.YancyM
• User:Kimbell2. anaa
• User:Kimbell2.KathyG
• User:Kimbell2.geraldc‎
• User:Kimbell2.shanellen‎

A few of these were posted to WP:AIV, but I'm not convinced these are either vandalism or sockpuppets. The standardized user names may indicate a school project. Has anybody heard about this?

I think we should hold off on puppetry blocks until at least we get a checkuser done and perhaps call the school to confirm if this is a project or not. Caknuck 13:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a high school class to me. One says "Crowded in the hallways of Brentwood High" on his or her user page. --Pleasantville 14:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Why would a checkuser be necessary? They're clearly related and not trying to hide the fact. Folks going to this level of transparency shouldn't be blocked unless any main space nonsense starts occuring. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a teacher named Kimbell at Brentwood High in Brentwood, NY: See http://www.ratemyteachers.com/schools/new_york/brentwood/brentwood_high_school/ms__kimbell --Pleasantville 15:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There are several reasons for the checkuser:

1. Some of the editors have been violating policies (albeit, not in an evidently malicious way) such as using userspace as chatrooms & creating vanity articles. If this is a school project, we should contact the teacher responsible to make sure that the aim of the project is within the scope of the project and to make sure that they make the students aware of Misplaced Pages policies.
2. If we take a proactive approach here, then other editors will be aware of the circumstances. If I'm correct in thinking that these are high school students, then it's not unreasonable to expect some level of juvenile vandalism. If we make other admins aware of the circumstances, then there's less chance of blocks that may hamper their project. (For instance, if an admin blocked the users reported to AIV with account creation blocked, then some students may be locked out of their assignment.)
3. It's not inconceivable that some of the students already have accounts, and may be using both to edit from home and/or school. Confirming intent will make it clear whether or not it's allowable instances of using multiple accounts.

I've filed a checkuser request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/User:Kimbell2.shanellen. Caknuck 15:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

To figure out the intent of these accounts, you could try to ask them on their talk pages. Checkuser seems like total overkill. Kusma (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I found the phone number for the school. I'll leave a message for the teacher this afternoon. According to ratemyteacher.com & the Web site for the school, Ms. Kimbell is an English teacher. I certainly hope this isn't a creative writing project or anything of that ilk. Caknuck 16:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

(To the tune of Monty Python's "Spam song") "BITE bite bite bite Bite bite bite bite BITEY BITE, bitey bite bite." Heaven forbid someone actually welcome these kids and politely point them to a few relevant rules and guidelines. Thatcher131 16:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was trying to preemptively avoid the biting. I started this thread to try to avoid unnecessary blocks & deletions, not to attempt to incriminate people. If this is an exercise in collaborative, factual writing, then WP may just be the best place to get real experience. Also, isn't contacting the teacher responsible for the project the best way to welcome them and to establish a rapport with them? Caknuck 18:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Do I get points for doing just that while you were posting this? Basically, this does look like a school project from a quick look, but nobody had communicated with any of the above users except for one speedy-deletion notice for an article that looked to be a misplaced attempt to create a userpage. Two of their userpages were deleted by Merope (talk · contribs) for G2 and G3, without comment on the talk pages. I welcomed all of those listed, so hopefully they'll have some links to investigate. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the G3 I deleted called a student "the biggest crackhead", and I pretty much zap anything attack-page-y like that quickly. The other one was probably a bad call; I deleted it because I was trying to sort out the mess of edits by all of these accounts and got a little overzealous. -- Merope 17:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I figured it was personal information or something and they were good and proper deletions, was just surprised there were no messages left with regards to them. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I make mistakes! I should probably be de-sysopped. -- Merope 17:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, let me get my torch and pitchfork. Anyone got an angry mob handy? (No criticism of the deletions or the mistake was intended, you're a great admin!) Tony Fox (arf!) 19:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In all honesty, I do the same as Merope. I'm used to CAT:CSD where the speedy tagger has already informed the user. I figure the user can see the deletion reason and I try to link to the proper section of WP:CSD for further reading but I know it's not reasonable to expect all users to figure that out. I'm smelling a good idea for a new bot! —Wknight94 (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there's more accounts out there. I only listed those I found in the User creation log, but it only went back to yesterday afternoon. Some of the accounts posted to AIV were created on 10/2, so there's probably dozens of others dating back at least that far. (I neglected to mention this in my reasoning for the checkuser request.) Caknuck 18:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Per this, there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 37. --barneca (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In a row? hbdragon88 19:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Privacy issue

If a user reveals on the Misplaced Pages where they work, and if that user is using their work IP address to continue to vandalise the Misplaced Pages, is it a violation of our privacy policy to report the abuse to that network administrator? Specifically here, I'm thinking of a blocked vandal who continues to set up abusive sockpuppet accounts to get around the block. I want to note for the record that I am only talking about disclosing information revealed by the user themselves and revealed on Misplaced Pages, not any other site, and only to stop the continued vandalism. Blocking the IP addresses in question will not work; it was tried and it lead to collateral damage. A soft block does not work because this vandal uses outside addresses to set up additional sockpuppet accounts. For the record, I do not know for sure if the disclosed IP address was actually where this person works but it does appear likely. There's no doubt that they are using this corporation's IP address, however. --Yamla 15:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Best not to handle something like this on your own, given possible legal implications. Raymond Arritt 16:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say, no it is not a violation of the privacy policy to contact the network admin. An alternative would be to drop a long term hard block on the IP with the instruction that editors who are blocked should contact their own IT department for assistance. Let them come to us and then let them know what has been happening. Thatcher131 16:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I've taken Thatcher131's advice and dropped a hard block on the address range in question. Thanks for the suggestion. --Yamla 17:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note the following from /Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Responsibility_of_organizations" Editors who access Misplaced Pages through an organization's IP address and who edit Misplaced Pages articles which relate to that organization have a presumptive conflict of interest. Regardless of these editors' specific relationship to that organization or function within it, the organization itself bears a responsibility for appropriate use of its servers and equipment. If an organization fails to manage that responsibility, Misplaced Pages may address persistent violations of fundamental site policies through blocks or bans. I don't know whether the particular editor here is editing articles about his or her employer, but my own take on the matter is that the vandal's company and IT department bear responsibility for oversight. I'd block the IP address without remorse if this editor really is a persistent vandal. And although I wouldn't go out of my way to notify the company about it, I wouldn't conceal the fact either if someone from their IT staff contacted me to inquire. Durova 01:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The editor was not editing about her employer, but had made many edits while logged out so the IP addresses revealed her employer, and then raised the privacy argument when this was pointed out to her. It remains to be seen whether this was mostly a misuderstanding or something else, but in the mean time the editor has been unblocked. Thatcher131 13:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Krantiparisa

Looks like this guy may be a spammer. His one "good" edit is about some company in India with a taxobox and a bunch of "stay tuned" comments under the chapter headings. All his other edits are A3 rephrasings of the names of the principals. Lots of warnings from lots of users, but he continues on his merry way ignoring all attempts to contact him. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 15:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Obvious spam-only account. I've indefinitely blocked it. His contribs have all fit under speedy-deletion criteria, so I've taken care of this as well. MastCell 16:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User wishing unblock/etc?

See this. What's the norm for dealing with it? - Penwhale | 16:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is Tweety21, and is related to Yamla's request above. Banned users may not post to RFAR, they must email ArbCom. If Tweety21 wants to withdraw the complaint that resulted in the ban, she should do so on her own talk page, and then ask for unblock. But it seems there are other issues here, and a pending checkuser request. Yamla and Tweety21 need to get with a third party, maybe via unblock-L, to evaluate Tweety's behavior and whether unblocking is a good idea. Thatcher131 17:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Disruption via overzealous copyvio tagging of free images

Videmus Omnia (talk · contribs) whose overall activity on enforcing the free image policy I am not in a position to evaluate, is repeatedly retagging the PD images as copyvios. See Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/2007 October 4/Images under "PD-UA-images" thread. All official symbols in Ukraine are PD according to the Ukraine's copyright law as elaborated at {{PD-UA-exempt}}. The user claims that the images' being found at some commercial web-site that claims copyright over everything it hosts makes the images non-free despite the user was explained that an exact reproduction of the pre-existing image does not generate a new valid copyright claim.

What comes next? Someone placing an image of Mona Lisa at his MySpace site with "All rights reserved" disclaimed and forcing us removing the image of the Leonardo's (d. 1519) painting? Someone please help sorting this out. --Irpen 16:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit-conflicted report by Videmus Omnia

I tagged the following four images (among many others) as copyright violations from http://www.uniforminsignia.net; that website contains an explicit copyright claim at the bottom of all of its pages stating "The information on this page may not be reproduced, republished or mirrored on another webpage or website without written permission from the editors." Irpen (talk · contribs) is repeatedly removing the {{Imagevio}} tags from the image pages, claiming that they are public domain. I'm sure that a public :domain image can be made or obtained from another source, however these particular images are copyrighted by uniforminsignia.net and our use without permission is a violation. I'd appreciate an outside look at this, as I intend to tag another couple of hundred images downloaded from this site as copyvio as well.

Images

• Image:Ukr viceadmiral.gif
• Image:Ukr admiral.gif
• Image:Ukraine VDV branch.gif‎
• Image:Ukraine radiation branch.gif

Thanks - Videmus Omnia 16:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

We do not need to obtain the public domain images "from another source". The PD images remain PD no matter where we find them. This has been a long standing view both among the copyright lawyers and in Misplaced Pages. See Mona Lisa example above. Our {{PD-Art}} tag explicitly refers to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. which, as well as Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, is a must read for everyone who goes out to an image copyright patrol. It is a pity that even the self-appointed image patroller did not bother to study the copyright-related issues before going out of his way to enforce his view on the copyrights. --Irpen 16:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that anyone can take a public-domain work, modify and/or improve it, and then re-license it under copyright. That appears to be what this website has done. Videmus Omnia 16:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

These images may not be public domain themselves. If they were made from scratch in the likeness of a public domain image, I believe the copyright belongs to the image maker. For example, the US flag is a public domain image, but a photograph of a Jasper Johns painting of a US flag is probably copywritten. - Crockspot 16:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A photograph/scan/other reproduction of a two-dimensional work is deemed to have insufficient creative input to be worthy of copyright. A photograph of a Jasper Johns painting has no copyright protection; the original painting does, but the photo has no additional protection. If the artist were Leonardo da Vinci, or someone else dead for a hundred years, there would be no copyright whatsoever. Which seems not to prevent websites from insisting that their .jpg of the Mona Lisa is "copyrighted" and can't be used without the website's permission. - Nunh-huh 17:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Jasper Johns' painting is not an exact replica of the flag. It contains a good deal of originality via presenting the painter's view and creativity. The images at the web-site, however, are nothing but generic replicas with no originality whatsoever. --Irpen 16:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be reasonable to get an opinion from Mike Godwin about that question. In any case, we have several people who could make high-quality SVG images from scratch to illustrate these things. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that uniforminsignia.net created these images themselves, using official descriptions of the insignia, rather like coats-of-arms. They don't seem to have scanned actual insignias, so Bridgeman doesn't apply. Is uniforminsignia.net's claim of copyright valid? I don't know. A judge could rule that the amount of creative, original work in their gifs is de minimus, and they therefore have no enforceable claim to copyright. Or he could rule that the copyright is valid. That's a chance the Foundation would have to take, since it would be the Foundation who gets sued, not you or me. In this case, uniforminsignia.net is clearly claiming copyright, and it's entirely plausible that their claim could hold up, and it would be relatively easy to recreate the images in a way that is unambiguously free. When it comes to putting my own butt on the line, I can choose to play it safe or I can choose to be gutsy. But when it's someone else's butt on the line, it's no virtue to be so cocksure. It's safer to recreate them, so that (in my opinion) is what we should do. – Quadell 16:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And why exactly "several users" have to put aside time to recreate a yet another version of a PD-image. Because Videmus Omnia does not understand the copyright concept? Not good enough a reason for me. Mike and the foundation repeatedly refused to step in similar debates and I see no reason why the would make an exception. I would welcome if they do, though. We have very clear Misplaced Pages precedents, in fact every "PD-Art" image is a precedent.

It is important to keep in mind though, that indeed not all military insignia is PD. It depends on the national laws and some may be copyrighted by respective governments (not in Ukraine though). But no national symbol gets magically copyrighted by an arbitrary person who places it on his/her unaffiliated web-site. --Irpen 17:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• The copyright claim on that website appears to be a blanket one, covering everything even if it shouldn't. In other words, the website maintainers might put public domain stuff up there, but they aren't going to make the effort to modify their blanket copyright statement to say "oh, except for the public domain stuff we have used, you'll have to work out for yourself which bits those are". Blanket copyright statements are depressingly common, but it requires judgement to work out exactly what they are applying to. Assuming it applies to everything on a website is a very narrow and blinkered (if easy) option. Carcharoth 17:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I understand that, but in this case it appears that the website created their versions of the insignia from scratch (certainly nobody has shown anything to dispute that), which leads me to believe that their claim could be valid in this case. Can anyone point to a source that this website could have taken the insignia from? Videmus Omnia 17:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is that it does not matter! The Ukrainian law states that the Ukrainian military insignia is not copyrightable. Whether the image is jpeg, gif, png or a paper-copy, it reproduces the non-copyrigtable intellectual property. If they created the calligraphic artistic work based on the insignia, there would have been a copyright on the modification. But they state themselves that all those images show are the insignia itself. In Ukraine the insignia is PD. They may also claim a vlaid copyright on the "arrangement" and "collection" of the images, just like the art albums do. But art-albums by claiming such copyrights in no way overtake the copyright claim of the painting themselves that they depict. --Irpen 17:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A judge might agree with you, Irpen. Or he might not. And I don't think you or I should intentionally provoke a copyright dispute between Misplaced Pages and another party, when it would not be difficult to recreate these. If uniforminsignia.net were not explicitly claiming copyright, I might feel differently, but by using these images we're putting Wikimedia at legal risk for no good reason. – Quadell 17:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the points that Quadell has made. Whether or not the website's copyright claims are valid, the website is certainly making those claims. Misplaced Pages's policy on image copyright is generally to play safe when in doubt. By the way, if the images really are PD, and that website just found them somewhere, reproduced them, and claimed copyright, can't we find them somewhere other than on that site, reupload them, and claim PD? ElinorD (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

We are not mindless machines here. We should use our brains to a reasonable degree. If I happen to find the image of Mona Lisa with the better resolution at the web-site that makes a blanket copyright claim and the poor thumbnail copy at the web-site which reminds its readers that Leonardo is long since dead, I do not have to use a poor-quality image just because someone makes a patently false copyright claim. Copyright for the military insignia belongs to the governmental bodies which, depending on the country, may be PD, restricted, permission required, etc. Arranging those images in illustrative or informative form in the work about the military insignia may create a copyright claim for an arrangement. But there is nothing anyone can do to start owning the image itself that is free to begin with. Arrangement, collection, artistic collage - yes. The original - no. It is crystal clear. In no way I am able to copy the entire Misplaced Pages to my web-site and claim "all rights reserved" on it. I mean, yes, I can do it by typing "All rights reserved" and clicking the "save" button but by doing so, I will simply make a meaningless claim rather than derail the Misplaced Pages project. --Irpen 18:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is that you have no idea whether or not they have altered these images in a sufficient way. If they've drawn up these insignia from descriptions, there's artistic merit there, even if the officially produced ones are public domain. They claim to hold copyright over them, and their claim could hold up in court. Given that we can produce free versions, this seems like a silly point to argue. --Haemo 18:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If they altered the image in any meaningful or artistic way, yes, you would be right. But their own web-sites claims that these are just insignia, clear and simple, and insignia is not copyrighted in Ukraine. --Irpen 19:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Insignia, like coats of arms, are subject to creative interpretation. The design is public domain, this is true, along with official versions in some instances, but individual artistic takes on how they are portrayed is different, and can be copyrighted. --Haemo 20:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not and artistic take. They do not even attempt to claim this as a "creative interpretation". All there is to it, is the generic image. The mere reproduction of a free image does not generate a new copyright. Read again {{PD-art}}. --Irpen 20:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. The detail and depiction of the elements of a crest or a coat of arms are artistic, and can be copyrighted. For instance, look at version of the Canadian coat of arms] versus the official Canadian government one. --Haemo 21:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree with Videmus Omnia here. Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. says "exact photographic copies". These appear to be hand-drawn (well, computer graphic program drawn) pictures. Not mechanical reproduction without creativity. What exactly is the contention that was copied? Following instructions is not copying. --AnonEMouse 21:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

As I read Feist_Publications_v._Rural_Telephone_Service#Implications, works lacking significant creativity fail the test of copyright. As it's already been conceded that these images, if constructed by the website, were exactly according to the descriptions to be identical in information to an image of the item. Per the recipe metaphor, reproducing the enire book, even in your own words, fails it. As this site's entire purpose is to represent exactly the catalog of insignia of a nation, according to the official descrpitions, and to mimic the sewn items, how is there any creativity to judge by? A further example:

This seems little different than following the Revell instructions to the letter. Are you really an artist if you follow them? If you do so carefully, and accurately, you're a good modelbuilder. It would take deliberate variance from the instructions to create your own touches to get far enough away to claim artistry, including, but not limited to- servos in the fuselage to get the rotors and blades to spin, LED systems for timed lights,exceptional research for perfect paint jobs... lacking that extra effort, you're just following instructions.

As such, I think this is best handled by contacting the office. If they choose to NOT comment, then the images stay. If they opt to remove, then do so. This shouldn't be undertaken by 'just any editor/admin', but by those most qualified within the poject to decide, which makes no judgements about Irpen, Omnia, or anyone else debating here. ThuranX 02:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The Office has offered few comments with regards to copyright. They are not trained international copyright lawyers (note that nowhere in the "Mike Godwin" biography does it mention international copyright law). I doubt they will comment on this issue. Most copyright issues on Misplaced Pages and Wikimedia Commons are resolved by editors. I think postponing this issue to wait for comments from the Office would be fruitless (either for or against the deletion of this particular class of imagery). --Iamunknown 05:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Saladdays violating article probation of Arbitration Committee

→WP:AE#User:Saladdays violating article probation of Arbitration Committee — madman bum and angel 19:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

206.167.65.125 vandalism block?

This person has been adding things into articles like Simpsons jpgs and "ennnnnnhhhhhhhh".

If this isn't the correct forum, please refer me -- I'm still learning my way around here. Thanks. Orbicular 19:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You can use Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism if the user has been warned (escalating up to the final warning) and persists in vandalizing after a final warning. Since the user isn't currently vandalizing, there probably isn't much point in blocking that IP address right now. Thanks for keeping an eye out for vandals, though, and if you see continued abuse from that address (or any other), remember to give them warnings (from the list at WP:UTM) and then use WP:AIV to report vandalism. --Elkman 19:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible spamming (non-urgent request for action)

Hi - I'm not sure if a) this requires admin action and b) em quite what the problem is - Jamesr1ley (talk · contribs) is the account of the owner of live simpley which going from memory has been AFD'd at least twice. His userpage just consists of various links to his business and he adds more over time - the straight forward explaination he gives for this is that it's an experiment and that nofollow means that he gets no benfit. My knowledge of nofollow is limited so I am unable to assess this claim. --Fredrick day 20:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Pretty sure it violates the userpage policy. You may start warning at any time. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 20:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hold on. The user page hasn't been edited in almost a year. He's got one link to his own website. That's perfectly acceptable. - Jehochman 22:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

sorry I meant the talkpage - check the history he edits it on a fairly regular basis (including today under one of his IP addresses) to add more and more links to the same page - it currently has 19 links to his site --Fredrick day 22:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

While those few links might be pushing it, we have many worse problems. I recommend leaving this user talk page alone because he's not causing real trouble. We can always use more help at WP:COIN investigating COI cases.- Jehochman 22:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User: 82.13.189.143

User: 82.13.189.143 has vandalised several pages this evening, and this anonymous IP editor continues to do so despite having received several warnings not to. I wondered whether somebody could intervene to put a stop to this. Below is a link to their contributions:

User: 82.13.189.143 contributions

Cheers

Paul20070 20:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User has already been reported. Please report users to WP:AIV next time. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 20:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Range block advice

This is my first range block, as far as I can recall, so I want to make sure I'm doing it correctly.

1. This started with 4 or 5 RR on Water fuel cell from 84.110.219.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).
2. When blocked, the editing continued from 84.110.221.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).
3. When that was blocked, the editing (and a questionable comment on my talk page) continued from 84.110.211.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).
4. vandalism of my talk page continued from 89.1.35.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which I don't think is even the same ISP.

I've blocked 84.110.208.0/20. Semiprotecting Water fuel cell might have been adequate, but he still probably would have vandalized the talk page. Semiprotecting my talk page is not a real option. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I notice you didn't block account creation so don't be surprised to see logged-in socks resume. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A range block with account creation blocks should (I believe), only be used with open proxies. I've semi-protected the article, also, as blocking 89. is questionable without some idea of the range. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Skateremorocker lied about having an article mediated, to avoid changes being made to it

On the talk page for The Classic Crime, we where having a discussion about the bands genre. I had a source that said they were Christian rock, and Skateremorocker left this message on my talk page regarding it:

"Ok Frist of all we have already been over this while you left Misplaced Pages Myself and other members that discused The Classic Crime have already found out that they are not christian band by looking cite were the band its selfs say it is not a christian band and how other cite have said that one of the few bands on tooth and nail that are not christian. And also we have found cite saying about the band being Emo. Iam sorry but we have already been over thiis"

I saw no consensus of this on the talk page for The Classic Crime, and brought this up. He then replied:

"We uesd our on page like you did for Anberlin to disusce there Genre.Iam not sure if the page is still up or not but myself and four other people have gone over this thank you."

The Anberlin thing he is reffering to is Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Anberlin, where an admin helped us come to the conclusion that the Christian rock genre, should be listed on the page, per sources, but also that it should be mentioned that the band did not consider themselves this genre.

So he's telling me not to make these changes to the article because a request for mediation already determined it was unnecessary, but when I did a search for Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/The Classic Crime, the only thing that came up was a request that I had just filed, because I wanted an admin to re-look at this. No other request for mediation for this article existed. It appears that he lied to me in hopes to convince me not to make changes to the page. Hoponpop69 22:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you want us to do? It's not clear to me that he's saying there was mediation; rather that users discussed it in a mediation-fashion. This isn't the Misplaced Pages complaints department, and I am getting really, really tired of seeing this same dispute on this page over and over again. Can you fellows not just disengage and move to other parts of the encyclopedia? The continual complaints over this incredibly trivial issue boggle my mind. --Haemo 22:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd also note that you failed to inform them of your post here. --Haemo 23:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that he can't show any evidence that such a mediation existed should be a red flag, if such a thing took place it would be in his edit history, and he could find it for me. He says it took place while I was away from wikipedia, which would mean it happend in late June/July (when I temporarily quit editing). Look at his posts from this time period, no where does he discuss the bands genre on someones talk page. The only discussion he had about this subject was the one on the bands talk page, for which there was no consensus among users that the band was not a Christian rock band. Furthermore this discussion, he assured me, was not the one in question:

"We uesd our on page like you did for Anberlin to disusce there Genre.Iam not sure if the page is still up or not but myself and four other people have gone over this thank you."

Have I made it clear enough that he is not being truthful?

Posting here would not be neccesary if wikipedia wasn't such a buerocracy. After I filed the request for mediation, my request was denied, and I was told to take it to Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal. After filing a request for help from them, they have done absolutely nothing.

You have to understand that the person I'm dealing with does not seem to be an educated, rational editor. As evidence of his posts that I've quoted above, he has a very poor grasp of the english language. He can not understand the rules about Misplaced Pages:Citing sources, as evidence by the report I filed the other day shows him deleting sources and citation requests, for numerous articles, on numerous occasions. After I filed that, I was told essentially to work it out with him, but as I'm saying now, he does not seem to be rational, and it is incredibly hard to work with him. This is why I am trying to get outside help, but whenever I request some, it gets shot down or ignored. Hoponpop69 23:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason you haven't got any help from the Mediation Cabal is because your case is one day old and still hasn't been listed. I'd be happy to mediate your dispute, if you're so inclined. I understand your frustration, but you'll have to just be patient. Don't worry; there's no hurry! --Haemo 23:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to have you mediate this dispute, thank you. Also I just edited my above post to include evidence that he did not have a discussion while I was away for which a consensus was reached on the bands genre. Hoponpop69 23:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well, here's the deal — fill out Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-03 The Classic Crime with the relevant information, and notify the other parties about where the page so they can participate in the process. --Haemo 23:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay I will. Did you look at th evidence I added?Hoponpop69 23:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Since Haemo is mediating the dispute, the need for any admin action is, for now, over. I'm marking this as resolved and assume y'all will continue to discuss it at the appropriate venue. Good luck! Natalie 00:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User:87.11.16.15

87.11.16.15 (talk · contribs) claims that two editors on the English Misplaced Pages are major vandals and sock puppeteers on the Italian Misplaced Pages, and labeled their User pages as such. I reverted, since these were this IP's first two edits here and they provided no evidence. They provided links on the Italian Misplaced Pages to prove their claims, but as I don't read Italian, I don't know how valid those claims are. I suggested they come here, but they declined. I am reporting this, not backing up this IP's claims. Corvus cornix 22:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "When in Rome..." springs to mind; What an editor may or may not do (or is accused of doing) on another wiki is of no relevance to another. LessHeard vanU 23:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks one of those editors was blocked here for vandalism but his account was compromised and later unblocked after an email request. Other than that, they both seem to be decent, fairly inactive editors here. (Note that I cannot read Italian either and did not check it:wiki). Mr.Z-man 23:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of referenced material

I have asked here and on WP:Village Pump three times whether there is a policy for users who delete referenced material. I didn't get an answer, except, post a particular example of an editor doing this.

Here is an example. I am not trying to get this editor in trouble, I just started editing this page a couple of days ago and have no beef against him/her at all. I simply am interested in knowing the policy on edits like this. I really fear there is no policy, that is why these kinds of destructive edits are so common.

Here are the edits:

• Removed two referenced paragraphs
• Referenced sentence removed

If this editor didn't (incorrectly) put copyvio as the reason, and left the reason for the removal of this material, would this still be okay?

Thanks. Travb (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute which should ideally be resolved on the article talk page. It is not about references - ideally everything should be referenced. What it might be (and the relvant policies):

• It may be about removing material which gives undue weight to particular incidents in the company's history in the context of the overall article.
• It may be the text is a copyright violation, though it is easy enough to reword text instead of deleting it.
• It may be someone who doesn't like criticism of the company and has a point of view problem.
• Or it may be simple vandalism.

It depends on the context, which is why you haven't been getting a straight answer anywhere. An editor who removes slabs of meterial from an article should generally explain why. If you can't get them to discuss it on the article talk page and there seem no other editors particularly interested either way, a request for comment on the article might help. Euryalus 00:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

As I just said to another editor elsewhere, not every true fact needs to be in every article. It's a matter of editorial judgement. For example, an 11 paragraph article about a politician should probably not have 10 paragraphs about a minor scandal that ocurred when he was editor of the college newspaper 20 years ago, even if it is completely referenced. Here, the issue seems to be just how much negative information to include. Ideally you and other interested editors will discuss it on the talk page and try to reach some consensus; failing that, head over to 3rd opinion, RFC, and ultimately mediation. Thatcher131 00:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The onus should always be on the person who adds material to justify it and not the other way around. Much sourced amterial fails our notability policy, SqueakBox 00:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments all. Travb (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

forgot to summarize page edit

I can't find a better page to post thsi under, so I'm sorry if this is the wrong venue.

I updated the Judson University Page today, as I am student there and enjoy correct information, but I forgot to summarize what I edited. Basically what I did was edit the entry under the Benjamin P. Browne Library building section, and add some stuff to and edit the Harm A. Weber Academic Center section. I hope that this does not get deleted! AbbytheP 23:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC) AbbytheP 10/4/07

An edit summary is not compulsory, as long as your edit did not involve any vandalism, or the adding of unsourced, inflammatory or untrue material, then there is no reason why it should be reverted.--Jac16888(non-admin) 23:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

All true ... but if you want to get into the good habit of using an edit summary all the time, you can go to the "My preferences" page and click on the box that automatically prompts for a summary if the user forgets to input one. Newyorkbrad 02:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Anywho, thanks for reporting it, actions like this show the hallmarks of a great, concerned contributor. Happy editing! (marked as resolved) --Ben 05:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppets...

User talk:24.208.224.153 and User talk:Koopa turtle are clearly sockpuppets of Nintendude, who has been blocked indefinitely. When I check for existing puppets, this page, which is archived and says not to modify, but doesn't really give instructions for where else I should report this. Evidence of the sockpuppetry can be seen in the type of stealth vandalism (in the form of unsourced edits) such as this and this, racist edits to subjects like NIG and Nigg, and common subjects like highways and cities in Michigan, video games, "Lists about songs...", models of American cars, and the word "poop." Torc2 00:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Bavarian taco

Is it possible to protect talk pages from being created? If so, can someone please do so to Talk:Bavarian taco - the article itself has been protected against creation, but anon IPs keep recreating the talk page with the same content that was put in the article. Thanks, Blair - Speak to me 03:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done and  Note: that the protection will be temporary. Mercury 03:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Blair - Speak to me 03:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User recreated deleted content after release from block

Cazzaman, after being blocked for creating hoax pages (see here) is at it again. I can't see the deleted contribs to prove it's a hoax, however, the pages are mentioned on his talk page. (And this is very suspicious... looks like a copy/paste from the article page rather than the edit page). --Bfigura 04:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

PS, I'd normally go to AIV with this, but given the lack of warnings, and the non-straightforward vandalism, I thought I'd bring it here. Cheers, --Bfigura 04:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted all the hoax articles. If he makes another, I think he should be indefinitely blocked. As an aside, could anyone who speaks Italian help with the appropriateness of the username -- Samir 04:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I speak Spanish (the two languages are very similar) and believe it to mean something along the lines of "sucks"man - there isn't a direct translation. Babelfish backs this up translating cazza to "it hauls". But it's not too derogatory. --Ben 05:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"Cazzo" is dick in Italian. I've never heard a feminine form.--chaser - t 06:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

American Family Association

Hello all. Further to comments by WAVY 10 FAN on the AFA talkpage. I am notifying admins here on the problems that have been occurring there just to keep you informed. Its my belief that some form of admin presence may help the article move along.

Context: There has been a long category dispute on the article. I believe the homophobia category circumvents NPOV policy and is just an accusation so it is inappropriate. I’m all for lists. The other current editors there Cheeser1, Orpheus, and Christopher Mann McKay disagree. Christopher Mann McKay altered the categorization recommendations during this dispute . I believe it changed the meaning of the consensus based recommendation.

I believe the article does not fairly represent all significant views. I did add AFA views, albeit erroneously using non-reliable sources. I was corrected on this matter via Wikiquette notification. One of the Wikiquette notifiers (Cheeser1) decided to join the dispute.

I then added reliable information to improve the article with a view to improving the background section of the article.

I also added what I believe to be a reasonable compromise to help the article keep a breadth of viewpoints , which was rapidly reverted by Cheeser1 .

Since then a lot has happened, including myself taking a break from editing the article. I believe I have been cooperative with all suggestions. Consistent with what has happened over the past few months, I believe relevant and reliably sourced views are being either suppressed or deleted.

Editors tend to delete or revert material rather than try to adjust or seek clarification, and they also seem to use talkspace more as a wall of shame rather than a way to seek consensus e.g. .Hal Cross 05:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I am currently in the process of discussing with the other editors, and have taken editor disputes to editor pages rather than disrupt the article talkpage, though there still seems to me to be a strong tendency to personalize matters on the talkpage. I did my best to reply by explaining my comments were the fifth comments I ever made on Misplaced Pages . The discussion seems to involve bringing up old history and not moving forward.

Anyway, if you feel some sort of admin presence would be useful for helping the article along, I would be happy to hear suggestions. Hal Cross 05:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

To summarize what I believe is going on here: Hal Cross does not understand the BRD process. He reverts a revert, for example, claiming that the revert was bold, and thus that he's entitled to revert it. He also makes up his own compromise and immediately adds it to the article (isn't a compromise supposed to be something that people come up with together?). He repeatedly adds material from unreliable sources. And he claims that we're not allowed to call the AFA "homophobic" or "anti-gay" because it's an accusation (when it is, in fact, a well documented characterization of the group). --Cheeser1 05:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that I have made mistakes in the recent past. But I do understand the rule as is evident in my self corrections. I have not recently been repeatedly adding anything to the article. I am just back from a break from editing the article. The category dispute centers around the consensus based WP recommendations that I mentioned above. My own view on the AFA is that of someone who did not hear of the AFA until I visited Misplaced Pages and saw what I felt to be the rather narrow state of the article. I understand that a people who do not like anti-porn activists may not appreciate the AFA, and that includes WP editors. There are other relevant views though. Hal Cross 06:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Break? You stopped editing the article for like a day and a half, but you continued to actively argue for your edits on the talk page. I don't see how that constitutes a break. --Cheeser1 06:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1. You advised me to stop editing the article for a while and I decided cooperative behavior was the way forward. It gave me time for finding more reliable source. I continued discussion on the talkpage because you also asked me to come to consensus. I still haven't seen explicit replies from you on that matter. Hal Cross 07:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal Cross has been slowing the pace of editing down for months now at American Family Association. He has brought a previous AN/I () which was ignored (presumably for being groundless). He engages in wikilawyering and ownership. When someone disagrees with him, he either accepts the parts of what they say that agree with him and ignores the rest or casts aspersions on the motives of the editor who disagrees with him. The amount of time and effort wasted dealing with his incessant attempts to nitpick every tiny word is unbelievable, and this AN/I post is more of the same. Orpheus 06:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are some more edits which I feel are more “wall of shame” rather than efforts to seek clarification, article improvement, discussion improvement, or consensus .

Also, I believe I have been discussing with consensus in mind. I feel there has been a lack of clear response towards consensus from other editors, and emphasizing fault seems to be the preference. I know that articles are helped along by criticizing each other’s edits, but the present situation doesn’t seem to be consistent with Wikiquette at all. I will be happy for any admin advice, presence, mentorship, or anything else that will help Misplaced Pages process on the AFA article. Hal Cross 06:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are seeking mentorship or guidance, please note that I have repeatedly referred you to the adoption program. If you think people are here to make a "wall of shame" then I'd suggest you assume good faith and listen to what we're telling you. We're explaining to you why your edits are making it hard to constructively edit the article together. This is a good-faith effort to help you edit constructively, to help you understand and abide by policy, and to help us make progress on the article (instead of constantly going over the same ground). --Cheeser1 06:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I am notifying administrators here because of WAVY 10 FAN's suggestions. I believe administrator scrutiny and assessment will help. Hal Cross 06:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Orpheus. I believe there is a resistance to moving forward with improving the comprehensiveness of information in the article. It seems to be more about maintaining a narrow set of views, rather than encyclopedic inclusion. I know administrator influence will be more likely to help ensure a more NPOV compliant article in terms of allowing all relevant views. Hal Cross 06:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal, the only POV issue you've raised is that we use terms like "homophobic" and "anti-gay." You've said they are "accusations" - and thus they are non-neutral. Actually, they are verifiable characterizations of this group - they oppose the gay-rights movement at every turn. Are we not allowed to call Hitler a Nazi because it's an accusation? --Cheeser1 06:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1, sorry to seem repetitive, but I refer you again to the categorization recommendations that were altered (and I believe obscured) by Christopher Mann McKay and the information given by administrator Sam Sam Hal Cross 06:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Misplaced Pages that require the intervention of administrators, such as blocked users evading blocks." Hal Cross, you are using ANI for the wrong reasons again and your comments will likly be ignored by admins again. Please stop missusing ANI. —Christopher Mann McKay 06:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

CMMK, I believe I am being cooperative in terms of notifications and other editor's input . If I am in the wrong place to make this notification, then I apologize to administrators. If there are better venues for notification, then advice from administrators would be helpful. Hal Cross 07:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC). PS, It seems to me that administrator presence on the AFA article would count as administrator intervention. I believe the need for that intervention should be determined via admin input somehow. Hal Cross 07:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Users have suggested you get "advice from administrators" from admin coaching, adopt a user, or request for comment. You are using ANI for the wrong reasons twice. Most admins don’t waist their time trying to solve content disputes unless through mediation or other formal dispute reason processes, so these posts are useless. —Christopher Mann McKay 07:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well we've tried RFCs and so on. Considering the situation I don't feel its going to work. This is more about some sort of intervention, presence, or advice for allowing better WP process on the article. Content is incidental. And when taking into account your accusations of deceitful editing, and your accusations of lying, admin intervention may help to prevent personal attacks and so on. Hal Cross 07:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There's never been an RFC on this subject, so how can we have tried it? Orpheus 07:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. We have had help from others outside, such as Wavy 10 FAN, and his presence has been helpful. The Wikiquette alert brought Cheeser1 in, but that seems to have resulted in a strong decline in Wikiquette. Alternative admin presence would be helpful, just as Wavy 10 FAN has stated So in cooperation with CMMK's subsequent comment on process and presentation to ANI, , I am presenting the information here. Hal Cross 08:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but this is an easy call. Follow the steps outlined in dispute resolution. There is nothing here that requires admin intervention. File an RFC to start, or go to the mediation cabal. This isn't the appropriate venue for solving a content dispute. AniMate 08:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've filed an RFC at the article's talk page. Hopefully that will get more eyes on the article so that clear consensus can be built. AniMate 08:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful response, AniMate. Regards Hal Cross 08:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Kevin Hotfury = User:Asadaleem12@hotmail.com

Hi, my name's JuJube, remember me? With a bunch of free time on my hands and less interesting places on the Internet to go to, I've found myself editing here anonymously. Anyway, I should turn your attention to a user named Kevin Hotfury (talk · contribs). He's rather blatantly a sockpuppet of hoaxmonger User:Asadaleem12@hotmail.com who has a long history of hoaxmongering, and his edit history shows he's at it again. I made up an info page on him here. He's never been officially banned, but it should probably be considered. JuJube 08:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, WP:CSN is that direction if you want to go further with the ban suggestion. -- Anonymous Dissident 09:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back. —CrazytalesPublic talk/main/desk 11:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Incivility and Personal Attack by Iwazaki

I am reporting a user who goes by Iwazaki. This individual seems to be a little distressed and has made a couple of remarks against me here. I do not know exactly what he meant by when he said, "...has opted for cheap political ranting and thus putting him self in a deep trouble". I am taking this as a threat made against me. In another statement he states that I "lie". Not only has he used threatening language and a personal attack against me here, this user has caused problems for me in the past. This is not the first time he has conducted himself in this manner. In the past Iwazaki has posted a couple of rude messages on my talk page. On 14 March 2007 he has made a derogatory statement saying, "we don't accept tamil-something sites as reliable sources..I don't mind having them in the articles dedicated to terrorists or Suicide bombers" here. Also in that statement, he has commented to me that, "you are showing your emotions way tooooooo much these days." I have never corresponded with him in the past which made me feel that he was stalking me on Misplaced Pages. I then posted a reply about his comments here and he replied back with personal attacks on me here. This is my first time reporting him and I humbly request for this matter to be looked into. Thank you. Wiki Raja 08:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious what Iwazaki meant by your political comments on a MFD discussion. Remember this is Misplaced Pages, and expressing your political opinions is discouraged. A few of your comments at one MFD, which have nothing to do with Misplaced Pages policies are

• This userbox is a negative apporach in regards to promoting peace to any conflict.
• The very wording of the template itself is hypocritical to its purpose of supporting peace which only promotes violence
• It also shows a negative attitude towards a political dispute
• I thought of joining his project, but then decided not to due to one of the members donning this template on his page.
• In Sri Lanka this stance of disarmament is politically motivated.
• For example, back in the 1990s former President Chandrika Kumaratunga held a campaign called "War for Peace". This in turn has cost thousands of lives and destruction mainly in the Northeast part of the island where it is primarily dominated by Tamils.
• It is true that there is division in the world. It is also true that there are wars in the world.
• As you say, "People who hold this UB think that LTTE should disarmament (neutralise) to have a peace in Sri Lanka." Let us dissect this term disarmament. Disarmament would mean an all out bloody war, with of course, aerial bombardment of Tamil dominated areas in the Northeast, which would mean mass civilian casualties.
• One can argue all he or she wants, but when it comes down to it, there are no Tamils in the Sri Lankan military or police force

Note his comment was

the nominator, instead of giving valid arguments , has opted for cheap political ranting and thus putting him self in a deep trouble.

Unless you didn't understand, that wasn't a treat, Iwazaki was pointing out that instead of going by Misplaced Pages policies, you were letting your political opinions get in the way, which is why all the neutral editors who have voted in the MFD voted to keep the userbox. And instead of misleading users at AN/I, you should have made clear the comment "Tamil-something" wasn't a reference to an ethnic group but to racist websites such as tamilnet.com, tamilnation.org, tamilcanadian.com etc. etc.

Also the above comments from March which you have pointed out were in response to you serially undoing his edits on the Burning of Jaffna library article, and not "stalking" as you falsely claim. --snowolfD4 09:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Operation Spooner's user page

Most of Operation Spooner's user page is absolutely fine in discussing his political influences. In the middle is a section with the title "Shady and ridiculous methods I've observed that individuals, or groups of individuals, use to prevent other editors from changing article content", and a subheading "Ownership strategies I have observed" which goes into detail in criticising other un-named users. Mr.Z-man made a previous attempt to discuss the issue with Operation Spooner, but was given the response "You don't understand Misplaced Pages policy" . I don't think MfD is in order but should the section be blanked and kept blank? Sam Blacketer 09:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems acceptable to me. It's Misplaced Pages orientated. He/she's not naming any specific editors. It's done in a reasonably neutral manner. I'm not sure what the problem is. It's not against the rules to criticise Misplaced Pages or to demonstrate what's wrong with it. Deleteing the content of that page could be seen as censorship ---- WebHamster 09:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That's certainly a reasonable point of view, but user page policy does say "Material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws" is not allowed, and does not specify that the editors so attacked must be named. It might create a serious loophole if unacceptable material becomes acceptable by disguising its target or covering the targets with an imprecise "they". It's never going to be very difficult to work out the identities of the users criticised; simply by looking at the contributions of the user making the criticism it will be obvious with whom they are in dispute. Sam Blacketer 09:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Using userpages to call out other users

Moved here from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard, Pedro Gonnet 09:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User:GHcool has a list of "Accusations vs. Reality" on his/her userpage which is more of a collection of quotes without context and rebuttals thereof. Most of the quotes are chosen to make the respective editor look anti-Semitic or just plain stupid. Is this really what userpages are for? Pedro Gonnet 15:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This would not be the first time somebody challenged by user page. The first time it happened, User:SlimVirgin and User:Jpgordon exhonerated me of the accusations of misconduct citing that I quote my subjects fairly and accurately and even provide a link to where the quotation came from so that others can check the context themselves and judge accordingly. They also said that it does not violate WP:NPA because I keep my criticisms to what was being said as opposed to criticising the person who said it. --GHcool 17:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm another victim of this behaviour - which drives a cart and horses through accept good faith. But I've never bother challenging it, I assumed GHcool had some special permission to behave in these unpleasant ways, and that if I attempted to behave in any similar fashion I'd be immediately blocked for disruptive use of UserPage, personal attacks and probably several other things. It's especially bizzare that he should be the one doing this, because I'm pretty sure I could present a lot of what he writes as being extreme, displaying disruptive logic, writing tendentiously, edit-warring against consensus, along with flouting BLP and probably breaches of a whole pile of other policies. Several of these patterns of behaviour are clearly visible at this talk page, where he seems determined he'll hold up editing to consensus. GHcool's behaviour and outrageous attacks on an excellent scholar (and the small amount of uncontentious material from him we'd like to use in the article) seems calculated to protect another source used extensively - a race-hater with a strong association to violence amounting to terrorism. PR 18:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how assuming good faith and criticizing somebody's statements are necessarily contradictory. People do it all the time all over Misplaced Pages. --GHcool 18:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"Victim"? You? Oh that's funny. It's enough to see your "contribution" history to see how "NPOV" and "Civil" you are. And by the way, if you thing that "concensus" and "good faith" are when the other user gives up on all he belives and does what you want, then you are wrong. M.V.E.i. 13:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the headline to remove the word "slander", which can be taken as a legal accusation against other users. You don't need to go there to have this matter heard. I don't know the answer to the underlying report but it seems uncomfortably close to personal attacks to use your talk page to call out users for criticism who have not voluntarily chosen to enter a discussion there. Wikidemo 08:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• I notice GHcool purports to reveal the identity of another user in this section of his userpage. Is that user's identity well known? A breach of privacy policy and an attack on another editor is certainly not acceptable user page material. Sam Blacketer 09:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This is discussed at length on GHcool's talk page here. Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 09:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

GHcool wikipedia is not the place for soapboxing, and that is essentially what a large part of your userpage includes. I am asking you now to please remove the relevant sections. Viridae 10:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

or would that be irrelevant sections. No I jest, but on a serious note... I'm sure some of these sections, if they do not offer any insight to the articles, or the tone/style of the article, and it is point of view mostly, it might be a good idea to tremove them. Mercury 12:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If they look anrisemitic to you thats your personal POV. He haven't made up what they said. They really said it, and he really responsed, thats all. It's his complete right to copy parts of conversations and place them on his talk page. M.V.E.i. 13:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The quotes aren't the problem, it's GHCool's own writing;

• "Norman G. Finkelstein, the notoriuous anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist pseudo-scholar...."
• "In short, because of the fact that Jacob Peter has a very limited knowledge of the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict...." etc etc. Whether true or not, much of the page violates Misplaced Pages is not for opinion pieces, which is a policy, not a guideline. I suggest strongly that GHCool removes it, before it is removed for him. ELIMINATORJR 13:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

INVOLVEMENT NEEDED: Content war in the Alexander Lukashenko article

In the Alexander Lukashenko article there's a criticism section which included only negative critisism on hom. For the sake of NPOV, i added a paragraph, with references, what his supporters think of him. Nevertheless, there's a user named User:Bakersville who keeps on removing what i added and adding information against the man. If the information is sourced, i dont mind it to stay, but i dont like him deleting my information. I started a discussion on the talk page (where, as you could see, i offered a compromise, but it was ignored), yet the user was supported by the user User:Barend who gave against me two lame claims: 1. Thereferences being in Russian (1. Whats the problem to ask a Russian administrator to check it?? 2. One of the references was in English. 3. If the references give the material thy fit. I wxplaimed it in the discussion). 2. Me supporting Lukashenko and calling him the only real democrat on the talk page (And? But i havent wrote that in the article. All i gave in the article was referenced, nutral and objective). Please, stop this political idiotism. Misplaced Pages haven't sworn loyalty to any political ideology, so the article has to be NPOV and show both sides on the coin. M.V.E.i. 12:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

And he just cant stop! Not talking about the fact he already broke the 3RR. M.V.E.i. 12:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to deal with this right now, but a look at the article and its history shows a need for protection and 3RR blocks (plural) if another admin can lend a hand. Note to MVEi, blogs are seldom acceptable as sources, much less foreign-language blogs in the English wikipedia. Raymond Arritt 13:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked both for 24 hours. I am not sure that protection is needed at this stage. -- zzuuzz 13:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Sri Lankan Conflict

Still no consensus here to display a single flag. Please enforce the status by mediation. Mattice3 12:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Howdy... take a look at our dispute resolution process. Listed in that document are the mediation options, that are available. Posting here, is requested administrator intervention, I don't think there is anything I can do there as an admin. Regards, Mercury 13:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Kind regards for your comment, but some one in the mediation committee should help on this.Mattice3 13:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If you wish for someone on the Mediation Committee to help you, please file a case at WP:RfM. Please note that you must have attempted prior dispute resolution (ie. WP:MEDCAB, WP:RFC etc.) or the case will be rejected. Cheers, Daniel 13:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Thank you, you might have more success at their house, unless a medcom member catches your comment here. Let me know if this goes unanswered, and I'll be more than happy to mediate myself if thats whats needed. Best regards, Mercury 13:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

*catches* :) Daniel 13:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments (both). But I am not that familiar with WP:RFC. Any way I will try my best or leave the message on the Template talk:Sri Lankan Conflict someone else to file the case.Mattice3 13:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to ask for the mediation right now. We have called for a straw poll in the template talkpage to gain the community consensus. When other party understand that they are loosing User:Wiki Raja made some canvassing and even it was proved. Still we're discussing this issue and this obvious sock puppet is trolling around and messing the whole situation. Hereby I ask from the admins to indef block this account. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 13:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Its Misplaced Pages thats loosing out of all this from constant revert warring due to sri lanka related issues. There are are atleast 15 votes for having both flag vs 9 votes for a single flag. But thats not the point, Lahiru I think it would be appropriate if you initiate the procedure to go for some sort of mediation and not use your valuable time to engage in a pointless revert war that will probably go for mediation, arbitration or worse. Sinhala freedom 14:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Daniel, you kindly ignore the above message. As you are the Chair of the Mediation Committee, your verification at Template talk:Sri Lankan Conflict on issues will determine whether it qualifies for Mediation. Nothing will happen by blocking me.Mattice3 13:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Before going to a advanced dispute resolution systems we took the straw poll to gain the community consensus and even we found that this method was very successful in previous issues. But some were purposely ruined that. But we didn't gave it up. Please help us to do so by vanishing these WP:SPAs. Thanks --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 14:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

New vandal sockpuppet master

User:309dursley has made such articles as Beijing Penis Festival 2008 through 2019, WP:AIV can suck my willy, and LOL i have an orange new messages bar where he posted he's going to keep making accounts once they get blocked. Can I get some help deleting his garbage? Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

He's also User:Saltysnails. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards